EU Probes Apple's Decision to Shut Down Epic's Developer Account

[Rogifan]

This ATP podcast is really good. I agree with them 100% in that the way Apple presents itself it thinks developers need them not the other way around and that they own the customers not developers. https://atp.fm/577

A lot of people compare the App Store to a physical store but when I buy something at Target I pay for it in the store. The majority of apps in the App Store are free to download. So once you download an app to your phone and launch it are you still considered to be in Apple’s store? Are you still considered Apple’s customer at that point? Or are you the customer of the app? If you still belong to Apple then does that mean if someone buys a physical magazine at a grocery store and when they get home decide to subscribe to that magazine the grocery store deserves a percentage of the monthly subscription because you’re the customer of the grocery store not the magazine? I have a subscription for the Carrot weather app. Whose customer am I, Carrot’s or Apple’s? It seems in Apple’s mind I’m only their customer not Carrot’s and Carrot doesn’t have a right to sell directly to me or have a relationship with me outside of Apple.

 

[MilaM]

Not only that but I love how the EU believes it can impose fines on Apple's global revenue for a ruling that applies only to the grifters that are the European Union

They only learn from the best. Remember when the US banned Huawei? Next a forced divestment of TikTok's US business seems likely.

 

[wilhoitm]

The what?

Is that like appealing to the Prime Minister of the United States?

Is thought the EU has a King? 😆 Apple does not bow down to the King!

 

[bcortens]

This ATP podcast is really good. I agree with them 100% in that the way Apple presents itself it thinks developers need them not the other way around and that they own the customers not developers. https://atp.fm/577

A lot of people compare the App Store to a physical store but when I buy something at Target I pay for it in the store. The majority of apps in the App Store are free to download. So once you download an app to your phone and launch it are you still considered to be in Apple’s store? Are you still considered Apple’s customer at that point? Or are you the customer of the app? If you still belong to Apple then does that mean if someone buys a physical magazine at a grocery store and when they get home decide to subscribe to that magazine the grocery store deserves a percentage of the monthly subscription because you’re the customer of the grocery store not the magazine? I have a subscription for the Carrot weather app. Whose customer am I, Carrot’s or Apple’s? It seems in Apple’s mind I’m only their customer not Carrot’s and Carrot doesn’t have a right to sell directly to me or have a relationship with me outside of Apple.

This!

Apple thinks you are always their customer and that they thus deserve a share of revenue, I think over time we are going to see courts tell Apple they are wrong on this.

I think there are several separate issues:
1. Should Apple have some form of license fee for iOS SDKs and technologies?
2. Does Apple deserve a share of all revenue that occurs on iOS?
3. How should Apple be generate the revenue to cover the costs of running the App Store?

If the answer to 1 is yes then all apps that generate revenue on iOS should pay it, right now there are far too many categories of application that pay nothing, in fact some of the most profitable Apps on the platform pay nothing, putting the lie to the idea that the exceptions are based on some sort of generosity on Apple's part.

If the answer two 2 is yes then there should be no reader app exception and even transactions on the web should be paying a percentage to Apple, after all Apple built the platform on which the mobile transaction is taking place.

The answer to 3 could be some sort of hosting and review fee (maybe with carve outs for free apps or first X downloads are free). Again, this should be applied uniformly and fairly to all apps.


The EU wants gatekeepers (like Apple) to operate their platforms fairly. I think Apple would like to answer yes to both 1 and 2 above but they don't act like that. Instead they have hundreds of exceptions and special cases that put the lie to the idea that they have answered yes to those questions.


Edit: I would like to also say I think the reason Apple has so many exceptions is because they know how important Apps are to the success of the iPhone and that if they actually had fair policies they risk alienating some of the biggest and most important developers. Hence, they put in place policies that appeal and keep the big names on the platform at the expense of a coherent App Store policy. As others say, these are perfectly rational business decisions, but if, as the EU says, platforms have to operate fairly, these policy choices put apple at risk of fines and further regulatory scrutiny.

Edit 2: I actually think the answer to 1 is yes and 2 is no, I think Apple has pushed iOS so much further than macOS because of App Store revenue and I think that some form of CTF applied fairly (with small business exceptions) would make the system much fairer to everyone.

 

[bn-7bc]

There is no Supreme Court in the EU. There is the European court of justice which is what will ultimately decide on this. What will be put in doubt is not Apple right to sign contracts with parties of their choosing, but the fact a contract with Apple is at all needed to publish apps outside the App Store. The whole point of the DMA is break Apple’s monopoly on the iPhone apps, so it is this requirement that will eventually be removed: Apple will be free not to sign an agreement with other parties, but the other parties will not need such agreement to create other app stores or publish apps in them.

Correction, the whole point of the DMA is to reuce gatekeepers ( of whom Apple is one but fare ftom the only one) power, you see if it was only related to reducing Apples power (witch for obvious reasons has been this sites, and to a lesser extent the general medias main focus ( we all love a villan)) ir would actually be of questionable legality according to correct EU regulation, which would probably get it overturned rather swiftly, but IANAL so feel free to correct me.

 

[Naraxus]

They only learn from the best. Remember when the US banned Huawei? Next a forced divestment of TikTok's US business seems likely.

The US banned Huawei yes, but wait! Look at this, so did 12 other Countries:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/european-countries-who-put-curbs-huawei-5g-equipment-2023-09-28/

As for TikTok, considering it's used as a spying tool by the CCP, I certainly HOPE it gets force-sold/banned.

Is TikTok getting shut down? Congress flooded with angry calls over possible US ban

TikTok users flooded Congress with angry calls as a House committee approved bill that would force China’s ByteDance to sell off TikTok or face a ban.

www.usatoday.com

Your weak attempt at deflection fails to take into account the US & other Countries are taking these measures over national security issues.

The EU is doing this for money.

 

[bn-7bc]

You do not, this is factually false. Notarisation is not required and you can distribute mac apps without having any relationship whatsoever with Apple.

Technically yes, but in practice n, pecause if you don 't have that notarisation from apple, ISX wil throp up nasty ( and to most oeopple really scary) warnings, and unless they change setting the app might not even run. Ok the average mr reader will ofc not be scared, but most non tech savvy people ( and thus a large potential costumer base) will be, so to maximize your revenye potential and/or install base the notarisation is still needed, yes even the few seconds of goigeling how tomrurn it off is a barier, as unless this is the must have app, most people just cancel at the warning and maybe try to getva refund if the prize was sufficiently high for them

 

[mcnallym]

Did you not read what I said? When that clause is illegal, Apple has no hold over this. Not while Apple agreed to follow the laws in said countries. If Apple says in the iTunes agreement that I vow to get a slave, then please tell me which country would enforce Apple's "claim"?
If Apple doesn't (which will likely be the case here), then this is another gamble of their poorly staffed legal team it seems.

Last time I checked Arm was British, right? Let's see what Apple can do without its A and M chips whose intellectual property is superceded by Arm. Imagine them moving to the British part that is in the EU. Apple would lose its high ground in a fortnight.

ARM is owned by SoftBank who are a Japanese company. SoftBank looked to offload to Nvidia an american company however the sale blocked.
looking to do that as wants/needs the cash.

Apple also has a very good license and uses the ARM instruction set as opposed to ARM designs. It can also extend the instruction set as it wants and has done.

they have also been exploring risc-v for parts of the system as RISC-v very good for embedded systems so some of the parts such as the accelerators good choice for,

for ARM to negate the contract would have to show that apple broke the terms of contract. SoftBank definitely wouldn’t want the expense would be involved in the court case.

also would drive their customer base to move to risc-v if seen to be politicking like that.

as UK not part of the EU then also very unlikely that a British company would want to get involved, especially as they have no stake in the matter.

 

[Athonline]

Just as bizarre about the amount of commenters on all of these threads who are complaining that the EU's DMA laws should still apply, even if they're outside the EU.

Europeans can't expect their laws to apply everywhere while no one else's apply to them. Take a seat.

Well, the US seems to think the same and so does Canada, Australia, etc. This is the 'downside' of international trade. If you want to operate in multiple countries, you need to follow the rules in all of them. If, e.g. Apple was not operating in Europe, they wouldn't have to follow EU law.

Most of the time, ISO has harmonised international standards sufficiently enough to simplify that process and allow companies to use single production lines. There are still some exceptions in safety-critical domains, especially as bigger national-level standardisation institutions (e.g. ANSI, BSI) make their own local interpretations.

 

[svish]

Apple will have a lot of explanation to do. Dispute between Apple and Epic is never ending.

 

[Athonline]

There is not only one App Store. There is Android. And Microsoft's smart phone had an App Store before Microsoft killed it with their incompetence! Governments should not be picking winners and losers! The Free Market system is best to decide everything!

Right, thankfully for the past century or so, the legal definition of a monopoly focuses on having a dominant position rather if there are alternatives.

A good recent example was the German probe in Lufthansa's inter-German pricing after AirBerlin went bankrupt. There were other air carriers —and other means of transport— but Lufthansa being in a dominant position needed to apply extra care not to overly exploit it.

If we go in the tech sector, back in 1999 the US Government sued MS for exploiting its dominant position as an OS maker to push OEMs to include Internet Explorer. There was a lengthy battle and at some point, one court even requested MS to split in two divisions!* Eventually, MS settled with the government.

In this case, it is not only about having alternatives but also about exploiting your existing dominant position. It also makes little sense to say "people can just switch to Android." That only generates more eWaste and it requires people to forgo past App purchases and subscriptions.

If we had an 'interpretability' requirement for app stores, e.g. the ability to move your purchases from iOS to Android and back, then the "there are alternatives" defence would had make more sense.

 

[bgillander]

Apple did something similar with the USB connector of the iPhone

With Apple’s iPhone 15, the EU wins the charger war

The new iPhone will reportedly feature a charging port soon to be required in the bloc.

www.politico.eu

I have to question a politician who would refer to his feeling brushed off as "nearly laughing at us", as that seems more than a little hyperbolical. I would prefer a politician to try to stick to commenting on things that were actually verifiable rather than emotional, but that certainly isn't 2024. Reminds me of the Pretenders "I Hurt You".

 

[j26]

I have to question a politician who would refer to his feeling brushed off as "nearly laughing at us", as that seems more than a little hyperbolical. I would prefer a politician to try to stick to commenting on things that were actually verifiable rather than emotional, but that certainly isn't 2024. Reminds me of the Pretenders "I Hurt You".

Or it might be a turn of phrase to avoid saying "they treated us with contempt".

I'm seeing plenty of genuinely hyperbolic statements on this thread...

 

[deevey]

I really do not understand why Apple should earn money for each and every subscription on a monthly basis. Or put it differently: why I as an iPhone owner should pay part of my Netflix subscription fee to Apple? Because I can use iPhone to watch movies? I can understand taking 1-2% as a transaction fee related to each payment if done through App Store. That is fair. But 15-30% cut? I thought that large availability of apps (especially from those "biggest partners") is beneficial to Apple as no one would buy iPhones/iPads is there were no such apps there in the first place... If only Apple could figure out how to force Amazon or eBay to pay 15-30% cut for all the things they sell in via their iOS apps...

If the sale through was facilitated through their store and you signed up using an easy, single click using technology provided by Apple and their store - they deserve a cut in the same way that most providers and brokers do (and many do receive ongoing subscription commissions after the initial sale).

If you Subscribed via an alternative method e.g a website, they don't. Simple.

IAP's are almost essential for impulse purchases like game credits and greatly reduces cart abandonment rates for others. That is something that anyone selling a product should be paying for.

I've never signed up for Netflix or Spotify or Adobe on my iDevices and if my Credits got low in fortnight or whatever other game I would have purchased via their website even without IAP's. But IAP's for game credits are impulse buys, you don't want to wait for a website to load and give the customer time to second guess their purchase.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If the sale through was facilitated through their store and you signed up using an easy, single click using technology provided by Apple and their store - they deserve a cut in the same way that most providers and brokers do (and many do receive ongoing subscription commissions after the initial sale).

If you Subscribed via an alternative method e.g a website, they don't. Simple.

IAP's are almost essential for impulse purchases like game credits and greatly reduces cart abandonment rates for others. That is something that anyone selling a product should be paying for.

I've never signed up for Netflix or Spotify or Adobe on my iDevices so Apple do not take a cut.

So… WHY IS IT ONLY APPLES IAP THAT IS ALLOWED?

Why can’t we use something else? Apps today have alternatives IAP solutions when they are part of the exceptio, but the rest doesn’t have the functionality for arbitrary and greedy reasons from Apple.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Is thought the EU has a King? 😆 Apple does not bow down to the King!

Eu don’t have a king. And EU don’t bow down to large corporations.

 

[deevey]

So… WHY IS IT ONLY APPLES IAP THAT IS ALLOWED?

Why can’t we use something else? Apps today have alternatives IAP solutions when they are part of the exceptio, but the rest doesn’t have the functionality for arbitrary and greedy reasons from Apple.

Because Apple licensed the rights to use IAP's on behalf of developers on their platform.

 

[Abazigal]

Apple will have a lot of explanation to do. Dispute between Apple and Epic is never ending.

Because Epic won't let it end.

 

[bgillander]

Or it might be a turn of phrase to avoid saying "they treated us with contempt".

I'm seeing plenty of genuinely hyperbolic statements on this thread...

I would much prefer he say that he felt they treated them with contempt. That would be a perfectly reasonable statement.

 

[j26]

I would much prefer he say that he felt they treated them with contempt. That would be a perfectly reasonable statement.

A politician trying to sound human and "down with de guys". I wouldn't read too much into it...

 

[bgillander]

A politician trying to sound human and "down with de guys". I wouldn't read too much into it...

Yeah, but “nearly laughing at us” sounds way too much like teen angst. In his defence, English is quite likely not his first language and I certainly wouldn’t be able to parse idioms in other languages. I just wish he hadn’t used laughing, as it has so much tone inferred.

Edit: I can’t believe I used the term “teen angst” without linking to the Cracker tune by that name. It is such a great tune!

 

[alex2792]

How stupid can Apple be? They’re doing everything possible to get regulated in the most draconian fashion with all these silly malicious compliance temper tantrums.

 

[j26]

Yeah, but “nearly laughing at us” sounds way too much like teen angst. In his defence, English is quite likely not his first language and I certainly wouldn’t be able to parse idioms in other languages. I just wish he hadn’t used laughing, as it has so much tone inferred.

Edit: I can’t believe I used the term “teen angst” without linking to the Cracker tune by that name. It is such a great tune!

I'm reminded of the song "Jilted John", a punk classic.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Because Apple licensed the rights to use IAP's on behalf of developers on their platform.

Apple licensed IAP on behalf of all Independent developer(except some independent developers) from Apple to them so developers must use only apples IAP solution( except some developers) ?

So why can some developers use their own in application purchasing mechanisms that isn’t apples IAP?

What logic does that even have?

 

[deevey]

Apple licensed IAP on behalf of all Independent developer(except some independent developers) from Apple to them so developers must use only apples IAP solution( except some developers) ?

So why can some developers use their own in application purchasing mechanisms that isn’t apples IAP?

What logic does that even have?

Because free is never free.

If it's Google you sign away data & privacy, if it's Apple you pay a commission.

Back OT, Epic basically injected malware into their App remotely and therefore should be classed as a bad actor and good riddance.

Let them host their games on someone else's third party App Store and pay commission to someone else if they wish.