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

[Anaxarxes]

I think you have slightly missed the point. There shouldn't have to be a business relationship. Think about how it works on the Mac - anyone can freely write software and distribute it - and long may that last.

iOS is not an open platform like macOS. And thank god that it is not.

However having one App store and controlling dev revenues was also never a good move. Now with DMA, Apple allowing alternative marketplaces, I do not understand the need to be on Apple App Store vs creting their own marketplace and/or listing your products on another one.

 

[Anaxarxes]

Apple Arcade games are funded by Apple. They probably wouldn't mind Steam on the Mac gone as well, considering how many libraries have been destroyed since Catalina, and will be further destroyed when Rosetta goes.

The destruction was done not by Apple, but by Steam not working on their games to support Catalina+

Rosetta will be here for at least 5 years, maybe even 10.

 

[klasma]

By going down this route, it'd be Apple not being allowed to compete with any app simply because they own the OS.

The aim of the DMA is more like that everyone has to be able to compete on the same terms. This means that Apple can’t impose arbitrary barriers and fees for apps by mere virtue of the fact that they own the platform. So Apple is of course allowed to compete, but not by taking advantage of the fact that they own the platform.

 

[treacher]

Rosetta will be here for at least 5 years, maybe even 10.

You go ahead and think that.

 

[L92]

iOS is designed the way it is and has been the most secure mainstream OS known to man is because it doesnt have the "doorways" to exploit in the first place!

iOS is designed this way in order to make 30% on every purchase. Let's be real.
The internet is full of naked pictures of celebrities leaked from iCloud, they didn't need 3rd party App Stores to do that.

 

[kirkmc]

Don't think I entirety get your first point. Apple is now (by law) allowing alternative marketplaces on iOS - EPIC can go to any other marketplace (or create their own) and have their apps installed on Apple's Ecosystem.

And that will be Apple's argument. But Epic doesn't want to pay anyone to be on an app store.

 

[m4mario]

Since EU is targeting big American companies and twisting their arms without any understanding of tech, or user experience or business freedom, may be it's time for American tech companies to come together and strategise.

Monopoly laws were created because someone could gain access to physical space and force everyone out.
The idea of a monopoly in the digital space makes no sense unless a company is buying out all the competition or something like that. Because digital space is unlimited.

As long as customers are made aware of the restrictions of the product before they buy/use it, it's none of lawmakers job to interfere. Especially when Apple users specifically buy Apple products because of these restrictions. Like... Which Apple user asked the be presented with a list of browser options before they activate their phone?

 

[Anaxarxes]

You go ahead and think that.

Thank you. But its was a statement on what I believe, not asking for permission.

 

[threesixty360]

Well... taking into account how many people use iPhones... what if Microsoft started to dictate who can and who cannot install apps on Windows? Btw., remember Internet Explorer case?

And in this case Apple's issue was not that Epic's app was not secure. If Epic is "dishonest" to Apple then do not accept their app in the App Store. But allow them to use alternative store which is now an option in the EU.

The problem is different. Windows and MacOS were always designed as an open OS. They have OS's that run shell commands from prompts and can run programs you create directly on them. iOS is not that. You cant create programs to run directly on an iOS device itself. In essence it's a console or a feature phone designed with the ability to upgrade it in a specific and controlled way. Which is why any code running on iOS has to be signed with digital key and verified.
That is what keeps it secure.

So to get that key you kind of have to talk to the key master (Apple). And therefore companies / devs's need to have contracts with Apple to develop on this box. Whether Apple sells your stuff or takes a cut is another question which depends on whether Apple is providing value (Epic thinks not, Apple thinks the opposite).

However, the issue now is that because of the way this 15yr + OS is designed at its core and how it integrates with its Apple Silicon chip at a low level, means you kind of need to talk to Apple to deliver anything, unless its web stuff.

So the legal question for me is should Apple be forced to communicate with a third party it does not trust and thinks is harmful to the company? If that is the case the EU are making their "gatekeepers" public utilities. Which Apple, that designs and sells highly differentiated product (not oil and gas) would be like "hell no" we are not that.

They could force Apple to create an EU version of IOS devices and software which dont have low level control and allow any software to be run on them. And maybe thats what will happen. But I think the work involved there is immense. Or they could just wave through unsigned apps somehow, not sure if thats possible? Maybe these apps all have the same key?? Its very messy.

Or maybe Epic sign an agreement that says they have to be nice! who knows??

 

[klasma]

What do they not understand about these 40+ yr OS designs like MacOS / Windows is that they are inherently insecure! The reason iOS is designed the way it is and has been the most secure mainstream OS known to man is because it doesnt have the "doorways" to exploit in the first place!

I think its not that EU advisors dont know how computers work, its rather than they ignore the issues in order to get what they want. Its silly really.

Apps can be secured by sandboxing. The only reason this isn’t done on Mac and Windows to the full extent possible is backwards compatibility. This security argument is orthogonal to the question of app distribution. Nobody is saying Apple shouldn’t be sandboxing iOS apps, or should open up any “doorways”, or shouldn’t block scamware and scan for malware. But that is completely orthogonal to app distribution.

 

[Volk.JP]

Exactly. So YouTube is no longer able to ban users or content creators on their platform according to the EU also as Google also falls under DMA?

Well, does YouTube forbid other video streaming services to work anywhere outside Chrome and at the same time charge them 30% for any movie purchase from these sites?

 

[treacher]

Thank you. But its was a statement on what I believe, not asking for permission.

I know you weren't asking for permission, and you also know. It was a phrase emphasizing how naive your thought was; you also know this.

 

[Anaxarxes]

Since EU is targeting big American companies and twisting their arms without any understanding of tech, or user experience or business freedom, may be it's time for American tech companies to come together and strategise.

I'm sorry, what? That's the shallowest opinion on EC I've ever heard. EC fined Daimler, DAF, Saint-Gobain, Philips, Volvo-Renault, LG, Iveco, Deutsche Bank, F Hoffmann and Servier - all non-American corps.

You really must think highly of American tech companies simply because they are not getting fined in the US? US is allowing corporations to get uncompetitive practices and abuse their market position in their turf, but EU is established to have policy and putting people's rights a little higher in the importance scale vs lobbyists.

 

[klasma]

Since EU is targeting big American companies and twisting their arms without any understanding of tech, or user experience or business freedom, may be it's time for American tech companies to come together and strategise.

Monopoly laws were created because someone could gain access to physical space and force everyone out.
The idea of a monopoly in the digital space makes no sense unless a company is buying out all the competition or something like that. Because digital space is unlimited.

As long as customers are made aware of the restrictions of the product before they buy/use it, it's none of lawmakers job to interfere. Especially when Apple users specifically buy Apple products because of these restrictions. Like... Which Apple user asked the be presented with a list of browser options before the activate their phone?

I recommend reading the following article to better understand why the EU is doing what is is doing: https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2024/facing-reality-in-the-eu-and-tech/

 

[applepotato666]

iOS is not an open platform like macOS. And thank god that it is not.

I honestly don't get why not. There's nothing wrong with my experience on macOS. Never encountered malicious apps. I'm OK with Apple giving customers their defaults. I think the EU forcing Apple to make you pick a browser during setup, for example, is very stupid. What matters is that you can. I'm sure if Apple just allowed sideloading and alternative app stores without forcing a business relationship, they'd be better off and the EU would stop lashing out at them. Everyone will stick with the App Store anyway and it wouldn't matter. For example as much as Samsung wants to push their Galaxy Store or whatever it's called, people just go to Google Play because that's what they know. But they have the choice to install what they want. Android is no less secure than iOS, don't let Apple's marketing fool you. The "virus" Android has is Google, not malicious apps - everything is phoning home to Google's services. Apple is masking iOS being so closed down as concern for user security and privacy but it's just them forcing a business relationship with developers for the money. All of us love our Apple devices as they are for the most part, and not much would change.

 

[Anaxarxes]

I know you weren't asking for permission, and you also know. It was a phrase emphasizing how naive your thought was; you also know this.

Yes I do. But let's meet in here before 2029 if Rosetta gets axed. Too many legacy apps with critical importance will need it to go on.

 

[m4mario]

Don't think I entirety get your first point. Apple is now (by law) allowing alternative marketplaces on iOS - EPIC can go to any other marketplace (or create their own) and have their apps installed on Apple's Ecosystem.

Therefore Apple, in their right as the dev agreements of the Apple App Store policies, can stop a dev account from publishing without justification. If App Store would be the only store that is possible to tap into the iOS market, EPIC would have been in their right to demand answers for this move that this is hindering their go-to-market.

Has Apple Removed EPIC dev account globally? Because I am under the impression that they removed their Swedish account. If Apple does not allow Epic to have dev accounts outside of the EU where DMA is in place, then they have no right to do that.

Without a developer account, Epic does not have access to provisioning profiles, which is essentially a gate that allows someone using Xcode to create a copy of the app that can run on external devices. Which means now, Epic cannot create a new copy of their app to run on any App Store, in any country. This effectively locks out Epic from using Apple's technologies, specifically Xcode from ever creating a new copy of their app.

Offcourse, no-one restricts epic from using non-Apple technologies from running on the Apple's devices. Like a web app for example.

So Apple is not restricting Epic from running on Apple devices, or other App Stores. They just can't use Apple's proprietary technologies, like Xcode and Apple SDKs.

 

[9059737]

If the EU wants a fair market then they have to be equal.

The goal of the EU isn't to make everything perfectly equal. We don't need 5 different stores with the same apps. What we need is to have more freedom of choice on iOS and iPadOS. Just like on macOS, where users and developers can decide whether or not they want to use Apple's store and payment system, or a different store and payment system, or even just download an app from the developer's website, without Apple constantly inserting itself between users and developers.

It's not that difficult to understand, but many people on this forum are so in love with Apple that they go out of their way to justify Apple's behavior and ignore the fundamental problems with having a monopoly like this.

 

[threesixty360]

Apps can be secured by sandboxing. The only reason this isn’t done on Mac and Windows to the full extent possible is backwards compatibility. This security argument is orthogonal to the question of app distribution. Nobody is saying Apple shouldn’t be sandboxing iOS apps, or should open up any “doorways”, or shouldn’t block scamware and scan for malware. But that is completely orthogonal to app distribution.

I think the issue is signing apps is at a low level of the OS and is fundemental to iOS and how it works. Only Apple provide that service I believe. Yes it's "orthogonal" in some ways, but I dont think Epics problem here is app distribution (they could put Fornite on someone else's App Store). It's actually being able to develop an installable app, which means having an agreement with Apple in the first place to get it signed (a dev license).

 

[Anaxarxes]

I honestly don't get why not. There's nothing wrong with my experience on macOS. Never encountered malicious apps. I'm OK with Apple giving customers their defaults. I think the EU forcing Apple to make you pick a browser during setup, for example, is very stupid. What matters is that you can. I'm sure if Apple just allowed sideloading and alternative app stores without forcing a business relationship, they'd be better off and the EU would stop lashing out at them. Everyone will stick with the App Store anyway and it wouldn't matter. For example as much as Samsung wants to push their Galaxy Store or whatever it's called, people just go to Google Play because that's what they know. But they have the choice to install what they want. Android is no less secure than iOS, don't let Apple's marketing fool you. The "virus" Android has is Google, not malicious apps - everything is phoning home to Google's services. Apple is masking iOS being so closed down as concern for user security and privacy but it's just them forcing a business relationship with developers for the money. All of us love our Apple devices as they are for the most part, and not much would change.

How to make your Android phone easier to use

In this blog Panda Security wants to introduce you to our top tips for making your Android smartphone easier – and faster - to use.

www.pandasecurity.com

 

[AlexESP]

Nobody is forcing Apple to require a business relationship for apps on alternative app stores.

1. They are. The EU forces Apple to control privacy, security, etc. in alternative App Stores. People think the DMA is about sideloading, but it’s not.
2. Even if they didn’t, they’re forcing Apple to allow alternative App Stores, which is the original freedom restriction.

 

[klasma]

I think the issue is signing apps is at a low level of the OS and is fundemental to iOS and how it works. Only Apple provide that service I believe. Yes it's "orthogonal" in some ways, but I dont think Epics problem here is app distribution (they could put Fornite on someone else's App Store). It's actually being able to develop an installable app, which means having an agreement with Apple in the first place to get it signed (a dev license).

Signing is not necessary for sandboxing and security. It’s also not very low-level. Signing merely means adding a stamp saying “we, Apple, believe this app meets our standards”. And there are many cases were that belief turned out to be wrong. There is no need to require that stamp for users to be allowed to run an app, or for any actual technical security measures implemented by the OS.

 

[threesixty360]

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.

ECJ is what I mean (technically a Supreme Court).
Ultimately they would need to resign iOS from the ground up to remove digital key signing from a central server for apps that run on the device. Apple will argue its this feature that keeps iOS safe (proven to have the best security of any mass market OS ever) and that is also a huge selling point to its customers.

 

[iZac]

I'm curious about the financial steps involved with these new App stores.

edited after mis-understanding Apples cut on Alt App Stores:

Apple isn't handling any payments on an Alt App Store but are taking a Core Technology Fee at the 1 million threshold, so will Apple just bill the developer? As such, was Apples rationale that Epic would not pay its bills so chose ban their account before they can rack up a debt?

If this is true it feels like Apple knows it has a weak position in enforcing it's monetisation policies for Alt App Stores so wanted to make a very public example to show all EU developers that Apple have a nuclear (and terrible PR) option.

 

[klasma]

1. They are. The EU forces Apple to control privacy, security, etc. in alternative App Stores.

I don’t think so. Please provide references for that.