Apple Terminated Epic's Developer Account (epicgames.com) 197
Epic Games, in a blog post: We recently announced that Apple approved our Epic Games Sweden AB developer account. We intended to use that account to bring the Epic Games Store and Fortnite to iOS devices in Europe thanks to the Digital Markets Act (DMA). To our surprise, Apple has terminated that account and now we cannot develop the Epic Games Store for iOS. This is a serious violation of the DMA and shows Apple has no intention of allowing true competition on iOS devices.
The DMA requires Apple to allow third-party app stores, like the Epic Games Store. Article 6(4) of the DMA says: "The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper."
In terminating Epic's developer account, Apple is taking out one of the largest potential competitors to the Apple App Store. They are undermining our ability to be a viable competitor and they are showing other developers what happens when you try to compete with Apple or are critical of their unfair practices. If Apple maintains its power to kick a third party marketplace off iOS at its sole discretion, no reasonable developer would be willing to utilize a third party app store, because they could be permanently separated from their audience at any time. Apple said one of the reasons it terminated Epic's developer account only a few weeks after approving it was because the Fortnite-maker publicly criticized its proposed DMA compliance plan, Epic said.
The DMA requires Apple to allow third-party app stores, like the Epic Games Store. Article 6(4) of the DMA says: "The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper."
In terminating Epic's developer account, Apple is taking out one of the largest potential competitors to the Apple App Store. They are undermining our ability to be a viable competitor and they are showing other developers what happens when you try to compete with Apple or are critical of their unfair practices. If Apple maintains its power to kick a third party marketplace off iOS at its sole discretion, no reasonable developer would be willing to utilize a third party app store, because they could be permanently separated from their audience at any time. Apple said one of the reasons it terminated Epic's developer account only a few weeks after approving it was because the Fortnite-maker publicly criticized its proposed DMA compliance plan, Epic said.
So will the EU force full side loading with no rul (Score:2)
So will the EU force full side loading with no rules or fees but keep doing BS and they even force allow loading custom roms.
Mac os has an setting for
app store only
app store + trusted devs (non app store)
anything
so how hard can it be to port that over to ios?
Re: So will the EU force full side loading with no (Score:5, Interesting)
"I ask that question seriously. What the EU trying to solve?"
Why would you ask us when you can read what they wrote about it? Answer, you are not in fact serious.
Re: (Score:2)
IF there was a way for Bank of America to get an app on an iPhone of its clients without having to go through the App Store, they would.
Why? They do not appear to publish an apk for sideloading on Android, the website points to the Play Store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I ask that question seriously. What the EU trying to solve?
There is only one phone platform? No.
You may find this surprising, but when businesses willfully agree not to compete with each other (price fixing is the most common example), that's a form of anti-competitive behavior. Apple doesn't offer real sideloading on iOS, which has granted Google a de facto monopoly on devices which have that feature.
Re: (Score:2)
firebaselogging-pa.googleapis.com
firebaseinstallations.googleapis.com
app-measurement.com
global.turn.twilio.com
global.stun.twilio.com
Turn on App Privacy Report if you want to see just how much traffic goes to these addresses.
Re:So will the EU force full side loading with no (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically, not hard at all. But I suspect the challenge here is that the App Store is so good for Apple Customers, but so shitty for Apple Developers.
Quite the contrary. It's bad for customers, too. With companies forced to charge higher prices when buying subscriptions from iOS devices, there was direct consumer harm, and arguably this is likely true even for buying software.
Also, you're limited to the apps that Apple lets people sell. Want to provide a better app that competes with something that Apple provides? Apple can arbitrarily deny you if you aren't big enough for your own customer base to make Apple think twice. Adult content? Nope. Drug or alcohol content? Nope. Gambling? Nope. The list goes on and on.
You cant spy on your users, you cant download massive amounts information on them, you cant put ad trackers on them.
Of course you can. I think you greatly underestimate how much Facebook users on iOS tell Facebook, for example. And nothing prevents an app from opening a website that just happens to have tracking pixels or whatever, so to the extent that Safari supports that sort of thing, so do third-party apps.
IF there was a way for Bank of America to get an app on an iPhone of its clients without having to go through the App Store, they would.
PWAs have made that possible for a really long time.
I ask that question seriously. What the EU trying to solve?
It was trying to stop Apple from using its market power in the hardware space to massively distort the free market for unrelated services, raise the price of goods for apps and subscriptions, etc.
There is only one phone platform? No.
Moot.
This phone platform is lacking apps of many kinds and flavors? No.
Yes, see above.
The Apps are riddled as it is now with crap? No.
Moot.
The Apps are so expensive no one can afford any of them? No.
The apps are more expensive than if there were free market competition in who can provide apps on the platform.
This is simply one side of an industry upset of the terms they are presented with for working on the platform of the other side of the same industry and these EU rulings will cause a decline in quality of these apps. Apple is right here, as dangerous as that may be to say for my Karma on ./
Unlikely. The vast majority of users will probably not buy things from third-party stores, and that's the only way it could meaningfully "cause a decline in quality".
Re: (Score:2)
Take for example BankofAmerica.com the website. It has doubleclick.net and various other calls to other ad-ware trackers. They get paid to track you. Every time you go to Bankofamerica.com, some other system knows about it, and uses that to target you. Apple on their App Store would not allow the same thing for the Bank of America app. That means for Bank of America, they make more money when you go to their website than when you go to their app, because it gives them more data about you to sell to advertisers.
The solution to that problem is easy and well known. Just install any of the privacy-friendly browsers and any of the good blocker add-ons. So what's the real problem here?
Re:So will the EU force full side loading with no (Score:4, Informative)
because it's some 3rd party Apps who rely on iOS walled garden in order to enforce their basic security and digital rights management protections.
The iOS security model is independent of the app store. Your third party app from a different app store is still going to be subject to the same security model, storage segmentation, and restrictions as any other app from the app store. Installing a game from the Epic Store is not going to allow that game to access downloaded Netflix videos under any circumstance. It won't be able to access your personal photo roll unless you grant it permission to do so.
Oops (Score:5, Insightful)
When is it time to start shorting Apple? Its leadership seem absolutely determined to pick a fight with the entire EU over a predatory business model that the EU leadership clearly has no intention of allowing to continue. There seems little chance Apple wins that fight and even if it gets close it will surely cost astronomical amounts of money one way or another.
Re:Oops (Score:5, Insightful)
When is it time to start shorting Apple? Its leadership seem absolutely determined to pick a fight with the entire EU over a predatory business model that the EU leadership clearly has no intention of allowing to continue. There seems little chance Apple wins that fight and even if it gets close it will surely cost astronomical amounts of money one way or another.
Apple has been building a business inside the United States for long enough that they got the mistaken impression that tossing money at officials will always allow them to do whatever they want. And since they move at the speed of business, rather than at the speed of tech, it may take another decade or two of monetary slams before they start to understand that EU rulings aren't challenges to be overcome with shenanigans. But it's certainly fun to watch it happening.
Re: (Score:3)
There is certainly some Schadenfreude here, but I suspect it would be more fun for millions of Apple customers in the EU if it opened up its walled garden as the law requires so all those users could benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
There is certainly some Schadenfreude here, but I suspect it would be more fun for millions of Apple customers in the EU if it opened up its walled garden as the law requires so all those users could benefit.
I absolutely agree. But as an American, watching these behemoth companies that have our government completely bought and paid for, and never get anything more than a public admonishment for bad behavior get raked over the monetary coals when they thumb their nose at the authorities in other countries is highly satisfying. And hey, if they get beat up enough, by enough other governments, they may even start treating their customers in this country a little better just through sheer momentum. We all know damn
Re: (Score:2)
You think they're trying to get around the restrictions? They're running into "technical challenges" with implementation so they will pay pithy fines that are more than made up for in additional revenue. It will take years of "trying" and delaying to successfully implement what is required of them.
Re: (Score:3)
You just watch. The EU is wise to those games.
They will give Apple a deadline, then they will fine them.
Re: (Score:3)
"When is it time to start shorting Apple?"
About three months ago, when AAPL was around 200$ per share.
Re: (Score:2)
> When is it time to start shorting Apple?
If you are asking when they will upset their customers enough that it affects their bottom line, the answer is probably never. It's not as if the issue today is any different than when it arose in 2007.
The general public is so wantonly underinformed that one could argue they aren't even qualified to make a rational assessment of the situation.
It is really a the-inmates-are-running-the-asylum / everyone-is-an-expert situation that is becoming all too common these
Re: (Score:3)
My point is that it doesn't have to upset their customers. It can also upset the EU authorities, who are demonstrably willing and able to hand out 10-figure fines. That will definitely affect its bottom line.
For reasons I cannot fathom, Apple seems determined to pick that fight. It's a policy living somewhere between stunning hubris and utter madness.
Re: (Score:2)
For reasons I cannot fathom, Apple seems determined to pick that fight
apple is holding onto the fearmongering that only a walled garden can keep their users safe from the big bad world. To back down on this now will just go to show it a been a bunch of lies to fleece apple customers and developers
Re: (Score:3)
It also amazes me that no-one calls them out every time they try that one, because it's an open admission that they don't have confidence in the security of their OS and platform. It shouldn't matter where your apps come from or how hostile they try to be if they're properly jailed and your permissions system works.
Re: (Score:2)
you forget that those fines repeat until the problem is solved... so each month they have a new fine if they aren't actively fixing the issue.
if it reach the 10% of the earnings fine, for sure apple will either fix the issues or leave the EU... as ans EU is still lot of money, they can't afford not fixing the issues
Re: (Score:2)
The general public is so wantonly underinformed that one could argue they aren't even qualified to make a rational assessment of the situation.
OR.. none of this matters even a little bit to the VAST majority of Apple users. If it matters enough they'll get a phone from a different vendor.
Personally I'm extremely happy for all iOS developers to be in the tightest, most restrictive on-device jail possible. All they're going to do with all this flexibility is screw users over with scams and tracking and other nonsense like that.
Leave that for the android cesspool.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I'm extremely happy for all iOS developers to be in the tightest, most restrictive on-device jail possible. All they're going to do with all this flexibility is screw users over with scams and tracking and other nonsense like that.
Ah, yes, the millions of developers in the world are all evil and trying to eat your babies. No-one just wants to share fun or useful programs any more. Those open sores people especially are known for their greed and a culture of exploiting others for selfish personal gain. And there are no software companies in the world that are trying to make money in any way other than abusing their own customers, which is why no-one will benefit from any hypothetical competition in the market and any potential reducti
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I'm extremely happy for all iOS developers to be in the tightest, most restrictive on-device jail possible. All they're going to do with all this flexibility is screw users over with scams and tracking and other nonsense like that.
Ah, yes, the millions of developers in the world are all evil and trying to eat your babies. No-one just wants to share fun or useful programs any more. Those open sores people especially are known for their greed and a culture of exploiting others for selfish personal gain. And there are no software companies in the world that are trying to make money in any way other than abusing their own customers, which is why no-one will benefit from any hypothetical competition in the market and any potential reduction in costs of delivering software to users.
Considering the history of the internet, your sarcasm is misplaced.
"We need to design everything to be as developer-friendly as possible! Let's offload as much code onto the users as possible, make them easily tracked, allow us to store information on their computer just because they visited our website, and allow javascript to take over application functions!"
Making something user-friendly means restricting the worst impulses of developers.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a certain irony to your argument when privacy-friendly browsers are increasingly fighting those very dangers but Apple customers can't run them on iOS because Apple won't let them.
In any case, as has been noted in other comments, if the security model works properly and potentially harmful capabilities of apps are restricted unless the user says otherwise, why is there a problem with allowing apps from non-Apple stores?
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't give fewer flying fucks. I have to have some baseline of trust in Apple due to them being the makers of the device and OS. For better or worse, I'm satisfied with that compromise. I'm also satisfied to keep everyone else away from my phone's data whenever possible.
In other words.. if I can't trust Apple then I *certainly* can't trust any of the unwashed masses of developers. In fact I'm likely to trust them less.
The devs can have my purchase price and after that they can fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also satisfied to keep everyone else away from my phone's data whenever possible.
Nothing necessarily prevents you from doing so while still allowing third-party app stores, of course. You could sandbox them into their own realm with only highly gated access from one realm to the other so that apps from one store can't see anything produced by apps from a different store without explicit user interaction. You could have multiple user accounts on the device, similar to the way Android has separate work and personal profiles, thus pretty much completely isolating them. And so on.
And of
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
or these repeated EU mandates that hurt the overall security of the product at every turn.
Dude, I'm a heavy Apple user too, normally inclined to side with them, but the App Store monopoly is not necessary to maintain the security of the platform. The EU isn't trying to change how the iOS security framework operates. It's trying to break the App Store monopoly. Apps installed from third party app stores aren't going to magically have root access to the file system, break storage segmentation, or otherwise gain some toehold in the OS that breaks our experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Safer to just not trade AAPL if you disagree with their management decisions. Use your money on investments you can win instead of going against a company that will probably ruin you when it consistently beats your predictions.
Re: (Score:2)
When they're banning people for /criticism/ you know they're panicking.
Re: (Score:3)
When they're banning people for /criticism/ you know they're panicking.
Given that the main reason the EU is spanking them with such fines is likely because Epic screamed loudly enough to get the attention of regulators, they have good reason to panic. Apple has been playing chicken with the law for 16 years, and the law finally ran into them like a linebacker. And now, every time they try to pull any shenanigans and half-heartedly comply with the law, Epic points out their malicious compliance, and they get spanked again.
I can absolutely understand why Apple can't stand Epic
Re: (Score:3)
That time is never. Apple has so much cash in reserves that it could close every shop, every online shop and never sell a thing for 20 years, and still have enough slush fund interest to not even budge its dividends to shareholders.
It is effectively unkillable. Its an immortal company at this point.
The Apple III model (Score:5, Informative)
Released in 1980, the Apple III was a personal computer aimed at businesses. It had 80 columns, lower case, and a full keyboard. It cost like 5 grand in 1980 dollars.
It had a special Apple II emulation mode, but that mode couldn't use over 48K of RAM or any other advanced features of the Apple III. They really wanted to make it its own thing, hoping it would replace the Apple II for all serious business applications.
Most importantly, Apple did everything they could to be the single source of software for the computer. They provided very little technical documentation and didn't want anyone else to figure out how to program for it. This strategy was an abject failure.
Unfortunately, the model of blocking alternative sources of software has made Apple gigabucks in the years since.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. I wonder how that lines up with Steve Jobs' position at the time.
Re:The Apple III model (Score:4, Informative)
Reading comprehension?
The Apple III was a complete and utter failure.
The world according to Epic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The world according to Epic (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether they're acting rationally or not, they're making the world a better place for all of us as opposed to just cowering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Second, I disagree with that sentiment. Intent behind actions is very much relevant. If Epic is after what is best for them financially, their fight is only going to go as far as what is good for them. In this instance, it's too early to see if they've actually done the right thing. I do agree that the desired end result is good for
Re: (Score:2)
When are they opening up Fortnite to third party stores?
Re:The world according to Epic (Score:4, Funny)
Whether they're acting rationally or not, they're making the world a better place for all of us as opposed to just cowering.
Yes and know. The only thing worse than them failing to rain in Apple is them succeeding in their ambitions. Don't be fooled, Epic is only playing the poor helpless developer in the court of public opinion. In reality their goal is to be big, and they are using the dirtiest fucking tactics in literally every field they are operating in to do so.
From coaxing a lawsuit they had prepared by purposefully breaking an agreement (the lawyers were literally waiting in front of the court for Apple to ban Epic's account), through using monopolistic tacts of buying up 3rd party exclusives in an attempt to "break the monopoly" (no monopoly exists) of PC gaming while spreading lies and not actually investing in their platform, to predatory bundling and discounts for games using the Unreal engine linked with any of the Epic games stores / platforms.
Fuck Apple, sure, but if Epic prevails you are going to *wish* you had Apple back. If they are acting like anticompetitive fucks as the underdog, just imagine what they will do when they have you as a captive audience. There is no good guy in this battle.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether they're acting rationally or not, they're making the world a better place for all of us as opposed to just cowering.
Yes and know. The only thing worse than them failing to rain in Apple is them succeeding in their ambitions. Don't be fooled, Epic is only playing the poor helpless developer in the court of public opinion. In reality their goal is to be big, and they are using the dirtiest fucking tactics in literally every field they are operating in to do so.
It's entirely reasonable for a company to want to grow. I'm not seeing their tactics as particularly underhanded so far, but maybe I've missed something.
From coaxing a lawsuit they had prepared by purposefully breaking an agreement (the lawyers were literally waiting in front of the court for Apple to ban Epic's account),
From breaking a contract term that they believed to be illegal, and which, if unenforced, would not have given them standing to sue. Not dirty so far.
through using monopolistic tacts of buying up 3rd party exclusives in an attempt to "break the monopoly" (no monopoly exists) of PC gaming
Creating competition. Also not dirty so far.
while spreading lies
Specifics?
and not actually investing in their platform,
Were there specific things that you think they needed to invest in? Was there a compelling reason to do so? Still not seeing the dirty part.
to predatory bundling and discounts for games using the Unreal engine linked with any of the Epic games stores / platforms.
You're tal
Re: The world according to Epic (Score:2)
"Valve lowered some developer's fees but would they have done that if Epic reasoned with them instead of treating everything like a war."
The answer to your question is no. Why would they?
Re: (Score:2)
For example, they wanted Valve to lower developers fees. Valve said no. So Epic started their own store and started signing PC games to exclusive deals to spite Valve. Valve lowered some developer's fees but would they have done that if Epic reasoned with them instead of treating everything like a war.
Would they have, though? Competition lowers prices, while reasoning with someone who thinks they're in a stronger bargaining position than you are is rarely effective.
For example, look at what happened when Apple was still using PowerPC chips. IBM and Motorola/Freescale weren't willing to spend the effort to build faster, lower-power CPUs suitable for laptop use, largely because they didn't think Apple was a big enough customer to care about, and didn't think that they would ever switch to another platfor
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they do have that 1 game that's very popular for some reason...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The end result though is that people who own iOS devices can't make their own damn decision whether or not they want to run Epic's games, because Apple has made that choice for them. That's a problem, regardless of whether you personally agree or disagree with Epic's behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic, Epic is robbing me of the choice to run the game on a platform of my choosing because they didn't port it to my TI-86 calculator.
What's that, you say? Nothing entitles me to such a port to a platform of my choosing? Well, then nothing entitles J. Random iOS user to a port either.
Re: (Score:2)
No, porting a game to a new platform is a business decision on the part of the developer, based on whether they believe it will be profitable to do so. It most certainly would be a loss for Epic to port their games to your calculator.
Now perhaps what you meant to ask was: What entitles Epic access to Apple's customer base, once they have made the determination that it is potentially profitable to do so? When you do business with the public, you agree to follow some rules in exchange for the privilege of e
Re:The world according to Epic (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Epic is like the proverbial broken clock that is still right twice a day. You can't distribute your apps on iOS without Apple's blessing, so Epic actually has a point, at least as far as that platform is concerned. Their logic really doesn't extend well to other platforms where developers absolutely do have the ability to distribute their apps on their own.
Re:The world according to Epic (Score:4, Insightful)
It literally doesn't matter. Apple can't TOS and EULA themselves out of their requirements under the law. If they won't allow it this way, they legally have to provide another.
Catharsis (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But Epic thinks that about every one. They keep arguing the rules should not apply to them when it comes to them selling in someone else’s store.
Why should questionably legal, anticompetitive rules be allowed to apply to them (or anyone else) just because it's in somebody else's store?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Epic has always reacted with righteous indignation.
And yet the Epic store on the PC is a steaming pile.
Re: The world according to Epic (Score:2)
"It's funny how the majority of the comments already posted ignore the fact that Epic is not exactly a shining example of fairness itself."
No, what's funny is that your Dunning-Krueger complex makes you think you've discovered some stunning or even relevant information there. We all know that Epic is shit. That doesn't change the fact that Apple is shit, and the great irony is that Epic will have to lie in the bed they make. If they successfully force Apple to stop behaving anticompetitively then they too w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The world according to Epic (Score:2)
When it comes to Epic vs Apple, I have little sympathy for either.
At the same time, if as a business, one of my business partners or customers signed a contract only to ignore it or spit in my face, repeatedly, then Iâ(TM)d be loath to trust them and the ability to see any value in their signature
We invite you to provide us with written assurance (Score:5, Informative)
Apple: "We invite you to provide us with written assurance that you are also acting in good faith... In plain, unqualified terms, please tell us why we should trust Epic this time."
Epic: "Epic and its subsidiaries are acting in good faith and will comply with all terms of current and future agreements with Apple, and we'll be glad to provide Apple with any specific further assurances on the topic that you'd like"
Apple: Epic's response "was wholly insufficient and not credible. It boiled down to an unsupported 'trust us'".
It's clear that Epic did provide written assurance exactly per the letter of Apple's request. Apple asked for written assurance. A written assurance is an unsupported "trust us", nothing more, nothing less.
Apple's request was two-faced -- their "in plain terms" was not a restatement in plain terms of their request, but something new and altogether vague.
Re: (Score:3)
that's totally accessory, apple simply can't ban anyone from competition unless they do infringe the new rules, as per dma. competition is the whole point of this, and "epic as an app provider" and "epic as an app store platform" are different things, any past grievances are completely irrelevant.
apple is being extremely kneejerk and infantile.
Re: (Score:2)
me personally? both companies are a cancer to society and might shut down and rot in hell. well, making unreal engine opensource first would be a plus.
lucky for them it's not me deciding, but the european commission, so it's going to be a storm in a teacup: apple will get a slap on the wrist and will need to allow epic to open a store. if they want to continue selling their crap in europe, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's clear that Epic did provide written assurance exactly per the letter of Apple's request.
I'm not taking Apple's side as a whole, but your quote shows that Apple asked why they should trust Epic and Epic didn't actually provide a reason why. If someone already shows they cannot be trusted, them saying "I can be trusted." is not a reason. In Epic's defense, they did say they would be glad to provide Apple with specific assurances. However, why didn't they provide any actual assurances in the response? Literally any at all, and I would be on Epic's side about this bit of it.
Re: We invite you to provide us with written assur (Score:2)
You are taking Apple's side here. Epic said they would be happy to write a check, but not a blank one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except Apple is asking for more details than the few sentences that Sweeney provided. If this was a relationship and someone asked their partner for assurances that they would never cheat again, if the cheater responded with "You can trust me now . . " how would you view that?
If I asked a cheater for a written assurance that they would never cheat on me again, and they provided a written assurance (i.e. a promise) that they'd never cheat on me again, then they'd have fulfilled exactly what I asked of them. Shame on me for asking for a dumb thing.
If I asked them for something and followed it with "in plain terms ", then shame on me for being duplicitous: I wasn't providing them with a plain terms restatement of my request, but instead sneaking in an escape hatch for myself.
Re: (Score:3)
Painting a target on their back (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess Tim Cook thinks the whitehouse will protect them against the EU, because without some behind the scenes protection this is just going to cost them money.
Malicious compliance is really far too generous, it's childish tantrums.
Still on the PC (Score:2)
And this is why i still do my work on the PC and if I can't purchase something through the mobile browser then I'll buy it from the desktop on my PC. I understand that not everyone have the funds for a desktop computer but perhaps this is just another indicator of how much of a monopoly Apple's grip on their hardware has become.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can afford an iPhone you can afford a desktop computer. In fact, by a 200$ android phone, and spend the rest of the money on a good desktop. Problem solved.
F'em (Score:2)
Fuck Apple.
But also, but Epic too.
Apple needs to get their bitch ass slapped back to the stone age and has for a very long time now.
But it's not like Epic is some bastion of perfection. They have the moral high ground only because Apple cedes it at every opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid fight (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They GOT their changes in EU courts. Apple is cutting them off anyway in violation of the new DMA rules.
like.. okay? (Score:2)
If apple's theory here is that somebody can make an apk via some other toolchain and sideload it, I predict a lot of litigious corporate crybabying from them in the future when said alternative toolchain becomes available and amazon starts selling cross-compiled shovelware for ios.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the code still has to be signed by an Apple issued developer certificate from the now-canceled developer account. They technically don't have to allow their own compiler to be used. Sideloading in the EU is what is allowed under DMA but Apple has been allowed (at least in legal theory) to require a developer account and digital signature.
Butthurt (Score:2)
Apple said one of the reasons it terminated Epic's developer account only a few weeks after approving it was because the Fortnite-maker publicly criticized its proposed DMA compliance plan, Epic said.
If this is true, did Apple tick the "butthurt" box on the form they sent Epic?
Trust is gonna trust. (Score:2, Redundant)
Did anyone ever think for a second that Apple wouldn't do anything and everything they can to harm Epic in the most petty and petulant ways they can come up with after all of this?
Anyone at all?
Time for antitrust regulators to do their god damn jobs.
EU (Score:2)
Cut off your nose to spite your face (Score:2)
Epic has adopted a self-defeating strategy by criticizing Apple and subsequently having their developer account closed. It's like challenging someone to a duel and then shooting yourself in the foot.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that's the real reason Apple closed their account. Epic probably broke the terms on purpose because they want to continue their grandstanding.
Pass the popcorn... (Score:2)
This is sort of like watching an immovable object be struck by an unstoppable force, or a clash of the titans.
The legal precedent and global 3D chess playing by both sides is going to be interesting to watch, as it seems like the gloves are off and both sides are not going to take a diplomatic route out of this.
Epic does have the EU sort of on their side, which makes things interesting.
The biggest downside is this can set court precedents that might be very bad in general when future cases come up. For exa
Apple Epic haiku (Score:2)
Apple Epic war
Big law suits galore for fun
Apple risks ruin
The unintended consequences of what you wished for (Score:3)
The story goes something like this. You are Apple, you have a view of the market that says we own the customer who has bought our hardware. We should allow third parties to sell software to him as long as they give us a cut and and the purchase is exclusively through our retail store.
You miss your chance to implement this with the computer market, you failed to lock buyers of the hardware into your app store. In fact, you neglected to implement an app store, so you just sat there in resentful fury while third parties sold to your customers and took your rightful revenues. But then along came iPods, so you did iTunes, and that worked very well. So now along comes the mobile market and this time you are going to do it right.
At first everything goes fine, people buy the phones, use the store, you collect your percentage, and you also get the other thing you were making for, hugely successful sales and important market share. This is working just great, the share price soars, you get to lock in more and more of the collateral market at the same time as raising overall market share. Part of the reason the share price soars is of course that you have now realized Job's dream. You are not only getting profits from your increased product sales, but also from the supplementary and service markets, and your costs on this last part are almost nothing. So your margins soar, and Wall Street loves that.
And then something nasty happens which you had never dreamed was possible. All of a sudden regulatory bodies start looking at your market share and wondering if its in some way dominant. They start deciding that it may be. But you can defend against this and are not too worried. But then they start looking at the very source of your industry leading margins, and they see that what you have managed to do is lock your customers into buying other products and services from you, and taking a cut. You are basically able to say to app developers that its your way or the highway. And, say the regulators, this might be fine when you were just another tiny minority player with a handful of fanatical fans, as you are in the computer business, but in the phone business you have dominant share of some segments and this is not on.
You are by now one of the leading two or three companies in the world in share price value, so you hire the finest legal talent there is, and prepare to defend.
Unfortunately for you this just leads one of the main market governing bodies, the EU Commission, to look carefully at their laws, and realize that your top legal talent is right, and you are going to be able to defend. But unfortunately for you, the Commission has the ability to just change its laws. Which it does, and then slaps a large fine on you.
Never mind, it may be large, but its peanuts in comparison to our revenues and profits, you think. Well, yes and no. Because what you have forgotten is that the EU has had its eye on you for some time. They have a similar attitude to their citizens as the one you have to your customers. Their aim is to run a closed market with only niche share to any other than local suppliers. Their intellectual heritage is Bismarck and Colbert. They have been looking at you for years now and trying to find a fight they could pick and win. And now they think they have found it.
So you are all sitting around a table in Infinite Loop Drive or someplace, and it slowly dawns on you in discussion that this might turn into a serious threat. Not just because the EU may fine you a meaningful proportion of your revenues this time around. But because they are now aiming at the whole business model which gives you all those free profits. And you need those free profits for Wall Street. It was never just the market share and the growth that was working for you. It was the whole model linking the lock-in to the growth and the high margins.
The EU, it starts to dawn on you all, actually has in mind to reduce you to Asus or Samsung or whoever. To being just another
Re: (Score:2)
Now that would be fun to watch!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it is in the EU, but I know it does not matter one way or another, because Epic not only has a presence in the US, but it is its primary presence.
So ya, in that way, I agree, it would be fun to watch Epic get buttfucked to the tune of billions of dollars by the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it is in the EU, but I know it does not matter one way or another, because Epic not only has a presence in the US, but it is its primary presence.
Apple can and would sue Epic in a US jurisdiction, so what the fuck does the rest of the world have to do with anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's unlikely they would though.
First, the 1st Amendment does not protect you from companies.
It protects you from the Government. The clue to that is in its very text, which starts with: "Congress shall pass no law..."
Come on. You can do better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd buy a phone if EA make one. But if Ubisoft makes a phone or an OS, I ain't touching that.
Re: (Score:2)
look mommy!! an apple fan boy (or girl... or whatever)