EU Looking Into Apple's Decision To Kill Epic Games' Developer Account (techcrunch.com) 64
The European Union has confirmed it's looking into Apple's decision to close Epic Games' developer account -- citing three separate regulations that may apply. From a report: Yesterday the Fortnite maker revealed Apple had terminated the account, apparently reversing a decision to approve the developer account last month. Epic had planned to launch its own app store, the Epic Games Stores, on iOS in Europe, as well as Fortnight on Apple's platform. And it accused Apple of breaching the bloc's Digital Markets Act (DMA) by killing its developer account.
Responding to the development, a European Commission spokesperson told TechCrunch it has "requested further explanations on this from Apple under the DMA." The pan-EU regulation applies on Apple from midnight Brussels' time today. The spokesperson also said the EU is evaluating whether Apple's actions raise compliance "doubts" with regard to two other regulations -- the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the platform-to-business regulation (P2B) -- given what they described as "the links between the developer program membership and the App Store as designated VLOP" (very large online platform).
Responding to the development, a European Commission spokesperson told TechCrunch it has "requested further explanations on this from Apple under the DMA." The pan-EU regulation applies on Apple from midnight Brussels' time today. The spokesperson also said the EU is evaluating whether Apple's actions raise compliance "doubts" with regard to two other regulations -- the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the platform-to-business regulation (P2B) -- given what they described as "the links between the developer program membership and the App Store as designated VLOP" (very large online platform).
Greedy Aholes (Score:3)
It's amazing that Apple used an ad in 1984 to foreshadow how their business practices would evolve over the years.
Apple screwed up (Score:3)
The don't trust Epc to fulfill the contract? Fine, if Epic screws up, then they can enforce their contract.
Preemptively canceling? Nope, not gonna fly. Apple is setting themselves up for a world of hurt.
News alert for Apple: Europe does not worship you, apparently unlike the US. You are just another foreign tech company with an ego problem.
Re:Apple screwed up (Score:4, Informative)
Something being in a EULA does not make that term legal, and the EU has several restrictions that apply to large marketplaces that wouldn't apply to small individuals, out of concerns about the ability of the managers of the marketplace to affect vast swaths of people.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
in Socialist EU they are screwed.
Finally someone who says it like it is.
Crux of the matter is that in the EU, the EU commission rules. Either Apple plays by their rules or gets out of the market.
I don't agree with the EU commission, but hey, I didn't vote for them either (well, I voted against them, and that was just ignored).
So, it is what it is.
Re:Apple screwed up (Score:4)
Its not "How it is".
Only on Slashdot is "Trying to protect competition" a feature of "Socialism".
I guess Adam Smith would be Socialist too?
Words have meanings.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't agree with the EU commission, but hey, I didn't vote for them either (well, I voted against them, and that was just ignored).
So, it is what it is.
Good news for you: EU elections are only a few months away.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact you have multiple opportunities to select EU leaders.
The European Parliament is made up of elected members from member states. You vote for those directly.
The European Council is made up of heads of state/government, one per member state. Depending on how each member state's democracy works, citizens may be able to vote for the president directly, or may have a Prime Minister from the ruling party.
The European Commission is not elected, but that's normally how the civil service works in most countri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Good news for you: EU elections are only a few months away.
And that will do exactly what?
I remember voting, with the entire country [wikipedia.org], against the EU constitution on June 1st, 2005. You know what happened?
It was enacted anyway, just with a different name. (source [wikipedia.org])
So much for the legitimacy of the EU and all its commissions.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree with the EU commission, but hey, I didn't vote for them either (well, I voted against them, and that was just ignored).
You cannot vote for or against the Commission, as it is not elected: the commissioners are appointed by the national governments.
You can vote for the European Parliament, your national parliament, and in some countries for your head of government (e.g. in France, which has presidential elections).
An obligation, to the competition? (Score:1, Redundant)
literally nothing is going to happen because of this. Do you truly believe that Apple HAS to have a valid reason for deleting an account? Hahaha go read the EULA's dude, they can do wahtever they want.
Do you really think Apple has an obligation to support and promote all forms of marketing and advertising in direct competition from within their own house?
It’s one thing to rent a storage locker in a building, but when you start demanding the landlord promote your sub-leasing storage business in the front lobby in direct competition, are we really shocked to find a Yeah, how ‘bout you fuck right off instead response? What would you do, business owner?
This is one of those odd cases where a plan
Re: An obligation, to the competition? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want to access the EU, a market larger than the US, then yes. They do have to comply with their laws.
Re: (Score:3)
If they want to access the EU, a market larger than the US, then yes. They do have to comply with their laws.
Well then, I guess Apple should spin off another company. Use it to start targeting those new App Stores running inside App Stores and demand they support Apple marketing and advertising in direct competition. Maybe undercut them and sell at a loss for a touch of “fairness”.
If you can’t beat ‘em, screw ‘em with their own rules?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe undercut them and sell at a loss for a touch of “fairness”.
Apple to sell Fortnite at a lower price than Epic? That would be something not that easy... Maybe that mini-Apple would sell porn or gambling apps at discounted prices? Hard to believe too.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe undercut them and sell at a loss for a touch of “fairness”.
Apple to sell Fortnite at a lower price than Epic? That would be something not that easy
It was rather easy for Amazon to purposely sell product at a loss in order to drive what they deemed as “competition” on Amazon out of business. One could say they got back to the Basics of cutthroat competition.
Only thing that’s hard to believe, is why that is legal. And yet it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally Apple will get an app on the Google Play store! Oh wait... [google.com]
Re:An obligation, to the competition? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really think Apple has an obligation to support and promote all forms of marketing and advertising in direct competition from within their own house?
Yup, they do have an obligation. That's a consequence of being part of a duopoly which squeezed out all the competition from the mobile OS market. If you don't want to be treated like a cartel, don't become one.
Re:An obligation, to the competition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Folks, you do not get it. This is about dismantling the walled garden. The EU has armed itself with a huge weapon, it can fine significant proportions of annual revenue under its new legislation, and it considers it has motivation to use it. I tried to explain this in a long post on an earlier article on this subject. I can't seem to find that story now, it was the earlier story about Epic, 24/03/06/1737255/apple-terminated-epics-developer-account, which is giving me 404 when I try to access it now.
You seem, none of you, to have lived and worked in Europe. That means living there as a local, speaking the languages, spending time talking to Commission staff, understanding the outlook and the historical precedents which its formed on. Understanding how the Commission works, and why.
Brussels is not California. None of the things you are used to taking for granted about the economy and society are factors in this. The EU has given itself the powers it needs, and its going to use them.
Its very understandable why Apple would decide to take them on. Its the whole business model that is under attack. But in the end the smart money in wars between even a very large company and a government the size of the EU Commission must be on the government.
This is why the market is reacting as strongly as it did to the recent decision outlined here: https://apple.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org].
The amount of money was trivial to Apple. But its the principle. And now we are going to see that applied over and over again. Neither side can afford to back down. But only one can win, and the smart money is on the Commission.
Re: (Score:1)
Folks, you do not get it. This is about dismantling the walled garden.
No. It isn't
It's about Tim Sweeney having a hard-on for spreading Epic's scummy practices everywhere.
Fark Epic. Fark anyone thinking they're playing the hero role in this.
Re: (Score:3)
Tim Sweeney is not part in the EU Commission, for Sweeney it may be about Epic business practices but for the Commission is about dismantling the walled garden. Different entities may have different agendas at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
I've lived all but two years of my life in the EU, and worked in the EU for half of my life. In all that time I've never spent time talking to Commission staff. I'm frankly bemused that you think that is an intrinsic element of living and working here.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the EU's working theory is that Apple can be forced to do business with someone, no matter how badly/blatantly they violate Apple's ToS, because it's about freedom or ethics in app stores or something.
This whole debacle is only possible because the EU, much like the US, treats breaking DRM as a heinous crime.. All of this "app store monopoly" or "developer fees" or whatever all rest on that legal protection that forces developers and end-users to get prior permission from apple to do pretty much a
Re: (Score:2)
strip away the criminal penalties for breaking DRM that make all of Apple's shenanigans possible.
Jailbreaking already is legal in the USA. The problem is that it just creates an arms race between Apple and the jailbreakers, where every iOS update ends up breaking your ability to run unauthorized apps. The real solution is Apple being forced to implement sideloading in the same manner which it has been implemented on Android: where the decision to allow the apps ultimately rests with the end user.
Re: (Score:2)
The core idea behind the DMA is that some tech platforms have become monopolies, and monopolies are bad for consumers, i.e. the people that EU democracy represents the interests of.
In the EU, the larger the business, the more regulation it is subject to. That is recognition of the fact that as businesses grow, the power imbalance between them and citizens also grows. The regulation seeks to address that imbalance in most cases.
Since iOS is a popular platform, Apple has greater responsibilities to facilitate
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
EULA can not overthrown a law, no matter what the companies say
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha go read the EULA's dude, they can do wahtever they want.
They may be able to in America where the corporations make the laws but in the EU and UK if terms in the EULA break regulations or laws then those terms are unenforceable.
ok then under EU law no Developer Agreement needed (Score:2)
ok then under EU law apple needs to make it so that no Developer Agreement is needed to load apps on to IOS devices.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want your apps to actually _run_ on an iOS device, it has to be cryptographically signed by Apple.
So what you're actually asking is for Apple to either (1) completely remove the DRM on their products, or (2) sign everything no matter what, which is effectively the same as (1). Oh, and (3) not be able to enforce _any_ terms in their EULAs (ncluding the terms that the EU mandates), effectively forcing Apple to do business with (==perpetually support and subsidize) everyone.
Personally I'd _love_ to see
Re: (Score:2)
well then apple better change the app rules to just do basic checks.
very limited rules on in app in content (like only ones that cover if it is legal to use)
apps are allowed to tell about how to buy stuff with out using apple payments on any page.
can not force webkit
must allow stuff like dosbox that can load images from files
Re:ok then under EU law no Developer Agreement nee (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want your apps to actually _run_ on an iOS device, it has to be cryptographically signed by Apple.
No, it just has to be signed by a key that Apple trusts or has signed. For that matter, nothing inherently prevents Apple from adding a dialog that says something like this:
This app is signed by a root key that Apple does not trust. If you are intentionally installing an app that does not come from an official app store and understand the risks, tap "Continue". Otherwise, tap Cancel.
[Continue | CANCEL]
And when you tap "Continue", it adds that root cert to the set of trusted root certs for code signing. Then, just gate access to that dialog behind a Settings flag that the user has to enable before installing a new app store, and you're done. The user downloads an IPA file, side-loads it, turns on that flag in Settings, taps the app, taps "Continue", then turns the flag back off in Settings. Now, they have a second authorized app store, and anything signed by the same root as the app store binary becomes trusted from that point on.
That's how it *should* work. This nonsense of Apple having to sign side-loaded content for competing stores is a steaming pile of anticompetitive bulls**t.
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, Apple has to hand signing keys to third parties that can do whatever they want with 'em.
And Apple can't ever revoke those 3rd-party keys, because that would be "anti-competitive" no matter what egregious acts are committed with those keys.
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, Apple has to hand signing keys to third parties that can do whatever they want with 'em.
No, you didn't understand what I said. Go back and reread it. Apple controls what keys it trusts. Nothing prevents them from adding another trusted app-root key on a per-device basis when the user declares that they want to trust a new app store.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
EU law does not govern business transactions between companies not in the EU.
EU law applies to whatever and American company does in the EU. It doesn't govern what Apple does in the USA but it damned well does govern what Apple does in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is free to keep their business in the USA and not be subject to the EU laws.
Re: Apple screwed up (Score:2)
If they are enforcing it in ways which conflict with laws then guess what? That's still illegal.
In the US they could bribe their way out of trouble, but at this point the EU basically has to slap them down because this has become a battle that they can't afford to lose to a corporation.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but companies are now people, friend.
They may be in the USA but they're not in the EU.
Re: (Score:3)
"How about you go fuck yourself."
You certainly have the right to an opinion, but how would you implement that? EU officials are entitled to make those decisions, and the electorate supports them (Van der Leyen is forecasted to win re-election next year). And Apple won't realistically make the decision to leave EU altogether.
Apple can't be seriously thinking they found the one loophole that will let them avoid compliance. My take is Apple hopes to win popular support by having people complain "look what these stupid eurocrats have done, my
Re: (Score:2)
Van(sic) der Leyen is forecasted to win re-election next year
No, she was not and will not be elected - she even is not on any ballot for the European Parliament elections. She was appointed by the national governments, and confirmed by the EU Parliament.
To be reappointed, von der Leyen must first be nominated by the leaders of the EU's 27 member states, by a qualified majority, who must choose a candidate from the ranks of the political party that came out on top the day after the vote, most likely the EPP. The candidate must then be endorsed by at least 361 of the 720 newly elected members of the European Parliament. (Source [lemonde.fr])
Von der Leyen infamously did not run as an MEP in 2019 – and was handpicked by Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron over Manfred Weber (EPP) and Frans Timmermans (S&D) – making a mockery of the Spitzenkandidat (leading candidate) system.
She is also not running as an MEP for the 2024 elections – further dismantling the leading candidate system, which was set up in 2014 to give a semblance of democracy to the process.
The European Council will propose to the Parliament, after the European elections, the nominee to preside over the European Commission for the next five years. For the candidate to be approved, there must be an absolute majority of votes cast. (Source [brusselstimes.com])
Re: (Score:2)
1) the procedure is called "elected" in the treaties: "This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members." https://en.wikisource.org/wiki... [wikisource.org]
It is also referred as elected in public communications of the European institutions: "How the president of the European Commission gets elected" https://www.europarl.europa.eu... [europa.eu]
2) It is similar in many European countries, and many refer as elected their Prime minister, which we can confirm by searching internet for "X el
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Apple screwed up (Score:3)
Having actually been part of contractual disputes a couple number of times, I can assure you that you aren't completely at the mercy of the court, no matter how clear cut your believe your contract and case to be.
In this case, epic had no choice but to sign the apple agreement, or not distribute the app on ios, so they can definitely claim there was no meeting of mind
Re: (Score:1)
Except Apple only reinstated it out of goodwill.
Remember, Epic lost their developer license years ago. Apple cancelled both Epic developer licenses - the one they used t
This is my earlier post (Score:5, Insightful)
This is my earlier post, from a thread and story which now seems to have vanished.
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 Jobs 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
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the EU is going to bleed them just enough to keep the sweet cash coming, but not enough for Apple to tell them to pound sand.
Looks like Apple want more beatings (Score:3)
At least after that recent 1.8B fine they are acting like they want some more of that.