What has trust to do with it? Either you follow the rules within the laws or not. You can’t distrust preventively without them making a mistake with their new developer account – after all I can understand.
Would your logic apply to a pedophile applying for a job as a child care worker? Past is prolog.
This doesn't look good for Apple on the face of it.
Apple has the last word on 'trust'?
I can't see that going down well in the EU.
I suppose Epic will accuse Apple of discrimination.
We'll see.
If the iOS platform is to maintain integrity, yes. Epic has a solid history of bad credit. If the EU's intent is to strip Apple of all control of its own platform and to force them to let thieves and child predators set up shop there, then it may come to a point where Apple would be better off withdrawing from that market, and EU can make its own phones.
The EU is a large market but not that big Walmart is getting along fine without them....interesting.
avon b7 said: As for violating a contract clause, that doesn't mean much. The presence of a clause doesn't make it legal. A clause itself can be challenged in court.
Obviously, you are not a lawyer or a Judge. Violating a contract is everything! Challenging a clause in court is different than violating it blatantly, and then launching a pre-planned marketing blitz about it. That's the very definition of 'acting in bad faith'. Courts don't look too kindly on that.
You mean like what Apple did with Qualcomm on patents?
Signing a contract, violating the terms by refusing to pay and then making a very public fuss about why it was violating the contract.
avon b7 said: As for violating a contract clause, that doesn't mean much. The presence of a clause doesn't make it legal. A clause itself can be challenged in court.
Obviously, you are not a lawyer or a Judge. Violating a contract is everything! Challenging a clause in court is different than violating it blatantly, and then launching a pre-planned marketing blitz about it. That's the very definition of 'acting in bad faith'. Courts don't look too kindly on that.
You mean like what Apple did with Qualcomm on patents?
Signing a contract, violating the terms by refusing to pay and then making a very public fuss about why it was violating the contract.
Oh dear.
Comparing two completely different cases, one of contract law, and other of intellectual property, isn't the snappy retort that you believe it is, but by all means continue your undying support of Epic.
In the midst of all this, I feel that Apple is suffering self-inflicted brand damage. Some of this is simply muscle-flexing on their part, not a good look for a company trying to convince regulators and developers worldwide that Apple is harmless.
avon b7 said: As for violating a contract clause, that doesn't mean much. The presence of a clause doesn't make it legal. A clause itself can be challenged in court.
Obviously, you are not a lawyer or a Judge. Violating a contract is everything! Challenging a clause in court is different than violating it blatantly, and then launching a pre-planned marketing blitz about it. That's the very definition of 'acting in bad faith'. Courts don't look too kindly on that.
You mean like what Apple did with Qualcomm on patents?
Signing a contract, violating the terms by refusing to pay and then making a very public fuss about why it was violating the contract.
Oh dear.
Comparing two completely different cases, one of contract law, and other of intellectual property, isn't the snappy retort that you believe it is, but by all means continue your undying support of Epic.
Sorry, the basis of this is trust.
Apple signed contracts with Qualcomm, did the resulting business (I believe for years, although I could be wrong here) and then stopped paying, told other Qualcomm customers to hold back payments too and then started a court spat spanning many jurisdictions.
In other news and related to this, the EU has asked Apple to explain itself formerly as this action could be in breach of EU.
Obviously things aren't proving to be as clear cut as some here believe.
What has trust to do with it? Either you follow the rules within the laws or not. You can’t distrust preventively without them making a mistake with their new developer account – after all I can understand.
Would your logic apply to a pedophile applying for a job as a child care worker? Past is prolog.
Except this isn’t not a pedophile applying for a job. Your comparison is not relevant legally speaking.
Also, even in your flawed comparison the person’s rights based on the past are relative. You cannot cancel someone for everything, for ever.
Why does Apple assume they have monopoly on security? It is a rather faulty assumption that none else can make a secure or even more secure App Store.
DMA will overrule this and allow fair competition on the platform.
LOL.
Look around. There is literally no one that does what apple does and keeps a commitment to security and privacy. No one. It’s a rather massive deal.
There never was unfairness in the platform. All the eu is doing is trying to force socialism in a capitalistic company. Recipe for disaster. Robbing the platform provider to pay openly hostil developers is not a viable solution to a problem that never existed.
More fascist than socialist. Socialist would be if the EU nationalized Apple and took the company away from the shareholders, making EU the owner.
Requiring a company not owned by the government to do business as the government demands is a hallmark of fascism. Benito would be proud.
Requiring a company not owned by the government to do business as the government demands is a hallmark of fascism. Benito would be proud.
Or the hallmark of one protecting its citizenry. The government demands fair treatment and wages for the company's employees. The government demands the company not utilize child labor. They demand that said company doesn't pollute the air we breath and the water we drink.
Tim Sweeney is a fine engineer but a tone deaf CEO. If he were truly smart he would move over to CTO where he belongs and hire a savvy CEO to navigate the corporate waters he clearly lacks the finesse to do himself.
Tim Sweeney is a fine engineer but a tone deaf CEO. If he were truly smart he would move over to CTO where he belongs and hire a savvy CEO to navigate the corporate waters he clearly lacks the finesse to do himself.
Right. Because the world would be much better off if every company was run by a tone-deaf profit-at-all-costs bean counter...
In the midst of all this, I feel that Apple is suffering self-inflicted brand damage. Some of this is simply muscle-flexing on their part, not a good look for a company trying to convince regulators and developers worldwide that Apple is harmless.
Interestingly, Epic is the company that has clearly demonstrated that it is not harmless. They are predatory towards their own customers. Apple has set standards for third-party app stores in the EU to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, privacy and security standards for iPhone customers that are currently upheld through the Apple App Store. Epic starts out of the gate with its predatory history and expressed intent not to abide by the standards for developing third-party app stores. If Apple did anything other than cancel Epic's account, they would be undermining their own stated standards by setting the precedent of letting a predatory company have free rein before any other players even get started.
We're in a bizarre time on many fronts as those like Epic who commit malicious acts right out in the open are portrayed as somehow being victims when held to account, and those like Apple who would seek to hold these bad actors to account are portrayed as being somehow unfair.
In the midst of all this, I feel that Apple is suffering self-inflicted brand damage. Some of this is simply muscle-flexing on their part, not a good look for a company trying to convince regulators and developers worldwide that Apple is harmless.
This week Apple detailed the software changes that will appear in an upcoming release of iOS to comply with the European Union Digital Markets Act (DMA). As I read the over 60 pages of the DMA when it was passed (and in drafts before that, little of which changed in the process) my heart sank over the complexity of a regulation so poorly constructed yet so clearly aimed at specific (American) companies and products. As I read through many of the hundreds of pages of Apple documents detailing their compliance implementation my heart sank again. This time was because I so thoroughly could feel the pain and struggle product teams felt in clinging to at best or unwinding at worst the most substantial improvement in computing ever introduced—the promise behind the iPhone since its introduction. The reason the iPhone became so successful was not a fluke. Consumers and customers voted that the value proposition of the product was something they preferred, and they acted by purchasing iPhone and developers responded by building applications for iOS. The regulators have a different view of that promise, so here we are.
What has trust to do with it? Either you follow the rules within the laws or not. You can’t distrust preventively without them making a mistake with their new developer account – after all I can understand.
Would your logic apply to a pedophile applying for a job as a child care worker? Past is prolog.
Except this isn’t not a pedophile applying for a job. Your comparison is not relevant legally speaking.
Also, even in your flawed comparison the person’s rights based on the past are relative. You cannot cancel someone for everything, for ever.
You apparently have never heard of the sex offender registry.
Really though, the more applicable comparison is credit rating. Epic has a very poor credit rating when it comes to playing by rules designed to prevent it from preying on its own customers. A properly-run bank does not, just because it's Monday morning, simply wipe the slate clean and extend credit on the best terms available to a borrower for which they have direct experience and knowledge of its propensity to willfully and recklessly default on its obligations. A properly run bank will simply deny the application and tell the applicant they can try again later after they've demonstrated behavioral changes that lead to improved credit.
Apple is correct to cancel Epic's account. They have bad credit, and they have made clear they have no intentions of abiding by Apple's requirements for creating an accountable, non-predatory third-party app store.
Why does Apple assume they have monopoly on security? It is a rather faulty assumption that none else can make a secure or even more secure App Store.
DMA will overrule this and allow fair competition on the platform.
LOL.
Look around. There is literally no one that does what apple does and keeps a commitment to security and privacy. No one. It’s a rather massive deal.
There never was unfairness in the platform. All the eu is doing is trying to force socialism in a capitalistic company. Recipe for disaster. Robbing the platform provider to pay openly hostil developers is not a viable solution to a problem that never existed.
More fascist than socialist. Socialist would be if the EU nationalized Apple and took the company away from the shareholders, making EU the owner.
Requiring a company not owned by the government to do business as the government demands is a hallmark of fascism. Benito would be proud.
It’s socialist as well. Taking ones hard work and forcibly disallowing them to fully benefit, but instead, give the rewards to others, even those who didn’t take the risks, didn’t do the work, and don’t deserve the reward - all in the name of “equity.” LOL. WHETHER CONTROLLED BY THE MOB OR BY THE GOVERNMENT, that’s what it is. Apple is a capitalist company. It does the hard work and takes the risks and earns its due. The eu gets upset at American success within its borders and steals from them in order to give a free ride to its preferred folks. Sickening.
In the midst of all this, I feel that Apple is suffering self-inflicted brand damage. Some of this is simply muscle-flexing on their part, not a good look for a company trying to convince regulators and developers worldwide that Apple is harmless.
In the midst of all this, I feel that Apple is suffering self-inflicted brand damage. Some of this is simply muscle-flexing on their part, not a good look for a company trying to convince regulators and developers worldwide that Apple is harmless.
Out of curiosity, what is Apple's "brand"?
??
Well, if you are stating "self-inflicted brand damage", then it is implied that you have a good understanding of what Apple's brand is, hence why I asked what Apple's brand is.
Comments
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart#
Signing a contract, violating the terms by refusing to pay and then making a very public fuss about why it was violating the contract.
Comparing two completely different cases, one of contract law, and other of intellectual property, isn't the snappy retort that you believe it is, but by all means continue your undying support of Epic.
Apple signed contracts with Qualcomm, did the resulting business (I believe for years, although I could be wrong here) and then stopped paying, told other Qualcomm customers to hold back payments too and then started a court spat spanning many jurisdictions.
In other news and related to this, the EU has asked Apple to explain itself formerly as this action could be in breach of EU.
Obviously things aren't proving to be as clear cut as some here believe.
We're in a bizarre time on many fronts as those like Epic who commit malicious acts right out in the open are portrayed as somehow being victims when held to account, and those like Apple who would seek to hold these bad actors to account are portrayed as being somehow unfair.
Edit,
Added link to Steve Sinofsky;
https://hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com/p/215-building-under-regulation?r=3y2k4&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
You apparently have never heard of the sex offender registry.
Really though, the more applicable comparison is credit rating. Epic has a very poor credit rating when it comes to playing by rules designed to prevent it from preying on its own customers. A properly-run bank does not, just because it's Monday morning, simply wipe the slate clean and extend credit on the best terms available to a borrower for which they have direct experience and knowledge of its propensity to willfully and recklessly default on its obligations. A properly run bank will simply deny the application and tell the applicant they can try again later after they've demonstrated behavioral changes that lead to improved credit.