Apple will successfully litigate this, and Epic will continue its fall into obsolescence.
Despite the EU law, it’s not clear that it means any “Tom, Dick, and Harry” can create an App Store and demand Apple accommodate them.
If I have a company that prints t-shirts, do I get to demand that Wal-Mart not only sell my products, but that they also allow me to open a storefront in their respective locations to sell direct to the consumer?
This is not a game that Epic is going to win. They can call it malicious compliance all they want. Apple is playing for keeps and they have all the power. They just pick and choose whatever is going to cost them less money, and protect their business, the most. If they thought buying Epic outright would do that, they would. But getting Apple, which is basically the world’s biggest company, to do something it doesn’t want to do is going to be very difficult. Short of the federal government declaring them an illegal monopoly and ordering them to be broken up, you’re not going to do it. The U.S. government is the only force on Earth that has the resources (financial, regulatory, and force) to make Apple to do anything.
Apple will successfully litigate this, and Epic will continue its fall into obsolescence.
Despite the EU law, it’s not clear that it means any “Tom, Dick, and Harry” can create an App Store and demand Apple accommodate them.
If I have a company that prints t-shirts, do I get to demand that Wal-Mart not only sell my products, but that they also allow me to open a storefront in their respective locations to sell direct to the consumer?
Was about to post a variation of this, but agree. I want to sell my stuff in Wall-Mart, but I don't want to give Wal-Mart their cut for providing the store, lights, power and traffic, so I want to open my own kiosk inside their building, process my own payments, and keep all of the profit.
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.
Previous judgements disagree with you. Apple indeed has “sole discretion.”
It’s not like epic didn’t breach the contract. End of.
epic going on to criticize apple is a smokescreen. Being critical doesn’t award you what you lost due to illegal activity.
Epic violated their contract and paid the price. Inciting a mob doesn’t change that. Epic can be mad, but only at themselves. Shameful really.
Goodbye epic. Good luck on your own.
We'll see.
If Epic brought the same case to an EU court there is no guarantee it would see the same result.
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.
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.
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.
Previous judgements disagree with you. Apple indeed has “sole discretion.”
It’s not like epic didn’t breach the contract. End of.
epic going on to criticize apple is a smokescreen. Being critical doesn’t award you what you lost due to illegal activity.
Epic violated their contract and paid the price. Inciting a mob doesn’t change that. Epic can be mad, but only at themselves. Shameful really.
Goodbye epic. Good luck on your own.
We'll see.
If Epic brought the same case to an EU court there is no guarantee it would see the same result.
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.
Like I said, we'll see.
I suppose Epic will try to challenge the move.
By that logic, no contract would be worth a damn .
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.
Other platforms have prioritized the collection and sale of user data over user privacy and security. Google sells some phone devices, but that's not how they make their money. With an OS that lives on others' hardware, Android's business model continued to be about the collection and sale of user data.
Apple sells hardware, and iOS only runs on their hardware. As such, their business model is about driving sales of iPhones. To do so, they can position the iPhone and iOS as a secure, privacy-focused platform. They don't need to collect and sell user data to make money. To facilitate this, iOS was created as a closed system, with the App Store as the exclusive entry point for software developers to create applications for that platform. This assures that Apple can establish and police rules that require third-party developers to maintain high levels of customer security and privacy.
The EU requirement for Apple to allow third-party App Stores potentially undermines all that. In response, Apple created a tight set of rules for third-party App Stores to follow, to still maintain a high level of user privacy and security. A third party operation that chooses to meet and exceed those requirements will mean Apple doesn't have a monopoly on security. That would be a good outcome.
The problem is that the companies like Epic that pushed for this EU requirement weren't doing it because they wanted to provide customers with a higher level of security. They did it because they want to opt out of Apple's standards so that they are able to collect and sell user data, and to implement exploitative in-app purchase systems that would violate Apple's rules. If the EU forces Apple to allow that, it's not "fair competition," it's companies taking a free ride on Apple's platform in order to exploit their customers.
If Microsoft can buy Blizzard/Activision then Apple should just buy Epic.
Not only could Apple then bring. the Unreal Engine (and games) to the Mac, but it could also use Epic's "MetaHuman" technology to fix the god-awful Vision Pro avatars....
Apple can only buy from the owners. The owners of Epic are Tim Sweeney who is suing them and Tencent.
Microsoft bought Activision because Activision's shareholders wanted it to be bought.
Unreal Engine and games are available on the Mac like Layers of Fear (Lumen, Nanite, Niagara, no ray-tracing), Apple worked with the team on the game:
Apple has a right to protect their OS from malicious actors just as Microsoft has a right to block malware in Windows with anti-virus software. Apple has a right to revoke licenses to malicious developers and Epic has demonstrated repeatedly this is what they are.
Apple has to be careful to maintain control over side-loading. In the EU, it's not such a big deal but if this makes its way to China, operators there would block Apple's official store and replace it with local ones like they do with Android. Tencent (major owner of Epic) is one of the interested parties in this outcome.
Glorious seeing all the usual suspects upset at this decision by Apple, which will be upheld. This is contract law and has nothing to do with the DMA or the EU.
Epic violated terms of their agreement with Apple. Judge Gonzalez already agreed with this.
If the EU can force Apple to reinstate Epic then how is that any different from reinstating developers blocked for trying to get malware into The App Store, using sketchy data mining SDKs or abusing Enterprise Developer accounts? They could just claim “we promise to behave from now on” just like Epic.
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.
You’re a brainwashed zombie.
It's easy to call someone that, but at the same time you can't help but wonder how hard the EU would be going against Apple on these matters if they themselves had an "Apple" of their own...
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.
You’re a brainwashed zombie.
It's easy to call someone that, but at the same time you can't help but wonder how hard the EU would be going against Apple on these matters if they themselves had an "Apple" of their own...
I am unconvinced that an Apple, nor any big tech, could be created in the EU; too much nationalism in member states, and less of the federation that the U.S. became post Civil War.
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.
What's so hard to understand? Epic flagrantly violated the rules once already, and is a known malicious actor. Epic dragged Apple through a costly court battle, only to have it confirmed that Epic broke the rules, and have all its demands denied. Apple has every reason to believe Epic will do it again. What you're saying is that a retailer must allow a known shoplifter into the store because you don't know if he is going to shoplift this time!
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.
Because no one else has, that's why! How many others have created secure App stores on any mobile platform? And are any of those App stores as easy to use, as secure, or offer easy refunds/cancellations as Apple's App store? Are any of those App store owners also responsible for the hardware's performance or warranty?
This doesn't look good for Apple on the face of it. Apple has the last word on 'trust'?
No trust needed. We can just look at Epic's track record. Epic flagrantly violated the rules once already, and is a known malicious actor. Epic dragged Apple through a costly court battle, only to have it confirmed that Epic broke the rules, and have all its demands denied. Apple has every reason to believe Epic will do it again.
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.
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.
tmay said: Does Epic has any "trust" left at all? Maybe the EU can guarantee to Apple that Apple will be fully supported by the EU, if Epic "breaks that trust". Oh, never mind.
Comments
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.
By that logic, no contract would be worth a damn .
Apple sells hardware, and iOS only runs on their hardware. As such, their business model is about driving sales of iPhones. To do so, they can position the iPhone and iOS as a secure, privacy-focused platform. They don't need to collect and sell user data to make money. To facilitate this, iOS was created as a closed system, with the App Store as the exclusive entry point for software developers to create applications for that platform. This assures that Apple can establish and police rules that require third-party developers to maintain high levels of customer security and privacy.
The EU requirement for Apple to allow third-party App Stores potentially undermines all that. In response, Apple created a tight set of rules for third-party App Stores to follow, to still maintain a high level of user privacy and security. A third party operation that chooses to meet and exceed those requirements will mean Apple doesn't have a monopoly on security. That would be a good outcome.
The problem is that the companies like Epic that pushed for this EU requirement weren't doing it because they wanted to provide customers with a higher level of security. They did it because they want to opt out of Apple's standards so that they are able to collect and sell user data, and to implement exploitative in-app purchase systems that would violate Apple's rules. If the EU forces Apple to allow that, it's not "fair competition," it's companies taking a free ride on Apple's platform in order to exploit their customers.
Of course Epic had to breach them to make their point.
Microsoft bought Activision because Activision's shareholders wanted it to be bought.
Unreal Engine and games are available on the Mac like Layers of Fear (Lumen, Nanite, Niagara, no ray-tracing), Apple worked with the team on the game:
Apple has a right to protect their OS from malicious actors just as Microsoft has a right to block malware in Windows with anti-virus software. Apple has a right to revoke licenses to malicious developers and Epic has demonstrated repeatedly this is what they are.
Apple has to be careful to maintain control over side-loading. In the EU, it's not such a big deal but if this makes its way to China, operators there would block Apple's official store and replace it with local ones like they do with Android. Tencent (major owner of Epic) is one of the interested parties in this outcome.
Epic violated terms of their agreement with Apple. Judge Gonzalez already agreed with this.
If the EU can force Apple to reinstate Epic then how is that any different from reinstating developers blocked for trying to get malware into The App Store, using sketchy data mining SDKs or abusing Enterprise Developer accounts? They could just claim “we promise to behave from now on” just like Epic.
Brexit kind of proves the point.
https://carleton.ca/ces/eulearning/introduction/what-is-the-eu/extension-is-the-eu-a-federation-or-a-confederation/
No trust needed. We can just look at Epic's track record. Epic flagrantly violated the rules once already, and is a known malicious actor. Epic dragged Apple through a costly court battle, only to have it confirmed that Epic broke the rules, and have all its demands denied. Apple has every reason to believe Epic will do it again.
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.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
But please go on with all your legal expertise and tell us how 2 courts and 4 judges got it wrong.