[HN Gopher] Epic says Apple will reinstate developer account
___________________________________________________________________
Epic says Apple will reinstate developer account
Author : Despegar
Score : 287 points
Date : 2024-03-08 18:12 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (9to5mac.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (9to5mac.com)
| sharpshadow wrote:
| I kind of expected that they wouldn't push through with that
| silly ban.
| ajross wrote:
| This is just so weird to watch. Apple is literally throwing a
| tantrum on a continent-wide stage. Like, it's one attempt at
| escalation after another, and they keep losing (either their
| legal fights, or their nerve) and having to reverse course.
|
| Like, there's no strategy at all here? Just keep swinging and
| hope you land a blow that breaks through the armor? This is how
| my 15 year old plays VR games.
| TillE wrote:
| That's the confusing part. With the DMA policy at least there's
| a strategy, even if it's a strategy that will ultimately be
| rejected as non-compliant.
|
| Picking these petty fights or whining about getting fined is
| not helpful, certainly not to Apple and their shareholders.
| It's hard not to conclude that Apple leadership is making
| stupid emotional decisions rather than rational ones, which is
| especially dumb when you're running a trillion dollar company.
| maxwell wrote:
| Clearly long past time to fire Tim, Phil, and Craig.
| tempodox wrote:
| My impression is they got used to just bullying everyone into
| submission by virtue of their market power and they found an
| opponent where that won't work. Now everyone can see that the
| emperor has no clothes.
| notaustinpowers wrote:
| I don't think there is a strategy, this is all theater so he
| has some pushback if investors file complaints or lawsuits
| during the next quarterly results meeting. They can't say that
| Tim Cook didn't do everything in his power to make them even
| *more* money.
|
| Since, ultimately, his duty as a CEO is to prioritize the
| financial wealth of shareholders. If he just complied with the
| EU then he'd be voted out by the board by the end of the week.
|
| Is he going overboard? I think so. But I've also never owned a
| $2T+ company with investors and an entire government breathing
| down my neck.
| wvenable wrote:
| > If he just complied with the EU then he'd be voted out by
| the board by the end of the week.
|
| Most companies like Facebook and Microsoft quietly comply
| with the rules as best they can with as little fanfare as
| possible. Maybe after paying a fine or two. As far as I know,
| there hasn't been any oustings because of that.
| notaustinpowers wrote:
| Apple hasn't faced a fine yet for this, so there's really
| no material harm to them for acting like this. And it's
| great theater for shareholders. I'm sure once we get to the
| point where the EU is going to begin issuing fines for DMA
| violations then Apple will change their position.
|
| Microsoft was acting like this in the 90s. I think history
| is just repeating itself with Apple.
| ajross wrote:
| > Microsoft was acting like this in the 90s. I think
| history is just repeating itself with Apple.
|
| So... the difference was Microsoft was winning those
| fights because their enemy was other products in the
| market. They'd tell Dell not to ship Netscape, and Dell
| would yank the product. They'd clone java, and websites
| would code to that to get IE compliance. They'd push
| ActiveX and bribe web properties to implement it, and
| they would. This wasn't fair, but it was at least in some
| sense "competition". (I mean, _eventually_ MS would go on
| to lose control of all those levers, but over decades of
| timescale and generally due to market motion.)
|
| Apple here is just flailing. It's a regulatory action,
| not a competitor. There's no feasible path to beating or
| evading EU law. Surely they know that, right?
| notaustinpowers wrote:
| True, trying to reason why Apple is acting like this is
| just making my head hurt lol
| JanSt wrote:
| Breton asked his team to look into the Epic / Apple case
| with _high priority_ yesterday.
| bzzzt wrote:
| Apple stands to lose a lot more due to the DMA and parties
| like Spotify and Epic are doing everything they can to make
| Apple look bad in the public eye.
| agust wrote:
| I'm not sure Apple needs anyone but itself to look bad.
| zarzavat wrote:
| Microsoft and Google seem to be able to comply without
| publicly embarrassing themselves. Investors are not stupid,
| they understand that companies have to comply with the law.
| This behavior is totally on management. If I were a big
| investor I'd be _more_ worried by this since it seems like
| management are acting irrationally without any plan.
| notaustinpowers wrote:
| Microsoft's compliance is largely to allow for Bing to be
| removed as their built-in search, and ability to uninstall
| Edge. They are also only allowing this within the EU
| market, not globally.
|
| Google just needs to allow for the selection of a default
| browser, provide links in Google search to competing sites
| (which Google will still make money off of with their ad
| delivery network anyway), opt-out option for sharing data
| between YT, Search, Maps, etc. As well as allow outside
| payment processors for apps.
|
| For Microsoft and Google, none of these changes are
| affecting their cash cow. Cloud computing for MS, and ads
| for Google.
|
| These DMA changes are affecting Apple's cash cow, the
| iPhone. and their second largest cash cow, Services and
| IAP. Apple has a LOT more on the line with these DMA
| changes than MS or Google do.
| kevinh wrote:
| DMA does affect Google's ad business. See
| https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/an-
| update...
| xw390111 wrote:
| If it's not this then it's that. I.e.
| https://time.com/6835975/google-gemini-backlash-bias/
|
| None of the large tech companies lack of embarrassment.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| > Since, ultimately, his duty as a CEO is to prioritize the
| financial wealth of shareholders.
|
| I feel like the whole fiduciary responsibility bit is always
| the foundation of terrible arguments. As if every individual
| choice that earns a dollar is therefore forced.
|
| Earning multiple billion dollar fines is not serving
| shareholders. _Sabotaging_ the future is not serving
| shareholders. Destroying goodwill is not serving
| shareholders.
|
| Apple's various tantrums and desperate clutching onto their
| market hasn't remotely been beneficial for the company, and
| I'd argue it is a big reason the company has started
| plateauing. Like how Valve went from being a game maker to
| being a purveyor of gambling crates and keys, Apple is
| desperately pimping for every bit of rent-seeking and service
| fees.
| notaustinpowers wrote:
| I also hate fiduciary responsibility as a foundation for
| arguments, but it is a responsibility that will be 100%
| utilized by any of the shareholders who feel strongly
| enough that Cook didn't do everything in his power to
| generate more money. So it's still something that has to be
| taken into consideration.
|
| > Earning multiple billion-dollar fines is not serving
| shareholders.
|
| Correct, and until Apple is threatened with fines, I
| believe they'll continue doing this until it no longer
| serves them.
|
| I don't find the tantrums to be the cause of the
| plateauing, I think they're a response to it. The iPhone is
| their #1 money-maker (by a massive margin at that), and the
| smartphone market as a whole has been plateauing. That's
| why we've seen a shift over the years towards services,
| which is their #2 money-maker now. When the DMA strongly
| affects both of these revenue streams, tantrums will ensue.
|
| I'm not agreeing that what they're doing is correct, and I
| think it's shitty for a company that I consider the reason
| I got into the dev/design space to begin with to start
| acting like this. But I do see some business logic behind
| why they're doing what they're doing, even when it goes
| against what I know is correct.
| ascorbic wrote:
| I think the board and shareholders probably want them to
| avoid picking needless fights with the world's most powerful
| competition regulator in the week when its most powerful
| regulations went into effect.
| rchaud wrote:
| It works in American courts, where you can file appeal after
| appeal, during which time you don't have to comply with the
| court's original verdict.
| corytheboyd wrote:
| Trying again and again until you get what you want seems to be
| how it works. Seems to be the same for when adversarial change
| causes enough public backlash. Oh no we were called out for
| <bad thing>, let's wait a few months and try again, until it
| gets through unnoticed enough to show up on the radar.
| iamthirsty wrote:
| From DF a few days ago[0] :
|
| > The termination of Epic Games Sweden AB's Apple developer
| account was communicated in a letter from Mark Perry, a lawyer
| representing Apple, to Epic's lawyers:
|
| > Mr. Sweeney's response to that request was wholly insufficient
| and not credible. It boiled down to an unsupported "trust us."
| History shows, however, that Epic is verifiably untrustworthy,
| hence the request for meaningful commitments. And the minimal
| assurances in Mr. Sweeney's curt response were swiftly undercut
| by a litany of public attacks on Apple's policies, compliance
| plan, and business model. As just one example:
| https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1762243725533532587?s=20.
|
| Maybe Tim sent more than a two sentence reply to Phil to get it
| straightened out. It's anyone's guess at this point.
|
| --
|
| [0]:
| https://daringfireball.net/2024/03/apple_epic_developer_acco...
| gglnx wrote:
| More likely that the request for more information on this case
| from the EU commission to Apple triggered the walk back. At
| least the EU Commissioner for the internal market is happy
| about the reverse:
| https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1766167580497117464
| darzu wrote:
| Yikes I hate that Thierry is using "#freefortnite". You can
| be completely on board with the DMA but still see Epic's
| behavior as entirely profit motivated and "freeing Fortnite"
| should not be any official's priority. Epic is not some
| oppressed minority that needs saving.
| lapcat wrote:
| > You can be completely on board with the DMA but still see
| Epic's behavior as entirely profit motivated and "freeing
| Fortnite" should not be any official's priority.
|
| The Digital Markets Act is all about profit-motivated
| businesses. It regulates markets, not charities. It's not
| anti-profit at all, just pro-competition, and Apple was
| attempting to stifle competition.
| bevekspldnw wrote:
| Precisely! This all about market competition which may
| both spur new technologies and lower prices for
| consumers.
|
| The entire point of DMA is to make sure platforms can't
| use lock in to prevent others from joining the market for
| digital goods and services.
|
| What terrifies Apple isn't Fortnite, it's that Epic will
| make a *better* AppStore.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| It's literally a Digital MARKETS Act. Markets are all about
| developing healthy profitable businesses. They certainly
| are not going to be bothered that Epic, a profitable
| business, wants a fair playing field to compete on.
| chaorace wrote:
| Isn't that the functional purpose of hashtags? So that
| people interested in a topic can find information about it?
| Wouldn't this tweet be highly relevant to people searching
| with that tag?
| gamblor956 wrote:
| It's not about Epic. It's about Apple wantonly violating EU
| laws. The target simply happened to be Epic.
|
| That being said: it's probably a good thing it was Epic
| that Apple went after; Apple would probably have gotten
| away with going after a smaller company.
| overgard wrote:
| Every large company is, by nature, amoral. All the pro-
| social stances or whatever are generally just window
| dressing and PR. Individuals can be moral, but for-profit
| corporations past a certain size just are too abstract of
| an entity with too many people of competing interests to
| ascribe morality to. We shouldn't care about intentions,
| just whether they're doing something we agree with or not.
| djfdat wrote:
| While the outcome as it stands might be okay, they should
| still proceed with the request for more information so that
| they can better guard against removal of access in cases that
| they do not agree with.
|
| What's to prevent them from changing their mind and blocking
| Epic again? What if Tim Sweeney says something else to hurt
| Apple's feelings in the future? Apple has too much free rein
| over removing access to this market, and while it may be a
| market that Apple has made, the EU is clearly requiring Apple
| to open up the market for others with the only restrictions
| being those where the app store or the apps themselves are
| damaging to consumers in the marketplace.
| moogly wrote:
| I would posit that Apple is the "untrustworthy" and unhinged
| party here.
| overgard wrote:
| I don't really understand the notion that Sweeney's original
| response was terse or insufficient. He said exactly what needed
| to be said (good faith effort to follow the rules) succinctly
| and professionally. Should he have offered a pinky swear or a
| blood oath? Or an essay pledging his allegiance? I generally
| like Apple and their products but in this instance they came
| across as bitter and petty.
| retskrad wrote:
| Tim Cook managed to be cool calm and diplomatic when dealing with
| Trump and his trade war with China. Why is Tim Cook suddenly
| acting irrational and child-like when dealing with EU? This
| behaviour we're seeing from Apple recently is happening in front
| on investors and everyone else's eyes because Tim Cook is
| personally green-lighting this behaviour. What's going on inside
| Apple? Is it because none of their hardware is growing anymore
| and they don't have an AI strategy to offset their stock which is
| currently in free fall and is about to be bypassesed by nVidia?
| miga wrote:
| EU trust watchdog is less trusting than FTC.
|
| While Mr Perry prefers to parry words before a material blow
| lands, Mr Cook naturally avoids cooking an antitrust case.
| maipen wrote:
| Aside from their spectacular laptops with arm, they seem like
| they are being left behind.
|
| Vision Pro is probably a gimmick along with the whole VR world
| right now, which will change soon too but overall I don't see
| anything exciting about apple.
|
| Their pricing is infuriating and so are their decisions (laptop
| 8gb ram in 2024???)
|
| To me it looks like they got stuck in the "this is what worked
| for us, so let's only do this" mentality and take no risks.
|
| They stand on the shoulders of giants and most importantly on
| their cultural presence...
| rudedogg wrote:
| I'm a mac user at home, and I don't get their AI story/path
| now that they're not supporting AMD/Nvidia GPUs since the
| Apple Silicon transition.
|
| Maybe they'll manage to get LLMs running well locally with
| the new low-bit developments? Not my area. But for
| training/learning it seems like Apple is DOA. They have the
| same problem as AMD, no one is doing research with their
| hardware or software.
|
| Intentionally shipping low RAM/unified memory quantities
| seems short sighted too. Maybe with a 16GB baseline they
| could do something special with local LLMs.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I think you are looking at a very narrow use case and
| deciding that because they do not make a system you'd be
| happy with for your niche use that they are DOA. Someone
| selling just under 6.5 million units of _anything_ seems
| like the opposite of dead to me. Are there vendors selling
| more? Of course, but there are also vendors selling less.
| Not every Mac user cares about AI and training or fine
| tuning a local LLM.
| rudedogg wrote:
| Very true, my needs are niche for sure. But I'm more
| thinking about the near future. AI/LLMs are going to have
| some general applications that users are going to want,
| and will become the norm, and I think it's clear that
| will shake out soon. Apple is at risk of being left
| behind because the only people working on that stuff for
| Apple, work at Apple. Hobbyists and researchers are on
| Linux/Windows for the most part. Software development
| doesn't have such a large platform difference, lots of
| developers use macOS. But ML is different and I think
| they should care.
| FridgeSeal wrote:
| > But ML is different and I think they should care.
|
| It's totally this time I promise, just like, one more
| ~~lane~~ model.
|
| I'm sure they do care. I wouldn't be surprised if they
| land significant support for on-app processing of models,
| they've already got the chip, dropping in local models is
| a sensible next step, and if close to zero effort for
| them.
|
| > LLMs are going to have some general applications that
| users are going to want, and will become the norm
|
| I have yet to see anyone, in my personal or professional
| circles, use any LLM:
|
| - for more than a week
|
| - for anything more than cutesy trivial things.
|
| I'm sure there's people around stapling models into their
| toaster, but this is so far from the normal.
| matwood wrote:
| They missed AI along with everyone else except for OpenAI and
| MS. But, it's hard to say they're being left behind when they
| have products that are the defining product of the category.
| Obviously there's the iPhone, but also AirPods, iPad, and
| Apple Watch.
|
| And the ARM changeover in the laptops has been so seamless,
| people seem to ignore the huge risks with switching
| architectures. And now everyone is chasing them for the same
| power/battery life.
|
| They've had some missteps, but we need a few more years to
| really know if they have been left behind. Apple was never
| one to be first to do something.
| maipen wrote:
| Without a doubt, they have one hell of an engineering team.
|
| After a life on windows and some periods on linux, apple
| managed to refine their os and hardware to the point where
| I can say, it doesn't get in the way and it "just works",
| which, I think, is what most professionals want.
| Keyframe wrote:
| Seems to me they ran course of strategic layout set by Jobs
| and are cruising on play it safe and more of it now. Hence
| wide variety of the sameness in their product offerings. Cook
| is a good operative, but not a strategic visionary. As for
| what's the hot topic about, Apple was always heavy handed,
| only now is the era they got a chance to have that hand be
| real heavy.
| rchaud wrote:
| Because Apple's share price growth now depends on services, not
| cool hardware.
|
| The App Store monopoly generates billions in ad revenue from
| app vendors advertising their apps on search results. That will
| take a huge hit if there's an alternate app store they can
| potentially pay a lot less to gain exposure.
| hardlianotion wrote:
| That didn't take long.
| saagarjha wrote:
| I find it amusing when Apple says they vet their developers and
| block those they don't trust when you can't even trust for them
| to not go through your public comments and bring it up against
| you.
| etchalon wrote:
| You find it amusing that Apple vets their developers by ...
| vetting their developers?
| saagarjha wrote:
| By going through their public comments where they complain
| about what Apple is doing? Sounds like a poor way to vet
| developers.
| DinaCoder99 wrote:
| Vetting them for what? How much abuse they can take?
| apazzolini wrote:
| Getting pretty huge clown face painting meme vibes.
| jajko wrote:
| A childish move, unexpected from such a company like apple
| especially with timing.
|
| Which probably boils down to one overzealous middle/higher
| manager trying too hard to be a good boi for superiors to get
| extra bonus... I don't think it panned as expected. Otherwise
| apple corporate culture is quite rotten.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| There is no way such a decision was not approved by the upper
| echelon of management. That has both legal ramifications and
| monetary for a huge client.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| > A childish move, unexpected from such a company like apple
| especially with timing.
|
| Especially when you add the failed PWA move before, they're
| starting to look pretty bad.
| ssnri wrote:
| I just like nice computers and don't really care about the
| inter-corporate mudslinging.
|
| Now not paying an equal share of tax, on the other hand, is
| criticism I can join in on.
| evilduck wrote:
| Serious question, what PWAs are worth using on Android that
| don't work on iOS?
| rchaud wrote:
| It's not about whether it's worth using, it's about
| having the mere option of building an app without the
| overhead of paying developer fees to Apple.
| evilduck wrote:
| So it's not about PWAs at all then, it's just a handy
| complaint?
| spogbiper wrote:
| I don't think we can really know the potential of PWA,
| since most developers aren't going to put effort into
| PWAs if they won't work for a big chunk of the market.
| Apple is effectively strangling the technology on all
| platforms by refusing to support it on theirs.
| evilduck wrote:
| If PWAs had any merit at all, why would anyone build a
| native Android app today where all these magic features
| are inhibited?
|
| What's actually missing that's stopping this from
| working?
| beeboobaa wrote:
| > What's actually missing that's stopping this from
| working?
|
| Proper support on all platforms. No point working on PWAs
| that have janky tooling (reason: see previous sentence)
| when they're only going to work decently on Android
| devices anyway.
| lapcat wrote:
| The Epic blog post shows emails with Phil Schiller and Craig
| Federighi. This was all approved by upper management.
| maxwell wrote:
| Those are the two that seem like pure poison.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| It was mind-blowing to me that in previous threads, Apple
| fanatics were defending Apple, saying that Epic had broken the
| developer agreement. It hadn't. Schiller clearly stated that he
| banned Epic because he didn't believe Sweeney when Sweeney
| literally said that he would abide by the agreement. I don't
| see this behavior with any other company.
| anonymouse008 wrote:
| Not trying to start a flame war, I'm asking this earnestly. Where
| does this command over hardware (USB-C mandate), software
| (sideloading/AppStore), and prices (recent 2bn decision) end?
| koolba wrote:
| You want to sell in their house, you gotta play by their rules.
| It's that simple.
| HacklesRaised wrote:
| If only it were that simple!! Isn't the central problem that
| you're not allowed to sell in anybody elses house. I mean, if
| you're prepared to accept that you are leasing the device and
| that the lease will dictate what you can add can't do with
| the device, then I think your position holds, otherwise, it's
| a little tenuous.
| jprete wrote:
| I interpreted the parent comment as referring to the EU's
| house and rules?
| pmontra wrote:
| Their house is in part in the EU so they have to play by the
| rules of the EU there, or remove that part of the house.
| grishka wrote:
| It's not their house. Someone bought an iPhone (not leased,
| bought, they own it now). Someone else made an app that that
| person wants to install on their iPhone (solely thanks to app
| developer's own marketing efforts). But Apple thinks it's
| appropriate to have their finger in the pie too.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| Now there are fewer (or none) apple followers defending the
| old argument: Apple is entitled to profit for their
| platform. Thank EU for Striking some sense on that.
| Aloisius wrote:
| Nobody bought the Apple SDKs or OS though and every app
| depends on them.
|
| I get people are use to free, but plenty of companies
| license software for royalties that does a lot less.
| its_ethan wrote:
| Does apple having designed, developed, and manufactured the
| phone as well as having built, maintained, and serviced the
| App store mean nothing?
|
| The App store is a highly trusted place to download things
| on your phone, and that's a value that apple provides and
| that costs money to maintain. Pretending that it's as
| isolated as you pretend feels very disingenuous.
| tebbers wrote:
| This argument is trotted out frequently and it misses the
| point. These are NOT Apple's customers. Yes they bought the
| phone from Apple but they are Epic's customers. No one wants
| Apple inserting themselves in the middle of the transaction.
| It is not necessary.
| radley wrote:
| If it were really that simple, we'd all be leasing AT&T cell
| phones. The only reason Apple can sell iPhones and run an app
| store is because AT&T got broken up 40 years ago for similar
| issues.
| bondarchuk wrote:
| Why would it end? Governance is a continuing process.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| When devices aren't sold in the EU. If it's sold in the EU, the
| EU can regulate that model.
| mopsi wrote:
| It ends when Apple learns to balance the interests of their
| shareholders and the interests of their customers better. I
| would go as far as saying that the way Apple banned even any
| mention of alternative payment methods for in-app services was
| clearly abusive and faudulent.
| qeternity wrote:
| > It ends when Apple learns to balance the interests of their
| shareholders and the interests of their customers better.
|
| The interests of their shareholders are literally the
| interests of their customers.
|
| Apple makes incredible products, that billions of people pay
| significant money for, with many competitors that are much
| cheaper. Their shareholders reap the rewards of this.
|
| If Apple customers hated Apple, they would not be Apple
| customers, and Apple would not be one of the most valuable
| businesses in human history.
| mopsi wrote:
| > The interests of their shareholders are literally the
| interests of their customers.
|
| There would be no need hide information from customers if
| that was true. Their censorship, the fact that Apple
| desperately wants to hide what they are doing, is very
| revealing and incriminating.
| qeternity wrote:
| What information are they hiding/censoring?
| KomoD wrote:
| It shouldn't end, we shouldn't let them do whatever they want.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Not where, when. And the answer is never, because the EU
| regulates what companies themselves either can't regulate
| themselves because no one's willing to adopt the other's
| standard, or there's a position of dominance that doesn't even
| require collaborating with anyone else. And they do that for a
| pretty simple reason: to ensure that businesses do right by the
| EU citizenship.
|
| And they do that across _all_ sectors of industry, you only
| noticed the tech one because it's in the news you pay attention
| to, but everything from farming to textiles to tech to
| pharmaceuticals are heavily regulated so that the people that
| live in the EU can enjoy a reasonable standard of living.
| mik1998 wrote:
| In Europe unlike in America the government makes regulations
| that benefit the general public. That's it.
| Vespasian wrote:
| That's probably to generalised since the EU is still a
| political entity with lots of lobbying from different sides.
|
| But in this case benefiting the general public is easy
| because it does not hit a European company ( production in
| China, development in America) that is working hard to
| extract money which it sends abroad while avoiding paying
| taxes here (probably legally).
|
| A good opportunity to reign Apple and friends in and score
| some "greater good" points in particular since the US
| government is also sceptical and mostly concerned with
| internal affairs at the moment.
| Muromec wrote:
| Different sides there being Microsoft.
| dale_glass wrote:
| Why should it end? So far it's awesome.
| lozenge wrote:
| Where does the command over minimum wages, minimum maternity
| leave and minimum consumer warranty end?
|
| Where democracy decides it ends.
| ziddoap wrote:
| Apple is in the wrong here, at least in my opinion, but
| equating the ability to have a 2nd app store on your iPhone
| and the end of democracy is... wow.
|
| Edit: Misread the comment, sorry.
| Negitivefrags wrote:
| He didn't say anything about the end of democracy.
| Apparently the media zeitgeist is so strong with this now
| that even just saying "Democracy" triggers the thought.
|
| All he said is that it's the democratically elected
| officals that decide what laws companies have to obey. Just
| as they decide everything else about what what laws people
| have to obey.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _He didn 't say anything about the end of democracy._
|
| You're right! I misread.
|
| > _Apparently the media zeitgeist is so strong with this
| now that even just saying "Democracy" triggers the
| thought._
|
| Or I just misread the comment.
| eaglefield wrote:
| I'm no lawyer, but it seems like it ends and begins at wanting
| to sell in the european market. It doesn't seem that different
| from mandating that cars obey certain emission standards,
| contain digital radios etc. Or how food packaging contain
| nutritional information. Mandating 2-year guarantees for sold
| goods. There's quite a lot of legislation on specific
| requirements on sold goods.
|
| One can argue whether this specific legislation is wise, but
| legally i don't think there's any limit to what the EU can
| mandate for goods sold in their market.
| ygjb wrote:
| Ideally, as a consumer, in a market where commodity computer
| hardware is not arbitrarily restricted to extract the maximum
| attainable profit from consumers? It has been shown time and
| again that both volunteers and competitors can quickly and
| easily build and ship software, including entire OS's that run
| on the hardware, the only thing preventing them from doing so
| is anti-consumer and anti-competitive controls.
|
| It's asinine that I, as a consumer, can pay over $1000 for a
| device and not be able to choose which software I can run on it
| because the developer of that device locks out access. It's
| even worse that the company I bought it from can arbitrarily
| disable the device, features, and services that I have paid
| for, and I have little to no recourse.
| zarzavat wrote:
| The USB-C mandate is nothing to do with Apple. It's ensure
| interoperability and reduce waste.
|
| Setting standards is one of the oldest forms of regulation,
| ever since weights and measures were standardized to ensure
| people could trade more easily, ensuring that when you bought a
| pound of flour from one vendor it would be the same pound as
| the vendor across the street.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| It probably ends with happy consumers :) At least, I'm very
| happy that the EU is trying to avert the worst anticompetitive
| behaviour and restoring my control over the hardware that I
| purchased.
| rchaud wrote:
| If enough shareholders vote in favour of Apple leaving the EU
| and its overbearing regulations, that's when it would end.
|
| They won't because they know Apple exiting would simply hand
| the market to those that can bear the harsh yoke of consumer
| regulation.
| skydhash wrote:
| I think tech, particularly the digital landscape, is one of
| the few industry that are not regulated. Everything else from
| transport to food has strict regulation. It's not like anyone
| can build housing whenever and however he wants in the US.
| Aldo_MX wrote:
| It won't end, Apple is too big now, the alternatives are:
| 1. Split Apple into smaller companies 2. Operate Apple
| like an utility company
|
| They did this to themselves, and it's only downhill from this
| point.
| qeternity wrote:
| > They did this to themselves
|
| What...by being successful?
| Aldo_MX wrote:
| No, by being anti-competitive. Most countries have laws
| against monopolies, and it was naive to expect that
| countries would wait until you destroy the competition to
| enforce those laws.
| qeternity wrote:
| > Most countries have laws against monopolies
|
| They have less than 25% smartphone marketshare. What
| monopoly do they have?
| Vespasian wrote:
| They don't.
|
| That's why the regulation targets "gatekeepers" with
| revenue in the billions and at least 45Million European
| users.
|
| The EU decided that this is large enough to be limited in
| what they can do.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| It is curious that there are no European gatekeepers
| either.
| Muromec wrote:
| Yes. It's the reality of capitalistic end game. You start
| with a great product, innovate for 30 years and then when
| you think you got it and can endlessly extract the rent
| from the market, while adding another megapixel and
| megaherz and buying out or bulling competitors, then the
| government knocks on your door and gives you the award of
| the biggest asshat in the town and asks to retire.
|
| Congrats, you won, now let somebody else play the game and
| become a boring public utility. And by the way, your
| research lab is now a public university. And the taxes is
| what government does, not you.
| skydhash wrote:
| > And the taxes is what government does, not you.
|
| Because the role of the government (in theory) is to use
| these taxes for public utility services and projects.
| Companies only care about their owners and shareholders,
| a very small subset of the population. If you're not
| contributing to society, but just profiteering, you
| should retire. Especially if your position lead you to
| have a say to what succeed or not in the economy.
| KomoD wrote:
| > Split Apple into smaller companies
|
| Curious, how would you split them up? A lot of their stuff is
| very intertwined, I guess Beats, Shazam are easy to split
| into their own, but the rest?
| Aldo_MX wrote:
| My expectation is that a government would do an
| investigation first, but I believe that a split would look
| like this: - The computing hardware company
| - The accessory hardware company - The operating
| system company - The software company - The
| cloud services company - The app store company
| - The music & video company - The messaging company
|
| So yeah, a split looks scary.
| Muromec wrote:
| For starters, it's Apple the phone making company, Apple
| the software making company and Apple the (software)
| distribution company. The cloud, the payment processing,
| the bank whatever else is there.
|
| They can still be quite integrated, they just have to a
| allow a different distribution company compete without
| using the phone company's monopoly as a leverage against
| them and not use distribution company as a leverage to
| compete with other software developers i.e. pay the same
| 30% fee, bid for promotion in the store and use fair
| ranking in the search.
|
| It's not the first time a huge corp gets split up once they
| reach end game and can't innovate in their own field
| anymore.
| justinclift wrote:
| Personally, I've like to get the old audio jack socket added
| back to iPhones and laptops.
|
| Maybe that's just me though. ;)
| layer8 wrote:
| Where smartphones end effectively being a public utility, is my
| guess.
| etchalon wrote:
| Please stop picking stupid fights, Apple. You keep losing them.
| beejiu wrote:
| What's the catch? (Given they tried to destroy PWAs in their last
| tantrum.)
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| No catch, just the threat of "and if you keep trying to violate
| EU law, we're going to keep levying billion dollar fines on you
| until you either obey the law, or you cease all operations in
| Europe. Which will get you sued some more because you're still
| on the hook for support after you leave"
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| > "Following conversations with Epic, they have committed to
| follow the rules, including our DMA policies. As a result,
| Epic Sweden AB has been permitted to re-sign the developer
| agreement and accepted into the Apple Developer Program."
|
| It's more like the EC told both sides to get some adults in
| the room and work it out. Since they clearly didn't force
| Apple to change any rules and Epic agreed to follow Apple's
| rules, I have no idea where all this chest-beating is coming
| from. Apple is still winning and the EC is still feckless.
| Vespasian wrote:
| The EC heavily hinted at swift enforcement and it's most
| likely that Apple retreated after that.
|
| So technically they "worked it out" but only after a
| "parent" threatened to send them to bed without dinner.
| Hamuko wrote:
| They'll try harder to find an excuse next time.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Given that the EU is now making laws that are purposely
| designed to target them specifically, good luck with that.
| Vespasian wrote:
| In the best case they are learning that, due to their own
| behaviour, they are now sharing custody of the EU app store
| with an adminstrative bureocracy.
|
| But I suspect it'll take them more time until it fully sinks
| and until they are done testing their new boundaries.
|
| Well done.
| iwontberude wrote:
| So happy to see the will of elected officials usurp a
| multinational. There is literally nothing to dislike about
| this.
| Muromec wrote:
| Oh horror, the laws exist and apply to a trillion dollar
| company! How tragic and terrible. Anyways...
| jachee wrote:
| I can't even tell if I should apply Poe's Law here.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| You should probably do a few cuts with Hanlon's Razor in this
| case.
|
| The simplest explanation for what happened with Apple this past
| few weeks is that there's no master plan. The EU told them the
| rules, they didn't take them seriously, now they're realizing a
| bit late that they can't afford not to respect the rules and
| they're scrambling to figure out what that means.
| CatWChainsaw wrote:
| I never give any Big Tech with nation-state influence the
| benefit of the doubt. This is a legal/PR stress test. They
| failed this one, but they won't fail others.
| Animats wrote:
| Well, that was quick.
| marcinzm wrote:
| > And the minimal assurances in Mr. Sweeney's curt response were
| swiftly undercut by a litany of public attacks on Apple's
| policies, compliance plan, and business model.
|
| So according to Apple [edit] one isn't allowed to say bad things
| about a company publicly or they are allowed to ban your account?
| Interesting view.
| iamthirsty wrote:
| > So according to DF
|
| I don't really think that's according to DF, more so Apple.
| terhechte wrote:
| At least in the U.S. business owners have the right to refuse
| service or turn away a customer to protect their patrons and
| business.
|
| That's the issue with all these providers. Every couple of
| weeks there's a story from someone whose Google account was
| suddenly closed with no way to access their emails or pictures
| again.
| usr1106 wrote:
| Yes, and that's why monopolies must die, in practice desolved
| by governments.
|
| Once you buy a smartphone today you and everybody who wants
| to do further business with you are at the mercy of a
| monopolist. For Apple 100%, for Google only 98% because you
| could side-load. But not a secure and practical solution
| today.
| adastra22 wrote:
| I don't think monopoly is the right word here.
| subw00f wrote:
| Yeah, duopoly is a better word.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Maybe, in the context of smartphones as a whole. In the
| context of the App Store (which TFA is about), Apple is a
| gatekeeper and this is an instance of vendor-lockin.
| Technically not the same as a monopoly (because, as you
| mention, you can always use Android).
| criddell wrote:
| How about oligopolist?
| Vespasian wrote:
| True. I like the term "gatekeeper" the EU defines and
| uses.
|
| Combined with the "must be very big" requirement it
| better fits what is going on in the tech world.
| usr1106 wrote:
| Vendor lock-in is what wecall it in the IT-sector.
| usr1106 wrote:
| So you change your smartphone every time you are not
| happy with Apple or Google Android?
|
| Yes, you have a choice once every couple of years while
| you might want to install an app several times a year.
| Free markets would also be the wrong word to describe the
| situation.
| leereeves wrote:
| I think monopoly is the right word because their really
| are two markets.
|
| A customer is only looking for either iOS or Android
| apps, and isn't going to choose an Android app if they
| have an iPhone, or vice versa (IOW, iOS apps don't
| compete with Android apps).
|
| Imagine only one company sold diesel fuel, and only one
| sold gasoline. Wouldn't you say they each had a monopoly?
| adastra22 wrote:
| This is an example of vendor lockin, which is a troubling
| practice that needs to be stopped, but it is legally and
| practically distinct from monopoly as defined in
| antitrust legislation.
| leereeves wrote:
| We shouldn't limit our use of language based on laws
| written 100 years ago. It's pretty clear that those laws
| are inadequate to restrain the monopolies that exist now.
|
| Said another way, you might be right about US antitrust
| law, but when that law was written the technology didn't
| exist to create "vendor lock-in" on millions of products
| at once.
|
| I am curious about the example though, from a legal
| perspective. Would the only seller of gasoline have a
| monopoly, even if other fuels were available, and the
| only barrier to using them was the switching cost of
| buying a new vehicle?
|
| Edit: For what it's worth, wikipedia uses the word
| monopoly when "a single vendor controls the market for
| the method or technology being locked in to".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
| adastra22 wrote:
| It's not a monopoly though. My point is that there is a
| relevant technical difference, and we should be accurate
| in the words that we use.
| philistine wrote:
| The fact that every single company that wants to run code
| on my device needs to be in the good graces of Apple
| makes no sense.
|
| Why can I run code Apple loathes on my Mac ?
| bee_rider wrote:
| You are correct, although there's plenty of room for
| Apple to engage in evil anti-competitive behavior without
| having a monopoly over any sanely defined market. EU
| regulators seem to think they've crossed that threshold!
| 015a wrote:
| Right; I think the correct frame is, major operating
| systems are _utilities_. They must be regulated the same
| way that all systemically important utilities are
| regulated; heavily. Monopolies are natural, and arguably
| desirable, with utilities; but they need to be subject to
| extremely strong regulation to maintain the right
| balance.
|
| The DMA was always phrased from the wrong perspective
| (which is just classic EU, they literally cannot ever get
| regulation right). The correct phrasing is: once a
| computer operating system achieves a certain level of
| market adoption (say, 50M+ active installations), it is
| designated as a systemically critical operating system.
| Among other regulations, one thing systemically critical
| operating systems must allow is the independent and
| unrestricted installation and execution of applications
| from the internet.
|
| Regulating the market (App Store) itself is just dumb.
| Apple should not be forced to have Epic Games as a
| customer. It destroys trust in the App Store's review
| process, and legitimately does from my perspective
| infringe on Apple's rights as a business to do business
| with partners as they please. There's a gulf of
| difference between "forcing the App Store to distribute
| some application" and "allowing that application to be
| freely distributed on the internet". Regulation should be
| specifically targeted toward the second situation; and
| leave the App Store alone.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The power of Apple and Google is literally monopoly
| power. As in, government-granted copyright and patents
| that allow the holders to restrain the conduct of
| competitors.
|
| Decades ago people were crying out against it, but nobody
| with power listened because they thought we just wanted
| to steal music[0]. Well, we did, but that didn't make us
| wrong. Now the world economy is owned by a handful of
| oligopolist-elected dictators who have maximally
| exploited the laws in question to make meaningful
| competition literally illegal.
|
| No, seriously, try and ship a phone without big tech's
| blessing. It won't work. Hell, Amazon and Microsoft both
| tried and failed. Everyone only writes apps for Google
| Play and iOS, and any attempt to make them work elsewhere
| is a criminal felony.
|
| [0] To be clear, their real concern was finding ways to
| legally bind China to pay us for "our IP" on pain of
| being shut out of world markets. Dictatorship is fractal.
| galleywest200 wrote:
| It is a double-edged sword. A right to refuse service is
| great when you have an unruly patron in a pub or restaurant
| that is ruining the evening for everybody else. But on the
| other side it is really easy for a company like Google to
| just kill your smaller company because they decided they do
| not want to allow you access to an account anymore.
| gopher_space wrote:
| One of the more enjoyable aspects of this whole issue is
| watching people with a vested political interest in Apple's
| fundamental point of view criticize their dealings with
| Epic.
| autoexec wrote:
| > But on the other side it is really easy for a company
| like Google to just kill your smaller company because they
| decided they do not want to allow you access to an account
| anymore.
|
| It sounds like the problem isn't Google being able to
| refuse service, but instead that Google doing that has the
| power to kill your smaller company. No one company should
| be allowed to have the power to decide which companies live
| or die.
| thegrimmest wrote:
| If you found a company that depends on Google APIs or
| products, that's a risk your company carries. I don't see
| why we need legislative intervention to mitigate such
| risks.
|
| If I founded a company that specializes in manufacturing
| Pokemon toys under contract, and Nintendo (for whatever
| reason) pulls the contract, it's perfectly normal for the
| business to no longer be viable and to be liquidated.
| amelius wrote:
| Rules should be different if you're running a platform. A
| platform is essentially a market within the free market, so
| special regulative care is required.
| IncandescentGas wrote:
| This is very problematic when monopolies are involved. "You
| are banned from Taco Bell for the rest of your life" is very
| different from "You are banned from all restaurants anywhere
| for the rest of your life."
|
| If all restaurants are Taco Bell, is it reasonable to allow
| such bans by taco bell?
| giantrobot wrote:
| Actual monopolies (utility companies forex) are required to
| do business with people. Utility companies which almost
| always are regional monopolies have to deal with customers
| so long as bills are paid. There's also processes for
| halting service in the case of non-payment. The utility
| can't cut your power because you were mean to them on
| Twitter.
|
| Apple is not a monopoly anywhere on the planet and has no
| such requirement.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| As was said, this is normal in the US. Private businesses can
| refuse service to anyone for any reason. There's that paint
| color that is allowed to be used by all but one person because
| the inventor doesn't like them.
|
| On the other hand, I'm definitely not saying this is okay or
| sane just because it's standard practice in the US. It's also
| how we got legalized segregation and we had to pass laws
| carving out exceptions to create protected classes such that
| you're not allowed to refuse service because a person is black,
| for instance. Just doing this splintered the country and
| created the modern GOP with its southern strategy.
|
| So it's nice to see these large web companies having to respect
| the laws of other jurisdictions and not just the US with its
| hallowed history of property rights over all else, going all
| the way back to chattel slavery. If the EU can force saner
| norms on the web, I'm all for it.
| justin66 wrote:
| > Private businesses can refuse service to anyone for any
| reason.
|
| There are enough really obvious counterexamples to that
| statement that I wonder why you'd write it.
| UberFly wrote:
| Any that's just the first sentence.
| soulbadguy wrote:
| Indeed. I think this "Private businesses can refuse service
| to anyone for any reason." as been repeated so many times,
| that a lot of people think of it almost as a tautology.
|
| In particular in this case, we have many pass example where
| even in the US, companies have be found to violate anti
| trusts law be either refusing or strongly conditioning
| doing business with a third-party.
| basil-rash wrote:
| Like the ones they went into in the following sentence?
| bee_rider wrote:
| Hey now, they'd have to read all the way to the second
| paragraph to get to the nuance. You can't expect people
| to read two paragraphs before starting to argue.
| justin66 wrote:
| Contradicting yourself isn't "nuance," it's bad writing.
| krisoft wrote:
| > There's that paint color that is allowed to be used by all
| but one person because the inventor doesn't like them.
|
| I think you mean Black 3.0 (or the other versions from the
| same artist) which cannot be used by Anish Kapoor.
|
| Worth nothing that the artist making that paint is british
| and not american.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > So according to Apple [edit] one isn't allowed to say bad
| things about a company publicly or they are allowed to ban your
| account? Interesting view.
|
| No, according to Apple, they believed Epic was going to violate
| their developer agreement again, and when they asked Sweeney
| for a commitment he sent them a two sentence email. His public
| actions were only a modifier on top of his seeming lack of
| committal and previous history of being a bad actor on Apple's
| platform.
|
| Spotify says bad things about Apple all the time, but they've
| never been banned because they've never violated Apple's rules.
| kbf wrote:
| I'm not defending Apple's stance here, but I think the point
| they were making is that Epic had already admitted to
| intentionally breaking their previous agreements with Apple for
| their own gain. The court then ruled that Apple could ban Epic
| for any reason. Sweeney essentially called the new terms
| illegitimate while at the same time entering a new agreement
| where those terms applied to Epic. It's somewhat understandable
| that, when seeing that, Apple would not trust Epic to not
| intentionally break the rules again.
|
| I personally think it's silly to believe that Apple cares even
| a little about Epic's criticism. They probably thought they had
| a legitimate case that would let them stomp out a potential big
| App Store competitor before it could get off the ground.
| modeless wrote:
| They believed in good faith that Apple's terms were illegal.
| There is nothing wrong with breaking an illegal contract.
| Yes, they lost in court but it wasn't a foregone conclusion.
| Apple's continuing retaliation is petty and likely to get
| them in trouble.
| abduhl wrote:
| But Apple's terms and contract weren't illegal.
| modeless wrote:
| Actually they were, partially
| BurningFrog wrote:
| The main point made is "Epic is verifiably untrustworthy".
| You're quoting a secondary factor.
| astlouis44 wrote:
| Amazing how fast this decision was reversed. It's truly awesome
| to see regulators standing up to walled gardens. This will
| greatly benefit both developers and consumers.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| This is one of those things where there is only upside for
| everyone involved.
|
| Apple (and Google) need to be saved from themselves sometimes.
|
| Meanwhile the repeated reversals are making Apple look guilty
| and nefarious.
| toneyG wrote:
| Apple and Google are for-profit corporations. Im sure they
| would protest that they don't need saving
| throwaway14356 wrote:
| I want an iphone but if they want to end the industry i
| cant buy one
| Aldo_MX wrote:
| Then buy 51% of shares, do a hostile takeover and stop
| their anti-competitive madness before it is too late.
|
| You don't need to do radical changes, just small actions
| like do not steal the tips students send to teachers.
|
| Going full-goblin mode and demanding 30% of all the money
| that moves through a phone is what is destroying Apple.
| autoexec wrote:
| Students are tipping teachers now? Tipping culture really
| has gone off the rails.
| mass_and_energy wrote:
| Can someone please explain how this isn't bribery in
| disguise? I'd have graduated with honors if my teachers
| accepted tips
| willcipriano wrote:
| If you tip enough they even put your name on one of the
| buildings.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| They aren't a single person. There are no doubt people in
| those orgs who might wish to do away with all the
| anticompetitive strongarmsmanship in the spirit of shared
| technological innovation. But, its not like they have
| agency to change anything and the shareholders just want a
| growth stock not actual technological progress, so thats
| how they end up managed.
| hinkley wrote:
| A lot more ideological fights boil down to internal
| factions pushing things one way or the other than one
| would think.
|
| Smart people can make mischief visible or invisible
| without necessarily getting caught defecting or
| cooperating.
|
| Oops did I draw that regulator's attention to the room
| where we keep the bodies? Silly me.
| blackbear_ wrote:
| I must be missing something, how does the second sentence
| logically follow from the first one?
| tjoff wrote:
| Yeah we get to choose between google and apple. Lucky us...
| biscuitech wrote:
| Would you rather have no choice?
|
| I get the sentiment, but it's nice to finally have
| lawmakers and regulators standing for what's right - for
| once.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Aren't regulators by definition establishing regulations
| which make all choices _more similar_ to each other?
| dwattttt wrote:
| More similar in that they force them to obey the
| regulations, yes. But regulations cover things like
| interoperability & anti-competitive behaviour, and here
| retaliatory actions. I'd very much like _all_ choices to
| be forced to behave the same w.r.t. not being able to
| retaliate against protected action, or all be forced to
| follow the same laws.
| wredue wrote:
| Sure. In the same way that all sports are similar in that
| most have regulations against fighting.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| Other titans tried, they all failed to capture. Blackberry
| lagged for too long and Microsoft simply lacked the network
| effects since early advertisement was based on how large
| the app stores were.
|
| The only solace is that you can modify Android to the point
| where there's almost no Google interference whatsoever. But
| of course some apps choose to rely on that (e.g.
| Banking).maybe one day Apple will begrudgingly get to that
| point.
| znpy wrote:
| > Microsoft simply lacked the network effects
|
| Microsoft execs had their heads buried too deep in their
| own asses to be able to understand what was needed at the
| time.
|
| They pushed a platform (Windows phone) that lacked
| interesting features out of the box, lacked cloud
| services integration to fill the gap left by the lacking
| base features, and required Windows as a development
| platform (and, iirc, C# as well?). It didn't even have
| any particular windows-ecosystem speciality: no special
| exchange integration, no special windows pc integration,
| nothing. Microsoft could have exploited the same reasons
| they exploited with Azure, Office365 and the general
| enterprise: microsoft phones should just integrates
| _perfectly_ with other microsoft stuff. It could have
| been the no-brainer choice: we use ActiveDirectory and
| Office365 as a suite, we 'll get a Windows Phones as
| everything just works _immediately_. No, nobody had
| thought of that.
|
| The value proposition was just not there.
|
| So basically another walled garden, but dumber. And the
| hardware didn't have anything special to make it "worth".
| amluto wrote:
| > Microsoft simply lacked the network effects
|
| MS beat Apple to market by a considerable margin. Windows
| Mobile substantially predates the iPhone, and it was
| actually usable. (I had one of their flagship devices.)
|
| But MS's OS concept was incoherent, their UI was laggy,
| their web browser was unbearably slow despite arguably
| superior hardware, their form factor was not snazzy. And,
| unlike Apple, they utterly failed at marketing to
| consumers.
|
| Also, Apple out their foot down against carrier nonsense,
| so Apple users didn't have to deal with $14.99/mo for
| Verizon Location or whatever they called it. (Although,
| to be fair, the original iPhone didn't have GPS.
| Blackberry had far superior hardware at the time and
| really ought to have been able to compete, but they
| didn't.)
|
| By the time the App Store showed up, it was pretty clear
| that Apple was beating MS.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| According to the article it was because Epic met with Apple and
| gave better assurances that they'd play ball rather than
| deliberately break their contract like they did last time.
|
| Regulators don't seem to have had anything to do with it.
|
| ---
|
| So what changed? Apple tells 9to5Mac that it has held further
| discussions with Epic. The result is that Apple has received
| proper commitment that Epic will play by the rules as legally
| defined.
|
| "Following conversations with Epic, they have committed to
| follow the rules, including our DMA policies. As a result, Epic
| Sweden AB has been permitted to re-sign the developer agreement
| and accepted into the Apple Developer Program."
| sharikous wrote:
| Honestly what you describe seems to be an attempt by Apple PR
| to save face.
|
| They fear the spotlight on the fact that even on alternate
| stores only accounts controlled by Apple can publish apps,
| which might become the focus of new regulations
| tebbers wrote:
| There's no way that the EU permits Apple to control this
| going forwards.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Regulators immediately started calling for an investigation
| and we're going to look into Apple's termination of Epic's
| developer account as a matter of priority.
| andruby wrote:
| I'd like to believe that, and it's probably true. Do you
| have a source though?
| donatzsky wrote:
| The EU did say that they would look into this. Several
| articles in all the usual places. Doubt they got far
| enough to actually consider a fine, though.
| stale2002 wrote:
| https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1765793776692326
| 891
|
| This is the EU commissioner.
| rezonant wrote:
| It's linked from TFA in the More section.
|
| https://9to5mac.com/2024/03/08/apple-threaten-epic-
| illegal/
| ben_w wrote:
| Two days ago I wrote that didn't fully trust Epic's version
| of the events posted on EpicGames.com, and by the same logic
| I'm sure not going to trust Apple's version as posted to
| 9to5Mac.com
|
| """Even with screenshots, and assuming no false claims (which
| IIRC are entirely legal so long as you don't swear under
| oath), there's plenty of ways to mislead by omission while
| saying only true things.""" -- works just as well in either
| direction.
|
| Regulators have to look closely, if they take it on trust
| it's one Tim's word vs. the others'.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39620099
| mike_d wrote:
| > I wrote that didn't fully trust Epic's version of the
| events posted on EpicGames.com, and by the same logic I'm
| sure not going to trust Apple's version
|
| This fallacy plays out a lot in politics. "Epic has lied in
| the past, so all parties involved must be lying."
| ncr100 wrote:
| > According to the article it was because [...]
|
| Not fully the truth, however -- according to APPLE, who are
| quoted in this one article. Tim Sweeny tweeted that the
| change was due to the EU DMA political proponents applying
| pressure to Apple.
|
| The truth is not known, and it's not limited to Apple's side.
| znpy wrote:
| > Regulators don't seem to have had anything to do with it.
|
| This smells, you know? The timing is just so precise to be a
| coincidence.
| g051051 wrote:
| It's unlikely that "regulators" had anything to do with it,
| given the quick resolution. I'd be more inclined to think that
| Epic went back to Apple hat-in-hand and begged to be let back
| in, probably promising to muzzle Sweeney.
| agust wrote:
| Sure, Apple takes a strong decision which breaks a just-
| enforced law, and two days later they back down because they
| had a nice talk with Epic. /s
|
| The EU told Apple that breaking the law would have dire
| consequences. That's the only reason Apple backed down.
|
| Stop spreading Apple propaganda.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| It's good scrutiny to have, but I'm surprised that there
| are now at leat 3 users here that really believe that Apple
| reversed course in 3 days out of the goodness of their
| hearts. I can't even get a response from many customer
| services in 3 days. No company thst big turns on a dime
| without extreme arm twisting.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Very unlikely, knowing who Sweeney is. And he is pretty much
| in control of Epic.
| sigmar wrote:
| >It's unlikely that "regulators" had anything to do with it,
| given the quick resolution.
|
| Disagree. EU regulators act quickly. Here's the commissioner
| for Internal Market of the Eu: "I take note with satisfaction
| that following our contacts Apple decided to backtrack its
| decision on Epic exclusion. From Day 2, #DMA is already
| showing very concrete results!"
| https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1766167580497117464
| albert180 wrote:
| Yes very unlikely, that Apple didn't want to try out the new
| 10% penalty of global turnover, after the commission said she
| is looking into it and days after Apple was bonked with a
| 1.8bn fine for violating antitrust regulations
| nielsbot wrote:
| From the article
|
| > "Following conversations with Epic, they have committed to
| follow the rules, including our DMA policies. As a result, Epic
| Sweden AB has been permitted to re-sign the developer agreement
| and accepted into the Apple Developer Program."
| mike_d wrote:
| This needs to be higher up. Apple didn't budge, or cave, and
| regulators did not get involved.
|
| Epic could have avoided all this by just responding to Apple
| and signing the EU Addendum affirming they would stick to the
| laws. Instead they wanted to get into the news cycle.
|
| This is the policy they have to agree to: https://developer.a
| pple.com/contact/request/download/alterna...
| lxgr wrote:
| Regulators did get involved: https://twitter.com/ThierryBre
| ton/status/1765793776692326891
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| And news article https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-
| regulators-seek-detail...
|
| Includes the tweet as well as confirmation they that the
| commission did talk to Apple on Thursday
| mike_d wrote:
| He tweeted something. There was some reporting he might
| have sent a letter asking questions too, the same as you
| or I could do.
|
| If any official action was taken it would have to be
| documented with a case: https://digital-markets-act-
| cases.ec.europa.eu/search
| agust wrote:
| Yes, the EU immediately stepped in and explained them what
| the consequences of breaking the law would be, and Apple
| budged, caved, backed down. Not getting out of this one.
| agust wrote:
| This is Apple's propaganda to try and save face. What
| happened is the EU stepped in and explained to them what the
| consequences of breaking the DMA would be.
|
| Apple backed down, like they did a week ago with PWAs.
| overgard wrote:
| Definitely just Apple trying to save face. Without the threat
| of fines and lengthy legal proceedings Apple would not have
| cared about "epic's commitment to follow the rules"
| znpy wrote:
| Imagine if the US had equivalent regulators as well...
| mike_d wrote:
| We would all be carrying around government approved Windows
| Mobile phones.
|
| Remember all this DMA stuff is coming from the same
| organization that wants to force Chrome and Firefox to accept
| TLS certificates issued by governments for any website they
| want: https://therecord.media/eu-urged-to-drop-law-website-
| authent...
| larodi wrote:
| I, for once, love living in the EU
| mmastrac wrote:
| "for one" or "for once"?
| UberFly wrote:
| Finally. One thing they can truely appreciate.
| recursive wrote:
| Truely or truly?
| geodel wrote:
| I think they meant once. Besides digital lollipops what else
| is going so great in EU? jobs? economic growth? housing?
| immigration?
| davedx wrote:
| Quality of life, work-life balance, good schools, good
| transport, lots of consumer protections, human rights &
| rights for minorities, 70 years of peace.
|
| Economic growth isn't great but could be a lot worse if I
| look at the rest of the world.
|
| Energy transition for sure has some huge challenges but
| again, we're doing pretty great compared to other places in
| the world.
|
| Housing is an issue, but where isn't housing an issue?
| Muromec wrote:
| >70 years of peace.
|
| Which 70 years?
| Seanambers wrote:
| The 70 years the US paid for of course :)
| azmodeus wrote:
| I think Europe paid for it with interest, see the huge US
| government debt financed by printing petrol dollars
|
| After the gold standard everyone except the US has been
| paying for it
| VladTheImpalor wrote:
| Yes? Housing is infinitely better than the US, job security
| can be better, work life balance is better, cities are
| nicer to look at, architecture is better, people are more
| active, fitter, have lives beyond work. The bread is
| better, so is the cheese. There is real food available.
| Public transport is plentiful. Society feels a bit less
| polarised.
|
| The EU is infinitely better than living in the states. At
| least for this third world immigrant.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Interesting. I thought housing in the EU has been a
| challenge for generations with home ownership a difficult
| to impossible goal for most people, with this being the
| case across the region. In the US the housing
| affordability issue is in a few highly desirable urban
| areas, but not being generally case across the country.
|
| I think the bread in the US, sans the supermarket stuff,
| is generally exceptional with bakeries throughout most
| cities that are top notch. Some of the best creameries in
| the world are in the US now. Beer is also generally more
| innovative and better. There is also a much broader food
| community in that I can eat food from every culture on
| earth with pretty high quality in every city. Europe
| tends to be much less diverse and less creative in its
| foods. However, yes, if you only eat fast food and shop
| at big box grocery stores (which also exist in Europe)
| staples are pretty low quality.
|
| The US has a very strong and thriving food movement, and
| isn't a strict monoculture by geography. There are layers
| upon layers of cultures intertwined throughout the
| country. Generically "American culture" is essentially a
| marketing regime for large companies selling their stuff.
| But the reality of America is much more complex than
| that, and that's accelerated since the 1950's, and was
| completely broken down in the 1990's.
|
| Most of the polarization stems from that destruction of
| the American monoculture belief system and a reaction
| against that. It's the last gasp of people who see a way
| of thinking falling apart. But what comes out of that
| cultural change is excellent bread, cheese, beer, etc.
| snowpid wrote:
| " But the reality of America is much more complex than
| that, and that's accelerated since the 1950's, and was
| completely broken down in the 1990's. " You complain a
| lack of seing the complexity of American food but instead
| you have a simple view of the European cultures. Have you
| been ever in any European country and when? I have the
| feeling you havent been.
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| fnordpiglet posted virtually nothing about Europe. Where
| are you drawing your opinion of his/her view of European
| cultures from?
|
| This whole thread is just bizarre.
| badpun wrote:
| Well, except for: "Europe tends to be much less diverse
| and less creative in its foods."
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| It appears you lived in the US for a while and have some
| resentments, but the parent comment didn't even mention
| the US.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| But apart from the housing, fitness, public transport,
| cities, work life balance, architecture, job security and
| cheese, what has the EU done for us?
| matwood wrote:
| As someone who recently bought a house in the EU, IMO the
| best place to make money is the US. But, the best place to
| spend it is the EU. Much like doing the location/CoL
| arbitrage in the US, it's even better if you can get higher
| end US salaries and do a quality of life arbitrage to the
| EU.
| 7moritz7 wrote:
| The EU is on a roll politically, it's much more agile and
| expertise-focused than most governments. Also he ceiling is
| a lot higher than in the US given that half of the EU is
| underdeveloped. Look at Estonia's potential for example,
| Bolt is the fastest growing transportation company
| globally.
| Aloisius wrote:
| There's a ceiling?
| 7moritz7 wrote:
| There is, it's called workforce. Incase you need an
| example, TSMC recently pushed back its fab plans in the
| US by atleast a year because they couldn't find enough
| specialists.
| mullingitover wrote:
| If you can't have successful tech giants, you can have
| principles. If Apple/Meta/Alphabet were European companies the
| EU regulators would have absolutely no scruples about these
| things.
|
| Every country talks 'free trade!' out of one side of their
| mouth, and implements protectionism via various concerns about
| health/safety/fairness out of the other when it's expedient.
| The US isn't any different, it's just not tech companies we're
| worried about (except some clock app that the Gen Z kids are
| obsessed with).
| oven9342 wrote:
| I wish my government had hired developers to create useful
| Linux tools, they gave money to nextcloud instead of paying
| tribute to Microsoft.
|
| But guess who pays the best bribes?
| Aldo_MX wrote:
| The US used to have huge oil or railroad companies, but also
| scruples to regulate them when they grew too big.
| dantheman wrote:
| You mean how the US regulated them out of business after
| giving them huge subsidies?
| pjerem wrote:
| At least our planes can fly.
|
| (that was free, I'll take the downvotes)
| holmesworcester wrote:
| The US came very close to passing similar legislation recently
| and it still could. This bill had bipartisan support. Apple was
| able to kill it using relationships with leadership, but the
| votes were there. My organization Fight for the Future worked
| on lobbying for this, and while it's super difficult to pass
| legislation over big company opposition, it's not impossible.
| We can have similar rules in the US if we keep pushing.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_App_Markets_Act
| archagon wrote:
| Is it dead? I see nothing to that effect in the article.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| All legislation not voted on dies at the end of each
| Congress.
| genter wrote:
| > Democrat Dianne Feinstein expressed concern that the
| legislation would disproportionately impact Apple and Google
|
| How did I know that she was the one opposing it? I'm not glad
| she's dead, but I am glad she isn't on the Senate any more.
| dang wrote:
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39644788.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| My cynical take on this:
|
| "YAY more LOOTBOXES!"
|
| "Yay more dark patterns!"
|
| https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/...
|
| There are no good guys to root for in this fight!
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| Now they can release Fortnite on iPhone using their own in-app
| payment system without any of those pesky parental controls.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Yeah, the fact that Epic is the one makes it really hard to
| care. They really need a better standard bearer. It's kind of
| like watching ManU play Chelsea. I'd be really happy if both
| teams could lose.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > like watching ManU play Chelsea. I'd be really happy if
| both teams could lose.
|
| Given the way both teams are playing this season, I wouldn't
| be surprised if they managed that.
| rchaud wrote:
| Every company benefits from not being beholden to the App
| Store and Apple's sales tax. I couldn't care less that Epic
| is not a perfect messenger, as long as Apple gets the
| message.
| dylan604 wrote:
| You call it a sales tax which is not the correct term, so I
| have an issue seeing your side of it. I see it as someone
| selling a product in someone else's store. Normal people
| would call that retail/wholesale pricing in ways that's
| actually more beneficial to the seller than the retailer in
| the App Store. Negotiate a 30% rate in negotiating with
| WalMart/Target/BestBuy, and I'll call you the best
| negotiator to ever walk the planet.
| jsheard wrote:
| Are you under the impression that lootboxes aren't allowed on
| the official App Store? Because they absolutely are, I would
| wager that a significant chunk of Apples store revenue comes
| from games with faux-gambling mechanics. Genshin Impact alone
| has made billions of dollars on mobile through gacha
| monetization and Apple has no objections to that strategy as
| long as they get their cut.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| >> Are you under the impression that lootboxes aren't allowed
| on the official App Store?
|
| No good guys was fairly unambiguous I thought.
|
| Apple already had their date with the FTC over dark
| patterns... 2014 and 36 million later the message was sent.
|
| IN 22 when Epic gets the same slap on the wrist, its for
| 250million in excess CC charges and 250 million for COPPA
| violations.
|
| https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-
| releases/2022/12/...
|
| https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/12/19/23516925/epic-games-
| ft...
|
| Oh wait, half a billion dollars isn't a slap on the wrist is
| it?
|
| Apple at least has the decency to tell you up front and
| clearly how they are going to stick it to you. Epic stabs you
| in the back while picking your pocket and then locks you out,
| the FTC fines reflect how egregious their actions were.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Epic doesn't sell loot boxes in its games. Apple however, does
| happily take a tax on loot box profits from other companies.
|
| Edit: sorry, loot box revenue
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _Apple terminates Epic Games developer account, calling it a
| 'threat' to iOS_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39618673
| - March 2024 (980 comments)
| gigel82 wrote:
| So I guess regulation is good after all... perhaps we can get
| some traction with that in US?
| criddell wrote:
| I think it's too early to draw any conclusions. It's going to
| take some time before you can definitely say if consumers are
| better off.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Too bad in the US they often just hand the pen for the
| regulation to the entity being regulated
| fddrdplktrew wrote:
| Regulations CAN be good. But Europe tends to have better
| regulations than the US lately.
| h_tbob wrote:
| I hope they can learn to love each other. Makes me so upset when
| developers and business people can't figure out how to solve this
| outside of court.
| sircastor wrote:
| Epic and Apple famously had a close relationship. A few years
| back, Epic was onstage at _every_ Apple keynote. They were
| showing off games on iOS on macOS, talking about API
| development. I understand why Tim Sweeney felt like they were
| getting ripped off, but it seemed like they had a strong
| relationship.
|
| I wonder if something happened behind the scenes.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Sweeney vastly overestmated how much Epic mattered. Apple
| called his bluff.
| justin66 wrote:
| I'm sure Apple's 30% cut couldn't possibly be sufficient to
| explain the rift. I mean, what is this money thing, and why
| is Epic so worried about it?!?
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I'm so tired of this Apple tax, I think nobody would be this
| annoyed if Apple were saying 10% or something around that. 30% is
| more than most companies pay in tax on profits and this is a tax
| on revenue. I don't think abusing your market position like some
| kind of protection racket should be allowed and if you don't like
| it we'll delete your App is quite frankly just as bad as the
| mafia smashing in shop windows. I doubt anyone will stop them but
| we can hope...
| grishka wrote:
| If only it was just about the money. The review process itself
| is beyond ridiculous sometimes, and sometimes has you remove
| things from your apps that you want and your users want, but
| Apple doesn't like.
| its_ethan wrote:
| 30% isn't some outlier share though? It also has been that way
| since the beginning, so it's not like they achieved their
| market position and then jacked up the prices; it's been this
| way the whole time - and, in fact, they've added programs where
| smaller businesses only pay a 15% commission..
| matwood wrote:
| Not an outlier and is pretty standard. When it was originally
| announced it was one of the best deals out there for
| developers writing software for phones. The WWDC audience
| cheered at getting 70%.
| skydhash wrote:
| Wasn't the market for mobile app small at the time. Almost
| everyone was focused on desktop and web applications. If
| you're looking to make millions, even preferential deals
| don't look like a good deal.
| beeboobaa wrote:
| The WWDC audience cheers at everything.
| greiskul wrote:
| Doesn't matter. Why does the developer of the operating
| system get to take anything from a sale between an app
| developer and the owner of the actual cellphone? It is not
| Apples phone anymore after they sell it to a customer.
| Imagine if your car manufacturer wanted 30% of revenue from
| the shops you drive your car to.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Replace "developer of the operating system" with "curator
| of the ecosystem of highly affluent, paying customers"
| and you'll start to understand why Apple thinks they
| should have a cut. They see themselves as the headhunter,
| finding paying customers for the developer.
| JimDabell wrote:
| > I think nobody would be this annoyed if Apple were saying 10%
| or something around that. 30% is more than most companies pay
| in tax on profits
|
| Almost every developer pays 15%. You only pay 30% if you earn
| more than a million dollars a year from the App Store.
| drooopy wrote:
| Just yesterday they were a "threat" to iOS or whatever.
| readyplayernull wrote:
| "Yes" because we value our users' safety, and "No" because we
| value our users' safety. And they just toss one of their
| billions of coins.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| Surely Apple's legal team counseled them against closing the
| account in the first place. Now that the EU commission made an
| inquiry, the execs folded?
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Apple's behavior largely makes sense given what a huge share of
| their profits their racketeering of customer access earns them.
| If you ever wanted to see regulation pains as the cost of doing
| business, this is it.
|
| But banning epic was just pathetic baby behavior.
|
| I hope epic launches the epic game store for iOS and its dogshit
| but cheaper and the gacha gravy boats all jump ship
| ineedaj0b wrote:
| I hope you buy an android and let us enjoy our palace walls.
| Not every viable contingent platform should be open
| airstrike wrote:
| us?
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Those are prison walls, mate.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Played their card too soon. They want to take it back so they can
| play it again in the future.
| w4 wrote:
| Between this and the PWA decision, Apple seems to be flailing.
| What is leadership doing?
| corytheboyd wrote:
| Right? They make so much money, what's the deal. Seems like
| they let the MBAs take over. I get that not all money they make
| is liquid, but a rounding error to Apple would be enough money
| to change someone's life.
| newZWhoDis wrote:
| Engineers who do not actively purge bean counters from their
| orgs will end up being ruled by them.
| Eikon wrote:
| What was the deal with PWAs?
| lilyball wrote:
| EU rules say Apple can't prioritize their own browser. PWAs
| only work with WebKit due to the iOS security model, and the
| amount of work necessary to try to support PWAs with third-
| party browser engines securely was way out of scope for the
| time frame to support the DMA. Because Apple can't prioritize
| their own browser, they had to remove PWA support entirely in
| the EU.
|
| Naturally there was a lot of backlash, and so Apple reversed
| their decision and will continue to support PWAs with WebKit
| in the EU. This suggests that perhaps the European Commission
| told Apple that it was okay to do this as it does seem to
| violate the "don't prioritize your own browser" rule, but as
| of the last I saw on this it was still unclear.
| PlutoIsAPlanet wrote:
| I don't really see it as prioritising your own browser.
|
| It's a system level feature and uses the system provided
| web engine.
|
| Microsoft doesn't let you swap out EdgeHTML or Trident for
| applications that use the native OS web frame.
|
| But apps shouldn't be forced to use that web frame is the
| issue the commission had and the DMA attempts to resolve.
| blibble wrote:
| > Microsoft doesn't let you swap out EdgeHTML or Trident
| for applications that use the native OS web frame.
|
| I remember quite clearly a gecko (firefox) implementation
| of the trident COM interface
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > the amount of work necessary to try to support PWAs with
| third-party browser engines securely was way out of scope
| for the time frame to support the DMA.
|
| Rubbish. The DMA became law in November 1st 2022. A
| trillion(!)-dollar corporation had approximately a year and
| a half to work this out.
| w4 wrote:
| Other posters have covered the gist of the events, but what
| creates the impression of flailing for me is Apple taking a
| hard stance in one direction, underestimating the backlash,
| and promptly recanting and changing course in exchange for
| (as best as I can tell) no advantage or concessions. That
| happened with PWAs, and now has happened with Epic.
|
| Maybe there were behind the scenes concessions made and I'm
| completely wrong, in which case I owe Apple management an
| apology. But my impression as an outsider is that there is no
| real strategy here; executives at the company seem to be
| throwing their weight around and picking fights at random,
| getting slapped down, and immediately retreating.
| albert180 wrote:
| The penalties for Non-Compliance are up to 10% of the
| global turnover of a company.
|
| If you are flexing your muscles and end up loosing, you are
| probably loosing your jobs, because shareholders and
| everyone else will be angry with you
| xw390111 wrote:
| They want to minimize the amount of control lost. You cant find
| the limit without testing the limit.
| elevatedastalt wrote:
| They seem to maximizing the amount of face lost though.
|
| If you act like a bully, and then recede at the slightest
| resistance, you just come off looking like a fool.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| The vast majority of iPhone and airpod users have no idea
| any of this is even happening I imagine. Even among the
| people who know its happening, even fewer know enough about
| how these systems work to actually have much of an opinion
| beyond parroting a headline.
| xw390111 wrote:
| This will all blow over in a week. But once the control is
| lost, it's gone forever.
| j_maffe wrote:
| Apple is losing control though. No company should have
| this level of control over a market.
| TillE wrote:
| Developer grievances about Apple have been simmering for
| years, and even longtime Apple fans aren't happy about
| what's been going on lately. This is not a smart path to
| follow.
|
| They _need_ enthusiastic small developers to help build
| the Vision Pro ecosystem, and so far it doesn 't seem to
| be going that well.
| xw390111 wrote:
| If developer grievances about Apple have been simmering
| for years, perhaps they can simmer longer.
|
| Apple will make the change that they're forced to make.
| Developers aren't forcing anything at the moment, but
| what exactly are they being forced to do by the EU?
| That's what's being learned.
|
| As a long time Apple fan myself I'm certain, Apple fans
| have never been happy. :)
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Enthusiastic small developers existed while there was a
| profitable market. Third party app stores allow piracy
| and make being a small developer much tougher, I doubt
| there will be much enthusiasm going ahead
|
| What is happening seems to benefit mostly massive
| competitors like Epic or Amazon.
| paxys wrote:
| Culture is a very hard thing to change at any company,
| including in the face of existential threats. Look at what's
| happening at Google with AI.
|
| "We are a walled garden and will not interoperate or tolerate
| alternatives" is in Apple's DNA, and no decision maker at any
| level at the company will risk suggesting otherwise for fear of
| being branded a traitor, even if it is a very good idea.
| gmiller123456 wrote:
| We are a walled garden and will not interoperate or tolerate
| alternatives"
|
| No. Before Apple got their monopoly they absolutely begged
| developers, even tried to shame them, for not developing for
| MacOS. They evened threatened lawsuits against Microsoft.
| blibble wrote:
| they don't seem to realise that they can't win against a
| sovereign power that is actively legislating against them
| indymike wrote:
| Apple is finding out they do not have more power than
| government. Apple isn't flailing at all, their competition
| limiting decisions are forcing government to regulate them.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Showing their true colors. "Going mask off" as the kids would
| say.
|
| There's an observation that computer programs tend to reflect
| the organizational structures of the company that developed
| them. I would go further and argue that company cultures are a
| reflection of the founders that built them.
|
| In the case of Apple, Steve Jobs was an emotionally
| manipulative psychopath that was very good at conning people,
| making anyone he talked to buy into his bullshit. When he
| didn't get his way, he'd cry like a child and throw tantrums.
| Everyone at Apple absolutely lionized the shit out of Jobs,
| even during the interregnum period where the company was being
| torn apart by idiots. All of the upper management was his own
| hand-picked successors, who have largely continued doing
| exactly what Jobs was doing, just with higher scale.
|
| The world largely did not notice this because the actual
| product (at least, when Jobs was actually in the driver's seat)
| was good. Part of the capitalist social contract is that we
| don't care about how the sausage was made so long as we aren't
| assuming the risk[0]. But this is still very much a religious
| cult that just so happens to be shaped like a for-profit
| corporation, run by people who were hand-picked by its
| dogmatic, emotionally unstable founder[1]. It just so happens
| to also employ actual geniuses.
|
| In the Apple religion, there are commandments, and one of them
| is "thou shalt not install unauthorized third party software,
| for it is the malware of the beast". Like other religions, the
| commandments are based in some kind of plausible system of
| rules, we can absolutely Chesterton's Fence them, but that
| rationale has been forgotten by true believers who take them to
| axiomatic extremes. Apple is not exactly going to die on this
| hill[2], but they are going to try to make the system as
| restrictive as possible within the DMA's constraints, because
| they've RDF'd[3] themselves into thinking their greed is
| protecting users.
|
| [0] Also, most of the people Jobs really fucked over were the
| kinds of people society did not care so much about in the
| 1980s.
|
| [1] This also applies to the FSF, except it's rules are "thou
| shalt not bind the user to your tech cult". It's an anti-cult
| cult.
|
| [2] Though I've had the urge to make fake sales pages for an
| Apple Nuclear weapons program and photoshop the words "POOR
| IMPULSE CONTROL" on Tim Apple's head.
|
| [3] Reality Distortion Field, not Resource Description
| Framework
| kraig911 wrote:
| The joke, what do you have when you have a group of lawyers up to
| their necks in dog shit? Not enough dog shit...
|
| It's just so insane how fast lawyers can bring the image, will
| and industry at large to it's knees. I think Apple's legal team
| should really take a hint (and a hit) from all of us in this
| industry. You're hurting Apple and the entire dev community more
| than you're helping.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| It's entirely possible that Apple's legal team advised the
| executives of this outcome and more generally the risks
| involved with the Epic ban move, but were ignored as a
| strategic decision.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I doubt its had any impact at all to iphone sales or their
| service subscriptions.
| j_maffe wrote:
| Their stock took a major hit.
| dev1ycan wrote:
| Hahahahahaahhaha oh god thank you EU, makes me laugh to see
| corporations put in check, they love to trash talk China for
| enforcing regulations but I'm glad a more widely accepted region
| is doing the same so that corporations can't just go out and say
| "communism" because basic decency is being enforced.
| quitit wrote:
| Apple's statement:
|
| "Following conversations with Epic, they have committed to follow
| the rules, including our DMA policies. As a result, Epic Sweden
| AB has been permitted to re-sign the developer agreement and
| accepted into the Apple Developer Program."
|
| If you think the EU got their shit together in 2 days, you're day
| dreaming.
|
| Phil Schiller invited Epic to make assurances that they'd follow
| the terms of the agreement. Epic did. The EU didn't even have
| their shoes on.
|
| You can safely ignore Tim Sweeney's twitter chest beating - it's
| marketing.
| j_maffe wrote:
| All sides are marketing and trying to maintain an image. It's
| up to you to figure out what's actually happening without bias.
| quitit wrote:
| Epic led with an ad campaign while Apple stayed silent.
|
| Then did it again by publishing their correspondence with
| Apple.
|
| Tell me more.
| j_maffe wrote:
| Yes, Epic "led". So what? Of course the one in the
| favorable position would like to minimize talk about
| anything that would disrupt the position.
| quitit wrote:
| You 1 minute ago:
|
| > All sides are marketing
|
| You 10 seconds ago:
|
| Nah, only one side is marketing.
| arrrg wrote:
| Marketing isn't limited to ads. Obviously.
| quitit wrote:
| Correct!
|
| Such as Tweets: https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic
|
| Blogposts: https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/free-
| fortnite-faq
|
| Press junkets:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKsNf5bA1bU
|
| World-wide ad campaigns:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPn_PGuYesw
|
| In-game events: https://www.polygon.com/fortnite/2020/8/1
| 3/21367955/fortnite...
|
| So how have Epic performed when the facts were before a
| judge? hmmm. Looks like the marketing worked on some.
| JanSt wrote:
| Breton posted on X that his team would look into this case with
| high priority yesterday. Apple noticed they are about to get a
| beating and decided to handle this case proactively before they
| get fined and regulated even stronger
| quitit wrote:
| Yep I'm aware of the tweet.
| JanSt wrote:
| He now confirmed contact
|
| "I take note with satisfaction that following our contacts
| Apple decided to backtrack its decision on Epic exclusion."
|
| From Day 2, #DMA is already showing very concrete results!
|
| https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/176616758049711746
| 4
| agust wrote:
| The EU reacted immediately and asked Apple for clarification.
| That means, they reminded Apple that the law is the law, which
| they seemed to have forgotten. You're the one dreaming if you
| think Apple got their shot together by themselves.
| sircastor wrote:
| I agree. I feel like this was really a muscle flex from Apple
| in terms of preventing shenanigans. The most critical part of
| this for Apple is the message to others who are thinking about
| opening a app marketplace:
|
| - You're still going to be paying us our 27%
|
| - You screw around and we will clip your wings.
|
| Incidentally, if you don't like the rules Apple has set up,
| start pushing for a law that you do want. If you happen to be
| in the US, actually _write your representatives_ rather than
| just whine about it online to a bunch of other people.
| mizzao wrote:
| Nice, make 'em find other ways to make money than rent-seeking.
| barrystaes wrote:
| I wont even play it probably, but i look forward to buy that game
| via the Epic Banana store just to vote with my wallet.
| EastSmith wrote:
| I have not played Fortnite in years, but I am buying the new
| battle pass.
| hackernewds wrote:
| from a practical sense this is insignificant, unless
| collectively organized
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| What a bunch of clowns! Seriously, Apple? Are they so full of
| hubris that they could not see how their haste would backfire?
|
| Given the compensation level of their legal team I'd expect that
| they could see it coming and spare the public humiliation and
| brand damage.
|
| I can't believe this is real.
| andersa wrote:
| Maybe they've finally realized that the $38 billion fine for
| failing to comply was in fact not a joke.
|
| The stock dumped 10% almost immediately after the announcement,
| might also have something to do with it.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Like any mafia bosses in Scorcese movies, they fail to see
| when they lost hand.
|
| I'd love to see the faces of Cook and Schiller at this point.
| montagg wrote:
| One of the worst gaming user experiences on Windows is how every
| publisher wants their own store. And depending on where you get a
| game, it may or may not have certain features. And if you get
| into modding, sometimes one version of the game just won't work
| with some mods.
|
| I understand everyone feels good about increased competition with
| Apple--and hopefully it turns out well for users--but iOS is
| hurtling toward the same situation that exists on Windows, and I
| think the iOS experience is worse for it. It's _definitely_ worse
| with the browser nag. So I don 't call this a total win. It's a
| theoretical win, but I foresee it being about as much of a win as
| cookie banners are, when it comes to the actual, practical, day-
| to-day experience people have using this technology.
| 8note wrote:
| It's a much better experience on windows to not be stuck with a
| windows store. Third party stores like steam are way better
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Imagine if we had to download the Windows Store on iOS just
| to get Outlook, Word or Excel though. That's what the OP is
| predicting.
| s1k3s wrote:
| Microsoft isn't forcing anything upon the devs other than
| signed binaries. This is not the same thing at all.
| Hamuko wrote:
| If Google or Mozilla release real versions of their browsers
| for iOS/iPadOS and offer long support for them, then I see it
| as a win. I've seen so many usable iPads turn into e-waste
| because Safari is out of date and can't be updated.
| snotrockets wrote:
| iOS Safari is the only thing that prevents a Chromium/Blink
| hegemony. A popular Chrome on iOS would be a return to the
| IE6 days (Firefox has such a minuscule market share, no one
| even notices it)
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| I don't want to give one company a monopoly just to prevent
| a potential monopoly. I want better anti-trust to handle
| both and all monopolies. And handling the existing and real
| monopoly is how that starts.
| snotrockets wrote:
| It's not a potential: we know this is going to happen,
| because we've seen it happening before.
|
| The _marketed_ intent behind those regulation is a good
| one. The actual regulations are just favoring one player
| over the other: I guess the lobbyists were ahead of the
| process this time (good for them). As much as everyone
| would claim ignorance later, I'm not willing to give them
| the credit of being that stupid.
| voxic11 wrote:
| You must be the only person on Windows who likes the Windows
| store. I'm personally really glad alternatives like steam
| exist.
| nolok wrote:
| I don't think you realize your very own example is proving that
| it's actually bad. If Microsoft did what Apple did, you
| wouldn't have steam as the one gaming store, you would have the
| windows store.
|
| Open store competition in the gaming area leading to steam
| being far in the lead, not the OS gatekeeper, is a proof that
| it allows for more choices for consumers and the better one
| taking the lead.
| jpambrun wrote:
| Outcompete them all by creating an amazing store with 3-4% fee
| and you will be the last one.
|
| The mandated monopoly with 30% fee alternative is unreasonable.
| seam_carver wrote:
| Please just let me get Infinity Blade back.
| camdenlock wrote:
| Very depressing to see y'all cheering when the state gains more
| power. We should cheer when the state is kept in check.
|
| You have the choice to buy a Samsung phone instead of an Apple
| phone; most people don't have the choice to switch governments.
| hu3 wrote:
| I'd rather trust a democratic state than a greedy company,
| directed by a few individuals, who's sole goal is to maximize
| profit.
| jeppester wrote:
| At least it is now completely obvious that Apple is "verifiably
| untrustworthy" as a gatekeeper for third party stores.
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| It really hurts to watch Apple shoot themselves in the foot
| like this.
|
| A time will come when Apple will have legitimate reasons to
| crack down on third-party app stores. Someone like Meta will
| invariably try some crap like sneaking VPNs into their apps so
| they can get complete surveillance on their users (ex.
| https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/29/facebook-project-atlas/).
|
| Apple is going to have less credibility when they say "no, this
| is wrong" when this eventually happens if they keep screwing
| with Epic like this.
| jeppester wrote:
| Tracking users without their consent is wrong and also
| forbidden in at least the EU.
|
| Instead of letting Apple make and enforce the rules, we
| should have laws in place that hold App Stores accountable
| for what they are selling, just like physical stores.
| summerlight wrote:
| It feels like the initial ban decision was driven by some high
| level exec (probably Phil Schiller)? If it was happened to be
| reviewed carefully by lawyers and public relations, they cannot
| really ban Epic so quickly. There are too many uncertainties and
| if you do something wrong, that puts government relations at huge
| risk. Typical employees cannot be held accountable for such
| decisions, not even low tier VP.
| yalok wrote:
| you have to give it to the guy - he continued coding even after
| loosing in the court and having to read tons of legal papers -
|
| Sept 10, 2021: Lost a court case, climbed a mountain, read
| hundreds of pages of legal papers, wrote some code. Just as
| determined as ever to fight on until there is genuine developer
| and consumer freedom in software, and fair competition in each
| mobile platform software component.
|
| https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1436583527290654720?s=20
| mulmen wrote:
| Apple believes this is an existential threat and they are
| fighting against it as hard as they can. But is this a self-
| fulfilling prophecy? These actions come with a cost. This gives
| Epic visibility and it harms trust in Apple's brand. How do they
| balance these costs against the perceived threat?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-08 23:00 UTC)