5 ms·

If they violated rules previously and got booted (and then sued in a very public battle), why would they be allowed back?

sigzero 5y ago
Exactly this. They wouldn't be unless Apple decides to do a 180 on booting them.
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
Because Apple is legally required to remove the rule they violated.
- azinman2 5y ago
  But it wasn’t the law then when they violated it.
  - staticman2 5y ago
    Rejecting an application for app store reinstatement would presumably be a new ban, legally speaking, and would be covered by the new law.
    - SllX 5y ago
      Hmm, this assumes Epic is allowed to submit to begin with. Look at it another way: Apple acted willfully to terminate their developer and business relationship with Epic per their developer agreement, and this was an Executive decision, not a bureaucratic one. So a new submission isn’t likely to result in a “rejection” so much as a termination of the account that submitted it. I’m not familiar with Korean law, but a change in any law typically isn’t so cut and dry as to obviously result in a new outcome given the same actors and the same circumstances. Obviously Epic will argue that it should be more cut and dry because it is in their interests to make that argument, but Apple also has their own rights and interests to protect and the means to do so.
    - hermitdev 5y ago
      I don't think you're correct here, but of course I'm not a lawyer. Epic is asking the ban to be undone, an appeal of the existing ban. The ban was for violating TOS, nevermind the TOS presumably has to change for the Korean market. I could see this going either way if it were argued in a US court, truthfully. I think this is more for optics in the larger anticompetitive suit Epic has against Apple going on in other markets. Korea isn't a small market, but it pales in comparison if Epic can use it as a pry bar to get back into US, EU markets on iOS.
      - Salgat 5y ago
        This would simply open up a new antitrust lawsuit though, since it's pretty easy to connect the continued ban to 3rd party payments which Apple is now legally required to allow.
        threeseed 5y ago
        a) Apple has ~30% market share in South Korea. b) Denying access to users who breach Terms of Service is a legally justified position for companies to take. Companies with much larger market share e.g. Facebook, Google do this every day.
        Salgat 5y ago
        Antitrust doesn't require a monopoly, only a large enough share where you can unfairly manipulate the market using your market share. The smaller the market share, the harder it is to prove it.
      - staticman2 5y ago
        It depends on how the law was written but Apple did not ban Epic for "violating TOS", they banned Epic for allowing third party payment. The fact that this form of ban happened to be written in some TOS document is not relevant, you can't use the term "TOS" to shut down the specific analysis of what happened. If the law does not permit banning an app for allowing third party processing then I would expect Epic to have a good case.
- threeseed 5y ago
  There is no law that says Apple has to allow developers in the App Store. And from Apple's perspective, Epic Games has breached their contract in the US so not sure why they would allow them back in the store until that issue is resolved.
  - nix23 5y ago
    >https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unfair-trade-practice.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unfair-trade-practice.a... >>tied selling >https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tiedselling.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tiedselling.asp >>Tied selling may be used as a means of price discrimination in that it may help banks (or other companies) consolidate a customer's business within a single provider.
- physt 5y ago
  Not exactly. The rule they violated was adding something that was a violation of the terms of service at the time. The agreement you sign with Apple is that you'll follow the rules. Once you break those, they have no obligation to allow you in the store. Epic has demonstrated that they can't be trusted. Good for Apple.
covercash 5y ago
Pretty sure the judge said they could be reinstated months ago, with IAP held in escrow until verdict.
saltedonion 5y ago
Cuz when u have as much market power as Apple, you don’t really have a choice in granting someone market access to your platform. A refusal is potential grounds for a antitrust case. Assuming ofcourse, epic stays within the lines of apple’s other rules which hasn’t been challenged in court.
aero-glide2 5y ago
Not all terms of conditions are legally enforceable. And it's not as simple as "they are a private company they can do whatever they want". There are anti trust laws.

sigzero 5y ago

Exactly this. They wouldn't be unless Apple decides to do a 180 on booting them.

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

Because Apple is legally required to remove the rule they violated.

azinman2 5y ago
But it wasn’t the law then when they violated it.
- staticman2 5y ago
  Rejecting an application for app store reinstatement would presumably be a new ban, legally speaking, and would be covered by the new law.
  - SllX 5y ago
    Hmm, this assumes Epic is allowed to submit to begin with. Look at it another way: Apple acted willfully to terminate their developer and business relationship with Epic per their developer agreement, and this was an Executive decision, not a bureaucratic one. So a new submission isn’t likely to result in a “rejection” so much as a termination of the account that submitted it. I’m not familiar with Korean law, but a change in any law typically isn’t so cut and dry as to obviously result in a new outcome given the same actors and the same circumstances. Obviously Epic will argue that it should be more cut and dry because it is in their interests to make that argument, but Apple also has their own rights and interests to protect and the means to do so.
  - hermitdev 5y ago
    I don't think you're correct here, but of course I'm not a lawyer. Epic is asking the ban to be undone, an appeal of the existing ban. The ban was for violating TOS, nevermind the TOS presumably has to change for the Korean market. I could see this going either way if it were argued in a US court, truthfully. I think this is more for optics in the larger anticompetitive suit Epic has against Apple going on in other markets. Korea isn't a small market, but it pales in comparison if Epic can use it as a pry bar to get back into US, EU markets on iOS.
    - Salgat 5y ago
      This would simply open up a new antitrust lawsuit though, since it's pretty easy to connect the continued ban to 3rd party payments which Apple is now legally required to allow.
      - threeseed 5y ago
        a) Apple has ~30% market share in South Korea. b) Denying access to users who breach Terms of Service is a legally justified position for companies to take. Companies with much larger market share e.g. Facebook, Google do this every day.
        Salgat 5y ago
        Antitrust doesn't require a monopoly, only a large enough share where you can unfairly manipulate the market using your market share. The smaller the market share, the harder it is to prove it.
    - staticman2 5y ago
      It depends on how the law was written but Apple did not ban Epic for "violating TOS", they banned Epic for allowing third party payment. The fact that this form of ban happened to be written in some TOS document is not relevant, you can't use the term "TOS" to shut down the specific analysis of what happened. If the law does not permit banning an app for allowing third party processing then I would expect Epic to have a good case.
threeseed 5y ago
There is no law that says Apple has to allow developers in the App Store. And from Apple's perspective, Epic Games has breached their contract in the US so not sure why they would allow them back in the store until that issue is resolved.
- nix23 5y ago
  >https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unfair-trade-practice.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unfair-trade-practice.a... >>tied selling >https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tiedselling.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tiedselling.asp >>Tied selling may be used as a means of price discrimination in that it may help banks (or other companies) consolidate a customer's business within a single provider.
physt 5y ago
Not exactly. The rule they violated was adding something that was a violation of the terms of service at the time. The agreement you sign with Apple is that you'll follow the rules. Once you break those, they have no obligation to allow you in the store. Epic has demonstrated that they can't be trusted. Good for Apple.

covercash 5y ago

Pretty sure the judge said they could be reinstated months ago, with IAP held in escrow until verdict.

saltedonion 5y ago

Cuz when u have as much market power as Apple, you don’t really have a choice in granting someone market access to your platform. A refusal is potential grounds for a antitrust case. Assuming ofcourse, epic stays within the lines of apple’s other rules which hasn’t been challenged in court.

aero-glide2 5y ago

Not all terms of conditions are legally enforceable. And it's not as simple as "they are a private company they can do whatever they want". There are anti trust laws.