13 ms·

Epic doesn't care whether Apple shows "grace", or needs them to, they are going in by force with the backing of the EU legislation. It might just take a year or

Epic doesn't care whether Apple shows "grace", or needs them to, they are going in by force with the backing of the EU legislation. It might just take a year or two longer to get through the courts. They can hold out that long without any problems, preparing their store in the background.

Despegar 3y ago
I'm not aware of any duty to deal in the DMA.
- Jensson 3y ago
  You don't have a duty to hire in USA, but you can still get in trouble for illegally firing someone for the wrong cause. Same applies here, this isn't rocket science.
  - Despegar 3y ago
    Right, the major difference being that Epic is not an employee of Apple and thus cannot benefit from employment law. The terms of their relationship is governed by contract law, and now the DMA.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      DMA, Apple can't just retaliate for Epic complaining about them, this doesn't mean that Apple is forced to deal with everyone they are just banned from retaliating for certain things: > 6. The gatekeeper shall not directly or indirectly prevent or restrict business users or end users from raising any issue of non-compliance with the relevant Union or national law by the gatekeeper with any relevant public authority, including national courts, related to any practice of the gatekeeper. This is without prejudice to the right of business users and gatekeepers to lay down in their agreements the terms of use of lawful complaints-handling mechanisms. I am not 100% certain that would apply here, but if the DMA doesn't protect against these things then I am pretty sure that EU will plug that hole to ensure gatekeepers can't retaliate unfairly.
      - giantrobot 3y ago
        Even if the "hole" is plugged you'd have to prove in court you were being retaliated against. Vibes are not going to be enough. You'd need a decision maker's e-Mail saying "you know what, fuck Epic cancel their account". Without that smoking gun all Apple needs to do is show all the instances of Epic violating their contract. Same if they canceled your account because of violations.
        Jensson 3y ago
        Here it is easy since Apple admitted to it. Them bringing up all of Epics recent criticism of them here works against them, it is like talking a lot about someone's race when you fire them, that doesn't look good in court even if you also gave another reason. For example firing someone with the reason "He was a lazy black guy" could be read as you firing him for being lazy, but I doubt courts would see it that way.
        giantrobot 3y ago
        Holy shit what hyperbole. Apple asked for a realistic assurance Epic wasn't entering into a bad faith agreement. Epic decided they couldn't do that so Apple terminated their account. Pretending Epic is a faultless victim is just ludicrous. Not only have they previously violated the developer agreements they've given every indication they're incapable of entering any good faith agreement with Apple. They've been throwing tantrums against every company they deal with. They want to charge fees on their store and platforms. They want their IAP. But they act offended when any other company wants to charge them to be on their stores.
        judith48 3y ago
        [dead]
      - threeseed 3y ago
        You should read the US ruling [1]. This is not about Epic criticising Apple. This is because Epic did things like pushing a hidden IAP system inside Fortnite to evade review and then at a later point switching it on. This sort of thing has been forbidden since the early days of the App Store. It is a fundamental part of the Apple-Developer contract that you allow reviewers access to all functionality. [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21-16506/21-16506-2023-04-24.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21...
- jsnell 3y ago
  > 12. The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9). Apple don't get to deny access to their main competitor in this space just as a show of force. That is not fair, reasonable or non-discriminatory.
  - Despegar 3y ago
    This will be another issue determined by EU courts, but Apple is not justifying it as a show of force. They're justifying it based on Epic's prior breach of contract and statements they've made. I think based on the record, courts will side with Apple.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      Why would a 4 year old breach of contract warrant a ban today instead of 4 years ago? The trigger was that Epic criticized Apple, that doesn't seem like a warranted reason to ban someone even if they did something bad 4 years ago. Also since the DMA bans arrangement that Epic breached before, there is no reason to suspect that the EU account will breach anything new now, I really doubt EU will let this slide.
      - threeseed 3y ago
        > The trigger was that Epic criticized Apple Epic has been criticising Apple almost every single day.
        Jensson 3y ago
        Apple themselves said that the trigger was Epic criticizing them.
        misnome 3y ago
        … according to Epic
scarface_74 3y ago
That’s very much a Pyrrhic victory if Eoic doesn’t have access to the US market. The court ruling in the US said that Apple has the right to terminate their account. From the linked article > This judgment stated that “Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion.”
- andersa 3y ago
  This is about Epic having access to the EU market.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    That’s why it’s a Pyrrhic victory. They have access to the EU market which is much less profitable than the US market.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      Pyrrhic implies that the battle is over. I see it more as a foothold for a much longer battle. I'm sure North America and Asia aren't ignoring this whole ordeal. It should also be noted that this article specifically talks about Epic's Sweden AB account being banned. It doesn't affect the state of the US account (which may very well be banned anyway).
      - ben_w 3y ago
        > Pyrrhic implies that the battle is over Other way around, "victory" implies the battle is over, Pyrrhic as a modifier implies a victory that inflicted such a devastating toll that it was tantamount to defeat.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      Right now they have access to neither. A less-than-complete win is not a Phyrric victory.
lamontcg 3y ago
Yeah, its really weird to appeal to the noble intentions of a corporation. They're both just engaged in business. I can believe that Apple is acting incredibly badly in this case without needing to fluff up Epic Games at all. Apple and Samsung could sue each other and do business with each other because the stakes were lower and they were more codependent.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  > Yeah, its really weird to appeal to the noble intentions of a corporation. They're both just engaged in business. This is what's wrong with the current overly capitalist system. Companies are totally allowed to have no conscience, and externalise whatever they please to consumers and the environment. And you could even argue they are 'forced' to do so by due diligence legislation. If we let this continue there will be no world left to fix. We have to change the game. I'm not saying we should go full communism. Capitalism isn't bad but there needs to be a balance between business and society with actual accountability (rather than the current 'green' initiatives basically just being PR without any kind of enforcement). It can't be all about money. I think for US culture it's hard to imagine doing this but here in Europe society has always had this balance, at least in most countries. Initiatives like RoHS, GDPR, DSA/DMA are often called anticompetitive but we are actually trying to improve things for the benefit of society, not just the shareholders.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    > Companies are totally allowed to have no conscience I don't think companies are going to form a conscience any time soon. We need to deal with the fact that they're best viewed as being inherently sociopathic and regulate them effectively.
    - Gormo 3y ago
      Perhaps a better alternative would be to stop anthropomorphising abstractions, and not try to weirdly attribute intentionality, independent agency, or sociopathy to the same thing we're acknowledging is incapable of conscience because it isn't a person. Corporations are organizational models employed by humans in pursuit of human motivations. They are not entities unto themselves. Everything is humans, all the way down.
jeffwask 3y ago
As long as Forkknife continues to print money, they can afford the battle.
dwaite 3y ago
Apple is asking for a clear commitment to honor its contract this time. I'm pretty sure a court ruling on reinstating the account isn't going to also require a clear commitment to honor the contract.

Despegar 3y ago

I'm not aware of any duty to deal in the DMA.

Jensson 3y ago
You don't have a duty to hire in USA, but you can still get in trouble for illegally firing someone for the wrong cause. Same applies here, this isn't rocket science.
- Despegar 3y ago
  Right, the major difference being that Epic is not an employee of Apple and thus cannot benefit from employment law. The terms of their relationship is governed by contract law, and now the DMA.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    DMA, Apple can't just retaliate for Epic complaining about them, this doesn't mean that Apple is forced to deal with everyone they are just banned from retaliating for certain things: > 6. The gatekeeper shall not directly or indirectly prevent or restrict business users or end users from raising any issue of non-compliance with the relevant Union or national law by the gatekeeper with any relevant public authority, including national courts, related to any practice of the gatekeeper. This is without prejudice to the right of business users and gatekeepers to lay down in their agreements the terms of use of lawful complaints-handling mechanisms. I am not 100% certain that would apply here, but if the DMA doesn't protect against these things then I am pretty sure that EU will plug that hole to ensure gatekeepers can't retaliate unfairly.
    - giantrobot 3y ago
      Even if the "hole" is plugged you'd have to prove in court you were being retaliated against. Vibes are not going to be enough. You'd need a decision maker's e-Mail saying "you know what, fuck Epic cancel their account". Without that smoking gun all Apple needs to do is show all the instances of Epic violating their contract. Same if they canceled your account because of violations.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        Here it is easy since Apple admitted to it. Them bringing up all of Epics recent criticism of them here works against them, it is like talking a lot about someone's race when you fire them, that doesn't look good in court even if you also gave another reason. For example firing someone with the reason "He was a lazy black guy" could be read as you firing him for being lazy, but I doubt courts would see it that way.
        giantrobot 3y ago
        Holy shit what hyperbole. Apple asked for a realistic assurance Epic wasn't entering into a bad faith agreement. Epic decided they couldn't do that so Apple terminated their account. Pretending Epic is a faultless victim is just ludicrous. Not only have they previously violated the developer agreements they've given every indication they're incapable of entering any good faith agreement with Apple. They've been throwing tantrums against every company they deal with. They want to charge fees on their store and platforms. They want their IAP. But they act offended when any other company wants to charge them to be on their stores.
        judith48 3y ago
        [dead]
    - threeseed 3y ago
      You should read the US ruling [1]. This is not about Epic criticising Apple. This is because Epic did things like pushing a hidden IAP system inside Fortnite to evade review and then at a later point switching it on. This sort of thing has been forbidden since the early days of the App Store. It is a fundamental part of the Apple-Developer contract that you allow reviewers access to all functionality. [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21-16506/21-16506-2023-04-24.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21...
jsnell 3y ago
> 12. The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9). Apple don't get to deny access to their main competitor in this space just as a show of force. That is not fair, reasonable or non-discriminatory.
- Despegar 3y ago
  This will be another issue determined by EU courts, but Apple is not justifying it as a show of force. They're justifying it based on Epic's prior breach of contract and statements they've made. I think based on the record, courts will side with Apple.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Why would a 4 year old breach of contract warrant a ban today instead of 4 years ago? The trigger was that Epic criticized Apple, that doesn't seem like a warranted reason to ban someone even if they did something bad 4 years ago. Also since the DMA bans arrangement that Epic breached before, there is no reason to suspect that the EU account will breach anything new now, I really doubt EU will let this slide.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      > The trigger was that Epic criticized Apple Epic has been criticising Apple almost every single day.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        Apple themselves said that the trigger was Epic criticizing them.
        misnome 3y ago
        … according to Epic

scarface_74 3y ago

That’s very much a Pyrrhic victory if Eoic doesn’t have access to the US market. The court ruling in the US said that Apple has the right to terminate their account. From the linked article > This judgment stated that “Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion.”

andersa 3y ago
This is about Epic having access to the EU market.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  That’s why it’s a Pyrrhic victory. They have access to the EU market which is much less profitable than the US market.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    Pyrrhic implies that the battle is over. I see it more as a foothold for a much longer battle. I'm sure North America and Asia aren't ignoring this whole ordeal. It should also be noted that this article specifically talks about Epic's Sweden AB account being banned. It doesn't affect the state of the US account (which may very well be banned anyway).
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > Pyrrhic implies that the battle is over Other way around, "victory" implies the battle is over, Pyrrhic as a modifier implies a victory that inflicted such a devastating toll that it was tantamount to defeat.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Right now they have access to neither. A less-than-complete win is not a Phyrric victory.

lamontcg 3y ago

Yeah, its really weird to appeal to the noble intentions of a corporation. They're both just engaged in business. I can believe that Apple is acting incredibly badly in this case without needing to fluff up Epic Games at all. Apple and Samsung could sue each other and do business with each other because the stakes were lower and they were more codependent.

wkat4242 3y ago
> Yeah, its really weird to appeal to the noble intentions of a corporation. They're both just engaged in business. This is what's wrong with the current overly capitalist system. Companies are totally allowed to have no conscience, and externalise whatever they please to consumers and the environment. And you could even argue they are 'forced' to do so by due diligence legislation. If we let this continue there will be no world left to fix. We have to change the game. I'm not saying we should go full communism. Capitalism isn't bad but there needs to be a balance between business and society with actual accountability (rather than the current 'green' initiatives basically just being PR without any kind of enforcement). It can't be all about money. I think for US culture it's hard to imagine doing this but here in Europe society has always had this balance, at least in most countries. Initiatives like RoHS, GDPR, DSA/DMA are often called anticompetitive but we are actually trying to improve things for the benefit of society, not just the shareholders.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  > Companies are totally allowed to have no conscience I don't think companies are going to form a conscience any time soon. We need to deal with the fact that they're best viewed as being inherently sociopathic and regulate them effectively.
  - Gormo 3y ago
    Perhaps a better alternative would be to stop anthropomorphising abstractions, and not try to weirdly attribute intentionality, independent agency, or sociopathy to the same thing we're acknowledging is incapable of conscience because it isn't a person. Corporations are organizational models employed by humans in pursuit of human motivations. They are not entities unto themselves. Everything is humans, all the way down.

jeffwask 3y ago

As long as Forkknife continues to print money, they can afford the battle.

dwaite 3y ago

Apple is asking for a clear commitment to honor its contract this time. I'm pretty sure a court ruling on reinstating the account isn't going to also require a clear commitment to honor the contract.