11 ms·

Epic also intentionally broke agreements with Apple before. Non-discriminatory doesn’t mean they have no grounds to terminate Epic’s developer accounts, and Epi

by SllX 3y ago

Epic also intentionally broke agreements with Apple before. Non-discriminatory doesn’t mean they have no grounds to terminate Epic’s developer accounts, and Epic is continuing to make themselves look untrustworthy by trying to publicly and explicitly shank Apple. Spotify is also trying to shank Apple in all the same places Epic is, but they also didn’t go behind Apple’s back to deceive the prior review process in contravention to a signed agreement, file suit and spin-out a pre-prepared publicity stunt-filled PR campaign and then go on to court to testify that all of that was done on purpose. Tim Sweeney and Epic did. It sucks because I was hoping this fight was basically in the rear-view mirror now, but it’s hard to argue Apple has no grounds for calling Epic untrustworthy and not even maintaining an arms-length business relationship in one jurisdiction with them. Who’s to say Epic wouldn’t try something similar again? Apple can still set terms under the DMA, and Tim has been publicly campaigning that these terms violate the DMA which isn’t actually his call to make. Also one other point: > Apple don't get to deny access to their main competitor in this space As of today, and yesterday, and going back to the dawn of the iPhone: Epic isn’t anything in “this space” let alone Apple’s main competitor. They have stated that they intend to compete, and want to compete with Apple in this space, but Epic’s iPhone app marketplace is vaporware. It hasn’t shipped, it doesn’t look like they’re going to be able to ship now, and in its entire history of being discussed, has earned Epic €0.00 to date.

ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
>Epic also intentionally broke agreements with Apple before. This is funny to point out since they did it specifically to sue over it (you pretty much can't other wise). So Apple has their draconian 30% cut or there's literally no other way to have an application run on iOS policy, you can't challenge it without breaking it so you can sue, and because you broke it to sue you are now permanently barred from every making another iOS app. Yea that seems fine, no monopolistic behavior here, it's only 49% of the phone market so it's fine.
- SllX 3y ago
  They had the alternative of pulling their software on principle and suing, but they wanted the fight they would have by having Apple suspend and then terminate their developer accounts to bring more public opinion to their side, and they sure got the fight. As a developer enrolled in the program, it would have been hard to argue they didn’t have standing as long as what they were arguing had plausible legal merit (it did, it may not have been the winning argument in the end, but it was at least plausible at the beginning and they won on one count). The goal wasn’t just to sue Apple, it was to shank Apple with one hand while filing suit with another and they had multiple opportunities to get their account unsuspended at the beginning of the lawsuit even while the case proceeded, before it was eventually terminated.
  - echelon 3y ago
    There is no alternative to mobile computing. Both vendors have draconian rules. These are devices so essential to modern functioning that the regulators need to come and tell both Apple and Google that unlimited web installs are user rights. Epic is right. Apple and Google are monopolies over an entire class of computing, and it's a 100% artificial racket.
    - SllX 3y ago
      > These are devices so essential to modern functioning that the regulators need to come and tell both Apple and Google that unlimited web installs are user rights. This might be what you want but without new legislation, because the DMA ain’t saying what you want, regulators are not within their rights to impose this requirement.
    - elevatedastalt 3y ago
      You can sideload apks on Android and have alternate app stores too. I don't think the situations are in anyway similar or comparable.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        Agreed. Google's lock-in is much more through bundling and must-default agreements.
- threeseed 3y ago
  > This is funny to point out since they did it specifically to sue over it (you pretty much can't other wise). This is simply wrong. Many have sued Apple over the legalities of the development agreement over the decades. They just always lose. And Epic could've chosen to follow Spotify and lobby behind the scenes but instead chose the PR move.
- barelysapient 3y ago
  > Yea that seems fine, no monopolistic behavior here, it's only 49% of the phone market so it's fine. iPhone marketshare in the EU is about 22%.
- concinds 3y ago
  > This is funny to point out since they did it specifically to sue over it (you pretty much can't other wise). Are you a lawyer? You sound awfully assertive in making this claim, especially with the slight contempt/patronizing tone.
- Terretta 3y ago
  > So Apple has their draconian 30% cut This notion that 30% is 'draconian' is curious since Steam -- on supposedly open PC -- costs devs more, and even 30% is wrong since it's not 30% below a certain revenue level or in the second year onwards, again in line or less than stores on other platforms.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    The PC isn't "supposedly" open, but open. Steam do collect a 30% fee but crucially, they have to work for that fee by competing on core service quality and quality of life features (like cloud saves). Apple is perfectly entitled to ask for a 30% fee, as long as they allow for competition on equal footing (for clarity, this means they don't try to collect exorbitant rent from their competitors first). Let the free market sort it out.
    - Aloisius 3y ago
      > and quality of life features (like cloud saves) You mean like CloudKit? Apple SDKs exist and do things - including everything Steamworks does and quite a bit more. If Apple decided to only allow apps distributed through them to use their SDKs or services, then would it would be fine because they'd be like Steam?
      - int_19h 3y ago
        As a user, I have to pay for iCloud storage for apps that use it. There is a free tier, sure... which most users will fill very quickly just with device backups and photos alone. I don't recall ever playing for cloud storage on Steam, though.
        Aloisius 3y ago
        They have different QoS levels. Steam Cloud is truly a backup service. It's not fast even for tiny amounts of data. They'll even kick you over to an even slower lane if you store anything over 250 MB. Meanwhile, you can do near real-time app synchronization over iCloud between devices. But yeah, it'd be great if Apple bumped up the free tier size. That said, I've never actually had any problems storing app data on iCloud. Apple users seem to either pay for more storage or not backup to iCloud, so from a developer perspective, eh.
- bonestamp2 3y ago
  I'm not a lawyer so please excuse this potentially dumb question, but why do they have to break the agreement to sue them?
  - mwest217 3y ago
    Also not a lawyer, but my understanding is that in order to have standing to sue, you must be able to show that you were damaged by the behavior you are trying to file suit against.
- throwaway-blaze 3y ago
  It's not 49% of the phone market in the EU. More like 36%, and in some markets like Italy and Spain, far far smaller.
  - microtonal 3y ago
    It doesn’t matter. A company does not have to be a monopoly to be a gatekeeper under the DMA. The DMA defines gatekeeper (among other things) in terms of the number of users in the EU and revenue in the EEA. According to those definitions Apple is a gatekeeper and the DMA applies to them, monopoly or not.
bsimpson 3y ago
Epic does have a history as an app store. They are the main competitor to Steam on Windows, famous for giving away games every week to drive traffic.
- SllX 3y ago
  Apple doesn’t compete with the Epic Games Store on Windows anymore than the Epic Games Store competes with the App Store on iPhones. EDIT: just realized I originally mixed up Origin and the Epic Games Store. My bad.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >Origin competes with the App Store on iPhones. I guess we'll see in the light of the DMA. Apple didn't allow EA to compete before, but who knows now. But this seems to be missing the point. Epic Games wants to put their store on mobile, they had android on the roadmap for years. They very much want to compete.
    - SllX 3y ago
      First, thank you for posting this because this was my first clue that I mixed up EA’s thing with Epic’s thing. My bad. Second, wanting to compete and competing aren’t the same activity. They are not presently a competitor to the iPhone’s App Store. They may become a competitor in the future, pending presumably at least some discussions between Apple, the EC and Epic, and possibly a legal fight, but calling them an app marketplace competitor in the present-tense is not accurate nor justifiable.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
stefan_ 3y ago
These words have a specific, narrow meaning and your laymans impression is the opposite of helpful in interpreting them.
- SllX 3y ago
  In the context of standards essential patents, yes. In the case of DMA compliance, it’s a bit more TBD until the EC issues more guidance and actual legal precedent is set, but what we do know is that the DMA still allows Apple to set terms that 3rd parties must both agree with and abide by which means having an active developer account with Apple. If Apple believes Epic will not abide by the terms in good faith, they don’t have any reason to maintain a relationship with Epic, and Epic has given Apple plenty of reasons. The real and interesting question is whether they can do this before they prove Epic’s non-compliance with the new terms.
overgard 3y ago
I find it hard to see Apple being in the right here. While I'm not so naive as to think one company is "good" and the other "bad", I do think that as developers Epic is fighting for our best interests. Apple's app store monopoly serves only Apple.
- dwaite 3y ago
  I do not. Tim Sweeney testified that had Apple offered a special deal just for Epic, they would have taken it.
  - overgard 3y ago
    Maybe I should rephrase that, they're indirectly fighting for our best interest. Obviously their motives are selfish, but their wins are generally good for the rest of us in this context.
- SllX 3y ago
  In the right and within their rights are two separate things. I’m not exactly happy with all of Apple’s App Store policies either, but they have their rights. I also don’t believe Epic is doing this for anything other than Epic’s self-interest. They have no duty to other developers, and this is a potentially new line of business for them, not a liberation of iPhone app developers.
- concinds 3y ago
  Criticize Apple vigorously and criticize Epic vigorously. Epic's been fined for dark patterns, data collection on minors below 13, and their entire business model relies on getting children to buy worthless cosmetic skins out of peer pressure, while optimizing for engagement and addiction. It's a predatory business model that should be illegal. One of their main goals in bypassing IAP is to make these microtransactions non-refundable, so parents are screwed. They're the great satan.
  - fennecbutt 3y ago
    Source for your last point there, please.

by SllX 3y ago

ApolloFortyNine 3y ago

>Epic also intentionally broke agreements with Apple before. This is funny to point out since they did it specifically to sue over it (you pretty much can't other wise). So Apple has their draconian 30% cut or there's literally no other way to have an application run on iOS policy, you can't challenge it without breaking it so you can sue, and because you broke it to sue you are now permanently barred from every making another iOS app. Yea that seems fine, no monopolistic behavior here, it's only 49% of the phone market so it's fine.

SllX 3y ago
They had the alternative of pulling their software on principle and suing, but they wanted the fight they would have by having Apple suspend and then terminate their developer accounts to bring more public opinion to their side, and they sure got the fight. As a developer enrolled in the program, it would have been hard to argue they didn’t have standing as long as what they were arguing had plausible legal merit (it did, it may not have been the winning argument in the end, but it was at least plausible at the beginning and they won on one count). The goal wasn’t just to sue Apple, it was to shank Apple with one hand while filing suit with another and they had multiple opportunities to get their account unsuspended at the beginning of the lawsuit even while the case proceeded, before it was eventually terminated.
- echelon 3y ago
  There is no alternative to mobile computing. Both vendors have draconian rules. These are devices so essential to modern functioning that the regulators need to come and tell both Apple and Google that unlimited web installs are user rights. Epic is right. Apple and Google are monopolies over an entire class of computing, and it's a 100% artificial racket.
  - SllX 3y ago
    > These are devices so essential to modern functioning that the regulators need to come and tell both Apple and Google that unlimited web installs are user rights. This might be what you want but without new legislation, because the DMA ain’t saying what you want, regulators are not within their rights to impose this requirement.
  - elevatedastalt 3y ago
    You can sideload apks on Android and have alternate app stores too. I don't think the situations are in anyway similar or comparable.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Agreed. Google's lock-in is much more through bundling and must-default agreements.
threeseed 3y ago
> This is funny to point out since they did it specifically to sue over it (you pretty much can't other wise). This is simply wrong. Many have sued Apple over the legalities of the development agreement over the decades. They just always lose. And Epic could've chosen to follow Spotify and lobby behind the scenes but instead chose the PR move.
barelysapient 3y ago
> Yea that seems fine, no monopolistic behavior here, it's only 49% of the phone market so it's fine. iPhone marketshare in the EU is about 22%.
concinds 3y ago
> This is funny to point out since they did it specifically to sue over it (you pretty much can't other wise). Are you a lawyer? You sound awfully assertive in making this claim, especially with the slight contempt/patronizing tone.
Terretta 3y ago
> So Apple has their draconian 30% cut This notion that 30% is 'draconian' is curious since Steam -- on supposedly open PC -- costs devs more, and even 30% is wrong since it's not 30% below a certain revenue level or in the second year onwards, again in line or less than stores on other platforms.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  The PC isn't "supposedly" open, but open. Steam do collect a 30% fee but crucially, they have to work for that fee by competing on core service quality and quality of life features (like cloud saves). Apple is perfectly entitled to ask for a 30% fee, as long as they allow for competition on equal footing (for clarity, this means they don't try to collect exorbitant rent from their competitors first). Let the free market sort it out.
  - Aloisius 3y ago
    > and quality of life features (like cloud saves) You mean like CloudKit? Apple SDKs exist and do things - including everything Steamworks does and quite a bit more. If Apple decided to only allow apps distributed through them to use their SDKs or services, then would it would be fine because they'd be like Steam?
    - int_19h 3y ago
      As a user, I have to pay for iCloud storage for apps that use it. There is a free tier, sure... which most users will fill very quickly just with device backups and photos alone. I don't recall ever playing for cloud storage on Steam, though.
      - Aloisius 3y ago
        They have different QoS levels. Steam Cloud is truly a backup service. It's not fast even for tiny amounts of data. They'll even kick you over to an even slower lane if you store anything over 250 MB. Meanwhile, you can do near real-time app synchronization over iCloud between devices. But yeah, it'd be great if Apple bumped up the free tier size. That said, I've never actually had any problems storing app data on iCloud. Apple users seem to either pay for more storage or not backup to iCloud, so from a developer perspective, eh.
bonestamp2 3y ago
I'm not a lawyer so please excuse this potentially dumb question, but why do they have to break the agreement to sue them?
- mwest217 3y ago
  Also not a lawyer, but my understanding is that in order to have standing to sue, you must be able to show that you were damaged by the behavior you are trying to file suit against.
throwaway-blaze 3y ago
It's not 49% of the phone market in the EU. More like 36%, and in some markets like Italy and Spain, far far smaller.
- microtonal 3y ago
  It doesn’t matter. A company does not have to be a monopoly to be a gatekeeper under the DMA. The DMA defines gatekeeper (among other things) in terms of the number of users in the EU and revenue in the EEA. According to those definitions Apple is a gatekeeper and the DMA applies to them, monopoly or not.

bsimpson 3y ago

Epic does have a history as an app store. They are the main competitor to Steam on Windows, famous for giving away games every week to drive traffic.

SllX 3y ago
Apple doesn’t compete with the Epic Games Store on Windows anymore than the Epic Games Store competes with the App Store on iPhones. EDIT: just realized I originally mixed up Origin and the Epic Games Store. My bad.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >Origin competes with the App Store on iPhones. I guess we'll see in the light of the DMA. Apple didn't allow EA to compete before, but who knows now. But this seems to be missing the point. Epic Games wants to put their store on mobile, they had android on the roadmap for years. They very much want to compete.
  - SllX 3y ago
    First, thank you for posting this because this was my first clue that I mixed up EA’s thing with Epic’s thing. My bad. Second, wanting to compete and competing aren’t the same activity. They are not presently a competitor to the iPhone’s App Store. They may become a competitor in the future, pending presumably at least some discussions between Apple, the EC and Epic, and possibly a legal fight, but calling them an app marketplace competitor in the present-tense is not accurate nor justifiable.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

stefan_ 3y ago

These words have a specific, narrow meaning and your laymans impression is the opposite of helpful in interpreting them.

SllX 3y ago
In the context of standards essential patents, yes. In the case of DMA compliance, it’s a bit more TBD until the EC issues more guidance and actual legal precedent is set, but what we do know is that the DMA still allows Apple to set terms that 3rd parties must both agree with and abide by which means having an active developer account with Apple. If Apple believes Epic will not abide by the terms in good faith, they don’t have any reason to maintain a relationship with Epic, and Epic has given Apple plenty of reasons. The real and interesting question is whether they can do this before they prove Epic’s non-compliance with the new terms.

overgard 3y ago

I find it hard to see Apple being in the right here. While I'm not so naive as to think one company is "good" and the other "bad", I do think that as developers Epic is fighting for our best interests. Apple's app store monopoly serves only Apple.

dwaite 3y ago
I do not. Tim Sweeney testified that had Apple offered a special deal just for Epic, they would have taken it.
- overgard 3y ago
  Maybe I should rephrase that, they're indirectly fighting for our best interest. Obviously their motives are selfish, but their wins are generally good for the rest of us in this context.
SllX 3y ago
In the right and within their rights are two separate things. I’m not exactly happy with all of Apple’s App Store policies either, but they have their rights. I also don’t believe Epic is doing this for anything other than Epic’s self-interest. They have no duty to other developers, and this is a potentially new line of business for them, not a liberation of iPhone app developers.
concinds 3y ago
Criticize Apple vigorously and criticize Epic vigorously. Epic's been fined for dark patterns, data collection on minors below 13, and their entire business model relies on getting children to buy worthless cosmetic skins out of peer pressure, while optimizing for engagement and addiction. It's a predatory business model that should be illegal. One of their main goals in bypassing IAP is to make these microtransactions non-refundable, so parents are screwed. They're the great satan.
- fennecbutt 3y ago
  Source for your last point there, please.