6 ms·

>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 ot

>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.
    - echelon 3y ago
      > You can sideload apks Just because you can ask your users to build a nuclear fission reactor, doesn't mean that they can or will. F-droid gets ~3M MAU, with a 70% bounce rate. It's pitiful. This is a pathetic case for mobile rights and freedom. Practically nobody knows how to make use of this model. Installing software should be first class, not buried in the settings. It shouldn't have scare walls, either. Google knows exactly what they're doing with the "freedom" they're letting end users have. 0.1% of users even know about or can leverage it.
      - elevatedastalt 3y ago
        I am sorry to push back on this, but this is just incorrect. The truth is the vast majority of users do not care about sideloading apks. Apple knows this. Google knows this. However, it is important that it is allowed without any major hurdle (a warning dialog that you need to click OK on is not a major hurdle for me once you consider that many malicious actors will use this sideloading for nefarious purposes). Google allows it and you are free to use it without major hurdles. Yes, most users don't care to, and that's fine.
        echelon 3y ago
        > The truth is the vast majority of users do not care about sideloading apks. You can't really say that since it isn't a common deployment strategy. If web installs of APKs were normal and had no road blocks, then the practice would be commonplace. The users care about software. There is only one blessed path to get it.
- ethbr1 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 I think that gave them much stronger standing and claimed damages. It's a weaker argument if they voluntarily removed themselves from the AppStore. Apple could have trotted out some 'We typically work well with developers in Epic's situation, but they never approached us so there was nothing we could do' excuse. By forcing Apple to take an action, it concretely showed that Apple does in fact remove access if companies tried to forward users to alternate payment methods.
  - SllX 3y ago
    Sure, maybe this was the better strategy given either strategy was going to be a long shot, but they high rolled for what was ultimately a contract renegotiation and lost worse than if they had played their cards differently. Higher risk can mean higher rewards, but in this case it just worked out to be a bigger loss. They were never entitled to the outcome they fought for, but it was their right to fight for it and Apple’s right to defend themselves and their policies.
  - abduhl 3y ago
    There is no such thing as “stronger” standing. You either have standing or you don’t. It’s the rule almost everywhere that a party to a contract can seek a declaratory judgment regarding the contract without breaching. This idea that Epic had to breach to sue is part of a well crafted PR campaign by Epic.
- overgard 3y ago
  I realize the gravity is a lot less here, but consider Civil Rights protests where people intentionally but peacefully broke (bad) laws in protest. I would consider what Epic did in a similar way.
  - SllX 3y ago
    This isn’t Segregation. Epic isn’t Rosa Parks. Apple isn’t a legislature. Epic’s actions until now have been for a B2B contract renegotiation, not a human rights movement. People who did fight for civil rights were also punished with the force of law for their civil disobedience. The laws were unjust, but they still had consequences for those who lived under them, otherwise they wouldn’t have had to fight. Epic is also facing the consequences of their actions, but it’s only really important to them that they win. Everybody else invested in this fight (within the EU) will probably be able to get anything they want but Fortnite from some other app marketplace.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Trying to reduce a monopoly isn't as important as civil rights, but it's a lot more important than "B2B contract renegotiation". Epic wants better terms for everyone, not just their app.
      - SllX 3y ago
        That's Epic's PR spin, but I ain't buying. This was a chance to reduce the fees they pay to Apple, not subject themselves to the customer relationship rules set by Apple and expand into another line of business. The legal, political and PR campaigns were tools in their arsenal to put pressure on Apple. They lost, but good news for all the not-Epics out there because there's other companies who stand to benefit from the recent Court and Commission-induced changes Apple made to their policies. It just won't be Epic specifically.
    - overgard 3y ago
      That's why I said I realize the gravity isn't the same. I'm trying to point out it's in a similar category, not the same level of importance. Apple might not be a government, but they have a LOT of power and very little accountability. Epic's rule breaking was done to force Apple to show their ugly side, much like how the protests were designed to show how ugly the law and law enforcement was. Here's the thing when you have a highly asymmetric power relationship, whether it be with a government or a business or any other large organization. You can point out how bad their policies are, and never break a rule, and people will just sort of sadly nod their head in agreement and go back to doing what they do. Or, you can force them to show just how ugly their rules/laws are on in real life -- not just theoretically. The latter actually gets things done, which is why I made the relation between the two things. Or put more simply: show, don't tell. Apple's App Store policies are, in my opinion as both an iPhone user and a developer, bad for everyone but Apple. So no, it's not important just for Epic that they win, it's important for the broader community of developers and users. Apple clearly is punishing Epic for fighting them and securing some victories, and personally I don't think we should tolerate that sort of behavior from Apple.
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.

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.
  - echelon 3y ago
    > You can sideload apks Just because you can ask your users to build a nuclear fission reactor, doesn't mean that they can or will. F-droid gets ~3M MAU, with a 70% bounce rate. It's pitiful. This is a pathetic case for mobile rights and freedom. Practically nobody knows how to make use of this model. Installing software should be first class, not buried in the settings. It shouldn't have scare walls, either. Google knows exactly what they're doing with the "freedom" they're letting end users have. 0.1% of users even know about or can leverage it.
    - elevatedastalt 3y ago
      I am sorry to push back on this, but this is just incorrect. The truth is the vast majority of users do not care about sideloading apks. Apple knows this. Google knows this. However, it is important that it is allowed without any major hurdle (a warning dialog that you need to click OK on is not a major hurdle for me once you consider that many malicious actors will use this sideloading for nefarious purposes). Google allows it and you are free to use it without major hurdles. Yes, most users don't care to, and that's fine.
      - echelon 3y ago
        > The truth is the vast majority of users do not care about sideloading apks. You can't really say that since it isn't a common deployment strategy. If web installs of APKs were normal and had no road blocks, then the practice would be commonplace. The users care about software. There is only one blessed path to get it.
ethbr1 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 I think that gave them much stronger standing and claimed damages. It's a weaker argument if they voluntarily removed themselves from the AppStore. Apple could have trotted out some 'We typically work well with developers in Epic's situation, but they never approached us so there was nothing we could do' excuse. By forcing Apple to take an action, it concretely showed that Apple does in fact remove access if companies tried to forward users to alternate payment methods.
- SllX 3y ago
  Sure, maybe this was the better strategy given either strategy was going to be a long shot, but they high rolled for what was ultimately a contract renegotiation and lost worse than if they had played their cards differently. Higher risk can mean higher rewards, but in this case it just worked out to be a bigger loss. They were never entitled to the outcome they fought for, but it was their right to fight for it and Apple’s right to defend themselves and their policies.
- abduhl 3y ago
  There is no such thing as “stronger” standing. You either have standing or you don’t. It’s the rule almost everywhere that a party to a contract can seek a declaratory judgment regarding the contract without breaching. This idea that Epic had to breach to sue is part of a well crafted PR campaign by Epic.
overgard 3y ago
I realize the gravity is a lot less here, but consider Civil Rights protests where people intentionally but peacefully broke (bad) laws in protest. I would consider what Epic did in a similar way.
- SllX 3y ago
  This isn’t Segregation. Epic isn’t Rosa Parks. Apple isn’t a legislature. Epic’s actions until now have been for a B2B contract renegotiation, not a human rights movement. People who did fight for civil rights were also punished with the force of law for their civil disobedience. The laws were unjust, but they still had consequences for those who lived under them, otherwise they wouldn’t have had to fight. Epic is also facing the consequences of their actions, but it’s only really important to them that they win. Everybody else invested in this fight (within the EU) will probably be able to get anything they want but Fortnite from some other app marketplace.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Trying to reduce a monopoly isn't as important as civil rights, but it's a lot more important than "B2B contract renegotiation". Epic wants better terms for everyone, not just their app.
    - SllX 3y ago
      That's Epic's PR spin, but I ain't buying. This was a chance to reduce the fees they pay to Apple, not subject themselves to the customer relationship rules set by Apple and expand into another line of business. The legal, political and PR campaigns were tools in their arsenal to put pressure on Apple. They lost, but good news for all the not-Epics out there because there's other companies who stand to benefit from the recent Court and Commission-induced changes Apple made to their policies. It just won't be Epic specifically.
  - overgard 3y ago
    That's why I said I realize the gravity isn't the same. I'm trying to point out it's in a similar category, not the same level of importance. Apple might not be a government, but they have a LOT of power and very little accountability. Epic's rule breaking was done to force Apple to show their ugly side, much like how the protests were designed to show how ugly the law and law enforcement was. Here's the thing when you have a highly asymmetric power relationship, whether it be with a government or a business or any other large organization. You can point out how bad their policies are, and never break a rule, and people will just sort of sadly nod their head in agreement and go back to doing what they do. Or, you can force them to show just how ugly their rules/laws are on in real life -- not just theoretically. The latter actually gets things done, which is why I made the relation between the two things. Or put more simply: show, don't tell. Apple's App Store policies are, in my opinion as both an iPhone user and a developer, bad for everyone but Apple. So no, it's not important just for Epic that they win, it's important for the broader community of developers and users. Apple clearly is punishing Epic for fighting them and securing some victories, and personally I don't think we should tolerate that sort of behavior from Apple.

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.