6 ms·

What's Apple's reasoning here? An american subsidiary lied once and an american court said they didn't have to keep them around, so we kicked a european subsid

What's Apple's reasoning here? An american subsidiary lied once and an american court said they didn't have to keep them around, so we kicked a european subsidiary out of the european mandated DMA. Yeah, that's gonna go over great with the EU. Apple really deserves the 10% of global revenue fine to be brought down a peg.

thallium205 3y ago
They don’t want a litigious bad mouthing customer onboard so they fired them. It’s a story as old as time that happens daily.
- b800h 3y ago
  That might work if you're a local plumber, but not if you're a massive global firm with a de-facto monopoly.
- pavlov 3y ago
  Things are different when you’re in antitrust crosshairs and have been designated a “gatekeeper” by new legislation that explicitly intends to force you to open your product to competitors. It’s not a great look when your first action in that gatekeeper role is to block access to a competitor because of actions the competitor’s parent company took years ago in another country and a different jurisdiction.
  - zuppy 3y ago
    I would add that nobody asked them to create the need to have a business relation with the external appstore. Although I don’t necessarily think it’s a good thing to allow external appstores, this is the law now and they have to comply with it.
    - lettergram 3y ago
      > this is the law now and they have to comply with it. lol ugh, it’s the law to wear a seatbelt, I can choose to ignore it. One ironic part I like to mention about this is that tractors tell you not to wear a seat belt. That lets you bail if it’s tipping over. The thing is, it’s still technically illegal not wearing a seat belt. Ironically, riding a motorbike requires no seatbelt… and overall is more unsafe, but totally fine apparently. The point I’m making is laws aren’t hard constraints, they’re human constructs and you can choose to ignore them. There may be consequences to ignoring them. But the calculus for Apple is that it’s worth it to them and to ignore. Much like the farmer with the tractor, minimal risk to ignore. High risk to follow law.
      - josefx 3y ago
        > The thing is, it’s still technically illegal not wearing a seat belt Check if the law in your state actually applies to a tractor. Some states explicitly list which motor vehicles the law applies to.
      - tpm 3y ago
        > laws aren’t hard constraints, they’re human constructs As is Apple, the company. It only exists on paper. It can be barred from existing in a jurisdiction by another human construct, a court ruling. It can choose to ignore EU laws, but there would be consequences.
      - prmoustache 3y ago
        The farmer do whatever he wants within its field, the road laws don't apply there. But he has to follow the laws when he is on the road where a tractor has no reason to tip over. Your analogy is not relevant here.
  - _cenw 3y ago
    Last action, they terminated Epic one day before the DMA went into effect (today). It's clearly meant to stall the creation of Epic's own App Store. All the processes still require an Apple developer account. This is malicious enough that I hope the EU regulators pull all strings to make Apple's fine for this not just aedequate to the money they're saving, but also to account for the disregard of the law itself. The EU isn't the boring cyberpunk future where corporations can do whatever they want Apple thinks it is.
    - madsbuch 3y ago
      > Last action, they terminated Epic one day before the DMA went into effect (today). The law went into effect november 1st 2022[0]. Until yesterday has been a grace period to allow big companies time to implement the law - I must say that 1 year and 4 months is generous. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act
      - _cenw 3y ago
        Sure, if you want to be pedantic about it. Though this is pretty normal for EU law to give a lot of preparation time. The GDPR had 2 entire years - and I still got some emergency compliance tickets in the week before (worked at the eCommerce arm of a major German retailer).
        madsbuch 3y ago
        This is not being pedantic? Apple is currently fully liable under the DMA. Especially for new initiatives, which what happened yesterday indeed was.
- scottfr 3y ago
  Epic is not a customer of Apple. Many of Apple's customers are also customers of Epic. Apple is trying to prevent those shared customers from accessing Epic.
  - Retric 3y ago
    You can call Apple a customer or supplier of Epic, but it's just semantics they do have a business relationship. The deeper point is companies get rid of litigious business partners whenever possible. It's one reason why you end up regulating utilities, nobody wants the electric company to have excessive control over the local economy. Where exactly digital platforms sit on this spectrum is probably a question for legislators not the courts.
  - madsbuch 3y ago
    I think very few developers wish to be customers of Apple. But Apple gatekeeps the platform developers need to publish on. It is this relations that is the core of DMA, and which DMA seeks to change.
    - Seanambers 3y ago
      They do not need, they want and they don't want to pay Apple.
      - madsbuch 3y ago
        This is ridiculous. If you develop a game that needs to be available on all major platforms, Apple devices are a part of them. Are you also one of the people, who would argue, that you can build you own road network, if you don't like the terms on the current road network? Luckily it is not you who are going to work on these regulations, but people who actually care about free markets (how ironic that the EU is the progressive one on the question of freedom).
        Seanambers 3y ago
        There is such a thing as a private road. This is not about access. This is about money, and to think the EU - the geniuses who gave us all GDPR pop ups - don't have a intrinsic interest in devaluing Apples ecosystem is delusional.
- andylynch 3y ago
  Enabling adverse risk interoperability is a main point of the Digital Markets Act.
misnome 3y ago
> an american court said they didn't have to keep them around They also said that they didn’t have to keep any subsidiaries around. It’s not even _pretending_ to be an independent subsidiary.
- _cenw 3y ago
  US law does not apply in the EU, and having subsidiaries in the EU is common and almost required for GDPR compliance.
  - bArray 3y ago
    Exactly this - US law applies to the US only. In order for Apple and Epic to operate in the EU, they must abide by EU laws.
voidUpdate 3y ago
Didn't Epic Games violate the app store ToS a while back? I'm not a fan of Apple but it still seems reasonable to me to terminate a developer account for breaking ToS
- JanSt 3y ago
  You can't just use your ToS to circumvent the law of the market you operate in. If they have to allow Epic to operate in the EU under the DMA they can't kick them out unless it's in compliance with EU law. The EU law overpowers Apple's ToS.
- jsnell 3y ago
  It's not reasonable when Apple has set up artificial roadblocks whereby Epic can't compete with Apple in the iOS app store market without a developer account. As of yesterday, Apple is legally mandated to enable competition in that market, so using those roadblocks to aggressively block competition is a pretty big problem. Apple could easily resolve this by just removing their their bogus constraints around the requirements for launching a competing app store on iOS. After that they could probably keep Epic banned all they want from the main App Store based on future ToS violations. (Though with the caveat that the ToS would need to be reasonable, and it seems clear that Apple has no intent of making a reasonable ToS unless forced). But they're not going to do that, are they? None of Apple's restrictions were about security or user safety, they were always intended as an exclusionary measures, to make sure nobody can launch a viable competing store. When it looked like Epic was going to do it despite the ridiculous business terms, Apple reached for the next excuse in their toolbox.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  Well it seems reasonable to me they terminate their developer account ONLY AND ONLY IF a developer account is not mandatory to be able to have a foot in the iOS market. Apple has the responsibility to safeguard apps delivered by its own store, but it will be each third party store responsibility to do the same while also complying to EU laws.
- jemmyw 3y ago
  My understanding is that they had to break the ToS to take it to court. I mean they could have taken it to court anyway but they wouldn't have had standing.
stingraycharles 3y ago
A US judge ruled that Epic has a pattern of “malicious compliance”. Epic created a new account in Sweden so they can create an App Store in the EU. Apple used the judge’s reasoning of a pattern of malicious compliance to preemptively shut down Epic’s account. Because they believe Epic will not play by the rules. So it’s a kind of pre-crime reasoning, they’re shutting down Epic’s account before they can do anything wrong. And probably also because Epic publicly criticized Apple’s malicious compliance around the EU rulings.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  Isn't “malicious compliance” the business model of Apple and most successful companies?
  - laserlight 3y ago
    Can you expand what Apple has done to count “malicious compliance”?
    - lagadu 3y ago
      Breaking PWAs is the most recent example but the most well known was their (now dead and buried) attempt to circumvent USB charging requirements.
    - bmicraft 3y ago
      Everything they've done around the right to repair
      - laserlight 3y ago
        As far as I know, they ship a whole package of tools to customers who would like to repair their equipment. They also made the latest iPhone models easier to disassemble. What do you think they should have done in order to comply benevolently?
        3y ago

thallium205 3y ago

They don’t want a litigious bad mouthing customer onboard so they fired them. It’s a story as old as time that happens daily.

b800h 3y ago
That might work if you're a local plumber, but not if you're a massive global firm with a de-facto monopoly.
pavlov 3y ago
Things are different when you’re in antitrust crosshairs and have been designated a “gatekeeper” by new legislation that explicitly intends to force you to open your product to competitors. It’s not a great look when your first action in that gatekeeper role is to block access to a competitor because of actions the competitor’s parent company took years ago in another country and a different jurisdiction.
- zuppy 3y ago
  I would add that nobody asked them to create the need to have a business relation with the external appstore. Although I don’t necessarily think it’s a good thing to allow external appstores, this is the law now and they have to comply with it.
  - lettergram 3y ago
    > this is the law now and they have to comply with it. lol ugh, it’s the law to wear a seatbelt, I can choose to ignore it. One ironic part I like to mention about this is that tractors tell you not to wear a seat belt. That lets you bail if it’s tipping over. The thing is, it’s still technically illegal not wearing a seat belt. Ironically, riding a motorbike requires no seatbelt… and overall is more unsafe, but totally fine apparently. The point I’m making is laws aren’t hard constraints, they’re human constructs and you can choose to ignore them. There may be consequences to ignoring them. But the calculus for Apple is that it’s worth it to them and to ignore. Much like the farmer with the tractor, minimal risk to ignore. High risk to follow law.
    - josefx 3y ago
      > The thing is, it’s still technically illegal not wearing a seat belt Check if the law in your state actually applies to a tractor. Some states explicitly list which motor vehicles the law applies to.
    - tpm 3y ago
      > laws aren’t hard constraints, they’re human constructs As is Apple, the company. It only exists on paper. It can be barred from existing in a jurisdiction by another human construct, a court ruling. It can choose to ignore EU laws, but there would be consequences.
    - prmoustache 3y ago
      The farmer do whatever he wants within its field, the road laws don't apply there. But he has to follow the laws when he is on the road where a tractor has no reason to tip over. Your analogy is not relevant here.
- _cenw 3y ago
  Last action, they terminated Epic one day before the DMA went into effect (today). It's clearly meant to stall the creation of Epic's own App Store. All the processes still require an Apple developer account. This is malicious enough that I hope the EU regulators pull all strings to make Apple's fine for this not just aedequate to the money they're saving, but also to account for the disregard of the law itself. The EU isn't the boring cyberpunk future where corporations can do whatever they want Apple thinks it is.
  - madsbuch 3y ago
    > Last action, they terminated Epic one day before the DMA went into effect (today). The law went into effect november 1st 2022[0]. Until yesterday has been a grace period to allow big companies time to implement the law - I must say that 1 year and 4 months is generous. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act
    - _cenw 3y ago
      Sure, if you want to be pedantic about it. Though this is pretty normal for EU law to give a lot of preparation time. The GDPR had 2 entire years - and I still got some emergency compliance tickets in the week before (worked at the eCommerce arm of a major German retailer).
      - madsbuch 3y ago
        This is not being pedantic? Apple is currently fully liable under the DMA. Especially for new initiatives, which what happened yesterday indeed was.
scottfr 3y ago
Epic is not a customer of Apple. Many of Apple's customers are also customers of Epic. Apple is trying to prevent those shared customers from accessing Epic.
- Retric 3y ago
  You can call Apple a customer or supplier of Epic, but it's just semantics they do have a business relationship. The deeper point is companies get rid of litigious business partners whenever possible. It's one reason why you end up regulating utilities, nobody wants the electric company to have excessive control over the local economy. Where exactly digital platforms sit on this spectrum is probably a question for legislators not the courts.
- madsbuch 3y ago
  I think very few developers wish to be customers of Apple. But Apple gatekeeps the platform developers need to publish on. It is this relations that is the core of DMA, and which DMA seeks to change.
  - Seanambers 3y ago
    They do not need, they want and they don't want to pay Apple.
    - madsbuch 3y ago
      This is ridiculous. If you develop a game that needs to be available on all major platforms, Apple devices are a part of them. Are you also one of the people, who would argue, that you can build you own road network, if you don't like the terms on the current road network? Luckily it is not you who are going to work on these regulations, but people who actually care about free markets (how ironic that the EU is the progressive one on the question of freedom).
      - Seanambers 3y ago
        There is such a thing as a private road. This is not about access. This is about money, and to think the EU - the geniuses who gave us all GDPR pop ups - don't have a intrinsic interest in devaluing Apples ecosystem is delusional.
andylynch 3y ago
Enabling adverse risk interoperability is a main point of the Digital Markets Act.

misnome 3y ago

> an american court said they didn't have to keep them around They also said that they didn’t have to keep any subsidiaries around. It’s not even _pretending_ to be an independent subsidiary.

_cenw 3y ago
US law does not apply in the EU, and having subsidiaries in the EU is common and almost required for GDPR compliance.
- bArray 3y ago
  Exactly this - US law applies to the US only. In order for Apple and Epic to operate in the EU, they must abide by EU laws.

voidUpdate 3y ago

Didn't Epic Games violate the app store ToS a while back? I'm not a fan of Apple but it still seems reasonable to me to terminate a developer account for breaking ToS

JanSt 3y ago
You can't just use your ToS to circumvent the law of the market you operate in. If they have to allow Epic to operate in the EU under the DMA they can't kick them out unless it's in compliance with EU law. The EU law overpowers Apple's ToS.
jsnell 3y ago
It's not reasonable when Apple has set up artificial roadblocks whereby Epic can't compete with Apple in the iOS app store market without a developer account. As of yesterday, Apple is legally mandated to enable competition in that market, so using those roadblocks to aggressively block competition is a pretty big problem. Apple could easily resolve this by just removing their their bogus constraints around the requirements for launching a competing app store on iOS. After that they could probably keep Epic banned all they want from the main App Store based on future ToS violations. (Though with the caveat that the ToS would need to be reasonable, and it seems clear that Apple has no intent of making a reasonable ToS unless forced). But they're not going to do that, are they? None of Apple's restrictions were about security or user safety, they were always intended as an exclusionary measures, to make sure nobody can launch a viable competing store. When it looked like Epic was going to do it despite the ridiculous business terms, Apple reached for the next excuse in their toolbox.
prmoustache 3y ago
Well it seems reasonable to me they terminate their developer account ONLY AND ONLY IF a developer account is not mandatory to be able to have a foot in the iOS market. Apple has the responsibility to safeguard apps delivered by its own store, but it will be each third party store responsibility to do the same while also complying to EU laws.
jemmyw 3y ago
My understanding is that they had to break the ToS to take it to court. I mean they could have taken it to court anyway but they wouldn't have had standing.

stingraycharles 3y ago

A US judge ruled that Epic has a pattern of “malicious compliance”. Epic created a new account in Sweden so they can create an App Store in the EU. Apple used the judge’s reasoning of a pattern of malicious compliance to preemptively shut down Epic’s account. Because they believe Epic will not play by the rules. So it’s a kind of pre-crime reasoning, they’re shutting down Epic’s account before they can do anything wrong. And probably also because Epic publicly criticized Apple’s malicious compliance around the EU rulings.

prmoustache 3y ago
Isn't “malicious compliance” the business model of Apple and most successful companies?
- laserlight 3y ago
  Can you expand what Apple has done to count “malicious compliance”?
  - lagadu 3y ago
    Breaking PWAs is the most recent example but the most well known was their (now dead and buried) attempt to circumvent USB charging requirements.
  - bmicraft 3y ago
    Everything they've done around the right to repair
    - laserlight 3y ago
      As far as I know, they ship a whole package of tools to customers who would like to repair their equipment. They also made the latest iPhone models easier to disassemble. What do you think they should have done in order to comply benevolently?
      - 3y ago