5 ms·

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.

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.