5 ms·

From DF a few days ago[0] : > The termination of Epic Games Sweden AB’s Apple developer account was communicated in a letter from Mark Perry, a lawyer represen

From DF a few days ago[0] : > The termination of Epic Games Sweden AB’s Apple developer account was communicated in a letter from Mark Perry, a lawyer representing Apple, to Epic’s lawyers: > Mr. Sweeney’s response to that request was wholly insufficient and not credible. It boiled down to an unsupported “trust us.” History shows, however, that Epic is verifiably untrustworthy, hence the request for meaningful commitments. And the minimal assurances in Mr. Sweeney’s curt response were swiftly undercut by a litany of public attacks on Apple’s policies, compliance plan, and business model. As just one example: https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1762243725533532587?s=20 https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1762243725533532587?s=20. Maybe Tim sent more than a two sentence reply to Phil to get it straightened out. It's anyone's guess at this point. — [0]: https://daringfireball.net/2024/03/apple_epic_developer_account https://daringfireball.net/2024/03/apple_epic_developer_acco...

gglnx 3y ago
More likely that the request for more information on this case from the EU commission to Apple triggered the walk back. At least the EU Commissioner for the internal market is happy about the reverse: https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1766167580497117464 https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1766167580497117464
- darzu 3y ago
  Yikes I hate that Thierry is using "#freefortnite". You can be completely on board with the DMA but still see Epic's behavior as entirely profit motivated and "freeing Fortnite" should not be any official's priority. Epic is not some oppressed minority that needs saving.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > You can be completely on board with the DMA but still see Epic's behavior as entirely profit motivated and "freeing Fortnite" should not be any official's priority. The Digital Markets Act is all about profit-motivated businesses. It regulates markets, not charities. It's not anti-profit at all, just pro-competition, and Apple was attempting to stifle competition.
    - bevekspldnw 3y ago
      Precisely! This all about market competition which may both spur new technologies and lower prices for consumers. The entire point of DMA is to make sure platforms can’t use lock in to prevent others from joining the market for digital goods and services. What terrifies Apple isn’t Fortnite, it’s that Epic will make a *better* AppStore.
      - sangnoir 3y ago
        I hope the folk at Valve have been busy working on this - Steam for iOS and Vision Pro could be great!
        idle_zealot 3y ago
        VisionOS is not consider a gatekeeper my the DMA, and despite the platform supporting it Valve has made no effort to expand their game store to Android. It is doubtful that they will work on an iOS game distribution platform.
        bevekspldnw 3y ago
        Same AppStore, and it runs iPad apps.
      - Aldo_MX 3y ago
        "better"? You're giving Epic too much credit. Just see the Play Store competitors like Samsung or Huawei: Full of ads, and in general a terrible experience.
        bevekspldnw 3y ago
        Not saying they can: saying that’s Tim Apples worst nightmare.
  - mvdtnz 3y ago
    It's literally a Digital MARKETS Act. Markets are all about developing healthy profitable businesses. They certainly are not going to be bothered that Epic, a profitable business, wants a fair playing field to compete on.
  - chaorace 3y ago
    Isn't that the functional purpose of hashtags? So that people interested in a topic can find information about it? Wouldn't this tweet be highly relevant to people searching with that tag?
  - gamblor956 3y ago
    It's not about Epic. It's about Apple wantonly violating EU laws. The target simply happened to be Epic. That being said: it's probably a good thing it was Epic that Apple went after; Apple would probably have gotten away with going after a smaller company.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - overgard 3y ago
    Every large company is, by nature, amoral. All the pro-social stances or whatever are generally just window dressing and PR. Individuals can be moral, but for-profit corporations past a certain size just are too abstract of an entity with too many people of competing interests to ascribe morality to. We shouldn't care about intentions, just whether they're doing something we agree with or not.
- djfdat 3y ago
  While the outcome as it stands might be okay, they should still proceed with the request for more information so that they can better guard against removal of access in cases that they do not agree with. What's to prevent them from changing their mind and blocking Epic again? What if Tim Sweeney says something else to hurt Apple's feelings in the future? Apple has too much free rein over removing access to this market, and while it may be a market that Apple has made, the EU is clearly requiring Apple to open up the market for others with the only restrictions being those where the app store or the apps themselves are damaging to consumers in the marketplace.
  - LeafItAlone 3y ago
    > they should still proceed with the request for more information so that they can better guard against removal of access in cases that they do not agree with. They almost certainly are, which is why the reasoning of EU’s predictable involvement was what triggered Apple’s reinstatement of Epic’s account seems dubious to me.
moogly 3y ago
I would posit that Apple is the "untrustworthy" and unhinged party here.
overgard 3y ago
I don't really understand the notion that Sweeney's original response was terse or insufficient. He said exactly what needed to be said (good faith effort to follow the rules) succinctly and professionally. Should he have offered a pinky swear or a blood oath? Or an essay pledging his allegiance? I generally like Apple and their products but in this instance they came across as bitter and petty.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - overgard 3y ago
    What then would be sufficient? Or are you saying it's simply OK for Apple to ban a major company from their app store? Before you say that, keep in mind that Apple has over 50% of smartphone market share -- they aren't "just another company", should they really be able to decide for that many people that they're not allowed to use Epic's product? Also I should point out that there's a significant difference between breaking a contract mutually agreed upon and negotiated by two companies, versus breaking a ToS that's forced upon you. Epic's "rule breaking" was essentially a legal strategy to force Apple to legally justify their control. It wasn't some random hooliganism.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      Business is an at-will arrangement, at least in the free parts of the world. If Apple straight up doesn't want to do business with Epic and can even point to prior breaches and violations of terms as justification, more power to them. Remember the classic and often seen disclaimer: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." >versus breaking a ToS that's forced upon you. Epic wasn't forced to sign anything.
      - overgard 3y ago
        > Business is an at-will arrangement, at least in the free parts of the world Funny, because part of what makes the free parts of the world "free" is competition, which is exactly what Apple is trying to stifle. Also it's funny you cite that disclaimer about right of refusal, because in fact, there are plenty of discrimination laws that address just that and in general there are reasons you can and can't refuse service, legally speaking. > Epic wasn't forced to sign anything. Sure, plenty of businesses just love to ignore >50% of the market. I'm sure their investors would completely understand.

gglnx 3y ago

More likely that the request for more information on this case from the EU commission to Apple triggered the walk back. At least the EU Commissioner for the internal market is happy about the reverse: https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1766167580497117464 https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1766167580497117464

darzu 3y ago
Yikes I hate that Thierry is using "#freefortnite". You can be completely on board with the DMA but still see Epic's behavior as entirely profit motivated and "freeing Fortnite" should not be any official's priority. Epic is not some oppressed minority that needs saving.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > You can be completely on board with the DMA but still see Epic's behavior as entirely profit motivated and "freeing Fortnite" should not be any official's priority. The Digital Markets Act is all about profit-motivated businesses. It regulates markets, not charities. It's not anti-profit at all, just pro-competition, and Apple was attempting to stifle competition.
  - bevekspldnw 3y ago
    Precisely! This all about market competition which may both spur new technologies and lower prices for consumers. The entire point of DMA is to make sure platforms can’t use lock in to prevent others from joining the market for digital goods and services. What terrifies Apple isn’t Fortnite, it’s that Epic will make a *better* AppStore.
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      I hope the folk at Valve have been busy working on this - Steam for iOS and Vision Pro could be great!
      - idle_zealot 3y ago
        VisionOS is not consider a gatekeeper my the DMA, and despite the platform supporting it Valve has made no effort to expand their game store to Android. It is doubtful that they will work on an iOS game distribution platform.
        bevekspldnw 3y ago
        Same AppStore, and it runs iPad apps.
    - Aldo_MX 3y ago
      "better"? You're giving Epic too much credit. Just see the Play Store competitors like Samsung or Huawei: Full of ads, and in general a terrible experience.
      - bevekspldnw 3y ago
        Not saying they can: saying that’s Tim Apples worst nightmare.
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  It's literally a Digital MARKETS Act. Markets are all about developing healthy profitable businesses. They certainly are not going to be bothered that Epic, a profitable business, wants a fair playing field to compete on.
- chaorace 3y ago
  Isn't that the functional purpose of hashtags? So that people interested in a topic can find information about it? Wouldn't this tweet be highly relevant to people searching with that tag?
- gamblor956 3y ago
  It's not about Epic. It's about Apple wantonly violating EU laws. The target simply happened to be Epic. That being said: it's probably a good thing it was Epic that Apple went after; Apple would probably have gotten away with going after a smaller company.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- overgard 3y ago
  Every large company is, by nature, amoral. All the pro-social stances or whatever are generally just window dressing and PR. Individuals can be moral, but for-profit corporations past a certain size just are too abstract of an entity with too many people of competing interests to ascribe morality to. We shouldn't care about intentions, just whether they're doing something we agree with or not.
djfdat 3y ago
While the outcome as it stands might be okay, they should still proceed with the request for more information so that they can better guard against removal of access in cases that they do not agree with. What's to prevent them from changing their mind and blocking Epic again? What if Tim Sweeney says something else to hurt Apple's feelings in the future? Apple has too much free rein over removing access to this market, and while it may be a market that Apple has made, the EU is clearly requiring Apple to open up the market for others with the only restrictions being those where the app store or the apps themselves are damaging to consumers in the marketplace.
- LeafItAlone 3y ago
  > they should still proceed with the request for more information so that they can better guard against removal of access in cases that they do not agree with. They almost certainly are, which is why the reasoning of EU’s predictable involvement was what triggered Apple’s reinstatement of Epic’s account seems dubious to me.

moogly 3y ago

I would posit that Apple is the "untrustworthy" and unhinged party here.

overgard 3y ago

I don't really understand the notion that Sweeney's original response was terse or insufficient. He said exactly what needed to be said (good faith effort to follow the rules) succinctly and professionally. Should he have offered a pinky swear or a blood oath? Or an essay pledging his allegiance? I generally like Apple and their products but in this instance they came across as bitter and petty.

Dalewyn 3y ago
[flagged]
- overgard 3y ago
  What then would be sufficient? Or are you saying it's simply OK for Apple to ban a major company from their app store? Before you say that, keep in mind that Apple has over 50% of smartphone market share -- they aren't "just another company", should they really be able to decide for that many people that they're not allowed to use Epic's product? Also I should point out that there's a significant difference between breaking a contract mutually agreed upon and negotiated by two companies, versus breaking a ToS that's forced upon you. Epic's "rule breaking" was essentially a legal strategy to force Apple to legally justify their control. It wasn't some random hooliganism.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Business is an at-will arrangement, at least in the free parts of the world. If Apple straight up doesn't want to do business with Epic and can even point to prior breaches and violations of terms as justification, more power to them. Remember the classic and often seen disclaimer: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." >versus breaking a ToS that's forced upon you. Epic wasn't forced to sign anything.
    - overgard 3y ago
      > Business is an at-will arrangement, at least in the free parts of the world Funny, because part of what makes the free parts of the world "free" is competition, which is exactly what Apple is trying to stifle. Also it's funny you cite that disclaimer about right of refusal, because in fact, there are plenty of discrimination laws that address just that and in general there are reasons you can and can't refuse service, legally speaking. > Epic wasn't forced to sign anything. Sure, plenty of businesses just love to ignore >50% of the market. I'm sure their investors would completely understand.