7 ms·

> 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 busine

• iamthirsty 3y ago
  > So according to DF I don't really think that's according to DF, more so Apple.
• terhechte 3y ago
  At least in the U.S. business owners have the right to refuse service or turn away a customer to protect their patrons and business. That's the issue with all these providers. Every couple of weeks there's a story from someone whose Google account was suddenly closed with no way to access their emails or pictures again.
  • usr1106 3y ago
    Yes, and that's why monopolies must die, in practice desolved by governments. Once you buy a smartphone today you and everybody who wants to do further business with you are at the mercy of a monopolist. For Apple 100%, for Google only 98% because you could side-load. But not a secure and practical solution today.
    • adastra22 3y ago
      I don't think monopoly is the right word here.
      • subw00f 3y ago
        Yeah, duopoly is a better word.
        • adastra22 3y ago
          Maybe, in the context of smartphones as a whole. In the context of the App Store (which TFA is about), Apple is a gatekeeper and this is an instance of vendor-lockin. Technically not the same as a monopoly (because, as you mention, you can always use Android).
      • criddell 3y ago
        How about oligopolist?
      • arlcode 3y ago
        True. I like the term "gatekeeper" the EU defines and uses. Combined with the "must be very big" requirement it better fits what is going on in the tech world.
        • usr1106 3y ago
          Vendor lock-in is what wecall it in the IT-sector.
          • jncfhnb 3y ago
            Not really. Gatekeeping is applied because you must pay Apple the tax to access its customers; not use its tech.
            • usr1106 3y ago
              I saw it from end-customer perspective. Somebody who buys an Apple device cannot choose other app stores, nearly the same with Android.
      • usr1106 3y ago
        So you change your smartphone every time you are not happy with Apple or Google Android? Yes, you have a choice once every couple of years while you might want to install an app several times a year. Free markets would also be the wrong word to describe the situation.
      • leereeves 3y ago
        I think monopoly is the right word because their really are two markets. A customer is only looking for either iOS or Android apps, and isn't going to choose an Android app if they have an iPhone, or vice versa (IOW, iOS apps don't compete with Android apps). Imagine only one company sold diesel fuel, and only one sold gasoline. Wouldn't you say they each had a monopoly?
        • adastra22 3y ago
          This is an example of vendor lockin, which is a troubling practice that needs to be stopped, but it is legally and practically distinct from monopoly as defined in antitrust legislation.
          • leereeves 3y ago
            We shouldn't limit our use of language based on laws written 100 years ago. It's pretty clear that those laws are inadequate to restrain the monopolies that exist now. Said another way, you might be right about US antitrust law, but when that law was written the technology didn't exist to create "vendor lock-in" on millions of products at once. I am curious about the example though, from a legal perspective. Would the only seller of gasoline have a monopoly, even if other fuels were available, and the only barrier to using them was the switching cost of buying a new vehicle? Edit: For what it's worth, wikipedia uses the word monopoly when "a single vendor controls the market for the method or technology being locked in to". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
            • adastra22 3y ago
              It's not a monopoly though. My point is that there is a relevant technical difference, and we should be accurate in the words that we use.
      • philistine 3y ago
        The fact that every single company that wants to run code on my device needs to be in the good graces of Apple makes no sense. Why can I run code Apple loathes on my Mac ?
      • bee_rider 3y ago
        You are correct, although there’s plenty of room for Apple to engage in evil anti-competitive behavior without having a monopoly over any sanely defined market. EU regulators seem to think they’ve crossed that threshold!
      • 015a 3y ago
        Right; I think the correct frame is, major operating systems are utilities. They must be regulated the same way that all systemically important utilities are regulated; heavily. Monopolies are natural, and arguably desirable, with utilities; but they need to be subject to extremely strong regulation to maintain the right balance. The DMA was always phrased from the wrong perspective (which is just classic EU, they literally cannot ever get regulation right). The correct phrasing is: once a computer operating system achieves a certain level of market adoption (say, 50M+ active installations), it is designated as a systemically critical operating system. Among other regulations, one thing systemically critical operating systems must allow is the independent and unrestricted installation and execution of applications from the internet. Regulating the market (App Store) itself is just dumb. Apple should not be forced to have Epic Games as a customer. It destroys trust in the App Store's review process, and legitimately does from my perspective infringe on Apple's rights as a business to do business with partners as they please. There's a gulf of difference between "forcing the App Store to distribute some application" and "allowing that application to be freely distributed on the internet". Regulation should be specifically targeted toward the second situation; and leave the App Store alone.
        • ncruces 3y ago
          The EU did not compel Apple to have a comercial relationship with Epic. It is Apple who decided that third-party software distributers must comply with certain restrictions, and must sign a contract with them. And it was Apple which tried to prevent Epic from signing that contract, and who's now backtracking… before it's forced to do so by the EU.
        • arlcode 3y ago
          While this is an interesting idea and I personally would welcome such regulation it probably wouldn't solve the problem the EU is trying to address. Android allows the installation of alternative app stores but Google still retains large effective control over the app market. I would argue that the EU recognised that and therefore regulated Operating systems and app stores because the former one isn't enough apparently. If things continue along this trajectory we may see the utility argument at the store level and at the OS level. Looking at how the electric power distribution industry is regulated it already works like this (at least here in Germany). On the one hand grid operators are heavily regulated (as you say) and must allow companies without infrastructure to resell power to end customers. On the other hand the actual owner of the last mile infrastructure is also forced to do business with all customers and has very little freedom to refuse(e.g. non-payment is a temporary valid reason). We may very well see something similar in the software distribution market since it's becoming such an integral part of life.
      • kmeisthax 3y ago
        The power of Apple and Google is literally monopoly power. As in, government-granted copyright and patents that allow the holders to restrain the conduct of competitors. Decades ago people were crying out against it, but nobody with power listened because they thought we just wanted to steal music[0]. Well, we did, but that didn't make us wrong. Now the world economy is owned by a handful of oligopolist-elected dictators who have maximally exploited the laws in question to make meaningful competition literally illegal. No, seriously, try and ship a phone without big tech's blessing. It won't work. Hell, Amazon and Microsoft both tried and failed. Everyone only writes apps for Google Play and iOS, and any attempt to make them work elsewhere is a criminal felony. [0] To be clear, their real concern was finding ways to legally bind China to pay us for "our IP" on pain of being shut out of world markets. Dictatorship is fractal.
      • zmmmmm 3y ago
        Conversation needs to shift to "market power" which is where the EU has gone. The fact that Apple shares the App store market with Android evenly in terms of users for example is meaningless when they nonetheless hold the vast majority of the influence through their market power.
  • galleywest200 3y ago
    It is a double-edged sword. A right to refuse service is great when you have an unruly patron in a pub or restaurant that is ruining the evening for everybody else. But on the other side it is really easy for a company like Google to just kill your smaller company because they decided they do not want to allow you access to an account anymore.
    • gopher_space 3y ago
      One of the more enjoyable aspects of this whole issue is watching people with a vested political interest in Apple's fundamental point of view criticize their dealings with Epic.
    • autoexec 3y ago
      > But on the other side it is really easy for a company like Google to just kill your smaller company because they decided they do not want to allow you access to an account anymore. It sounds like the problem isn't Google being able to refuse service, but instead that Google doing that has the power to kill your smaller company. No one company should be allowed to have the power to decide which companies live or die.
      • thegrimmest 3y ago
        If you found a company that depends on Google APIs or products, that's a risk your company carries. I don't see why we need legislative intervention to mitigate such risks. If I founded a company that specializes in manufacturing Pokemon toys under contract, and Nintendo (for whatever reason) pulls the contract, it's perfectly normal for the business to no longer be viable and to be liquidated.
  • amelius 3y ago
    Rules should be different if you're running a platform. A platform is essentially a market within the free market, so special regulative care is required.
  • IncandescentGas 3y ago
    This is very problematic when monopolies are involved. “You are banned from Taco Bell for the rest of your life” is very different from “You are banned from all restaurants anywhere for the rest of your life.” If all restaurants are Taco Bell, is it reasonable to allow such bans by taco bell?
    • giantrobot 3y ago
      Actual monopolies (utility companies forex) are required to do business with people. Utility companies which almost always are regional monopolies have to deal with customers so long as bills are paid. There's also processes for halting service in the case of non-payment. The utility can't cut your power because you were mean to them on Twitter. Apple is not a monopoly anywhere on the planet and has no such requirement.
      • Dylan16807 3y ago
        But it should have some of those requirements, because it's close enough to the space of being a monopoly.
  • Aldo_MX 3y ago
    > At least in the U.S. business owners have the right to refuse service or turn away a customer to protect their patrons and business. But this is not about Apple's right as a company to refuse any business with Epic, they still have that right. This is about Apple not complying with a law that targets them due to their anti-competitive behavior; a law that requires them to give the means to operate an App Store competitor to anyone who requests it. Apple is the one who decided to require an Apple developer account in order to operate an App Store competitor, so they effectively gave up their right to refuse any business with Epic by adding this unnecessary requirement.
• nonameiguess 3y ago
  As was said, this is normal in the US. Private businesses can refuse service to anyone for any reason. There's that paint color that is allowed to be used by all but one person because the inventor doesn't like them. On the other hand, I'm definitely not saying this is okay or sane just because it's standard practice in the US. It's also how we got legalized segregation and we had to pass laws carving out exceptions to create protected classes such that you're not allowed to refuse service because a person is black, for instance. Just doing this splintered the country and created the modern GOP with its southern strategy. So it's nice to see these large web companies having to respect the laws of other jurisdictions and not just the US with its hallowed history of property rights over all else, going all the way back to chattel slavery. If the EU can force saner norms on the web, I'm all for it.
  • justin66 3y ago
    > Private businesses can refuse service to anyone for any reason. There are enough really obvious counterexamples to that statement that I wonder why you'd write it.
    • UberFly 3y ago
      Any that's just the first sentence.
    • soulbadguy 3y ago
      Indeed. I think this "Private businesses can refuse service to anyone for any reason." as been repeated so many times, that a lot of people think of it almost as a tautology. In particular in this case, we have many pass example where even in the US, companies have be found to violate anti trusts law be either refusing or strongly conditioning doing business with a third-party.
    • basil-rash 3y ago
      Like the ones they went into in the following sentence?
      • 3y ago
• nozzlegear 3y ago
  > So according to Apple [edit] one isn't allowed to say bad things about a company publicly or they are allowed to ban your account? Interesting view. No, according to Apple, they believed Epic was going to violate their developer agreement again, and when they asked Sweeney for a commitment he sent them a two sentence email. His public actions were only a modifier on top of his seeming lack of committal and previous history of being a bad actor on Apple’s platform. Spotify says bad things about Apple all the time, but they've never been banned because they've never violated Apple's rules.
• kbf 3y ago
  I’m not defending Apple’s stance here, but I think the point they were making is that Epic had already admitted to intentionally breaking their previous agreements with Apple for their own gain. The court then ruled that Apple could ban Epic for any reason. Sweeney essentially called the new terms illegitimate while at the same time entering a new agreement where those terms applied to Epic. It’s somewhat understandable that, when seeing that, Apple would not trust Epic to not intentionally break the rules again. I personally think it’s silly to believe that Apple cares even a little about Epic’s criticism. They probably thought they had a legitimate case that would let them stomp out a potential big App Store competitor before it could get off the ground.
  • modeless 3y ago
    They believed in good faith that Apple's terms were illegal. There is nothing wrong with breaking an illegal contract. Yes, they lost in court but it wasn't a foregone conclusion. Apple's continuing retaliation is petty and likely to get them in trouble.
    • abduhl 3y ago
      But Apple's terms and contract weren't illegal.
      • modeless 3y ago
        Actually they were, partially
      • Aldo_MX 3y ago
        Oh yeah, forbidding developers from telling their customers that they can buy a subscription for less money in their website is definitely not illegal. The fact that Apple is now regulated is definitely not a symptom of the illegality of their terms. Definitely not.
        • dwaite 3y ago
          Google and Facebook are among others now regulated as well. The European Economic Zone sets regulations around economic policy. Their creation of the DMA was that while the markets did not have monopolistic abuse, that there were areas that still did not have _enough_ competition. Now I would argue the DMA is misguided, because they are basically trying to regulate in a counter to the network effect. The problem is (for example) that even with barriers lowered, an upstart messaging app cannot compete with WhatsApp because they still cannot grow by the network effects the way WhatsApp did, because WhatsApp already exists and is popular. An upstart will still have to already be on target to become larger than WhatsApp in order to supplant them. Alternative Marketplaces have been possible on Android for years and really haven't succeeded except in markets where Google Play is unavailable. Why would developers put time and effort into being where nobody is? How does anything in the DMA change their minds - better transaction fees on no sales? The DMA does give companies an opportunity to innovate, such as how MacPaw is going to have a SetApp Marketplace which is a subscription service for mostly utility apps (similar to Apple Arcade as a first-party marketplace for games). But I would argue there is no way SetApp will be as popular as the App Store - it is a business opportunity, not market competition. I would say this is akin to F-Droid - it is an alternative marketplace on Android, but not one that really competes with Play.
• BurningFrog 3y ago
  The main point made is "Epic is verifiably untrustworthy". You're quoting a secondary factor.