4 ms·

This needs to be higher up. Apple didn't budge, or cave, and regulators did not get involved. Epic could have avoided all this by just responding to Apple and

by mike_d 3y ago

This needs to be higher up. Apple didn't budge, or cave, and regulators did not get involved. Epic could have avoided all this by just responding to Apple and signing the EU Addendum affirming they would stick to the laws. Instead they wanted to get into the news cycle. This is the policy they have to agree to: https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alternate_eu_terms_addendum.pdf https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alterna...

lxgr 3y ago
Regulators did get involved: https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1765793776692326891 https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1765793776692326891
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  And news article https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-regulators-seek-details-escalating-apple-epic-games-spat-2024-03-07/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-regulators-seek-detail... Includes the tweet as well as confirmation they that the commission did talk to Apple on Thursday
- mike_d 3y ago
  He tweeted something. There was some reporting he might have sent a letter asking questions too, the same as you or I could do. If any official action was taken it would have to be documented with a case: https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/search https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/search
  - vidarh 3y ago
    It is incredibly naive to suggest that someone with that power "sending a letter asking questions" would be remotely similar to you or I doing the same. The EU has an long tradition of "conversations" and "questions" with an unstated "give the right answer and you can avoid an unpleasant official action". You're right there is no official casework. That is also entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Apple caved under pressure.
    - mike_d 3y ago
      > "give the right answer and you can avoid an unpleasant official action" You are thinking of the mob. Thankfully here in the US official actions are generally done in view of the public.
      - troupo 3y ago
        No. We're thinking about a government that doesn't rush into potentially irreversible actions without working out a solution for a problem with the parties involved.
      - rsynnott 3y ago
        Eh? No; the US works broadly the same. For instance, a rather amusing recent one: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/31/tesla-reportedly-facing-doj-sec-probes-over-plans-to-build-elon-musk-a-large-glass-house.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/31/tesla-reportedly-facing-doj-... The “probe” here would be, at least in the first instance, usually mostly letters asking questions. Note that it is “reportedly”; the media didn’t find this out because the DOJ had a banner on its website saying “we are investigating an alleged glass house”. That comes later, if things are not resolved.
      - vidarh 3y ago
        The reason we know EU officials has spoken to Apple is because at least one has said so in public.
  - avianlyric 3y ago
    You’ve clearly never interacted with a regulator before. When a regulator send you a letter with difficult questions, there is an extremely strong implication that a failure to answer those questions correctly will lead to more difficult questions, and, undoubtedly, official investigations. You don’t want an official investigation, they are a complete nightmare that eat up months of work hours. Much better to spend a couple of days making sure you can give the correct answers on the first pass. Unless of course you genuinely believe the regulators are pushing beyond their remit, but know you’re voluntary signing up for an expensive and protracted fight.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    _Most_ regulatory enforcement, in practice, is “letters asking questions”. The formal cases you see are generally where the response to the letters was unsatisfactory. (In some cases this is itself somewhat formalised.)
agust 3y ago
Yes, the EU immediately stepped in and explained them what the consequences of breaking the law would be, and Apple budged, caved, backed down. Not getting out of this one.
- kj100 3y ago
  You have no idea that this is what happened. You are literally just making this up. It's entirely possible the regulator asked EPIC to make an assurance that they would comply with Apple's rules, which are legal under the DMA, and then told Apple they'd need to accept the assurance. If EPIC does now pull a stunt like they did in the US, the EU will now have reason to treat them with suspicion, and Apple will be able to point to the assurance as evidence that they accepted Apple's rules.
- LeafItAlone 3y ago
  That only makes sense if we assume Apple’s world class legal team didn’t see what every lay person could. Rolling back the decision is not going to get them out of the eyes of the regulators and they must have assumed that going into it. Why give the EU even more ammo against you. My guess is that they saw that all happening but Epic provided them a letter saying they double pinky promised, cross their hearts, will obey by the rules this time, which Apple will later try to use in court later on. Otherwise it doesn’t seem worth the risk prompting clearly foreseeable regulator action.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > That only makes sense if we assume Apple’s world class legal team didn’t see what every lay person could. Apple banned Epic the day before DMA came into effect when doing this sort of thing was still legal, they 100% saw this. They did probably bet on the chance EU would overlook it if they did it before the law came into effect, they lost that bet but they thought it was worth a try.
    - agust 3y ago
      No, they banned Epic's account after the DMA took effect.
belzsch 3y ago
That Addendum has caused considerable consternation among game developers and — to my knowledge — few are prepared to sign it. The main points of contention are: - the technology fee (the cost of advertising has already cut badly into their margins in the wake of identifier reform); - the clause making the Addendum also binding on any corporate parents and subsidiaries — the game industry is pretty consolidated and this limits the options for independent game studios which are also subsidiaries; The fee is particularly nasty for hypercasual games, where a very realistic scenario has you paying for millions of installs, only to find your monetization lacking and you paying additional fees to the platform, of all things. There are very real concerns with the Addendum and making signing only about Epic’s bona fides is reductive and wrong.

by mike_d 3y ago

lxgr 3y ago

Regulators did get involved: https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1765793776692326891 https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1765793776692326891

johnnyanmac 3y ago
And news article https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-regulators-seek-details-escalating-apple-epic-games-spat-2024-03-07/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-regulators-seek-detail... Includes the tweet as well as confirmation they that the commission did talk to Apple on Thursday
mike_d 3y ago
He tweeted something. There was some reporting he might have sent a letter asking questions too, the same as you or I could do. If any official action was taken it would have to be documented with a case: https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/search https://digital-markets-act-cases.ec.europa.eu/search
- vidarh 3y ago
  It is incredibly naive to suggest that someone with that power "sending a letter asking questions" would be remotely similar to you or I doing the same. The EU has an long tradition of "conversations" and "questions" with an unstated "give the right answer and you can avoid an unpleasant official action". You're right there is no official casework. That is also entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Apple caved under pressure.
  - mike_d 3y ago
    > "give the right answer and you can avoid an unpleasant official action" You are thinking of the mob. Thankfully here in the US official actions are generally done in view of the public.
    - troupo 3y ago
      No. We're thinking about a government that doesn't rush into potentially irreversible actions without working out a solution for a problem with the parties involved.
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      Eh? No; the US works broadly the same. For instance, a rather amusing recent one: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/31/tesla-reportedly-facing-doj-sec-probes-over-plans-to-build-elon-musk-a-large-glass-house.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/31/tesla-reportedly-facing-doj-... The “probe” here would be, at least in the first instance, usually mostly letters asking questions. Note that it is “reportedly”; the media didn’t find this out because the DOJ had a banner on its website saying “we are investigating an alleged glass house”. That comes later, if things are not resolved.
    - vidarh 3y ago
      The reason we know EU officials has spoken to Apple is because at least one has said so in public.
- avianlyric 3y ago
  You’ve clearly never interacted with a regulator before. When a regulator send you a letter with difficult questions, there is an extremely strong implication that a failure to answer those questions correctly will lead to more difficult questions, and, undoubtedly, official investigations. You don’t want an official investigation, they are a complete nightmare that eat up months of work hours. Much better to spend a couple of days making sure you can give the correct answers on the first pass. Unless of course you genuinely believe the regulators are pushing beyond their remit, but know you’re voluntary signing up for an expensive and protracted fight.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  _Most_ regulatory enforcement, in practice, is “letters asking questions”. The formal cases you see are generally where the response to the letters was unsatisfactory. (In some cases this is itself somewhat formalised.)

agust 3y ago

Yes, the EU immediately stepped in and explained them what the consequences of breaking the law would be, and Apple budged, caved, backed down. Not getting out of this one.

kj100 3y ago
You have no idea that this is what happened. You are literally just making this up. It's entirely possible the regulator asked EPIC to make an assurance that they would comply with Apple's rules, which are legal under the DMA, and then told Apple they'd need to accept the assurance. If EPIC does now pull a stunt like they did in the US, the EU will now have reason to treat them with suspicion, and Apple will be able to point to the assurance as evidence that they accepted Apple's rules.
LeafItAlone 3y ago
That only makes sense if we assume Apple’s world class legal team didn’t see what every lay person could. Rolling back the decision is not going to get them out of the eyes of the regulators and they must have assumed that going into it. Why give the EU even more ammo against you. My guess is that they saw that all happening but Epic provided them a letter saying they double pinky promised, cross their hearts, will obey by the rules this time, which Apple will later try to use in court later on. Otherwise it doesn’t seem worth the risk prompting clearly foreseeable regulator action.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > That only makes sense if we assume Apple’s world class legal team didn’t see what every lay person could. Apple banned Epic the day before DMA came into effect when doing this sort of thing was still legal, they 100% saw this. They did probably bet on the chance EU would overlook it if they did it before the law came into effect, they lost that bet but they thought it was worth a try.
  - agust 3y ago
    No, they banned Epic's account after the DMA took effect.

belzsch 3y ago

That Addendum has caused considerable consternation among game developers and — to my knowledge — few are prepared to sign it. The main points of contention are: - the technology fee (the cost of advertising has already cut badly into their margins in the wake of identifier reform); - the clause making the Addendum also binding on any corporate parents and subsidiaries — the game industry is pretty consolidated and this limits the options for independent game studios which are also subsidiaries; The fee is particularly nasty for hypercasual games, where a very realistic scenario has you paying for millions of installs, only to find your monetization lacking and you paying additional fees to the platform, of all things. There are very real concerns with the Addendum and making signing only about Epic’s bona fides is reductive and wrong.