DMA be damned, Apple cuts off path to Epic Games Store, Fortnite on EU iPhones

Epic says it's retaliation for public criticism; Apple says it can't trust Epic's promises.

See full article...

 

[mexaly]

I'm looking at the elite Apple walled garden and the septicemic Github.
Maybe not the best moment to extol free software.

 

[mexaly]

Some companies, like Apple, are bigger than some countries, like Belgium.
Apple could walk out. Belgium is stuck.
Godzilla versus Bambi.

 

[OrangeCream]

The more Apple acts bratty and stamps their feet, the more regulations the EU will heap on top of them to get the desired outcome. If I was Apple, I'd want to cease as little control over my policies and actions to another party, but they're actively asking for it.

Having been in the industry for several decades at this point Apple is the one in control here.

As in, by making these moves and playing this game they are forcing the EU to make decisions that will more negatively affect Apple’s competitors than it will affect Apple.

No matter what the EU decides, their ruling will apply to any App Store, be it iOS, Android, or Epic. Apple can afford to comply, but in making compliance more expensive or less attractive, it will likely end up that even more developers will avoid releasing app stores.

If the outcome of this ruling is that all app stores have an arbitration requirement, and app stores and developers are required to post a bond when arbitration is required, then developers who cannot afford to post a bond will never use a third party App Store and developers who cannot afford dozens of bonds will never create a third party App Store.

 

[Focher]

Why do people keep debating whether Apple should be forced to allow third party app stores? That's not even a discussion anymore in the EU. The DMA mandates it. Done. Those that keep arguing it are the dog that caught the car already.

The open issue at hand is whether gatekeepers are allowed to independently determine who can run a third party app store. We don't know. The DMA doesn't address it in any substantive way other than some technical and security requirements the gatekeeper can require from the third party. The DMA also doesn't prevent the gatekeeper from having commercials behind it, as they absolutely are allowed to profit from their platform.

This particular issue is whether a previous bad actor has an absolute right to become a third party app store or whether the gatekeeper can decline based on that history. We're probably gonna find it, but once again having Epic as the standard bearer for this stuff only helps Apple because Epic is a dumpster fire.

 

[Penguin Warlord]

We're probably gonna find it, but once again having Epic as the standard bearer for this stuff only helps Apple because Epic is a dumpster fire.

Everyone I've heard call Epic a dumpster fire is usually in the middle of blindly defending a monopoly, whether that's Apple or Steam. The actual arguments for them being a bad company are pretty thin and basically just boil down to "they used abusive monetization strategies", something Apple of course would know nothing about.

 

[Schpyder]

Ars' comments section about most topics: relatively interesting nuanced discussions.

Ars' comments sections about anything to do with iOS: rabid blind downvotes for anyone who criticizes Apple.

I just downvoted this post.

Why? Because there's no more useless, pointless, and utterly worthless "contribution" to frontpage comment threads than whiny bitching about downvotes and/or the tenor of the conversation not going exactly how you'd like.

You want to know how to avoid getting downvoted? Don't post stupid shit like this.

 

[Penguin Warlord]

Most developers now pay 15%,

No, they do not. Spotify pays ~3% for payment processing and their app hosting costs are negligible.

In addition, the fee is for a lot more than hosting an app download. The entire SDK, which is constantly advanced, is what enables developers to build apps at all on the platform.a

Flat out no. The SDK is a necessary part of the phone that customers*already* paid for and Apple profited off of. Without an SDK, Apple would not be able to develop applications for the phone, and a phone that cannot run applications is useless.

It’s how Apple has chosen to commercialize all of that work. Especially because most apps either are free or generate relatively low revenue.

It's how Apple has chosen to build a system where they can double dip, and charge both consumers and developers for the same thing, hence why they not only make a massive profit on hardware sales but also make an annual profit in the realm of 10 BILLION dollars per year. PROFIT. Not revenue on app store fees, that's pure profit after all their app store costs and platform development costs are accounted for.

 

[Penguin Warlord]

I just downvoted this post.

Why? Because there's no more useless, pointless, and utterly worthless "contribution" to frontpage comment threads than whiny bitching about downvotes and/or the tenor of the conversation not going exactly how you'd like.

You want to know how to avoid getting downvoted? Don't post stupid shit like this.

Lol I was well aware that post would get downvoted. Look around the comment section and notice that any post remotely critical of Apple is also blindly downvoted to oblivion, it really doesn't matter whether your post is a whiny post saying nothing, or a substantive reasonable post pointing out how Apple's behaviour is anti-competitive and abusive, same result either way on Ars, downvotes for criticizing Tim Apple's benevolent genius.

 

[TimeWinder]

Apple quite literally terminates hundreds of thousands of developer accounts every year. Usually for attempted fraud or malware.

If we assume for a moment that that's true, it's a powerful argument for the "walled garden" being a good thing. Depending on how many "hundreds" of thousands, we're talking about an "attack rate" of at least 600 apps a day that are sufficiently malicious as to earn a developer ban. For comparison, that's like 60x the number of legitimate Vision Pro apps released per day over the last month.

So the EU can be our testbed. Much of this verification (basically everything other than notorization and basic API scanning, it seems) will transfer to the owners of the "alternative app stores" over the next few years, and it seems extremely unlikely that they're going to be as vigilant as Apple. If the malware rates are that high, these App stores will be buried in it within months, maybe weeks.

 

[johnsonwax]

But in your example, Costco customers are free to buy products from any store, any time they wish. iOS users are unable to access any of the app market outside of iOS. This being the case, does the mobile app market actually include iOS users, as one market? I really don't think it does.

This is technically not true. The App Store only limited access to apps that utilize a certain set of iOS APIs. There has always, from day one, been the ability to make and distribute apps outside of the App Store that utilize another set of APIs - PWAs specifically. You used to be able to load Spotify on your phone while bypassing the App Store. Google Voice used to ONLY be available via that mechanism.

The problem is that nobody has bothered to try and create marketplaces that can monetize those apps, mainly because there's no value add in there apart from consolidation of a payment system, and Spotify has been very clear they don't want that to be consolidated - they want to own it.

The web has made it very clear that there are precisely two stable models here - either one centralized store like the App Store, Play (given that even in the presence of the ability for other app stores to exist, that market has consolidated to one store - remember, Epic ran their own Android store which failed with them running back to Play), Playstation, Xbox, etc. or infinite stores - one per developer, or even one per app. Epics real objection isn't that can't sell Fortnite - it's a free app after all. Their objection is that they want maximum revenue take from V-Bucks, the Fortnite in-game currency (which, is should be noted, gives them a monopoly over in-game purchases since I cannot set up my own Fortnite skin store). There's no real middle ground. You have some with physical goods like Amazon 3rd party sales/distribution, Etsy, AliExpress, etc. but for digital goods, you effectively get infinite stores. The very few exceptions like Steam will ultimately fall to the same arguments the EU is making here because digital consolidation is inevitable because there's too little value-add that a digital marketplace can offer other than being the most convenient place to buy, which instantly turns them into a monopoly. The EU simply doesn't understand why digital markets and physical ones function differently.

 

[yareckon]

I think this is mostly a failure by Apple to understand the different environment they are in with this law and the EU Commission. They are in the habit of screwing over competitors, relying on the fanboys to swarm, and daring the little guy to sue them. Even if the little guy finds the money for a legal battle, overcomes Apples' better lawyers and wins on merit, it takes years of delay during which Apple is still raking in the cash. Afterwards Apple will simply disobey the spirit of the ruling anyway and put the next technical / contractual / legal hurdle in the company's way so that they have in practice won nothing. And yet, that's clearly not going to happen in this case. This is being signaled in a way impossible to miss. The EU is gonna get their open market for apps and is gonna beat Apple with a clue stick as long as it takes until it dawns on them too. This no longer an enforcement environment defined by slow moving civil litigation, but one defined by rapid fines for noncompliance or delay. The fact that they made this move a day or two ago and already have an official inquiry from the Commission asking for all documents related to the decision shows they better wake up soon, or another 1.8B€ fine is coming down the chute. If I am an Apple shareholder I would encourage a swifter learning curve than their executives are displaying.

 

[MattWPBS]

So you're saying that if I create a new hardware Music Player and support 3rd party apps then I can't
a) have my own app and
b) make the third parties pay platform fees

because I'm a dominant understaking from the moment I have a single user.

And you don't think that's in the slightest bit silly?

I think you overestimate how much EU caselaw there is to support the EU's position here. You didn't cite caselaw so far, only the competition commissions own legal reasoning.

Okay, so when you launch your CloudgaZune, you will not have the influence to abuse your market dominance. Your market has one customer, and no independent supplier is going to follow your requirement for them to pay €10k to support the platform to access that one customer. If you get to the point where you've managed to consume a large part of the hardware music player business, you are the only game in town when it comes to accessing your millions of GazerOS customers, and you're abusing the position to charge the third parties excessive platform fees, then you would rightly be in trouble.

On the second point, I think you underestimate how much companies would like to get out of paying large fines for abuse of market dominance. I mean seriously, companies have just failed to realise they could challenge the definition? [shocked pikachu face]

If you want an argued case, you can read the response when Google tried to argue the Apple App Store should form part of the relevant market, instead of limiting it to just Android application stores: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/docum...g=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=63075

 

[Penguin Warlord]

The problem is that nobody has bothered to try and create marketplaces that can monetize those apps, mainly because there's no value add in there apart from consolidation of a payment system, and Spotify has been very clear they don't want that to be consolidated - they want to own it.

The problem with PWAs is just that Apple crippled PWAs on iOS for literally the past decade by not allowing any other browser to implement them and always lagging several years behind implementing necessary features. Does an app use notifications? Wasn't even possible to consider developing it as a PWA until March last year because Apple hadn't implemented a notification API.

The web has made it very clear that there are precisely two stable models here - either one centralized store like the App Store, Play (given that even in the presence of the ability for other app stores to exist, that market has consolidated to one store - remember, Epic ran their own Android store which failed with them running back to Play), Playstation, Xbox, etc. or infinite stores - one per developer, or even one per app. Epics real objection isn't that can't sell Fortnite - it's a free app after all. Their objection is that they want maximum revenue take from V-Bucks, the Fortnite in-game currency (which, is should be noted, gives them a monopoly over in-game purchases since I cannot set up my own Fortnite skin store). There's no real middle ground. You have some with physical goods like Amazon 3rd party sales/distribution, Etsy, AliExpress, etc. but for digital goods, you effectively get infinite stores. The very few exceptions like Steam will ultimately fall to the same arguments the EU is making here because digital consolidation is inevitable because there's too little value-add that a digital marketplace can offer other than being the most convenient place to buy, which instantly turns them into a monopoly. The EU simply doesn't understand why digital markets and physical ones function differently.

The web has not made the centralized app store model clear at all. Windows and Macs both typically have multiple app stores, be it their default ones, Steam, company provided corporate ones, package managers like brew, Winget, chocolatey, etc.

The Play store is not a unique success on Android because other stores couldn't possibly have written better stores, it's because Google has intentionally moved more and more Android OS functionality into Google Play Services and tying Google Play Services to the app store. Basically taking an open source OS, splitting off enough important bits into proprietary closed source packages, and then locking those to your app store so that you can still claim that you have an open OS.

 

[OrangeCream]

Why do people keep debating whether Apple should be forced to allow third party app stores? That's not even a discussion anymore in the EU. The DMA mandates it. Done. Those that keep arguing it are the dog that caught the car already.

The open issue at hand is whether gatekeepers are allowed to independently determine who can run a third party app store. We don't know. The DMA doesn't address it in any substantive way other than some technical and security requirements the gatekeeper can require from the third party. The DMA also doesn't prevent the gatekeeper from having commercials behind it, as they absolutely are allowed to profit from their platform.

This particular issue is whether a previous bad actor has an absolute right to become a third party app store or whether the gatekeeper can decline based on that history. We're probably gonna find it, but once again having Epic as the standard bearer for this stuff only helps Apple because Epic is a dumpster fire.

I’m making a prediction that will please no one but still satisfy the requirements:

• A marketplace license that would allow Epic to run a market but not allow them to make apps
• A bond and arbitration agreement that allows Epic to get a developer license, but also force them to put money down based on past violations
• The bond will be sized similarly to how they already require a €1m letter of credit to run an App Store

 

[williamlondon]

Crapple

Child

 

[LosAngelesPandas]

Im trying to think if an equivalent in another ecosystem

"This legitimate competitor hurt our corporate feelings so their program installers won't work on windows anymore"

Yeah its messed up. Get them EU

You don’t actually believe that the epic games store is really pro consumer, so you?

 

[ianmcf]

The Epic vs Apple lawsuit ended with a clear confirmation that Apple can charge a commission. They just can’t force a payment processor.

My post doesn’t question whether Apple has demonstrated to a court that it’s legal to extract that rent: rent extraction it still remains.

 

[Yarrum]

Serious question: Does the Epic store allow third-party games to bypass payment to Epic? Can a developer, such as Apple or Microsoft, publish games on the Epic Game store for "Free" but where you have to pay directly to Apple or Microsoft thereby bypassing paying Epic a royalty? For me, the answer to that question will help me decide which side of this debacle I am on.

Yes, Epic are about the only ones that allow third party IAP that they don't take a cut from.

However it was done largely as a marketing stunt for their cases against Apple/Google as it is hard to argue you shouldn't have to pay a store cut whilst demanding people in your store pay a cut.

On top of that Epic tightly (or did) control who gets onto the store, and have so far shown no interest or path to making an actual profit from the EGS.

We also don't know how Epic would react if 90% of EGS games were free but with third party IAP, or what they would do if say Microsoft made the next Call of Duty free on EGS but with a $60 IAP required to unlock the full game whilst selling said game for $60 on other platforms, similarly at some point Epic are going to have to charge more if they ever want to make a profit on the store part of EGS.

At this point Epic are speed-running through the last 20 years of digital distribution and are slowly finding out there are reasons the likes of Apple and Valve developed the rules they have. (The reason everyone else takes a cut of IAP and subs is because they all learned the hard way if you don't take a cut of all payment options devs will move to the option you don't take a cut from).

It was also revealed in Epic's case against Google, that Google don't always take a cut of IAP/subs - they gave Spotify a special 0% rate, though ironically Epic used this against Google in their case - which is another issue for dominant players such as Apple or Google, not taking a cut of IAP/subs could also be seen as an anti-trust issue as they can afford to let 90% of devs not pay a commission but a new competitor wouldn't be able to compete with those terms, so it could be seen as predatory pricing.

 

[Yarrum]

thats a very interesting position, has that been challenged in any EU courts? I imagine it eventually will be, as that sets a weird president where you could argue something like costco is its own market with 100% market share (I really doubt it would happen) vs a player in the club shopping market.

Not sure if it has been brought up in the EU, but the US Judge in the Apple/Epic case rejected the exact same argument Epic tried to make over what the relevant market should be, pointing out like you did that if you define the Apps on the App Store (or on iOS) as there own market you are pretty much turning everyone into monopolists - Epic have 100% share of the EGS market, 100% share of Fortnite IAP, Sony own 100% of the PSN market, Microsoft 100% of Xbox etc...

Though of course the jury in the Google/Epic case then went and accepted that market definition.

 

[OrangeCream]

Im trying to think if an equivalent in another ecosystem

Like a foreign entity list?
https://www.securitymagazine.com/ar...r-companies-due-to-national-security-concerns

"This legitimate competitor hurt our corporate feelings so their program installers won't work on windows anymore"

Yeah its messed up. Get them EU

Or on a personal level:
https://www.businessinsider.com/costco-membership-canceled-return-policy-2018-8?op=1
Local restaurants do it too:
https://www.newsweek.com/photo-pizzerias-list-blacklisted-customers-delights-internet-1701953

 

[OrangeCream]

True, but it's very unlikely that other such companies have also intentionally violated their contracts in a very public and provocative manner, hence, Epic being uniquely "untrustworthy" in Apple's eyes.

X comes to mind.

 

[williamlondon]

I really, really do not want my iPhone behaving anything like an Android phone when it comes to installing apps that circumvent the protections that are in place.

And the truly selfish people keep demanding changes such that software that runs on my device now isn't available in the App Store so I am forced to go give my PII and financial details to yet another entity because (they keep screaming), "muh freedumbs." Fuck them, I bought it, as you say, for these reasons and I don't want those protections diluted because of a bunch of corporate greedy and personally selfish twats. Go buy a fucking Android phone.

 

[warfare-guilder]

And the truly selfish people keep demanding changes such that software that runs on my device now isn't available in the App Store so I am forced to go give my PII and financial details to yet another entity because (they keep screaming), "muh freedumbs." Fuck them, I bought it, as you say, for these reasons and I don't want those protections diluted because of a bunch of corporate greedy and personally selfish twats. Go buy a fucking Android phone.

I think the personally selfish people are those who put their needs above those of society as a whole, right?

I think it is bad for society that Apple acts as judge jury and executioner for what apps run on Apple's products. This commingles Apple's personal capitalistic and psychopathic (all large corporations are psychopathic) interests with those of its users.

The DMA is meant to stop that happening, at least a little bit. Even if you're the biggest fan of Apple products, you shouldn't be a fan of psychopaths worth $3T.

 

[williamlondon]

I think the personally selfish people are those who put their needs above those of society as a whole, right?

I think it is bad for society that Apple acts as judge jury and executioner for what apps run on Apple's products. This commingles Apple's personal capitalistic and psychopathic (all large corporations are psychopathic) interests with those of its users.

The DMA is meant to stop that happening, at least a little bit. Even if you're the biggest fan of Apple products, you shouldn't be a fan of psychopaths worth $3T.

Your argument fails because I am the user and I bought this product of free will knowing about the product and accepting Apple's decisions and want it the way I bought it. There are other options for you personally, go buy one if you want it, and stop criticising the decisions Apple makes for its products that I buy and like.

If you don't like corporate greed advocate for a different system, I'll stand there with you (I hate this one), but this is the system we have and Apple is being made to change by greedy (Tim Sweeney) and selfish people for reasons such as "muh freedoms" and "capitalistic practices". Your arguments are baseless, despite claiming Apple is making too much money - tell me where in life it says that is bad for a capitalistic company? Too successful is NOT a psychopathic trait, but it does say something about the maturity of people claiming it.

 

[OrangeCream]

I think it is bad for society that Apple acts as judge jury and executioner for what apps run on Apple's products.

The DMA removes Apple as the judge and jury, but leaves them as the executioner. Any third party can open an app store now and they can approve any app they want. Apple retains the ability to ban bad actors, and there is absolutely no way you can argue there shouldn't be a way to remove bad actors from the ecosystem.

 

[warfare-guilder]

Your argument fails because I am the user and I bought this product of free will knowing about the product and accepting Apple's decisions and want it the way I bought it. There are other options for you personally, go buy one if you want it, and stop criticising the decisions Apple makes for its products that I buy and like.

Why? I do make other decisions, been rocking Pixels for years after being all-Apple for a long while. But why can't I express my criticisms?

There are many Apple users who buy in just for the "blue bubbles", why should these other decisions be forced on them? Free will would be letting them choose both of those things separately

If you don't like corporate greed advocate for a different system, I'll stand there with you (I hate this one), but this is the system we have and Apple is being made to change by greedy (Tim Sweeney) and selfish people for reasons such as "muh freedoms" and "capitalistic practices". Your arguments are baseless, despite claiming Apple is making too much money - tell me where in life it says that is bad for a capitalistic company? Too successful is NOT a psychopathic trait, but it does say something about the maturity of people claiming it.

It is generally understood that corporations—especially large ones don't have morals, that they act purely in their self-interest without regard for others. That's psychopathic by any reasonable definition.

 

[goddog]

Practical basis, how many times have you brought a handset and switched from iOS to Android (or vice versa) due to the price for an app or availability being better on Google Play/Amazon store/etc (or the App Store)? Say $3 instead of $5.

I have only moved to iOS this year pretty much found the constant ads/forced updates on a device I have to keep stock for work tokens too annoying. as for apps, I have not bought one since the days the rezound was on the market. wait I take that back I did buy an app to help catalog DVDs about a year back, but the license transferred between platforms. If I go way back on android I did buy a few things from the amazon app store in the droid X days. there just does not seem to be much I need anymore thats not on the devices by default, or free for download (A few things like crunchyroll are outside subs)

edit I will say it was pretty dang easy to move, but that might be due to my old apple account from the powerpc days.

 

[graylshaped]

You can also buy gift cards for the Apple Store, often with a rebate. If I managed to find a £100 gift card for £85 and then bought some software for £100, the developer would get £70 and Apple £15.

Not every year, but heading into Christmas, Costco often has $100 of Apple gift cards for $85. When I see them, I get them.

 

[Penguin Warlord]

Your arguments are baseless, despite claiming Apple is making too much money - tell me where in life it says that is bad for a capitalistic company?

Capitalism is not based around the idea that it's good for one person to control all of society's money.

Capitalism is based around the idea that we do not need a king to collect all of the money and decide where it goes, instead, everyone can try and create something better than what existed before, and whoever does the best job can get rewarded for their work. In a true flat hypothetical free market, if your idea is better than my idea, more people buy your product, so you get rewarded with more money, and that's more efficient for everyone since you've proven to be good at making that product.

That is the entire foundation of capitalism. It promises a distributed system, one without a central authority that collects money/resources and dictate where they go, but instead functions on the basis of competition as a resource distribution mechanism.

However, Apple collecting 30% of REVENUE from every single app on the app store forever, is not them competing fairly for resources. It's them knowing that they do a better job than Google making a pretty pleasant OS and that you're probably going to pay 30% extra in app fees to them and think it's going to Spotify, since you can't see that Spotify is 30% cheaper in other stores anyways. In economics that behaviour is known as rent seeking and is explicitly harmful for the economy.

 

[Penguin Warlord]

Apple retains the ability to ban bad actors, and there is absolutely no way you can argue there shouldn't be a way to remove bad actors from the ecosystem.

They're arguing that you do not need to lock down the OS for every single user to do that. You can offer the users the option of signing up for your Device Management service during setup, or give them the option of signing up for a competitor Device Management system, (or not use one), and then let that system lock down the device and dictate what can be done on it, just like already happens with corporate Mobile Device Management systems on every other OS (including MacOS).

 

[OrangeCream]

They're arguing that you do not need to lock down the OS for every single user to do that. You can offer the users the option of signing up for your Device Management service during setup, or give them the option of signing up for a competitor Device Management system, (or not use one), and then let that system lock down the device and dictate what can be done on it, just like already happens with corporate Mobile Device Management systems on every other OS (including MacOS).

I don’t recall the DMA making that kind of ruling.

 

[crmarvin42]

Yes.

Lots of people I think are misunderstanding what the goal of EU regulation is. The goal of EU regulation is to try to either keep or force a free market. They are not trying to stop anti-consumer behavior, they're trying to create a free market so that the market itself stops anti-consumer behavior. To that end the Costco example doesn't work because Costco is competing in a relatively free market for retailers. They don't have a dominant (enough) position to abuse even with memberships as an attempt to lock in customers.

Apple on the other hand sits as a monopolist over iOS and its app store. That means it has a dominant position that can be abused. That's why they're in trouble - they're acting like a monopolist over both their customers and their competitors and so the EU is going to try to step in and force that market to be a free one on the economic theory that free market competition is better for consumers.

It's a different model than, say, the US follows. It's founded on the absolute belief that free markets are best for everyone involved and then enacts harsh regulation (possibly even draconian in some cases) to force markets to be free. An interesting experiment. It's no wonder that corporations hate it - being a dominant player is far more profitable than competing in an actual free market.

Ironically if Apple had followed Steve Jobs original path and had no app store and only distributed their own apps onto their phones they wouldn't have this problem. Since they wouldn't be running an app store their device wouldn't have other businesses dependent on it and they wouldn't have the leverage to be anti-competitive. They also probably wouldn't have 30% of the mobile market in the EU though, so there's that.

I think this is an under recognized difference between the US and EU regulatory views on anti-trust and market domination. They both utilize different definitions.

The US uses a model based HEAVILY on the idea that higher prices are the best indicator of consumer harm. If you can show that your consideration reduced prices, then it is difficult to show harm

The EU uses a model that presumes market power and consideration is bad, regardless of the effects on consumer prices. That the lack of effective competition is the measure, regardless of other concerns. Being big and powerful is, all by itself, enough to bring scrutiny and possible action from regulators.

Personally, as an American, I prefer the EU system. You can't know the effects that more competition might have had on prices, and prices are not the only metric that matters. If you prevent or break up monopolies/monopsonies by default, then measuring the harms caused by monopolies/monopsonies becomes moot.

• How much innovation didn't happen in land-lines until AFTER Ma-Bell was broken up? We had no way to see the benefits until after we did it.
• Microsoft exists largely because of anti-trust action against IBM
• Google exists largely because of anti-trust action against Microsoft
• What new great company are we not getting becuase of existing dominant players being able to squash competition before it starts?

 

[crmarvin42]

Lol I was well aware that post would get downvoted. Look around the comment section and notice that any post remotely critical of Apple is also blindly downvoted to oblivion, it really doesn't matter whether your post is a whiny post saying nothing, or a substantive reasonable post pointing out how Apple's behaviour is anti-competitive and abusive, same result either way on Ars, downvotes for criticizing Tim Apple's benevolent genius.

You fail at reading comprehension.

There are lots of posts with high up-vote counts that are critical of Apple. The difference between those posts and yours are the specific critiques they contain. Criticism that is well reasoned and logical gets more up votes than down. Criticism that equates to "Apple = bad because I don't like them", not so much. Criticism that is illogical, and poorly supported, also gets downvoted.

Up your game, or quit bitching.

 

[warfare-guilder]

The US uses a model based HEAVILY on the idea that higher prices are the best indicator of consumer harm. If you can show that your consideration reduced prices, then it is difficult to show harm

The EU uses a model that presumes market power and consideration is bad, regardless of the effects on consumer prices. That the lack of effective competition is the measure, regardless of other concerns. Being big and powerful is, all by itself, enough to bring scrutiny and possible action from regulators.

Personally, as an American, I prefer the EU system. You can't know the effects that more competition might have had on prices, and prices are not the only metric that matters. If you prevent or break up monopolies/monopsonies by default, then measuring the harms caused by monopolies/monopsonies becomes moot.

THANK YOU. How it isn't painfully obvious to everyone that any corporation becoming too large is inherently bad for society is baffling to me. All corporations over a certain size should be held to an extremely high standard, for the good of society. Psychopaths only respond to threats of harm to themselves.

The US consumer harm standard is relatively new, we used to have a more EU-like approach in the past

 

[warfare-guilder]

SO...

How many of you are going to update your beliefs?

https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1766158416093798866
https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/apple-terminated-epic-s-developer-account

 

[TimeWinder]

SO...

How many of you are going to update your beliefs?

https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1766158416093798866
https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/apple-terminated-epic-s-developer-account

Update based on what? I'm not sure how Apple deciding not to fight that battle (or Tim Sweeney's unnecessarily hostile response to Apple's conceding, which stops just short of "and we're going to violate their rules again if we can") changes anything anybody's said in this thread.

 

[warfare-guilder]

Update based on what? I'm not sure how Apple deciding not to fight that battle (or Tim Sweeney's unnecessarily hostile response to Apple's conceding, which stops just short of "and we're going to violate their rules again if we can") changes anything anybody's said in this thread.

Many people in this thread have said things to the effect of:

• Apple can prevent whoever it wants from building an app store, if they've violated a contract with Apple in the past as decided in a different jurisdiction from the EU
• The DMA does not give regulators any jurisdiction over the sorts of people Apple bans
• "Epic's membership in Apple Developers program is outside the scope of the DMA."
• "Why again should poor little Epic Games get protection from the EU?"

All of those people should update their beliefs. Clearly, whether the letter of the DMA applies to this situation or not, even the threat of the DMA was enough to make Apple back down.

 

[jaberg]

How many of you are going to update your beliefs?

My beliefs and feelings towards both parties remain comfortably intact.

 

[warfare-guilder]

My beliefs and feelings towards both parties remain comfortably intact.

This you?

If Sweeney wants to collect his marbles, I’m sure Cook will hold the door. Might even hail him a self-driving taxi.

LOL

What is a proportionate response in your estimation.

My own rules of business engagement dictate that you only get to maliciously break a contract with me once. After which I will steadfastly exercise my Right of Association. By my rules, Apple’s actions are proportionate. But ultimately it’s for the courts, not you or me, to decide.

It wasn't the courts that decided here, it was Apple that did once EU regulators started baring their teeth.

Reviving a flawed argument from the other thread. So, I’ll repeat my counterclaim.

It is reasonable, and actionable, for an electric company to disconnect anyone who violates their terms of service. Don’t believe me? Bypass your power meter. Fuck around and find out.

That you thought Apple banning Epic was in any way like someone creating a life-threatening hazard is so funny.

 

[jaberg]

• Apple can prevent whoever it wants from building an app store, if they've violated a contract with Apple in the past as decided in a different jurisdiction from the EU

Apples concession here doesn’t change my belief that Apple was within its rights not to do business with Epic. They’ve elected to reconsider, but have not been ordered to do so.

• The DMA does not give regulators any jurisdiction over the sorts of people Apple bans

Same as above, until a court determines otherwise.

• "Epic's membership in Apple Developers program is outside the scope of the DMA."

You’re rehashing the same point. See above.

• "Why again should poor little Epic Games get protection from the EU?"

They should be careful what they wish for, lest the Eye of Sauron be cast upon them. See also, you reap what you sow.