15 ms·

Epic perhaps thought Apple might show them grace after the lawsuit in the US. A kind of repeat of the Apple-Samsung litigation where everyone has a "it's just b

Epic perhaps thought Apple might show them grace after the lawsuit in the US. A kind of repeat of the Apple-Samsung litigation where everyone has a "it's just business" attitude and keeps doing business together while simultaneously suing each other. Apple on the other hand has decided they will show them no quarter. I don't think they're being emotional about it. I think it's to show every other developer that they will actually enforce the DPLA that everyone signs, and they won't turn the other cheek.

lxgr 3y ago
Parts of Apple's DPLA are likely unenforceable in the EU going forward.
- akira2501 3y ago
  Attempting to enforce an "illegal" contract provision seems pretty "emotional" to me. Apple is finally in a position to lose their monopoly grip on a platform software store, and they clearly will stop at nothing to stop the loss of that revenue, this is obviously an existential problem for them.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    It certainly threatens their app store revenue, and by extension market value, so it's rational for them to push back, but by no means is it an "existential problem". Apple is quite a bit more than just the app store. There's probably risks on both sides here, too: Playing hardball with EU regulators and courts could cost them a lot of money.
    - akira2501 3y ago
      > so it's rational for them to push back If your vision for your company only extends to the next quarterly earnings report, sure, it's "rational." If you consider the fact that every other participant in the market dislikes this practice, that this dislike has finally risen to the level of government involvement, and that laws are about to be written taking it away from you, then clutching it to your chest is best understood as an emotional position. It's rooted in a desire to not lose the past while attempting to deny that any other future could possibly exist. It's classic denial, on a trillion dollar corporate level.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        I fully agree that what they’re doing now is absurd and way too much. But no resistance at all might expose them to shareholder action in the US. Still, about 10% of the pushback they’ve been showing so far would have probably been plenty.
andersa 3y ago
Epic doesn't care whether Apple shows "grace", or needs them to, they are going in by force with the backing of the EU legislation. It might just take a year or two longer to get through the courts. They can hold out that long without any problems, preparing their store in the background.
- jeffwask 3y ago
  As long as Forkknife continues to print money, they can afford the battle.
- Despegar 3y ago
  I'm not aware of any duty to deal in the DMA.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    You don't have a duty to hire in USA, but you can still get in trouble for illegally firing someone for the wrong cause. Same applies here, this isn't rocket science.
    - Despegar 3y ago
      Right, the major difference being that Epic is not an employee of Apple and thus cannot benefit from employment law. The terms of their relationship is governed by contract law, and now the DMA.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        DMA, Apple can't just retaliate for Epic complaining about them, this doesn't mean that Apple is forced to deal with everyone they are just banned from retaliating for certain things: > 6. The gatekeeper shall not directly or indirectly prevent or restrict business users or end users from raising any issue of non-compliance with the relevant Union or national law by the gatekeeper with any relevant public authority, including national courts, related to any practice of the gatekeeper. This is without prejudice to the right of business users and gatekeepers to lay down in their agreements the terms of use of lawful complaints-handling mechanisms. I am not 100% certain that would apply here, but if the DMA doesn't protect against these things then I am pretty sure that EU will plug that hole to ensure gatekeepers can't retaliate unfairly.
mattmaroon 3y ago
I think with Samsung, Apple had little choice. If you need to buy over 200 million high res mobile screens per year you have very few choices. Exact numbers on Samsung’s end aren’t readily available, but semiconductor components are by far their biggest segment and Apple is probably their only significant external customer. I am absolutely sure Apple would love to cut Samsung off at the knees, but not if they do it to themselves at the same time. Samsung poses a much greater threat to Apple than all the third party app stores that could be dreamed up. It’s a really interesting mutually assured destruction situation. Epic and Apple, on the other hand, can both be fine without each other, so I wouldn’t expect them to work through the animosity
matthewdgreen 3y ago
Epic is sending a strong signal to regulators that they're malicious, and can't be trusted to police themselves. It's a terrible look under the circumstances.
- albert180 3y ago
  You misspelled Apple
raydev 3y ago
> I don't think they're being emotional about it It's hard to read it as anything but emotional. It's pure display of power, Apple is willing to hurt iOS users to make a point to other developers.
- simondotau 3y ago
  Epic Games was willing to hurt their iOS users by knowingly, wilfully, and strategically breaching Apple's developer agreement in a way they knew would result in Fortnite being removed from the store. Then they manipulated their customers into directing their anger towards Apple even though it was Epic's wilful actions were to blame. I'd be a little emotional too.
  - vichle 3y ago
    Apple has manipulated the entire global population into thinking what they are doing is reasonable. It's BS and someone has to stand up to them.
    - averageRoyalty 3y ago
      Maybe correct, but the GP's point that Epic instigated this knowing full well it will likely end up in their users being "hurt" is valid. If we're trying to find the point of who decided to do something to hurt users, we look for the first to make that concious decision.
sangnoir 3y ago
This is a well-timed account deactivation by Apple to prevent Epic from publishing its app store in Apple's app store with iOS 17.4
ksec 3y ago
>A kind of repeat of the Apple-Samsung litigation where everyone has a "it's just business" attitude Very different. Steve was taking Samsung to court partly ( or largely ) taking Android with it. But Tim wasn't a supporter of that, or at least behind the scene he was dealing with Samsung ( or Samsung Display, Samsung Foundry and Samsung Memory divisions directly ). So yes it was all it's just business in large because Tim was there to smooth things out. Or partly because Tim knew they cant do it without Samsung. Zero Chance at the time and they wasn't a trillion dollar company then. I dont see any similarities here with Apple and Epic.
vagrantJin 3y ago
It is quite unusual to cheer for Goliath putting a David to the knife. Sure, Apple makes great premium hardware but IMO, their monopolistic actions in the digital space is something to be truly wary of.

lxgr 3y ago

Parts of Apple's DPLA are likely unenforceable in the EU going forward.

akira2501 3y ago
Attempting to enforce an "illegal" contract provision seems pretty "emotional" to me. Apple is finally in a position to lose their monopoly grip on a platform software store, and they clearly will stop at nothing to stop the loss of that revenue, this is obviously an existential problem for them.
- lxgr 3y ago
  It certainly threatens their app store revenue, and by extension market value, so it's rational for them to push back, but by no means is it an "existential problem". Apple is quite a bit more than just the app store. There's probably risks on both sides here, too: Playing hardball with EU regulators and courts could cost them a lot of money.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    > so it's rational for them to push back If your vision for your company only extends to the next quarterly earnings report, sure, it's "rational." If you consider the fact that every other participant in the market dislikes this practice, that this dislike has finally risen to the level of government involvement, and that laws are about to be written taking it away from you, then clutching it to your chest is best understood as an emotional position. It's rooted in a desire to not lose the past while attempting to deny that any other future could possibly exist. It's classic denial, on a trillion dollar corporate level.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      I fully agree that what they’re doing now is absurd and way too much. But no resistance at all might expose them to shareholder action in the US. Still, about 10% of the pushback they’ve been showing so far would have probably been plenty.

andersa 3y ago

Epic doesn't care whether Apple shows "grace", or needs them to, they are going in by force with the backing of the EU legislation. It might just take a year or two longer to get through the courts. They can hold out that long without any problems, preparing their store in the background.

jeffwask 3y ago
As long as Forkknife continues to print money, they can afford the battle.
Despegar 3y ago
I'm not aware of any duty to deal in the DMA.
- Jensson 3y ago
  You don't have a duty to hire in USA, but you can still get in trouble for illegally firing someone for the wrong cause. Same applies here, this isn't rocket science.
  - Despegar 3y ago
    Right, the major difference being that Epic is not an employee of Apple and thus cannot benefit from employment law. The terms of their relationship is governed by contract law, and now the DMA.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      DMA, Apple can't just retaliate for Epic complaining about them, this doesn't mean that Apple is forced to deal with everyone they are just banned from retaliating for certain things: > 6. The gatekeeper shall not directly or indirectly prevent or restrict business users or end users from raising any issue of non-compliance with the relevant Union or national law by the gatekeeper with any relevant public authority, including national courts, related to any practice of the gatekeeper. This is without prejudice to the right of business users and gatekeepers to lay down in their agreements the terms of use of lawful complaints-handling mechanisms. I am not 100% certain that would apply here, but if the DMA doesn't protect against these things then I am pretty sure that EU will plug that hole to ensure gatekeepers can't retaliate unfairly.

mattmaroon 3y ago

I think with Samsung, Apple had little choice. If you need to buy over 200 million high res mobile screens per year you have very few choices. Exact numbers on Samsung’s end aren’t readily available, but semiconductor components are by far their biggest segment and Apple is probably their only significant external customer. I am absolutely sure Apple would love to cut Samsung off at the knees, but not if they do it to themselves at the same time. Samsung poses a much greater threat to Apple than all the third party app stores that could be dreamed up. It’s a really interesting mutually assured destruction situation. Epic and Apple, on the other hand, can both be fine without each other, so I wouldn’t expect them to work through the animosity

matthewdgreen 3y ago

Epic is sending a strong signal to regulators that they're malicious, and can't be trusted to police themselves. It's a terrible look under the circumstances.

albert180 3y ago
You misspelled Apple

raydev 3y ago

> I don't think they're being emotional about it It's hard to read it as anything but emotional. It's pure display of power, Apple is willing to hurt iOS users to make a point to other developers.

simondotau 3y ago
Epic Games was willing to hurt their iOS users by knowingly, wilfully, and strategically breaching Apple's developer agreement in a way they knew would result in Fortnite being removed from the store. Then they manipulated their customers into directing their anger towards Apple even though it was Epic's wilful actions were to blame. I'd be a little emotional too.
- vichle 3y ago
  Apple has manipulated the entire global population into thinking what they are doing is reasonable. It's BS and someone has to stand up to them.
  - averageRoyalty 3y ago
    Maybe correct, but the GP's point that Epic instigated this knowing full well it will likely end up in their users being "hurt" is valid. If we're trying to find the point of who decided to do something to hurt users, we look for the first to make that concious decision.

sangnoir 3y ago

This is a well-timed account deactivation by Apple to prevent Epic from publishing its app store in Apple's app store with iOS 17.4

ksec 3y ago

>A kind of repeat of the Apple-Samsung litigation where everyone has a "it's just business" attitude Very different. Steve was taking Samsung to court partly ( or largely ) taking Android with it. But Tim wasn't a supporter of that, or at least behind the scene he was dealing with Samsung ( or Samsung Display, Samsung Foundry and Samsung Memory divisions directly ). So yes it was all it's just business in large because Tim was there to smooth things out. Or partly because Tim knew they cant do it without Samsung. Zero Chance at the time and they wasn't a trillion dollar company then. I dont see any similarities here with Apple and Epic.

vagrantJin 3y ago

It is quite unusual to cheer for Goliath putting a David to the knife. Sure, Apple makes great premium hardware but IMO, their monopolistic actions in the digital space is something to be truly wary of.