[Despegar]

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.

[andersa]

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.

[lamontcg]

Yeah, its really weird to appeal to the noble intentions of a corporation.

They're both just engaged in business.

I can believe that Apple is acting incredibly badly in this case without needing to fluff up Epic Games at all.

Apple and Samsung could sue each other and do business with each other because the stakes were lower and they were more codependent.

[hwillis]

That's just the opposite kind of naive. Companies are still for the most part run by CEOs, and many of those CEOs have tremendous egos and most of them have a tremendous ability to direct the actions of those companies. Look at Tesla and Twitter lawsuits- they're clearly in Musks's interests.

Companies aren't minds of their own directing their own actions. Tim cook or some other high level executive is deciding these actions. Stop abrogating the direction of the literal directors

[overstay8930]

Twitter is a private company and Apple has a board of directors very interested in not rocking the boat

[hwillis]

A board can only really exert soft pressure. Their options are very limited outside trying to fully replace a CEO unless they have something to use as a stick. Apple in particular prints money unlike any other company on earth and its board is not going to stop Tim Cook from doing pretty much whatever he feels like.

[wkat4242]

> Yeah, its really weird to appeal to the noble intentions of a corporation. They're both just engaged in business.

This is what's wrong with the current overly capitalist system. Companies are totally allowed to have no conscience, and externalise whatever they please to consumers and the environment. And you could even argue they are 'forced' to do so by due diligence legislation.

If we let this continue there will be no world left to fix. We have to change the game. I'm not saying we should go full communism. Capitalism isn't bad but there needs to be a balance between business and society with actual accountability (rather than the current 'green' initiatives basically just being PR without any kind of enforcement). It can't be all about money.

I think for US culture it's hard to imagine doing this but here in Europe society has always had this balance, at least in most countries. Initiatives like RoHS, GDPR, DSA/DMA are often called anticompetitive but we are actually trying to improve things for the benefit of society, not just the shareholders.

[usefulcat]

It's entirely a matter of incentives. Companies are like machines whose sole purpose is to make a profit. Pretty much everything they do apart from that (make products, employ people, pollute, etc) is, strictly speaking, a side effect.

If they could make just as much money (or more) without doing any of those other things, they absolutely would, and any company that wouldn't do the same would eventually be put out of business via competition, barring some kind of external intervention, say from the state.

If you want companies to grow a conscience, you're first going to have to figure out how to change their incentives, which means changing the environment in which they operate.

[elcritch]

> It's entirely a matter of incentives. Companies are like machines whose sole purpose is to make a profit. Pretty much everything they do apart from that (make products, employ people, pollute, etc) is, strictly speaking, a side effect.

What do you base that on? Sure corporations take on a life of their own, but there's much more to most of them than purely making profits. They're made up of humans too, and usually it's some executive making a final call. There are many corporate agendas that have little to do with profit.

The meme that corporations are purely about profit needs to die, because it encourages that exact behavior by giving free reign to morally devoid executives, IMHO. Corporations can and should also be held to account legally and ethically for being good stewards of public interests in addition to profitability. In the end they're just tools for organization, and a rather effective one, but they're still run and accountable to humans and human values.

[usefulcat]

> What do you base that on? Sure corporations take on a life of their own, but there's much more to most of them than purely making profits.

Do corporations do other things besides make profits? Yes; I previously said as much. The point is about why they do the things they do.

> There are many corporate agendas that have little to do with profit.

Perhaps in the short term, if they can afford to economically, but isn't this kind of like the exception that proves the existence of the rule?

Is Tesla a car company that wants to make great cars and help reduce carbon emissions for the benefit of all? Maybe, but their primary goal must be profits, because they can't do any of the other stuff if they aren't profitable.

> The meme that corporations are purely about profit needs to die, because it encourages that exact behavior by giving free reign to morally devoid executives, IMHO.

I disagree that it encourages that behavior. If you want to change that behavior then an accurate understanding of the current state of affairs is a necessary prerequisite.

Like if you're going to say, "I want <insert company here> to do less of X and more of Y", then surely your first order of business must be to understand why they are doing X in the first place and not so much of Y (hint: it's usually because of profits).

In the case of corporations, because being profitable is necessarily the first priority, it follows that the most effective way to change the behavior of a corporation is pretty much anything that affects their profit, as opposed to appealing to the moral/ethical/whatever values of their leadership. If you want ethical corporate leadership, then you have to make it unprofitable to be unethical.

[AnthonyMouse]

The mechanism we have for this is supposed to be competition. If one company is screwing you over, you patronize a different one.

This, of course, doesn't work in consolidated markets, and so what is necessary is for consolidated markets to be deconsolidated.

[pixelbyindex]

> Companies are like machines whose sole purpose is to make a profit.

I think I understand that you mean to say "Corporations", whose governing body is made up of board members and executives. In that sense, there certainly seems to be a strong correlation.

In my case, however, I started a game company this year, and my goals are not profit driven. I haven't sat down to write things out but I probably should. Loosely, my company's two main goals:

- To make fun/mindblowing/entertaining pieces of Art. This is done by working on the gaming dreams that myself and my employees have.

- To give my employees a future where they care about the company as much as I do, feel financially well compensated and satisfied in their career, and have support for their aspirations and ideas.

[usefulcat]

I agree, 'corporations' is definitely a better fit for the argument I'm trying to make.

It's perfectly fine if making a lot of money is not the most important thing to you personally. However, your company will obviously have to at least be at least breaking even in order to continue to exist so that it/you can do the things that you do care about.

From that viewpoint, profitability (defined as 'at least breaking even', as opposed to 'maximizing $$') is still the most important thing because the very existence of the company depends on it.

[XajniN]

Those are your goals, and your company's profits may enable you to achieve them. Your company's sole purpose is getting you those profits.

That's economics 101, stop idealizing business entities.

[gitaarik]

Companies aren't often started just to make profit. Founders are usually passionate about the product / service they are creating, and want to create it to make a nice contribution to the world, and also make their living from it: best of both worlds.

It starts to change when a company is becoming too big. The original founder(s) usually leave or they themselves become infected by the money. In any case, everything becomes more nasty: people are being treated more like numbers, clients too, less personal contact, more lawsuits, etc.

I think the solution is very simple: just make a size limit to how big companies are allowed to grow. They'll have to split up and compete with each other. Way more healthy economy.

[lossolo]

Besides generating profits for shareholders, let's amend the law to require that business activities also avoid causing harm and benefit society. This means every decision would need to balance the interests of shareholders with those of society at large. Such a requirement could lead to reduced profits for shareholders. Moreover, this change would need to be implemented worldwide, otherwise, capital might simply shift to regions with less stringent regulations.

[lenkite]

None of the DEI initiatives have anything to do with pure profit. If pure profit was the prime driving initiative, Google Gemini would not turn out like it did.

[gitaarik]

No, DEI is mostly implemented to be political correct, so that they are somewhat protected from being targeted for those kind of controversial topics. In other words, very important commercial incentive.

[fsflover]

If you want to dedicate your company to a purpose over profit, it should be something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_purpose_corporation

[d0gsg0w00f]

Most senior leaders I've experienced are preserving profits so they can maintain headcount. Is it without conscience to make sure thousands of people retain jobs? Even if it's ego driven it's still mutually beneficial.

[OCASMv2]

Hard not to act as they do when its consumers happily reward them with their money.

[mptest]

If only there were someone, or some institution that could think more long term than mindless consumers. We could call it a Governing board or something!

[lamontcg]

> Companies are totally allowed to have no conscience

I don't think companies are going to form a conscience any time soon.

We need to deal with the fact that they're best viewed as being inherently sociopathic and regulate them effectively.

[Gormo]

Perhaps a better alternative would be to stop anthropomorphising abstractions, and not try to weirdly attribute intentionality, independent agency, or sociopathy to the same thing we're acknowledging is incapable of conscience because it isn't a person.

Corporations are organizational models employed by humans in pursuit of human motivations. They are not entities unto themselves. Everything is humans, all the way down.

[letsdothisagain]

Corporate personhood means that legally they are. If we stripped that away and let the board of governors go to jail for doing blatantly illegal stuff, then they might stop being sociopathic.

I'd also like a pony.

[dantheman]

Capitalism is a system of private property and voluntary exchange. There's tons of accountability - people can stop buying and interacting with these companies.

[dpkonofa]

This isn't always the case. Some of these companies own and run the only methods of doing certain things. There are some places, for example, where you can't use cash to pay for things. That means that, in those places, you cannot stop buying and interacting with Visa and Mastercard, for example.

[MerManMaid]

Honest question, can you provide a single example of a company that came to dominate an industry only to then go out of business purely because people chose to stop buying and interacting with them?

I honestly can't think of a single example of a monopoly, cartel, or industry leading company which has ever crumbled due to everyone collectively deciding not to do business with them. (without some sort of government regulation or technological advancement facilitating the change)

[sunshinerag]

What is a "overly" capitalist system? Where we would find companies with a conscience for example? Argentina?

[donw]

"Capitalist" is a nonsense term that no longer carries any meaning.

There is a revolving door between government and corporate leadership.

There is no functional difference between corporate America and public service at this point in time.

One does not rule the other: they are one and the same.

Social media companies have entire teams run by Federal law enforcement.

Federal leadership draws its senior staff from companies like Google.

It is impossible to conduct business without thoroughly invasive involvement of multiple layers of government telling you what you can do, how you must do it, tracking your actions to ensure you comply, and levying obscene punishments if you don't.

For this "service" you are charged a level of tax that would make the Pharaohs green with envy.

[RespectYourself]

Epic isn't squeaky-clean, but Apple is making dangerous and dumb decisions in this whole debate.

Banning third-party payments was one thing, but then Apple banned publishers from TELLING people about the ability to pay through a Web site.

That is not just unnecessary from a business standpoint (since the vast majority of people opt for the most convenient thing); but it's so offensive that it invites crackdowns, implemented by ignorant politicians and legislative bodies... hurting Apple's bottom line.

Apple is tarnishing its image and earning it a place among the true offenders of "big tech," a place it mostly doesn't belong because it's not a gatekeeper to huge swaths of the Internet and commerce the way Google, Amazon, and Meta are.

[dpkonofa]

>but it's so offensive that it invites crackdowns, implemented by ignorant politicians and legislative bodies... hurting Apple's bottom line.

Apple is a billion (nay trillion) dollar company with the best lawyers and accountants in the world. They clearly believe that the added uncertainty and negative perception that could be attached to their brand by allowing systems that can increase fraud and malfeasance is more harmful to their bottom line than maintaining their walled garden with all the accompanying "crackdowns".

I, for one, agree with them. I would much rather keep the existing system for both myself and my extended family members and people who rely on me as their tech person than allow these third-party vultures to further complicate and enshittify the system. In the current case, if my parents bought something on their phone, I know exactly where to go to see the purchase and can easily help them refund it or, if it's a subscription, cancel it. Corporations misleading people into using external payment systems and channels in order to make a quicker buck (and keep more of that buck) is easily a worse experience for everyone involved except the vultures.

[AnthonyMouse]

It seems pretty clear what should happen here: Apple should be able to require you to accept their payment system, but not to require you to charge uniform pricing across payment systems, and not be able to charge you anything for sales outside of their payment system.

Now you can continue to use Apple's payment system all you like, but if Apple continues to charge 30% when e.g. Stripe charges ~3%, you're going to pay the difference for the privilege.

And with any luck that would encourage Apple to match Stripe's fees, but either way, now the choice is yours instead of the extra fees being hidden and mandatory.

[dpkonofa]

How does that seem clear? Apple should provide services and support for people using the payment system without getting any gain from that system?

You're being disingenuous to suggest that the only benefit Apple provides is a payment system.

[Despegar]

I'm not aware of any duty to deal in the DMA.

[jsnell]

> 12. The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9).

Apple don't get to deny access to their main competitor in this space just as a show of force. That is not fair, reasonable or non-discriminatory.

[SllX]

Epic also intentionally broke agreements with Apple before. Non-discriminatory doesn’t mean they have no grounds to terminate Epic’s developer accounts, and Epic is continuing to make themselves look untrustworthy by trying to publicly and explicitly shank Apple. Spotify is also trying to shank Apple in all the same places Epic is, but they also didn’t go behind Apple’s back to deceive the prior review process in contravention to a signed agreement, file suit and spin-out a pre-prepared publicity stunt-filled PR campaign and then go on to court to testify that all of that was done on purpose. Tim Sweeney and Epic did.

It sucks because I was hoping this fight was basically in the rear-view mirror now, but it’s hard to argue Apple has no grounds for calling Epic untrustworthy and not even maintaining an arms-length business relationship in one jurisdiction with them. Who’s to say Epic wouldn’t try something similar again? Apple can still set terms under the DMA, and Tim has been publicly campaigning that these terms violate the DMA which isn’t actually his call to make.

Also one other point:

> Apple don't get to deny access to their main competitor in this space

As of today, and yesterday, and going back to the dawn of the iPhone: Epic isn’t anything in “this space” let alone Apple’s main competitor. They have stated that they intend to compete, and want to compete with Apple in this space, but Epic’s iPhone app marketplace is vaporware. It hasn’t shipped, it doesn’t look like they’re going to be able to ship now, and in its entire history of being discussed, has earned Epic €0.00 to date.

[ApolloFortyNine]

>Epic also intentionally broke agreements with Apple before.

This is funny to point out since they did it specifically to sue over it (you pretty much can't other wise).

So Apple has their draconian 30% cut or there's literally no other way to have an application run on iOS policy, you can't challenge it without breaking it so you can sue, and because you broke it to sue you are now permanently barred from every making another iOS app.

Yea that seems fine, no monopolistic behavior here, it's only 49% of the phone market so it's fine.

[SllX]

They had the alternative of pulling their software on principle and suing, but they wanted the fight they would have by having Apple suspend and then terminate their developer accounts to bring more public opinion to their side, and they sure got the fight. As a developer enrolled in the program, it would have been hard to argue they didn’t have standing as long as what they were arguing had plausible legal merit (it did, it may not have been the winning argument in the end, but it was at least plausible at the beginning and they won on one count).

The goal wasn’t just to sue Apple, it was to shank Apple with one hand while filing suit with another and they had multiple opportunities to get their account unsuspended at the beginning of the lawsuit even while the case proceeded, before it was eventually terminated.

[Terretta]

> So Apple has their draconian 30% cut

This notion that 30% is 'draconian' is curious since Steam -- on supposedly open PC -- costs devs more, and even 30% is wrong since it's not 30% below a certain revenue level or in the second year onwards, again in line or less than stores on other platforms.

[bonestamp2]

I'm not a lawyer so please excuse this potentially dumb question, but why do they have to break the agreement to sue them?

[throwaway-blaze]

It's not 49% of the phone market in the EU. More like 36%, and in some markets like Italy and Spain, far far smaller.

[threeseed]

> This is funny to point out since they did it specifically to sue over it (you pretty much can't other wise).

This is simply wrong.

Many have sued Apple over the legalities of the development agreement over the decades. They just always lose.

And Epic could've chosen to follow Spotify and lobby behind the scenes but instead chose the PR move.

[concinds]

> This is funny to point out since they did it specifically to sue over it (you pretty much can't other wise).

Are you a lawyer? You sound awfully assertive in making this claim, especially with the slight contempt/patronizing tone.

[barelysapient]

> Yea that seems fine, no monopolistic behavior here, it's only 49% of the phone market so it's fine.

iPhone marketshare in the EU is about 22%.

[overgard]

I find it hard to see Apple being in the right here. While I'm not so naive as to think one company is "good" and the other "bad", I do think that as developers Epic is fighting for our best interests. Apple's app store monopoly serves only Apple.

[concinds]

Criticize Apple vigorously and criticize Epic vigorously. Epic's been fined for dark patterns, data collection on minors below 13, and their entire business model relies on getting children to buy worthless cosmetic skins out of peer pressure, while optimizing for engagement and addiction. It's a predatory business model that should be illegal.

One of their main goals in bypassing IAP is to make these microtransactions non-refundable, so parents are screwed. They're the great satan.

[SllX]

In the right and within their rights are two separate things. I’m not exactly happy with all of Apple’s App Store policies either, but they have their rights.

I also don’t believe Epic is doing this for anything other than Epic’s self-interest. They have no duty to other developers, and this is a potentially new line of business for them, not a liberation of iPhone app developers.

[dwaite]

I do not. Tim Sweeney testified that had Apple offered a special deal just for Epic, they would have taken it.

[bsimpson]

Epic does have a history as an app store. They are the main competitor to Steam on Windows, famous for giving away games every week to drive traffic.

[SllX]

Apple doesn’t compete with the Epic Games Store on Windows anymore than the Epic Games Store competes with the App Store on iPhones.

EDIT: just realized I originally mixed up Origin and the Epic Games Store. My bad.

[stefan_]

These words have a specific, narrow meaning and your laymans impression is the opposite of helpful in interpreting them.

[SllX]

In the context of standards essential patents, yes. In the case of DMA compliance, it’s a bit more TBD until the EC issues more guidance and actual legal precedent is set, but what we do know is that the DMA still allows Apple to set terms that 3rd parties must both agree with and abide by which means having an active developer account with Apple. If Apple believes Epic will not abide by the terms in good faith, they don’t have any reason to maintain a relationship with Epic, and Epic has given Apple plenty of reasons.

The real and interesting question is whether they can do this before they prove Epic’s non-compliance with the new terms.

[Despegar]

This will be another issue determined by EU courts, but Apple is not justifying it as a show of force. They're justifying it based on Epic's prior breach of contract and statements they've made. I think based on the record, courts will side with Apple.

[Jensson]

Why would a 4 year old breach of contract warrant a ban today instead of 4 years ago? The trigger was that Epic criticized Apple, that doesn't seem like a warranted reason to ban someone even if they did something bad 4 years ago.

Also since the DMA bans arrangement that Epic breached before, there is no reason to suspect that the EU account will breach anything new now, I really doubt EU will let this slide.

[threeseed]

> The trigger was that Epic criticized Apple

Epic has been criticising Apple almost every single day.

[paulmd]

presumably apple's ban on epic games is for life, not just for a year or two. and registering a new account doesn't change that - it's just ban evasion.

to wit: you are still banned from reddit or paypal or any other online service, even if you create a new account. if they can link it they'll ban that one too.

and this is a new account that epic games tried to register recently. so it got banned too. Not that complex/hard a concept really, unless you're trying not to understand it.

again, do you think you have a right to create a second reddit account after your first one got banned from the service? how about a bank account, do you get a do-over if you do some fraud and get your first account banned?

[fennecbutt]

The courts and 49% of people would side with Apple even if it turned out they were grinding up orphans to make iPhones.

[disgruntledphd2]

The EU courts won't, nor will the Commission.

[realusername]

Apple has nothing on their side aside from a few tweets criticizing them, that just won't cut it as an exemption to the DMA. It's not like Epic released malware or anything.

Remember that the whole goal of the DMA is that actors like Apple and Google can't decide to block competiton on a whim, the exact thing they are doing right now.

[scarface_74]

According to the article, they have the official court ruling…

[threeseed]

a) It is fair and non-discriminatory. Epic was found by the courts to have violated the terms of the agreement that they signed and Apple had the right to terminate it. They have done this with other developers as well.

b) Epic is not their main competitor in anything.

[jsnell]

Have any other companies announced credible plans for a competing app store? I'm at least not aware of any, which would absolutely make Epic their main competitor.

It is pretty hilarious how people think some US court judgement would have any relevance on EU anti-trust regulation.

[dwaite]

Yes, such as MacPaw's SetApp marketplace. https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/29/24086792/setapp-subscript...

[threeseed]

I think you're confused how this works.

Apple doesn't need a court judgement to terminate a contract. They can just do it if they believe terms have been broken. Epic sued them in the US to reverse this decision and the courts found in favour of Apple. The process in the EU starts the same way.

And this is a basic contractual dispute seperate from the DMA which is why the many other parties have not also had their contracts terminated.

Also running an App Store is hard. It's going to take more than a few days to see competitors.

[jimscard]

You’re missing a key point by calling this a “competing app store”. That’s not what it would be. It would simply be Epic’s app store with Epic’s apps in it, the purpose being to maximize Epic’s revenue on Epic’s games. Apple, in case you haven’t noticed, isn’t a game company — they don’t compete with Epic. Microsoft does. Steam does. Apple doesn’t. In fact, given that Epic games haven’t been on iOS in ages, there’s literally zero competition even there.

It’s kind of silly to think that other companies that actually compete with Epic would choose to publish via the Epic store, since they’d just be giving money to their competitor. Either they’ll build their own stores or they’ll continue business as usual, using the device manufacturer’s stores.

To your other point, while a US court judgement is unlikely to have direct relevance to EU regulation, it does help establish a pattern of behavior on Epic’s part.

It’s also important to note that the provisions for establishing an alternative app store are designed to protect the consumer. Repeated violations of contractual agreements is clear evidence of a company’s untrustworthiness, and it would be irresponsible for Apple to do anything other than exercise the termination clause as a result..

[whimsicalism]

"it happened via operation of private contract so it is thus presumptively fair and non-discriminatory" is not how the DMA works, at all.

[Jensson]

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]

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]

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.

[giantrobot]

Even if the "hole" is plugged you'd have to prove in court you were being retaliated against. Vibes are not going to be enough. You'd need a decision maker's e-Mail saying "you know what, fuck Epic cancel their account". Without that smoking gun all Apple needs to do is show all the instances of Epic violating their contract. Same if they canceled your account because of violations.

[threeseed]

You should read the US ruling [1]. This is not about Epic criticising Apple.

This is because Epic did things like pushing a hidden IAP system inside Fortnite to evade review and then at a later point switching it on. This sort of thing has been forbidden since the early days of the App Store. It is a fundamental part of the Apple-Developer contract that you allow reviewers access to all functionality.

[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/21...

[dwaite]

Apple is asking for a clear commitment to honor its contract this time. I'm pretty sure a court ruling on reinstating the account isn't going to also require a clear commitment to honor the contract.

[jeffwask]

As long as Forkknife continues to print money, they can afford the battle.

[scarface_74]

That’s very much a Pyrrhic victory if Eoic doesn’t have access to the US market. The court ruling in the US said that Apple has the right to terminate their account.

From the linked article

> This judgment stated that “Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion.”

[jimmySixDOF]

Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account (USA)(2020) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24309632

[andersa]

This is about Epic having access to the EU market.

[scarface_74]

That’s why it’s a Pyrrhic victory. They have access to the EU market which is much less profitable than the US market.

[johnnyanmac]

Pyrrhic implies that the battle is over. I see it more as a foothold for a much longer battle. I'm sure North America and Asia aren't ignoring this whole ordeal.

It should also be noted that this article specifically talks about Epic's Sweden AB account being banned. It doesn't affect the state of the US account (which may very well be banned anyway).

[ben_w]

> Pyrrhic implies that the battle is over

Other way around, "victory" implies the battle is over, Pyrrhic as a modifier implies a victory that inflicted such a devastating toll that it was tantamount to defeat.

[lxgr]

Right now they have access to neither. A less-than-complete win is not a Phyrric victory.

[justinclift]

"Thin edge of the wedge" might be the better way to see it?

Epic have cracked open the walled garden in one part of the world (EU).

They need to consolidate that win in the EU so it doesn't disappear, then leverage it to break open the walled garden in other places as well.

[jart]

Epic is just Tencent which is an organ of the Chinese state. They might have been able to break open Apple like an egg in Europe but the final boss battle is going to be much harder for them.

[mattmaroon]

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

[lxgr]

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

[akira2501]

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]

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]

> 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]

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.

[raydev]

> 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

>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.

[matthewdgreen]

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]

You misspelled Apple

[vagrantJin]

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.