[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.

[jsnell]

Well, yes, clearly I think you're confused about how this works given you keep thinking that a US court ruling is going to overrule the DMA on EU soil.

The entity that Epic will be complaining to about this will not be a US court. It will be the EC. The EC will look at the text and the intent of the DMA: to permit competing app stores. They'll also note that Apple has (arbitarily and without any technical justification) made a developer account a requirement for launching a competing app store. And finally, they'll note that Apple is terminating the developer accounts of the company most vocal about intending to launch a competing app store.

It doesn't matter what text Apple has in their contract about how they're permitted to close developer accounts for any reason they want to. It doesn't matter that they have a courting ruling from some other country. Apple chose to gatekeep app store competition on membership in the developer program. To prevent this from being used as an end-run on the DMA, the EC just an't allow Apple to terminate the licenses on a flimsy pretext. And "Tim Sweeney tweeted mean things about us" is not going to work.

[threeseed]

a) No one has said that a US court ruling has jurisdiction over the EU. Developers have to sign seperate contracts in the countries that their apps are being sold in.

b) Epic's actions e.g. pushing hidden IAP features were a fundamental breach of the contract in all countries where it was signed including EU. It was never about Epic criticising Apple.

c) Apple takes the first move in terminating the contract. Then Epic sues. And then the EU legal system will settle the matter. That is the process.

[whimsicalism]

You keep hammering on point c but nobody in this thread has disagreed about the sequencing.

a -> that is the clear implication of one of the above comments, ie. if it was a legsl use of the contract in the US that somehow will shield them from dma violation, but dma supersedes contracts

[whimsicalism]

How is that at all relevant to future litigation over the DMA, which is what this thread is discussing?

It sounds like you lost the thread, not GP

[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..

[jsnell]

No, it wouldn't be an Epic-only store.

One reason we know this is that Epic Games Store on PC isn't Epic-only.

Another reason we know it is that Apple has (arbitrarily) forbidden app stores that aren't open to third parties. Even if Epic wanted to make it a first-party only store (why?), they couldn't.

You claim that Apple isn't a gaming company. It's true that Apple doesn't really develop or publish games. But the App Store is the world's largest games store, larger than e.g. any of the console games stores or Steam. Every estimate I can find is that significantly more than half the App Store revenue is from games.

Finally, you suggest that nobody would publish games on Epic's store. That might be true on iOS just due to the unreasonable terms Apple set for that (in particular the core platform fee), but it certainly won't be true due to competitors not wanting to give 12% to Epic rather than 30% to Apple. This fear hasn't stopped companies from publishing their games on the PC EGS.

Apple claim that all their requirements are there just to protect the consumers. They might be telling the truth, they might be lying and actually just want to make life as hard as possible for the competing app stores. It's hard for anyone on the outside to be sure which. But terminating the developer account of the most credible competitor on the day DMA enforcement starts is a pretty bad look, and makes it quite hard to believe Apple's story on why the requirements exist.

[burnerthrow008]

> Another reason we know it is that Apple has (arbitrarily) forbidden app stores that aren't open to third parties. Even if Epic wanted to make it a first-party only store (why?), they couldn't.

That's a circular argument. Apple is arguing (maybe wrongly) that Epic won't follow the rules. You can't refute that argument by saying "but the rules say they have to follow the rules".

[jsnell]

The GP wasn't making an argument about why Epic's account was terminated.

They were making an argument about why Epic wasn't a competitor to Apple. That argument was based on the mistaken belief that Epic was looking to launch a store only for their only games.

In that context it's not a circular argument to point out that a first-party only store cannot be launched on iOS, so obviously that's not what Epic is intending to do.

[_aavaa_]

Apple absolutely competes with Epic. Mobile in general and iOS in particular are massive markets, both player base and profit wise, for gaming.

On iOS apple has decreed that they deserve 30% of that action. And is now banning the developer of one of the most popular games (on any platform).

[threeseed]

By that definition every app developer is a competitor.

And Apple is basically a trillion dollar company. Tens of millions in lost revenue from Epic isn’t going to cause them to lose any sleep at night.

[troupo]

> By that definition every app developer is a competitor.

In a sense, yes. The term "sherlocked (by Apple)" exists because Apple routinely releases its own version of various apps

[_aavaa_]

It's not about these tens of million, it's about control over all of the money, and about control of everything on the device more broadly.

[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.