from Hacker News

Epic says Apple will reinstate developer account

by Despegar on 3/8/24, 6:12 PM with 601 comments

by astlouis44 on 3/8/24, 7:03 PM
Amazing how fast this decision was reversed. It's truly awesome to see regulators standing up to walled gardens. This will greatly benefit both developers and consumers.
by iamthirsty on 3/8/24, 6:23 PM
From DF a few days ago[0] :
> The termination of Epic Games Sweden AB’s Apple developer account was communicated in a letter from Mark Perry, a lawyer representing Apple, to Epic’s lawyers:
> Mr. Sweeney’s response to that request was wholly insufficient and not credible. It boiled down to an unsupported “trust us.” History shows, however, that Epic is verifiably untrustworthy, hence the request for meaningful commitments. And the minimal assurances in Mr. Sweeney’s curt response were swiftly undercut by a litany of public attacks on Apple’s policies, compliance plan, and business model. As just one example: https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1762243725533532587?s=20.
Maybe Tim sent more than a two sentence reply to Phil to get it straightened out. It's anyone's guess at this point.
—
[0]: https://daringfireball.net/2024/03/apple_epic_developer_acco...
by mulmen on 3/8/24, 10:42 PM
Apple believes this is an existential threat and they are fighting against it as hard as they can. But is this a self-fulfilling prophecy? These actions come with a cost. This gives Epic visibility and it harms trust in Apple’s brand. How do they balance these costs against the perceived threat?
by summerlight on 3/8/24, 10:22 PM
It feels like the initial ban decision was driven by some high level exec (probably Phil Schiller)? If it was happened to be reviewed carefully by lawyers and public relations, they cannot really ban Epic so quickly. There are too many uncertainties and if you do something wrong, that puts government relations at huge risk. Typical employees cannot be held accountable for such decisions, not even low tier VP.
by dang on 3/8/24, 7:26 PM
Recent and related:
Apple terminates Epic Games developer account, calling it a 'threat' to iOS - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39618673 - March 2024 (980 comments)
by thinking_monkey on 3/9/24, 4:13 AM
Granted, the real reasons they refused to reinstate the account may not have been because of the unflattering tweets. Maybe it really wasn't. But Apple definitely goofed when they said that was one of the reasons. +1 for developers and consumers, -1 for Apple.
by jncfhnb on 3/8/24, 7:52 PM
Apple’s behavior largely makes sense given what a huge share of their profits their racketeering of customer access earns them. If you ever wanted to see regulation pains as the cost of doing business, this is it.
But banning epic was just pathetic baby behavior.
I hope epic launches the epic game store for iOS and its dogshit but cheaper and the gacha gravy boats all jump ship
by kraig911 on 3/8/24, 8:17 PM
The joke, what do you have when you have a group of lawyers up to their necks in dog shit? Not enough dog shit...
It's just so insane how fast lawyers can bring the image, will and industry at large to it's knees. I think Apple's legal team should really take a hint (and a hit) from all of us in this industry. You're hurting Apple and the entire dev community more than you're helping.
by saagarjha on 3/8/24, 6:40 PM
I find it amusing when Apple says they vet their developers and block those they don’t trust when you can’t even trust for them to not go through your public comments and bring it up against you.
by Brian_K_White on 3/9/24, 4:45 AM
Clown car.
They were a threat yesterday, but they're not a threat today?
They weren't a threat yesterday either but, what, an automated process or a rogue intern wrote those pr statements? You leave the keys to those accounts just lying around for any flunky to post from like that?
There is no non-clown-car way to explain it away.
by magicloop on 3/9/24, 12:12 PM
What has happened here is all about the personalities involved, not a business strategy, not a legal strategy.
It is "Forming, Storming, Norming, ... " (Tuckman's stages of group development)
Forming = setting up the technical and business solution for DMA
Storming = arguing due to the newly experienced dynamics of power/control
Norming = CEO stepping in the get a resolved balance in what to do next
Phil Schiller would have been the point man on the business solution (you can hear his tone of voice in the News communications and now see his private messaging as released by Sweeney).
The regulator involvement would have gone via the CEO route, who would have had to resolve the conflict with his deputised point man (Phil).
Companies are just collections of people. Maybe they share world view or a values system, but they are still just people. So human psychology is a relevant (and I argue the most significant) factor coming into play here.
If there was a market logic, I think it would be that they'd prefer the alternative marketplace provider be someone like Amazon, and then have Fortnite be an app in that store. So the commercial disputes then are deflected away from Apple/Epic animosity.
The original business case for 3G wireless networking was "Girls-Games-Gambling". The business case for alternative app marketplaces is a similar content argument "Games-Gambling&Crypto-Porn". Maybe this is part of what is keeping Meta/Amazon/Google away. Those folks can swallow a Core Tech Fee (although would be a significant friction point for sure).
I think the fundamental root problem here is EC are trying to lower prices to businesses by attempting to foster competition which might lower prices. But the actual solution is to directly mandate lower prices, and keep the gatekeepers with their current control points and systems. In other words, consider App Store commissions as actual Taxes. And we know from history that "taxes without representation" lead to revolution.
by Animats on 3/8/24, 6:51 PM
Well, that was quick.
by ftyhbhyjnjk on 3/9/24, 5:43 AM
This is super great. Apple had it coming for years now. Fck the monopoly.
by hardlianotion on 3/8/24, 6:30 PM
That didn’t take long.
by drooopy on 3/8/24, 7:48 PM
Just yesterday they were a "threat" to iOS or whatever.
by 2OEH8eoCRo0 on 3/8/24, 7:59 PM
Played their card too soon. They want to take it back so they can play it again in the future.
by sharpshadow on 3/8/24, 6:04 PM
I kind of expected that they wouldn’t push through with that silly ban.
by camdenlock on 3/8/24, 9:56 PM
Very depressing to see y’all cheering when the state gains more power. We should cheer when the state is kept in check.
You have the choice to buy a Samsung phone instead of an Apple phone; most people don’t have the choice to switch governments.
by marcinzm on 3/8/24, 6:55 PM
> And the minimal assurances in Mr. Sweeney’s curt response were swiftly undercut by a litany of public attacks on Apple’s policies, compliance plan, and business model.
So according to Apple [edit] one isn't allowed to say bad things about a company publicly or they are allowed to ban your account? Interesting view.
by geniium on 3/9/24, 3:35 AM
This is better than many novel
by turquoisevar on 3/9/24, 3:28 AM
All parties involved want to flex their muscles and most here argue based on how impressed they are by the flexes displayed.
Apple wants to show that they can’t be brought to their knees.
Epic wants to show that they can get away with shit.
The EU wants to show that they have teeth and are to be feared.
In the meantime, the only organization with the actual final say, the CJEU, is off forgotten in these debates and is currently warming up to accept and adjudicate Apple’s appeal for the ~$2B fine based on art. 102 TFEU.
Apple and Epic are private parties, and the EC is just an executive body. The CJEU in this is analogous to SCOTUS.
The best we can do as bystanders in the meantime is asses on existing principles whose flexing actually has some power behind it.
Epic’s contract with Apple was terminated prior to all this. The US courts have their blessing for this. Epic tried to get unbanned, most notably after changes in Korea, and Apple said they weren’t interested.
Now Epic pulled a stunt and was stupid enough to publish the emails. Based on the time and date of those emails and their public announcement that they “got their dev account back,” we can surmise that Epic just created a new account with the information of their newly erected Swedish entity. This process is 99% automated.
Afterward, they emailed Apple. Not to get permission to return but to state that they are back. That’s when the ball started rolling.
To enter into a valid contract, there needs to be mutual assent. Leaving nuance by the wayside, that means that both parties needed to actually want to enter into a contract with one another.
In the US, this used to be measured against a subjective standard but later shifted to an objective standard that boils down to whether a reasonable person would consider it an acceptance of an offer. In the EU, it’s still a subjective standard where intent to enter a contract is essential.
All of this is to say that if push comes to shove, no court, especially not a European one, is going to consider Epic simply creating a new account when Apple has made it clear time and time again that they don’t want to do business with them, to be sufficient for forming a valid legal agreement.
Without a valid legal agreement, the status quo prior to this event is leading. This being a situation in which Apple and Epic don’t have an agreement.
The DMA doesn’t have provisions that would force parties to enter into an agreement and force them to do business with each other. This is because it wouldn’t be able to withstand adjudication by the CJEU but also because the EU would never want to open Pandora’s box like that. The implications of that would be quite literally beyond comprehension.
So if there’s no valid contract and the EU doesn’t have the power to force one, ask yourself whose flexing is merely a flex and whose flexing is backed by the power of the CJEU? Who’s doing who a favor here?
We know at least of one party that they consistently go out of their way to make a point, even when the underlying issue they use as motivation is already moot. The point being made is that their teeth are truly sharp. So why not use those teeth in this instance and chomp into the flesh. Are we to believe that they’ve lost their appetite for their favorite meal?
Right as their latest pet project has gone into effect no less?
After being embarrassed by their prey who was able to convince the courts to reach into their mouth and reveal that those teeth are not as sharp as they’ve been made out to be almost a decade ago? An embarrassment that they’re still trying to undo in court at this very moment?
If someone who was so shamelessly neutered had the actual power to draw blood by chomping down into the flesh, would it be likely they’d rather growl?
I don’t think so.
by seam_carver on 3/8/24, 9:51 PM
Please just let me get Infinity Blade back.
by andy_ppp on 3/8/24, 7:30 PM
I’m so tired of this Apple tax, I think nobody would be this annoyed if Apple were saying 10% or something around that. 30% is more than most companies pay in tax on profits and this is a tax on revenue. I don’t think abusing your market position like some kind of protection racket should be allowed and if you don’t like it we’ll delete your App is quite frankly just as bad as the mafia smashing in shop windows. I doubt anyone will stop them but we can hope…
by ajross on 3/8/24, 6:19 PM
This is just so weird to watch. Apple is literally throwing a tantrum on a continent-wide stage. Like, it's one attempt at escalation after another, and they keep losing (either their legal fights, or their nerve) and having to reverse course.
Like, there's no strategy at all here? Just keep swinging and hope you land a blow that breaks through the armor? This is how my 15 year old plays VR games.
by gigel82 on 3/8/24, 7:27 PM
So I guess regulation is good after all... perhaps we can get some traction with that in US?
by stephc_int13 on 3/8/24, 9:31 PM
What a bunch of clowns! Seriously, Apple? Are they so full of hubris that they could not see how their haste would backfire?
Given the compensation level of their legal team I’d expect that they could see it coming and spare the public humiliation and brand damage.
I can’t believe this is real.
by yalok on 3/8/24, 10:29 PM
you have to give it to the guy - he continued coding even after loosing in the court and having to read tons of legal papers -
Sept 10, 2021: Lost a court case, climbed a mountain, read hundreds of pages of legal papers, wrote some code. Just as determined as ever to fight on until there is genuine developer and consumer freedom in software, and fair competition in each mobile platform software component.
https://x.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1436583527290654720?s=20
by jeppester on 3/8/24, 9:56 PM
At least it is now completely obvious that Apple is "verifiably untrustworthy" as a gatekeeper for third party stores.
by barrystaes on 3/8/24, 9:31 PM
I wont even play it probably, but i look forward to buy that game via the Epic Banana store just to vote with my wallet.
by larodi on 3/8/24, 7:11 PM
I, for once, love living in the EU
by w4 on 3/8/24, 7:59 PM
Between this and the PWA decision, Apple seems to be flailing. What is leadership doing?
by retskrad on 3/8/24, 6:29 PM
Tim Cook managed to be cool calm and diplomatic when dealing with Trump and his trade war with China. Why is Tim Cook suddenly acting irrational and child-like when dealing with EU? This behaviour we're seeing from Apple recently is happening in front on investors and everyone else's eyes because Tim Cook is personally green-lighting this behaviour. What's going on inside Apple? Is it because none of their hardware is growing anymore and they don't have an AI strategy to offset their stock which is currently in free fall and is about to be bypassesed by nVidia?
by apazzolini on 3/8/24, 6:43 PM
Getting pretty huge clown face painting meme vibes.
by etchalon on 3/8/24, 6:49 PM
Please stop picking stupid fights, Apple. You keep losing them.
by beejiu on 3/8/24, 6:51 PM
What's the catch? (Given they tried to destroy PWAs in their last tantrum.)
by montagg on 3/8/24, 9:38 PM
One of the worst gaming user experiences on Windows is how every publisher wants their own store. And depending on where you get a game, it may or may not have certain features. And if you get into modding, sometimes one version of the game just won't work with some mods.
I understand everyone feels good about increased competition with Apple—and hopefully it turns out well for users—but iOS is hurtling toward the same situation that exists on Windows, and I think the iOS experience is worse for it. It's definitely worse with the browser nag. So I don't call this a total win. It's a theoretical win, but I foresee it being about as much of a win as cookie banners are, when it comes to the actual, practical, day-to-day experience people have using this technology.
by mizzao on 3/8/24, 9:09 PM
Nice, make 'em find other ways to make money than rent-seeking.
by h_tbob on 3/8/24, 7:29 PM
I hope they can learn to love each other. Makes me so upset when developers and business people can't figure out how to solve this outside of court.
by Invictus0 on 3/8/24, 7:50 PM
Surely Apple's legal team counseled them against closing the account in the first place. Now that the EU commission made an inquiry, the execs folded?
by anonymouse008 on 3/8/24, 6:46 PM
Not trying to start a flame war, I'm asking this earnestly. Where does this command over hardware (USB-C mandate), software (sideloading/AppStore), and prices (recent 2bn decision) end?
by quitit on 3/8/24, 8:59 PM
Apple's statement:
“Following conversations with Epic, they have committed to follow the rules, including our DMA policies. As a result, Epic Sweden AB has been permitted to re-sign the developer agreement and accepted into the Apple Developer Program.”
If you think the EU got their shit together in 2 days, you're day dreaming.
Phil Schiller invited Epic to make assurances that they'd follow the terms of the agreement. Epic did. The EU didn't even have their shoes on.
You can safely ignore Tim Sweeney's twitter chest beating - it's marketing.