Apple terminates Epic Games Developer Account (again)

[HenrySalayne]

4 hours ago, coasterghost said:

Allowing user choice is one thing, but then you be forcing a company to create a special set of terms and services for a sole person

Jeff Bezos? Netflix? No, they get special treatment because Apple can't afford to annoy their customers too much...

Some companies are just more equal than others.

[Brooksie359]

50 minutes ago, PDifolco said:

Just ask yourself why ,"incidentally", Apple manages to ban its main competitor exactly when it has to open its store to other brands due to EU DMA...

Legal bullshit, bad faith, all is good for Apple to cancel the DMA obligations

What they proposed was anyway totally unacceptable and contrary to the spirit of the DMA, but they gained time, and time is $$$

What main competitor? Epic? They banned epic a long time ago and they just happened to ban Epics Swedish account and probably in large part because they were criticizing apples new tos. They basically think epic is going to not comply with the new tos and when Apple trys to ban them for not complying they will likely sue again like they did in the past. I would say that such a scenario isn't out of the question. I could easily see epic pulling such a stunt based on Tim's prior conduct and the way he is currently talking about apples tos. 

[PDifolco]

7 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

What main competitor? Epic? They banned epic a long time ago and they just happened to ban Epics Swedish account and probably in large part because they were criticizing apples new tos. They basically think epic is going to not comply with the new tos and when Apple trys to ban them for not complying they will likely sue again like they did in the past. I would say that such a scenario isn't out of the question. I could easily see epic pulling such a stunt based on Tim's prior conduct and the way he is currently talking about apples tos. 

That's it, they banned Epic before EU DMA, but then had to allow them back, then found any bs reason like "future breach" claim to  ban them again, just to look clean 

Pretty sure they'll do the same with all competitors (except tiniest ones) through outrageous ToS, so they keep their software monopoly on all Apple hardware  and still claim to respect the DMA, which they won't

 

[Fasterthannothing]

I hope Apple gets a nice big fine from all this crap. 

[coasterghost]

2 hours ago, PDifolco said:

Just ask yourself why ,"incidentally", Apple manages to ban its main competitor exactly when it has to open its store to other brands due to EU DMA...

Legal bullshit, bad faith, all is good for Apple to cancel the DMA obligations

What they proposed was anyway totally unacceptable and contrary to the spirit of the DMA, but they gained time, and time is $$$

Epic, of all companies being it’s main competitor to Apple. Tis merely a ruckus laugh. Come back to me with a better argument when Epic forms EpicOS and sells hardware.

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Except that Apple DID issue a developers license to Epic.  To bad for Apple.  It's funny how they essentially talk about rug pulling and yet that is effectively what they are doing here.

 

Overall Apple also won the case in the US because it wasn't classified as a monopoly in the eyes of the law; had they been though it would have meant Epic would have won and those contracts provisions would have been void.

 

As much as I dont necessarily like Epic, they do have a point against Apple and Apple shouldn't be allowed to essentially bar them from competing on the Apple platform.

You do know anyone can get a developers license from Apple. They aren’t special at all. It’s likely that someone noticed that they signed up and it was reported to management.
 

As much as I can’t stand Tim Sweeney who let’s face it has the ego of Jim Jannard, his “we are holier then thou” argument to everything is pitiful and annoying to the point of malicious. Apple has every reason to have concern about Epic not holding up their part of the agreement from their past actions and Sweeney’s emails. 
 

The funniest thing about all of this is that Apple wants an assurance that Epic will act in good faith, because let’s face it, anything that’ll happen, Apple’s going to be sued for. And yet here we are, Epic is having the temper tantrum because Apple wants to know that they will be acting in good faith. 

You do know that with how corporate culture works, Tim Sweeney shouldn’t have told them “I'm writing to tell you that Epic will no longer adhere to Apple's payment processing restrictions.” And then they want to know why Apple can trust them. 

[coasterghost]

1 hour ago, HenrySalayne said:

Jeff Bezos? Netflix? No, they get special treatment because Apple can't afford to annoy their customers too much...

Some companies are just more equal than others.

Proof?

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, PDifolco said:

That's it, they banned Epic before EU DMA, but then had to allow them back, then found any bs reason like "future breach" claim to  ban them again, just to look clean 

Pretty sure they'll do the same with all competitors (except tiniest ones) through outrageous ToS, so they keep their software monopoly on all Apple hardware  and still claim to respect the DMA, which they won't

 

I would hardly say it is a bs reason. They did deliberately break tos in the past to try for financial gain under the premise that the law would be on their side hence the lawsuit they filed. Now they say that apples tos is bs and problematic so why would apple not think epic would simply break tos again with the same justifications of the law being on their side. I'm sorry but to call their reason bs is just untrue. Sure you can disagree with their decision but I would hardly say it is some fabricated reason. 

[PDifolco]

24 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I would hardly say it is a bs reason. They did deliberately break tos in the past to try for financial gain under the premise that the law would be on their side hence the lawsuit they filed. Now they say that apples tos is bs and problematic so why would apple not think epic would simply break tos again with the same justifications of the law being on their side. I'm sorry but to call their reason bs is just untrue. Sure you can disagree with their decision but I would hardly say it is some fabricated reason. 

It's  fabricated, it relies on "possible/probable" future breaches, not any real breach.

Judgement done before the crime occured...

[Brooksie359]

16 minutes ago, PDifolco said:

It's  fabricated, it relies on "possible/probable" future breaches, not any real breach.

Judgement done before the crime occured...

That isn't what fabricated means. Also it relies on previously tos violations and past behavior which is pretty reasonable. Could epic be acting in good faith? Maybe but apple has no obligation to work with them regardless and can simply keep them banned based on the prior tos violation. 

[TetraSky]

Apple really pushing the malicious compliance to the max on that one.

[IkeaGnome]

1 hour ago, PDifolco said:

It's  fabricated, it relies on "possible/probable" future breaches, not any real breach.

Judgement done before the crime occured...

So you're saying Epic lied in a court of law?

Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:2020cv05640 - Document 118 (N.D. Cal. 2020) :: Justia

Spoiler

The hotfix remained inactive until the early morning of August 13, 2020, when Epic Games made the calculated decision to breach its allegedly illegal agreements with Apple by activating the undisclosed code in Fortnite, allowing Epic Games to collect IAPs directly. Fortnite remained on the App Store until later that morning, when Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, where it remains unavailable. Later that same day, Epic Games filed this action and began a pre-planned, and blistering, marketing campaign against Apple. This marketing campaign included: a large-scale twitter campaign, a releasing of a parody video of the iconic Apple 1984 commercial, a Fortnite tournament in support of its lawsuit with in-game prizes, and a releasing of a limited time skin in Fortnite called the Tart Tycoon,8 among other actions.

I love the judge's opinion on this.

Spoiler

Epic Games disputes that its use of the hotfix was deceptive where it is common practice in the gaming and software industry. The deceptive conduct does not derive from Epic Games’ use of the hotfix specifically, but from using a hotfix to clandestinely add features in violation of the guidelines and its agreements with Apple, and then failing to disclose such code. Moreover, Epic Games did this despite receiving an unambiguous refusal from Apple only a few weeks prior to the introduction of its hotfix. The record further reflects that while hotfixes are commonly used in the industry, their uses are generally to fix or patch critical bugs or defects—not to enact substantive and significant new features. Epic Games’ adamant refusal to understand this basic distinction is not only baffling, but undermines its credibility with this Court.

 

Look, I'm not here saying either company is 100% correct. Both are wrong on some accounts. However, Epic has a history on iOS of doing what they want. 

[HenrySalayne]

Update: Apple has once again terminated the termination of Epic Games. And they did it because they have seen the errors of their ways and because of their good heart. They absolutely didn't do it, because the EU asked "you wanna get fined?".

[IkeaGnome]

50 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

Update: Apple has once again terminated the termination of Epic Games. And they did it because they have seen the errors of their ways and because of their good heart. They absolutely didn't do it, because the EU asked "you wanna get fined?".

They terminated it again?

[suicidalfranco]

2 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

They terminated it again?

double negative

[HenrySalayne]

2 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

They terminated it again?

No, they reinstated it. Sorry for the confusion.

[Mark Kaine]

On 3/8/2024 at 12:22 AM, PDifolco said:

It's  fabricated, it relies on "possible/probable" future breaches, not any real breach.

Judgement done before the crime occured...

 

On 3/7/2024 at 10:29 PM, PDifolco said:

That's it, they banned Epic before EU DMA, but then had to allow them back, then found any bs reason like "future breach" claim to  ban them again, just to look clean 

Pretty sure they'll do the same with all competitors (except tiniest ones) through outrageous ToS, so they keep their software monopoly on all Apple hardware  and still claim to respect the DMA, which they won't

 

the good thing about this all is the fines will be gigantic and it will most likely lead to a blanket ban of random ass "bans" of of customers... which in the digital age means more like taking your customers hostage more than anything.

 

dared to criticize google? well there goes all your emails and everything that's associated with it... tough luck, shouldnt have criticized...!

 

complaining about apple "ToS"? well, guess what your new shiny $2000 phone is now a fancy doorstop! shouldn't have criticized lol...

 

 

yeah. it'll take time but that's the outcome on the table here (in apple's case i can also see a full europe wide ban tbh)

 

 

13 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Update: Apple has once again terminated the termination of Epic Games. And they did it because they have seen the errors of their ways and because of their good heart. They absolutely didn't do it, because the EU asked "you wanna get fined?".

lmao well there goes my phantasies about a more just consumer environment out of the window,  maybe next time, apple? ._.

[Mark Kaine]

On 3/8/2024 at 2:23 AM, IkeaGnome said:

However, Epic has a history on iOS of doing what they want. 

which is a big part of how we got to these better consumer laws in the eu, lets not forget that.

[Brooksie359]

On 3/9/2024 at 11:14 PM, Mark Kaine said:

 

the good thing about this all is the fines will be gigantic and it will most likely lead to a blanket ban of random ass "bans" of of customers... which in the digital age means more like taking your customers hostage more than anything.

 

dared to criticize google? well there goes all your emails and everything that's associated with it... tough luck, shouldnt have criticized...!

 

complaining about apple "ToS"? well, guess what your new shiny $2000 phone is now a fancy doorstop! shouldn't have criticized lol...

 

 

yeah. it'll take time but that's the outcome on the table here (in apple's case i can also see a full europe wide ban tbh)

 

 

lmao well there goes my phantasies about a more just consumer environment out of the window,  maybe next time, apple? ._.

You clearly don't understand the reason why Apple banned Epic. If you had a company that criticized your tos then it's a non issue. If you have a company that criticized your tos then intentionally breaks that tos just so they could sue when they were banned for breaking tos then yeah it becomes a problem. I think Apple was alot more concerned about epic actually complying and not pulling the same bs again which is stated as much in the email to epic asking them to put into writing that they will act in good faith to not break tos. 

[wanderingfool2]

20 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

You clearly don't understand the reason why Apple banned Epic. If you had a company that criticized your tos then it's a non issue. If you have a company that criticized your tos then intentionally breaks that tos just so they could sue when they were banned for breaking tos then yeah it becomes a problem. I think Apple was alot more concerned about epic actually complying and not pulling the same bs again which is stated as much in the email to epic asking them to put into writing that they will act in good faith to not break tos. 

One issue though is without breaking the TOS and getting banned they might not have been able to even have started up the lawsuit.  In some areas of law, you actually have to become the victim in order to actually get things disqualified.

 

The biggest issue I have though is that Apple did grant them a license, then revoked it when comments were made...the whole idea with DMA was that Apple shouldn't be allowed to be the gate-keeper...and that's exactly what Apple is doing by essentially forcing their "good faith" agreement.

[Lunar River]

21 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I think Apple was alot more concerned about epic actually complying

Buuullllllllllllllshiiiit.

[leadeater]

21 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

If you have a company that criticized your tos then intentionally breaks that tos just so they could sue when they were banned for breaking tos then yeah it becomes a problem.

That is actually a legitimate legal strategy, without grounds to start litigation you cannot do it so if you need to create the situation to do so to try and get the legal ruling for or against then you do it. You may not like it but needs must sometimes.

 

Bottom line is if you feel something in or all of the ToS is not legal then you don't have to follow it. ToS is not the law. If the ToS is not legal then you are not breaking it, it was never valid to begin with.

 

Apple's ToS cannot prevent me from scratching my ass, that is not allowed. I can do it regardless of it being in their ToS 

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

That is actually a legitimate legal strategy, without grounds to start litigation you cannot do it so if you need to create the situation to do so to try and get the legal ruling for or against then you do it. You may not like it but needs must sometimes.

 

Bottom line is if you feel something in or all of the ToS is not legal then you don't have to follow it. ToS is not the law. If the ToS is not legal then you are not breaking it, it was never valid to begin with.

 

Apple's ToS cannot prevent me from scratching my ass, that is not allowed. I can do it regardless of it being in their ToS 

Valid strategy or not it does make sense why Apple would be concerned that epic might just not comply with tos again to bait a lawsuit. 

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

One issue though is without breaking the TOS and getting banned they might not have been able to even have started up the lawsuit.  In some areas of law, you actually have to become the victim in order to actually get things disqualified.

 

The biggest issue I have though is that Apple did grant them a license, then revoked it when comments were made...the whole idea with DMA was that Apple shouldn't be allowed to be the gate-keeper...and that's exactly what Apple is doing by essentially forcing their "good faith" agreement.

Clearly the judge of the lawsuit didn't agree because they basically said that Apple can ban epic for life based on their bad behavior. Don't get me wrong you can absolutely break tos if it is illegal but typically this is more applicable in defensive scenarios. Basically if you break tos that isn't legal then you are probably OK if the company tries to sue based on the tos violation because it no longer becomes legally binding. Doing the opposite is a completely different situation because in most cases companies can choose to not do business with another company if they don't follow their business agreement. Also epics lawsuit never resulted in a court decision saying that apples tos wasn't legal. It was a new EU regulation that resulted in the change. 

[leadeater]

56 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Valid strategy or not it does make sense why Apple would be concerned that epic might just not comply with tos again to bait a lawsuit. 

Don't have non-legal terms in the ToS 

 

Or more in this case terms that aren't quite not legal but also shouldn't be allowed to the extent Apple was. Either way Apple has little choice in the matter, refuse to give a company like Epic a developer account irrespective of all of this and it would have gone to court. Give them an account and they'll conduct themselves how they see fit per law and/or ToS with law coming first.

 

Apple shouldn't need to be concerned about it or anything, nothing they do should be a problem and if "you" are worried that your restrictions could be found faulting then maybe "you" are in the wrong.

 

Like cheating on an exam, if you are worried you'll be found out then probably shouldn't have cheated. Business don't have "morals", generalizing heavily. Point being business can act in harmful, non-ethical or otherwise less than scrupulous ways knowingly and intentionally so long as they think they have the legal right to do so.

 

Similarly to the above any person or business who may object to any such thing can knowingly choose to violate something such as ToS without breaking any laws and if both involved want to make an issue of it can take the matter to civil court which may or may not have unintended flow on effects, or entirely intentional.

 

There are a lot of things Apple does very well, preventing In-App purchase processing or even external payment information absolutely is not one of them.

[wanderingfool2]

47 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Also epics lawsuit never resulted in a court decision saying that apples tos wasn't legal. It was a new EU regulation that resulted in the change. 

But lawsuits like Epics was what had also brought focus onto it by the EU regulators.  Lose the battle but win the war. [Along with Spotifies antitrust]

 

52 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Clearly the judge of the lawsuit didn't agree because they basically said that Apple can ban epic for life based on their bad behavior. Don't get me wrong you can absolutely break tos if it is illegal but typically this is more applicable in defensive scenarios.

Again if you view something as being anti-trust unless you break it you aren't going to get too far [because there is no damages so to speak].  You have to essentially willingly break it if you are wanting the best case.

 

It's important to note about a statement of "didn't agree" when it comes to rulings though.  Epic lost the majority of the counts [they won on anti-steering] because the laws surrounding what constitutes a monopoly in a sector is pretty vaguely defined so it's a judgement call.  In this case she rules that even though Apple had a 55% marketshare, on the game landscape they didn't hold a monopoly so the general anti-trust arguments don't apply.

 

This does differ in the sense that the EU seems to view it more as an antitrust/gatekeeper mentality [I suspect if Epic had fought in the EU they would have won, but that would still have been an issue in that for their American division it wouldn't change the thing].

 

 

Again, the biggest issue here is that Apple gave them a developer's license, it's at this point about the DMA...unilaterally deciding that they don't like the argument or that they might fear breaking the TOS is not and should not be justifications of a termination of it when it's relating to an app that's literally meant to wrestle the control away from Apple.  If Apple wants to revoke the license, they should have to wait until Epic actually violates the TOS [and NOT issue them a new developers license].

 

The key to note is that the Judge felt that Apple was acting anti-competitively, but the judge also concluded that based on the monopoly laws there was valid competition so it doesn't matter [i.e. Google made it a duopoly].  Honestly it's a law that needs to be changed as duopolies can be just as bad as a monopoly...because in my opinion a company holding access to 55% of the total customer base in a country should be considered for anti-trust rules. [This was a legal decision though that wasn't agreed with by all lawyers, while the Supreme Court didn't hear an appeal it really could have gone either way].