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.

> 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

I think that gave them much stronger standing and claimed damages.

It's a weaker argument if they voluntarily removed themselves from the AppStore.

Apple could have trotted out some 'We typically work well with developers in Epic's situation, but they never approached us so there was nothing we could do' excuse.

By forcing Apple to take an action, it concretely showed that Apple does in fact remove access if companies tried to forward users to alternate payment methods.

Sure, maybe this was the better strategy given either strategy was going to be a long shot, but they high rolled for what was ultimately a contract renegotiation and lost worse than if they had played their cards differently. Higher risk can mean higher rewards, but in this case it just worked out to be a bigger loss. They were never entitled to the outcome they fought for, but it was their right to fight for it and Apple’s right to defend themselves and their policies.

There is no such thing as “stronger” standing. You either have standing or you don’t. It’s the rule almost everywhere that a party to a contract can seek a declaratory judgment regarding the contract without breaching.

This idea that Epic had to breach to sue is part of a well crafted PR campaign by Epic.

I realize the gravity is a lot less here, but consider Civil Rights protests where people intentionally but peacefully broke (bad) laws in protest. I would consider what Epic did in a similar way.

This isn’t Segregation. Epic isn’t Rosa Parks. Apple isn’t a legislature. Epic’s actions until now have been for a B2B contract renegotiation, not a human rights movement.

People who did fight for civil rights were also punished with the force of law for their civil disobedience. The laws were unjust, but they still had consequences for those who lived under them, otherwise they wouldn’t have had to fight. Epic is also facing the consequences of their actions, but it’s only really important to them that they win. Everybody else invested in this fight (within the EU) will probably be able to get anything they want but Fortnite from some other app marketplace.

Trying to reduce a monopoly isn't as important as civil rights, but it's a lot more important than "B2B contract renegotiation".

Epic wants better terms for everyone, not just their app.

That's Epic's PR spin, but I ain't buying. This was a chance to reduce the fees they pay to Apple, not subject themselves to the customer relationship rules set by Apple and expand into another line of business. The legal, political and PR campaigns were tools in their arsenal to put pressure on Apple.

They lost, but good news for all the not-Epics out there because there's other companies who stand to benefit from the recent Court and Commission-induced changes Apple made to their policies. It just won't be Epic specifically.

That's why I said I realize the gravity isn't the same. I'm trying to point out it's in a similar category, not the same level of importance. Apple might not be a government, but they have a LOT of power and very little accountability. Epic's rule breaking was done to force Apple to show their ugly side, much like how the protests were designed to show how ugly the law and law enforcement was.

Here's the thing when you have a highly asymmetric power relationship, whether it be with a government or a business or any other large organization. You can point out how bad their policies are, and never break a rule, and people will just sort of sadly nod their head in agreement and go back to doing what they do. Or, you can force them to show just how ugly their rules/laws are on in real life -- not just theoretically. The latter actually gets things done, which is why I made the relation between the two things.

Or put more simply: show, don't tell.

Apple's App Store policies are, in my opinion as both an iPhone user and a developer, bad for everyone but Apple. So no, it's not important just for Epic that they win, it's important for the broader community of developers and users. Apple clearly is punishing Epic for fighting them and securing some victories, and personally I don't think we should tolerate that sort of behavior from Apple.

There is no alternative to mobile computing. Both vendors have draconian rules.

These are devices so essential to modern functioning that the regulators need to come and tell both Apple and Google that unlimited web installs are user rights.

Epic is right. Apple and Google are monopolies over an entire class of computing, and it's a 100% artificial racket.

> These are devices so essential to modern functioning that the regulators need to come and tell both Apple and Google that unlimited web installs are user rights.

This might be what you want but without new legislation, because the DMA ain’t saying what you want, regulators are not within their rights to impose this requirement.

You can sideload apks on Android and have alternate app stores too. I don't think the situations are in anyway similar or comparable.

Agreed. Google's lock-in is much more through bundling and must-default agreements.

> You can sideload apks

Just because you can ask your users to build a nuclear fission reactor, doesn't mean that they can or will.

F-droid gets ~3M MAU, with a 70% bounce rate. It's pitiful.

This is a pathetic case for mobile rights and freedom. Practically nobody knows how to make use of this model.

Installing software should be first class, not buried in the settings. It shouldn't have scare walls, either.

Google knows exactly what they're doing with the "freedom" they're letting end users have. 0.1% of users even know about or can leverage it.

I am sorry to push back on this, but this is just incorrect.

The truth is the vast majority of users do not care about sideloading apks. Apple knows this. Google knows this.

However, it is important that it is allowed without any major hurdle (a warning dialog that you need to click OK on is not a major hurdle for me once you consider that many malicious actors will use this sideloading for nefarious purposes).

Google allows it and you are free to use it without major hurdles. Yes, most users don't care to, and that's fine.

> The truth is the vast majority of users do not care about sideloading apks.

You can't really say that since it isn't a common deployment strategy. If web installs of APKs were normal and had no road blocks, then the practice would be commonplace.

The users care about software. There is only one blessed path to get it.

F-Droid is not a good comparison here because the primary motivator for people to use it is ideological, not because it has a wider selection or cheaper prices. The many different app stores in China is a better example of how a somewhat competitive app store landscape could look to the average user.

The largest android manufacturer ships their own alternative galaxy store...

> 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%.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

The PC isn't "supposedly" open, but open. Steam do collect a 30% fee but crucially, they have to work for that fee by competing on core service quality and quality of life features (like cloud saves).

Apple is perfectly entitled to ask for a 30% fee, as long as they allow for competition on equal footing (for clarity, this means they don't try to collect exorbitant rent from their competitors first). Let the free market sort it out.

> and quality of life features (like cloud saves)

You mean like CloudKit?

Apple SDKs exist and do things - including everything Steamworks does and quite a bit more.

If Apple decided to only allow apps distributed through them to use their SDKs or services, then would it would be fine because they'd be like Steam?

As a user, I have to pay for iCloud storage for apps that use it. There is a free tier, sure... which most users will fill very quickly just with device backups and photos alone.

I don't recall ever playing for cloud storage on Steam, though.

They have different QoS levels.

Steam Cloud is truly a backup service. It's not fast even for tiny amounts of data. They'll even kick you over to an even slower lane if you store anything over 250 MB.

Meanwhile, you can do near real-time app synchronization over iCloud between devices.

But yeah, it'd be great if Apple bumped up the free tier size. That said, I've never actually had any problems storing app data on iCloud. Apple users seem to either pay for more storage or not backup to iCloud, so from a developer perspective, eh.

CloudKit uses the user’s iCloud storage for private containers and bills the developers (although it’s usually free) for "public" CloudKit containers[1].

[1]: https://developer.apple.com/icloud/cloudkit/

If you don't like Steam's cut, you can go to Epic or GoG or Origin or Microsoft.

If you don't like Apple's cut, you couldn't (effectively still can't because of the absurd 1 000 000 installs/updates rule) go to any other storefront.

Before you bring up Xbox or Playstation: those devices are not essential computing devices. You can't function in modern society without access to both a computer and a smartphone. That puts a special burden on the companies that effectively own the software stack on those devices.

Not that I see it happen, but lets paint a PC horror scenario:

- Microsoft starts demanding to motherboard and laptop manufacturers to include their Pluton security chip

- Secure Boot can no longer be disabled

- They restructures the Windows kernel in such a way that DirectX is much faster than Vulkan

- They only allow games on the Microsoft Store access to DirectX 12.3 and 13

- Hell, _anything_ not installed from the Microsoft Store has dark-pattern warning pop-ups that make it both too confusing and too scary for the layman to install things from outside the store

- Microsoft also starts to demand a €0.50 fee from any developer that gets more than a million installs - with some updates counting towards installs. _This includes free applications_.

Do you see the problem now? Apple is essentially doing all of these things.

> Before you bring up Xbox or Playstation: those devices are not essential computing devices.

Dude cmon this is not how the legal system works, you can't just pretend that there's such a thing as an "essential computing device" as if iPhones are a human right or some shit

Human right? No. Human necessity in the modern world? Kinda yes. Some businesses are mobile-only now, not just mobile-first. And you need either a computer or a smartphone for many things now. You're really going to be locked out of a big part of normal life without a general computing device.

An Xbox or PS5 is not needed to live a normal life (if you ask my girlfriend it's even the opposite :)

> Dude cmon this is not how the legal system works, you can't just pretend that there's such a thing as an "essential computing device" as if iPhones are a human right or some shit

If I want to file my taxes (in Australia), I need an authentication app that's only available on iOS or Android. I can't use an Xbox or a Playstation. That's the difference.

There are authentication apps on windows, Mac, etc, and you also have the option of using something other than an electronic device.

Before you say desktop OSs are not the same thing, it is to the government. The difference between iOS and macOS is the same as Windows XP and Windows Vista legally, Google only got dinged as a monopoly in the Epic case because of preferential treatment, not because it was "essential" or that the smartphone market is any way distinct or unique enough for that. Microsoft got dinged because it was 95% of the personal computing market in general. Apple is not even close here.

It is fine to suggest abuse and sending warnings, but if you've even remotely looked at any of the legal cases the US government brought against tech companies in the past, you'd know how much of a joke it is when people talk like this.

The app is explicitly not available for desktop:

"Will there be a desktop version of myGovID?

No, a desktop version or browser-based version of myGovID will not be supported. To use myGovID, you will need your own compatible smart device."

https://www.abr.gov.au/media-centre/featured-news/business-s...

And given I'm overseas, I also do not have the option of using something other than an electronic device. To be honest, I don't even know if I could if I were living in Australia.

In the real world, Apple/Android devices are in a completely separate category from gaming consoles.

Sounds like your problem is with your shitty government, not Apple for not accommodating your shitty government.

If we as a society collectively decide that they are, then they are.

I mean, they’re considered so essential that city / municipal governments will give them to poor people either for free or at extremely subsidized prices. Classes are given to tech illiterate or less able people to learn to access governmental services. That pretty much hits the threshold of a legal definition.

Try it out, for the duration of a month only use your smartphone for texting and calls and do not touch any PC. If you balk at that idea, well, there you go.

They give people flip phones, not iPhones.

Why would I not touch a PC? You're just moving goalposts, Apple is not stopping you from buying a Chromebook. That's what anti-trust legislation is about.

> They give people flip phones, not iPhones.

No, they give them smartphones. You are so woefully ignorant.

> Why would I not touch a PC? You're just moving goalposts

I am not, you are. We were talking about how essential these devices are to daily life. My post even explicitly talks about locking down PCs.

It doesn't matter anyway, you are just looking to argue. I wish you good luck in life with that attitude.

Jitterbug (Lively) is the main contractor for these devices, yes they are getting flip phones. Just spend 30 seconds googling before lying because you just make yourself look like a fool.

More to the point, everything you've said is just a lie. I don't want any luck from you.

Sorry dude, this is how the world is working today. A truckload of my local government apps only function on iOS/Android. They don't even have a web-site. They used to have one on the past, but due to "bad experiences" on mobile devices, they shuttered it.

So, yes a smartphone is now an "essential computing device". This is no longer a matter of opinion. Its now a matter of fact.

So your government physically blocks you from entering the government building to get something done? No? Congratulations, you just have a bad government.

I can only watch cable news on TV, am I going to call that an essential computing device too?

I mean we have laws that regulate cable networks so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Just read any anti-trust case against FAANG if you want to know how ridiculous your thought process is.

>I can only watch cable news on TV, am I going to call that an essential computing device too?

If that is the only way you can find out about what is happening to the government responsible for your safety and wellbeing or alerts about impending disasters... absolutely!

Phones are literally essential computing devices in modern society as it is the primary source of important information whether it be about family, government, or national emergencies for a large swath of the population.

> Phones are literally essential computing devices in modern society

Cool, it doesn't matter because US courts disagree with you, even if they did agree with you, there's nothing in the constitution that says the welfare of American society is in jeopardy because Apple sets rules on their own devices that you don't have to buy.

Your argument literally only makes sense if you pretend Android doesn't exist. It is not possible to exhibit monopolistic behavior if you are not a monopoly, and Apple is not a monopoly by any stretch of the definition.

Yes except Steam: * Takes their cut for games purchases on their store

* Doesn't have any rules about in game payments/utxns, if you want to use steam wallet for that they'll take 30%, if you want to process the payment yourself or direct users to a website they don't care at all

The last point is Apple's monopoly, along with no sideloading; because if I don't want to use Steam then I can use whatever else I want to.

But I agree, 30% even just on games purchases is too high, and we should reduce this profiteering across the board, Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. Good thing we can multi task, right?

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.

It doesn’t matter. A company does not have to be a monopoly to be a gatekeeper under the DMA. The DMA defines gatekeeper (among other things) in terms of the number of users in the EU and revenue in the EEA. According to those definitions Apple is a gatekeeper and the DMA applies to them, monopoly or not.

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

Also not a lawyer, but my understanding is that in order to have standing to sue, you must be able to show that you were damaged by the behavior you are trying to file suit against.