Instead lets have them made in a place that has threatened to take over ~4 sovereign nations in the past three weeks? Yeah I'll take the 1/2 price cars thanks.
Can you in any way separate in your mind the idea of the USA as a nation of 300,000,000 people, who need jobs and who all benefit from having safe and good quality cars, from the trolling actions of a few politicians?
With statements like yours, it feels like the left is rooting for the most catastrophic outcomes possible for that whole country, just to spite Trump. Even though we'd all lose and Trump wouldn't be affected either way.
Well there are another 7.6 billion people on this planet many of whom are already feeling the consequences of the "trolling actions of a few politicians".
I'm not American or a "leftist" for reference. I have no ill will towards the American people, neither the Chinese or any other. Governments on the other hand.... But regardless if I can buy a car for 1/2 the cost from one belligerent major power over another. Yeah - I'll take the half price car.
Pardon my assumption -- if you're not in America, America's tariffs on their imports don't impact availability of cheap Chinese cars (should you want to trust them).
You are assuming that all posters on HN are American? An Australian, for example, doesn't care if their car is made in china or not, they are taking the cheaper car! Many countries don't have local auto producers, and they are just going to take the best deal, and that's going to be Chinese.
> With statements like yours, it feels like the left is rooting for the most catastrophic outcomes possible for that whole country, just to spite Trump. Even though we'd all lose and Trump wouldn't be affected either way.
This only makes sense if the poster is American though right? Otherwise, they are just being pragmatic.
I assumed they were American only because they seemed to have an opinion on the import tax America charges on BYD cars. If they live anywhere else, America's import taxes don't impact them.
I don’t see that anywhere in the comment hierarchy, but that would make sense. However, I think there is a misunderstanding: parent was talking about not wanting to depend on cars made in the USA, they nowhere seem to imply that they are in the USA. If you aren’t in the USA, the USA’s agenda right now (take over a bunch of non-USA territory) is not more appealing than china’s (sell cheap EVs, maybe take Taiwan someday). Trump’s unpopularity abroad doesn’t help matters, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump threatens them and they respond by signing free trade deals with China.
I asked "would you want all cars to be made in China" (meaning all cars bought in America) because American-built cars built by people who are paid nontrivial wages would not be competitive in America with those built by very low cost Chinese labor if America lets Chinese cars in. None of this impacts anyone else though.
If you really think Trump is going to try to literally take territory though, you've really been trolled. He has said all kinds of ridiculous shit in his 'political career.' That's his one signature thing.
What's your alternative to dominance by China? Dominance by Elon Musk? American industry has been fucking the dog since the 1980's. This is what we deserve.
This attitude is why Trump won. A statement like that sounds like you've stopped trying to make anything better, or to articulate a competing plan and convince voters to support it.
So, in this way, the self-loathing defeatism is partly responsible for people like Trump gaining more power.
Is it the UAW who has forced the automakers to make primarily those high-profit trucks, and to only design terrible EVs?
In my opinion the reason why we're in the dark ages of EVs is that a majority of Americans have range anxiety so our EVs have to weigh a lot and cost a lot to have 250 mile batteries, whereas everywhere else you can buy a car with an 80 mile range for a price poor people can actually afford.
Note - the range anxiety is both because of our car-centric (sub)urban design encouraging lifestyles where you drive 100 miles a day, and because of how a large number of urban dwellers and even suburban non-rich have no garages to do home charging. (And it's objectively far worse to own an EV for anyone who can't charge it at home.) All of this causes people to refuse to buy cars with say, 75-100 miles of range unless they're hybrids.
Most of the pro-CCP ideologues I see these days have a horrifyingly naïve sense of equivalence between China and any given other country (or are just sockpuppets of the CCP but I doubt there are many of those on HN).
The same party that happily ran over peaceful protestors with tanks, and never even so much as apologized for it, is still in power almost 40 years later. They openly put their people in prison just for criticizing the Party.
People compare the CCP to Western countries' misdeeds against their citizens when there's not even a comparison. For instance, when the US illegally wiretapped on the AT&T and Verizon networks to slurp up all the call data they wanted, they didn't actually use that data to imprison citizens for their speech, even ones who said things like "Bush is a war criminal." China both does the privacy invasion itself, and quite openly uses anything they can uncover to persecute anyone they deem a threat to their power.
>>persecute anyone they deem a threat to their power
USA does this as well, its just critique of government by a single person is not a credible threat to the US government. Mind you, all these "freedom fighters" ended up being financed by the USAID, so literally were foreign agents.
Whistleblowers get the whole book thrown at them, Snowden and Assange got nearly killed by CIA, Iraq files whistleblowers get book thrown at them.
USA is just as bad empire as China, and probably even worse, because of the millions of murdered innocent people over the decades of forever wars.
You've cited a small number of people including radicals like Assange who believe basically all information should be public, no matter the possible damage. That doesn't establish a pattern like the many political prisoners China has and continues to imprison.
> millions of murdered innocent people [...] China has no such track record
No, China, since becoming Communist, has specialized more in murdering their own citizens.
Anyway, thanks for providing a great exhibit of exactly what I was talking about: either CCP propaganda, or hopelessly naïve Westerner bent on believing in these two nations' moral equivalency. This is the same level of honest discourse we'll see heavily promoted on TikTok when China invades Taiwan in a few months or years, saying "China and the US are the same, so who cares if they take over a democracy by force."
Japan hit its peak before surveillance capitalism became pervasive. They also categorically fail at developing complex software. The Chinese won't make that mistake.
You can see the effects of the free market in many industries which have been decimated by globalization.
We used to be able to get a manufacturing job which would provide for a family, but decided it was okay to allow big corps to use slave labor on the other side of the planet and just ship everything across the world (not great for carbon emissions). Just look at the rust belt.
It’s not a bad idea to say that we should have the free market stop at our border. Other countries don’t play by the same rules that we do and can even have entire industries propped up by a foreign government in order to take up market share.
We are the richest nation on the planet. The reason the rust belt exists is because we decided it was better to have the most billionaires than to invest and care for our people. It’s entirely possible to help raise other countries out of poverty, which globalism has, and take care of your people. We just didn’t.
I'm not sure what you mean by "care for our own people". I would say that providing an abundance of meaningful work that can feed a family is one of the best ways we can care for our own people. We have unions and high wages, and having good paying jobs for people who don't want to or can't afford to attend University means that people from all walks of life can have some prosperity.
Removing industry from an area brings nothing but misery to the people who live there. Are you suggesting that some sort of communism should have been implemented in the rust belt where we give these people free money or something?
The Chinese market is way larger than the US one, they have everything they need to lift themselves out of poverty by building things for themselves. The US became the richest country in the world by building everything here and reaping the rewards with greatly increased prosperity.
There is no reason to send all our good paying jobs to the other side of the world, and ship all goods across literally the entire planet, the process of which emits and insane amount of C02, just so that the owners of mega corporations can make a few extra dollars per unit.
The "rules based order" is just an American invention to give our government something to talk about besides international law, which the US has basically always ignored.
no, you cannot enforce rules based order on the whole world when it suits you (to force everyone use USD for reserves and global trade, allowing USA to borrow unlimited money for free and export inflation to entire world), but the moment it doesnt suit you - just abandon it.
why would anyone trust usa's word if any agreement/word/promise can be torn unilaterally?
I agree with you, I'm trying to add color to the situation by pointing out that America has benefited from this invention stemming from the conditions of pax americana where the alternative is international law via the UN and ICC and other institutions that are perhaps more independent than the US would like.
> china can't just do whatever and tariff american companies to hell, right?
In general, the US would introduce retaliatory tariffs in that scenario; the game theory of the situation basically requires that.
Despite popular belief, the CCP is also not actually completely immune to public discontent (it often seems to be really quite scared of it), and would likely be willing to kick off a major trade war, as it would cause price increases.
Even if we consider "China is funding the companies to no end" argument... well, frankly, I wish US would do the same. It is pretty damn cool to see incredible technological progress in huge scale.
The various incentives, tax rebates and ZEV credits that Tesla (and other EV manufacturers) benefited and still benefit from are also government funding, so the US already do the same.
This _hasn't_ happened in Europe, which has lower tariff barriers on Chinese cars. BYD has about 15-20% of the EV market, as do VW, Stelantis, Tesla, Hyundai and BMW (unlike the US or China the European market doesn't have one clearly dominant player in EVs); no other Chinese manufacturer really moves the needle (though MG (SAIC) is regionally popular).
What is so special about EV cars?
its just an appliance to move from point A to point B, even the electric motor inside EV is from household appliances like washer/dryer.
the question should be: Should American consumers be allowed to drive green environmentally friendly cars for $10k or should they be forced to shell out $50k (+interest) to billionaire elon musk
Irrespective of what country, and your belief/disbelief in the threat level, you have to see that a highly internet-reliant device that would bring much of the country anywhere (thanks to car-centric infrastructure) would be a perfect target for a hostile nation, no? With one click you cripple the workforce. Again, speaking nothing of which country is or is not hostile.
how would that car get access to Internet, if wireless providers are controlled by the USA ?
Verizon, ATT, Tmobile and their APNs are controlled by the FCC, and any regulation can force vehicle traffic to be isolated if there is credible threat.
but, why would BYD or other nation sabotage its own future profits by bricking cars?? it doesn't make sense.
if I sell you gadget, I would never brick it, cause I am going to lose all future profits
> how would that car get access to Internet, if wireless providers are controlled by the USA ?
> Verizon, ATT, Tmobile and their APNs are controlled by the FCC, and any regulation can force vehicle traffic to be isolated if there is credible threat.
This response would *not* be soon enough. One response from a server, and the car could be bricked forever, explode/short circuit causing a fire, self-drive into the nearest government building, etc. A car is a huge weapon, especially when remotely controlled. This software could be pre-installed from the factory, with commands injected via side channels. I could imagine a hundred ways to do this.
> but, why would BYD or other nation sabotage its own future profits by bricking cars?? it doesn't make sense.
I'm precluding this situation with a background level of hostility between nations... they don't care about maximizing profit, but maximizing damage. It would be a government stepping in forcing this.
its pure paranoia.
first of all, I as a consumer, mature enough to understand risks and carry them myself, I dont need no government to babysit and censor what I am allowed to buy.
second, you assume China will resort to bricking civilian cars, when they have better options like actual weapons. Bricked car can easily be towed away, there is no way China can cause damage.
the best way for China is to keep manufacturing cars and selling them to USA for $$$ - this will ensure the relationships are beneficial to China (mutual trade is better than military conflict)
> its pure paranoia. first of all, I as a consumer, mature enough to understand risks and carry them myself, I dont need no government to babysit and censor what I am allowed to buy.
You have the tools to reverse-engineer every single chip in your car to ensure they aren't backdoored?
> second, you assume China will resort to bricking civilian cars, when they have better options like actual weapons.
Again, my argument has nothing to do with China, I'm simply saying cars would be a great thing to weaponize. Much easier than smuggling a weapon into the US, you just sell a car to a consumer and you have functionally a remote-controllable bomb.
> Bricked car can easily be towed away, there is no way China can cause damage.
Not if it's driven away and used in an attack first. did you read my reply? You still haven't actually responded to my point that internet-connected cars would be an excellent weapon by a hostile nation.
I dont, but there are plenty indie hackers who would be happy to buy cheap $10k car and reverse engineer it.
Any backdoors would be easily detectable and preventable just by .... not connecting the car to the Internet, or folding connection to isolated VPN not accessible from the outside.
all vehicle traffic can be inspected and sinkholed with IoT firewall, if you really want it
Not when cellular or satellite chips are very well hidden... You might not even know about them, let alone have the ability or knowledge on how to stop it from connecting, force it through a VPN/firewall, etc. You already can't do that with desktop PC's thanks to things like Intel ME.
All those telecom companies have also been infiltrated by China RECENTLY, and they don't even know how long or how badly, AIUI.
Good point though. My current cars drive just fine without internet - I would hope future cars would continue to do so, even if GPS doesn't work, can't find a charging station, etc. Otherwise, I'll be stuck with gas cars until the day they take my license..
it's amazing to me when people on hn (supposed champions of meritocracy and innovation and free markets etc) are so scared of actual free trade. like what are you scared of? equilibration in wages? the only reason to be scared of that is because you're afraid of your purchasing power going down but that means of course your current purchasing power comes at the expense of someone else's. and if you don't buy that argument - "it's not a zero-sum game you communist!" - then you have nothing to be scared of (because your purchasing power will remain high) and you should support truly free trade.
> it is weaponized to destroy a nation-state’s industrial output surreptitiously
are we talking about the US or China or Canda or Mexico here? i can't keep track of who the "bad guys" are that are supposedly weaponizing and who the victims are.
On 12/17/24 they hit a 52 week high around $490 per share. Since then, in less than two months, they have lost one third of their value. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/
Musk has single-handedly alienated his core domestic buying demographic in favor of a group that, when polled, says they would not consider an EV at rates of around 70%.
EU markets in which TSLA was viable but contested are even worse.
This while Tesla's strongest international competitor is passing on units sold, executing better, and underpricing them.
As someone who has followed Tesla since the Model S, previously held Musk in some regard, and test drove a Model 3 I find this such an abject travesty of an outcome for what should have been a great US based global car maker and someone who had the potential to accomplish such good for the world with their incredible wealth and privilege.
To my understanding, the ridiculous stock price and valuation have absolutely nothing to do with the car business. It's basically the potential hopes and dreams of what the leadership can do with direct access to US government.
Yup. And don't buy the line that Elon made Tesla a success. They had the core tech and talent to build an EV (without all the other bullshit he added) before he came along. Given enough time they could have been something on their own too.
This is most definitely not true. Tesla was barely more than an electric powertrain and battery combo when Musk took over. The first production Roadsters even reused the chassis from Porsche 911s (IIRC).
Other US competitors aren't at parity with Tesla or BYD. Nikola went bust. Legacy automakers turned out mediocre EVs. Rivian is the only true competitor, but they are a luxury brand and don't have Tesla's crown jewel (the Supercharger network).
> Tesla was barely more than an electric powertrain and battery combo when Musk took over.
Musk also had zero experience or track record making cars when Musk took over, nor any hardware products of any kind, for that matter, or running a manufacturing org.
Occam's razor would indicate it's very improbably to credit success all to him.
It was a Lotus. I don't see how you can get that so badly wrong (they aren't even remotely similar) and claim to know the state of Tesla at that time very well.
So despite the very weak propaganda about the Houthis, it turns out it was all about the Gaza genocide. This could have stopped at any point by the Biden administration, instead it came down to Trump and his real estate guy telling Israel how high to jump (debunking another weak propaganda narrative). All for Zionist donors and votes, and he still lost.
Were the Houthis actually concerned with the legal or ethical status of Israel's operations though? They do have "Curse be upon the Jews" on their slogan...
Even if their cause was noble, rewarding piracy seems like a bad precedent to set.
It's fine for App Store developers to complain about their costs of doing business like any other business. I'm not sure what the point of bringing up nonsensical hypotheticals like bank payments is.
Except this is a clear racket and not a regular cost of doing business. Imagine Microsoft tomorrow deciding to require 30% of even a fraction of things happing on windows. Imagine Apple trying to do this on the Mac. It's laughably anti-competitive and the only reason they're not doing it on the Mac is because it would expose the absurdity of the situation on iOS.
That, and Apple probably requires a shit load of third party utilities that do "naughty" things like read the file system or be "not sandboxed" in order to actually get any work done. They need the Mac to write APIs to charge people 30% on the App Store for the iPhone.
Not really. They have survived very large scale US-Saudi bombing campaigns in the past and managed to maintain deterrence against Saudi infrastructure throughout, so unless the US invades in foot there will be no more finding out. And of course, if the US does, it will likely also do a significant amount of "finding out".
You place too much trust in U.S. troops. They invaded Afghanistan, spent twenty years and trillions of dollars, and left it like they were never there. It's like an expensive vacation where they forgot the souvenirs!
Well the they might be just a college student, but they could have a relationship with the actual target in some way. And if it's part of a complex operation they could be trying some indirect approaches.
> Well the they might be just a college student, but they could have a relationship with the actual target in some way.
People who are "just" college students often are the sons and daughters of people who could be targeted. Not to mention people in their social circles.
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.
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.
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
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
people don't act out of conscience because there's a particular incentive for them to do so. They act out of conscience, because there's a disincentive, naturally, in doing something wrong as an individual, or as anyone with any amount of accountability at all. But as long as entities shield or provide a mechanism of free absolution to those responsible for harming others and the environment, then there never will be such a disincentive. They can always hide behind the organization, or perhaps the manipulative, false rhetoric that they are simply looking out for shareholder profits.
A false, ill-justified argument can be disassembled from multiple angles. One of the trivial counterarguments to our current wrong state of affairs is that the above mentioned profits are not actually real profits. It's actually people stealing from others. So many people
engage in the same behavior that they can't call out the serious offenders without giving up their own mask.
Humanity en masse actually does not deserve better. That's why we're in this situation. If we did give up our lies, we would demand others do too, as we demand a good world.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Corporate officers who commit criminal violations in the conduct of their job are already legally liable for their behavior. The corporation they work for might also incur liability under the law of agency and vicarious liability.
Corporate personhood applies primarily to private law -- contract liability, civil torts, financial obligations and the like.
No, they'd still be sociopathic. They'd do the absolute minimum they have to do under the law, and no more than that - exactly as a sociopath would if watched by someone with the ability to hurt them.
Conscience is fundamentally a trait that requires some kind of physical personhood - an actual self-identity with empathy attached to it. Corporations, being pure legal fiction, have neither.
This is why it is imperative to keep them as small and toothless as we possibly can as a society, even beyond issues with monopolies.
But in the case of the boards being mentioned, the sociopathy is combined with competition between members that doesn't exist right now. If one board member suggests doing something that would be negatively viewed but another doesn't, they are then competing with each other for the direction of the company as opposed to working together to do whatever sociopathic things serves both their best interests.
Sociopathy is all about driving the interests of the individual. Boards not being liable for the actions of companies allows those interests to always be aligned. Taking that away would require them to think about what's good for the business but also what's good for themselves and those things won't always align for all board members the way they do now.
I wasn't referring to board members being sociopathic as people, but to the whole entity being sociopathic as a whole. That is generally the case for any organization in direct proportion to its size, even if none of the constituent members are sociopaths.
The problem is that the more people you have working together on something, the less you can rely on informal human interactions to keep things running, and the more written rules and rigid processes you need. Those written rules and rigid processes increasingly take out human factors (such as empathy) out of the equation, and the result is that the entity as a whole behaves in an increasingly sociopathic manner even when its goals (as set by e.g. the board) are ostensibly beneficial.
> Conscience is fundamentally a trait that requires some kind of physical personhood - an actual self-identity with empathy attached to it. Corporations, being pure legal fiction, have neither.
And, for the same reason, they have no capacity for autonomous thought and action. Corporations are just organizational models for coordinating human activity, but all of the agency still originates with individuals, because there's nothing else that it could originate with.
All malicious acts you are attributing to corporations actually originate from the malicious intent of individuals who are merely using the corporation as an organizational model.
> This is why it is imperative to keep them as small and toothless as we possibly can as a society, even beyond issues with monopolies.
Keeping organized forms of social coordination "small and toothless" is inherently antagonistic to the concept of society itself -- the proper solution is to constrain malicious behavior without interfering with non-malicious behavior, regardless of how that behavior is coordinated or formalized.
There's also a paradox here, in that I have not seen any mechanism proposed for combating the implicit sociopath of one kind of organization that doesn't rely on creating even greater concentrations of monopoly power in the hands of an essentially equivalent form of organization.
Capitalism is a system of private property and voluntary exchange. There's tons of accountability - people can stop buying and interacting with these companies.
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.
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)
"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.
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.
>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.
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.
The test of whether they're in compliance should be whether it's feasible to sell an app to an iOS user without paying anything to Apple.
Apple can charge for whatever they want, but they can't put up a troll bridge between other businesses and their customers. Then you can choose whether to use their service or not. If they want to charge for payment processing, you can use Stripe or Paypal. If they want to charge for XCode, you can use VSCode or emacs. If they want to charge for app distribution, you can use the Epic Games Store -- or Google Play -- or host it yourself on AWS or your own servers. Whatever they want to charge for, they have to open up to competition.
If their services are good and well-priced then people will choose them even when they have an alternative. If they're not, they won't.
> 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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
CloudKit uses the user’s iCloud storage for private containers and bills the developers (although it’s usually free) for "public" CloudKit containers[1].
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
Fortnite V-Bucks are nonrefundable (at least they're still marked that way on their site). Their Epic Games Store policy says: "Also, most in-app purchases are non-refundable", so that seems to extend to other games in their store. Epic used to ban Epic accounts after parents used chargebacks (so you lose all your other games, even ones you paid for); it became a big enough controversy (since chargebacks are the only option) that they softened it and now they just ban the credit card. In comparison, every Apple IAP is eligible for refunds and Apple is pretty liberal about granting them.
I assume that one of the reasons Epic isn't as hated as EA is that "the TotalBiscuit audience" is too old to be in the target market for Fortnite.
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.
Maybe I should rephrase that, they're indirectly fighting for our best interest. Obviously their motives are selfish, but their wins are generally good for the rest of us in this context.
I guess we'll see in the light of the DMA. Apple didn't allow EA to compete before, but who knows now.
But this seems to be missing the point. Epic Games wants to put their store on mobile, they had android on the roadmap for years. They very much want to compete.
First, thank you for posting this because this was my first clue that I mixed up EA’s thing with Epic’s thing. My bad.
Second, wanting to compete and competing aren’t the same activity. They are not presently a competitor to the iPhone’s App Store. They may become a competitor in the future, pending presumably at least some discussions between Apple, the EC and Epic, and possibly a legal fight, but calling them an app marketplace competitor in the present-tense is not accurate nor justifiable.
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.
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.
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.
>Epic’s egregious breach of its contractual obligations to Apple led courts to determine that Apple has the right to terminate ‘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.’ In light of Epic’s past and ongoing behavior, Apple chose to exercise that right.
The email I've seen from Schiller presents it as a combination -- it says that Epic has previously broken its agreement with Apple because of disagreements about the rules, and that Epic has publicly disagreed loudly with Apple's DMA rules. The disagreement wouldn't be a problem without the history of violations.
No idea where this will actually go with the EU regulator, but US courts said it was okay for Apple to keep Epic's developer account suspended based on this.
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?
> 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.
They didn't ban every epic account back then, just the violating account. I am pretty sure most of epic games accounts are still there, just the fortnite account got banned.
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.
Do EU courts consider sworn foreign testimony entirely inadmissible as evidence? It is a fact that Epic swore before a court of law, a foreign court but still a recognized court of law, that they did all this on purpose. EU law might still not allow for its submission into evidence, I don’t know, but that isn’t nothing either. Unless prohibited by law, a Judge in his professional judgement might still allow it.
Depends on the ruling, judge, and arguments. Law does pay attention to overseas precedence, but it's just another piece of evidence to consider, not final worldwide judgement.
In the case here, Epic doing a behavior to go around a store policy that EU specifically is considering bad may mean they cast aside the US rulings.
I suspect if the disagreement is in Epic refusing to commit to honoring a contract and the CEO referring to it as requiring "sworn fealty", the actual resolution would be for Apple to show the actual harm in a marketplace violating said contract.
From there a lot of things can happen to negotiate a resolution, such as negotiating penalties for not following said contract.
I don't think Epic will be able to convince a court that there is no resolution when Apple has already said before and now what they would require for Epic to resume their business relationship with Apple.
The article is talking about the license for Epic's EU subsidiary, which would have been used to launch an app store only in EU (as the only region where Apple is obligated to make competing app stores possible). When the EC, and possibly later the courts, evaluate whether this is breaking the DMA, a US court ruling permitting the closure of Epic's developer accounts has no bearing.
The EU is a sovereign entity, enforcing its own laws in its own territory. A US court ruling can't compel the EU to allow Apple to violate EU laws when operating in the EU. How would that even work?
> The EU is a sovereign entity, enforcing its own laws in its own territory. A US court ruling can't compel the EU to allow Apple to violate EU laws when operating in the EU. How would that even work?
In a word: treaties. Usual disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer yada yada, but treaties are generally why one country's laws or legal proceedings might affect another country in some way. Think stuff like US copyright law being applied to Europe [1]. I don't actually know how or if anything would even apply in this specific scenario (not a lawyer and I think it's pretty unlikely that the US court ruling would affect the EU DMA here), but treaties are what you'd look at to find out.
[1] Technically those countries passed their own versions of the US law, but it's all hammered out in the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty.
In the US and in most countries, sure that'll be enough but in the EU, the DMA superseded their contracts. Apple might have got away with it if they had limited the ban to outside the EU but as I understand, they didn't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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..
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.
> 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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here it is easy since Apple admitted to it. Them bringing up all of Epics recent criticism of them here works against them, it is like talking a lot about someone's race when you fire them, that doesn't look good in court even if you also gave another reason. For example firing someone with the reason "He was a lazy black guy" could be read as you firing him for being lazy, but I doubt courts would see it that way.
Holy shit what hyperbole. Apple asked for a realistic assurance Epic wasn't entering into a bad faith agreement. Epic decided they couldn't do that so Apple terminated their account. Pretending Epic is a faultless victim is just ludicrous. Not only have they previously violated the developer agreements they've given every indication they're incapable of entering any good faith agreement with Apple.
They've been throwing tantrums against every company they deal with. They want to charge fees on their store and platforms. They want their IAP. But they act offended when any other company wants to charge them to be on their stores.
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.
You keep repeating this, but I don’t see how it is relevant. Apple’s rules are not relevant anymore under the DMA. Under the DMA, companies are allowed to set up alternative app stores period. It doesn’t matter if they violate Apple’s App Store rules prior. The point of the DMA is exactly that you can make your own App Store that doesn’t have to comply with Apple’s rules.
I can understand that Apple wants to safeguard their platform by requiring notarization, etc. But they are playing with fire here. One outcome of misbehaving could be that the EC will require full sideloading (Android-style), so that Apple cannot sabotage third party stores anymore, like they are doing now.
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.
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.”
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
They were basically negotiating in public. I think the EC probably realized that the DMA as currently written is flawed and producing outcomes they don't want, and this episode basically highlighted it to them. They probably told Apple there won't be any enforcement against only Safari having it, because the alternative is worse. A basic principle is that you are very unlikely to compel Apple to engineer anything unless they choose to, and you would most likely lose in the EU courts if you tried to. Any regulation that doesn't factor that in is going to be doomed to fail.
> A basic principle is that you are very unlikely to compel Apple to engineer anything unless they choose to, and you would most likely lose in the EU courts if you tried to. Any regulation that doesn't factor that in is going to be doomed to fail.
That sounds a bit like "Apple is beyond the law/regulations, regulators better accept that and move on" – is that what you mean?
There's a big difference between those cases. In the USB-C case there was no room for argument. It was either include the new port, or stop selling the iPhone.
In this case, they could just remove entire features and have the public do their lobbying for them.
It shouldn't be too hard to make the case for that being malicious compliance, though. It seems to have worked in this particular case, for example: People called Apple's bluff.
Malicious compliance and "spirit of the law" aren't real things when it comes to the legal system. You either comply with the law or you don't. And courts will ultimately decide if Apple's interpretation of the DMA complies or not.
They are, in Europe. We don't really like companies not following the spirit of the law. Companies usually learn via fines. Luckily for us, Apple is a slow learner.
It’s lucky because to a lot of android fans it isn’t really about consumer outcomes, it’s about finally legislating a solution to the android-iOS war.
If you can’t win in the marketplace of ideas, just ban walled gardens entirely. Flip the table and ban your competitors’ business model, bioshock style.
Now of course, since obviously most android fans aren’t actually owners of a major company… they aren’t really “your competitor” unless you’re parasocially attached… this is a rather obvious commentary on the degree of parasocial attachment that so many people seem to have towards android and against apple… but here we are.
> If you can’t win in the marketplace of ideas, just ban walled gardens entirely. Flip the table and ban your competitors’ business model, bioshock style.
But the DMA doesn't ban walled gardens. It requires the availability of competitive alternative marketplaces, which can certainly just lead to multiple walled gardens.
This is like saying "if you can't win the market, just ban slavery completely". Walled gardens are plain wrong, no need to invent a "market" justification.
Companies are compelled to develop features all the time. Mostly so far in the EU these features have been around accessibility, safety, and crime prevention, but there’s an awful lot of precedent for companies being required to develop something specific in order to be able to sell their product in the EU.
Companies comply with those regulations because, on balance, the incentives still make it logical to. That doesn't mean an unbalanced regulation that misunderstands the target's incentives would result in the outcome the regulator wants.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/07/08/sergey-...