Hacker News Reader

Comment by spacedcowboy | Hacker News Reader

According to the article it was because Epic met with Apple and gave better assurances that they'd play ball rather than deliberately break their contract like they did last time.

Regulators don't seem to have had anything to do with it.

---

So what changed? Apple tells 9to5Mac that it has held further discussions with Epic. The result is that Apple has received proper commitment that Epic will play by the rules as legally defined.

“Following conversations with Epic, they have committed to follow the rules, including our DMA policies. As a result, Epic Sweden AB has been permitted to re-sign the developer agreement and accepted into the Apple Developer Program.”

View on HN

Two days ago I wrote that didn't fully trust Epic's version of the events posted on EpicGames.com, and by the same logic I'm sure not going to trust Apple's version as posted to 9to5Mac.com

"""Even with screenshots, and assuming no false claims (which IIRC are entirely legal so long as you don't swear under oath), there's plenty of ways to mislead by omission while saying only true things.""" — works just as well in either direction.

Regulators have to look closely, if they take it on trust it's one Tim's word vs. the others'.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39620099

> I wrote that didn't fully trust Epic's version of the events posted on EpicGames.com, and by the same logic I'm sure not going to trust Apple's version

This fallacy plays out a lot in politics. "Epic has lied in the past, so all parties involved must be lying."

That's not what I'm saying.

I can't take both of them on faith alone, because at least one of them must be wrong. I'm not qualified to decide between them, so I should weight them equally. Public statements from the parties, or fans of the parties, are reasonable to suspect of being tactical with the truth even when no falsehoods are stated, rather than giving a complete picture.

FWIW I found your parent comment to be quite clear. I think it's only hard for people with a black & white/good & evil view on the world to consider that maybe both parties in a conflict might not be entirely pure/perfect.

It was quite clear, just a bad take. If you have a coworker Bob that lies about everything at work, you can't use that as justification to treat Fred like he is always lying with no evidence.

Epic makes false statements because they have a megalomaniac CEO running the show, Apple on the other hand generally tries to avoid legal and PR troubles and has multiple teams of lawyers who review every public statement on an issue.

> According to the article it was because [...]

Not fully the truth, however -- according to APPLE, who are quoted in this one article. Tim Sweeny tweeted that the change was due to the EU DMA political proponents applying pressure to Apple.

The truth is not known, and it's not limited to Apple's side.

> Thierry Breton, the EU’s industry chief, said regulators had warned Apple about the iPhone maker’s move earlier this week to block Epic’s potential return.

> “I take note with satisfaction that following our contacts Apple decided to backtrack its decision on Epic exclusion. From Day 2, #DMA is already showing very concrete results!” Breton said on Twitter/X.

We can't be certain it was the EU's pressure that made Apple react, but anything else seems rather unlikely.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/08/fortnite-...

Regulators immediately started calling for an investigation and we're going to look into Apple’s termination of Epic’s developer account as a matter of priority.

I’d like to believe that, and it’s probably true. Do you have a source though?

https://twitter.com/ThierryBreton/status/1765793776692326891

This is the EU commissioner.

The EU did say that they would look into this. Several articles in all the usual places. Doubt they got far enough to actually consider a fine, though.

It's linked from TFA in the More section.

https://9to5mac.com/2024/03/08/apple-threaten-epic-illegal/

> Regulators don't seem to have had anything to do with it.

This smells, you know? The timing is just so precise to be a coincidence.

Honestly what you describe seems to be an attempt by Apple PR to save face.

They fear the spotlight on the fact that even on alternate stores only accounts controlled by Apple can publish apps, which might become the focus of new regulations

*only accounts controlled by Apple can publish apps… and have to pay an installation fee of 0.5$ per app per user per year.

There’s no way that the EU permits Apple to control this going forwards.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com