Apple okays Epic Games marketplace app in Europe
Apple’s approval of Epic Games’ app marketplace in the EU is seen as a tentative win for competition on iOS, but many argue Apple’s continued control via notarization, review rules, and its Core Technology Fee keeps the “walled garden” largely intact. Commenters debate whether Apple is violating the EU’s Digital Markets Act, with some predicting substantial fines and others suggesting Apple will push legal boundaries as far as it can rather than proactively comply. Underneath are broader tensions over platform control vs. user freedom and security, the viability of web apps as an alternative to native stores, and whether regulators should force phones to behave more like open, general-purpose computers.
Apple–Epic approval and DMA context
- Apple has “okayed” Epic’s marketplace app in the EU, but only after initial rejections over button/label designs that Apple said were too similar to App Store UI.
- Commenters argue Apple is supposed to do security notarization, not design review, and see this as Apple illegitimately gatekeeping competitors.
- Others note Apple may be worried about trademark/look‑and‑feel issues and potential liability if it notarizes infringing UIs.
- Several expect the EU to scrutinize this behavior as a likely DMA violation; some hope it leads to Apple being removed from the distribution chain entirely in the EU.
Core Technology Fee (CTF) and business impact
- Many see the CTF (per‑install fee after a threshold) as a “double/triple dip” on top of hardware sales, dev devices, and existing fees.
- Strong concern that the CTF hits smaller and free‑with‑donations apps hardest; some predict third‑party stores won’t be viable.
- Others point out official carve‑outs: no CTF for apps under 1M first annual installs, “no revenue” free apps without any monetization, and certain nonprofits/education/government with waivers.
- Debate over whether this is comparable to Unity’s much‑criticized runtime fee: some stress Unity’s retroactive “rug pull” vs Apple’s new, optional regime; others argue impact on small devs is similar.
Third‑party app stores and notarization
- Many see Apple’s continued review and mandatory notarization for all third‑party stores and apps as undermining “real” competition: you still need Apple’s permission.
- Example: some apps (e.g., emulators like UTM) are reportedly denied notarization, so can’t appear even in alternative stores.
- Some predict the EU will eventually force Apple to loosen or remove these controls; others think Apple will push boundaries until courts draw clear lines.
Security vs. user freedom
- One camp defends Apple’s gatekeeping as necessary user protection, citing malware, payment risks, and highly personal data on phones.
- The opposing camp argues modern OS security (sandboxing, permissions) plus user choice is enough; Apple should offer security as an opt‑in, not a mandatory walled garden.
- There are worries that the iOS model will migrate to macOS; “historical inertia” is seen as the main thing keeping Macs more open.
Competition, regulation, and exit threats
- Some argue, “don’t like it, buy Android,” and that Apple’s share (often cited around 50% or less in key markets) makes this different from the 90s Microsoft monopoly.
- Others counter that Android also has lock‑in via Google services and that true competition is weak; regulation is therefore justified.
- There’s an extended argument over whether Apple could or would exit the EU if fines (up to a percentage of global revenue) exceed EU profits; some call this plausible leverage, others “absurd” and economically irrational.
- Thread reflects both distrust of Big Tech and skepticism of government competence; some fear overreach and precedent of “decoupling” platforms, others explicitly welcome strong EU action.