Apple okays Epic Games marketplace app in Europe

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.