The App Review Guidelines provide guidance and examples across a range of development topics, including user interface design, functionality, content, and the use of specific technologies. These…
The guiding principle of the App Store is simple—we want to provide a safe experience for users to get apps and a great opportunity for all developers to be successful. We do this by offering a highly curated App Store where every app is reviewed by experts and an editorial team helps users discover new apps every day. We also scan each app for malware and other software that may impact user safety, security, and privacy. These efforts have made Apple’s platforms the safest for consumers around the world.
In the European Union, developers can also distribute notarized iOS and iPadOS apps from alternative app marketplaces and directly from their website. Learn more about alternative app marketplaces, Web Distribution, and Notarization for iOS and iPadOS apps. You can see which guidelines apply to Notarization for iOS and iPadOS apps by clicking on “Show Notarization Review Guidelines Only” in the menu to the left.
For everything else there is always the open Internet. If the App Store model and guidelines or alternative app marketplaces and Notarization for iOS and iPadOS apps are not best for your app or business idea that’s okay, we provide Safari for a great web experience too.
On the following pages you will find our latest guidelines arranged into five clear sections: Safety, Performance, Business, Design, and Legal. The App Store is always changing and improving to keep up with the needs of our customers and our products. Your apps should change and improve as well in order to stay on the App Store.
A few other points to keep in mind about distributing your app on our platforms:
- We have lots of kids downloading lots of apps. Parental controls work great to protect kids, but you have to do your part too. So know that we’re keeping an eye out for the kids.
- The App Store is a great way to reach hundreds of millions of people around the world. If you build an app that you just want to show to family and friends, the App Store isn’t the best way to do that. Consider using Xcode to install your app on a device for free or use Ad Hoc distribution available to Apple Developer Program members. If you’re just getting started, learn more about the Apple Developer Program.
- We strongly support all points of view being represented on the App Store, as long as the apps are respectful to users with differing opinions and the quality of the app experience is great. We will reject apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, “I’ll know it when I see it”. And we think that you will also know it when you cross it.
- If you attempt to cheat the system (for example, by trying to trick the review process, steal user data, copy another developer’s work, manipulate ratings or App Store discovery) your apps will be removed from the store and you will be expelled from the Apple Developer Program.
- You are responsible for making sure everything in your app complies with these guidelines, including ad networks, analytics services, and third-party SDKs, so review and choose them carefully.
- Some features and technologies that are not generally available to developers may be offered as an entitlement for limited use cases. For example, we offer entitlements for CarPlay Audio, HyperVisor, and Privileged File Operations.
We hope these guidelines help you sail through the review process, and that approvals and rejections remain consistent across the board. This is a living document; new apps presenting new questions may result in new rules at any time. Perhaps your app will trigger this. We love this stuff too, and honor what you do. We’re really trying our best to create the best platform in the world for you to express your talents and make a living, too.
To help your app approval go as smoothly as possible, review the common missteps listed below that can slow down the review process or trigger a rejection. This doesn’t replace the guidelines or guarantee approval, but making sure you can check every item on the list is a good start. If your app no longer functions as intended or you’re no longer actively supporting it, it will be removed from the App Store. Learn more about App Store Improvements.
Make sure you:
- Test your app for crashes and bugs
- Ensure that all app information and metadata is complete and accurate
- Update your contact information in case App Review needs to reach you
- Provide App Review with full access to your app. If your app includes account-based features, provide either an active demo account or fully-featured demo mode, plus any other hardware or resources that might be needed to review your app (e.g. login credentials or a sample QR code)
- Enable backend services so that they’re live and accessible during review
- Include detailed explanations of non-obvious features and in-app purchases in the App Review notes, including supporting documentation where appropriate
- Check whether your app follows guidance in other documentation, such as:
Guidelines that include 
Developer Identity
Providing verifiable information to Apple and customers is critical to customer trust. Your representation of yourself, your business, and your offerings on the App Store or alternative app marketplaces must be accurate. The information you provide must be truthful, relevant, and up-to-date so that Apple and customers understand who they are engaging with and can contact you regarding any issues.
Participating in the App Store requires integrity and a commitment to building and maintaining customer trust. Manipulating any element of the App Store customer experience such as charts, search, reviews, or referrals to your app erodes customer trust and is not permitted.
Customers expect the highest quality from the App Store, and maintaining high quality content, services, and experiences promotes customer trust. Indications that this expectation is not being met include excessive customer reports about concerns with your app, such as negative customer reviews, and excessive refund requests. Inability to maintain high quality may be a factor in deciding whether a developer is abiding by the Developer Code of Conduct.
Once you’ve submitted your app and metadata in App Store Connect and you’re in the review process, here are some things to keep in mind:
- Timing: App Review will examine your app as soon as we can. However, if your app is complex or presents new issues, it may require greater scrutiny and consideration. And remember that if your app is repeatedly rejected for the same guideline violation or you’ve attempted to manipulate the review process, review of your app will take longer to complete. Learn more about App Review.
- Status Updates: The current status of your app will be reflected in App Store Connect, so you can keep an eye on things from there.
- Expedite Requests: If you have a critical timing issue, you can request an expedited review. Please respect your fellow developers by seeking expedited review only when you truly need it. If we find you’re abusing this system, we may reject your requests going forward.
- Release Date: If your release date is set for the future, the app will not appear on the App Store until that date, even if it is approved by App Review. And remember that it can take up to 24-hours for your app to appear on all selected storefronts.
- Rejections: Our goal is to apply these guidelines fairly and consistently, but nobody’s perfect. If your app has been rejected and you have questions or would like to provide additional information, please use App Store Connect to communicate directly with the App Review team. This may help get your app on the store, and it can help us improve the App Review process or identify a need for clarity in our policies.
- Appeals: If you disagree with the outcome of your review, please submit an appeal. This may help get your app on the store. You may also suggest changes to the guidelines themselves to help us improve the App Review process or identify a need for clarity in our policies.
- Bug Fix Submissions: For apps that are already on the App Store or an alternative app marketplace, bug fixes will not be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal or safety issues. If your app has been rejected, and qualifies for this process, please use App Store Connect to communicate directly with the App Review team indicating that you would like to take advantage of this process and plan to address the issue in your next submission.
We’re excited to see what you come up with next!
Last Updated: April 30, 2025
Read the original article
Comments
By EcommerceFlow 2025-05-0214:3214 reply If you haven't watched Tim Sweeney's appearance on Lex Fridman (which went live two days ago ironically), he discusses this battle against Apple, which he's maintained at a furious pace for years. He goes into detail on how the previous guidelines stifle innovation, how app developers are basically forced to implement anti-consumer practices to maintain the ridiculous costs of achieving success on the app store, etc.
His Crusade for open platforms/services in general is very very respectable.
Fortnite, in my opinion, has been a gold standard for F2P monetization. No gambling, no randomized loot boxes, etc. Compare that with Counter Strike 2, and I can't imagine how much money Epic has left on the table by choosing this path. So I give Tim a lot of credit for maintaining such a principled stance.
> No gambling, no randomized loot boxes, etc.
> So I give Tim a lot of credit for maintaining such a principled stance.
IMO, someone that drives and capitalizes on addictive spending by an underage audience should never be considered principled. While it may not be considered gambling, it’s not much better when it’s often out of control due to feeding on FOMO.
By tracerbulletx 2025-05-0214:497 reply Ah yes, toy makers, the true problem of our world. 30 years ago I'm sure you'd be complaining about "addicted" spending on keeping up with the most popular Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle toys. It's not evil to make things kids want and make money off it. If you don't want your kids to buy things, that's on you and its a problem from time immemorial, not a new issue with video games.
These people are implementing Skinner boxes[1] for children.
There are literally "engagement" engineers actively doing A/B tests on children to see what makes them more addicted or gets them to spend more money or time on their platform.
There are humans literally doing experiments on children to figure out what stimulus results in more addicted behavior.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber
Who cares? My kids asked me for skins for years. As the one who owned a credit card and would be the one needed to pay for it I laughed them out of the room. Maybe parents should learn to parent and tell their kids no. My kid now older and with a job now tells me how he remembers when he used to ask for skins and I would say no damn way. He also says now that he makes his own money and buys things himself there is no way he would spend his own money on clothing for a video game while his own shoes are falling apart. It’s a waste of money and he said it not me. So parents need to parent. Typically kids until older have no readily access to money so if a parent acts like one they can tell the kid to forget it.
By satvikpendem 2025-05-0218:521 reply This is the root cause. I don't get the part about kids spending ceaselessly on skins, who is giving them the money?
By helpfulContrib 2025-05-0713:41 Unethical parents. Parents who are so detached, themselves, that they cannot see the harm being done to their children.
That's the point with abusive techniques such as this - they become generationally intertwined.
Its about the kids. Those kids become parents. Those parents have kids. The abusive trauma transcends generations.
By chipsrafferty 2025-05-0217:202 reply I get spending $20 on one skin to support the development of a game you enjoy.
Just don't see the point in having multiple.
By LPisGood 2025-05-033:30 Me and many of my friends were children when Fortnite came out. We still play, and we now have full time jobs. When fun new skins or dances come out, it’s not uncommon for us to get them.
They’re fun and entertaining. I hardly feel addicted or preyed on moreso than when I buy any other entertainment product.
By mholm 2025-05-0222:32 It's fashion, to an extent. Do you only have a single outfit? Would you even if it was always the right weather for them, and was always clean? Kids often spend a lot of time in these environments, which makes them want variety of expression there.
It's not an issue from time immemorial. it's an issue from the late 19th century, if not post WWII. the child consumer class did not before that. Toys hardly existed before that. Even an adult consume class with disposable income had hardly existed. Kids spending hours every day zonked out at screens is a distinctly new phenomenon on top of that
By tracerbulletx 2025-05-0321:351 reply By timcobb 2025-05-0323:29 Not sure I follow. The letter is about clothes (not toys)... He talks about people (himself, others) having low single digits outfits (one set, two sets), not sure how this makes him a post industrial capitalism consumer. In 1800 BC, life expectancy was probably 25 and people worked from ages like 6 onwards. This guy was definitely not a commoner, and he only had one set of clothes, and wanted two good sets. I'm not saying that's good and that out kids are spoiled and should be happy with two sets of clothes, I just have no idea what you're trying to say.
By dfxm12 2025-05-0215:06 I think the persistence of advertising is an issue overall. I think we are worse off today now that you get bombarded with targeted ads and there's usually a seamless buy now button displayed within them.
Preying on whales is exploiting psychological issues. New technology certainly does exist today to aid in this exploitation that didn't exist 30 yrs ago.
Well said. Streaming services are finally getting the kinds of commercial content we did in the 80s and 90s. It's refreshing as I feel those years were the golden era of toys. Many toys of the era didn't even have commercials but we still wanted them. X-Men toys for example. If I was a kid, I'd of loved to have seen weekly commercials of the newest line up of X-Men toys.
By dangus 2025-05-0215:17 With the caveat that shows still have a massive amount product placement within them and ad-free streaming services cost more than double the price of ad-supported, meaning that the poor are far more likely to be viewing ads anyway.
I love me some Gabby’s Dollhouse but the show is literally about a toy dollhouse that you can go buy.
By milesvp 2025-05-0219:32 I feel like you're being disingenuous with your choice of franchise. 30 years ago there were much worse toys. There were capsule machines that randomized what toy your quarter would give you. There were toys that you could buy random assortments at the toy store (M.U.S.C.L.E was one if I remember correctly). You could buy trading cards too. It's not that kids are marketed to (which is arguably its own problem), it's that the randomization is really not good for creatures that utilize associative memories (not sure if other intelligence avenues will be as susceptible to near misses, but likely it's a feature of intelligence in general to be stupid about randomness). And this has only been ratcheted up in the last 30 years.
What you may be missing, if you don't have kids, is just how insidious modern arcades are. They really opened my eyes in a lot of ways to the problem in general, since I just avoid a lot of the other modern invasive gambling mechanics. Most of the games are now just thinly veiled gambling machines. There are a few classics, like pacman still, and they eat quarters, but they are not programmed to randomly modify the game itself. Claw machines these days all have their claw strength randomized and is unknowable value that changes from play to play. And almost all the games I see at kids venues have some similar mechanic.
But it's not just the arcade. The rise of skinner boxes have become ever more weaponized (for lack of a better term?) in the last 30 years, as data collection has become cheaper and easier. I can't even imagine gacha mechanics in any of the games I played 30 years ago. Like, here, send Nintendo a dollar, and you can get a code for a better sword in Dragon Warrior? I would have mailed that dollar faster than you can imagine (I then would have shared the code, so of course this wouldn't work, but still, I would have sent the dollar). And for what? so they can make the games even harder?
This is a real problem beyond just teaching kids to ignore marketing. I don't have a solution other than trying to shield them until they're old enough that they're less likely to develop real addictions.
By StefanBatory 2025-05-0214:545 reply In Fortnite, skins are available to buy only sometimes. At a given time, you can buy like, 6-7 of them. If you want something that is not up, well, tough luck, it may never come back.
Isn't this true with collectable toys? My adult friends sure seem to be addicted to purchasing Pokemon cards. They talk about thousands of dollars spent when I am curious about numbers.
Yes, and?
ETA: Exploiting adult whales is bad too, if that's the angle you were going.
Is it exploiting if they participate under their own volition?
Is Auto Zone exploiting people who like working on their cars?
By const_cast 2025-05-0220:101 reply I've said this before and I'll say it a hundred times more - choice isn't binary. There isn't no choice and then free choice. There's infinite levels of choice. Some things are very choosy. Like me cutting off my arm right now - very choosy, I get a lot of control in that. Some things are not very choosy. Like a heroine addict deciding to shoot up or not today.
I won't make any claims on the addictiveness of fortnite in particular. However, we should all be aware it is certainly engineered in some ways to capture as much attention and time as possible, and this is intentional. Not unlike in nature to the engineering behind cigarettes, although again no claims on efficacy.
The point being, we really need to be doing analysis further than "well they chose to do it". It's not that simple, and it's really never been that simple. Companies are dedicating billions of dollars on solving this problem. We should, in response, at least try to analyze it deeper than that.
By anton-c 2025-05-0222:43 I agree. While I do think the skin issue is a parenting thing and a good time to teach a lesson about advertising and fomo*, there's more too it.
We protect people(arguably not enough) from gambling and alcohol which are basically banking on a portion of the population becoming addicted.(tho I also do not make any claims on the addictiveness of fortnite or say, gacha games)
At what point is the level of manipulation from these companies messing with psychology too much? It's an open secret they are researching how to farm attention. Don't people that are susceptible to this stuff deserve some warnings like booze and slots? I'm all for personal responsibility but we've created lines with other things where people lose control. Idk why this should be treated different.
No idea if anything needs regulated or what exactly needs to change, but as you said, at least more analysis.
By dfxm12 2025-05-0217:09 To be clear, the definition of "exploit" I'm using in this case is like: "use (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way." The point is game companies are exploiting people who can't control themselves.
You might be interested to read about whales as it relates to loot boxes (in particular sections 1.E-F): https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
I don't know what autozone has to do with this particular discussion, but I'm not familiar with their business practices, so I'm not going to venture a guess.
By tracerbulletx 2025-05-0215:012 reply I heard they make whole cartoons to feature a specific toy character and put them in kids happy meals and have limited collectors editions. Will the manipulative horrors of marketing to children ever cease or will we all be coerced into a life time sentence at Disney land by a clever cereal tie in.
By robertlagrant 2025-05-0215:231 reply They do, and that is bad. Growing up surrounded by toy adverts that make kids despondent if they don't have the toys is not good.
By LPisGood 2025-05-033:32 I feel like people with tour stance aren’t considering that skins and emotes are fun to have without fomo or addiction.
Similarly, toys are fun to have for their own sake.
By const_cast 2025-05-0220:11 I was under the impression that we all knew this was bad and are actively disgusted by it.
By wbobeirne 2025-05-0214:59 That is also true of action figures, trading cards, comic books etc.
By Aeolun 2025-05-0215:02 That’s the same for the Tomica Blackhawk X3 Transformable Robot. Unless you find it somewhere on ebay second hand, after it leaves store shelves you will never see it again.
They also charge like $20 just to play as whatever licensed character in their game.
If you wanna be able to play as Batman or Mr Meseeks or the dog from Adventure Time, that's $60 already.
By malone 2025-05-0216:04 They give a lot of characters/vbucks away for free. I have a whole list of skins (including the 3 you mentioned) and have never spent any actual money on fortnite.
I can't deny they've made a crazy amount of money from convincing teenage boys that it's cool to buy outfits and play virtual dress-up. But compared to the must-have items of my youth at least you aren't excluded if you have no money.
By dangus 2025-05-0215:14 Yes it is evil, considering how the advertisements are made in ways that makes it difficult for parents to escape them.
The only way to escape kids TV shows that have advertisements between shows and advertisements within the shows themselves as product placements is to only watch public television (which is generally funded way less and has way fewer programs than commercial television).
Hell, shows like Transfomers have the toys as the stars of the show.
So now all your kids have the peer pressure of all their friends consuming popular media and owning toys and now you have to be the bad guy saying no to literally everything to escape.
You go to any store and the toys and sugary cereals are right here at eye height of your kids with cartoon characters and promises of prizes, toys, and sweepstakes.
So you’re basically between a rock and a hard place, either you are the “weird kid with the weird parents” or you buy into at least some of that consumerism, trying to approach it with some level of moderation.
By 1vuio0pswjnm7 2025-05-034:49 What about a company that controls exclusive access to this "addictive spending by an underage audience" on the computers they sell, _after purchase_, for a 24% cut of the spoils.
By Thaxll 2025-05-0215:29 Roblox entered the chat.
By bigyabai 2025-05-0215:33 Apple is currently profiting quite handsomely off gambling games marketed to children. They deliberately limit the App Store to encourage games like Clash of Clans and shitty Farmville clones because letting you emulate Yoshi's Cookie wouldn't make them money.
They're both unprincipled. Sweeney just happens to be correct.
Fortnite started as a P2W coop game where legendary weapons were all inside loot boxes. It was very predatory. Then an internal team at Epic made an experimental battle royale mode and that's what became modern Fortnite. The old one is still available as Fortnite: Save the World.
Epic is largely owned by Tencent anyway, who makes a lot of their money from gambling games.
By nolok 2025-05-0215:09 Not really it started as a game for sale, in active dev trying various stuff alongside paragon and unreal 4
They ultimately refunded everyone who bought the original or the two other games
By philipwhiuk 2025-05-0214:59 > Fortnite, in my opinion, has been a gold standard for F2P monetization. No gambling, no randomized loot boxes, etc.
Hard disagree. The tour-de-force on Fortnite's insane process
By taylorbuley 2025-05-0214:421 reply The way my favorite boss told me, it was "don't let `great` be the enemy of `good enough.`"
By brutal_chaos_ 2025-05-0215:022 reply Good enough is how everything went to shit (enshitification). "It's an MVP? Good enough, ship it and bolt on features no one wants." Personally, I am very tired of "good enough." I wish we built great things.
By Supermancho 2025-05-0215:33 > "It's an MVP? Good enough, ship it
Nothing wrong with this. Don't over invest in an idea before it's proven.
> bolt on features no <customer> wants."
This is the enshittification.
By gjsman-1000 2025-05-0215:063 reply "Enshitification" is probably the most self-sabotaging term we could think of; in terms of how it makes us look like whining teenagers. I will never use it in polite conversation; which would ironically be a tech company's greatest goal for if we had a word.
But optics aside, this also ignores the problem that many of these businesses were not sustainable and were never sustainable. They are heading downhill, partially because they never had any ground to stand on. If we want to see less of this behavior, we should stop allowing the blitzscale strategy of running a loss to gain marketshare.
This is also why the claim of "greed" or "enshitification" falls on deaf ears for them. They could easily say: "No, we lit billions on fire as an investment to keep it free and grow market share; we're now asking for some returns on that investment. We're not adding a Pro plan, we were paying for the Pro plan previously. Be thankful for how long it lasted, and how much money you saved."
By brutal_chaos_ 2025-05-0215:261 reply You bring up some good points. I guess I was too absolute in my statement as I didn't intend to imply it was the only problem. Given that, Windows gaining ads (nevermind the number of settings panels/windows, etc), games being released broken or loot box driven, google search once being good and now being ad driven, and a myriad of other problems have caused the downfall as well. So the big players are part of the problem too.
By gjsman-1000 2025-05-0215:30 No doubt; Windows gaining ads is the most egregious form; because it combines advertising with an upfront payment.
I think many of the worst offenders, and so much of the problem, would go away if we combined a payment with a mandatory ad-free experience, for any bundled software. Buy a TV, no ads allowed on the TV itself. Buy a computer, no ads allowed on Windows itself. Buy a Mac, no ads allowed in Apple News, should it be bundled. If it's truly free software that the customer did not directly or indirectly pay for, then ads are permitted; but the moment there's a payment, it's over. You can have Free with Ads, you can have Paid with No Ads, but never both.
That would not stop Discord from getting worse, or other services like them; but not allowing a paid + ad combo would solve most of the painful problems.
By dns_snek 2025-05-0313:26 > No, we lit billions on fire as an investment to keep it free and grow market share
This is a form of price dumping and it should be illegal. Actually I'm confused as to why this isn't considered to be illegal already becuase I thought we had laws against this.
By JasserInicide 2025-05-0215:42 It's not just newer unsustainable companies. There are plenty of businesses that have been around for decades that are now engaging in these enshittifying practices (for dearth of a better term). Big box appliances like washers/dryers, fridges. Vehicle manufacturers (BMW and their subscription service bullshit), we're fast approaching a world where even doing an oil change will have to be done by the dealership/authorized 3rd party.
These Ivy League MBAs have been getting taught how much money companies have been leaving on the table and they are infecting every industry.
I often say you have to judge people based on their time and the environment around them and you need to encourage whatever good moves you see. In other words, I'll take a greedy bloodsucker over an evil greedy bloodsucker any day.
But this is not a dichotomy. There are games out there that aren't designed to suck you dry.
By jajuuka 2025-05-0216:48 And those companies don't have the kind of time and money to take on one of the richest companies in the world. Sometimes you need a Goliath to take on another Goliath.
By dd36 2025-05-0214:42 *Perfect
By gjsman-1000 2025-05-0214:582 reply Before anyone tries to defend this, remember that consoles are not necessarily sold at a loss. Nintendo ensures their consoles are profitable on day one, even if others might be okay with year five.
In which case, yes, they are just iPhones in a big box with HDMI ports plugged into your TV. The only reason you can't do productivity tasks, is because of the restrictions, so the legally-nonexistent claim of "general purpose computing" doesn't do anything here.
By NotPractical 2025-05-0217:14 Why would different business practices shield console makers in the first place, legally speaking? As in, even if all consoles were always sold at a loss, how would that help someone's legal case that they should be excluded here? Does the law state that, "if your business practices are incompatible with antitrust legislation, and you'd end up having to raise prices, shut down, or decrease your CEO's paycheck, if we enforced it on you, then we won't do it" or something along those lines?
By pjmlp 2025-05-0215:37 Except there are indeed productivity tools for consoles as well, e.g. anything done with UWP on Windows Store can also be targeted to XBox UWP ERA environment.
By pen2l 2025-05-0219:50 I can appreciate this argument comes from folks who frequent this forum, who can discern scams from legitimate things.
But I'm sad for this decision for myself and for the lay man and woman out there. In recent years I've gone out of my way to sign up for subscriptions with App Store if I have the option, because of the true boon it offered in a world of dark patterns: managing a subscription in one place where I have scope of everything, with the expectation that I won't have to jump through barriers or puzzles to cancel, clear-as-day information of when a subscription renews, how much it costs, etc. This was what Apple was good at. I hate that my friends and family will now probably unwittingly get had as a result of this.
The only reason he is fighting Apple's monopoly on IAP is because he wants to ship the Epic store on mobile devices so he can make his 12% cut off exclusive titles.
Now is that better than the Apple store? Sure! But the real problem is that users can't install their own games without going through an arbiter like Epic or Apple.
By mvdtnz 2025-05-034:32 You mean because he wants to compete in a market?
By HDThoreaun 2025-05-0313:01 If the epic store is allowed to exist apple would be forced to allow any App Store onto their platform.
By mensetmanusman 2025-05-0219:26 Or windows, or Samsung, or tsmc, or silicon miners… it’s wrappers all the way down!
By Xelbair 2025-05-0218:54 >No gambling, no randomized loot boxes, etc.
instead you get peak FOMO, where you never know where item will return. It might be in a week, it might be in few years. you never know.
By cedws 2025-05-034:49 The business model is still getting kids hooked on digital crack and getting them to beg their parents for money. He’s no saint either.
Tim's a selfish businessman, whose interests just happen to align with the public interest in this instance.
He makes excuses about Linux market share when asked why Fortnite isn't on the Steam Deck, then ships a build for Windows ARM.
Fortnite Festival, their Rock Band recreation in the Fortnite ecosystem, recently started limiting when you can purchase songs in an effort to get people to impulse buy them when available. Players call it FOMO mode.
Epic is still pretty scummy and dishonest, even if in this insurance it appears to be on the good side.
He tweeted one time that Apple's Find My network is "super creepy surveillance tech and shouldn't exist" because years prior someone stole his Mac and then he was able to see the location of the home where the thief lived.
He seems like an idiot to me.
By gjsman-1000 2025-05-0214:591 reply Ask him if he can see the geolocation of every Fornite user; or easily guess it by their chat logs, IP Address, and other behaviors.
By bigyabai 2025-05-0215:36 I can guess your geolocation from a 14kb HTTP request. That's not what makes Find My creepy - if you can't understand the issue, that's okay too.
By dlubarov 2025-05-034:27 > He makes excuses about Linux market share when asked why Fortnite isn't on the Steam Deck, then ships a build for Windows ARM.
What's the implication here, that he has some personal vendetta against Linux? A sibling comment seems to imply this as well.
It seems like Hanlon's Razor would suggest there was just some engineering complication that they never dealt with. I can imagine a bunch of explanations for why Windows ARM might have happened first. Maybe there were fewer complications, maybe some competent engineer personally cared about Windows ARM, maybe they have Windows based testing infrastructure, etc.
By Hikikomori 2025-05-0215:14 As far as being an American company they're pretty low on scummy behaviour.
By weberer 2025-05-0220:05 >His Crusade for open platforms/services in general is very very respectable
You can't say that with a straight face when he's so vehemently anti-Linux. To this day, you still can't download Fortnite or the Epic Games Store on Linux. At the end of the day, all Tim actually cares about is his corporation having to pay rent to another corporation.
By adamwk 2025-05-0215:40 Tim Sweeney has his own app store that does the same thing as Apple.
Fortnite - sit in lobby for 80% of the time and buy shit?
Tim just wants all of his cut.
And wants Apple to pay his app distribution costs...
There's no good guys anywhere in this.
By Hikikomori 2025-05-0215:13 Apple extra premium downloads, nobody else can do it.
By cloudfudge 2025-05-0215:101 reply "App distribution costs" is laughable as an incentive. Any business that makes an app where you can and will spend dollars would gladly let you download it directly from their website in exchange for not giving up 30% of the in-app payments. App distribution costs nothing.
390 million users. Say 10% on iOS. 39 million users. 18Gb on iOS last time
Yeah app distribution costs something. Finger in the air 10's of petabytes...
By cloudfudge 2025-05-0922:33 These apps are streaming massive amounts of data from epic's servers constantly. The incremental cost of downloading the actual app code is the tiniest of considerations. The app is a couple static files that would be served from a CDN. Now compare this minuscule cost to giving away 30% of their in app purchases. There is simply no comparison.
By dminuoso 2025-05-0215:37 Bandwidth costs next to nothing these days.
And it is also rarely if ever measured in petabytes. Commercially percentile based (in terms of speed) billing is the norm, but that only applies to businesses that act as downstream customers of ISPs
Apple has global IX presences and generally maintains open peering policies, which means it only costs a few bucks monthly to maintain any given PNI (e.g. 10Gbit), and they are also available on those open routing server ports. IX presence is dirt cheap.
By Jackson__ 2025-05-0217:14 As far as I am aware what gets downloaded from the app store is little more than the launcher, which then downloads the actual game files from epics server.
By Hikikomori 2025-05-0215:27 Why shouldn't Apple compete on pricing against others then? Drop the arbitrary %, charge for actual usage. If they're so good and cheap then everyone will stay with Apple distribution.
It's sad that the entities that forced Apple to be more open are free to play peddlers...
> has been a gold standard for F2P monetization
Every F2P game is the same. They waste your time until you buy IAPs out of boredom. What gold standard?
Not true, you can enjoy rocket league fully without buying anything.
"buy IAPs out of boredom". Because they keep you "engaged" doing the same thing forever.
By archerx 2025-05-0414:50 I have never bought anything in rocket league and I have played for 600 hours. I am no where near to being bored with it because it has a near infinite skill ceiling.
By gruez 2025-05-0214:45 >He goes into detail on how [...] how app developers are basically forced to implement anti-consumer practices to maintain the ridiculous costs of achieving success on the app store, etc.
This sounds absurd. What was his argument for this?
By post_break 2025-05-0214:052 reply This is what bad management at Apple looks like. They were now forced to cut off the spice flow that is millions of dollars of IAPs from games in their coveted services pie chart because they got cocky. Roblox alone is going to show up on their balance chart. Epic throwing water on an oil fire with their comments make me grin, they are the reason Apple lowered AppStore pricing, and now they are the reason Apple can no longer collect rent from Patreon (which collects rent themselves). Epic won due to Apple's on hubris.
Maybe? Apple collected a lot of money in the last year doing this.
I wonder if someone will try to force them to refund it all.
There have already been class action lawsuits against both Apple and Google that have paid out to developers so who knows.
By Mindwipe 2025-05-0216:26 A class action lawsuit from other developers is inevitable, at least for the time period where Apple took the money after the judgement.
By InTheArena 2025-05-0214:115 reply Congrats. Two of the most user-hostile companies, one of which profits by exploiting children, are going to be better off. And let's also be clear, neither of these companies wants this revenue stream to go away; they just want a judge to give that revenue stream to them.
Get rid of Roblox's and Epic's anti-consumer behavior, and then I will "grin" at this.
By bogwog 2025-05-0214:27 So Apple getting a cut of Roblox's revenue is protecting children from exploitation?
I think the real situation is that Apple allowing Roblox on their store despite its safety problems shows that Apple wants to profit from that exploitation themselves instead of prevent it. They have the power to kick them off, but they don't. (Although now they might)
By celsoazevedo 2025-05-0214:39 No one here (Apple, Roblox, Epic) is protecting children and Roblox/Epic business practices doesn't make Apple's "tax" more acceptable.
By ocdtrekkie 2025-05-0214:23 It's really important to realize Epic could've gotten off with special treatment years ago. Fortnite is large enough to dictate terms, and both Apple and Google have made offers before. Tim Sweeney may someday become the villain, but anyone who doesn't realize he gambled a huge amount of his company's future on demanding change for everyone.
Every single individual app developer should be singing his praises today, because he could've just gotten the deal for his company, and many other companies have gone that route. Epic decided to demand better.
By post_break 2025-05-0214:16 You should grin any time you see someone make a "god" bleed.
By redserk 2025-05-0214:18 It's still a step forward at least for everyone who doesn't use a product from Epic or Roblox.
There is simply no 100.00% perfect solution here that'll make 100.00% people happy.
Sigh, not that I expected anything else from Apple at this point but of course they only change the rules for the US.
By burnte 2025-05-0213:21 Yep, and the EU wants the same thing so all Apple is really doing is holding on for a little longer to the old rules until the EU will make them do the exact same thing. Apple could have been less maliciously compliant and wouldn't have as much resistance from courts, but it was clearly a retaliatory tactic from minute 1.
It seems pretty standard for tech companies. They did the same thing with EU only side-loading (not even sure if that's the right term for how restricted it is). They'll only make changes where they need to, whether it's the EU or the US, or even the UK (let's see how that encryption stuff turns out).
As a business, I understand why they would - more revenue. At least there's some progress and I wouldn't be surprised if the EU follows suit.
By rendaw 2025-05-0214:01 It makes comparison easier though. If they did it everywhere, they could make claims about how cheaper or better it'd be for everyone if they didn't have to do it, but having both systems in place at once means people can just look across the lake and see.
By nottorp 2025-05-0215:10 > EU only side-loading
There is no side loading on iOS, even for the EU.
Not by my definition of side loading.
One word: greed.
Apple as the company we used to know is long dead. I still buy MacBooks and iPhones but only because some remnant of the past still exists in them. The new company came up with Vision Pro, screwing Spotify over app commissions, screwing game developers users love (Epic), non-upgradeable devices, extremely difficult repairability, etc.
Steve Jobs was quite famously against upgradability since the start. That is not something new for Apple.
Honestly I love the current macs, but of course I would like to be able to upgrade them as well. But yeah I also have the feeling that Apple is getting less innovative, more sloppy and more greedy, but I'm not sure I think its become a whole other company.
By jajuuka 2025-05-0217:01 To me it's felt like coasting. Just release very minimal updates each year to all their main products let others die on the vine like HomePods. iOS 18 marquee features were Apple Intelligence and customizing the home screen. One that didn't ship and one that has been a staple of Android since day 1.
Only real advancement I've seen is in Apple Silicon. Which is fantastic but very much on a tik-tok cycle like Intel. Really wish these companies would cut back on constant model upgrades and instead spend more time polishing the products.
> Steve Jobs was quite famously against upgradability since the start. That is not something new for Apple.
And yet during his time we had upgradeable MacBooks and Macs. Heck, even iPhone battery was upgradeable while he was still in charge.
By mikestew 2025-05-0215:13 Heck, even iPhone battery was upgradeable while he was still in charge.
Eh, wot? iPhone battery has never been easily replaced. Yeah, you could do it, but it still involved tiny screws and fiddly bits; you’re not popping a new one in while waiting at a stoplight.
But I do miss the days of throwing some cheap RAM at a MacBook.
By whywhywhywhy 2025-05-0214:07 Two words: Sales & Marketing
By throwaway290 2025-05-0213:491 reply > screwing Spotify over app commissions
Spotify is the one who screws everyone. They deserve it
> Epic
Epic is another example of a shady company who doesn't want to give a cut from its micro transactions from users (users who are brought to them by Apple's innovation)
> difficult repairability
iPhone repairability score is 2-3 points higher than Pixel's according to iFixit. Only HMD beats iPhone.
By whywhywhywhy 2025-05-0214:092 reply >Spotify is the one who screws everyone. They deserve it
How? They pay the exact same percentage as Steam does to it's creators, 70%.
By redwall_hp 2025-05-0214:201 reply Music royalties are also set by a panel of judges (Copyright Royalty Board). Spotify is not legally able to "screw" anyone. Their pro rata model pays as much or more than the legal requirement. The economics of radio and internet streaming, especially in a world with a democratic explosion of access to recording technology, simply aren't conducive to recording being lucrative.
Record labels are in the business of screwing musicians, though.
By throwaway290 2025-05-0511:49 1) Using legally required minimum as floor is malicious, this is US we're talking about 2) CRB's ruling is very new and you want us to forget how Spotify was screwing everybody over all preceding years 3) the rates from CRB are based on total revenue of the streaming service which leaves a LOT up for manipulation if the company wants to pay less. Read what real bands and musicians say about how much they get paid from Spotify and others
By throwaway290 2025-05-0511:34 If you are seriously asking, why not I just link you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Spotify. Just so you know, we are talking about a company that literally has a Wikipedia article JUST about the issues people have with it.
> One word: greed.
This is too easy of an answer. Would you take more money if I offered it to you?
My problem with Apple here is that I believe it's short sighted. Lack of compliance or whatever you want to call it, could threaten the whole business by forcing legislation and legal action.
Beyond the morality of taking money in this situation, Apple soured it's relationship with everyone who makes income off Patreon or other apps with their unstoppable greed.
The idea Apple deserved a cut of Patreon podcaster's monthly subscription fees was beyond the pale.
By matwood 2025-05-0222:50 I agree completely. My point above is that they are really focused short term. The hubris that nothing would change I believe shows how disconnected they are. They could have made some self adjustments and likely made more money long term, but now the entire payments business is threatened.
By const_cast 2025-05-0220:16 It's really unfathomable just how stupid and arrogant their leadership is.
I mean, these leaders are supposed to be the best of the best and we're all sitting here wondering how they can be so idiotic and short-sighted.
They had a perfect thing going. Make free money, do next to nothing. All they had to do was make some concessions, not get too overconfident, and maybe reel it back a tad when things get hot. But no. They got so cocky, so arrogant, that now they risk losing it all.
Time and time again I am just shocked at the sheer stupidity behind the biggest companies in America. Any bozo off the street understands the danger of arrogance better than Apple leadership. How are these people in power and how do they repeatedly make such poor decisions?
By kelseyfrog 2025-05-0214:42 Whose greed? The executives who are incentivized to make these decisions or the shareholders who put them in place and kick them out if they don't?
By saurik 2025-05-0214:26 > ...except for apps on the United States storefront, the apps may not...
This, honestly, doesn't seem to be in line with the injunction if it still applies to apps published by developers from the United States?
By ocdtrekkie 2025-05-0212:232 reply Presumably they are planning to appeal so want to minimize impacted apps when they hope to make everyone undo all the changes later. If it sticks it is hard not to imagine it becoming global, since the app store tax issue has become a topic of concern in like a dozen countries now.
Yeah, I was hoping Apple would read the room and simply change the rules globally, but I guess they will be trying to squeeze us customers for as long as they can.
By ocdtrekkie 2025-05-0214:19 The entire thing they got contempt of court for was trying to find a way to continue to squeeze customers as long as they can.
This is the Big Tech playbook. Apple and Google know what they're doing isn't legal. But they make so much doing it, that it's worth the lawyer fees to delay and delay and appeal and appeal as long as possible to keep the money train flowing. Historically the fine has never been as big as the profit, so even if they eventually get in trouble for it, it makes sense for them to profit in the short term.
By stingraycharles 2025-05-0213:461 reply This is exactly it. They’re acting as if it’s something that’s going to be reversed, and are going to appeal.
If they also apply the same rules to other countries, it would hurt their case that this court order is unjust.
By AtlasBarfed 2025-05-0214:261 reply They can just get a presidential pardon for now and all future acts. Companies are people. Unkillable people. Unjailable people. They don't sleep. They have a thousand arms, a thousand eyes, a thousand legs, thousand brains. They get better financing, they can walk away from their financing. I can send unlimited money to politicians. They can exist in a thousand places, countries, legal systems at once.
By stingraycharles 2025-05-0215:05 I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make, unless it’s some generic anti-corporate stuff.
By onlyrealcuzzo 2025-05-0214:31 Why would you expect Apple to ever "do the right thing?"
They exist to seek profits.
If this was a losing strategy for them, they would've dropped it long ago without the ruling.
Other countries should implement similar laws, not hope that Apple does the right thing.
Hope is a bad strategy.
Apple was doing malicious compliance all along. It’s not surprising. But this is extremely good news, because it dampens FUD and narratives such as ”the EU is only going after American companies with frivolous rules”. If you get punished this hard for anti-trust, in the US, you are so out of line it’s not even funny. So it adds legitimacy to the free market spirit seen in markets like EU, which has been criticized for making up arbitrary rules for self-interest.
In either case, this thing will die with a whimper, not a bang. Apple will have to concede to EU and it would not surprise me if other large markets will demand the same.
So the stage is changing. Apple could have flown under the radar and made concessions with terms they could dictate, letting them simplify their offerings across the world without attracting regulators and mega-lawsuits (and hear me out - maybe focus on products and innovation instead). Now, they fight against multiple jurisdictions at once, which all have different requirements (obviously, since they are different bodies). Even if they fold now, by reducing the tax and making more lenient rules, they’re too late. They already have regulators and judges dictating for them what to do, so their agency is permanently limited.
People forget that in the EU, the ”gatekeeper status” wasn’t just ”go after Apple and Google”. It was the App Store specifically. For instance, Gmail was evaluated but not included.
TLDR Apple has to sleep in a bed that they shat in themselves. They were universally popular and could get away with lots of questionable behavior, but instead angered everyone and are rightfully getting curfewed.
By deeThrow94 2025-05-0212:424 reply > So it adds legitimacy to the free market spirit seen in markets like EU, which has been criticized for making up arbitrary rules for self-interest.
I'm confused a) who is taking the concept of free markets seriously, especially in this context where markets (and competition) are arbitrarily defined and owned by corporations and and b) who would view self-interested laws as either surprising or bad? Of course laws are in self interest. Why on else else would you pass a law?
By smallmancontrov 2025-05-0212:472 reply This is HN, the Church of the Free Market is well represented. If you haven't yet seen someone give the "free markets create competition" speech on Monday and the "my company aims to capture this space and then entrench a monopoly with economies of scale / network effects / platform effects / two sided markets / last mile dynamics" pitch on Tuesday, just hang around HN a bit more. You won't have to wait long.
By satvikpendem 2025-05-0218:571 reply A monopoly isn't a free market though, because, well, the market is not free. This ruling is precisely about making the market of payment processing on iOS more free, creating such a market.
By smallmancontrov 2025-05-031:231 reply Sure, we can say that it isn't true communism -- err, sorry, market freedom -- so long as we acknowledge that the incentives which create, establish, and perpetuate the monopolies emerge due to market freedom and attempts to curtail monopolies are regularly attacked under the banner of market freedom and that actual market freedom requires (metaphorical) mace-wielding regulators to regularly go on (metaphorical) skull-cracking expeditions which will be fought tooth and nail by investors seeking the windfall profits that come from monopoly.
Do we agree? Or will we find ourselves on opposite sides of this fight the millisecond the specifics of this case fade from the public eye?
By satvikpendem 2025-05-0421:23 Yes, regulators must fight monopolies to maintain a free market, as the former are antithetical to the latter.
By deeThrow94 2025-05-0212:592 reply I had thought the clear need for anti-trust had tickled down to the plebs on here. Unfortunate to see that people still casually refer to free markets as if it's a meaningful concept.
If you really truly think that regulation is dragging down some market, it's easy to talk about in specific terms. It is only possible to employ "free markets" in bad faith.
By smallmancontrov 2025-05-0214:35 Yes, but temporarily embarrassed millionaires abound. They eagerly employ the concept of "free markets" in bad faith, propelled by the hope that the corruption can be made to work for them rather than against them. Some of them are right, most are wrong, but they are propelled to spread the faith just the same.
Beneath them, people tend to get good at programming before they get good at spotting exploitation, so there is always a stratum of True Believers to feed the operation. Individually they wise up and graduate, but the stratum remains as it is fed from the bottom by the proverbial sucker born every minute.
Then we have the top of the pyramid which actually does benefit from it all. They are small in number but they have enough money to fund the whole space (more importantly: enough money to have a reason to fund the whole space) so they have outsize influence. They could decide to ban me for saying this, for example.
By AtlasBarfed 2025-05-0214:311 reply Endstate of the game theory of free markets is cartel or Monopoly.
All it takes is a single competitor to gradually gain more and more strength and competitive advantage via dumping, regulatory capture, or other means (see: organized crime and syndicates) to win the death struggle.
What has saved us hasn't been some magical free market, it has been the markets themselves, once they achieve trust status, fundamentally undermined by science and technology creating a new market that upends the old one.
By deeThrow94 2025-05-0215:13 I highly recommend reading Schumpeter, both "Business Cycles" and "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy".
He discusses how motivations fundamentally change after profit margins peak and argues that profit after this point necessarily produces less economically efficient processes (in terms of the flow of demanded goods and services, not the shareholder, who does receive further productivity gains). In this context, undesired market advantage (legal or illegal) is just a symptom of profit, but it can be analyzed like any other sort of inefficiency. The core prescription is to nationalize the process or otherwise remove the profit motive around peak profit (which is, to be clear, not always easy or possible to identify... but in the worst case, this would open further opportunity for private capital to invest in the next generation of improvements).
He also discusses how failed investment cycles can resonate into market crashes faster than capital can rationally reallocate. Both of these above observations seem very very relevant to our current situation in the US today, and should cause everyone to look askance at people who aren't concerned about how healthy our political economy actually is.
> fundamentally undermined by science and technology creating a new market that upends the old one.
The kicker here is that there's no reason to expect either to continue yielding the same rewards. Some industries have projectable, plannable, investable growth patterns; others do not. Almost all the industries with predictable growth rely on consumption driven by yields from the lucrative exploitation of frontiers, mostly technological recently as you point out. I suspect that the market is going to get incredibly volatile as capital sees this frontiers dry up and adjusts expectations. ideally by cannibalizing itself and not eating us, but it might need a little help in that regard....
I think a more interesting question is: who is “self”? US is historically more prone to favor business, while EU seems more concerned in protecting consumers. And of course there is the noise generated by incompetence/corruption/lobbying that makes the question of “in the interest of whom are laws made?” very nuanced.
By deeThrow94 2025-05-0212:572 reply Very good points. I've been trying to figure out whose interest is in our "national interests" my entire life. It sure ain't protecting my interests or those of anyone I love that justifies a trillion dollar a year military.
By Workaccount2 2025-05-0213:533 reply The trillion dollar military is Americas welfare system. You may be chronically confused why no politician dem/republican/liberal/conservative ever wants to cut funding for it, and toss it up as obvious collusion between mega-contractors and politicians.
Well it is. And it's willful. That trillion dollars is spent almost entirely on US made things by US workers. Only a small slice (still large in absolute terms) goes to those mega-contractors. The rest is the only thing that has kept any semblance of American manufacturing alive. The military buys everything (this isn't an exaggeration, you would be hard pressed to find something in your life that they don't buy in quantity) , and there are countless businesses that pay decent wages with benefits for low skilled workers in every state that are only still in existence because of military spending.
It also functions as an incubator, having special provisions for small businesses, especially those owned by marginalized people or located in especially impoverished areas. Basically "We need need coffee filters, so if you buy the equipment and higher the workers, we'll sign a contract to buy 2,000,000 packages a year from you. (And it's a kick-your-door-down felony if you try to backdoor foreign made filters)."
That's why it is never cut. It's a welfare plan that republicans agree too because it requires holding down a job to access. It comes with the side effects of keeping factories running and getting an overpowered military.
By quesera 2025-05-0214:46 The US military is also an enormous and very successful jobs program.
Also there may be some foreign policy applications.
By dboreham 2025-05-0215:21 And it was an explicit pact between US and European countries: you can have socialism and not much military (because who wants a huge German army??), while we will do our socialism via our military, which in turn will protect you.
But now our politicians are so dumb they don't realize that's what was agreed long ago, and think they can have one part of that deal and not the other.
By deeThrow94 2025-05-0214:49 This is true, and it is disgusting.
I am pretty sure if the US decided to get rid of its military entirely, then it wouldnt be long before it was invaded by Russia or China and then the interests of the people you love would be severly impacted.
The world stage is no more a safe place than it has been for any other part of history.
By dboreham 2025-05-0215:22 Or invaded by liberating Canadians. We can dream...
By ojbyrne 2025-05-0213:49 Straw man. Nobody said anything about “getting rid of its military entirely.”
By deeThrow94 2025-05-0214:48 > then it wouldnt be long before it was invaded by Russia or China
I would be lying if I claimed I hadn't dreamed of being liberated by a foreign power with more cultural competence at governance (which excludes Russia, obviously, but they probably at least aren't worse), but realistically anything but a slow scale-down in military power would probably entail the bloodiest world (and civil) war in history. Maybe nukes, too.
But, there's a fork in the road. We can choose to scale down our military presence (and control of trade) today, and figure out how we actually want to exist in a global community outside of letting our corporations swing their dicks freely... Or we can blow trillions of dollars continuing to make fools of ourselves rampaging through other countries rather than building high speed rail before we lose our grip on hegemony anyway as a matter of pure economics.
Or, I suppose, we can just murder anyone who disagrees with us until we're just miserably exploiting each other inside of high walls armed with automated guns. Something tells me that's the option we're going to pick.
> US is historically more prone to favor business, while EU seems more concerned in protecting consumers.
Well that's not that obvious... Sure EU is more than willing to protect consumers from foreign(American) megacorporation because the cost of doing that is very low.
Entrenched major local companies? Well stifling competition through excessive regulation and propping up to bit too fall semi-zombie corporations is not necessarily that great for consumers long-term.
Do you have examples of targeted protections against foreign companies? Everything that comes to mind to me applies to all companies local or foreign.
By pqtyw 2025-05-0220:00 Hypothetical local companies? The type of major tech corporations that are effected by DMA and similar regulations simply do not exist in Europe.
Regulating and fining them is very cheap politically when there are no jobs that can be lost or lobbyists to disappoint.
By klabb3 2025-05-0217:09 > who is taking the concept of free markets seriously
The EU. Let me explain, because this was confusing:
In US political debate, free markets have become synonymous with ”let companies do what they want”. Today, most of US ”markets” are neither free, nor (arguably) even markets at all, such as Amazon or health insurance. It is a mix between feudal system and protection racket.
Just like ”freedom isn’t free” in terms of civil liberties, same goes (imo) for markets. If you want to optimize for ”freedom” of markets, that means a non-zero amount of regulating them. This is obvious both in theory and by opening your eyes and looking outside.
As far as how to regulate them, I believe the EU is doing a good job, especially in the face of novel technology and business topologies. Basically, allow everything that isn’t deliberately anti-competitive. Because, drumroll, competition is fundamental for markets to work, at all.
Sorry for the confusion. It’s hard to make points when words mean completely different things in different parts of the world.
By T3RMINATED 2025-05-0212:34 [dead]
