As quoted that sounds like a choice of law clause, not a choice of forum clause, and so wouldn't necessarily help in bringing suit in California.
In computer terms a choice of law clause in a contract is essentially a macro that when the contract is interpreted in a court expands to the contract law of the jurisdiction named in the clause.
If a court in, say, Kentucky hears a contract dispute and the contract has a choice of law clause specifying California it is essentially as if the parties wrote California contract law into their contract. For things that a contract does not have the power to alter in Kentucky, Kentucky law would apply regardless of what California law said. E.g., the Kentucky court would use Kentucky rules of civil procedure and would use Kentucky rules of evidence.
A choice of forum clause requires the parties to use a particular jurisdiction to settle disputes. When you agree to such a contract you are agreeing to give the courts of that jurisdiction personal jurisdiction over you for matters involving that contract.
PS: I found the EULA. In addition to a choice of law clause it has a choice of forum clause:
> Except to the extent expressly provided in the following paragraph, this Agreement and the relationship between you and Apple shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflicts of law provisions. You and Apple agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within the county of Santa Clara, California, to resolve any dispute or claim arising from this Agreement
PPS: note that the choice of law clause excludes California's conflict of law provisions. That's to avoid the situation where California's law says that some third jurisdiction's law should apply. In theory you could even end up in a situation where jurisdiction X says to use Y's laws and Y says to use X's, and then you've really got a mess.