Apple’s (and Google&Co’s) walled garden policies are absolute bullshit and should be outlawed, but in this, Epic is in the wrong. They agreed to a contract, they didn’t like it, so they chose to break it. Besides, saying that you “support something” does fuck all. Go and do something. Call a politician and get the law changed, you rebel.
The relevant part in simple terms: if an app is distributed on the App Store, all in-app purchases must be made through the App Store (so Apple can have their 30%), the app can’t bypass this, and the app can’t contain links/buttons/calls to action to have the user bypass it. Epic implemented their own independent in-app purchase solution that violated this, and they got kicked out.
Whether or not the 30% cut is fair is not relevant to the topic. I think it’s a baseless amount, and Apple’s walled garden is clearly anti-competitive and anti-consumer. The point is that Epic’s violation of the TOS was a premeditated action in order to inject their fake “for the players” narrative into their litigations and rally the Fortnite-addicted kids who didn’t know better. They had an 80-page lawsuit and a pissing CGI short film ready on the day. Apple wants all of the money, Epic wants all of the money, and they’re not above using every dirty trick they know.
Obligatory IANAL, and this is old info, TOS may have changed. Hoeg Law on Youtube specializes in video games, it probably has a more in-depth and up-to-date analysis of the situation.
Specifically because Apple is engaging in anti competitive and anti consumer practices (your words) I have a very difficult time seeing this action as “dirty.” Companies will do what companies do and pursue money, but if their pursuit of money coincidentally happens to fight for consumer rights then I don’t think we should say it’s dirty.
Sort of like “if you don’t have your own, store bought is fine” lol
They didn’t have to play. That’s the point. They didn’t have to agree to the contract. But since they did agree (and then intentionally broke the contract), they’re wrong too. They can’t be absolved of their part in this because the other party also did wrong. This is a two wrongs don’t make a right situation.
Apples TOS is complete bullshit and I support anyone that breaks it.
Wow, what a freedom fighter.
Apple’s (and Google&Co’s) walled garden policies are absolute bullshit and should be outlawed, but in this, Epic is in the wrong. They agreed to a contract, they didn’t like it, so they chose to break it. Besides, saying that you “support something” does fuck all. Go and do something. Call a politician and get the law changed, you rebel.
To be fair, calling a politician will do fuck all to change a law, unless you have a giant bag of money, which Google and apple have.
What was the contract?
The relevant part in simple terms: if an app is distributed on the App Store, all in-app purchases must be made through the App Store (so Apple can have their 30%), the app can’t bypass this, and the app can’t contain links/buttons/calls to action to have the user bypass it. Epic implemented their own independent in-app purchase solution that violated this, and they got kicked out.
Whether or not the 30% cut is fair is not relevant to the topic. I think it’s a baseless amount, and Apple’s walled garden is clearly anti-competitive and anti-consumer. The point is that Epic’s violation of the TOS was a premeditated action in order to inject their fake “for the players” narrative into their litigations and rally the Fortnite-addicted kids who didn’t know better. They had an 80-page lawsuit and a pissing CGI short film ready on the day. Apple wants all of the money, Epic wants all of the money, and they’re not above using every dirty trick they know.
Obligatory IANAL, and this is old info, TOS may have changed. Hoeg Law on Youtube specializes in video games, it probably has a more in-depth and up-to-date analysis of the situation.
Specifically because Apple is engaging in anti competitive and anti consumer practices (your words) I have a very difficult time seeing this action as “dirty.” Companies will do what companies do and pursue money, but if their pursuit of money coincidentally happens to fight for consumer rights then I don’t think we should say it’s dirty.
Sort of like “if you don’t have your own, store bought is fine” lol
They didn’t have to play. That’s the point. They didn’t have to agree to the contract. But since they did agree (and then intentionally broke the contract), they’re wrong too. They can’t be absolved of their part in this because the other party also did wrong. This is a two wrongs don’t make a right situation.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t face consequences, I’m saying we shouldn’t view it as a dirty trick.
This I actually agree with except that they tried to use their users as a cudgel against the company they tried to defraud.
So what? Am I not allowed to express my opinion because of that?
Also, my politicians have already started to outlaw these practices. There is obviously still much work to be done but it’s happening.
Fuck you and everything you stand for.