5 ms·
That's what they want you to think. Which is why they say it. Sounds better than "Tim made the order to retaliate, sayonara"
by mantap 6y ago
That's what they want you to think. Which is why they say it. Sounds better than "Tim made the order to retaliate, sayonara"
- threeseed 6y agoGiven that there are lawsuits in place pretty sure they aren't going to lie about it. Question is how serious the multiple infractions are.
- mantap 6y agoIt's possible for one action to violate the terms in multiple ways. They probably mean the following two: 1) not giving Apple their 30% 2) publishing code without prior approval by Apple
- threeseed 6y agoI don't think you understand how the App Store works. You simply can't pay Apple the 30% cut nor can you publish apps without Apple approving it. So it's impossible for a company to violate either of those.
- nodamage 6y agoNot sure why you think it is impossible when Epic literally did it. They hid the payment infrastructure in the version of the app that went through review, therefore it wasn't rejected during review. Then after it was approved, they enabled it it via a server side mechanism.
- caf 6y agoLawyers don't do anything so gauche as lying. They might "creatively interpret the facts and make novel legal arguments in a way that paints their client's position in the best possible light", though.
- ncallaway 6y ago> Given that there are lawsuits in place pretty sure they aren't going to lie about it They probably won’t lie in court or in depositions, but the same assumptions shouldn’t be made about all statements.
- arvinsim 6y agoDoesn't that just make it worse for Apple for having arbitrary rules with nebulous requirements that they sometimes tolerate or at other times enforce?