4 ms·

I'm confused. Why doesn't Apple just use their "Termination for Convenience" clause that lets them terminate any contract with a 30 day notice?

diebeforei485 6y ago
Two points- (1) Presumably Apple wanted to try to send a very quick message to others to not try to make similar moves (and to reassure other developers that Epic wasn't getting a special deal) instead of waiting 30 days. (2) I've said this before and it's important to understand this: just because a contract says Apple can do something (terminate the contract with Unreal Engine), that does not mean they can do it. If that were the case, the entire field of Contract Law need not exist.
- echelon 6y ago
  Per item 1, now would be a good time for every single developer on the app store to revolt in unison. Collective bargaining.
  - dawnerd 6y ago
    and for every dev that left you'd have a shady one step in the fill the void.
    - meowface 6y ago
      "Apple: Think Moloch"
    - scarface74 6y ago
      You mean like all of the shady developers who are already in the App Store selling in app purchases for loot boxes, useless virtual currency and play to win games? I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille. I would much rather see BaseCamp (Hey) or the company that was selling virtual workouts with real trainers take them to court. If Apple was really about protecting users and cared about the quality of the App Store they would prohibit in app purchases for games with consumables.
      - latexr 6y ago
        > I would much rather see BaseCamp (Hey) or the company that was selling virtual workouts with real trainers take them to court. I wouldn’t, because they’d be crushed. I’d rather that if someone takes Apple to court, it’s someone with the resources to make a dent. > I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille. Even if you think they’re equivalent, the difference is the former is taking an action that—even if for selfish reasons—can have a positive impact on independent developers.
        scarface74 6y ago
        Who has a better story to tell Epic “we want to sell useless virtual goods with 0 marginal cost” or BaseCamp - “we run a small business, pay our employees well, always sought to be profitable instead of VC funding, etc.” Everybody eats up the small business angle. Besides DHH is a lot less slimy than anyone who Epic parades out. If they started a GoFundMe, I would donate to their legal defense. What Epic wants will probably never happen. What BaseCamp wants - just basically to be treated like Netflix and the other “reader apps” is much more realistic and it’s fair to the actual indy developers of cross platform useful apps who could do their own marketing.
        latexr 6y ago
        > Who has a better story to tell Basecamp’s story is irrelevant if they’re forced into bankruptcy before they get the chance to tell it where it makes a difference. We’re not watching a feel good movie where the righteous little guy prevails. They’d get squashed and tossed aside, and they know it.
        scarface74 6y ago
        So it’s better to have yet another avenue for shady developers to take advantage of “whales” via loot boxes and in game consumables - the very thing that the government is going after? What jury is going to care that Epic can’t sell useless virtual currency and make a larger profit?
  - cableshaft 6y ago
    I did my part. I haven't had my stuff on the app store for years! Although I was working on a small Swift game to refresh my mobile app dev skills, but it's on the backburner right now anyway.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - vaxman 6y ago
    Trust me, Apple does not care. When a company or government with centralized management like that makes a blow-it move, there is an army of people in place to reinforce their decision and attack everyone in opposition so as to maintain their own sense of self worth. You can’t bargain with that. HTML5 and WASM —and since you will need one for testing anyway, a Pixel 5/4a, S20 Ultra or Note S20 could be fun for learning Android.
Gorbzel 6y ago
B/c in that case Apple would be doing what the haters erroneously claim they do now: making 100% arbitrary/capricious decisions when it comes to the App Store walled garden. As those of us who target iOS know, they're not transparent, but it's not arbitrary. Thank god. We'd never hear the end of unsolicited opinions about the Touch Bar and HN's annual subscription to the year of desktop Linux.
- arvinsim 6y ago
  How would you know that they are not arbitrary if they are transparent?
  - vaxman 6y ago
    I think you meant “are NOT transparent”. You can see their calculating ways if you look carefully —can’t have too many fart apps you know, too many fart apps are bad for the user. Nevermind if you have the best fart app ever —you can’t even load it on your friends’ phones or show it to the guy deciding whether or not to give you a scholarship because, you know, a prick in Cupertino who has his own reality that’s pretty far removed from the rest if the world thinks that too many fart apps are an unpleasant experience for all one billion potential fart app users. Yea silly, but the type of app doesn’t matter when considering questions of “arbitrary” consideration.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  > but it's not arbitrary Then why does Amazon get a special deal?
  - dkonofalski 6y ago
    They don't. All subscriptions drop to 15% after the first year so Apple is just counting the existing time where they were figuring out the process. That still applies to everyone, not just Amazon.
- vaxman 6y ago
  > it’s not arbitrary No, they justify ruining some developers based on some criteria that they then justify with the logic that (a) the developer wouldn’t have had any money if it weren’t for Apple to begin with and (b) they “care so deeply” for the Apple “users” that they can’t allow the developer’s life work (or livelihood) to exist and make any kind of unpleasantness available for consumers to choose.
awinder 6y ago
The reason is in the document, simply, because while the case is ongoing the judge wants to decrease, not increase, the difficulty in calculating damages.
dkonofalski 6y ago
Because, let's be honest, Apple doesn't want to set a precedent that they'll do that without first trying to resolve issues with developers. It's a super bad look for them to just immediately terminate any agreement they have issue with and would just push developers away from attempting development on the platform. Apple has all the leverage in this situation and a ton of good will built up among developers. They want to give Epic a chance to admit wrongdoing and resolve the issue.

diebeforei485 6y ago

Two points- (1) Presumably Apple wanted to try to send a very quick message to others to not try to make similar moves (and to reassure other developers that Epic wasn't getting a special deal) instead of waiting 30 days. (2) I've said this before and it's important to understand this: just because a contract says Apple can do something (terminate the contract with Unreal Engine), that does not mean they can do it. If that were the case, the entire field of Contract Law need not exist.

echelon 6y ago
Per item 1, now would be a good time for every single developer on the app store to revolt in unison. Collective bargaining.
- dawnerd 6y ago
  and for every dev that left you'd have a shady one step in the fill the void.
  - meowface 6y ago
    "Apple: Think Moloch"
  - scarface74 6y ago
    You mean like all of the shady developers who are already in the App Store selling in app purchases for loot boxes, useless virtual currency and play to win games? I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille. I would much rather see BaseCamp (Hey) or the company that was selling virtual workouts with real trainers take them to court. If Apple was really about protecting users and cared about the quality of the App Store they would prohibit in app purchases for games with consumables.
    - latexr 6y ago
      > I would much rather see BaseCamp (Hey) or the company that was selling virtual workouts with real trainers take them to court. I wouldn’t, because they’d be crushed. I’d rather that if someone takes Apple to court, it’s someone with the resources to make a dent. > I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille. Even if you think they’re equivalent, the difference is the former is taking an action that—even if for selfish reasons—can have a positive impact on independent developers.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        Who has a better story to tell Epic “we want to sell useless virtual goods with 0 marginal cost” or BaseCamp - “we run a small business, pay our employees well, always sought to be profitable instead of VC funding, etc.” Everybody eats up the small business angle. Besides DHH is a lot less slimy than anyone who Epic parades out. If they started a GoFundMe, I would donate to their legal defense. What Epic wants will probably never happen. What BaseCamp wants - just basically to be treated like Netflix and the other “reader apps” is much more realistic and it’s fair to the actual indy developers of cross platform useful apps who could do their own marketing.
        latexr 6y ago
        > Who has a better story to tell Basecamp’s story is irrelevant if they’re forced into bankruptcy before they get the chance to tell it where it makes a difference. We’re not watching a feel good movie where the righteous little guy prevails. They’d get squashed and tossed aside, and they know it.
        scarface74 6y ago
        So it’s better to have yet another avenue for shady developers to take advantage of “whales” via loot boxes and in game consumables - the very thing that the government is going after? What jury is going to care that Epic can’t sell useless virtual currency and make a larger profit?
- cableshaft 6y ago
  I did my part. I haven't had my stuff on the app store for years! Although I was working on a small Swift game to refresh my mobile app dev skills, but it's on the backburner right now anyway.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- vaxman 6y ago
  Trust me, Apple does not care. When a company or government with centralized management like that makes a blow-it move, there is an army of people in place to reinforce their decision and attack everyone in opposition so as to maintain their own sense of self worth. You can’t bargain with that. HTML5 and WASM —and since you will need one for testing anyway, a Pixel 5/4a, S20 Ultra or Note S20 could be fun for learning Android.

Gorbzel 6y ago

B/c in that case Apple would be doing what the haters erroneously claim they do now: making 100% arbitrary/capricious decisions when it comes to the App Store walled garden. As those of us who target iOS know, they're not transparent, but it's not arbitrary. Thank god. We'd never hear the end of unsolicited opinions about the Touch Bar and HN's annual subscription to the year of desktop Linux.

arvinsim 6y ago
How would you know that they are not arbitrary if they are transparent?
- vaxman 6y ago
  I think you meant “are NOT transparent”. You can see their calculating ways if you look carefully —can’t have too many fart apps you know, too many fart apps are bad for the user. Nevermind if you have the best fart app ever —you can’t even load it on your friends’ phones or show it to the guy deciding whether or not to give you a scholarship because, you know, a prick in Cupertino who has his own reality that’s pretty far removed from the rest if the world thinks that too many fart apps are an unpleasant experience for all one billion potential fart app users. Yea silly, but the type of app doesn’t matter when considering questions of “arbitrary” consideration.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
> but it's not arbitrary Then why does Amazon get a special deal?
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  They don't. All subscriptions drop to 15% after the first year so Apple is just counting the existing time where they were figuring out the process. That still applies to everyone, not just Amazon.
vaxman 6y ago
> it’s not arbitrary No, they justify ruining some developers based on some criteria that they then justify with the logic that (a) the developer wouldn’t have had any money if it weren’t for Apple to begin with and (b) they “care so deeply” for the Apple “users” that they can’t allow the developer’s life work (or livelihood) to exist and make any kind of unpleasantness available for consumers to choose.

awinder 6y ago

The reason is in the document, simply, because while the case is ongoing the judge wants to decrease, not increase, the difficulty in calculating damages.

dkonofalski 6y ago

Because, let's be honest, Apple doesn't want to set a precedent that they'll do that without first trying to resolve issues with developers. It's a super bad look for them to just immediately terminate any agreement they have issue with and would just push developers away from attempting development on the platform. Apple has all the leverage in this situation and a ton of good will built up among developers. They want to give Epic a chance to admit wrongdoing and resolve the issue.