3 ms·

I agree there are some hints of bias, but I wouldn't think it's a biased piece. You don't think Apple's arguments are objectively presented?

• zepto 6y ago
  One thing which clearly is not objectively presented is the claim to have easily debunked Apple’s argument that Epic asked for a sweetheart deal. Wherever you end up, it’s not ‘trivially debunked’ just because of a line in Epic’s letter, which can reasonably be suspected to have been placed there only to serve this argument, and not because it was sincere. We have to contend with Epic’s insincerity and self interest at every level of this, even if we ultimately believe a world with more stores on iOS would be a good one, and that has to include not seeing anything they say as ‘trivial’ or reflective of anything other than a designed legal strategy, which clearly includes deception and intentional breach of contract. Again - maybe these moves are necessary in some broader arc of history towards a more healthy software market, but Epic is clearly willing to use dishonest to get what they want, and therefore nothing about what they claim can be treated as trivially true or false. As for the article, note that it doesn’t “trivially confirm” Apple’s claim that epic has created the damage for itself by not just reverting the deceptive update. The article is an argument in favor of Epic’s position, not just a briefing or fact summary.