11 ms·

Regardless of how you feel about Apple versus Epic, we should all be clear about one thing here: there is no "perceived" infringement of the iOS rules. Epic br

by abduhl 6y ago

Regardless of how you feel about Apple versus Epic, we should all be clear about one thing here: there is no "perceived" infringement of the iOS rules. Epic broke the rules. They do not even try to deny that they breached their contract with Apple in their lawsuit, but rather attack the contract directly as being illegal. Their approach is analogous to you being caught going 120 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone and you challenging whether the speed limit is legal.

fxtentacle 6y ago
Epic's stance is that the rule was never enforceable to begin with, which would make breaking that rule not an infringement of the contract. But in any case, no court has ruled in Apple's favor yet, and Epic denies their claim, so at the moment the infringement is perceived to exist by Apple, but not proven as fact yet.
- abduhl 6y ago
  That is a very weird way to interpret the phrase "broke the rule." Just because the rule is invalid does not mean that you didn't break it, it just means that you can't be punished for breaking it.
  - stevehawk 6y ago
    It's kind of how it works. Like, if I sign a contract with Company A that is, by legal definitions, invalid, then they can't sue me for breach of contract because it was never a valid contract to begin with. I assume that's one of the arguments that Epic is making here.
    - abduhl 6y ago
      This is a giant misunderstanding of how contract law works. Company A can certainly sue you for breach of contract and the burden of proof would be on you to show that the contract is invalid. The law looks kindly upon the aggrieved party and frowns upon parties that breach a contract. I'm sure you can come up with plenty of examples of contracts that are on their face invalid and which would be ludicrous to sue over ("what if it was a contract to kill someone!?"); however, the contract at issue here is certainly not so clear cut and, even in those cases, they could still sue you for breach of contract and you would need to still prove that the contract is invalid (no matter how easily it could be done). A subsidiary question: if the contract is so obviously illegal, why did you (or Epic) agree to it?
      - stale2002 6y ago
        The point being that the rules are arguably illegal. So it does not make sense to phrase this conversation as "They broke the rules!", because that is implying that they did something "wrong". > if the contract is so obviously illegal, why did you (or Epic) agree to it? Because Apple has significant market power, as defined by US anti-trust law, and is using that market power in an illegal manner? Thats the point. Apple is illegally using its market power, to push these contracts.
        nodamage 6y ago
        > So it does not make sense to phrase this conversation as "They broke the rules!", because that is implying that they did something "wrong". That's because they did. Apple's developer agreement (like most contracts) has a severability clause that says if any individual term of the contract is unenforceable, the rest of the contract still remains in effect. This means that even if Epic's theory of the case is right, they still breached the contract by sneaking hidden code into the App Store, and Apple can still legally exercise their right to terminate the contract.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > Apple can still legally exercise their right to terminate the contract. No, not if ending the contract helps them maintain their significant market power, and helps Apple continue their illegal anti-competitive behavior, or helps keep out competitors. The courts have ruled in the past, that if enforcement of certain contract provisions helps a company maintain their significant market power, then this all falls under anti-competitive behavior, and can all be illegal. This is generally referred to as the concept of "monopoly maintenance". Contract enforcement, that would be otherwise legal in other situations, can be illegal, if it is helps maintain a companies market position. > That's because they did. Nope. Companies have no obligation to follow illegally anti-competitive contracts. If the contract is illegally anti-competitive, then they can break it. And the company that is trying to maintain their illegally anti-competitive market position can be forced to take certain actions, and continue to deal with the company that was within their rights to not follow the anti-competitive contract.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    That goes to political philosophy and the concept "A law not enforced is no law at all." Technically, some states still have laws in the books that certain types of sex is punishable as "sodomy," regardless of the consent of the practitioners. Since the US Supreme Court ruled that it's a violation of civil rights to constrain two consenting adults on how they get freaky in the bedroom, the existence of those laws is utterly moot. Are they still "laws" if nobody can enforce them?
- nodamage 6y ago
  Not quite. Apple's developer agreement specifically states they can terminate your developer account if you violate the App Store Review Guidelines. The App Store Review Guidelines say you're not allowed to sneak hidden code into your app. Epic very clearly broke that rule and therefore broke the agreement. That Epic alleges some of the other terms of the agreement relating to Apple's IAP commissions are not enforceable doesn't change the fact that Epic did actually break the agreement. (Keep in mind the agreement also has a severability clause that states that if any individual term is found unenforceable, the rest of the agreement remains in effect.)
- DarkmSparks 6y ago
  And in the meantime Epic is accruing quite the sizable damages claim against Apple. Obviously not as large an amount as Apple stand to lose once a court decides they are stealing from developers, but a tidy bundle for Epic for standing up for us.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - geerlingguy 6y ago
    I don't think Epic is standing up for 'us'. They have their own self-interests in mind, and they stand to gain a boatload of money (from developers like 'us') if they can get a victory.
    - DarkmSparks 6y ago
      I'm 100% sure they have their own self interest in mind. But if it was solely that they could easily have negotiated a fee cut and left everyone else in the lurch. Or perhaps they tried and this was the next step. Either way we all stand to gain from google and apple stores being forced to play by the same rules everyone else has to abide by.
      - viscanti 6y ago
        No business is forced to deal with anyone else. So google and apple stores are playing by the same rules as every other store in the world. Companies can't win a lawsuit against Whole Foods for not allowing their products to be sold in Whole Foods. Apple and Google have both seen how the completely open app download model works (it's been how PCs have worked for a long time). Most consumers want their phones to work and not have any risk of downloading spyware or viruses or apps that brick their phone. Most consumers don't want to research every app to see if the app is trustworthy enough to trust with their identity information or payment information. That said, there's probably a middle ground between where Apple/Google are now and a completely open marketplace that gets most customers what they're hoping to get while also giving larger app developers more of what they want.
- jacurtis 6y ago
  Epic's stance is that Apple is being anti-competitive and monopolistic. Epic knows that they broke the rule and they anticipated that Apple would react to the breaking of the rule. What they are trying to prove is that Apple can retaliate against a multi-BILLION dollar corporation in a way that not only hits the bottom line of the corporation, but it also has a negative effect on consumers (because ultimately the breaking of Antitrust laws in the USA revolves mostly around consumer damage, not corporate damage). Epic is making sure that they do everything "right" in the best interest of the consumer, as Apple takes all these various actions against them. So in this case, they are now doing blanket refunds for this game (which by the way is technically a different game than the one that originally violated the rules on iOS). Epic is making sure that they have done the best for the consumer during each of these reactions that Apple has made. Eventually we will see a court case about this where Epic basically shows exactly this. Apple cares more about itself and its' money than the consumers and made these reactions that do not benefit the consumer, but benefit themselves. Meanwhile poor little Epic, the "victim", continued to valiantly do the right thing for consumers while being bullied by scary Apple. Also they want to show the extent that Apple controls Epic's business. Lastly, if a multi-billion dollar corporation like Epic can't take on Apple... what chance does the independent developer have to take on Apple? Everyone must play by Apple's rules or pay the dire consequences for it. This whole cat and mouse game between Apple and Epic is exactly that. Epic is just collecting ammunition right now to eventually convince governments to do something against Apple's dominance.
  - diminish 6y ago
    Awesome reading into everything. It's hard to find such analysis in A$PL related news - as the fanatism of some users seem to be the reason why they do all that evil.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Try telling Steam customers that Epic is doing everything right for consumers.
    - dpkonofa 6y ago
      Seriously... the support for Epic here is not only irrational but flat-out misleading.
- dpkonofa 6y ago
  >no court has ruled in Apple's favor yet The court hasn't ruled yet but the judge on the case has agreed with all of Apple's responses and denied all of Epic's claims in the preliminary injunction. The only action taken was to prevent Apple from continuing further action based on what's in the terms until damages could be established.
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Your analogy is a little loaded because everyone knows that driving 120 in a 40 is dangerous. A less loaded analogy would be doing something like taking a picture of the police in a state where it's not legal. Something that could be argued either way.
- abduhl 6y ago
  I used the speeding analogy because it shares many similarities: speed limits are posted (Epic read the contract), you are aware that exceeding them is breaking the law generally (Epic knew what would breach the contract), and you agreed to follow that rule when you got a license (Epic signed the contract). Taking a picture of a cop is not similar: it's not illegal to take a picture of a cop in public generally, everyone knows that, and you never agreed to not take a cop's picture in any way.
  - DarkmSparks 6y ago
    A better speeding analogy would be your neigbour putting up a 5mph limit sign on your street then saying he doesnt have to give your lawn mower back because you broke it.
    - skygazer 6y ago
      It sounds like you’re implying it should be safe to sign any contract you don’t intend to honor, so far as it’s your opinion it’s a ridiculous contract. I’m not certain that’s true in practice.
      - DarkmSparks 6y ago
        Its perfectly safe to invalidate a contract in court, recommended practice even.
    - dpkonofa 6y ago
      How is that a better analogy in any way? A better analogy would be going to a race track and breaking the rules and having them tell you that you can't race your car there anymore. Apple owns their app store. In the same way that no one can force a mom and pop shop to sell their goods, no one can force Apple to sell their goods.
BLKNSLVR 6y ago
By locking Epic out of MacOS version game updates aren't Apple punishing Epic outside the bounds of the agreement Epic is accused of breaking? That's like being caught for speeding, but being punished for breaking and entering in addition to speeding.
- zepto 6y ago
  Apple isn’t punishing Epic for anything. They had a business agreement. Epic isn’t just ‘accused’ of breaking the agreement. They admit that they did so. They could have disputed the agreement in court without breaking it first, but they chose to break it. Apple has no reason to continue to do business with Epic. Epic is clearly demonstrating their hostility to Apple. It would be self-harm, and possibly even a breach of fiduciary duty for Apple to continue to do business with a hostile party.
- LexGray 6y ago
  Or perhaps better stated that after being caught speeding multiple times they have their license taken away.
gameswithgo 6y ago
Right, like when Rosa Parks went to the front of the bus. It is a commonly used tactic to fight unjust laws by first breaking them.
- scblock 6y ago
  What a terrible example to use as a comparison to two giant companies with lots of power fighting over mutually agreed to contracts.
  - bredren 6y ago
    At best it shows a complete miss on the meaning of Rosa Parks' bravery and the value civil rights overall.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    Rosa parks wasn't one person making a stand, she was working on behalf of a group of people that wanted to change the law and needed a case to get behind. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing, it was pre-planned and supported by many people. That group obviously didn't compare to the government they were standing up against, but they were far larger than any individual person. In that respect, it is very similar factually, even if you find it repugnant to equate the two in any way.
- graeme 6y ago
  The rosa parks case required the law to be broken. The law could only be challenged by a plaintiff who has standing. In Epic’s case, they could have sued without violating the terms. The judge presiding over the case has been very clear on this. Epic already has standing by nature of being an Apple developer. There are many reasons the two situations are not comparable, but the very basis of your analogy is incorrect.
  - justadudeama 6y ago
    I think epic braking the rules makes their case much stronger. If they say "Apple's rules are unfair" they have a much stronger case if they can show damages caused by Apple's unfairness. My guess this is just another example of them showing the courts that Apple cost them $X in lost revenue because they could no longer make any money on macOS. The update was live for a couple hours, and I am sure a lot of people purchased the cheaper (against the rules) option. They now have an exact number to tell the courts how much they are loosing to Apple, instead of a hypothetical situation where Apple could argue that customers love apple pay and would use apple pay over 3rd party payment systems.
Bud 6y ago
Let's also remember that Epic didn't just breach the contract. They made a detailed plan, in advance, to breach the contract, and prepared attack ads against Apple to run immediately after their planned breach, and they prepared a detailed PR attack agenda to unleash as well. If I were Apple, I'd be tempted to unleash hell and completely destroy Epic over this. That's what Epic deserves.
- travisjungroth 6y ago
  There’s a difference between what someone deserves and what’s legal to dole out. Epic saw a play in breaking their contract strategically and then claiming it was illegal in the first place. Apple is “unleashing hell”, but the problem is that’s (likely) illegal. It’s going to count as retaliation.
- Razengan 6y ago
  I agree. Companies bigger than Epic [0] have tried to use scummy tactics to drag Apple into the dirt, and though they got their few minutes in the limelight from doing so because of the tall poppy syndrome, we hardly hear about them in the news anymore, while Apple is more successful and popular as ever. Honestly, the sooner these so-called devs complaining about Apple pack up and leave the better. Apple doesn't need you and Apple's users don't want you. Good riddance and good luck making your fortunes on Android. [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+paid+students+to+write+reviews https://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+paid+students+to+wri...
whoisthemachine 6y ago
Except most speed limits are set by a government and not by a private entity.
thewileyone 6y ago
Apple needs to disclose their agreement with Netflix, which gives away their app for free and charges outside of the ecosystem. This is just one example.

by abduhl 6y ago

fxtentacle 6y ago

Epic's stance is that the rule was never enforceable to begin with, which would make breaking that rule not an infringement of the contract. But in any case, no court has ruled in Apple's favor yet, and Epic denies their claim, so at the moment the infringement is perceived to exist by Apple, but not proven as fact yet.

abduhl 6y ago
That is a very weird way to interpret the phrase "broke the rule." Just because the rule is invalid does not mean that you didn't break it, it just means that you can't be punished for breaking it.
- stevehawk 6y ago
  It's kind of how it works. Like, if I sign a contract with Company A that is, by legal definitions, invalid, then they can't sue me for breach of contract because it was never a valid contract to begin with. I assume that's one of the arguments that Epic is making here.
  - abduhl 6y ago
    This is a giant misunderstanding of how contract law works. Company A can certainly sue you for breach of contract and the burden of proof would be on you to show that the contract is invalid. The law looks kindly upon the aggrieved party and frowns upon parties that breach a contract. I'm sure you can come up with plenty of examples of contracts that are on their face invalid and which would be ludicrous to sue over ("what if it was a contract to kill someone!?"); however, the contract at issue here is certainly not so clear cut and, even in those cases, they could still sue you for breach of contract and you would need to still prove that the contract is invalid (no matter how easily it could be done). A subsidiary question: if the contract is so obviously illegal, why did you (or Epic) agree to it?
    - stale2002 6y ago
      The point being that the rules are arguably illegal. So it does not make sense to phrase this conversation as "They broke the rules!", because that is implying that they did something "wrong". > if the contract is so obviously illegal, why did you (or Epic) agree to it? Because Apple has significant market power, as defined by US anti-trust law, and is using that market power in an illegal manner? Thats the point. Apple is illegally using its market power, to push these contracts.
      - nodamage 6y ago
        > So it does not make sense to phrase this conversation as "They broke the rules!", because that is implying that they did something "wrong". That's because they did. Apple's developer agreement (like most contracts) has a severability clause that says if any individual term of the contract is unenforceable, the rest of the contract still remains in effect. This means that even if Epic's theory of the case is right, they still breached the contract by sneaking hidden code into the App Store, and Apple can still legally exercise their right to terminate the contract.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > Apple can still legally exercise their right to terminate the contract. No, not if ending the contract helps them maintain their significant market power, and helps Apple continue their illegal anti-competitive behavior, or helps keep out competitors. The courts have ruled in the past, that if enforcement of certain contract provisions helps a company maintain their significant market power, then this all falls under anti-competitive behavior, and can all be illegal. This is generally referred to as the concept of "monopoly maintenance". Contract enforcement, that would be otherwise legal in other situations, can be illegal, if it is helps maintain a companies market position. > That's because they did. Nope. Companies have no obligation to follow illegally anti-competitive contracts. If the contract is illegally anti-competitive, then they can break it. And the company that is trying to maintain their illegally anti-competitive market position can be forced to take certain actions, and continue to deal with the company that was within their rights to not follow the anti-competitive contract.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  That goes to political philosophy and the concept "A law not enforced is no law at all." Technically, some states still have laws in the books that certain types of sex is punishable as "sodomy," regardless of the consent of the practitioners. Since the US Supreme Court ruled that it's a violation of civil rights to constrain two consenting adults on how they get freaky in the bedroom, the existence of those laws is utterly moot. Are they still "laws" if nobody can enforce them?
nodamage 6y ago
Not quite. Apple's developer agreement specifically states they can terminate your developer account if you violate the App Store Review Guidelines. The App Store Review Guidelines say you're not allowed to sneak hidden code into your app. Epic very clearly broke that rule and therefore broke the agreement. That Epic alleges some of the other terms of the agreement relating to Apple's IAP commissions are not enforceable doesn't change the fact that Epic did actually break the agreement. (Keep in mind the agreement also has a severability clause that states that if any individual term is found unenforceable, the rest of the agreement remains in effect.)
DarkmSparks 6y ago
And in the meantime Epic is accruing quite the sizable damages claim against Apple. Obviously not as large an amount as Apple stand to lose once a court decides they are stealing from developers, but a tidy bundle for Epic for standing up for us.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- geerlingguy 6y ago
  I don't think Epic is standing up for 'us'. They have their own self-interests in mind, and they stand to gain a boatload of money (from developers like 'us') if they can get a victory.
  - DarkmSparks 6y ago
    I'm 100% sure they have their own self interest in mind. But if it was solely that they could easily have negotiated a fee cut and left everyone else in the lurch. Or perhaps they tried and this was the next step. Either way we all stand to gain from google and apple stores being forced to play by the same rules everyone else has to abide by.
    - viscanti 6y ago
      No business is forced to deal with anyone else. So google and apple stores are playing by the same rules as every other store in the world. Companies can't win a lawsuit against Whole Foods for not allowing their products to be sold in Whole Foods. Apple and Google have both seen how the completely open app download model works (it's been how PCs have worked for a long time). Most consumers want their phones to work and not have any risk of downloading spyware or viruses or apps that brick their phone. Most consumers don't want to research every app to see if the app is trustworthy enough to trust with their identity information or payment information. That said, there's probably a middle ground between where Apple/Google are now and a completely open marketplace that gets most customers what they're hoping to get while also giving larger app developers more of what they want.
jacurtis 6y ago
Epic's stance is that Apple is being anti-competitive and monopolistic. Epic knows that they broke the rule and they anticipated that Apple would react to the breaking of the rule. What they are trying to prove is that Apple can retaliate against a multi-BILLION dollar corporation in a way that not only hits the bottom line of the corporation, but it also has a negative effect on consumers (because ultimately the breaking of Antitrust laws in the USA revolves mostly around consumer damage, not corporate damage). Epic is making sure that they do everything "right" in the best interest of the consumer, as Apple takes all these various actions against them. So in this case, they are now doing blanket refunds for this game (which by the way is technically a different game than the one that originally violated the rules on iOS). Epic is making sure that they have done the best for the consumer during each of these reactions that Apple has made. Eventually we will see a court case about this where Epic basically shows exactly this. Apple cares more about itself and its' money than the consumers and made these reactions that do not benefit the consumer, but benefit themselves. Meanwhile poor little Epic, the "victim", continued to valiantly do the right thing for consumers while being bullied by scary Apple. Also they want to show the extent that Apple controls Epic's business. Lastly, if a multi-billion dollar corporation like Epic can't take on Apple... what chance does the independent developer have to take on Apple? Everyone must play by Apple's rules or pay the dire consequences for it. This whole cat and mouse game between Apple and Epic is exactly that. Epic is just collecting ammunition right now to eventually convince governments to do something against Apple's dominance.
- diminish 6y ago
  Awesome reading into everything. It's hard to find such analysis in A$PL related news - as the fanatism of some users seem to be the reason why they do all that evil.
- zepto 6y ago
  Try telling Steam customers that Epic is doing everything right for consumers.
  - dpkonofa 6y ago
    Seriously... the support for Epic here is not only irrational but flat-out misleading.
dpkonofa 6y ago
>no court has ruled in Apple's favor yet The court hasn't ruled yet but the judge on the case has agreed with all of Apple's responses and denied all of Epic's claims in the preliminary injunction. The only action taken was to prevent Apple from continuing further action based on what's in the terms until damages could be established.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

Your analogy is a little loaded because everyone knows that driving 120 in a 40 is dangerous. A less loaded analogy would be doing something like taking a picture of the police in a state where it's not legal. Something that could be argued either way.

abduhl 6y ago
I used the speeding analogy because it shares many similarities: speed limits are posted (Epic read the contract), you are aware that exceeding them is breaking the law generally (Epic knew what would breach the contract), and you agreed to follow that rule when you got a license (Epic signed the contract). Taking a picture of a cop is not similar: it's not illegal to take a picture of a cop in public generally, everyone knows that, and you never agreed to not take a cop's picture in any way.
- DarkmSparks 6y ago
  A better speeding analogy would be your neigbour putting up a 5mph limit sign on your street then saying he doesnt have to give your lawn mower back because you broke it.
  - skygazer 6y ago
    It sounds like you’re implying it should be safe to sign any contract you don’t intend to honor, so far as it’s your opinion it’s a ridiculous contract. I’m not certain that’s true in practice.
    - DarkmSparks 6y ago
      Its perfectly safe to invalidate a contract in court, recommended practice even.
  - dpkonofa 6y ago
    How is that a better analogy in any way? A better analogy would be going to a race track and breaking the rules and having them tell you that you can't race your car there anymore. Apple owns their app store. In the same way that no one can force a mom and pop shop to sell their goods, no one can force Apple to sell their goods.

BLKNSLVR 6y ago

By locking Epic out of MacOS version game updates aren't Apple punishing Epic outside the bounds of the agreement Epic is accused of breaking? That's like being caught for speeding, but being punished for breaking and entering in addition to speeding.

zepto 6y ago
Apple isn’t punishing Epic for anything. They had a business agreement. Epic isn’t just ‘accused’ of breaking the agreement. They admit that they did so. They could have disputed the agreement in court without breaking it first, but they chose to break it. Apple has no reason to continue to do business with Epic. Epic is clearly demonstrating their hostility to Apple. It would be self-harm, and possibly even a breach of fiduciary duty for Apple to continue to do business with a hostile party.
LexGray 6y ago
Or perhaps better stated that after being caught speeding multiple times they have their license taken away.

gameswithgo 6y ago

Right, like when Rosa Parks went to the front of the bus. It is a commonly used tactic to fight unjust laws by first breaking them.

scblock 6y ago
What a terrible example to use as a comparison to two giant companies with lots of power fighting over mutually agreed to contracts.
- bredren 6y ago
  At best it shows a complete miss on the meaning of Rosa Parks' bravery and the value civil rights overall.
- kbenson 6y ago
  Rosa parks wasn't one person making a stand, she was working on behalf of a group of people that wanted to change the law and needed a case to get behind. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing, it was pre-planned and supported by many people. That group obviously didn't compare to the government they were standing up against, but they were far larger than any individual person. In that respect, it is very similar factually, even if you find it repugnant to equate the two in any way.
graeme 6y ago
The rosa parks case required the law to be broken. The law could only be challenged by a plaintiff who has standing. In Epic’s case, they could have sued without violating the terms. The judge presiding over the case has been very clear on this. Epic already has standing by nature of being an Apple developer. There are many reasons the two situations are not comparable, but the very basis of your analogy is incorrect.
- justadudeama 6y ago
  I think epic braking the rules makes their case much stronger. If they say "Apple's rules are unfair" they have a much stronger case if they can show damages caused by Apple's unfairness. My guess this is just another example of them showing the courts that Apple cost them $X in lost revenue because they could no longer make any money on macOS. The update was live for a couple hours, and I am sure a lot of people purchased the cheaper (against the rules) option. They now have an exact number to tell the courts how much they are loosing to Apple, instead of a hypothetical situation where Apple could argue that customers love apple pay and would use apple pay over 3rd party payment systems.

Bud 6y ago

Let's also remember that Epic didn't just breach the contract. They made a detailed plan, in advance, to breach the contract, and prepared attack ads against Apple to run immediately after their planned breach, and they prepared a detailed PR attack agenda to unleash as well. If I were Apple, I'd be tempted to unleash hell and completely destroy Epic over this. That's what Epic deserves.

travisjungroth 6y ago
There’s a difference between what someone deserves and what’s legal to dole out. Epic saw a play in breaking their contract strategically and then claiming it was illegal in the first place. Apple is “unleashing hell”, but the problem is that’s (likely) illegal. It’s going to count as retaliation.
Razengan 6y ago
I agree. Companies bigger than Epic [0] have tried to use scummy tactics to drag Apple into the dirt, and though they got their few minutes in the limelight from doing so because of the tall poppy syndrome, we hardly hear about them in the news anymore, while Apple is more successful and popular as ever. Honestly, the sooner these so-called devs complaining about Apple pack up and leave the better. Apple doesn't need you and Apple's users don't want you. Good riddance and good luck making your fortunes on Android. [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+paid+students+to+write+reviews https://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+paid+students+to+wri...

whoisthemachine 6y ago

Except most speed limits are set by a government and not by a private entity.

thewileyone 6y ago

Apple needs to disclose their agreement with Netflix, which gives away their app for free and charges outside of the ecosystem. This is just one example.