4 ms·

I think your general point is valid, but the first line of this is literally: > Apple is preventing Epic from signing games and patches for distribution on Mac

I think your general point is valid, but the first line of this is literally: > Apple is preventing Epic from signing games and patches for distribution on Mac, which ends our ability to develop and offer Fortnite: Save the World for the platform. If we assume that that statement is true (and isn't Epic straight up lying), it's pretty clear cut that this is Apple's decision and not Epic's. By taking away Epic's capability to release updates, Apple is the one that has made the decision. Again, unless you are insinuating that Epic is lying.

dpkonofa 6y ago
>it's pretty clear cut that this is Apple's decision and not Epic's This is a chicken or egg problem. Epic was the one that violated the rules of the App Store, not Apple. If Epic hadn't done that, Apple wouldn't have been forced to take away their capabilities to provide updates. You can follow that chain of events without insinuating that Epic is lying.
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  > one that violated the rules of the App Store, not Apple This is an invalid comparison because Apple cannot, by definition of them writing the rules with the ability to change them whenever they want, violate the "rules" of the App Store. Phrasing it like this implies that "Apple violating the rules" is even a possibility.
  - dpkonofa 6y ago
    You're using a silly grammatical error to gloss over the entire point of my statement. Apple obviously can't violate their own rules. That wasn't the point. The point was that the impetus of the situation was Epic, not Apple. Epic willingly chose to violate the rules and that kicked off the whole situation. If you want me to rephrase the statement, then here: "Epic was the one that violated the rules of the App Store. Apple didn't start the chain of events that caused this situation. Epic did." Happier?
- larrik 6y ago
  They violated the rules of the iOS App Store, this is the Mac one. In fact, it effectively blocks them from releasing it as a direct download as well. This is likely going to be a significant mistake from Apple in hindsight.
  - dpkonofa 6y ago
    It's one agreement and Epic violated it.
    - larrik 6y ago
      I'm pretty sure they are separate agreements and separate charges, and therefore separate transactions and contracts.
      - rsfinn 6y ago
        This has not been true since 2015, when the various developer programs (Mac, iOS, and Safari) were combined into a single Apple Developer program (for $99/year). Source: I've been a member of the Apple Developer program since at least 2006, which was the first year I attended WWDC. The current program is described at <https://developer.apple.com/programs/ https://developer.apple.com/programs/>.
- noelsusman 6y ago
  Epic publishing an app on iOS that breaks Apple's policies does not force Apple to prevent Epic from publishing any software on any of their platforms. That's a choice Apple made. The whole thing is a choice by Apple because Apple is the one writing the policies in the first place. They're not forced to do anything, it's their platform.
shajznnckfke 6y ago
Apple’s argument is that Epic forced this action by violating their contract. Epic will respond that the contract is unfair and illegal, and Apple’s treatment of different developers under the contract is inconsistent. It ends up being a conversation about who you favor in the Apple vs Epic fight, and not really a falsifiable factual question.
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  The statement "Apple is preventing Epic from signing games and patches for distribution" is 100% a falsifiable factual question. Because your argument seems to be "well Epic made them do it", you don't seem to disagree that it is true either.
- JaggedJax 6y ago
  But did epic actually violate any part of their MacOS developer agreement, or just their iOS agreement? I've seen some conflicting information here that makes it seems as though Epic did nothing wrong on the MacOS side.
  - nrmitchi 6y ago
    The Apple-defense being pushed here seems to be that all Apple agreements are one Apple agreement. Ie, if you have an issue with Apple in one are of business, that Apple-as-a-company can retaliate in any other area of business. It will get interesting if it extends to (although I can't image it would) "Epic violated our App Store rules, therefore we were forced to disable Apple services usage from all of their Apple devices. Unfortunately for security reasons Apple devices are unable to function without those Apple services".
    - nodamage 6y ago
      Framing this as an "Apple-defense" seems kind of odd when it's just the legal reality of the situation. There is a single agreement that covers development for all Apple products. The fact that you might be involved in multiple areas of business is no more relevant here than it would be if you had a food delivery app, a yoga app, and a music app. The same agreement governs all of your conduct with Apple.

dpkonofa 6y ago

>it's pretty clear cut that this is Apple's decision and not Epic's This is a chicken or egg problem. Epic was the one that violated the rules of the App Store, not Apple. If Epic hadn't done that, Apple wouldn't have been forced to take away their capabilities to provide updates. You can follow that chain of events without insinuating that Epic is lying.

nrmitchi 6y ago
> one that violated the rules of the App Store, not Apple This is an invalid comparison because Apple cannot, by definition of them writing the rules with the ability to change them whenever they want, violate the "rules" of the App Store. Phrasing it like this implies that "Apple violating the rules" is even a possibility.
- dpkonofa 6y ago
  You're using a silly grammatical error to gloss over the entire point of my statement. Apple obviously can't violate their own rules. That wasn't the point. The point was that the impetus of the situation was Epic, not Apple. Epic willingly chose to violate the rules and that kicked off the whole situation. If you want me to rephrase the statement, then here: "Epic was the one that violated the rules of the App Store. Apple didn't start the chain of events that caused this situation. Epic did." Happier?
larrik 6y ago
They violated the rules of the iOS App Store, this is the Mac one. In fact, it effectively blocks them from releasing it as a direct download as well. This is likely going to be a significant mistake from Apple in hindsight.
- dpkonofa 6y ago
  It's one agreement and Epic violated it.
  - larrik 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure they are separate agreements and separate charges, and therefore separate transactions and contracts.
    - rsfinn 6y ago
      This has not been true since 2015, when the various developer programs (Mac, iOS, and Safari) were combined into a single Apple Developer program (for $99/year). Source: I've been a member of the Apple Developer program since at least 2006, which was the first year I attended WWDC. The current program is described at <https://developer.apple.com/programs/ https://developer.apple.com/programs/>.
noelsusman 6y ago
Epic publishing an app on iOS that breaks Apple's policies does not force Apple to prevent Epic from publishing any software on any of their platforms. That's a choice Apple made. The whole thing is a choice by Apple because Apple is the one writing the policies in the first place. They're not forced to do anything, it's their platform.

shajznnckfke 6y ago

Apple’s argument is that Epic forced this action by violating their contract. Epic will respond that the contract is unfair and illegal, and Apple’s treatment of different developers under the contract is inconsistent. It ends up being a conversation about who you favor in the Apple vs Epic fight, and not really a falsifiable factual question.

nrmitchi 6y ago
The statement "Apple is preventing Epic from signing games and patches for distribution" is 100% a falsifiable factual question. Because your argument seems to be "well Epic made them do it", you don't seem to disagree that it is true either.
JaggedJax 6y ago
But did epic actually violate any part of their MacOS developer agreement, or just their iOS agreement? I've seen some conflicting information here that makes it seems as though Epic did nothing wrong on the MacOS side.
- nrmitchi 6y ago
  The Apple-defense being pushed here seems to be that all Apple agreements are one Apple agreement. Ie, if you have an issue with Apple in one are of business, that Apple-as-a-company can retaliate in any other area of business. It will get interesting if it extends to (although I can't image it would) "Epic violated our App Store rules, therefore we were forced to disable Apple services usage from all of their Apple devices. Unfortunately for security reasons Apple devices are unable to function without those Apple services".
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Framing this as an "Apple-defense" seems kind of odd when it's just the legal reality of the situation. There is a single agreement that covers development for all Apple products. The fact that you might be involved in multiple areas of business is no more relevant here than it would be if you had a food delivery app, a yoga app, and a music app. The same agreement governs all of your conduct with Apple.