5 ms·

I would consider Epic's action the corporate equivalent of civil disobedience, which is a form of protest. Fighting back seems an apt description for such a pro

I would consider Epic's action the corporate equivalent of civil disobedience, which is a form of protest. Fighting back seems an apt description for such a protest.

ddingus 6y ago
I agree. While it is all still playing out, it does appear Epic made a mark on things sufficient to change the discussion.
chongli 6y ago
It’s like civil disobedience but it’s backed by profit motive rather than human rights. That makes it much less of a clear cut moral victory. During these discussions a lot of people on HN have come forward and expressed their support for Apple’s walled garden. They like that Apple keeps malware out. Should Epic win and the iPhone be fixed wide open, that could change the situation dramatically. Of course, I think Epic would be happy if they won a special exemption for their own marketplace but with the status quo remaining for everyone else.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  Civil disobedience is not by definition limited to specific causes such as human rights. Many actions during union strikes (e.g. not respecting a back-to-work legislation or picketing on company property) would fit the definition too, even if the only reason for the strike is disagreement over remuneration, i.e. profit motive. In fact, the Wikipedia article for civil disobedience has a picture of a union member on strike about to be arrested.
donkeyd 6y ago
The term being correct doesn't take away that they weren't banned for fighting back. They were banned for breaking rules that were clear beforehand.
- webmobdev 6y ago
  Rules that were unfair. I protest as a consumer as an unnecessary Apple tax to install paid software is an unfair burden that should be illegal.
  - donkeyd 6y ago
    Do you feel the same way about anything sold on Amazon? Or in supermarkets? Or is that in some way different?
    - jsjohnst 6y ago
      Just to emphasize your point, 30% take is relatively small in the retail world. A store like Amazon or Walmart or Target or Best Buy generally wants a cut of 40-50%, if not more. And that doesn’t include the cut many distributors want to take for being the middle person. (Source: I’ve been on the executive team at startups with products sold in retail stores)
      - modo_mario 6y ago
        Then I'm sure you'd agree monopsonies due to increasing centralisation and clout in the past few decades aren't all that nice for the consumer and smaller players like startups.
      - donkeyd 6y ago
        Yup. And that excludes the fee many brands pay supermarkets to be in the eye level spot on the shelves. New entrants have to spend money just to be visible in the racks, regardless of whether their product is being sold.
      - webmobdev 6y ago
        > Just to emphasize your point, 30% take is relatively small in the retail world. The internet already provides a nearly free distribution medium for software application - so even paying a 5% markup to an unnecessary middleman is just outrageous. The app store only exists so that Apple (and others) can gauge even more money from developers, who ultimately pass on the cost to us customers.

I would consider Epic's action the corporate equivalent of civil disobedience, which is a form of protest. Fighting back seems an apt description for such a protest.

ddingus 6y ago

I agree. While it is all still playing out, it does appear Epic made a mark on things sufficient to change the discussion.

chongli 6y ago

It’s like civil disobedience but it’s backed by profit motive rather than human rights. That makes it much less of a clear cut moral victory. During these discussions a lot of people on HN have come forward and expressed their support for Apple’s walled garden. They like that Apple keeps malware out. Should Epic win and the iPhone be fixed wide open, that could change the situation dramatically. Of course, I think Epic would be happy if they won a special exemption for their own marketplace but with the status quo remaining for everyone else.

smnrchrds 6y ago
Civil disobedience is not by definition limited to specific causes such as human rights. Many actions during union strikes (e.g. not respecting a back-to-work legislation or picketing on company property) would fit the definition too, even if the only reason for the strike is disagreement over remuneration, i.e. profit motive. In fact, the Wikipedia article for civil disobedience has a picture of a union member on strike about to be arrested.

donkeyd 6y ago

The term being correct doesn't take away that they weren't banned for fighting back. They were banned for breaking rules that were clear beforehand.

webmobdev 6y ago
Rules that were unfair. I protest as a consumer as an unnecessary Apple tax to install paid software is an unfair burden that should be illegal.
- donkeyd 6y ago
  Do you feel the same way about anything sold on Amazon? Or in supermarkets? Or is that in some way different?
  - jsjohnst 6y ago
    Just to emphasize your point, 30% take is relatively small in the retail world. A store like Amazon or Walmart or Target or Best Buy generally wants a cut of 40-50%, if not more. And that doesn’t include the cut many distributors want to take for being the middle person. (Source: I’ve been on the executive team at startups with products sold in retail stores)
    - modo_mario 6y ago
      Then I'm sure you'd agree monopsonies due to increasing centralisation and clout in the past few decades aren't all that nice for the consumer and smaller players like startups.
    - donkeyd 6y ago
      Yup. And that excludes the fee many brands pay supermarkets to be in the eye level spot on the shelves. New entrants have to spend money just to be visible in the racks, regardless of whether their product is being sold.
    - webmobdev 6y ago
      > Just to emphasize your point, 30% take is relatively small in the retail world. The internet already provides a nearly free distribution medium for software application - so even paying a 5% markup to an unnecessary middleman is just outrageous. The app store only exists so that Apple (and others) can gauge even more money from developers, who ultimately pass on the cost to us customers.