5 ms·

> they have a systematic bias against reaching such a conclusion. No they don't. They have a bias for reaching conclusions which benefit them. Full stop. Th

> they have a systematic bias against reaching such a conclusion. No they don't. They have a bias for reaching conclusions which benefit them. Full stop. Those conclusions may coincidentally benefit others, even if that was not part of their motivation. What would you suggest? We should be in favor of a link tax purely to spite Google? We should surrender our privacy to Facebook just to stick it to Apple? We should protect Apple's ability to restrict what users can do with their devices as a display of contempt towards Epic?

zepto 6y ago
> What would you suggest? We should be in favor of a link tax purely to spite Google? We should surrender our privacy to Facebook just to stick it to Apple? We should protect Apple's ability to restrict what users can do with their devices as a display of contempt towards Epic? Bizarre - I’m not sure what these suggestions have to do with me. Epic doesn’t care about protecting users rights to do what they want with their devices. Nothing they are proposing is about that. All they are proposing is that they should be able to get a cut. If Epic gets to run an App Store or payment gateway, Apple’s platform will still limit what users can do with their devices, so we can see that they don’t care about that. Personally, I am happy for Apple’s customers to choose a closed platform if they like. But, I am not happy that we have no open alternative. Google promised us one, but reneged on that promise. Remember ‘open always wins’? I don’t think it’s Apple’s responsibility to provide people with an open platform, nor do I think we should force our views on people who want a curated platform. I think it’s up to the rest of us to build an open platform, if we want one. ‘The rest of us’ would include Epic, if they had an interest in user freedom.
- CivBase 6y ago
  > Epic doesn’t care about protecting users rights to do what they want with their devices. I never said they do. They want users to be able to install iOS apps on from third party sources. Their motivation is that they simply want to avoid paying Apple's App Store fees. Our causes are aligned even though their intentions are entirely self-serving. They reached the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > they simply want to avoid paying Apple's App Store fees This is often repeated on HN, but is not true. They want a cut of those fees for themselves, which is why they want to run their own store and payment mechanism. This is definitely no more aligned with the users than Apple. Arguably it’s less aligned, since they don’t care what users experience with the platform is.
    - CivBase 6y ago
      > they want to run their own store and payment mechanism. ...which would require Apple to allow iOS users to install apps from third parties, right? How is that less aligned with users than Apple? What Epic plans to do once Apple's policy changes is irrelevant.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Firstly, a lot of users don’t want multiple stores. Therefore it simply isn’t in the interests of users in general. That statement is false. Secondly, which third parties would be allowed? What kind of stores? It’s pretty obvious that there are many answers to these questions that would not be good for users. So no, what Epic wants is definitely not ‘in the best interests of users’. As I have said all along - it’s in the best interests of Epic, and nobody else. If we want to think about what is in the best interests of ‘users’ that is a very broad and interesting space. And as I have pointed out, imagining that we ‘agree’ with Epic on this, just means that we are supporting them and what they want. Consider for a moment that what is in the best interests of users might have nothing to do with Apple, or the App Store.

zepto 6y ago

> What would you suggest? We should be in favor of a link tax purely to spite Google? We should surrender our privacy to Facebook just to stick it to Apple? We should protect Apple's ability to restrict what users can do with their devices as a display of contempt towards Epic? Bizarre - I’m not sure what these suggestions have to do with me. Epic doesn’t care about protecting users rights to do what they want with their devices. Nothing they are proposing is about that. All they are proposing is that they should be able to get a cut. If Epic gets to run an App Store or payment gateway, Apple’s platform will still limit what users can do with their devices, so we can see that they don’t care about that. Personally, I am happy for Apple’s customers to choose a closed platform if they like. But, I am not happy that we have no open alternative. Google promised us one, but reneged on that promise. Remember ‘open always wins’? I don’t think it’s Apple’s responsibility to provide people with an open platform, nor do I think we should force our views on people who want a curated platform. I think it’s up to the rest of us to build an open platform, if we want one. ‘The rest of us’ would include Epic, if they had an interest in user freedom.

CivBase 6y ago
> Epic doesn’t care about protecting users rights to do what they want with their devices. I never said they do. They want users to be able to install iOS apps on from third party sources. Their motivation is that they simply want to avoid paying Apple's App Store fees. Our causes are aligned even though their intentions are entirely self-serving. They reached the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.
- zepto 6y ago
  > they simply want to avoid paying Apple's App Store fees This is often repeated on HN, but is not true. They want a cut of those fees for themselves, which is why they want to run their own store and payment mechanism. This is definitely no more aligned with the users than Apple. Arguably it’s less aligned, since they don’t care what users experience with the platform is.
  - CivBase 6y ago
    > they want to run their own store and payment mechanism. ...which would require Apple to allow iOS users to install apps from third parties, right? How is that less aligned with users than Apple? What Epic plans to do once Apple's policy changes is irrelevant.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Firstly, a lot of users don’t want multiple stores. Therefore it simply isn’t in the interests of users in general. That statement is false. Secondly, which third parties would be allowed? What kind of stores? It’s pretty obvious that there are many answers to these questions that would not be good for users. So no, what Epic wants is definitely not ‘in the best interests of users’. As I have said all along - it’s in the best interests of Epic, and nobody else. If we want to think about what is in the best interests of ‘users’ that is a very broad and interesting space. And as I have pointed out, imagining that we ‘agree’ with Epic on this, just means that we are supporting them and what they want. Consider for a moment that what is in the best interests of users might have nothing to do with Apple, or the App Store.