4 ms·
> Let's be clear about this: this settlement means that Apple is offering developers less than what they believe they would be forced to provide by law. Not ne
by wombatmobile 5y ago
> Let's be clear about this: this settlement means that Apple is offering developers less than what they believe they would be forced to provide by law.
Not necessarily. You haven't taken account of costs, or the possibility that the parties both felt this was the best outcome regardless of what (unpredictable) quantum a court may have awarded.
Litigation is a poor use of time for both parties and is best avoided for the good of both parties.
Whether the settlement is "fair", "reasonable", "agreeable", or "forced" is another matter. The point is, you can't assess or deduce it without more information.
- JimTheMan 5y agoCompletely agree, especially due to the incredible expenses involved with going to court.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wombatmobile 5y ago> There is never any other business logic behind these settlements. Never? That assumes hostility or bad faith by at least one of the parties. On the contrary, when both parties negotiate in good faith, there is often other business logic to be discovered. By talking through points of difference, the parties have the opportunity to learn about each others strengths and weaknesses, which are the necessary ingredients for better design. You never know with this. Apple might learn something from smaller devs that their executives didn't know before. The art is in translating that knowledge into a business advantage for both parties that doesn't cost Apple something in its business relationship with bigger shops, such as Epic. How? The devil is in the details. Apple executives naturally have more exposure to big shops than small devs. This exercise at least gets small devs on their radar, and vice versa.