3 ms·

The fact that Apple was allowed by the court to ban them indefinitely at their discretion, doesn't change the fact that making a public promise, in court (which

The fact that Apple was allowed by the court to ban them indefinitely at their discretion, doesn't change the fact that making a public promise, in court (which was widely publicised at the time from what I recall) and reneging on it when their demands were met, is a little shocking, and certainly disappointing. The last time they made that promise was 8 days ago! > Apple says it won’t let Epic Games back in the App Store until they agree to “play by the same rules as everyone else.” From https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-korea-fortnite-developer-account-rules-response https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22666146/apple-epic-korea...

ribit 5y ago
Except the demands were not met. Epic appealed the court decision, meaning that they are not ok with the demands.
- nulbyte 5y ago
  Following the rules while protesting through a court case seems reasonable to me. Just because you flow the rules doesn't mean you think they are just. On the other hand, retaliating because someone genuinely believes they are being disadvantaged is quite the opposite of just.
  - notafraudster 5y ago
    If your position is "following the rules while protesting through a court case seems reasonable", then you agree Epic should have followed the rules while protesting through a court case instead of deliberately getting banned in order to sharpen their PR efforts in support of the court case they planned to file.
mattzito 5y ago
But Epic then promptly turned around and appealed. Why should Apple let epic back in when they’re saying they will “play by the rules” in one breath and saying “we don’t accept the courts ruling on the rules” in another?
- j56no 5y ago
  while they follow the rules there’s no objective reason. If Apple is doing so only because they don’t like Epic, they are abusing their position
  - mbreese 5y ago
    And Epic doesn’t like Apple. These are big companies and Epic is not under an existential treat by not having access to the AppStore. Epic started this whole mess by breaking their original agreement. And the court explicitly affirmed Apple’s right to terminate Epic’s developer account. If Apple were “abusing” their position, that implies they have monopoly power in that market, which was not what the court determined (rightly or wrongly). Which is the crux of Epic’s real goals, which they lost. You could argue that it’s not nice or that it’s a poor business choice (because people will still buy some VBucks through IAP), but it’s not abusive. Vindictive maybe, but not abusive. And really the only people getting hurt are the players who played Fortnite (exclusively?) on their phones or iPads. Which ironically includes me… I think this would be a much larger issue for smaller developers who are reliant on access to the iOS market. What would happen to a smaller developer that didn’t have more resources? I think that’s a more interesting question. But right now, this is still a Goliath vs Goliath situation.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Appealing a court decision still counts as "playing by the rules." Disagreeing about what the rules should be shouldn't count as a violation of the rules by itself.
  - mattzito 5y ago
    Disagreeing about the rules is not a violation of those rules, I agree. But it is a statement of intent that you plan to not follow the rules if you win your court case, which means...you won't be playing by the rules. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that Apple wouldn't want to give Epic access to their user base back while Epic is trying to reverse the decision. Now, if Epic was not appealing, and Apple refused to let them back in, I would agree that is egregious.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ribit 5y ago

Except the demands were not met. Epic appealed the court decision, meaning that they are not ok with the demands.

nulbyte 5y ago
Following the rules while protesting through a court case seems reasonable to me. Just because you flow the rules doesn't mean you think they are just. On the other hand, retaliating because someone genuinely believes they are being disadvantaged is quite the opposite of just.
- notafraudster 5y ago
  If your position is "following the rules while protesting through a court case seems reasonable", then you agree Epic should have followed the rules while protesting through a court case instead of deliberately getting banned in order to sharpen their PR efforts in support of the court case they planned to file.

mattzito 5y ago

But Epic then promptly turned around and appealed. Why should Apple let epic back in when they’re saying they will “play by the rules” in one breath and saying “we don’t accept the courts ruling on the rules” in another?

j56no 5y ago
while they follow the rules there’s no objective reason. If Apple is doing so only because they don’t like Epic, they are abusing their position
- mbreese 5y ago
  And Epic doesn’t like Apple. These are big companies and Epic is not under an existential treat by not having access to the AppStore. Epic started this whole mess by breaking their original agreement. And the court explicitly affirmed Apple’s right to terminate Epic’s developer account. If Apple were “abusing” their position, that implies they have monopoly power in that market, which was not what the court determined (rightly or wrongly). Which is the crux of Epic’s real goals, which they lost. You could argue that it’s not nice or that it’s a poor business choice (because people will still buy some VBucks through IAP), but it’s not abusive. Vindictive maybe, but not abusive. And really the only people getting hurt are the players who played Fortnite (exclusively?) on their phones or iPads. Which ironically includes me… I think this would be a much larger issue for smaller developers who are reliant on access to the iOS market. What would happen to a smaller developer that didn’t have more resources? I think that’s a more interesting question. But right now, this is still a Goliath vs Goliath situation.
boomboomsubban 5y ago
Appealing a court decision still counts as "playing by the rules." Disagreeing about what the rules should be shouldn't count as a violation of the rules by itself.
- mattzito 5y ago
  Disagreeing about the rules is not a violation of those rules, I agree. But it is a statement of intent that you plan to not follow the rules if you win your court case, which means...you won't be playing by the rules. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that Apple wouldn't want to give Epic access to their user base back while Epic is trying to reverse the decision. Now, if Epic was not appealing, and Apple refused to let them back in, I would agree that is egregious.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]