3 ms·

I don't really understand the notion that Sweeney's original response was terse or insufficient. He said exactly what needed to be said (good faith effort to fo

I don't really understand the notion that Sweeney's original response was terse or insufficient. He said exactly what needed to be said (good faith effort to follow the rules) succinctly and professionally. Should he have offered a pinky swear or a blood oath? Or an essay pledging his allegiance? I generally like Apple and their products but in this instance they came across as bitter and petty.

Dalewyn 3y ago
[flagged]
- overgard 3y ago
  What then would be sufficient? Or are you saying it's simply OK for Apple to ban a major company from their app store? Before you say that, keep in mind that Apple has over 50% of smartphone market share -- they aren't "just another company", should they really be able to decide for that many people that they're not allowed to use Epic's product? Also I should point out that there's a significant difference between breaking a contract mutually agreed upon and negotiated by two companies, versus breaking a ToS that's forced upon you. Epic's "rule breaking" was essentially a legal strategy to force Apple to legally justify their control. It wasn't some random hooliganism.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Business is an at-will arrangement, at least in the free parts of the world. If Apple straight up doesn't want to do business with Epic and can even point to prior breaches and violations of terms as justification, more power to them. Remember the classic and often seen disclaimer: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." >versus breaking a ToS that's forced upon you. Epic wasn't forced to sign anything.
    - overgard 3y ago
      > Business is an at-will arrangement, at least in the free parts of the world Funny, because part of what makes the free parts of the world "free" is competition, which is exactly what Apple is trying to stifle. Also it's funny you cite that disclaimer about right of refusal, because in fact, there are plenty of discrimination laws that address just that and in general there are reasons you can and can't refuse service, legally speaking. > Epic wasn't forced to sign anything. Sure, plenty of businesses just love to ignore >50% of the market. I'm sure their investors would completely understand.
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        [flagged]
        overgard 3y ago
        > 1. Epic isn't a part of a protected class. Please stop adding to the noise of diluting the meaning of the word "discrimination". You're the one that cited right of refusal *shrug* > 2. Epic violated mutually agreed upon terms in cases prior, which Apple can rightfully cite in future references. "Mutually agreed upon" is a hilarious way of putting it. Epic rebelled against a bad system. More importantly, they won. The law is more important now than Apple's rules, and the fact that Apple backed down shows that they know that. > 3. Apple customers are free to choose Android or Windows or any other platform with Epic software. Competition, baby! As an Apple customer, this pisses me off. I have no desire to switch but I also have no desire for Apple to act in this way. Epic's win is good for customers, only Apple fanboys or investors are upset by this. > 4. If you want to do business with someone, you and them both agree to and abide by terms set forth. If you don't like the terms, you renegotiate and if that doesn't pan out you terminate the agreement according to terms therein or otherwise as amicably as possible and go on your way. They did renegotiate... through the courts. There are reasons we have antitrust laws and anti-monopoly laws. You cant have any sort of reasonable negotiation when one side is a 900 pound gorilla. Regulation matters when it comes to market access > 5. Bluntly speaking, Epic might need Apple but Apple doesn't need Epic. So your point is that Apple is a mega-giant that doesn't feel harm from banning a smaller competitor? You're basically making my point for me.
    - idle_zealot 3y ago
      > If Apple straight up doesn't want to do business with Epic and can even point to prior breaches and violations of terms as justification, more power to them. This would be true, if Apple hadn't positioned themselves as gatekeeper to running software on a significant portion of the world's personal computers. If Apple wants full say over who they do business with all it has to do is allow its users to install software distributed by parties they do not do business with.
      - rekoil 3y ago
        Exactly, do that and they're then free to set whatever rules they want on their App Store.
anon373839 3y ago
I agree, but this is missing the point. It was never about Sweeney’s response. Apple was never going to accept any response given, in the same way that an Alabama cop who pulls over a driver for being black is not going to leave without finding some “reason” for an arrest.

Dalewyn 3y ago

[flagged]

overgard 3y ago
What then would be sufficient? Or are you saying it's simply OK for Apple to ban a major company from their app store? Before you say that, keep in mind that Apple has over 50% of smartphone market share -- they aren't "just another company", should they really be able to decide for that many people that they're not allowed to use Epic's product? Also I should point out that there's a significant difference between breaking a contract mutually agreed upon and negotiated by two companies, versus breaking a ToS that's forced upon you. Epic's "rule breaking" was essentially a legal strategy to force Apple to legally justify their control. It wasn't some random hooliganism.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Business is an at-will arrangement, at least in the free parts of the world. If Apple straight up doesn't want to do business with Epic and can even point to prior breaches and violations of terms as justification, more power to them. Remember the classic and often seen disclaimer: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." >versus breaking a ToS that's forced upon you. Epic wasn't forced to sign anything.
  - overgard 3y ago
    > Business is an at-will arrangement, at least in the free parts of the world Funny, because part of what makes the free parts of the world "free" is competition, which is exactly what Apple is trying to stifle. Also it's funny you cite that disclaimer about right of refusal, because in fact, there are plenty of discrimination laws that address just that and in general there are reasons you can and can't refuse service, legally speaking. > Epic wasn't forced to sign anything. Sure, plenty of businesses just love to ignore >50% of the market. I'm sure their investors would completely understand.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - overgard 3y ago
        > 1. Epic isn't a part of a protected class. Please stop adding to the noise of diluting the meaning of the word "discrimination". You're the one that cited right of refusal *shrug* > 2. Epic violated mutually agreed upon terms in cases prior, which Apple can rightfully cite in future references. "Mutually agreed upon" is a hilarious way of putting it. Epic rebelled against a bad system. More importantly, they won. The law is more important now than Apple's rules, and the fact that Apple backed down shows that they know that. > 3. Apple customers are free to choose Android or Windows or any other platform with Epic software. Competition, baby! As an Apple customer, this pisses me off. I have no desire to switch but I also have no desire for Apple to act in this way. Epic's win is good for customers, only Apple fanboys or investors are upset by this. > 4. If you want to do business with someone, you and them both agree to and abide by terms set forth. If you don't like the terms, you renegotiate and if that doesn't pan out you terminate the agreement according to terms therein or otherwise as amicably as possible and go on your way. They did renegotiate... through the courts. There are reasons we have antitrust laws and anti-monopoly laws. You cant have any sort of reasonable negotiation when one side is a 900 pound gorilla. Regulation matters when it comes to market access > 5. Bluntly speaking, Epic might need Apple but Apple doesn't need Epic. So your point is that Apple is a mega-giant that doesn't feel harm from banning a smaller competitor? You're basically making my point for me.
  - idle_zealot 3y ago
    > If Apple straight up doesn't want to do business with Epic and can even point to prior breaches and violations of terms as justification, more power to them. This would be true, if Apple hadn't positioned themselves as gatekeeper to running software on a significant portion of the world's personal computers. If Apple wants full say over who they do business with all it has to do is allow its users to install software distributed by parties they do not do business with.
    - rekoil 3y ago
      Exactly, do that and they're then free to set whatever rules they want on their App Store.

anon373839 3y ago

I agree, but this is missing the point. It was never about Sweeney’s response. Apple was never going to accept any response given, in the same way that an Alabama cop who pulls over a driver for being black is not going to leave without finding some “reason” for an arrest.