3 ms·

> 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 competiti

> 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.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > 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. Well no. Instead of that, if the other party is required by law to do business with you, then you can use government force to make them do so. And if Apple disagrees, then they are perfectly within their right to shutdown their EU operations and lose tens of billions of dollars I guess. But the rest of us are perfectly willing to use democratically enacted laws, as they are intended. > but Apple doesn't need Epic They need the EU though. And if they don't comply with the law then they will be fined many billions of dollars, or be shut down entirely in the EU.

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.
stale2002 3y ago
> 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. Well no. Instead of that, if the other party is required by law to do business with you, then you can use government force to make them do so. And if Apple disagrees, then they are perfectly within their right to shutdown their EU operations and lose tens of billions of dollars I guess. But the rest of us are perfectly willing to use democratically enacted laws, as they are intended. > but Apple doesn't need Epic They need the EU though. And if they don't comply with the law then they will be fined many billions of dollars, or be shut down entirely in the EU.