> people realized that maybe it's not a mutually beneficial relationship when one of the parts can change the terms whenever they want. Unity's thinking they c

> people realized that maybe it's not a mutually beneficial relationship when one of the parts can change the terms whenever they want. Unity's thinking they could change the terms unilaterally whenever they want and not actually being able to make it stick suggests to me that Unity misunderstood the arrangement more than the users on the other side of that agreement. Yes, Unity had the legal power to change the agreement, but clearly the market disagreed with that move and Unity bore consequences that apparently they weren't ready to bear. In the end it seems that Unity learned that legal power is not the same as market power and that they didn't have the real power to change that deal... and they learned it the all the hard way.