Supporting Epic in this fight is just setting a dangerous precedent that big players should be able to just intimidate platform owners into giving them whatever terms they want. Don’t do it.
With no skin in the game, I could just as easily counter with:
Supporting Apple in this fight is just setting a dangerous precedent that big players should be able to just intimidate platform developers into giving them whatever terms they want. Don't do it.
Again I don't really have a concrete view but a lot of these discussions tend to boil down to preference against one party or the other and not objectively looking at the arguments from both sides. Replace Epic with one of your critical apps. Replace Apple with Google and the arguments are the same.
>>If they don’t like the terms they can simply choose to not develop there.
Sure, but sometimes, as a society, we decide that this is simply not ok.
I know this is not a completely correct comparison, but the main counter against forcing businesses to accept non-white customers was "well, they can simply go somewhere else, what's the big deal". We as a society decided that no, actually, it is a big deal, and regardless of whether you can "simply" go somewhere else or not, you shouldn't have to.
I'm hoping that this will be the first victory in a string of rulings forcing platform holders to open them up, because we value that more than we value the platform holders ability to keep them closed. Apple just happened to be first.
Yes, because buying an Android phone instead of an iPhone is like moving to another country.
As a consumer, you can push for improvements by voting with your wallet and flat out not buying Apple products. As a developer, you can push for improvements by not supporting that platform. Given that you have alternatives to Apple both as a developer and as a consumer, I don't think there's any justification for the government to force Apple to accept Epic blatantly breaking the terms they agreed to comply with.
I guess that's what remains to be seen. But Epic seems to be throwing their most valuable property at it right now, so they must have some degree of confidence that a larger player will back them on this.
I assume that the Epic supporters rather are hoping to get Apple to reduce the 30% on all transactions (or on all transactions of some type), not just to get Epic to be a special case. I'm not sure they have a case, but I think you're misrepresenting them.
Well, of course; if someone is supporting a company's position because of that company's "character", that would be absurd indeed. Both sides are doing it for profit. That doesn't mean we can't support one or the other on other grounds.
No, I think what they mean is that for instance, Apple Music is on Android, but Apple takes payments through its own platform, not through Google Play, therefore denying Google their 30% cut on apple music payments. Many smaller companies are not able to negotiate the same thing.
Massive off-topic aside: Would you mind stop referring to me as he, and more generally don't assume someones gender identity. Sorry about it, just shitting me off a bit lately.
That's very unlikely, because the court can't force Apple to provide a special deal to Epic. Whatever decision they arrive at, it must be generally applicable.
