[ptasci67]

What I find really interesting in this debate is how the same story can be spun two ways. Here, the headline is listed as "Apple Ending "Fortnite Save the World" Updates for Mac" which is a word for word title from Epic's blog post. Fair enough.

The same story on Techmeme linked to an article about the blog post has the title "Epic says it will shut down Fortnite: Save the World on macOS on September 23rd".

Notice the tone shift from "Apple is shutting this down" to "Epic is shutting this down". I guess I don't really have a point here other than the title is not enough to draw a conclusion. Even reading a single source's take on a story is not enough context to draw a balanced conclusion. There is bias and nuance to every side and a healthy dose of skepticism is needed.

[nrmitchi]

I think your general point is valid, but the first line of this is literally:

> Apple is preventing Epic from signing games and patches for distribution on Mac, which ends our ability to develop and offer Fortnite: Save the World for the platform.

If we assume that that statement is true (and isn't Epic straight up lying), it's pretty clear cut that this is Apple's decision and not Epic's. By taking away Epic's capability to release updates, Apple is the one that has made the decision. Again, unless you are insinuating that Epic is lying.

[shajznnckfke]

Apple’s argument is that Epic forced this action by violating their contract. Epic will respond that the contract is unfair and illegal, and Apple’s treatment of different developers under the contract is inconsistent. It ends up being a conversation about who you favor in the Apple vs Epic fight, and not really a falsifiable factual question.

[JaggedJax]

But did epic actually violate any part of their MacOS developer agreement, or just their iOS agreement? I've seen some conflicting information here that makes it seems as though Epic did nothing wrong on the MacOS side.

[nrmitchi]

The Apple-defense being pushed here seems to be that all Apple agreements are one Apple agreement. Ie, if you have an issue with Apple in one are of business, that Apple-as-a-company can retaliate in any other area of business.

It will get interesting if it extends to (although I can't image it would) "Epic violated our App Store rules, therefore we were forced to disable Apple services usage from all of their Apple devices. Unfortunately for security reasons Apple devices are unable to function without those Apple services".

[nodamage]

Framing this as an "Apple-defense" seems kind of odd when it's just the legal reality of the situation. There is a single agreement that covers development for all Apple products.

The fact that you might be involved in multiple areas of business is no more relevant here than it would be if you had a food delivery app, a yoga app, and a music app. The same agreement governs all of your conduct with Apple.

[nrmitchi]

Even if it is the "legal reality", Apple wrote that "reality" in a way to use its market position in one vertical to control people's actions in other.

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make with your analogy, but I personally don't think it's reasonable that doing a chargeback on a food delivery app (for any reason) should be grounds for me to lose access to my music or yoga apps.

Google taking action like this (blocking accounts across their entire network of companies) comes up on HN every once in a while, and Google is always "the evil one". Apple is doing the same thing here but it's apparently more acceptable?

[nodamage]

There's a just single agreement that covers development for all Apple products (iOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS).

[robenkleene]

None of this changes the fact that Apple is using technical measures to prevent Epic from developing software for Apple's “open” platform, the Mac. Everything else is some distant tiny noise from another conversation. This is the moment the frog has been boiled.

[nrmitchi]

The statement "Apple is preventing Epic from signing games and patches for distribution" is 100% a falsifiable factual question.

Because your argument seems to be "well Epic made them do it", you don't seem to disagree that it is true either.

[dpkonofa]

>it's pretty clear cut that this is Apple's decision and not Epic's

This is a chicken or egg problem. Epic was the one that violated the rules of the App Store, not Apple. If Epic hadn't done that, Apple wouldn't have been forced to take away their capabilities to provide updates. You can follow that chain of events without insinuating that Epic is lying.

[noelsusman]

Epic publishing an app on iOS that breaks Apple's policies does not force Apple to prevent Epic from publishing any software on any of their platforms. That's a choice Apple made. The whole thing is a choice by Apple because Apple is the one writing the policies in the first place. They're not forced to do anything, it's their platform.

[larrik]

They violated the rules of the iOS App Store, this is the Mac one. In fact, it effectively blocks them from releasing it as a direct download as well.

This is likely going to be a significant mistake from Apple in hindsight.

[dpkonofa]

It's one agreement and Epic violated it.

[larrik]

I'm pretty sure they are separate agreements and separate charges, and therefore separate transactions and contracts.

[rsfinn]

This has not been true since 2015, when the various developer programs (Mac, iOS, and Safari) were combined into a single Apple Developer program (for $99/year).

Source: I've been a member of the Apple Developer program since at least 2006, which was the first year I attended WWDC. The current program is described at <https://developer.apple.com/programs/>.

[nrmitchi]

> one that violated the rules of the App Store, not Apple

This is an invalid comparison because Apple cannot, by definition of them writing the rules with the ability to change them whenever they want, violate the "rules" of the App Store. Phrasing it like this implies that "Apple violating the rules" is even a possibility.

[dpkonofa]

You're using a silly grammatical error to gloss over the entire point of my statement. Apple obviously can't violate their own rules. That wasn't the point. The point was that the impetus of the situation was Epic, not Apple. Epic willingly chose to violate the rules and that kicked off the whole situation. If you want me to rephrase the statement, then here: "Epic was the one that violated the rules of the App Store. Apple didn't start the chain of events that caused this situation. Epic did."

Happier?

[moogleii]

Epic moved the pawn that resulted in a check. Apple built the board. Who's responsible? 'Round and 'round we go.

Probably fairer to just refer to them as a tuple: "Apple/Epic ending Fortnite updates for Mac." Voila.

[dpkonofa]

Well, it makes sense that this story's headline would favor Epic - it's a headline on epicgames.com. They're the only ones still pretending like they're the victim.

[justadudeama]

Epic cannot do anything to release updates and fix bugs on the macOS platform. Epic wants to continue to support their application on macOS - but because of a completely unrelated issue regarding an iOS application they can't. Are you suggesting that they aren't a victim of Apple's anti-competitive and draconian tactics?

[sjansen]

Sure, I'll go ahead and suggest that Epic may not be "a victim of Apple's anti-competitive and draconian tactics".

"Anti-competitive" is a matter for courts to decide. Epic could have taken Apple to court without violating Apple's ToS, but they decided to use their fans as leverage in hopes of forcing Apple into an agreement faster than the traditionally slow legal system.

"Draconian" is an inflammatory label a reasonable person could easily dismiss.

"Victim" depends on whether Apple's ToS are actually anti-competitive. Reasonable people can make arguments to support either position, which is why we have a legally system to resolve conflicts like this. Only time will tell which is legally true.

Until then, it's just as true that Epic is an irresponsible aggressor abusing their fans in the hopes of gaining leverage in a negotiation.

It's hard to feel bad for either company, only the fans deserve sympathy, but I don't see how any reasonable person could claim that Epic couldn't foresee the consequence of their strategy.

[mcclux]

They can release updates and bug fixes on the macOS platform by removing the native payment feature they included that tries to route around Apple's in-app payment system. Epic broke the rules on purpose and then started a public relations fight when Apple enforced the rules that Epic agreed to when they started developing on Apple's platforms. They are in no way a victim; that's a hilarious idea. This is all part of a deliberate strategy born from their desire to not pay Apple the cut that every other developer on the platform pays. You can argue that Apple's cut is too high, but that isn't germane to this issue. Apple's cut is a tradeoff you make in order to have access to the large audience of Apple users.

If you're a landlord and I rent your apartment and you tell me that I can't smoke on the balcony and I go ahead and do it anyway, I'm going to face the consequences of breaking that rule. Epic isn't a victim, they are just unsuccessfully trying to use their own enormous leverage to try to make Apple back down.

[dpkonofa]

No, I'm suggesting that their tactics are neither anti-competitive nor draconian. Epic violated the terms of a store that they willingly entered into. Apple owns the App Store. They do not have a monopoly on mobile phones, app stores, or devices and, as Apple just provided to the judge in the case (who agreed with the response), Apple was the single largest driver in mobile growth and competition. How can they be anti-competitive if they've nearly single-handedly been responsible for the growth of those market segments?

[kbenson]

> No, I'm suggesting that their tactics are neither anti-competitive nor draconian. Epic violated the terms of a store that they willingly entered into. Apple owns the App Store.

I think perhaps you don't know what anti-competitive means, or are thinking of it purely as a portion of monopolistic practices. Apple's actions in multiple levels of their platform are by definition anti-competitive.

> They do not have a monopoly on ...

A monopoly is not a prerequisite for anti-competitive practices, it's just something the U.S. identified in the late 1800's and early 1900's as something that makes anti-competitive practices very effective, so laws were made to combat them because they are easier to identify and classify. Stopping anti-competitive behavior that harms consumers (though increased prices and reduced options) is the goal. Stopping monopolies is just a side-effect.

[JoeOfTexas]

https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...

Apple has nearly 50% of mobile market share. Anything above 30% is close to a monopoly in my opinion, as it has a high impact in number of people reached.

And thats just mobile, they absolutely decimate the tablet market. I've vowed never to become an Apple Developer, since I've had 2 different apps rejected based on arbitrary rules.

Indies are hurt the most in this battle. Game publishers like Voodoo steal people's ideas and Apple lets them corner the market, removing/rejecting those who were there first.

Other stores are starting to mimic Apple's behavior, which is leaving Indies to battle it out in the last free open space... The world wide web.

[Tostino]

Uh, I don't agree with your statement at all.

[dpkonofa]

Ok. Care to explain why?