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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.