[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]

> Apple wrote that "reality" in a way to use its market position in one vertical to control people's actions in other.

Again, that is your framing and doesn't take into account that maintaining independent contracts for each individual app would be incredibly impractical. Some developers have hundreds of apps in the app store. Are you really suggesting that if the developer commits a fraudulent act in a single app within a large portfolio of apps, that Apple should only be allowed to take action against that one specific app as opposed to banning the developer entirely?

> I'm not sure the point you're trying to make with your analogy

My point is that this is standard industry practice so framing it as something particularly evil that Apple has done is kind of silly. Look at Google's Play Store agreement, or Steam, or even Epic's own game store. The fact that all these different companies do things the same way indicates there's probably a valid reason for it.

> 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.

As a consumer, no. But we're talking about two businesses here. If you commit fraud in your food delivery app why should Apple (or any company) be required to continue distributing your music or yoga apps? How do they know you won't do the exact same thing in your other apps?

This example isn't just hypothetical, it's a real issue in the Google Play Store. Malicious developers will build up a portfolio of apps, and then once the install base is large enough, begin to sneak malware into future releases of the apps. Google is constantly playing a whack-a-mole game against these developers. Imagine how much harder that game would be if they couldn't ban the developer and had to wait until malware was discovered in each individual app before they could ban that app.

[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?