[jolux]

Saying that Apple banned Epic for "fighting back" is definitely twisting the truth a bit. Epic released a behind-the-scenes software update in direct contravention of the App Store rules, which they knew was going to get them banned.

[mehrdadn]

My layman understanding was Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court (to demonstrate damages or whatever). That's not quite the same as (covertly) breaching your contract hoping you get away without getting caught, which is the impression you're giving.

Assuming that's accurate, then I'm not sure what else one would expect them to do—not do something that gets them banned, then have their case thrown out immediately because they can't (say) demonstrate damages? Did they have any other realistic options besides just shutting up and putting up with the situation (which they have been doing this whole time)?

[Despegar]

>My layman understanding was Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court

This is obviously false because there are other antitrust cases against Apple pending.

[zamalek]

That's Government v. Apple, not Epic v. Apple. Furthermore, irrespective of what the outcome of Epic v. Apple is, more people are paying attention to Apple's behavior and the rouse may eventually bear fruit (in the form of more Government v. Apple).

[ascagnel_]

Blix v. Apple[0] pre-dated the Epic v. Apple suit by about 8 months.

[0]: https://download.bluemail.me/docs/01869-Blix-Amended-Complai... (PDF)

[anotherman554]

It's not obviously false because unless you've read the case law on the legal concept of "standing" you have no insight into the issue at all.

[Despegar]

Fortunately I have and they do have standing.

[threeseed]

If you're going to make a claim about a pending case and you're not a lawyer then you really need to provide a source. Because based on what the judge has said to date [1] your understanding does not seem accurate.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/29/21493096/epic-apple-antit...

[mehrdadn]

Read the CNN report your article links to. It says the same thing I said:

> Epic's attorneys acknowledged that the company breached its agreement with Apple but claimed Epic was simply refusing to comply with an anti-competitive contract, and that forcing a legal battle was part of Epic's plan.

You might disagree about whether it should've been part of their plan (evidently their lawyers disagree, and I have yet to see either your article or yourself mention an alternative approach), but either way, everything I've seen is consistent with their intention having been to force this into court than to covertly breach the contract.

[AnthonyMouse]

You're arguing against a layman's explanation by linking to a layman's explanation.

The first argument is about standing. The second argument is about, apparently, an injunction to remain available during the course of the litigation. They're two separate issues.

[threeseed]

No I am linking to an article with quotes from the judge presiding over the case and a factual summary. The author is not giving their understanding of the legalities and merits of the case.

OP's statement, "Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court" is worthless if they are not a lawyer and don't have some reputable source.

[AnthonyMouse]

> No I am linking to an article with quotes from the judge presiding over the case and a factual summary. The author is not giving their understanding of the legalities and merits of the case.

The article is written by a layman and includes a contextless quote from the judge which doesn't appear relevant to the point you're trying to make.

> OP's statement, "Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court" is worthless if they are not a lawyer and don't have some reputable source.

Accusing someone of not being a lawyer is not a counterargument, it's an ad hominem attack. If they're right, they're right. If they're wrong, where's your evidence?

[smnrchrds]

I would consider Epic's action the corporate equivalent of civil disobedience, which is a form of protest. Fighting back seems an apt description for such a protest.

[chongli]

It’s like civil disobedience but it’s backed by profit motive rather than human rights. That makes it much less of a clear cut moral victory.

During these discussions a lot of people on HN have come forward and expressed their support for Apple’s walled garden. They like that Apple keeps malware out. Should Epic win and the iPhone be fixed wide open, that could change the situation dramatically.

Of course, I think Epic would be happy if they won a special exemption for their own marketplace but with the status quo remaining for everyone else.

[smnrchrds]

Civil disobedience is not by definition limited to specific causes such as human rights. Many actions during union strikes (e.g. not respecting a back-to-work legislation or picketing on company property) would fit the definition too, even if the only reason for the strike is disagreement over remuneration, i.e. profit motive. In fact, the Wikipedia article for civil disobedience has a picture of a union member on strike about to be arrested.

[donkeyd]

The term being correct doesn't take away that they weren't banned for fighting back. They were banned for breaking rules that were clear beforehand.

[webmobdev]

Rules that were unfair. I protest as a consumer as an unnecessary Apple tax to install paid software is an unfair burden that should be illegal.

[donkeyd]

Do you feel the same way about anything sold on Amazon? Or in supermarkets? Or is that in some way different?

[jsjohnst]

Just to emphasize your point, 30% take is relatively small in the retail world. A store like Amazon or Walmart or Target or Best Buy generally wants a cut of 40-50%, if not more. And that doesn’t include the cut many distributors want to take for being the middle person.

(Source: I’ve been on the executive team at startups with products sold in retail stores)

[modo_mario]

Then I'm sure you'd agree monopsonies due to increasing centralisation and clout in the past few decades aren't all that nice for the consumer and smaller players like startups.

[donkeyd]

Yup. And that excludes the fee many brands pay supermarkets to be in the eye level spot on the shelves. New entrants have to spend money just to be visible in the racks, regardless of whether their product is being sold.

[webmobdev]

> Just to emphasize your point, 30% take is relatively small in the retail world.

The internet already provides a nearly free distribution medium for software application - so even paying a 5% markup to an unnecessary middleman is just outrageous. The app store only exists so that Apple (and others) can gauge even more money from developers, who ultimately pass on the cost to us customers.

[webmobdev]

It's not even a valid comparison and disingenuous because software products now don't need to be sold through any retail outlet, and can be sold directly to the customer through the internet. There is absolutely no need of any app store as a middle man here.

[donkeyd]

There are plenty of companies who sell their products directly to consumers. So physical products don't need to be sold through third party retailers either.

[ddingus]

I agree. While it is all still playing out, it does appear Epic made a mark on things sufficient to change the discussion.