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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
> 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.
The web also allows any producer of physical products to distribute directly to consumers, doesn't it? So why is it OK for Amazon to get a fee, or any physical retailer? Aren't they unnecessary middle men too?
And how does that dispute anything I said? I wasn’t making a claim that the AppStore commission is warranted or not, I was speaking to what retail stores charge. I get it, you think Apple is out of line, but maybe reply to someone who is claiming it’s justified rather than pointing your vitriol towards me?
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.
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.
And some brands have started doing just that. But that's not the point - Amazon or Walmart doesn't prevent me from buying the products directly from the producers / manufacturers or from some other third-party. Apple does precisely that with its app store and ios platform (and soon will do with macOS).
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.