[zamalek]

If this is true then Epic should definitely be punished. The mechanism by which this has been brought to widespread scrutiny doesn't indemnify Apple, either.

The idea that Apple should have app store monopolization written into law (their words) because of the tactics Epic used is ridiculous.

[curryst]

I don't really see why. Epic has to show harm to have standing for a lawsuit, so there was always going to be some planning in terms of "when do we do this so Apple shuts it down so we can sue".

Apple is also very good at PR. I don't think it's particularly malicious to try to get out ahead of Apple's PR department. The "Small Business Program" was a brilliant bit of PR on Apple's part, that does indeed try to undermine Epic's case from a public perception standpoint.

I'm not enthused that this is how things get done, but I take Epic's actions as a symptom of a flawed system rather than some kind of character flaw in the company.

[thunkshift1]

This is a ridiculous. I dont think you can take on some behemoth with near limitless (financial, legal and otherwise) resources without planning. An ad-hoc lawsuit DOES NOT stand chance against Apple. The united states gov took 8 years to file antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. So I think we can give some benefit to Epic here.

[SubjectToChange]

Why on earth is planning a lawsuit bad? Impulsive, knee-jerk lawsuits should be punished, not the other way around.

[zamalek]

My opinion on this has changed many times.

I've defended Epic's actions in the past; and that evidence does exist in my comment history. I've come around though: they should have filed a lawsuit instead of breaching contract. Apple is now using their breach of contract to justify codifying their blatant monopoly.

Apple's retaliation was infinitely worse and extremely telling about the company. Make no mistake: privacy is a feature that sells. If circumstances change, Apple has shown capacity to turn on a dime (in the form of banning Unreal Engine apps). They aren't the good guys, not by a long shot.

[sombremesa]

A monopoly is not objectively a bad thing, just like debt is not objectively a bad thing. Else we should abolish the patent office.

[zamalek]

Patents have an expiry date because the patent office agrees that monopolies are bad. The purpose of a patent is to allow an inventor to establish their market, not to establish a monopoly.

[sombremesa]

Alright, I'll play your silly game.

How about Mickey Mouse? One could say that market is well established by the creator by now. Yet the law protects this monopoly.

[nmfisher]

> Else we should abolish the patent office.

Where do I sign?