|
|
|
|
|
by shadowgovt
1150 days ago
|
|
I think they decided to play legal chicken and hoped Apple would blink, and Apple did not. The play wasn't entirely unfounded. A lot of current law around things like app stores is existing in the liminal space of "Are these restrictions legal? Nobody knows. Do you want to be the one who stakes all your company's money and your investors' money and your entire business model on finding out?" Epic did the calculus and seemed to conclude they wanted to be the ones to take the hit (possibly because since they also own their own app store, the math was a little win-win: any lock-in the courts find Apple has applies to the way Epic runs their store also). It hasn't worked out the way they'd hoped (though the anti-steering decision was interesting and a little surprising). |
|
I think the most generous interpretation of this lawsuit is that it's a publicity stunt from Epic, not for consumers, but to pressure legislators.