[ethbr1]

> They had the alternative of pulling their software on principle and suing, but they wanted the fight they would have by having Apple suspend and then terminate their developer accounts to bring more public opinion to their side

I think that gave them much stronger standing and claimed damages.

It's a weaker argument if they voluntarily removed themselves from the AppStore.

Apple could have trotted out some 'We typically work well with developers in Epic's situation, but they never approached us so there was nothing we could do' excuse.

By forcing Apple to take an action, it concretely showed that Apple does in fact remove access if companies tried to forward users to alternate payment methods.

[SllX]

Sure, maybe this was the better strategy given either strategy was going to be a long shot, but they high rolled for what was ultimately a contract renegotiation and lost worse than if they had played their cards differently. Higher risk can mean higher rewards, but in this case it just worked out to be a bigger loss. They were never entitled to the outcome they fought for, but it was their right to fight for it and Apple’s right to defend themselves and their policies.

[abduhl]

There is no such thing as “stronger” standing. You either have standing or you don’t. It’s the rule almost everywhere that a party to a contract can seek a declaratory judgment regarding the contract without breaching.

This idea that Epic had to breach to sue is part of a well crafted PR campaign by Epic.