[darklion]

> Epic is accusing Google (and Apple) of being monopolies since it wants to play in the app store space.

I think that’s a secondary effect. The primary reason is so Epic gets to keep all the money it makes on digital purchases, which is pretty much all margin for them.

And any pretense that Epic is doing this for anyone other than, or in addition to, Epic went out the window during the Apple trial when Sweeney admitted on the stand that had Apple offered Epic, and only Epic, a sweetheart deal, he would’ve gladly taken it in a heartbeat.

[xyzzy_plugh]

> And any pretense that Epic is doing this for anyone other than, or in addition to, Epic went out the window during the Apple trial when Sweeney admitted on the stand that had Apple offered Epic, and only Epic, a sweetheart deal, he would’ve gladly taken it in a heartbeat.

I don't observe any pretense that Epic is doing any of this _for the greater good_. Epic is correct in that what they want to see change can benefit others.

Epic deserves all the money they make from digital purchases. They shouldn't have to share 30% of _every_ transaction with app stores just because the creators of those app stores force everyone to use them. It can be both. It's not wrong for Epic to support changes that also happen to benefit everyone while also prioritizing their own goals.

[darklion]

> It's not wrong for Epic to support changes that also happen to benefit everyone while also prioritizing their own goals.

No, but it’s wrong for Epic to position those changes as part of a battle to ensure everybody gets their money, and then admit on the stand that they were perfectly happy to let everybody else to continue to get screwed over as long as they (Epic) got their cash.

--

https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/30/23962920/epic-just-admit...

"The Coalition for App Fairness is an independent nonprofit organization founded by industry-leading companies to advocate for freedom of choice and fair competition across the app ecosystem."

--

https://www.imore.com/epic-games-would-have-accepted-special...

Lawyer: If Apple had told you that it would offer you a deal and no other developers, would you have accepted that?

Sweeney: Yes, I would have.

[xyzzy_plugh]

I disagree that it is wrong. It's pragmatic.

[darklion]

So it’s pragmatic to publicly advocate one position and then privately advocate another?

Isn’t that what Google is doing here, publicly advocating one position (Epic are a bunch of selfish bastards) and privately advocating another (Google is entitled to screw over everybody else)? Why is Google selfish and Epic pragmatic for the exact same actions?

[stavros]

> Sweeney admitted on the stand that had Apple offered Epic, and only Epic, a sweetheart deal, he would’ve gladly taken it in a heartbeat.

Why shouldn't he? Doesn't mean he can't sue.

[darklion]

No it doesn't, but leading up to the trial, Epic generally and Sweeney specifically made a _huge_ PR push that he was waging this battle on Apple (and Google) on behalf of all developers everywhere who are getting screwed over by the 30% commission.

While it’s perfectly fine for him to sue, I think it’s extremely disingenuous for him to make that huge PR push about how he’s standing up for the common developer and then admit on the stand that he’s perfectly happy to let the common developer continue to twist in the wind as long as he gets his pay-off.

In that sense, Google’s post did get one thing right — Epic’s only interested in itself; any impact for anybody else, positive or negative, is just incidental.