Hacker News Reader

Comment by ping_pong | Hacker News Reader

How is this legal? Apple is so blinded by their arrogance that they don't see that this will lead to the App Store getting severely regulated.

Look at Uber for a great example. It took years, but Uber and Lyft were finally handed a business-destroying law that will hurt them. It will only take a few months for the rest of the US to adopt similar strategies as well.

After the congressional hearings a few weeks ago, Apple still doesn't understand what is going on around them. If they keep going this route, they will absolutely get themselves regulated and frankly I hope this happens. Their arrogance is disgusting to me and I hope this eventual come-to-Jesus moment will scare the shit out of them.

View on HN

I hear ya, but something smells real bad about how Epic decided to wage this war. They were clearly picking this fight, now I am not sure that was such a good idea.

It's impossible to truly know their motives (although money is the most likely candidate). I usually judge these things on a personal/consumer level:

"Who is fighting for the consumer?" Epic. It doesn't matter their motives.

Apple is aggressively anticonsumer and it's time someone took them on. They keep handing out concessions for big players, while hurting newcomers. It's time for it to stop.

> "Who is fighting for the consumer?" Epic. It doesn't matter their motives.

Epic is using their customers as pawns in a contract dispute with a platform vendor (Apple). How else do you explain that console customers got the full 20% discount on "V-bucks" despite Sony/Microsoft still taking their 30% cut? Epic is basically selling V-bucks at a premium on iOS if you choose not to give Epic your credit card information. This is not a pro-consumer stance, it's a pro-Epic stance.

Apple should start allowing side app stores. I hope this is what comes out of this battle

How could a normal Joe User know which side app stores are reliable and which will sell your info and credit card number to the highest bidder?

Epic's goal of creating a competing app store would be a huge boon for consumers. Obviously they picked this fight, and I'm happy they did, because if they're successful app prices will come down due to the reduced fees markets provide.

It will all make sense when we can have F-Droid and GOG instead of $8/week guitar tuners.

It's not dissimilar to how civil disobedience in the 60s thoroughly planned and tuned for maximum PR impact. Rosa Parks went on that bus knowing she'd make a scene. Does that change the reality being uncovered?

I dont think a massive company like Epic with all the bad practices they've implemented themselves suing another mega rich company is anything like Rosa Parks getting on that bus, though.

Intentions are important considerations with something like this.

The part which OP disagreed with was the intentionality, and I likened it to another example where the disobedience was deliberate. Of course with any analogy other factors will be dissimilar.

It's interesting you point out the bad practices they have themselves as being important though. The civil rights movement in the 60s boosted Rosa Parks above Claudette Colvin even though they both could have had similar legal battles only because of optics:

> For many years, Montgomery's black leaders did not publicize Colvin's pioneering effort. She was an unmarried teenager at the time, and was reportedly impregnated by a married man

Epic certainly shouldn't get to score virtue points here, but we shouldn't require someone to be a saint to point out unfairness.

Agreed that Epic is no stranger to corporate shittiness. I think the parent's point is that somebody looking for a fight is how lots of unjust practices are ended. Complaining that Epic went into this trying to start a legal battle, and is making a PR push, is kind of looking a gift horse in the mouth imho.

Really? Sorry, that is not what I think of at all regarding this situation.

Maybe elaborate your comment further to prevent confusion? When you commented

>"I hear ya, but something smells real bad about how Epic decided to wage this war"

I read it as

"I agree that the situation is unfair but I disagree with how they decided to uncover it because it was deliberate".

Yes exactly, I don’t know how much effort they put in to just discussing it with Apple, but it is clear they planned this out and that’s why I don’t like about it. And their plan seems a bit melodramatic to me.

Okay and do you think that there's an analogy with Rosa Parks who also intentionally broke the law to highlight how it was unfair?

There are a number of facets in common here:

1. What is legal is not necessarily what is right.

2. You can intentionally break a rule/law and then use the press to highlight your case.

Maybe you would disagree with Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement's methods as well, and that's fine, certainly many people did disagree at the time (more then than now though).

I'm just pointing out that there are parallels in history for this kind of intentional rule-breaking and subsequent PR campaign.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com