"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.
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.
>"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".
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.
Intentions are important considerations with something like this.
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.