Thread by @dsmart

Yes, in this instance it was retaliatory; and it's great that the judge agreed. But the fact is that any corp violating (especially intentionally like Epic did) a ToS usually gets ALL their products pulled. Microsoft, Sony, Valve et al do it because it's standard practice.

Apple's mistake was that they didn't pull ALL Epic's products right off the bat; and for good reason. Instead, they threatened to pull other products only after the lawsuit was filed; hence it came off as being retaliatory even if it was justified in terms of standard practice.

Epic could have similarly disputed Apple's store policy in court without *intentionally* violating their ToS thus sparking hostilities that caught devs and gamers in the crossfire.

NONE of us could pull off that crap without some serious consequences.

It's easy to make the case that Apple's policies are draconian, immoral, anti-competitive etc; but unless it gets challenged in court, it's just noise.

And Epic had ONE chance to do it right - and they seemingly blew it; thus ending up in the worst defensive position imaginable.

As I have pointed out, there are several on-going cases against Apple and by corps that didn't first need to violate their ToS - thus putting themselves at a disadvantage - ahead of going up against a well-funded corp with some of the best attorneys on the planet.

And the end result is that if Epic loses this case, it means that not only are they back at square one, but that ruling could very well mean that Apple can go right ahead and pull ALL Epic's tools & products from their store. It would be an absolutely terrible precedent.

Epic didn't need to violate the ToS in order to show harm - especially since they weren't even seeking damages from the lawsuit. And it's precisely why the judge seemingly agreed with Apple that Epic was responsible for its own harm.

As much as we all love Epic, it's difficult to reconcile this tactic as having been a plausible one. Especially to those of us who know what's at stake when you agree to a ToS. And the emails that Apple later presented only solidified the argument that this was all premeditated.

Even before the emails became public, most of us were already armchair lawyering the implications of what the lawsuit would mean. And then we found out that it was an intentional violation that led to Fortnite being pulled. And that changed everything.

And now with the new season of Fortnite being released, iOS gamers won't get to play it because they're caught in the middle.

And if Apple had just pulled all Epic's products at the same time, it wouldn't have look retaliatory. Then it would have been a most terrible outcome.

Back when a court ruled that corps could be treated as people, we were all aghast because we didn't see that coming, let alone expected it. And as of this writing, it's regarded as settled law and there's no going back. At least not in my lifetime.

Similarly, if Apple wins its case because its digital store can be regarded as a brick and mortar store, and thus can say who gets to sell or not, and on what terms, it's all over. That's really all there is to it now I think.

If the US or EU govts thought that a case for monopoly or anti-competitive practices could be made against Apple, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be here having this discussion whereby a private corp had to go to extremes (foolish or not) to bring such a case to court.

Unless and until a case for either a monopoly or anti-competitive practices can be made - and won - I don't see Apple changing anything. I mean, why would they? Corps (unless you're Valve) don't tend to operate based on morality or the greater good.

And when it comes to Apple, the line that separates morality and the greater good from the need to make money is right where you get to pay .30c on the Dollar and just STFU - or else.

/end rant

FYI, @nickstatt didn't even cover ALL the ways that this could ALL go horribly wrong in a hurry. Everything he laid out could just very well be talking points to a much larger catastrophe down the road.