Thread by @dsmart

@TimSweeneyEpic Respectfully, this argument will continue to fail - on merits - because it's a dubious one. And your stance is a double standard when you consider that you run a walled garden store that's not open - at all. You've publicly admitted this, and I bet it's going to be in discovery.

@TimSweeneyEpic Let's explore....

"we’re fighting for the freedom of people who bought smartphones to install apps from sources of their choosing"

This will fail - spectacularly - because the freedom of choice isn't being taken away just because a store imposes guidelines for their store.

@TimSweeneyEpic The main reason why this will fail is because unless and until a case can be made that what Apple is doing is 1) illegal 2) a monopolistic practice, any attorney hanging their hat on this deserves the slap of a successful motion to dismiss

@TimSweeneyEpic If I own a Tivo device, so far I can neither install Peacock nor Disney+ streaming apps on it. I need other devices. If Disney wants it on Tivo, there isn't a single argument to be made as to why Tivo should be forced to allow it. And Tivo users just shrug.

@TimSweeneyEpic Where capital gains (like money) is involved, altruism tends to take a back seat. So fighting for the freedom you are talking about is more about money than it is about said freedom of choice because people's freedom of choice to give you money is comic book fodder.

@TimSweeneyEpic When you buy a device, the rights to do what you want with it ends where the rights for a third-party you intend to use to improve on it begins. e.g lot of things your ToS says a user can't do when they license UE or Fornite. Why can't I install & run mods on Fortnite? 🤔

@TimSweeneyEpic If one buys Fornite, why don't they have the freedom to do what they want with it? The answer? 1) the rights granted prevent it 2) mods have the potential to ruin the game for others in the community. So please, explain how this analogy of 'freedom' is different from Apple's.

@TimSweeneyEpic It's one thing to advocate for 'freedom of choice' and another to advocate for 'change' in the name of the greater good. Given your own personal altruistic real life ventures, I am certain that you know the difference.

@TimSweeneyEpic Apple & Google have a compelling argument as to why they have these rules in place; and common sense - and law - will continue to dictate that they are well within their rights - regardless of what a competitor 😱 thinks.

@TimSweeneyEpic "the freedom for creators of apps to distribute them as they choose" this one is the most puzzling to me. Nobody is preventing creators from doing this. The issue is that not all distribution is an open system. Vendors can sell products on Amazon that they can't on Best Buy.

@TimSweeneyEpic The lack of 'freedom' to distribute in this case is the same: guidelines. It's even more hilarious when you consider that EGS sells carefully curated games which prevent these very same creators you speak of from selling there. Who is going to fight you & Epic for them? 🤔

@TimSweeneyEpic To wit. A few years ago you counter-sued a much-loved developer and put them out of business. Why? Because after being accused of unfair biz practices in engine tech, you then yanked the UE license; thus killing their game - and livelihood. An ENTIRE company. You did this.

@TimSweeneyEpic At that time, nobody cared about the fairness of the case because the law - and your licensing guidelines - were solid enough for you to win; regardless of the inequitable balance of power. You. did. this.

@TimSweeneyEpic Of course I don't mean 'you' personally, but since you always make clear that you are head of Epic (amid the Tencent nonsense spouted by some) and are in charge, all these things fall on you.

@TimSweeneyEpic Even when the judge said for all copies of their games to be pulled from sale and destroyed, you went along with it. You pulled a working game, killed one in dev, and put a group of devs - with families and obligations - out of business. You. did. this.

@TimSweeneyEpic And these are some of the reasons why each time you come up with these arguments of effusive altruism, going by the comments in your feed, they're met with much derision and lols.

@TimSweeneyEpic You have to make a choice as to how you portray your notable altruism vs how you want to retain the freedom to be a successful capitalist. Fighting for the little guy when you have a lot to gain, is a disingenuous fight that's a losing proposition for all but your bank a/c

@TimSweeneyEpic It's a fine line, and in most cases not many capitalists can walk it.

This fight for the little guy against the likes of Apple & Google - competitors - would be noteworthy (the lols alone are worth the price of entry) and more plausible if you didn't obfuscate the motives.

@TimSweeneyEpic "and the freedom of both groups to do business directly." Sorry, but this takes the cake. How can you advocate for peer-to-peer business when you rely on a middle man, and his influence, to make it happen? If you need the middle man you have to abide by their rules.

@TimSweeneyEpic Who is preventing you from selling Fortnite directly to gamers? When you did an end run around Google, it worked. But it was inconvenient only in the sense that unless a gamer really wanted it on Android, they had to click through, what? Five warnings? Was it so inconvenient?

@TimSweeneyEpic In the end you abided by the rules of the middle man and alleviated those godawful extra clicks that granny seriously didn't want to do - that ONE time. 🙄 Except that there was no way around the other middle man who, unlike those other guys, made sure that you couldn't do it.

@TimSweeneyEpic So, setting aside ALL of that and because you're CONSISTENTLY making the WRONG arguments about this sort of thing, let me explain why 1) if the attorneys took one iota of what you're saying seriously, they will LOSE this case 2) Apple needs to be held to account...

@TimSweeneyEpic To me, this whole thing about selling a game on Apple|Google while sidestepping their tos, hinges on one simple thing: monopolistic practices. There is seemingly no way around it. Well, short of begging them to relax the rules.

@TimSweeneyEpic So unless and until the courts find that these companies are either 1) monopolistic or 2) acting unlawfully, the argument breaks down to: "They're using their platform for unfair gain". And even then, you're right back at the monopoly or unfair argument.

@TimSweeneyEpic The 30% royalty cut was standard because, well, Apple actually started that crap. It's the price of entry that has taken its toll over time only because over the years there has been a seismic shift in the economics of making and funding games.

@TimSweeneyEpic Steam et al followed suit because it was - at the time - considered a level playing field that we all could live with. Back in the day, paying something like 30c on the Dollar for marketing in stores was little more than a rounding error on the books because we needed stores.

@TimSweeneyEpic When we did publishing deals and stores like Best Buy, Walmart etc literally asked for what amounted to shakedown money just to be in the stores, publishers weren't up in arms about it because they needed those middle men to get to gamers. We all lived with it.

@TimSweeneyEpic That practice never really went away and nobody sued for the right to fair play in getting games on the shelves. What did happen was that digital distribution presented a choice. And suddenly you weren't forced to go through those middle men in order to sell games.

@TimSweeneyEpic But as capitalism goes, it wasn't long before new middle men showed up in digital distribution. And the same practices started up again but in a different form.

@TimSweeneyEpic And as these things go, it wasn't long before the rules imposed by these new digital middle men started to have the same impact on the price of entry and the ability to succeed on any platform.

@TimSweeneyEpic When 30% became the norm, Epic made its store debut with favorable terms - but still couldn't compete with Steam. So it had to adapt and come up with ways to attract gamers to its platform. That's how capitalism works. You come up with ways to compete. That's not altruism.

@TimSweeneyEpic Apple doesn't need to reduce its 30% royalty in order to be competitive or attract publishers. If you want to use that middle man to sell a game, to most, 30c on the Dollar isn't a deal breaker . In fact, for what they provide, the price of entry is worth it.

@TimSweeneyEpic So that's not the argument to be making in taking on the likes of Apple and Google - let alone Steam - because it's a losing proposition. The argument is about whether or not Apple & Google gain an advantage through 'unfair business practices'. It's a tough argument to make.

@TimSweeneyEpic And for that we should look no further than the whole e-book pricing fiasco because the arguments in that case didn't hinge on whether or not pricing was OK. Instead it hinged on unfair business practices to fix pricing. They lost.

@TimSweeneyEpic The other side of this is the shrink wrap Autodesk case which delved into what it means to 'own' digital goods and what you are allowed to do with them. Like the e-book case, this one too had a litany of args and rulings which shaped the future of licensing and tos rights.

@TimSweeneyEpic The case against Apple & Google - as weak as it may be - is mostly about whether or not disallowing competing stores and apps is tantamount to unfair business practices and thus does it run afoul of trade & consumer laws.

@TimSweeneyEpic It's a fight that courts should decide because it will end the argument and pave the way for change and growth in much the same way that other digital related lawsuits are the reason that we can resell or gift software, mod them, disassemble them etc without fear of retribution.

@TimSweeneyEpic It's a fight that's bigger than Fortnite because long before that went from failure to success (because a group of Epic folks took a crazy gamble & ran with it) others were dealing on the middle man's terms because there was seemingly no choice IF you wanted to sell through them

@TimSweeneyEpic In conclusion, again with respect, I implore you please stop obfuscating this argument and making it about something that it's not. Nobody cares if you can sell Fortnite on app store or not because those who care enough about the game either already have it or know how to get it.

@TimSweeneyEpic Instead lets focus on what what the future would look like in a scenario where we can sell competing apps on a competitor's platform without being subjected to restrictions designed to give an unfair advantage to the competitor.

@TimSweeneyEpic If this case makes it past a motion to dismiss, my guess is that, like all the other cases against Apple & Google currently working through the legal system, we'll be having this argument for years to come. Meantime, we just play by the rules without picking a side. End.

@TimSweeneyEpic @threadreaderapp unroll please