
Apple vs. Epic – a briefing on the antitrust arguments and interesting facts - pier25
https://venturebeat.com/2020/09/11/the-deanbeat-apple-v-epic-a-briefing-on-the-antitrust-arguments-and-interesting-facts/
======
zepto
This is not a briefing or factual piece as the headline suggests.

It contains facts, but it is an opinion piece that constructs an argument
intended to support Epic’s case.

There is nothing wrong with writing such opinion, but the headline makes this
into a clear act of deception by an interested party.

~~~
pier25
I agree there are some hints of bias, but I wouldn't think it's a biased
piece.

You don't think Apple's arguments are objectively presented?

~~~
zepto
One thing which clearly is not objectively presented is the claim to have
easily debunked Apple’s argument that Epic asked for a sweetheart deal.

Wherever you end up, it’s not ‘trivially debunked’ just because of a line in
Epic’s letter, which can reasonably be suspected to have been placed there
only to serve this argument, and not because it was sincere.

We have to contend with Epic’s insincerity and self interest at every level of
this, even if we ultimately believe a world with more stores on iOS would be a
good one, and that has to include not seeing anything they say as ‘trivial’ or
reflective of anything other than a designed legal strategy, which clearly
includes deception and intentional breach of contract.

Again - maybe these moves are necessary in some broader arc of history towards
a more healthy software market, but Epic is clearly willing to use dishonest
to get what they want, and therefore nothing about what they claim can be
treated as trivially true or false.

As for the article, note that it doesn’t “trivially confirm” Apple’s claim
that epic has created the damage for itself by not just reverting the
deceptive update.

The article is an argument in favor of Epic’s position, not just a briefing or
fact summary.

