They are working backwards to conclusions that benefit them in particular, and framing the problem in those terms.
That is of course the right conclusion for them.
The chances are that those are the right conclusions for everyone else, are next to zero, since they have a systematic bias against reaching such a conclusion.
Also if their reasons are wrong, then their conclusion will be framed wrongly.
We do sometimes say someone did the right thing for the wrong reasons, but by definition we never say this while still ourselves buying into the logic they used to get there.
> they have a systematic bias against reaching such a conclusion.
No they don't. They have a bias for reaching conclusions which benefit them. Full stop. Those conclusions may coincidentally benefit others, even if that was not part of their motivation.
What would you suggest? We should be in favor of a link tax purely to spite Google? We should surrender our privacy to Facebook just to stick it to Apple? We should protect Apple's ability to restrict what users can do with their devices as a display of contempt towards Epic?
> What would you suggest? We should be in favor of a link tax purely to spite Google? We should surrender our privacy to Facebook just to stick it to Apple? We should protect Apple's ability to restrict what users can do with their devices as a display of contempt towards Epic?
Bizarre - I’m not sure what these suggestions have to do with me.
Epic doesn’t care about protecting users rights to do what they want with their devices.
Nothing they are proposing is about that.
All they are proposing is that they should be able to get a cut.
If Epic gets to run an App Store or payment gateway, Apple’s platform will still limit what users can do with their devices, so we can see that they don’t care about that.
Personally, I am happy for Apple’s customers to choose a closed platform if they like.
But, I am not happy that we have no open alternative.
Google promised us one, but reneged on that promise. Remember ‘open always wins’?
I don’t think it’s Apple’s responsibility to provide people with an open platform, nor do I think we should force our views on people who want a curated platform.
I think it’s up to the rest of us to build an open platform, if we want one.
‘The rest of us’ would include Epic, if they had an interest in user freedom.
> Epic doesn’t care about protecting users rights to do what they want with their devices.
I never said they do. They want users to be able to install iOS apps on from third party sources. Their motivation is that they simply want to avoid paying Apple's App Store fees. Our causes are aligned even though their intentions are entirely self-serving. They reached the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.
> they simply want to avoid paying Apple's App Store fees
This is often repeated on HN, but is not true. They want a cut of those fees for themselves, which is why they want to run their own store and payment mechanism.
This is definitely no more aligned with the users than Apple.
Arguably it’s less aligned, since they don’t care what users experience with the platform is.
> they want to run their own store and payment mechanism.
...which would require Apple to allow iOS users to install apps from third parties, right? How is that less aligned with users than Apple? What Epic plans to do once Apple's policy changes is irrelevant.
I'll reply with a straightforward approach: "Reward good behavior. Punish bad behavior."
Really it's that simple. There are no absolutely "good" humans or companies. They only have good and bad actions.
If the action is good short-term but bad long-term, then the decision becomes more interesting/difficult, but is still a decision on the action, not the reasons.
Who decides which actions are good and which are bad?
Presumably at the very least someone who understands the actions.
Without understanding the reasons for actions, we can only partially decide whether they are good or bad, because we cannot fully understand the actions themselves.
