> Apple said one of the reasons they terminated our developer account only a few weeks after approving it was because we publicly criticized their proposed DMA compliance plan.
Apple says they did it for no reason other than that they could, not because Epic violated anything.
> “Epic’s egregious breach of its contractual obligations to Apple led courts to determine that Apple has the right to terminate ‘any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion.’ In light of Epic’s past and ongoing behavior, Apple chose to exercise that right.”
That quote didn't show the whole part, I realized it looks a bit strange out of context there. Here I'll break it down with some more:
> Schiller suggests that Epic’s “colorful criticism” combined with its past actions “strongly suggests that Epic Sweden does not intend to follow the rules.”
So, the main transgression here was "colorful criticism", that is the ongoing behavior by epic, nothing about safety or contractual breeches. If they believed Epic would break contract they would have banned them 5 years ago when that breech happened, not now, nobody can argue that a 5 year old breech of contract on another account actually warrants a random ban of this account today.
In what sense did the submarine delivery of functionality clearly in violation of their contract with Apple—the inspiring incident for all this drama—represent integrity?
If my contractual partners were to violate agreements I had entered into in good faith in order to gain PR advantage in a pre-planned legal dispute, I wouldn't tend to think of them as displaying integrity.
Yes, from the perspective of a corporation being sued for acting unethically, Sweeny lacks integrity. I’m not sure that reflects poorly on Sweeny’s character.
