[darklion]

> It's not wrong for Epic to support changes that also happen to benefit everyone while also prioritizing their own goals.

No, but it’s wrong for Epic to position those changes as part of a battle to ensure everybody gets their money, and then admit on the stand that they were perfectly happy to let everybody else to continue to get screwed over as long as they (Epic) got their cash.

--

https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/30/23962920/epic-just-admit...

"The Coalition for App Fairness is an independent nonprofit organization founded by industry-leading companies to advocate for freedom of choice and fair competition across the app ecosystem."

--

https://www.imore.com/epic-games-would-have-accepted-special...

Lawyer: If Apple had told you that it would offer you a deal and no other developers, would you have accepted that?

Sweeney: Yes, I would have.

[xyzzy_plugh]

I disagree that it is wrong. It's pragmatic.

[darklion]

So it’s pragmatic to publicly advocate one position and then privately advocate another?

Isn’t that what Google is doing here, publicly advocating one position (Epic are a bunch of selfish bastards) and privately advocating another (Google is entitled to screw over everybody else)? Why is Google selfish and Epic pragmatic for the exact same actions?