It seems like Apple's retaliation was prompted by Epic's lawsuit -- not by the (trivial) breach of ToS.

The precedence Apple wants to set is: break ToS, get kicked off the store. Break ToS and then try to take Apple to court, get kicked off the platform.

It's pretty obvious that Fortnite is just the pawn that Epic used to wage war. This is obvious to Apple too, hence their counterclaim for punitive damages.

Yes, and that is the textbook definition of retaliation.

This is the same concept as tenant rights. Just because you are renting someone's house doesn't give them complete control over your life. A landlord can't randomly barge into your house (even if technically belongs to them) and sell your stuff.

And before someone comments "But there is no tenancy here", well it's an analogy and it's the same idea. The reason tenant rights exist is because we recognize that having a place to live in is a basic existential need for an individual and therefore we place restrictions on what landlords can get away it, despite the fact that being a landlord is far from a monopoly.

Something similar needs to happen for these bottlenecking platforms that are basically existential requirements for a lot of companies. Also applies to payment processors btw.

Tenant rights is completely different. That's regarding someone's life not someone giant corporations competition with a similar product.

I disagree. I think Epic Games and the affiliates didn't think through the ramifications for the actions taken by Epic Games.

Epic Games is free to build their own phone and app store platform. There is nothing stopping them. Other than the risk that people don't want to buy into whatever they build. But Apple had the same risks.

If this is truly a good faith negotiation (and not a stunt) on the part of Epic Games, they need to understand they're just losing the negotiation -- that's all. Business is business. Epic Games is just bad at it.

Epic isn't negotiating with Apple. They are suing Apple.

To a sociologist, lawsuits are simply another form of negotiation.

They often are; many get settled out of court.

Qualitatively different. Apple's cant risk looking weak here because this issue went to court. Epic could have had an out of court settlement with much better terms.

I didn't say that Epic games was negotiating WELL. :-) I just said "it's a negotiation" that Epic games happens to be losing at the moment.

Objectively speaking, all negotiations seek to bring about change. The parties use whatever tools they have at their disposal and start the conversation wherever their experience, tools, and ethical bent leads them.

Epic games (AFAIK) started (the public portion of) this conversation by violating terms that Apple set forth in a contract that Epic games agreed to. Apple is defending their contract with their behavior. They have the stronger position unless the law comes to the aid of Epic games (which is what I'm assuming Epic games hopes to induce).

Sidenote: The only law capable of negating a contract is a bankruptcy. Neither party has declared bankruptcy. I have a feeling the law is going to be on Apple's side too.