Code signing requires an Apple Developer account. Without being about to sign a package you can't publish to the App Store. You can develop apps for iOS and OS X, and then publish to (a) test device(s) from XCode without one, but that's about it.
If I write an app that includes the Facebook SDK, that doesn't mean that Facebook is involved with submitting my app. As long as my developer account is valid, Facebook's account doesn't enter the equation when I am submitting an app that includes their SDK in any way I can see. Can someone shed more light on this?
Facebook can't give you their SDK without having their own developer account.
and for every dev that left you'd have a shady one step in the fill the void.
You mean like all of the shady developers who are already in the App Store selling in app purchases for loot boxes, useless virtual currency and play to win games? I’m surprised (not really) that people are defending Epic but would never defend King (Candy Crush) or the makers of FarmVille. I would much rather see BaseCamp (Hey) or the company that was selling virtual workouts with real trainers take them to court. I…
To take Apple to court you need lots of money.
None of the good guys gets that much. So best you can get it is two bad guys fight each other.
Because it does not matter to the vast majority of people. In fact many appreciate that there is a gate keeper. There are so many categories where you cannot load software outside of what the manufacturer provides that you cannot list them. It would also be impractical to allow otherwise for many of these. Then you end up with warranty issues. Would you allow people to load software of their choice for their automobi…
> In fact many appreciate that there is a gate keeper. Just like people "love relevant ads" that Google provides People never love gatekeepers or ads. They love secure smartphones and relevant web search results. Users enjoy the benefits a gatekeeper can provide, but they would be just as happy to get the benefits without the downsides. It was reasonable for Apple to use gatekeeping at first. It was simple and workab…
What corporation acts solely in the best interest of the consumer? Epic isn't, certainly, with games that are profitable off addictive microtransacations to children. Additionally, they make the argument that they can reduce the processing fee by ~20% but offered consumers a cost reduction of somewhere like ~11%. They're acting in their own best interest.
Yes but Epic still needs those licenses to support those companies and continue to develop the engine. Regardless of the other matter going on, it looks punitive to me. I think when we look back on this event in 5-10 years' time, we'll see this as a serious misstep by Apple.
Yes, I agree with the first half of what you said, which is not was the OP said. As for the rest, I have seen far too many “this time, Apple is doomed for real” events to agree with your last sentence. Apple could stop selling any device today and still be around in 10 years.
Remember when AT&T (“Ma Bell”) was broken up (“Divestiture”) into a bunch of independent companies (regional bells, RBOCs, “Baby Bells”) as Bell Labs spun off into a set of companies? Yeah, the AT&T you see today is actually the largest of those RBOCs (PacBell) that went around and reacquired all of the other RBOCS and changed its name to AT&T (leaving the original AT&T using the name for its continuing backhaul/wholesale operation). Could Apple be forced to divest the App Store and also license other qualified app stores that come along to compete with it? —and that’s just what the courts can do to them. Those koolaide brewers also have drawn the wrath of Congress and angered the Executive Branch by not being so willing to drop a half trillion to setup shop in the desert midwest instead of southeast Asia.
Here are just some reasons why android isn’t an alternative: Most ship with maleware that can’t be removed (or can’t be removed without giving up on updating the OS.) Android still doesn’t let you run a lot of 3rd party software (the latest version breaks Termux for example.) Apple’s anticompetitive behavior also ties people to the platform (iMessage is a great example of this. My family won’t use any other IM app so…
Heads up, this is what iPhones will be like with an open app store. You'll be waiting on Verizon to get their ads into the latest version of iOS before you can install it.
Just because there’s an open App Store doesn’t mean apple has to give root to random organizations (I’m not even sure what confusion caused you to link the two ideas.)
That would happen if apple allowed other organizations to customize the OS which is a different discussion.
Is the fact that epic has its own store on desktop, where they also take a cut, and also do not allow games to bypass their payment system relevant if this goes to trial? It seems a bit hypocritical even if the percent is lower
I'm not sure if Epic requires you to use their payment processor for IAPs, but even if they do it's not hypocritical in the slightest. The Epic Store isn't the only realistic way to sell a game/app/whatever on PC. That's the issue here - not that the store takes a cut, but that if you don't like the cut you have absolutely no way to try and go with an alternative.
If I don't like the cut Epic takes in their store I can go with Steam. Or gog.com. Or itch.io. Or sell things myself on my own website. If I don't like the cut Apple takes in their store on iOS I can go with... nothing.
This is arguably false. The only license that would’ve been withdrawn was Epic’s. Not a single other developer using UE was targeted directly by Apple.
As someone that works at an Unreal Engine shop, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
OK, but please don't post a personal attack with zero information. Instead, post information with zero personal attack. Then the rest of can learn something. The problem with berating someone for being ignorant—even if they are ignorant—is that it poisons the commons. (Edit: besides, of course, it not being nice.)
Others might say that they're not illegal and/or that you have a duty not to enter into them in the first place.
> they're not illegal We'll see! Until then, revoking certificates is retaliation. > you have a duty not to enter into them in the first place This isn't how contract law works.
>you have the duty to violate illegal developer agreements.
Neither is this if you're admitting the legality hasn't been determined.
Because it does not matter to the vast majority of people. In fact many appreciate that there is a gate keeper. There are so many categories where you cannot load software outside of what the manufacturer provides that you cannot list them. It would also be impractical to allow otherwise for many of these. Then you end up with warranty issues. Would you allow people to load software of their choice for their automobi…
> In fact many appreciate that there is a gate keeper. People also want to pay no taxes until the police doesn't show up when somebody breaks into their home. Same with health insurance.
I don't think this is really analogous here. The App Store's monopoly on distribution != iOS app sandboxing, the later of which all apps distributed through non jailbroken means (including AltStore) abide by. The later is what protects iOS more than the former.