Just installed Linux on my Mac; it felt like freedom.
Check out my posts[1] about using Linux on a Mac the way you'd use macOS.
Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11
191–200 of 638 posts
Re: Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Replace Apple’s iOS ecosystem with Microsoft’s Xbox, Sony’s PlayStation or Nintendo’s Switch. Either you destroy the console ecosystem by forcing them all to open up, or classify iOS as somehow different... or you leave them all to enforce their business agreements through mutually accepted legal term. If Epic doesn’t want a different agreement than Apple, they can negotiate alternative legal terms.
> Microsoft’s Xbox, Sony’s PlayStation or Nintendo’s Switch. I don't believe any of those vendors take anything close to 30% of in-game revenue. And the reason is they compete with each other, quite vigorously, for the same set of users looking for the same set of products (consoles and games). > or classify iOS as somehow different... Right, because Apple is leveraging their dominance of an external market (high end…
> I don't believe any of those vendors take anything close to 30% of in-game revenue.
Worked for one of the worlds largest video games publishers for 6+ years. Now I work for the largest games publisher in the world, so, if anyone would get a discount for being big it would be us.
It’s 30% platform fee for sales on the PlayStation or xbox platforms, 70k eur/y developer fee (and you still have to buy hardware which is double sometimes triple price from the consumer stuff).
Valve has the same 30% and the same “non-compete” w.r.t discounts on other platforms.
This is pretty standard, and is one of the reasons why people tend to release on epic or steam and not both.
Re: Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what they're fighting. Surely Epic winning will mean a court order to reinstate Fortnite and other of Epic's games onto the App Store. They should have sued and never have done their "pay direct" thing if they wanted to stay operational on Apple platforms during the lawsuit. Apple couldn't retaliate at that point since any termination attempt would be reversed by a court order.
> They should have sued and never have done their "pay direct" thing If they did that, any court hearing the lawsuit would throw it out because Epic would not have standing. Epic had to do it this way to have any hope of a court hearing their case.
They would only have no standing on the fact that you can't provide other payment methods in your app. They bring up many complaints in their lawsuit[0], mainly there being no competing app store for iOS and 30% being 10x the 3% most regular payment processors charge for processing and fraud detection. I (and you) obviously can't say whether or not the case would be thrown out in a different situation since it didn't happen, but I don't see why it would be thrown out since both of those points seems fair for a antitrust lawsuit, and 30% of sales is enough to mean millions in potential damages.
0: https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf
Re: Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a real stretch to look at what happened with Hey and think that they took on Apple and won. Hey got what they wanted, as did Apple. This is the way. It's amusing that people think Epic is doing this for the good of anyone other than themselves.
> Hey got what they wanted, as did Apple. That's correct, they were not big enough to take on Apple and win. They bent to Apple's demands and figured out a solution that Apple wanted. In the process they saved their own company but had zero impact on the overall ecosystem. I think my original point stands. If user-freedom advocates want a "champion" that can actually change the ecosystem, it's going to need to be som…
> That's correct, they were not big enough to take on Apple and win.
I think reasonable people can disagree on the meaning of "win" in this case.
From my POV, Hey won because (1) they were handsomely rewarded with free national news coverage for Raging Against the Fruit at the cost of having to make very minor and unsurprising changes to their app, and (2) they forced Apple to make changes to their app review process.
> Apple: "Additionally, two changes are coming to the app review process and will be implemented this summer. First, developers will not only be able to appeal decisions about whether an app violates a given guideline of the App Store Review Guidelines, but will also have a mechanism to challenge the guideline itself. Second, for apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. Developers will instead be able to address the issue in their next submission."
WordPress is another example of a small company who "won", receiving an very public apology from Apple.
Re: Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11
#195This is something many people feared might happen, and now, it's become a reality: Apple can, at will, remove your entire foundation or business, your (their) customers and your existence on iOS is just gone. Apple is a company that needs to be brought down a peg or two, it's far too 'valuable' in terms of its market worth, and needs a huge kick up the ass as Microsoft once had to show them some respect. And the EU w…
Replace Apple’s iOS ecosystem with Microsoft’s Xbox, Sony’s PlayStation or Nintendo’s Switch. Either you destroy the console ecosystem by forcing them all to open up, or classify iOS as somehow different... or you leave them all to enforce their business agreements through mutually accepted legal term. If Epic doesn’t want a different agreement than Apple, they can negotiate alternative legal terms.
There's a bit of a difference since you can easily have multiple consoles as well as a PC, but you can't easily have multiple mobile phones, since it's very inconvenient to carry them, charge them, pay for multiple data plans, sync data, etc.
Consoles should also be forced to open up though, and there's no reason why that would "destroy the console ecosystem". They might have to raise the prices of the consoles, but everyone has to do it so it won't matter, and the consoles can also either be financed or monthly fees for online play can be increased.
Re: Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already have an open console market. It's called the PC market. Consoles are nothing but closed PCs. Did opening up destroy the PC market? No. But opening up another console market probably would destroy it; there's no reason to separate a hypothetical new PC market from the old PC market. So if you have a PC market and a PS4 market, and then you open the PS4, you have a PC market and another PC market, and then y…
> It's called the PC market. Consoles are nothing but closed PCs. Eh.. no, I think this is reductive. In addition to being closed PCs, consoles are also an OS and collection of services that make playing games easier and make the process of configuring the device easy. They also often come with unique hardware (3DS, Wii U, Switch, Vita) that offer dedicated features that don't make sense on PCs. Most importantly, con…
> Most importantly, consoles are standardized PCs. It's not that they're closed, it's that if a game says it works on the Switch, and you have a Switch, that's it. That's all you need to know. PCs offer a lot more complication because there are multiple hardware variations and because the OS isn't specially designed to provide a lot of dedicated frameworks and interfaces to make running games and taking advantage of the hardware easy.
Yes, I'm familiar with the economic reasons for the existence of consoles. But look at the parent comment:
>>> I'd happily invest in consoles if I could build it myself with open hardware.
And poof, all the benefits of standardization are gone. This is just an ordinary PC. You put in the parts you want. And developers suddenly have to support every part anyone might want.
> I don't think any of those benefits would go away if 3rd-parties were allowed to make compatible games without asking permission.
As I read inetknght, he's talking about making the hardware open, not letting people sell games for it.
Re: Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11
#197I'm the guy who created the ORIGINAL system what Apple selling as "Sign in with Apple". [My system uses the industry standards like OAuth2. Apple ditched OAuth2 just to steal my work] This EPIC GAMES ban isn't "personal" as you all think. If Apple don't ban "Sign in with Apple" for epic games, then Apple is very much screwed. That's because I wrote the patent claim in such a way. This is my patent claim: https://www.…
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, since I didn't read everything, all you have proven is they came to the same implementation(s) as you have. That doesn't mean they literally copied your work.
But since you seem to have a patent, good luck in the patent fight.
Re: Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11
#198Folks are always talking about whether tech companies are monopolies or not, and I just don't think we're using the right vocabulary. Why not just create a new legal definition of a platform and create regulations that rein in the companies that fit that description?
Namely, self-preference on the platform (Google, Amazon), false information (Facebook, Twitter), transparency of the source of ads, or in Apple's case usurious rates.
I imagine if platforms came with some regulations, all those folks clambering to "be the Uber of X" would sound about as cool as being a wastewater treatment plant, or a fire station.
Re: Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11
#199It's always interesting to read the comments on articles about the Epic Games situation. We can have discussions about Apple's cut or how Apple operates their store but this is such a clear cut case that I'm honestly surprised so many HN readers are siding with Epic (or maybe it's just the anti-Apple crowd looking for any reason to crap on Apple). Epic tried to get Apple to allow a whole new store on their platform A…
I think most people here aren't specifically siding with epic the entity, they're just siding with a preferred outcome due to its implications
Re: Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
This wasn't some random ToS violation, this was a willful egregious violation done with subversion & malice to undermine the App Store's revenue model. I don't fault Apple for wanting to sever all ties with bad actors. > They enforce their TOS randomly and this will happen to smaller companies too. If their ToS is randomly enforced, which other App/Company violated the same terms as Epic which Apple chose to not enfo…
Don't "premium video companies" like Netflix and Amazon get a special deal? https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...
There's no "special deal" for large companies because of who they are, there are multiple exemptions [1] for which types of Apps are free, what sales are exempt and which are subject to Royalty, e.g. "Reader" Apps like Kindle, Audible, Netflix & Spotify don't pay any Royalty. They have been relaxing the categories of Apps which are exempt as previously Spotify & Netflix were subject to the 30% Royalty.
[1] https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/#:~...