Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#431

Post by rphillips »

tln wrote: post #380
rphillips wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1, Sweeney took the low road by violating his contract with Apple, removing Apple IAP from the existing Fortnight on people's iOS devices, and generally making a point by doing it the wrong way. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Epic didn't remove IAP... they advertised a lower price elsewhere, which is against guidelines (which is not a contract), and did so via an unreviewed update. Note that updates via webview or JS code are explicitly allowed by contracts, and what Fortnite did is very likely to have used that mechanism.

Check out the latest filing by Apple. Epic removed the IAP from Apple and only is allowing the Epic store purchases.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#432

Post by ben_w »

floatingatoll wrote: post #422
ben_w wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t have to be directly end-users — could it be like the HTTPS chain of trust, only with Apple and Google as the roots of certification?

What incentive does Google or Apple have to associate their name with someone else’s security judgment calls?

Oh, none whatsoever. This would have to be forced upon them against their will.

I just hope it’s done by governments who actually care about end users, not by those acting as though feudal aristocracy is the current economic standard and want a cut of Big Tech’s trillions.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#433

Post by floatingatoll »

ben_w wrote: post #432
floatingatoll wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What incentive does Google or Apple have to associate their name with someone else’s security judgment calls?

Oh, none whatsoever. This would have to be forced upon them against their will. I just hope it’s done by governments who actually care about end users, not by those acting as though feudal aristocracy is the current economic standard and want a cut of Big Tech’s trillions.

I take it we've moved past the era of "governments shouldn't control the Internet", then.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#434

Post by finnthehuman »

JamesSwift wrote: post #395
nonane wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of argument is incorrect: It’s not the AppStore that makes secure apps possible: It’s the mandatory sandbox that apps run inside that actually makes the system secure. It’s fairly easy to push malicious code to the AppStore but bypassing the sandbox restrictions is what keeps bad apps at bay.

Yes, this is one of my biggest pet peeves and largest disconnects when reading these threads. I dont understand how people can accept apples privacy and protecting the consumer argument when that has nothing to do with the app store. That is iOS itself and its permission model. Do people really think app store approvers are doing malware analysis on apps and analyzing network traffic to approve them?

Conversation on this website is full of people who can't see a mixed bag and acknowledge the bad parts are bad.

People who know better tend to have the self control not to engage. I often get baited into engaging.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#435

Post by nodamage »

nonane wrote: post #31
Traster wrote: post #22

I think a lot of people have short memories. When Apple launched the iPhone computer security was a disaster, the security of the AppStore was a massive benefit and the fact that we don't have massive botnets of mobile phones is in no small part down to the massive effort that was put into security. But they seem to have solved this problem so well that people have forgotten it was even a problem to begin with.

This line of argument is incorrect: It’s not the AppStore that makes secure apps possible: It’s the mandatory sandbox that apps run inside that actually makes the system secure. It’s fairly easy to push malicious code to the AppStore but bypassing the sandbox restrictions is what keeps bad apps at bay.

I mean, both contribute to the security of the ecosystem.

There are plenty of APIs available within the sandbox that are meant to be used by developers to use for legitimate purposes. But those same APIs could be abused by malicious actors as well.

That is why Android has historically had more problems with malware even though Android apps are also sandboxed.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#436

Post by viraptor »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #157
viraptor wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they cost game devs money in lost sales from me. I still don't get how the exclusives are a good deal for the creators. They get more publicity and probably some extra money for the contract. But does it really offset the lost sales? There was a large number of times when I went though: this game looks awesome, I'll buy it, oh it's exclusive for whatever-platform-i-don't-have, ... and likely not remember about it e…

Is installing another store really so burdensome? It costs nothing but a few minutes of time. GOG Galaxy can even help consolidate them.

Until epic supports proton, yes. It requires a whole new OS.

But I was also thinking in terms of actual platforms like "Xbox only for N months"

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#437

Post by d0100 »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #391
d0100 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given that smartphones are just an optional, convenient luxury item A smartphone is not a luxury item. It is a productivity device. It is a general purpose computer, no matter how Apple wants to say it isn't. It is also a vital machine for participation in the democracy. For many it is the only way they can talk to others and to their government representatives. > An iPhone is like a video game console The minute t…

What is a “productivity device”? You seem to think that’s some kind of platonic “thing” that exists, but it’s not. Web browsers, email clients, etc., are just discretionary products people may prefer to use for recreational or personal reasons. They are not structurally required. You seem to be conflating the idea of “this thing is convenient for what I like to do” with “this thing should be supported as a pivotal co…

> this thing should be supported as a pivotal component of civic life

Covid shows us that a smartphone is a pivotal component of your literal life. At risk patients now can have doctor appointments over video and electronic prescriptions. This mostly happens on portable devices.

These portable devices, despite branding and marketing, work in the same way to enable citizens to actively participate in the democracy (access to information, discussion, governmental resources, etc), their personal life (healthcare, family and education) but also on their professional life (working in a Uber-for-X, using maps, search, etc)

Portable and relatively cheap, smartphones are a necessity, a utility. You can argue that "not exactly", but it is what it is. The bigger and more ubiquitous something is, the closer it is to a utility and a shared space. Being part of a private enterprise is secondary and shouldn't take precedence over society.

When you replace the town square with your big backyard, it then becomes the townsquare

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#438

Post by toyg »

wayneftw wrote: post #233
toyg wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One side benefits some customers, the other benefits other customers.

If you don't like having choices and you think choices are bad for people then perhaps you'd prefer to live in a place like China. This lawsuit is taking place in the USA where people overwhelmingly value freedom of choice. Speaking of China - Apple gave the Chinese government their own app store. Perhaps Epic should point that out as well. It would make for a great headline: Apple gives China their own app store, bu…

Mate, I think Epic are bad guys doing the good guys’ work. Apple needs to be taken down a peg in the interest of the whole market, and sadly the only ones volunteering for the job are scumbags themselves. In the end there will probably be victims on both sides no matter what, because it’s always about the dollar and never about the consumer, sadly.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#439

Post by toyg »

alkonaut wrote: post #247
toyg wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One side benefits some customers, the other benefits other customers.

Competition benefits customers. There is no competition for pricing on the AppStore, ergo the pricing is more or less free (A monopoly). The store itself is so big as to be it's own market, and as such Apple shouldn't be allowed to use monopolistic practices even though they created the market themselves .

I agree wholeheartedly, and I sincerely hope that this process will end with Apple opening up. I just don’t think either side is completely devoid of consumer support for their practices.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#440

Post by odshoifsdhfs »

zachm0 wrote: post #418
odshoifsdhfs wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had security breaches. They has some issues where people could use any email to register an account without verification, leaving thousands (millions?) without a way to register their own valid emails. They were caught scanning your pc for everything to 'provide a better experience' if you had some things installed. And if (want to think) they are 'fighting' for openness, 'buying' rights to games and taking them…

I tried googling, it definitely wasn't as easy as you made it seem. The closest thing I could find for the registering without verification claim was a Verge article [1] about people's Fortnite account being taken over after clicking a link that was sent to them. If you have a better source please do share. EDIT: Source has been found, apparently store didn't initially send a verification email so anyone could use an…

regarding Steam friends, you can read here the Epic VP response: https://www.reddit.com/r/PhoenixPoint/comments/b0rxdq/epic_g...

And the following miriad of people showing that Epic is getting much more info than it says they do, even before asking permission (including even steam's games play time)

(it was the top post for me searching 'epic games store scan entire pc' btw)

Regarding the email thing, I said thousands (maybe millions) as I have no clue of the number, but remember easily over 300 comments in a'me too' kind of way on reddit when this happened.

Edit: even Tim admitted they fucked up after being found: https://www.reddit.com/r/PhoenixPoint/comments/b0rxdq/epic_g...

> The current implementation is a remnant left over from our rush to implement social features in the early days of Fortnite. It's actually my fault for pushing the launcher team to support it super quickly and then identifying that we had to change it. Since this issue came to the forefront we're going to fix it.

Post reply on HN