Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#441

Post by zucker42 » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

floatingatoll wrote: post #373

amaccuish wrote: post #97

What took me aback was the withdrawing permission to notarise their apps for Mac. That was only meant to be a check for known vulnerabilities/malicious software. Apple was more within their rights to kick Fortnite until the dust has settled from the iOS store, that was the retaliation, but now a mechanism supposedly for security has been repurposed as punishment. That's a pretty nasty move and I feel the mask has sli…

Epic expressly snuck code through the door to activate a user-visible feature in direct prohibition to App Store rules. Apple could have revoked their developer certificate in response, which would have essentially killed all installations of Fortnite iOS/Mac worldwide within 24 hours. That they are merely revoking their ability to sign new code and giving them 2 weeks to perform an orderly shutdown is far less draco…

> revoked their developer certificate in response, which would have essentially killed all installations of Fortnite iOS/Mac worldwide within 24 hours

Yeah isn't that what people see as a problem?

> Notarization is about protecting users who are not capable of making an informed decision about code safety from developers who refuse to comply with Apple's terms of service.

My family owns a Mac on which we have played Fortnite in the past. We have no desire to be "protected" from Epic Games. I thought to point of notarization was to prevent malware, not to punish companies which Apple doesn't like.

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#442

Post by threatofrain » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

Hamuko wrote: post #275

Bud wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, there is a very solid basis. Epic has access to Apple's platform and dev tools because it has (or had) an agreement with Apple whereby it paid a percentage of profits earned in exchange for said access. Epic, btw, has the exact same kind of agreement with Sony, Microsoft, and Google, for access to their gaming platforms. All three of those companies are extracting the same 30% fee that Apple is. But…

> Epic, btw, has the exact same kind of agreement with Sony, Microsoft, and Google, for access to their gaming platforms. All three of those companies are extracting the same 30% fee that Apple is. Tim Sweeney has stated in the past that he feels like there's a better argument for game console makers taking a 30% fee. > "There's a rationale for this on console where there's enormous investment in hardware, often sold…

My problem with this is it's a very ad hoc argument without a brightline standard to anchor your judgments. It's not really clear why anyone who can get a slice of your work deserves any slice, and society has conventionally allowed the market to determine this.

You appeared to have carved out a convenient exception for the Playstations and Switches of the world because your intuition tells you that the industry isn't healthy, and that wobbling it a little could kill company interest. But we still have nothing to anchor the belief that 30% is right for gaming consoles but not elsewhere.

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#443

Post by kobalsky » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

jdminhbg wrote: post #114

Jonnax wrote: post #62

I don't understand the comparisons to game consoles. You buy an Xbox or a playstation, and it's a game playing machine. It just plays video games. You buy a mobile phone. And it's a general computing device. It's very much arguable that it's necessary for modern life.

The only thing that makes a game console only a game playing machine is that it is limited by its producer. All the hardware is there for it to be a general computing device. So when you spool this argument out, it becomes: Google/Apple don't hobble their devices as much as Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo do, therefore Google/Apple should have to open them up more and Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo should not.

Gaming consoles are a different breed since they are usually subsidized by the manufacturer. The PS4 was sold below the bill of materials cost at launch (which is waaaay lower than the manufactured unit cost) and remained relevant for 7 years and will continue working for many more. Meanwhile the iPhones that were sold at a premium in the same year are now landfill. You can't convert game consoles into general computing devices without shaking the business model of that industry.

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#444

Post by themacguffinman » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

fishywang wrote: post #352

My prediction is that this will backfire so badly for Apple. Apple clearly underestimated how popular Unreal Engine is to game developers. Apple probably expect developers to just switch to other engines when they took UE away from them, but in reality most of the developers currently using UE will just stop publishing on Apple's platforms because that's no longer a profitable platform (consider the investment for de…

Are you sure? iOS is something like half the US market and its userbase is likely more wealthy on average, I don't think any normal game developer could sacrifice that to keep using what is essentially an implementation detail at the end of the day, no matter how good it is.

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#445

Post by fireattack » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #3

It's fascinating to see the replies to the tweets. It appears most people don't care. They just want their game to work. A lesson in how your customers don't care about how your product is made.

This doesn't surprise me in any bit, but I don't understand why people on HN, a much better informed audience, keep defending Apple's walled garden practice until now, while being very critical against any slightly anti-competitive conduct Google, Facebook, or Amazon did/do.

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#446

Post by lenkite » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

enos_feedler wrote: post #338

grishka wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And so that's why I never liked nor trusted this whole idea of code signing with non-self-signed certificates, especially on desktop OSes. This notarization mechanism introduced a single point of failure: Apple. And now there is concrete evidence of how exactly this is bad. On a device I own, there should be no parties that are trusted more than myself. It's ridiculous I even have to write this.

I trust the device maker more than myself to keep my data safe and secure.

Safety over Liberty - the motto of the world today. Kneel before the master!

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#447

Post by untog » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #433

_qulr wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Notarization is about protecting users who are not capable of making an informed decision about code safety from developers who refuse to comply with Apple's terms of service. No, notarization is about preventing malware. That's all. This has been promised to us by Apple many many times. Malware prevention only. Fortnite is not malware.

> Fortnite is not malware. Well, it kinda is, isn't it? > Programs are also considered malware if they secretly act against the interests of the computer user. Is convincing children that they need to spend money to not be a "default" really in the interest of a computer user? Is taking advantage of gambling addictions with lootboxes really in the interest of a computer user (or society at large)? I get what you real…

> Yet it's worth considering if Fortnight is really a good thing in the first place.

IMO that's a fine conversation to have, but it is not Apple's place to make that decision for me.

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#448

Post by gpm » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

zucker42 wrote: post #406

gpm wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Epic could have sued Apple without the theatrics and they'd have been fine. Without the "theatrics" epic would not have had standing to sue and the case would have been dismissed.

Is this true? Can't you claim standing based on something you would do except for an illegal contract or illegal law?

I don't have a good quick cite for you on contract law, but here's an example for criminal law

https://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2015/05/07/judge-...

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#449

Post by ryandrake » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

_qulr wrote: post #410

floatingatoll wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epic expressly snuck code through the door to activate a user-visible feature in direct prohibition to App Store rules. Apple could have revoked their developer certificate in response, which would have essentially killed all installations of Fortnite iOS/Mac worldwide within 24 hours. That they are merely revoking their ability to sign new code and giving them 2 weeks to perform an orderly shutdown is far less draco…

> Notarization is about protecting users who are not capable of making an informed decision about code safety from developers who refuse to comply with Apple's terms of service. No, notarization is about preventing malware. That's all. This has been promised to us by Apple many many times. Malware prevention only. Fortnite is not malware.

An application that suddenly changes behavior due to no action taken by the user, triggered remotely by the developer, is getting very close to the "malware" line in my book.

Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th

#450

Post by AcerbicZero » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

pwinnski wrote: post #75

0x402DF854 wrote: post #23

From a preliminary statement of Epic's motion: > Just over two weeks ago, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook was asked during a Congressional hearing whether Apple has “ever retaliated against or disadvantaged a developer who went public about their frustrations with the App Store”. Mr. Cook testified, “We do not retaliate or bully people. It’s strongly against our company culture.”

Some might see a difference between "a developer who went public about their frustrations with the App Store" and a developer who deliberately violated the policies and then filed a lawsuit and started an extensive PR campaign.

Its a little surprising how effective that PR campaign has been so far.