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

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

#531

Post by jakelazaroff » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 10:32 PM UTC

floatingatoll wrote: post #429

_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.

I'm sorry, it sounds like we're saying the same thing. Notarization is not a stick-less carrot. Anyone can sign up and agree to the rules and pay the fee begin notarizing apps. If you break the rules you agree to when you sign up, you lose access to notarization. It seems like we disagree about this basic understanding, so I'll take a couple guesses at it. Are you, perhaps, arguing that Apple should not be allowed to…

Sure, I'll bite. My mental model of notarization is strictly a means to fight malware (which, yes, is a nebulous word, but I think we can all agree that Unreal Engine games don't blanket qualify).

Since most people are essentially prevented from running non–notarized macOS software, Apple should treat notarization as a rubber stamp. As long as your app is not literally malware, Apple should notarize it.

Apple's use of notarization as a stick for Epic here certainly goes against if not the letter, then the spirit of their developer documentation: [1]

> Notarization gives users more confidence that the Developer ID-signed software you distribute has been checked by Apple for malicious components. Notarization is not App Review. The Apple notary service is an automated system that scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues, and returns the results to you quickly. If there are no issues, the notary service generates a ticket for you to staple to your software; the notary service also publishes that ticket online where Gatekeeper can find it.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/xcode/notarizing_m...

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

#532

Post by cool_dude85 » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 10:33 PM UTC

Waterfall wrote: post #499

dreamcompiler wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stallman is a difficult person to like and he is wrong about many things, but not about this, the central issue of his career.

What do you find him wrong about?

The detritus between your toes is not, in fact, a tasty treat.

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

#533

Post by klmadfejno » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 10:33 PM UTC

l3s2d wrote: post #327

klmadfejno wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The engine is open source isn't it? They can't stop you from downloading the source and compiling it, right?

Source available, not open source.

Ok, but is the general point accurate?

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

#534

Post by cma » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 10:33 PM UTC

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #426

bob1029 wrote: post #291

Can someone give me compelling reasons for disallowing side-loading of applications on iOS? Hypothetically, if side-loading were to be allowed it could be buried under a configuration+confirmation flag for security reasons just like with Android or Windows 10. Thinking more abstractly about this, I already do "sideload" iOS applications when I sign them with enterprise/developer certs and perform OTA installs from sy…

If I see an app in the App Store that I might be interested in trying then I can download it and be pretty sure it's not malware, it does roughly what it's advertised as doing, and I can see from its price and the IAPs listed in the store whether it's reasonable value. By contrast every time my mum clicks a Facebook advert and downloads an app on her Android phone it makes her phone noticeably worse to use. Apple is…

If it is such a valuable service maybe Apple could let you pay $50 to lock your mom's phone after purchase, or whatever dollar value people value the lockdown at.

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

#535

Post by oscargrouch » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 10:34 PM UTC

ernst_klim wrote: post #435

grishka wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let them install that malware and have their data stolen despite all warnings because they deserve it? We can't have safety nets everywhere, and we, in fact, don't. We allow everyone to drive, use knives and handle all kinds of potentially dangerous stuff every day, but for some reason can't trust them with their own phones. Some mistakes are costly, but people learn from them. Such is life.

> We allow everyone to drive, use knives Ah, these are pretty simple things. We don't allow to sell any drugs, or some drugs without prescription, because drugs are hard and require education. So do computers.

The big question here is one simple thing: property.

Imagine someone selling you a house and despite that you think you own the house the seller defines what things you can or cannot have in your own house, and even the ones he let you have, you must buy through them (so they can get a tax and force control) and if suddenly they are not ok with that anymore, it can simply vanish from your home.

"Hey look, you cant have that knife that its not from Apple Houses, it will hurt your kids.. we are always thinking on your safety"

Then you buy a car that you think its the one you like, but its not on you Apple Home store, so you are not allowed to drive that car.

But hey Apple homes have said its for your own safety, because that car was evaluated and could kill your wife.

In this case its clear "Apple Homes" succeeded in through marketing in psycological tatics to influence the house owner to do be ok with those things and still think he actually owns the house while the property is in reality leased where they define what you can access to or what can simply vanish even if you bought them.

I just cant understand how people can try to defend this sort of behaviour even when its clear it goes against their self interests and can damage them in several ways.. as the parent have said, just some sort of "stockholm syndrome" can explain this.

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

#536

Post by heavyset_go » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 10:34 PM UTC

mantap wrote: post #282

baddox wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguments of this form always rely on nebulous definitions of what counts as a "choice." Sure, if you're banned from a specific app store, you cannot use that specific app store, because that's just what is means to be banned. You can, of course, still access any other app store.

Imagine if Google decided tomorrow to ban App Stores other than Google Play Store on Android. This would mean that there's only two app stores: Apple's and Google's. Google doesn't do that because that would be an abuse of their market position and they would get rinsed in the courts. Since the same laws apply to Google as Apple, and Apple clearly has significant market power in smartphone and tablet computers, it st…

Google is abusing their market position as well, because they purposely hinder third party app stores by putting restrictions in Android that prevent them from implementing features that the Play Store has had for years.

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

#537

Post by WindyLakeReturn » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 10:35 PM UTC

danudey wrote: post #212

woofie11 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A one-sided agreement containing a retaliation clause, followed by exercising that clause, is retaliation. Say you're desperate and need water in a crisis, and I offer you some, but only if you sign an agreement which gives you water, but says I can punch you in the face whenever you say something I don't like. Say you say something I don't like, and I punch you in the face. Did I just retaliate? Or did the contract…

Apple said "Here are the terms, you can use our services if you agree to them, and if you break them we'll close your account." Epic said "Okay, we agree.", then broke the terms they agreed to, so Apple is closing their account. This seems like pretty straightforward break of the terms of use to me. The reasonable way Epic could have proceeded is to have submitted an update with the "third party store" stuff added, g…

>This seems like pretty straightforward break of the terms of use to me.

And closing the account is retaliation.

I think people are giving different meanings to words, with moral judgment tied to some of these meanings, and these meanings are causing confusion.

Let's take the word discriminate. Is it wrong if I discriminate when hiring someone? Many will say yes, but because they are thinking of specific forms of discrimination such as based on race or gender. But if I choose to not hire someone because of a lack of programming skill, that is still discrimination, but isn't wrong.

So back on topic. The action of closing the account is retaliation. So the question becomes is it wrong, but to answer that clearly depends upon if Apple's terms are right to begin with and if it is possible to offer someone terms that are wrong to uphold.

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

#538

Post by _qulr » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

_qulr wrote: post #520

floatingatoll wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, it sounds like we're saying the same thing. Notarization is not a stick-less carrot. Anyone can sign up and agree to the rules and pay the fee begin notarizing apps. If you break the rules you agree to when you sign up, you lose access to notarization. It seems like we disagree about this basic understanding, so I'll take a couple guesses at it. Are you, perhaps, arguing that Apple should not be allowed to…

I'm arguing that Developer ID should be entirely separate from the App Store. That they involve the same Apple developer accounts and programs is merely a matter of convenience, but until now we never had the worry that App Store disputes would lead to problems with Mac software distribution outside the App Store. It's clear now that they should be entirely separate developer programs. If Apple wants to suspend someo…

The problem is that App Store is the only distribution method on iOS, so it's almost inevitable that you butt heads with Apple if you make iOS apps. How many App Store developers haven't had some kind of fight with Apple? So if App Store and Developer ID accounts are tied, you're always risking your Mac distribution if you make iOS apps too.

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

#539

Post by kmeisthax » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

woofie11 wrote: post #2

This clearly and unambiguously crosses the line into abuse of market power. Apple's actions before? Maybe? Sort of? Apple needed that 30 percent cut to monitor for fraud and quality or something, going above-and-beyond other payment processors. This? This has absolutely no basis in anything. It's simple retaliation designed to kneecap Epic from Apple's dominant control of a market. Apple can refuse to let Epic releas…

The thing is, Apple probably isn't the only one to do this. Apple is actually very graceful by the standards of platforms. Note that Epic did not attempt to surreptitiously introduce a "direct payment" feature into Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo platforms. That's because you don't even get developer documentation without signing an NDA. Had Epic even thought about doing this on console, the question wouldn't be "will the console manufacturers retaliate", as much as it would be "how many months until the console manufacturers start banning new game submissions that use Unreal Engine"?

Apple did this before, BTW. Remember "Thoughts on Flash"? That wasn't Jobs railing against an aging browser plugin. Adobe had figured out how to get Flash to export iOS apps, and that really pissed off Jobs. So it was really Jobs attacking a strawman (the buggy Flash Player) in order to justify banning all third-party development tools. The FTC threatened to sue and the rule was removed about 3 months later.

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

#540

Post by benologist » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

colinmhayes wrote: post #434

quotha wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear ya, but something smells real bad about how Epic decided to wage this war. They were clearly picking this fight, now I am not sure that was such a good idea.

Epic's goal of creating a competing app store would be a huge boon for consumers. Obviously they picked this fight, and I'm happy they did, because if they're successful app prices will come down due to the reduced fees markets provide.

It will all make sense when we can have F-Droid and GOG instead of $8/week guitar tuners.