Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

701–710 of 996 posts

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

#701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dis…

>And closing the account is retaliation.

What good is a terms of use if that use cannot be rescinded upon breaching the terms?

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

#702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortnite is available on several different game consoles and platforms (most of which, by the way, have a 30% commission fee). It used to be the case that it wasn’t available on iOS, and it was a planetary success already. Customers that had a iOS device and absolutely wanted Fortnite had to resort to use another platform, eg. buy a PC or a PlayStation. Now we’re back on the situations where we were before: Fortnite…

Antitrust doesn't require a monopoly.

>Antitrust doesn't require a monopoly.

Yes, it does.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/monopoly-power-and-market-power-...

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

#703
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, total market dominance with 10% market share.

Epic very specifically defined the "market" as iOS devices. Their argument is based on the assertion that Android is not an alternative to the App Store since it's a completely different operating system. So, Apple actually has 100% market share of the iOS market.

> Epic very specifically defined the "market" as iOS devices.

That is true, but I think it is debatable whether that is a reasonable way to define "market".

It would be as if a vendor wanted to sell their goods in a grocery store. The grocery store says no for some reason. The vendor disagrees and sues them, saying they have a monopoly on all grocery store sales on that particular corner.

"Wait, but there is a grocery store across the street?"

Well, in their law suite they defined market to be just that corner---they excluded the other corner where the Android grocery store is selling things.

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

#705

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.

Richard Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for this very reason. You might think it's ridiculous but the fight for the right to modify the software running on devices you own has been raging for 35 years and is bigger than ever.

Richard Stallman has been way off the rails and a detriment to his own cause for years.

I'm not talking about the pedophilia comments, the sexual harassment of women in tech, or the toe jam. All those are well documented and don't need restating. No, if you look at the FSF's recent policies regarding software freedom, they are also bass-ackwards.

The FSF had a "respects your freedom" certification which is designed to encourage devices to be less free, thanks to a concession for blobs and proprietary firmware. Effectively, they know that it's impossible to build modern hardware without blobs, so instead what they did is require those blobs to be hidden, immutable, un-freeable, un-auditable. That way they can claim, for all the clueless free software evangelists, that the devices are 100% Free (because there are no closed blobs in /lib/firmware! They're just... elsewhere, where you can't see them, audit them, touch them, or actually replace them with a free version). I wrote up the story in this Twitter thread, it's crazy:

https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1040626210999431168

Then there is also the AGPL, which isn't a Free Software license, but rather an end-user license agreement (EULA), because it violates Freedom Zero: the freedom to use software however you want. All free software licenses only impose restrictions on distribution, making them copyright licenses - you can use original or modified versions of e.g. GPLed software at will, with no condition, as long as you don't redistribute them to others. The AGPL requires advertising and offering source when used as a network server, which is a condition on usage, and thus incompatible with the Free Software definition. rms will never admit to this, but AGPL-licensed software is, by any reasonable reading of the Free Software definition, not Free Software, and shouldn't be included in the Debian main repository, for example. It's just that nobody seems to be able to read past the "AGPL is from the FSF so it must be free software" idea.

These are just some ways in which the FSF and rms are hurting their own cause. If you want to support an organization, I would recommend the FSFe instead of the FSF. The European branch is actually doing good work for free software advocacy, instead of all the nonsense the FSF is doing which only makes the movement look worse.

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

#706
post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the sake of argument, is there a limit to the number or kind of extra steps before you'd call it unusable? If "downloading VirtualBox and running a VM of an earlier MacOS version" became necessary at some point, would that be over the line? I suspect there are corporate users who have policies that forbid running non-notarized software. That probably shouldn't apply to a game like Fortnite—most companies wouldn't…

> For the sake of argument, is there a limit to the number or kind of extra steps before you'd call it unusable? Surely this comes down to what reasonable expectations are held by the customer. There are microcontrollers you can buy that require a soldering iron and USB breakout board in order to run your own software on them. I think that's pretty reasonable, but it would be a ridiculous requirement for a desktop PC…

Well, this subthread is about running non-notarized software on Macs. And my expectations on that, which I will proclaim to be reasonable, come from using Macs since before Apple notarization existed: i.e. I could run whatever I damn well wanted.

Apple changed behavior on that at least twice. (I skipped several Mac OS versions, so I may have missed intermediate changes.) First, it switched to requiring you to choose, in security preferences, an option to allow apps from anywhere—which, I think, would show a scary warning, and would also revert itself to the default after 30 days. Later, it switched to removing that "Anywhere" option, and instead shows a misleading "you can't open this because of your preferences" error, and provides a couple of insane hidden workarounds. I consider the first change reasonable, if unnecessarily annoying; I consider the second change unreasonable.

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

#707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Richard Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for this very reason. You might think it's ridiculous but the fight for the right to modify the software running on devices you own has been raging for 35 years and is bigger than ever.

Richard Stallman has been way off the rails and a detriment to his own cause for years. I'm not talking about the pedophilia comments, the sexual harassment of women in tech, or the toe jam. All those are well documented and don't need restating. No, if you look at the FSF's recent policies regarding software freedom, they are also bass-ackwards. The FSF had a "respects your freedom" certification which is designed t…

I think you have formed a rather negative opinion of rms without having ever met him or spoken with him.

This is common in politics, so I don't blame you, but I don't think you're serving yourself or anyone else well.

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

#708
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's fucked up if Apple is going to start disabling macOS apps regardless of distribution if the developer has violated their App Store rules in some way. Definitely undermines my trust in macOS.

They are also being sued by Epic. Would you keep doing business with a company suing you?

Curious to your thoughts regarding the mafia whacking witnesses who are about to testify in court.

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

#709
post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a teenager, back in the 1990s, I idolised RMS. The GNU project and FSF were what I idolised him for, back then I'd never heard his views on these issues. As I grew older, I started to think that the hardline position of the FSF was impractical, at least for my own life. I wouldn't say I idolise him any more. I think his former views were completely wrong, but I try to understand where he was coming from: R…

For what it's worth I think the right thing happened to him for possibly the wrong reason, and the community around him is as much to blame as he for enabling the damage he's done for as long as they did. If not for that whole debacle of an email conversation being leaked and made public, he would still be in a position of authority and still be normalizing the acceptance of behavior like his in tech culture. There s…

What makes you think that there's only been a tweet's worth of text on the matter? Furthermore, why should the movement he spearheaded suffer because others can't be bothered to try to understand a brilliant, eccentric, neurodivergent individual?

Frankly speaking, I think most of the "normal mainstream" that condemned Stallman without even bothering to check up on and verify the facts of the accusations made against him outed themselves as easily manipulated, savage, and unstable individuals with little or no consideration for the damage they heaped upon a man who was doing nothing more than trying to encourage postponing of judgement until the facts were all in. In that one, tragically twisted-by-the-media email, Stallman did exactly what any civilized person who believes in the tenets of our system of justice should have done. He called for calm, and to give his friend the benefit of a doubt until all the facts were in. The "weird creepy guy" acted more in line with the ideal of normalcy than anyone else!

I'd take 100 more people just like him with all the inherent quirks than any of the mob who rushed to condemn him without even so much as getting to know him. I mean, good God. Show me someone who hasn't had a questionable view in their life from lack of reflection, and I'll show you someone who hasn't actively tried to get to know all the many facets of their species, or consciously come to terms with their own capacity for atrocity.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone! Til then, people need to nut up, shut up, and take a damn number. Thank who/whatever they worship they woke up this morning, and give thanks but that there for the Grace of $Subject_of_Worship go I.

Now get off my lawn, and keep your damn chickens out of my garden! They may be cute, but they're ruining my sprouts!

grumble grumble

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

#710
When I buy an Apple device, it isn't a computer, it's a rented Apple shelf. That is what this roughly means.

Imagine Microsoft saying that I can not install Steam because Steam doesn't agree to MS payment setup. You can't imagine because MS doesn't have that control, it wanted to though, long back.

Apple has this control. It is bad for consumers.

Post reply on HN