Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
Should we not have the liberty to choose a locked-down platform?
Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th
721–730 of 996 posts
Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th
#722Earlier 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 agree with you in principle, but disagree in practice. For every person who knows what they're doing and can trust themselves, there are 1000 who will install malware and other crap and end up at an Apple store getting it fixed, and they'll blame Apple instead of themselves.
You talk like this is some unique problem. This has been solved for a long time. Warranties have terms of service. If your car is under warranty and the engine fails due to a defect, warranty covers it.
If your engine fails because you drove it into a river, then the warranty don't cover it and you'll pay out of pocket for repairs.
Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th
#723I dont think government intervention is the solution to resolving the problem here. Epic is going to have to abandon Apple and suffer losses. What this exposes is deep centralization of devices and app platforms and its disgusting and I would expect a strong decentralized reaction to follow. It may not be immediate, but it will happen.
Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th
#724Earlier quoted context omitted.
Epic needed to demonstrate that they and consumers were harmed in order to have standing to sue. If Apple's policies are illegal then Epic is not bound to follow them and retaliation is unjustified. It won't be known until it's decided in court. That's why Epic's motion should be granted to prevent retaliation until the court decides.
How would Apple's policies be illegal? Epic entered a contractual agreement with Apple and then knowingly and intentionally broke it in order to benefit themselves.
Epic is specifically arguing that Apple's policies violate the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and the Unfair Competition Law of California. For more information, refer to the complaint: https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf
Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th
#725Earlier 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. Epic willfully violated their terms with Apple to make a point, and Apple is responding in the same way that they did to Facebook: taking away their access to the users, because they cannot be trusted to comply with the restrictions placed on…
Imagine the wild west it would be if every app could redirect payment info to what ever their sketchy payment processor was. I shudder at the thought. I very much categorize Epic's actions in the "unsafe" basket.
For sure, I'm shuddering right now just thinking about all the software packages I've had installed on my linux box the past decade that have (or could have had) donation buttons that send me to their sketchy payment processors. Can't believe I trusted them!
Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th
#726I'm done with Apple. They have lost me as a customer.
Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th
#727Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th
#728Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. If you have this opinion of the AGPL, then you should also have it about the GPL, since the only difference between the two is section 13 of both of them (seriously, just diff them) which says that conveying over a network…
The AGPL section 13 isn't about conveying the program itself, it's about making it available as a service for network interaction. It may be just a one paragraph difference, but that difference is what makes the AGPL into an EULA. It's a requirement on users. The GPLv3 has zero requirements on users, only on distributors.
You might think this is a valid clause to include, and like its effects, and that's fine (though a close reading of that AGPL clause reveals a myriad of problems; it's extremely poorly thought-out and I find it unlikely that it would survive in court if properly challenged, with many workarounds possible, or causing problems for normal usage, depending on interpretation). But it doesn't change the fact that, suddenly, it makes it into an EULA, since it imposes a condition on usage, not distribution.
The GPL and other Free Software licenses strictly give you rights. You have no right to copy software by default under copyright. Those licenses give you the right to do so, subject to certain conditions.
The AGPL removes rights. It removes the right to use (not distribute) the software as you wish if you do not follow certain conditions (that you don't modify it without making those modifications available to remote users who are otherwise not receiving a copy of the program anyway, and not invoking copyright).
Linux distributions should be including the AGPL as a click-through license when users request to install such software from the repositories. In the current status quo, users are required to abide by terms they haven't been required to read, and might accidentally violate the license by doing something that is otherwise legal, such as editing a script in /usr that is part of such an app and exposing it over the Internet.
Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th
#729Earlier quoted context omitted.
We actually have Nintendo to blame for this whole thing. They started the walled garden situation, and people seem oblivious to it and love them as a company. https://www.filfre.net/2016/04/generation-nintendo/ -> > In a landmark ruling against Tengen in March of 1991, Judge Fern Smith stated that Nintendo had the right to “exclude others” from the NES if they so chose, thus providing the legal soil on which many mor…
Triggered.
Would you please stop posting flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments? You've done it a ton in this thread and it's not what HN is for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
Re: Apple to kill Epic’s accounts on Friday the 28th
#730Earlier quoted context omitted.
Epic needed to demonstrate that they and consumers were harmed in order to have standing to sue. If Apple's policies are illegal then Epic is not bound to follow them and retaliation is unjustified. It won't be known until it's decided in court. That's why Epic's motion should be granted to prevent retaliation until the court decides.
How would Apple's policies be illegal? Epic entered a contractual agreement with Apple and then knowingly and intentionally broke it in order to benefit themselves.
You realize that contracts don't override the law, right?