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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 996 posts

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

#831

Post by imtringued »

marcan_42 wrote: post #805
jordigh wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's not a requirement on users anymore than the GPL requiring you to distribute corresponding source on CDs was a requirement on users. Morally and legally, the distribution medium does not make a difference. When you make the software available over the network you are no longer the user -- the users of the software over the network are the users. When you convey the software over the network you are a network…

You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between network usage and distribution . If I give you a CD with nginx, I'm distributing it. If I send you a .tar.gz with nginx, I'm distributing it. If I bring up nginx on a server, put some HTML files in the webroot, and give you a URL to it, I am not distributing nginx. I am merely using nginx, and offering you a service using nginx. I am not offering nginx its…

>If nginx were AGPL-licensed (thankfully it isn't), and I made a change to the source for personal use, then the AGPL would require me to stick a download link to that modified source in the footer of every website served using that copy of nginx, even if I am not serving the nginx binary itself.

People add links to the source code because it's much less work than responding to emails. It's entirely voluntary. Users have a right to the source code of AGPL software you make accessible to them and you can satisfy that constraint any way you see fit.

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

#832

Post by fxtentacle »

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.

The acceptable punishment part is when Apple closes the Fortnite developer account.

The unacceptable retaliation is that Apple threatens to close the developer accounts of everyone working on the Unreal Engine, which is used in millions of projects in addition to Fortnite.

What Apple is doing here is akin to mafia punching your sister to get you to pay up.

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

#833

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

I am sorry, but I am puzzled of the naiveté of people thinking code signing like this is for extended security and not market lock in. Sure, instead of just checking the integrity of an archive/package/executable, you can also add info to identify the developer and source. But it just isn't worth it on the current software market.

Create a public key register if security +++) is that important to you and you get the same features but don't try to tell me a developer certificate from FAANG isn't for business purposes.

+++) completely neglecting the fact that malware was even introduced in signed software...

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

#835

Post by systemBuilder »

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…

Who was harmed by Epic change? Only the monopolist! I can see Apple getting cut down yo size by a 1982 AT&T-style antitrust consent decree within 6 months! Goodbye walled Golden.

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

#836

Post by mvn9 »

Someone wrote: post #475
mvn9 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can they shut down distribution? If a personal team can install any sourcecode, how could apple block the distribution? Even if they scan for a binary hash, all it takes are some minor modifications to have a different program to install.

They can’t shut down distribution of source code, but: - your typical user wouldn’t know what to do with it - every install would run only for a limited time (only apps distributed through the App Store have a certificate that doesn’t expire), so those users would have to reinstall the app every week or so. - it would make it harder for them to make money from it (they would give away the game for free. The in-game s…

>but the source likely would soon be changed to support alternative stores

Which is only fair for those who circumvent the original store.

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

#837

Post by dlubarov »

floatingatoll wrote: post #478
untog wrote: post #455

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. 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…

If Epic chooses not to follow the rules, then Apple chooses not to trust them to deliver executable code to users. You are arguing that Apple is incorrect to assert that rulebreakers should not have privileges to deploy code to end-user devices worldwide, when the rule is not one that protects users. Apple's counter-argument would presumably be that this business rule exists specifically to protect users from being h…

You can make the case that using other payment systems sub-optimal from a security perspective, but malware? Would you also consider Uber, Lyft, and Amazon malware since they accept other payment systems?

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

#838

Post by _heimdall »

the_jeremy wrote: post #575
Waterfall wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you find him wrong about?

A direct quote of RMS from his website[0]: The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal…

[dead]

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

#839

Post by dx034 »

nabla9 wrote: post #432
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…

I'm sure that Tim Sweeney has talked with Tencent (owns 40% of Epic) about his plans beforehand. Tencent owns Riot Games (League Of Legends) and parts of several other gaming companies. They also own WeChat,WeGame, QQ, etc. Epic may be just a test case. Everyone else is watching and if Apple blinks, they will side with Epic and Apple must give up huge revenue stream.

And if they don't and courts side with Apple, Tencent might be willing to pay the damage. The upside across their companies is large enough to justify the damage.

If courts side with Apple, Google might be next depending on their behavior (Google has banned them but doesn't appear as aggressive yet).

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

#840

Post by dx034 »

fooey wrote: post #415
rgovostes wrote: post #391

From Epic's filing, here is an excerpt from Apple's notice listing the Developer Program features that Epic will lose access to when its membership is terminated: - All Apple software, SDKs, APIs, and developer tools - Pre-release versions of iOS, iPad OS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS - Pre-release versions of beta tools such as Reality Composer, Create ML, Apple Configurator, etc. - Notarization service for macOS apps - App…

Besides the Unreal the game engine, Epic has been making huge inroads leveraging Unreal as a virtual movie set, as seen on Mandalorian. I would assume most of the hardware used in movie production is Mac hardware, so that entire initiative just went up in smoke.

Or Epic hoped for that reaction as it shows Apple's reaction to be out of proportion. Just banning the game would've been a logical move but destroying other businesses not related to the 30% cut in Fortnite could give them a much stronger case and convince a judge that Apple's actions are retaliation, not just a reaction to the violation.

I'd be very surprised if Epic hadn't considered this reaction by Apple.

Post reply on HN