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

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

#861

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 8:22 AM UTC

dx034 wrote: post #840

fooey wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#862

Post by ForHackernews » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 8:23 AM UTC

krrrh wrote: post #177

ForHackernews wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy s * this is a surreal comment to read on Hacker News. Once upon a time we believed in general-purpose computing devices that allowed users -- their owners! -- to run whatever software they pleased. Now you speak of "platforms" that charge a tax in return for preventing users from installing software -- on their own devices they actually literally own, mind. Can you imagine if your car would only operate on roads…

I believe in general purpose computers, I see them every day and I know they exist. I also believe in choice and experimentation when it comes to business models. If I want to buy some systems with trade offs and benefits that don’t always include being able to root and run Linux on them, who are you to prevent me? Believing that all systems must be maximally flexible is a scarcity mindset that felt more reasonable w…

> Believing that all systems must be maximally flexible is a scarcity mindset that felt more reasonable when families had to save to be able to afford a desktop computer that would be in use for several years.

This is a good insight and it's entirely possible that general purpose computing was a historical aberration.

You say you want to be able to choose between a real computer and a restricted appliance, but how long will the market allow you to make that choice?

Selling locked-down terminals with access to a pay-to-play "platform" is obviously very profitable. How much longer will MacOS and Windows allow you to install unverified software?

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

#863

Post by theshrike79 » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 8:29 AM UTC

FrozenSynapse wrote: post #813

AlexandrB wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Who is fighting for the consumer?" Epic. It doesn't matter their motives. Epic is using their customers as pawns in a contract dispute with a platform vendor (Apple). How else do you explain that console customers got the full 20% discount on "V-bucks" despite Sony/Microsoft still taking their 30% cut? Epic is basically selling V-bucks at a premium on iOS if you choose not to give Epic your credit card information…

Apple should start allowing side app stores. I hope this is what comes out of this battle

How could a normal Joe User know which side app stores are reliable and which will sell your info and credit card number to the highest bidder?

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

#864

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 8:34 AM UTC

throwaw4y-plate wrote: post #73

Razengan wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should Epic get to enjoy a market that Apple built without giving Apple anything or following the rules of the platform? Should anybody be able to post anything they want on HN or YouTube or Facebook etc.? They can't. Does Epic allow anyone to sell content for Fortnite without giving Epic any money? They don't.

All I can do is throw up my hands and say "Stallman was right."

[deleted]

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

#865

Post by theshrike79 » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 8:35 AM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #796

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…

Apple's 30% cut is not based on those other services (the services related to Mac, and the "services" involved in collaborating to make Apple devices more friendly to games). The 30% cut only applies to Fortnite. Epic would not owe Apple more than a few hundred bucks for all the rest, because Apple is doing that work to benefit themselves.

Apple is giving a bunch of stuff at cost or for free in exchange for the $100 developer fee in the hopes that one of those applications will become the new Flappy Bird and rakes in billions in 30% cuts.

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

#866

Post by marcan_42 » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 8:41 AM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #831

marcan_42 wrote: post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You haven't read the license, have you? :-)

> your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network [...] an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge [...]

An email does not cut it. It has to be a direct link to the source, or some kind of equivalent mechanism to directly download it from a server. Merely providing you the opportunity to ask a human for it does not cut it (an email bot might, but that'd be dumb).

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

#867

Post by neop1x » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 8:43 AM UTC

ernst_klim wrote: post #850

CamperBob2 wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that most people know nothing about software distribution, signatures etc etc, and would become an easy target for fishers That doesn't sound like my problem, or, frankly, yours. If you create an environment where careless people never experience the consequences of their carelessness, then rest assured, you won't get fewer careless people or less careless behavior as a result. You will get more of bot…

> careless people They are not careless, they are uneducated on topic. Are you advocating for finishing FDA and drug regulation, because if people bought wrong drugs, it's their carelessness and consequences are just? That's nonsense. Historian should not know much about computers, just like me, a computer guy, should not know much about drugs. If there is a company allowing safe computing, which Apple is, people are…

Anti-phishing and malware mechanisms should just be "recommendations" to users and not straight blocking and banning. It's sad people don't see that difference. Browsers warn you about potentially harmful websites but still give you the choice.

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

#868

Post by neop1x » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 8:45 AM UTC

burnte wrote: post #645

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.

> 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. This is only true if you contain at least the minimum amount of knowledge to built said device yourself. If you cannot design the type of CPU required, you must trust the vendor. If you cannot design the RAM, you must trust the vendor. If you cannot design the motherboard, you must trust the v…

That's why in different industries there are third-party independent, trusted entities. Apple controls it all completely itself.

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

#869

Post by redis_mlc » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 8:46 AM UTC

sl1ck731 wrote: post #811

sciurus wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone who hasn't read the rider: https://github.com/ddol/rre-rms/blob/master/rider.txt

He seems really insistent on not being ID'd for buses or trains, but its a requirement for flying which has a whole section. Is there something going on with buses and trains that are under more scrutiny? Also, if he can get around the ID with fake names via buses and trains why would he even accept flying?

Interstate buses and trains post-911 often require ID in the US, and possibly frisking. Seen that at the Las Vegas bus terminal.

Additionally, LEO says they can do whatever they want in the border zone, which extends 100 miles inland of any US border:

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone/

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

#870

Post by dkersten » Tue, Aug 18, 2020, 8:57 AM UTC

sequoia wrote: post #792

dkersten wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> questioning whether one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims was truly a victim or not. I’ve never really been much of an RMS fan beyond admiration for what he has done for free software, but this is not what he said, at least according to his words as quoted in the post that initiated his cancellation[1]. I’ve pasted it from that post below [2]. The author of that post quoted this and then somehow inferred this [3]. How s…

I'm an RMS fan overall & think he's been fairly prophetic over the years even and respect him for sticking to his Free Software guns even when his views were unpopular, but these comments of his regarding the Epstein case were stupid. Yes, RMS is correct, the term "sexual assault" is perhaps too vague in this case–the legal term for sex with an underage person is "rape." The context also make his comments strain cred…

> because it was pretty plain to everyone else that it _was_ wrong.

I think you’re relying heavily on hindsight here. Yes it’s obvious to us looking in from the outside, but thinking back to any large events/conferences I’ve been at, especially if alcohol was involved, if somebody pretended to be willing because they were coerced to do so, I’m not sure it would have been so obvious and it’s easy to get caught up in the moment and not realise something was off.

But, that’s not the issue here. I don’t necessarily disagree with you and if the argument had stated what you said then it would have been ok to call RMS out.

But that’s not what happened, instead people twisted his words to make him out even worse. Nobody said “how can you believe that Minsky didn’t know something was wrong?” They said “you said she was willing and not a victim! How dare you!”, when he very clearly did not say that.