891–900 of 996 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but you still shouldn't care. There's nothing you can do about it, just decide if it's worth taking the hit to say what you want to say.
> There's nothing you can do about it, just decide if it's worth taking the hit to say what you want to say. How will people see what you want to say if it is unreadable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's important to note that you can still run unsigned Mac apps. Apple isn't preventing users from running a tool they want to run, it's just showing them a big scary warning and making them jump through some extra hoops. It's incredibly scummy and inappropriate, but I would put it more along the lines of an attack-ad than an outright ban. Edit: Now, one thing that isn't totally clear is whether or not devs who have…
IMO, it’s about the moral equivalent of using dark UI patterns to trick users into performing actions they don’t want to do. The scary warning and convoluted workaround for running un–notarized apps is ostensibly to prevent non–technical people from compromising their computers. Now Apple is abusing that security mechanism for Business Reasons that have nothing to do with protecting users. The fact that users can tec…
Probably only one or the other. If Epic produces legitimate software that users have a legitimate reason to run, some of them will become accustomed to clicking through in order to run a legitimate program. Then, they will become more likely to click through on other programs: "Oh, they're probably banned for business reasons like Epic, not for security reasons like malware".
Apple is clearly hoping that is not the outcome, and that Epic simply loses as close to 100% of their Apple-based customers as they reasonably can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How else do you propose they go after Apple? Go through this process without violating the app store? Then most people would turn a blind eye to the issue because it hasn't actually impacted them. Yes the customer is impacted, but by impacting the customer with the right message Epic can turn their customer base against Apple in the process. Not only does it hurt the customer, but it also hurts Epic by cutting off a…
> How else do you propose they go after Apple? Go through this process without violating the app store? Epic is a huge company with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, not some 10-man operation. They can hire lawyers and try to negotiate with Apple for more favorable terms. > Then most people would turn a blind eye to the issue because it hasn't actually impacted them. Imagine if this was happening with Adobe…
To your second point, all I can say is that this isn't Adobe. This is not a professional piece of software which businesses pay a pretty penny for, this is an early access video game. At the end of the day Epic would have weighed up the risk associated with this case and its implications and yes it is unfortunate that there are people in the firing line. But heck, its drummed up a lot of news and discussion as a result of it, which is I'm sure exactly what they want.
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…
I can find one thing I disagree with on anybody
Btw he wasn't even completely wrong on this one...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His public image has been degraded from toe-jam eating and supposedly outrageous riders for speaking engagements (which I think everything in was pretty level headed but some people think it was 'nuts')
> everything in was pretty level headed It starts out reasonable, but then has gems like "please buy bus tickets only with cash under a fake name", "find me a parrot", "go to the hotel and figure out if their phone jacks do dial-up because that's most likely the only thing that will work with my machine". The latter may have adjusted with the times, since the document is old; but then again, the demands he places on…
That's exactly what protesters did in Honk Kong in 2019 to avoid retaliation from China
So he was right, again
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It hasn’t been a quarter in which i haven’t told myself how richard stallman was right, and a visionary, and how much we were fools to consider him an extremist.
And many of the things that we thought he was pointlessly complaining about, instead grew into big issues a few years later affecting all of us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't being fought over a data breach or privacy concerns and that's why Epic is smart to fight at this angle. Apple says "you can't do this", but Epic does the thing and says "I should be allowed to do this. As you can all see, this is what happens when I try to put my foot down on it and here's this target audience of people who are benefited by the thing I'm trying to do". This works for them because they are…
Redirecting user payment info is totally a data/privacy breach.
Forcing me to give them to Apple is, if I prefer to give them to Epic and hide them from Apple
Guess which one is the only Apple approved option
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why that's relevant. Am I only not dying of thirst because I agreed to the terms offered by the local water company? I think it's not contradictory to believe two things simultaneously: that people should not be held to the terms of a contract they signed when they were dying of thirst, and that it's okay that I needed to agree to certain terms with the water company in order to have running water in my…
> Am I only not dying of thirst because I agreed to the terms offered by the local water company? It is if they have a monopoly on water. Imagine their terms were manifestly unreasonable. If you want water service you'll have to pay $50,000/year. What would you do? If the answer is that it's reasonable to dig a well or something like that, they haven't got a monopoly. If the answer is to pay the $50,000/year because…
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…
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.
Imagine that
Imagine a world where people buy things on a website let's name it Amazon
Or pay for online auctions using something very sketchy, something like a PayPal
Imagine paying online for cabs, food delivery, books or to rent a movie or a BnB on the other side of the World, to buy a flight, theater, museum ticket
What a wild wild west it would be, we will be fighting each other like crazy if it wasn't for Apple that saved us all from ourselves...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would that be any different than general Internet e-commerce, where there is no landlord forcing everyone to use its services? It wouldn't, and nothing disastrous would happen.
It would be the same as browser based e-commerce: stolen credit card information, fraud transactions, leaks of credit card information due to non existing security This is exactly what apple tried to prevent (snd is earning a shit ton money with it): manual credit card entry because except the big ones almost no one would be safe