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

931–940 of 996 posts

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

#931

Post by manquer »

judge2020 wrote: post #921
manquer wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so ? They are pulling access to all platforms including desktop, also unreal is sdk/library used by ton of third parties , all of them are impacted too

It's equal enforcement among all developers. Every other time that a developer has intentionally broken app store guidelines Apple has terminated their entire Developer account.

epic size orgs would not just use one account. It includes preview access and to clot products .

In my experience , I usually sign different agreements with different products for such diverse access . Sometimes it is with different legal entities .

I don’t know if Apple does an MSA which is the kind of document which covers the general engagement , so unless such a MSA exists and allows for this kind of termination , I am pretty sure this cannot be done for violating guidelines of single agreement to cancel other contracts in place.

Apple probably has clauses to unilaterally terminate agreements and is invoking that, but that is not remotely the same as closing down a account for violating guidelines

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

#932

Post by thrwn_frthr_awy »

colinmhayes wrote: post #458
thrwn_frthr_awy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's right. Epic is trying to use it's user-base as pawns against Apple, but it isn't working. Is Epic planning on lowering the cost of games on iOS by 30% if the fee goes away? I don't believe they are. Edit: Thank you save_ferris for for correcting me. Here is the blog post announcing the discount. https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/the-fortnite-m...

It's legitimately difficult for me to comprehend anyone being on apple's side here. I'm not talking legally, I'm talking about which companies preferred outcome would be better for consumers. Epic being allowed to open their own app store would mean every app has 18% less fees. That is nothing but good for consumers. It's legitimately an improvement for everyone except apple.

I'm not saying it is better for customers. Lower prices in profitable companies would almost always be better for consumers. Apple created a language, IDE, and infrastructure and is charging a price they have decided upon since day 1. I don't believe Epic has the right to decide what Apple charges, the same way I don't have the right to pirate software because I don't believe PhotoShop is worth $600; I can pay it or use a worse product.

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

#933

Post by lolsal »

bsaul wrote: post #369
rabidrat wrote: post #337

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.

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.

He is an extremist and he is also a visionary.

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

#934

Post by marcan_42 »

jordigh wrote: post #929
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…

You seem to have trouble understanding that you are not the user of nginx: the users who visit your website and use nginx to serve files to themselves are the users. Does it make sense now?

Copyright law doesn't say anything about users of software, it talks about copying, performing (no, you are not "performing" nginx for your remote users, that's not how it works), etc.

In fact, courts have repeatedly ruled that the output of software (i.e. the packets nginx sends over the network, but which aren't its own code) is not covered by the software's copyright itself.

If I lend you my phone, in the absence of more restrictive EULAs, and excluding media (which is reproduced verbatim by the phone), you are free to use any software on it without being subject to the copyright of said software.

Does it make sense now?

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

#935

Post by lolsal »

Tepix wrote: post #878
fermienrico wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am fine with this for most things except my phone. I trust Apple more than any party in the world. Even the government. Fortnight devs, Epic, whatever are not even on the same radar. They'll sell your privacy in milliseconds if they can get 2.5 cents for it. I would never ever own an open source phone. Not because the operating system is open source (probably good that it has eyes on it) but there is no way to cont…

Even if Apple allows people to install apps on their phone bypassing the official app store, noone is forcing you to do it on your phone. Your phone's security will not be compromised by adding an extra optional feature.

You're right, but that fundamentally changes how I look at apps on my iPhone and my device or the ecosystem as a whole. Right now, any app icon I see on my phone, or any Apple device, I implicitly trust, because I have outsourced my trust to a corporation. This does not mean there are not scummy/weaselly apps out there (tiktok/Facebook/etc. for example).

Like root certificates, you have to trust someone, at some point. I am choosing to trust Apple.

By allowing side-loading apps, that is eroded, even if the tiniest bit.

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

#936

Post by lolsal »

fermienrico wrote: post #489
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not comparable to locking your car, unless you're in the habit of re-writing your phone's operating system every few days.

Right now, if I was running some open source OS on an open source hardware, with random 3rd party unverified apps, etc. - I would have no confidence in myself to keep that thing secure. I agree that things like openssh can be more secure because there is a huge number of individuals and corporations using it, there are a lot of eyes on it. It is open source and secure. That's not the same as something as big as an iP…

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I work in software and the number of times I have inspected the source of something I'm running could be counted on one hand. I trust Apple, I trust the open-source community to look for me, etc.

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

#937

Post by lolsal »

neop1x wrote: post #859
qwert12345887 wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason a lot dev's cannot seem to comprehend that a lot of people(Including myself) are not capable/wish to maintain/keep up with security. I rather use my brain cycles for something else. This is compounded for people who have no interest in tech but rather just want to use them to perform certain tasks. Are some of practices unfair sometimes to a small subset of companies/developers. Definitely yes, But wh…

But there could be a switch to allow installing apps from untrusted sources" default off. It's sad that people are so ignorant and gave apple so much power. :(

I think you're over-generalizing. Most people with an iPhone do not care about side-loading apps. They may be ignorant, but they also do not care. The same reason I am ignorant about the rules of NBA, or Cricket - I simply do not care.

The power you're talking about (and the risk you're not talking about) are of no value to me.

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

#938

Post by jordigh »

marcan_42 wrote: post #934
jordigh wrote: post #929

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have trouble understanding that you are not the user of nginx: the users who visit your website and use nginx to serve files to themselves are the users. Does it make sense now?

Copyright law doesn't say anything about users of software, it talks about copying , performing (no, you are not "performing" nginx for your remote users, that's not how it works), etc. In fact, courts have repeatedly ruled that the output of software (i.e. the packets nginx sends over the network, but which aren't its own code) is not covered by the software's copyright itself. If I lend you my phone, in the absence…

You seem to have trouble understanding that copyright is irrelevant to determining who the users of the software are. The users are the ones using the software. That there is a network between them and the software they're using is irrelevant.

Does it make sense now?

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

#939

Post by belorn »

marcan_42 wrote: post #925
belorn wrote: post #913

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of sillyness of calling AGPL a contract is incorrect because it assumes that copyright law only care about distribution. It does not. It is an copyright offence to perform any of the following acts without permission of the owner: Copy the work. Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public. Perform, broadcast or show the work in public. *Adapt the work.* A person who take a copyrighted software and…

Do you have any case history supporting this interpretation of copyright law? While it is true that copyright protects the right to create derivative works, that is, in practice, usually applied to creating such derivative works and distributing them . Otherwise, scribbling with a pen on a book you bought would be a copyright violation. Similarly, while technically running a program requires copying it into memory (a…

Scribbling with a pen on a book you bought would be a copyright violation if it would qualify under the definition of recasting, transforming or adapting the book. It must be substantial and original. A full translation, scribbled on the side, would be a pretty obvious violation regardless if you made further copies. Similar if you bought the movie rights to distribute you still need additional permissions to add translations or to cut it into new versions. There has also been cases where a broadcasting station got sued because they added commercial breaks without having copyright permission to create new adaptations (the author had a very public opinion against commercial breaks).

The memory issue has been well discussed and handled in the past. The law has an explicit exception made with this in mind where legal owners of the software has a right to both copy and adapt software if it is an essential step towards utilization of the program. licensees however does not have this right and are restricted to the terms under the license. Naturally this is designed more towards the world of proprietary software where such distinction is more clear.

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

#940

Post by marcan_42 »

jordigh wrote: post #938
marcan_42 wrote: post #934

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright law doesn't say anything about users of software, it talks about copying , performing (no, you are not "performing" nginx for your remote users, that's not how it works), etc. In fact, courts have repeatedly ruled that the output of software (i.e. the packets nginx sends over the network, but which aren't its own code) is not covered by the software's copyright itself. If I lend you my phone, in the absence…

You seem to have trouble understanding that copyright is irrelevant to determining who the users of the software are. The users are the ones using the software. That there is a network between them and the software they're using is irrelevant. Does it make sense now?

So you're saying that the license does not impose restrictions on users of the software, but I am not the user, so it can impose restrictions on me? Then what am I, and why does the license get to impose restrictions on me beyond copyright obligations without violating Freedom Zero?

You're grasping at straws here. There's provisions based on copyright, and then there's everything else. Redefining users to exclude the person running the server and implying that means the person running the server loses all rights under the Free Software definition is ludicrous.

Post reply on HN