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

941–950 of 996 posts

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

#941

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

fxtentacle wrote: post #832
pwinnski wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why closing Fortnite developer account is acceptable? If they have one app that was banned for 'violating guidelines', and another one that doesn't violate anything, why should the second app be removed, too? Because the unruly developer must be punished?

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

#942

Post by qwert12345887 »

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 do not want that option. Especially non-tech users really do not care for side loading.

Fortnite tried pushing people to side-load on Android is a perfect example.

Even though that step failed, still a lot of people did side-load without knowing what they were doing and that's a problem.

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

#943

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

giovannibajo1 wrote: post #121
mantap wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually when you fire a customer they can go to one of your competitors. This just proves Epic's argument. There is no competing App Store on iOS because it's not allowed. If Apple "fires" you then your users can no longer install the app onto their own phones. Imagine if Microsoft "fired" Adobe and as a result nobody could install Photoshop on Windows anymore.

Fortnite is available on several different game consoles and platforms (most of which, by the way, have a 30% commission fee). It used to be the case that it wasn’t available on iOS, and it was a planetary success already. Customers that had a iOS device and absolutely wanted Fortnite had to resort to use another platform, eg. buy a PC or a PlayStation. Now we’re back on the situations where we were before: Fortnite…

If a user wants Epic apps on his iPhone, and Epic wants said user to have those apps, Apple should not be asked for permission. That should not have control over the device after sale. It is no longer theirs.

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

#944

Post by jordigh »

marcan_42 wrote: post #940
jordigh wrote: post #938

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are free to run our hypotheticlly AGPLed nginx for whatever purpose you want. You can serve a military website or an online shop from our hypothetically AGPLed nginx. There are no limitations on usage. You are the user as long as you are operating and using nginx.

Once you serve to other users, though, they also become users of nginx. In this regard, you have an upstream/downstream relationship between you and the other users of nginx that you've made users by giving them access over the network.

You are still free to use nginx for your military website or your online shop or whatever. Your usage of nginx has not been restricted for any purpose.

By granting network accesss to our hypothetically AGPLed nginx, though, you now have an AGPL obligation to provide a link to the source code of nginx, in case you modified that source yourself. This isn't taking any rights away from you -- indeed, the AGPL is only granting you rights. You wouldn't have the right to even serve nginx to other users or to modify its source code if it weren't for the AGPL.

None of this is substantially different from the GPL except for the method of interaction with the software.

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

#945

Post by kazinator »

jordigh wrote: post #944
marcan_42 wrote: post #940

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are free to run our hypotheticlly AGPLed nginx for whatever purpose you want. You can serve a military website or an online shop from our hypothetically AGPLed nginx. There are no limitations on usage. You are the user as long as you are operating and using nginx. Once you serve to other users, though, they also become users of nginx. In this regard, you have an upstream/downstream relationship between you and th…

> This isn't taking any rights away from you -- indeed, the AGPL is only granting you rights.

Note that a shrink-wrap end-user license agreement from Adobe also doesn't take away your rights; it only grants you rights.

At least, according to copyright rhetoric.

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

#946

Post by qwert12345887 »

hindsightbias wrote: post #806
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…

If we want something objective, how about sampling HN commenters Android and iPhones for security exploits? It would be interesting to see if these users views stack up in practice or these are just beliefs that are not practically demonstrable.

My guess is just beliefs. It's pretty similar to what happens in code at-least where i work at.

Dev tries to make it super flexible, tries to make it fancy, implement DRY like one's life is dependent on it ultimately resulting in a hard to read/maintain messed up spaghetti code.

Also i don't see how can a person know all of the security stuff with a beast like Android unless they spent/are willing to spend an insane amount of time on keeping up latest exploits, architecture etc.

Sometimes choices are not a good thing.

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

#947

Post by efreak »

shirakawasuna wrote: post #603
StevePerkins wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has expressed skepticism that "willing participation" in pedophilia harms children. And given a couple of bizarre quotes on bestiality (essentially, "if the animal initiates it then what's the problem?"). More recently, he was pushed out of MIT and the FSF last year for questioning whether one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims was truly a victim or not. He prefers Emacs over Vim. There are probably other examples, but…

> He prefers Emacs over Vim He's a monster.

`ed` is better than either.

`cat>newfile.txt` - teaches you not to make typos.

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

#948

Post by efreak »

totetsu wrote: post #821
krapp wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop caring about pretend internet points.

you can handily block the points element(And the log out button!) at the top with ABP element picker.

I use an app for HN, and it doesn't show me points. I've never cared enough to check and see if I can make it do so. Similarly, I've never bothered to check and see if I have the capability to downvote, which it also isn't showing me, because it's rare enough that I want to do so that I just don't bother.

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

#949

Post by ForHackernews »

buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #750
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…

So let's hear your argument on why Nintendo should allow you to run any software on their switch. And even if you do think that, let's see some evidence of you arguing that case as passionately as you argue this one.

> your argument on why Nintendo should allow you to run any software on their switch.

Begging the question. Why should the manufacturer have any say at all over what software I run on hardware I own?

To paraphrase your question: Let's hear your argument why General Electric should allow me to heat any food in their microwave?

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

#950

Post by ForHackernews »

giovannibajo1 wrote: post #877
ForHackernews wrote: post #862

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 lo…

I don't think there is a cogent risk that general computing open platforms will go away soon. PCs can be self-assembled without buying them as an appliance from a specific vendor, and you can at the very least install Linux on them. If you care about Windows, Microsoft is adopting open source more and more, you can have install Ubuntu within Windows right now, I doubt they will change course on software installation.…

> PCs can be self-assembled without buying them as an appliance from a specific vendor

For now.

Every year, integrated SoCs become cheaper and more powerful. Self-building a PC is more and more niche.

Post reply on HN