Apple Ending "Fortnite Save the World" Updates for Mac(epicgames.com)
epicgames.com
Apple Ending "Fortnite Save the World" Updates for Mac
https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/en-US/news/apple-ends-epics-ability-to-offer-fortnite-save-the-world-on-mac
556 comments
> This is almost certainly due to their developer account being blocked, so it's not like Epic is fully innocent here.
It looks more and more like Apple made a mistake in blocking the developper account.
Arguably the reaction should have stopped at pulling Fortnite out of the store. If extra steps were really needed, forcing suppression of Fortnite from existing iOS devices could have been accepted as a related measure.
But blocking the whole developper account is so overreaching it still generates news weeks after the initial issue.
It feels like Epic waived a red cloth and Apple just ran full speed into it. I see the current mess completely of Apple's own doing.
It looks more and more like Apple made a mistake in blocking the developper account.
Arguably the reaction should have stopped at pulling Fortnite out of the store. If extra steps were really needed, forcing suppression of Fortnite from existing iOS devices could have been accepted as a related measure.
But blocking the whole developper account is so overreaching it still generates news weeks after the initial issue.
It feels like Epic waived a red cloth and Apple just ran full speed into it. I see the current mess completely of Apple's own doing.
This is Apple business as usual.
I worked at a company that got slightly disrupted when Apple blocked our dev credentials because of something else it didn't like we were doing. That broke our public-facing apps, but also broke our ability to deploy software we'd written in-house to our corporate iPhones, because it's the same code-signing credentials.
I'm glad this hippo-fight is shedding light on this aspect of the Apple dev ecosystem.
(Our Android devices, of course, had no such issues, since even if Google had objected, you can side-load an APK).
I worked at a company that got slightly disrupted when Apple blocked our dev credentials because of something else it didn't like we were doing. That broke our public-facing apps, but also broke our ability to deploy software we'd written in-house to our corporate iPhones, because it's the same code-signing credentials.
I'm glad this hippo-fight is shedding light on this aspect of the Apple dev ecosystem.
(Our Android devices, of course, had no such issues, since even if Google had objected, you can side-load an APK).
> but also broke our ability to deploy software we'd written in-house to our corporate iPhones, because it's the same code-signing credentials.
This is an important point. Apple will retaliate and hinder your ability to get work done using your own in-house software if they decide they don't like you.
This is an important point. Apple will retaliate and hinder your ability to get work done using your own in-house software if they decide they don't like you.
I don’t understand that about Apple. They’re able to hire the best. And the best people don’t get emotional. Apple’s heavyhanded actions against Epic have the image of an emotional, irrational, vengeance-seeking person at the helm.
The best lawyers working at Apple would (I assume) direct Apple’s management towards the best course of action - including keeping the company out of any legal trouble.
I don’t know a fraction of the things Apple knows - but from what I do know Apple had zero rational reason nor cause to do anything beyond pulling Fortnite from the App Store for breaking the rules (fair-and-square). Everything - and anything - beyond that in a high-profile case like this runs a tremendous risk of PR backfire. In their position as custodians of their walled-garden that needs to attract developers to generate revenue Apple needs to project an image closer to Mister Rogers than Mister Burns.
Apple doesn’t need to be petty or combative - it they’re the /good guys/ they sure aren’t acting like it. As I don’t know all the facts my mind is racing to speculate a reason for their capriciousness and I come up blank.
If Apple’s playing some long-con to screw-over Google, perhaps by announcing some surprise 0% fee for IAP for “good citizens” on their platform or some alternative scheme then they’re going about it very poorly.
I agree with the other GP posters that at this point Apple is actively doing harm to their own platform by both scaring-off major software publishers like Epic and reminding the rest of us devs that Apple giveth and Apple takeawayeth.
I imagine a progressive EU state will pass legislation prohibiting walled-garden owners from abusing their position to extract excessive rent - and from inconsistent application of their own review guidelines, which will have a viral effect within the EU’s single market - which will severely mess-up Apple’s strategy because within the EU single market the rules mean that Apple cannot decide to withdraw from a single country that it doesn’t like but not the rest of the single-market (but before people point out that Apple is a US company remember that Apple’s tax-advantaged Irish corporation is central to their worldwide operations).
The best lawyers working at Apple would (I assume) direct Apple’s management towards the best course of action - including keeping the company out of any legal trouble.
I don’t know a fraction of the things Apple knows - but from what I do know Apple had zero rational reason nor cause to do anything beyond pulling Fortnite from the App Store for breaking the rules (fair-and-square). Everything - and anything - beyond that in a high-profile case like this runs a tremendous risk of PR backfire. In their position as custodians of their walled-garden that needs to attract developers to generate revenue Apple needs to project an image closer to Mister Rogers than Mister Burns.
Apple doesn’t need to be petty or combative - it they’re the /good guys/ they sure aren’t acting like it. As I don’t know all the facts my mind is racing to speculate a reason for their capriciousness and I come up blank.
If Apple’s playing some long-con to screw-over Google, perhaps by announcing some surprise 0% fee for IAP for “good citizens” on their platform or some alternative scheme then they’re going about it very poorly.
I agree with the other GP posters that at this point Apple is actively doing harm to their own platform by both scaring-off major software publishers like Epic and reminding the rest of us devs that Apple giveth and Apple takeawayeth.
I imagine a progressive EU state will pass legislation prohibiting walled-garden owners from abusing their position to extract excessive rent - and from inconsistent application of their own review guidelines, which will have a viral effect within the EU’s single market - which will severely mess-up Apple’s strategy because within the EU single market the rules mean that Apple cannot decide to withdraw from a single country that it doesn’t like but not the rest of the single-market (but before people point out that Apple is a US company remember that Apple’s tax-advantaged Irish corporation is central to their worldwide operations).
> They’re able to hire the best.
They are probably fairly able to hire the people they want the most, that is, the best from their perspective, sure.
> And the best people don’t get emotional.
Perhaps that's how you define best, but not what Apple filters for or intends to filter for.
They are probably fairly able to hire the people they want the most, that is, the best from their perspective, sure.
> And the best people don’t get emotional.
Perhaps that's how you define best, but not what Apple filters for or intends to filter for.
I feel like someone else is running legal these days, because from the period of 2012-2017ish Apple never got involved in these petty spats. Then Spotify, Facebook, Google, Epic came along and now Apple is always complaining to the press about whatever troubles them…
Remember when Steve Jobs threatened IP lawsuits against Palm for poaching his employees? Of course, he had to back off because the iPhone (along with every other smart phone today) uses almost all of Palm's IP. Getting involved in spats is part of Apple's DNA, originating in its founder.
There's a reason I started that time period with 2012.
Remember when they sued Samsung over rounded squares? Or the swipe-to-unlock patent?
They stopped doing that for the most part for a while.
Y'all should see how some apple folks act in meetings. Best is subjective. Apple is extremely petty and combative. They will dump on people if they don't get their way. They're great at what they do, but the way they do it is questionable at the least.
>I don’t know a fraction of the things Apple knows - but from what I do know Apple had zero rational reason nor cause to do anything beyond pulling Fortnite from the App Store for breaking the rules (fair-and-square).
IANAL. My suspicion is that rescinding the developer account was done solely as part of Apple's legal strategy, as a way to strengthen some argument in their side of the coming court case. Keeping a walled garden is enormously important to the company, so a gaggle of lawyers would be scrutinizing all decisions in order to maximize the chance of success.
IANAL. My suspicion is that rescinding the developer account was done solely as part of Apple's legal strategy, as a way to strengthen some argument in their side of the coming court case. Keeping a walled garden is enormously important to the company, so a gaggle of lawyers would be scrutinizing all decisions in order to maximize the chance of success.
I'm pretty sure it was also sending a message to other companies with big apps - stick to the agreement or we will retaliate.
On the other side, keep in mind that Epic is also an enormous company with an army of lawyers. They probably guessed this was a possibility, and they may yet succeed in trapping Apple in a retaliation/breach-of-contract quagmire.
On the other side, keep in mind that Epic is also an enormous company with an army of lawyers. They probably guessed this was a possibility, and they may yet succeed in trapping Apple in a retaliation/breach-of-contract quagmire.
> They’re able to hire the best. And the best people don’t get emotional.
A players do their best to hire A players.
B players hire C players. C players hire D players, etc.
It takes a few B players at the top to ruin the whole thing.
If being able to do something was the limiting factor, governments would hire the best and yet, the opposite seems to be universally true.
All groups fall prey to B players running things and ruining everything which is why we have this wonderful renewal mechanism of birth and death, so that things don't stagnate too much :)
A players do their best to hire A players.
B players hire C players. C players hire D players, etc.
It takes a few B players at the top to ruin the whole thing.
If being able to do something was the limiting factor, governments would hire the best and yet, the opposite seems to be universally true.
All groups fall prey to B players running things and ruining everything which is why we have this wonderful renewal mechanism of birth and death, so that things don't stagnate too much :)
> If being able to do something was the limiting factor, governments would hire the best and yet, the opposite seems to be universally true.
But governments generally aren't able to hire the best because their smaller hiring budgets mean they can't always (but sometimes can) offer industry-competitive salaries.
A few departments are able to hire the best people though - especially when they're for "force-multiplier" positions, like the US Digital Service, for example - which was started by former Google engineers.
But governments generally aren't able to hire the best because their smaller hiring budgets mean they can't always (but sometimes can) offer industry-competitive salaries.
A few departments are able to hire the best people though - especially when they're for "force-multiplier" positions, like the US Digital Service, for example - which was started by former Google engineers.
[deleted]
> They’re able to hire the best.
Certainly not. Out of the best programmers that I know personally, roughly half feel very strongly about Apple limiting their rights to tinker with their hardware. So I would assume that there are lots of people that Apple would like to hire, but they just don't like Apple anymore.
Certainly not. Out of the best programmers that I know personally, roughly half feel very strongly about Apple limiting their rights to tinker with their hardware. So I would assume that there are lots of people that Apple would like to hire, but they just don't like Apple anymore.
Yes because the “best programmers you know” is a representative sample.
Maybe "the best" person behind these decisions wasn't making an emotional play but a business decision that will pay off.
Maybe (and very likely) your armchair analysis just makes a lot of presumptions that aren't accurate. By drafting this kind of analysis with your comment on "the best", you've basically claimed that you're the best, and you're scratching your head why Apple isn't making decisions that seem obvious to you as an HN reader who is well-read in the articles about Apple.
Not trying to be mean. It's just a weird read like those long financial analysts back-splaining or predicting stock performance based on a graph. "Well here we have a barfing camel that will need to leap high to get over that resistance wall at $1000!" Sounds like someone high off the smell of their own farts.
Maybe (and very likely) your armchair analysis just makes a lot of presumptions that aren't accurate. By drafting this kind of analysis with your comment on "the best", you've basically claimed that you're the best, and you're scratching your head why Apple isn't making decisions that seem obvious to you as an HN reader who is well-read in the articles about Apple.
Not trying to be mean. It's just a weird read like those long financial analysts back-splaining or predicting stock performance based on a graph. "Well here we have a barfing camel that will need to leap high to get over that resistance wall at $1000!" Sounds like someone high off the smell of their own farts.
> you've basically claimed that you're the best, and you're scratching your head...
I did preface my assessment with an outright admission that I don't know anything about what's going-on inside Apple's legal dept or exec team.
Even if Apple does have a cunning plan under wraps for coming out on top from this whole episode, it's demonstrable that Apple is directly harming their relationship with the wider developer ecosystem through their deliberate handling of Epic's case.
We both agree that now all of Apple's movements with Epic are calculated and and directed from the top echelons of the company. I feel you're saying that Apple's more aggressive and perceivably heavy-handed and retaliatory tactics have been deemed necessary and in the best-interests of the company - whereas I feel they're unnecessary and actually put the company in legal jeopardy (e.g. for contract-law retaliation, etc) which is definitely not in the company's best-interests. How can we reconcile our two different beliefs?
> ...but a business decision that will pay off.
As an AAPL shareholder, I sure hope so!
I did preface my assessment with an outright admission that I don't know anything about what's going-on inside Apple's legal dept or exec team.
Even if Apple does have a cunning plan under wraps for coming out on top from this whole episode, it's demonstrable that Apple is directly harming their relationship with the wider developer ecosystem through their deliberate handling of Epic's case.
We both agree that now all of Apple's movements with Epic are calculated and and directed from the top echelons of the company. I feel you're saying that Apple's more aggressive and perceivably heavy-handed and retaliatory tactics have been deemed necessary and in the best-interests of the company - whereas I feel they're unnecessary and actually put the company in legal jeopardy (e.g. for contract-law retaliation, etc) which is definitely not in the company's best-interests. How can we reconcile our two different beliefs?
> ...but a business decision that will pay off.
As an AAPL shareholder, I sure hope so!
znpy(1)
> And the best people don’t get emotional
There's an awful lot of human history that disagrees with that assertion.
Technical competency and emotional intelligence are (possibly completely independent) axes a person can be measured on. Steve Jobs himself was a notorious hothead, and companies tend to attract people similar to the founders, or at least the kind of people the founders think make good employees (due to the founders acting as an initial filter and setting standards).
There's an awful lot of human history that disagrees with that assertion.
Technical competency and emotional intelligence are (possibly completely independent) axes a person can be measured on. Steve Jobs himself was a notorious hothead, and companies tend to attract people similar to the founders, or at least the kind of people the founders think make good employees (due to the founders acting as an initial filter and setting standards).
I doubt all the "best" (what does that even mean?) people in the world are happy to trade their time for millions.
Some of them? Sure, but I'm sure a big portion of them is spending time building something they value
Some of them? Sure, but I'm sure a big portion of them is spending time building something they value
"If they decide they don't like you"?
That's simply not what occurred, here. Nobody at Apple blithely decided randomly one day that they "didn't like" Epic.
Epic violated the terms of their agreement with Apple. It's as simple as that. Now yes, there has been a shitstorm of other conflict rising out of that, but on a fundamental level, Epic decided to blatantly violate a contract. That's what happened.
That's simply not what occurred, here. Nobody at Apple blithely decided randomly one day that they "didn't like" Epic.
Epic violated the terms of their agreement with Apple. It's as simple as that. Now yes, there has been a shitstorm of other conflict rising out of that, but on a fundamental level, Epic decided to blatantly violate a contract. That's what happened.
> That's simply not what occurred, here. Nobody at Apple blithely decided randomly one day that they "didn't like" Epic.
This was a response to an anecdote from a user working for a company that isn't Epic, a company that was punished by Apple for an arbitrary reason. As a result, they couldn't use their in-house apps on the hardware they purchased because of Apple's decision. According to that user, that decidedly did occur.
There is plenty of evidence from developers all over the internet, and even here on HN, of Apple arbitrarily removing apps from their iOS and Mac App Stores, and of Apple arbitrarily enforcing rules.
This was a response to an anecdote from a user working for a company that isn't Epic, a company that was punished by Apple for an arbitrary reason. As a result, they couldn't use their in-house apps on the hardware they purchased because of Apple's decision. According to that user, that decidedly did occur.
There is plenty of evidence from developers all over the internet, and even here on HN, of Apple arbitrarily removing apps from their iOS and Mac App Stores, and of Apple arbitrarily enforcing rules.
100%. Its especially the arbitrary/selective enforcement.
Ive had it happen... even when we could demonstrate other apps doing the same and getting updates pushed through.
Ive had it happen... even when we could demonstrate other apps doing the same and getting updates pushed through.
Where’s the part where Apple didn’t decide they don’t like Epic? Whether or not Epic’s actions were the catalyst for that decision (and I agree, they were) is irrelevant to GP’s point.
What does that even mean? Of course Epic's actions being the catalyst is relevant. It's the whole reason this is even happening. Are you trying to imply that Epic's actions are irrelevant, but "Apple just plain not liking Epic" is? When you make a claim that Apple is doing this just because they don't like Epic, you have the burden of proof for that claim, and you can't just flip that around with "where’s the part where Apple didn’t decide they don’t like Epic".
I think an aspect that is missing in our discussion is that not every company had to openly fight Apple. Netflix for instance got their deal without drama. From the court docs Epic and Apple were also negociating but it didn’t work well.
What I am saying is there is no “simple as that” way to look at it, and things could have gone way differently, even if Epic didn’t budge on getting rid of the 30%. In an alternative world Epic and Apple would have inked a deal at a lower revenue share and it would be over. Just like how Epic and Sony had a standoff regarding crossplay that got resolved without titanic lawsuits.
What I am saying is there is no “simple as that” way to look at it, and things could have gone way differently, even if Epic didn’t budge on getting rid of the 30%. In an alternative world Epic and Apple would have inked a deal at a lower revenue share and it would be over. Just like how Epic and Sony had a standoff regarding crossplay that got resolved without titanic lawsuits.
I'm really glad things didn't work out that way.
How are startups supposed to break into a market where they will always have to pay Apple 30% until they reach an incredible scale, and established players will have this huge advantage with Apple in addition to all their other advantages.
How are startups supposed to break into a market where they will always have to pay Apple 30% until they reach an incredible scale, and established players will have this huge advantage with Apple in addition to all their other advantages.
Every large company gets better deals on everything than small companies. Try manufacturing anything where you have small tub rates? Do you think startups get the same deals from the cloud providers as the big companies with multi million dollar spends?
Do you think no name artists get the same deals as Beyoncé or Taylor Swift?
Do you think no name artists get the same deals as Beyoncé or Taylor Swift?
Is this the world we want?
Really? The world where you get discounts based on volume? That’s the world as it has existed forever. Do you want to now have a law passed where no company is allowed to offer bulk discounts?
I also can’t get the same component discounts if I opened up “Scarface’s PC Shop” to build and sell PCs that Dell gets.
I also can’t get the same component discounts if I opened up “Scarface’s PC Shop” to build and sell PCs that Dell gets.
> The world where you get discounts based on volume
We're talking about creative and innovative creations here. Not grocery products.
You'd want to incentivize small players, not smash them.
We're talking about creative and innovative creations here. Not grocery products.
You'd want to incentivize small players, not smash them.
So let’s talk about “innovative creations”.
Musicians - the stars that sell more songs get much better contracts than newly discovered singers.
Authors - Steven King gets a much better deal from publishers than a new author.
Game publishers - big game publishers get much better deals from console makers than indy developers. Even Epic got much better support from Apple than indy developers. Do you think I could get Sony to make a “Scarface Edition” of the PlayStation?
https://bgr.com/2020/09/17/fortnite-lawsuit-apple-epic-games...
Software developers - almost every software company makes special deals with large enterprises.
Cloud Providers - I’m assuming Azure and GCP make special deals with large enterprises. I’m not going to say one way or the other about Amazon since I work at AWS (but nowhere near sales).
Musicians - the stars that sell more songs get much better contracts than newly discovered singers.
Authors - Steven King gets a much better deal from publishers than a new author.
Game publishers - big game publishers get much better deals from console makers than indy developers. Even Epic got much better support from Apple than indy developers. Do you think I could get Sony to make a “Scarface Edition” of the PlayStation?
https://bgr.com/2020/09/17/fortnite-lawsuit-apple-epic-games...
Software developers - almost every software company makes special deals with large enterprises.
Cloud Providers - I’m assuming Azure and GCP make special deals with large enterprises. I’m not going to say one way or the other about Amazon since I work at AWS (but nowhere near sales).
Can you please give a link about Netflix deal with Apple? Brief google search yields nothing.
Apple carved out a special ‘reader apps’ category for Netflix and other providers to bypass the standard restrictions of needing to implement all digital payment in-app.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90519293/the-surprisingly-simple...
While looking for it, I also stumbled upon the special deal Amazon has with Apple allowing them to only pay 15%: https://9to5mac.com/2020/07/30/apple-developers-equally/
https://www.fastcompany.com/90519293/the-surprisingly-simple...
While looking for it, I also stumbled upon the special deal Amazon has with Apple allowing them to only pay 15%: https://9to5mac.com/2020/07/30/apple-developers-equally/
If you’re talking about Onavo then I have to side with Apple on that one :)
Meanwhile, all the people who saw this coming years ago and never bothered developing for Apple: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Was it because nobody spelled it out for you? Or because you thought it wouldn't happen? Or because you thought it couldn't really hurt anyone supporting such a shitty developer relationship?
Or because really, you thought you could still make a quick profit before you got screwed over?
Surely the next megalomanical super corporation will be fair to humans, or something.
Just to make it perfectly clear; Just because there's a lot of people using a certain platform, doesn't mean that platform actually supports those people. It's not a vote. Flies didn't vote for the spider's web. Look at users/consumers/etc anywhere they get the shitty end of the deal too.
So developers lose, consumers lose, Apple is the laughing third. And "Apple" isn't even human, but mostly made of pieces of paper, enslaving humans.
Meanwhile developers develop, and consumers consume, keeping them both in this ecosystem circling the drain.
You realise that there is an actual possibility that at some point, a few of these megacorps will win, at the same time, just cutting off our access to general purpose computing forever[0]. A battle that is already partially lost on certain fronts (chips). That's what you're risking playing stupid games.
Yes I'm getting a little bit annoyed because it's been pretty obvious for at least a decade now.
[0] yes Google/Android is also not supporting you being a dev on their platform, they WISH they had the power over devs that Apple had, and would make the same anti-consumer / anti-developer choices in a non-human heartbeat
Was it because nobody spelled it out for you? Or because you thought it wouldn't happen? Or because you thought it couldn't really hurt anyone supporting such a shitty developer relationship?
Or because really, you thought you could still make a quick profit before you got screwed over?
Surely the next megalomanical super corporation will be fair to humans, or something.
Just to make it perfectly clear; Just because there's a lot of people using a certain platform, doesn't mean that platform actually supports those people. It's not a vote. Flies didn't vote for the spider's web. Look at users/consumers/etc anywhere they get the shitty end of the deal too.
So developers lose, consumers lose, Apple is the laughing third. And "Apple" isn't even human, but mostly made of pieces of paper, enslaving humans.
Meanwhile developers develop, and consumers consume, keeping them both in this ecosystem circling the drain.
You realise that there is an actual possibility that at some point, a few of these megacorps will win, at the same time, just cutting off our access to general purpose computing forever[0]. A battle that is already partially lost on certain fronts (chips). That's what you're risking playing stupid games.
Yes I'm getting a little bit annoyed because it's been pretty obvious for at least a decade now.
[0] yes Google/Android is also not supporting you being a dev on their platform, they WISH they had the power over devs that Apple had, and would make the same anti-consumer / anti-developer choices in a non-human heartbeat
In our case, it was because there was high internal demand for support for our internal tools on the iPhones our employees already had and were familiar with.
The risk analysis made it a cost worth bearing.
The risk analysis made it a cost worth bearing.
> You realise that there is an actual possibility that at some point, a few of these megacorps will win, at the same time, just cutting off our access to general purpose computing forever
Actually, I don't. How would that scenario go? For starters, you just brought up Android, which I can install quite swiftly on any number of the mobile devices in my house with no proprietary Google software whatsoever (and even the F-droid app store if I want that "store" experience). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distrib...
Actually, I don't. How would that scenario go? For starters, you just brought up Android, which I can install quite swiftly on any number of the mobile devices in my house with no proprietary Google software whatsoever (and even the F-droid app store if I want that "store" experience). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distrib...
It was even crazier when they tried to deactivate their Apple signin users. Apple has just a few months ago started mandating you allow Apple sign in if you allow any other third party sign in.
This gives Apple a huge hammer over your business, as it causes Apple sign in to leak into your web properties or properties on other platforms and Apple now has a hammer over some portion of your users who didn't even find your stuff through their store or even their devices or have moved on from using those devices.
This gives Apple a huge hammer over your business, as it causes Apple sign in to leak into your web properties or properties on other platforms and Apple now has a hammer over some portion of your users who didn't even find your stuff through their store or even their devices or have moved on from using those devices.
Yeah that was the worst one for me. They don't even have user email addresses in all cases, so those users are just permanently lost. People were hailing it as a great privacy move (which it still may be), but it gives Apple a massive lock-in advantage.
Exactly. I get to choose who I want to have my email address. If it is a company I trust, I give them my real email address.
tbh i use it when i don't really care and whatever rando app required a login for some reason. For that purpose it's fantastic and no different then google/fb/ect except more private. for anything i care about i use a real email/password
I don't know why this was downvoted, maybe people don't realize why this is so serious?
Sign in with Apple doesn't give you a user's email, it uses randomized forwarding addresses.
So if Apple blocks you from it, those users can never log in again, and you can never recover the accounts that used it
There's no way to send a link saying "Hey we got blocked from Apple, log in here". That's it, those user accounts are dead.
Combine that with a requirement that you use this log in system? Complete and utter insanity that Apple would try and use that to threaten a company.
Sign in with Apple doesn't give you a user's email, it uses randomized forwarding addresses.
So if Apple blocks you from it, those users can never log in again, and you can never recover the accounts that used it
There's no way to send a link saying "Hey we got blocked from Apple, log in here". That's it, those user accounts are dead.
Combine that with a requirement that you use this log in system? Complete and utter insanity that Apple would try and use that to threaten a company.
I do not know why you are being downvoted (I upvoted this not because I agree with your view, but because I see your point as the one that deserves to be argued).
I agree that the ability to reach user directly is a valuable feature to a developer. And your request sounds completely fine. But it is wide open to abuse.
Now, that said, as a user I would be very unhappy if Apple started blasting my AppleID email to every app I decided to try. That would generate a ton of spam and probably make that email unusable for anything else. If a developer wants direct access to the user nothing prevents them from asking the user in an app (where the user has a chance to say "Hell, no!"). My 2c.
I agree that the ability to reach user directly is a valuable feature to a developer. And your request sounds completely fine. But it is wide open to abuse.
Now, that said, as a user I would be very unhappy if Apple started blasting my AppleID email to every app I decided to try. That would generate a ton of spam and probably make that email unusable for anything else. If a developer wants direct access to the user nothing prevents them from asking the user in an app (where the user has a chance to say "Hell, no!"). My 2c.
You're inferring a request that isn't there though, I'm not saying Apple should send any emails without asking
I'm saying Apple should not force anyone to implement it.
Some apps just work even if users lose accounts easily. They tend to not push for logins immediately. Sign-in with Apple is a great match for them.
But in others, if the user doesn't want to share their email, the dev wants that to be treated as "the user isn't logged in", "I haven't justified logging in".
The dev wants to demonstrate enough value to justify you being logged in with an email.
Sign-in with Apple is a terrible match for them creates a limbo state where users have accounts, but not full accounts. In those apps it's very awkward to handle in not just the app itself, but real world customer lifecycle events, like support
-
Not to mention other logins (and OAuth in general) already handle this, you ask permission to access email with an "email" scope and the user is clearly made aware they're sharing their email address
And I mean it, the UX is not some shady misleading thing, it's in the best interests of Google and Facebook that your email doesn't become spam either.
I'm saying Apple should not force anyone to implement it.
Some apps just work even if users lose accounts easily. They tend to not push for logins immediately. Sign-in with Apple is a great match for them.
But in others, if the user doesn't want to share their email, the dev wants that to be treated as "the user isn't logged in", "I haven't justified logging in".
The dev wants to demonstrate enough value to justify you being logged in with an email.
Sign-in with Apple is a terrible match for them creates a limbo state where users have accounts, but not full accounts. In those apps it's very awkward to handle in not just the app itself, but real world customer lifecycle events, like support
-
Not to mention other logins (and OAuth in general) already handle this, you ask permission to access email with an "email" scope and the user is clearly made aware they're sharing their email address
And I mean it, the UX is not some shady misleading thing, it's in the best interests of Google and Facebook that your email doesn't become spam either.
Good points and agree that "sign-in with Apple" is not a great match in many cases. And the developer is fighting an uphill battle against Apple who wants to be the required middleman in the relationship of the developer and the user.
And there are many services that will not allow you to create an account if you refuse to allow your email address to be shared. I believe one of those services is Zillow.
[deleted]
> Combine that with a requirement that you use this log in system?
They only require Sign in with Apple if third-party or social logins are offered.
4.8 Sign in with Apple
Apps that use a third-party or social login service (such as Facebook Login, Google Sign-In, Sign in with Twitter, Sign In with LinkedIn, Login with Amazon, or WeChat Login) to set up or authenticate the user’s primary account with the app must also offer Sign in with Apple as an equivalent option. A user’s primary account is the account they establish with your app for the purposes of identifying themselves, signing in, and accessing your features and associated services.
Sign in with Apple is not required if:
- Your app exclusively uses your company’s own account setup and sign-in systems.
- Your app is an education, enterprise, or business app that requires the user to sign in with an existing education or enterprise account.
- Your app uses a government or industry-backed citizen identification system or electronic ID to authenticate users.
- Your app is a client for a specific third-party service and users are required to sign in to their mail, social media, or other third-party account directly to access their content.
From: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#sig...
They only require Sign in with Apple if third-party or social logins are offered.
4.8 Sign in with Apple
Apps that use a third-party or social login service (such as Facebook Login, Google Sign-In, Sign in with Twitter, Sign In with LinkedIn, Login with Amazon, or WeChat Login) to set up or authenticate the user’s primary account with the app must also offer Sign in with Apple as an equivalent option. A user’s primary account is the account they establish with your app for the purposes of identifying themselves, signing in, and accessing your features and associated services.
Sign in with Apple is not required if:
- Your app exclusively uses your company’s own account setup and sign-in systems.
- Your app is an education, enterprise, or business app that requires the user to sign in with an existing education or enterprise account.
- Your app uses a government or industry-backed citizen identification system or electronic ID to authenticate users.
- Your app is a client for a specific third-party service and users are required to sign in to their mail, social media, or other third-party account directly to access their content.
From: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#sig...
Edit:
Everyone trying to turn this into a users vs devs thing. Come of it.
Apple could have made a social media login that respects privacy.
Put it out into the world. Advertise "Apple's social media login is the only one that keeps your privates private".
Had developers adopt it and it becomes a new de-facto login besides Google and Facebook.
It's great for users, good for devs, not as easy to abuse (Apps could watch what Apple is doing right now with Epic and back out instead of wringing their hands they might be next for example...)
...
Instead they force developers to implement a new feature with deep integration into app's backends, customer lifecycles, and an implicit change on all platforms they serve.
Like seriously people:
> The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
I support user privacy, and I don't think what they did is ok. How is that so hard to grasp?
Being anti-"How Sign in with Apple is mandatory" not being anti-privacy, it's not even being anti-"Sign in with randomized emails" in a vaccum.
The problem is _forcing that choice on others_.
-
Do you actually imagine it makes it less ridiculous, or do you not realize how prevalent social logins are not just in apps, but on the internet in general?
Social logins are the de-facto login method on mobile
Apple gets to just make their own social login and ignore concepts like risks in implementation to devs and just boop now everyone has to use it.
It's almost comical! They played the "this is a privacy deal" card which is cool, but then the idea they actually forced a new social login option apps based on the platform they run on... absolute insanity.
It's like Apple is just begging for scrutiny these days, they really do think they've become Microsoft in the 90s
Everyone trying to turn this into a users vs devs thing. Come of it.
Apple could have made a social media login that respects privacy.
Put it out into the world. Advertise "Apple's social media login is the only one that keeps your privates private".
Had developers adopt it and it becomes a new de-facto login besides Google and Facebook.
It's great for users, good for devs, not as easy to abuse (Apps could watch what Apple is doing right now with Epic and back out instead of wringing their hands they might be next for example...)
...
Instead they force developers to implement a new feature with deep integration into app's backends, customer lifecycles, and an implicit change on all platforms they serve.
Like seriously people:
> The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
I support user privacy, and I don't think what they did is ok. How is that so hard to grasp?
Being anti-"How Sign in with Apple is mandatory" not being anti-privacy, it's not even being anti-"Sign in with randomized emails" in a vaccum.
The problem is _forcing that choice on others_.
-
Do you actually imagine it makes it less ridiculous, or do you not realize how prevalent social logins are not just in apps, but on the internet in general?
Social logins are the de-facto login method on mobile
Apple gets to just make their own social login and ignore concepts like risks in implementation to devs and just boop now everyone has to use it.
It's almost comical! They played the "this is a privacy deal" card which is cool, but then the idea they actually forced a new social login option apps based on the platform they run on... absolute insanity.
It's like Apple is just begging for scrutiny these days, they really do think they've become Microsoft in the 90s
So they clearly don't do what you are suggesting! They do it because social logins are so prevalent. The issue, which seems to be evading those who argue against this policy, is that organisations such as Facebook use these logins to track users. I work in security, if you want to talk risk, I'm more than happy too. But suggesting this is a greater risk to developers, when their actions are often causing greater risks to end users? That's insanity.
> But suggesting this is a greater risk to developers, when their actions are often causing greater risks to end users?
"Risk" is not a unit of measure. "Risk" is not a fungible thing.
You're using the word "risk" to let you compare to very disparate concepts and say "see users are important too!"... except no one is saying they're not.
This is a conversation with a ton more nuance than that.
-
I've said it more than once here, the problem isn't the privacy protection features Sign in with Apple, it's Apple's forcing it.
Google and FB never forced anyone their logins to compete, they made them easy to integrate, added value for the user.
At most Google gave their option a fancy UX when used on their platform, and if Apple had limited themselves to that it still would have been a great option and likely gained a lot of traction very quickly.
The problem is, Apple doesn't want to have to compete the way everyone else does. The fact their option is good for my privacy is great... but in no way does it let me excuse their behavior.
This Epic Games row should be showing that, Apple's feature isn't anti-user but here we see at some point they likely did hold it over a developer's head only to walk that back after getting press coverage.
Right now devs should be able to walk away from this option and explore other privacy centric login approaches that don't extend Apple's grasp around their necks to other platforms
Because unlike most of Apple's initiatives, this one reaches well past the platform they control. All your platforms have to support Sign in with Apple for its users to log in by the very nature of a social media login (short of fancy cross-referencing tricks). So forcing it on one platform forces it on all platforms
-
The irony is of your risk talk, by the way, is in the fact mobile apps social logins are not what lets FB and Google track users in any egregious way. They're much more self-contained than on a website where the security model lets them do a ton of tricky things with nothing more than a like button showing...
Instead that would be their absolutely massive advertising libraries that hook into apps at the deepest levels and link users them across multiple apps. Apple was going to do something about it until they weren't (for now™):
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/09/facebook-complains-a...
Developers very willingly integrate those, and Apple fully allows it.
Ironically, if Apple is so concerned about privacy, you'd think Epic Games would have their reduced cuts, anything that lets devs make money outside the ad ecosystem that represents the vast majority of privacy risk.
But alas, Apple plays privacy to have an angle.
The day they announced they were going back on the iOS 14 privacy change, which easily would have one of the biggest attacks on ad networks they've ever made...
They also released this ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l61NE0eqkw
Funny how most of that "oversharing" is driven by the very ad machinery they bowed out to.
"Risk" is not a unit of measure. "Risk" is not a fungible thing.
You're using the word "risk" to let you compare to very disparate concepts and say "see users are important too!"... except no one is saying they're not.
This is a conversation with a ton more nuance than that.
-
I've said it more than once here, the problem isn't the privacy protection features Sign in with Apple, it's Apple's forcing it.
Google and FB never forced anyone their logins to compete, they made them easy to integrate, added value for the user.
At most Google gave their option a fancy UX when used on their platform, and if Apple had limited themselves to that it still would have been a great option and likely gained a lot of traction very quickly.
The problem is, Apple doesn't want to have to compete the way everyone else does. The fact their option is good for my privacy is great... but in no way does it let me excuse their behavior.
This Epic Games row should be showing that, Apple's feature isn't anti-user but here we see at some point they likely did hold it over a developer's head only to walk that back after getting press coverage.
Right now devs should be able to walk away from this option and explore other privacy centric login approaches that don't extend Apple's grasp around their necks to other platforms
Because unlike most of Apple's initiatives, this one reaches well past the platform they control. All your platforms have to support Sign in with Apple for its users to log in by the very nature of a social media login (short of fancy cross-referencing tricks). So forcing it on one platform forces it on all platforms
-
The irony is of your risk talk, by the way, is in the fact mobile apps social logins are not what lets FB and Google track users in any egregious way. They're much more self-contained than on a website where the security model lets them do a ton of tricky things with nothing more than a like button showing...
Instead that would be their absolutely massive advertising libraries that hook into apps at the deepest levels and link users them across multiple apps. Apple was going to do something about it until they weren't (for now™):
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/09/facebook-complains-a...
Developers very willingly integrate those, and Apple fully allows it.
Ironically, if Apple is so concerned about privacy, you'd think Epic Games would have their reduced cuts, anything that lets devs make money outside the ad ecosystem that represents the vast majority of privacy risk.
But alas, Apple plays privacy to have an angle.
The day they announced they were going back on the iOS 14 privacy change, which easily would have one of the biggest attacks on ad networks they've ever made...
They also released this ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l61NE0eqkw
Funny how most of that "oversharing" is driven by the very ad machinery they bowed out to.
Is apple legally bound to not track users or something?
Otherwise I'm not sure how this is a solution to the problem; apply tracking you or Facebook, it's all the same. Sure apple might not track you now, but their priorities can change
Otherwise I'm not sure how this is a solution to the problem; apply tracking you or Facebook, it's all the same. Sure apple might not track you now, but their priorities can change
It seems they are trying to have a safety and/or privacy story for each new feature that increases platform lockin. It's a brilliant PR strategy to have deniability on each anticompetitive action. But they have revealed their hand with things like app signing on MacOS not being just for security.
Are you ignoring "Log in with Facebook", "Log in with Google", and other equivalents on purpose to be a crank, or did you just somehow miss the existence of those login methods 10,000 times while logging in over the past few years?
Apple's protecting user privacy here. Nothing else.
Apple's protecting user privacy here. Nothing else.
Yeah but when you use those, facebook and google tell you the underlying email address. Its not hard to just make users sign up again, whereas with Apple you have no idea who you are talking too.
Clearly, Apple has far far more control over the developer with sign in with Apple vs Log in with Facebook/Google.
Clearly, Apple has far far more control over the developer with sign in with Apple vs Log in with Facebook/Google.
Sounds like ever service that uses Sign-in with Apple so require their users to input an email, which kinda defeats the purpose of sign-in with apple.
> When reached for comment about yesterday’s news, Apple told The Verge that it was not doing anything to stop “Sign In with Apple” accounts from working with Epic Games.
Someone was lying.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/10/21431396/epic-sign-in-wit...
Someone was lying.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/10/21431396/epic-sign-in-wit...
I believe the company saying they were threatened over one as large as Apple, where one group could have said "yes we're threatening you with this" and another disparate group could say "we would never do that"
-
Actually looking at other sources it's very clear that is exactly what happened:
- Epic Games doesn't just tweet they're being threatened with termination, they start updating all documentation on accounts to reflect this fact with a specific termination date
- Verge reaches out, gets an immediate reply from Apple that they'd never do this
- Epic Games gets an indefinite extension on the removal.
- Verge reaches out to Apple about Epic's claims that they got an extension on a ban... no reply.
Most likely the "lower level" developer relations people have the power to terminate access to the program, and did threaten Epic with it
Higher level legal/strategy dealing with the fact this is a matter about to enter court and in the public spotlight step in and clarify this is not a case where the lower level relations people should terminate their access.
Once the fact Epic had in fact been threatened with termination bubbled up, they stop replying.
The problem is very much, most people never get that higher-level involvement. The fact these lower level development relationship people are showing it's a lever they were at some point willing to pull is more than a little worrying...
-
Actually looking at other sources it's very clear that is exactly what happened:
- Epic Games doesn't just tweet they're being threatened with termination, they start updating all documentation on accounts to reflect this fact with a specific termination date
- Verge reaches out, gets an immediate reply from Apple that they'd never do this
- Epic Games gets an indefinite extension on the removal.
- Verge reaches out to Apple about Epic's claims that they got an extension on a ban... no reply.
Most likely the "lower level" developer relations people have the power to terminate access to the program, and did threaten Epic with it
Higher level legal/strategy dealing with the fact this is a matter about to enter court and in the public spotlight step in and clarify this is not a case where the lower level relations people should terminate their access.
Once the fact Epic had in fact been threatened with termination bubbled up, they stop replying.
The problem is very much, most people never get that higher-level involvement. The fact these lower level development relationship people are showing it's a lever they were at some point willing to pull is more than a little worrying...
I'd be interested to see if correspondence between Apple and Epic included threats to disable "sign in with Apple" though. This seems fairly possible to me, that someone made that threat without going through legal. Apple is pretty power drunk in this scenario, imo. So I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.
Apple's wording is loose enough not to preclude it. "Not doing anything" is present tense, but they could still have said they were going to. No one has to be lying.
When Apple watched reached for comment on whether they just gave an indefinite extension: no comment.
When earlier reached for comment on whether they were restricting it: immediate non-denial denial.
When Apple watched reached for comment on whether they just gave an indefinite extension: no comment.
When earlier reached for comment on whether they were restricting it: immediate non-denial denial.
> When Apple watched reached for comment on whether they just gave an indefinite extension: no comment.
Where does it say that? The Verge says “ Apple did not immediately reply to a request for comment about today’s development.”
Where does it say that? The Verge says “ Apple did not immediately reply to a request for comment about today’s development.”
That was 8 days ago, still no comment.
It's pretty clear the comment you're replying to means they had no reply. Especially if you've read the article.
And the article is now a week old, Apple never replied to any follow ups from anyone. It's fairly clear that developer relations did give Epic a termination date against Apple's higher level strategy in this case.
The higher level employees are who the Verge would be interacting with, so they gave a reply based on their intentions. Of course, then the fact there was indeed a termination bubbled up, so they went radio silence.
And the article is now a week old, Apple never replied to any follow ups from anyone. It's fairly clear that developer relations did give Epic a termination date against Apple's higher level strategy in this case.
The higher level employees are who the Verge would be interacting with, so they gave a reply based on their intentions. Of course, then the fact there was indeed a termination bubbled up, so they went radio silence.
Also important to note is that The Verge is notably anti-Apple after some previous litigation cost them a ton of money. They're not exactly unbiased in how they're going to present this information and are downplaying the fact to drum up more controversy.
I thought people thought the Verge was pro-Apple?
I don’t get the lying angle. Apple could have told Epic that they would terminate the feature on their side at the given date, Epic would prepare for that, but in the end Apple goes back on that decision.
Epic’s story stands, and Apple effectively didn’t do anything to stop the feature.
Epic’s story stands, and Apple effectively didn’t do anything to stop the feature.
Everything that happened is a logical consequence of their decision to completely lock-down their products.
Whatever was the reason for that decision (anti-competitive exploitation, hubris of vision, etc), after it was taken (and while it's kept), there wasn't any other course of action possible.
Whatever was the reason for that decision (anti-competitive exploitation, hubris of vision, etc), after it was taken (and while it's kept), there wasn't any other course of action possible.
> It feels like Epic waived a red cloth and Apple just ran full speed into it. I see the current mess completely of Apple's own doing.
What kind of repercussions could it have? I'm sure it's not great PR, but is it really likely this damages Apple in the long run? I'd presume Epic could challenge the legality of these actions in a lawsuit but, other than that, isn't Epic totally at Apple's mercy?
What kind of repercussions could it have? I'm sure it's not great PR, but is it really likely this damages Apple in the long run? I'd presume Epic could challenge the legality of these actions in a lawsuit but, other than that, isn't Epic totally at Apple's mercy?
They are already challenging them in a lawsuit, right?
> I'm sure it's not great PR, but is it really likely this damages Apple in the long run?
Why would you base your income on their platform knowing how they treat their users and developers? Seems pretty harebrained to me. There's many ways to sell software which don't involve paying a third party for your own work.
Why would you base your income on their platform knowing how they treat their users and developers? Seems pretty harebrained to me. There's many ways to sell software which don't involve paying a third party for your own work.
> Why would you base your income on their platform knowing how they treat their users and developers?
For the same reason everyone does: because if you don't end up in their crosshairs, you can make a lot of cash.
That's been the reason ever since the days the complaint was "Apple liked my Mac app so much they built their own version and never compensated me."
For the same reason everyone does: because if you don't end up in their crosshairs, you can make a lot of cash.
That's been the reason ever since the days the complaint was "Apple liked my Mac app so much they built their own version and never compensated me."
Oh fun, I love the prospect of gambling away my career.
What part of your career and income is a guaranteed sure thing, and what part is subject to some level of risk? What level of risk qualifies as “gambling”?
Anyone working at a startup company is doing that.
Startups don't seem to lack for hires in general.
Startups don't seem to lack for hires in general.
Doesn’t most mobile app revenue come from iOS? That’s not an accident, and a lot of it arguably has to do with the walled garden.
Or could it be that people who both have and are willing to spend money buy Apple devices?
Sure, that’s probably the most major reason. Having an app store that requires apps to meet certain quality standards, respect privacy, and not contain malware is part of why people are willing to pay a premium for iPhones. It goes without saying there are other factors, too, like the high quality hardware and integration with cool accessories. Again, it’s not an accident that iOS apps are more profitable than Android apps. Apple’s overall ecosystem is designed to attract people who are willing to pay for good products.
Yes and many on HN want Apple to be “broken up” so the iOS ecosystem is just as bad as Androids....
> but is it really likely this damages Apple in the long run?
Of course it does. People like myself see the overreach Apple has taken with their platforms and hardware, and as a result, I'm not going to rest the viability of my business on Apple's whims.
Of course it does. People like myself see the overreach Apple has taken with their platforms and hardware, and as a result, I'm not going to rest the viability of my business on Apple's whims.
The iPhone market is still huge and valuable. It’s too much money to leave on the table if you’re an app developer. You’re still going to build an IPhone app you’re just going to be more careful about it.
The endless HN swing between:
- iOS is too important for developers to abandon, so it's not like people are actually going to stop developing games for it.
and
- Antitrust claims aren't valid against iOS because developers can just choose to move to Android instead.
----
All that aside, the important thing here is that Apple is now retaliating on the Mac, not just on iPhone. I was already never going to waste my time building mobile games, in part because of iOS. So anything Apple does there doesn't really change the status quo. But I'm increasingly looking at the current situation and saying, "does it make more sense for my future games to just be Windows/Linux?"
And while they do arguably have a big enough hold on the mobile market to force mobile devs to support iOS, Apple definitely does not have a big enough hold on the desktop gaming market to force developers to target Mac. They could go from being pretty under-represented as a gaming platform back to being completely unrepresented if they're not careful.
If AAA studios, special effects teams, and producers have to choose between abandoning Unreal Engine or abandoning Mac, I don't think it's safe to assume they're going to choose to abandon Unreal Engine. There are massive pipelines invested into this thing, for better or worse.
- iOS is too important for developers to abandon, so it's not like people are actually going to stop developing games for it.
and
- Antitrust claims aren't valid against iOS because developers can just choose to move to Android instead.
----
All that aside, the important thing here is that Apple is now retaliating on the Mac, not just on iPhone. I was already never going to waste my time building mobile games, in part because of iOS. So anything Apple does there doesn't really change the status quo. But I'm increasingly looking at the current situation and saying, "does it make more sense for my future games to just be Windows/Linux?"
And while they do arguably have a big enough hold on the mobile market to force mobile devs to support iOS, Apple definitely does not have a big enough hold on the desktop gaming market to force developers to target Mac. They could go from being pretty under-represented as a gaming platform back to being completely unrepresented if they're not careful.
If AAA studios, special effects teams, and producers have to choose between abandoning Unreal Engine or abandoning Mac, I don't think it's safe to assume they're going to choose to abandon Unreal Engine. There are massive pipelines invested into this thing, for better or worse.
> But I'm increasingly looking at the current situation and saying, "does it make more sense for my future games to just be Windows/Linux?"
This is where I'm at. I maintain a couple of open source apps for macOS, and have a few cross-platform apps that work on Windows, Linux and macOS.
I'm reluctantly looking to discontinue the open source Mac apps because recent versions of macOS lead users to believe that un-Notarized apps are either broken or malicious.
When it comes to the cross-platform apps, I'm considering just not targeting the OS at all, anymore. Most people use Windows on the desktop, anyway.
This is where I'm at. I maintain a couple of open source apps for macOS, and have a few cross-platform apps that work on Windows, Linux and macOS.
I'm reluctantly looking to discontinue the open source Mac apps because recent versions of macOS lead users to believe that un-Notarized apps are either broken or malicious.
When it comes to the cross-platform apps, I'm considering just not targeting the OS at all, anymore. Most people use Windows on the desktop, anyway.
> The endless HN swing between:
Because HN isn't an individual, we are a group of people with sometimes conflicting opinions on the same subject.
Because HN isn't an individual, we are a group of people with sometimes conflicting opinions on the same subject.
Hmm, interesting. There's two sorts of monopolies here right?
From the consumer side you can move from iOS to Android and vice versa relatively easily.
But from the developer side, despite having access to similar numbers of US consumers the Apple market is far more profitable and can't be abandoned.
Are monopolies measured from the perspective of third parties like that? The developers being the third parties here.
From the consumer side you can move from iOS to Android and vice versa relatively easily.
But from the developer side, despite having access to similar numbers of US consumers the Apple market is far more profitable and can't be abandoned.
Are monopolies measured from the perspective of third parties like that? The developers being the third parties here.
Apple has a monopoly on the service of distributing iOS apps. This is something that iOS/phone app developers need in order to conduct business, and which they are illegally (antitrust violations) being prevented from purchasing that service from anyone but Apple. No one (worth listening to) is claiming that Apple has a monopoly on phones.
I don't think so. For many companies, it's better to sell to a smaller market with higher profit margins (e.g. SaaS web apps) than to sell to everyone and lose money (e.g. paying the iOS tax). And those 30% are surely large enough to completely eat up profit margins in some markets.
You're not an Apple customer anyways based on your previous comments so this doesn't do anything to change the current situation. Also, the only thing that would damage Apple at this point would be losing the decision in court and, so far, the judge has agreed with all of Apple's responses to Epic.
This is an interesting conspiracy theory considering that I'm typing this message from my Mac.
While I know it is not significant, me personally as a small developer am no longer going to use any Apple services which can leave me "exposed" and "surrender" my self to the Almighty Apple.
Mostly, and I know I am not alone, that whole fiasco where Apple threatened to shut down Epic users who used Sign-In with Apple (regardless of which side is lying) has completely turned me 180 on that feature, where I am now actively avoiding to implement Sign-In with Apple in my apps.
I am quite aware that I am going to lose some users to that decision, I am more than willing to accept it, since that path is too dangerous for me to take after seeing how much power Apple has.
I only hope that others will also follow in that decision. Also, I am just waiting patiently for the EU hammer to hit Apple swiftly, it would be about damn time.
Mostly, and I know I am not alone, that whole fiasco where Apple threatened to shut down Epic users who used Sign-In with Apple (regardless of which side is lying) has completely turned me 180 on that feature, where I am now actively avoiding to implement Sign-In with Apple in my apps.
I am quite aware that I am going to lose some users to that decision, I am more than willing to accept it, since that path is too dangerous for me to take after seeing how much power Apple has.
I only hope that others will also follow in that decision. Also, I am just waiting patiently for the EU hammer to hit Apple swiftly, it would be about damn time.
> Mostly, and I know I am not alone, that whole fiasco where Apple threatened to shut down Epic users who used Sign-In with Apple (regardless of which side is lying) has completely turned me 180 on that feature, where I am now actively avoiding to implement Sign-In with Apple in my apps.
Keep in mind that this is par for the course with social logins, because they are based on your company having a business agreement with Apple, Google, Facebook, etc - even if it looks like a simple EULA when you sign up, they have the ability to cancel your access, which effectively shuts down access by your customers into your service.
SIWA is tied to the developer agreement, so Epic lost access to this when they lost everything else. It sounds like Apple actually gave them an extended (but still quite short) grace period after their developer account was deleted to migrate users off.
Keep in mind that this is par for the course with social logins, because they are based on your company having a business agreement with Apple, Google, Facebook, etc - even if it looks like a simple EULA when you sign up, they have the ability to cancel your access, which effectively shuts down access by your customers into your service.
SIWA is tied to the developer agreement, so Epic lost access to this when they lost everything else. It sounds like Apple actually gave them an extended (but still quite short) grace period after their developer account was deleted to migrate users off.
To add on: It appears Apple has extended Epic's ability to use SiwA even with their developer account suspended.
> SIWA is tied to the developer agreement, so Epic lost access to this when they lost everything else. It sounds like Apple actually gave them an extended (but still quite short) grace period after their developer account was deleted to migrate users off.
With my end user hat on, I respectfully disagree. SIWA is tied to my Apple ID, and is my account. Apple has demonstrated it will unilaterally revoke my login on services that has nothing to do with it, thereby significantly reducing the value of SIWA and significantly increasing the risk of using it.
I never used social logins before SIWA due to privacy concerns. I now can’t use SIWA either, and need to migrate every service I have using it back to my email.
Thanks Apple. You continue to be the abusive partner, taking my money and telling me I should be grateful that you’re not as bad as the other option, all the while restricting and controlling what I’m allowed to do.
With my end user hat on, I respectfully disagree. SIWA is tied to my Apple ID, and is my account. Apple has demonstrated it will unilaterally revoke my login on services that has nothing to do with it, thereby significantly reducing the value of SIWA and significantly increasing the risk of using it.
I never used social logins before SIWA due to privacy concerns. I now can’t use SIWA either, and need to migrate every service I have using it back to my email.
Thanks Apple. You continue to be the abusive partner, taking my money and telling me I should be grateful that you’re not as bad as the other option, all the while restricting and controlling what I’m allowed to do.
[deleted]
> With my end user hat on, I respectfully disagree. SIWA is tied to my Apple ID, and is my account.
From a capability standpoint, I agree. From user perception and resulting corporate liability standpoints, there are problems there.
> Apple has demonstrated it will unilaterally revoke my login on services that has nothing to do with it, thereby significantly reducing the value of SIWA and significantly increasing the risk of using it.
Apple _only_ allows SiwA with organizations which have an Apple developer account, which has the terms and conditions for appropriate use of user PII.
It is certainly valid to put users squarely in charge of who they share their PII to, but that requires a different user experience with appropriate informed consent. The SiwA experience is still about letting Apple share data with partner organizations.
From a capability standpoint, I agree. From user perception and resulting corporate liability standpoints, there are problems there.
> Apple has demonstrated it will unilaterally revoke my login on services that has nothing to do with it, thereby significantly reducing the value of SIWA and significantly increasing the risk of using it.
Apple _only_ allows SiwA with organizations which have an Apple developer account, which has the terms and conditions for appropriate use of user PII.
It is certainly valid to put users squarely in charge of who they share their PII to, but that requires a different user experience with appropriate informed consent. The SiwA experience is still about letting Apple share data with partner organizations.
Fortunately, it appears we were both wrong:
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2020/09/29/epic-games-unre...
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2020/09/29/epic-games-unre...
> Epic could challenge the legality of these actions
It’s not hypothetical anymore.
Also, Epic now doesn’t have to prove that Apple is doing everything to damage their business, it has become a fact with quantifiable effects.
Apple won’t be able to say their contract is just standard legalese that they didn’t intend to enforce. Perhaps they’ll get away with everything they’re doing, but that looks like a lot of rope to get hanged high.
It’s not hypothetical anymore.
Also, Epic now doesn’t have to prove that Apple is doing everything to damage their business, it has become a fact with quantifiable effects.
Apple won’t be able to say their contract is just standard legalese that they didn’t intend to enforce. Perhaps they’ll get away with everything they’re doing, but that looks like a lot of rope to get hanged high.
I wonder how many kids have Macs due to their parents, and played Fortnite until this happened. Imagine them looking to buy their first computer in the future, and weighing the pros and cons of the available platforms..
[deleted]
> it still generates news weeks after the initial issue
Its two dragons lying on two giant piles of gold fighting to get more gold.
And bystanders are getting hurt.
I couldn't care less about which dragon is going win.
I have better thing to worry about.
Its two dragons lying on two giant piles of gold fighting to get more gold.
And bystanders are getting hurt.
I couldn't care less about which dragon is going win.
I have better thing to worry about.
> And bystanders are getting hurt.
Who are those bystanders?
Who are those bystanders?
People/studios trying to make money releasing games written with Unreal engine.
Those people and studios are currently still able to release games written with the Unreal Engine and will continue to be able to do so regardless of the outcome of this situation unless Epic decides that they want to continue violating the guidelines of the platform. In the future, every dev on Unreal Engine can still compile their game and put it on the App Store without needing Epic at all.
Sadly no. They'll need compatibility patches with new hardware, for example. Those won't come of Epic cannot build them.
Those who use epic games or apple devices and wanted to use epic games.
The issues at play here have nothing to do with how much money Epic or Apple have.
How do you figure?
>Apple made a mistake in blocking the developper account.
The judge on the case doesn't feel that way. They have, thus far, agreed with Apple's side on everything except their decision to block Epic's other developer accounts and even that is only a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo until it can be ascertained if any damages were caused by either party through their actions.
>so overreaching it still generates news weeks after the initial issue.
It's not generating news. Epic's blog posts are generating news because they're acting like the victim and it's sensational enough to get clicks.
>It feels like Epic waived a red cloth and Apple just ran full speed into it. I see the current mess completely of Apple's own doing.
That's a really weird take considering that Epic was the one that willfully violated the terms of service and got their app removed and their developer account cancelled. Fortnite use is down. iOS downloads are waaaay up.
>Apple made a mistake in blocking the developper account.
The judge on the case doesn't feel that way. They have, thus far, agreed with Apple's side on everything except their decision to block Epic's other developer accounts and even that is only a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo until it can be ascertained if any damages were caused by either party through their actions.
>so overreaching it still generates news weeks after the initial issue.
It's not generating news. Epic's blog posts are generating news because they're acting like the victim and it's sensational enough to get clicks.
>It feels like Epic waived a red cloth and Apple just ran full speed into it. I see the current mess completely of Apple's own doing.
That's a really weird take considering that Epic was the one that willfully violated the terms of service and got their app removed and their developer account cancelled. Fortnite use is down. iOS downloads are waaaay up.
> Fortnite use is down. iOS downloads are waaaay up.
Why even both making that comparison? It makes no sense.
By definition Fortnite usage would go down unless new users could make up for users now prevented from playing.
iOS just released a new version, of course there are downloads of it as people upgrade their phone OS.
What do these have to do with each other?
Why even both making that comparison? It makes no sense.
By definition Fortnite usage would go down unless new users could make up for users now prevented from playing.
iOS just released a new version, of course there are downloads of it as people upgrade their phone OS.
What do these have to do with each other?
> Fortnite use is down. iOS downloads are waaaay up.
Maybe you're not aware, but 80% of Fortnite players are on consoles.
https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-royale-s...
Maybe you're not aware, but 80% of Fortnite players are on consoles.
https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-royale-s...
Regardless of how you feel about Apple versus Epic, we should all be clear about one thing here: there is no "perceived" infringement of the iOS rules. Epic broke the rules. They do not even try to deny that they breached their contract with Apple in their lawsuit, but rather attack the contract directly as being illegal. Their approach is analogous to you being caught going 120 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour zone and you challenging whether the speed limit is legal.
Epic's stance is that the rule was never enforceable to begin with, which would make breaking that rule not an infringement of the contract.
But in any case, no court has ruled in Apple's favor yet, and Epic denies their claim, so at the moment the infringement is perceived to exist by Apple, but not proven as fact yet.
But in any case, no court has ruled in Apple's favor yet, and Epic denies their claim, so at the moment the infringement is perceived to exist by Apple, but not proven as fact yet.
Epic's stance is that Apple is being anti-competitive and monopolistic.
Epic knows that they broke the rule and they anticipated that Apple would react to the breaking of the rule. What they are trying to prove is that Apple can retaliate against a multi-BILLION dollar corporation in a way that not only hits the bottom line of the corporation, but it also has a negative effect on consumers (because ultimately the breaking of Antitrust laws in the USA revolves mostly around consumer damage, not corporate damage).
Epic is making sure that they do everything "right" in the best interest of the consumer, as Apple takes all these various actions against them. So in this case, they are now doing blanket refunds for this game (which by the way is technically a different game than the one that originally violated the rules on iOS). Epic is making sure that they have done the best for the consumer during each of these reactions that Apple has made.
Eventually we will see a court case about this where Epic basically shows exactly this. Apple cares more about itself and its' money than the consumers and made these reactions that do not benefit the consumer, but benefit themselves. Meanwhile poor little Epic, the "victim", continued to valiantly do the right thing for consumers while being bullied by scary Apple.
Also they want to show the extent that Apple controls Epic's business.
Lastly, if a multi-billion dollar corporation like Epic can't take on Apple... what chance does the independent developer have to take on Apple? Everyone must play by Apple's rules or pay the dire consequences for it.
This whole cat and mouse game between Apple and Epic is exactly that. Epic is just collecting ammunition right now to eventually convince governments to do something against Apple's dominance.
Epic knows that they broke the rule and they anticipated that Apple would react to the breaking of the rule. What they are trying to prove is that Apple can retaliate against a multi-BILLION dollar corporation in a way that not only hits the bottom line of the corporation, but it also has a negative effect on consumers (because ultimately the breaking of Antitrust laws in the USA revolves mostly around consumer damage, not corporate damage).
Epic is making sure that they do everything "right" in the best interest of the consumer, as Apple takes all these various actions against them. So in this case, they are now doing blanket refunds for this game (which by the way is technically a different game than the one that originally violated the rules on iOS). Epic is making sure that they have done the best for the consumer during each of these reactions that Apple has made.
Eventually we will see a court case about this where Epic basically shows exactly this. Apple cares more about itself and its' money than the consumers and made these reactions that do not benefit the consumer, but benefit themselves. Meanwhile poor little Epic, the "victim", continued to valiantly do the right thing for consumers while being bullied by scary Apple.
Also they want to show the extent that Apple controls Epic's business.
Lastly, if a multi-billion dollar corporation like Epic can't take on Apple... what chance does the independent developer have to take on Apple? Everyone must play by Apple's rules or pay the dire consequences for it.
This whole cat and mouse game between Apple and Epic is exactly that. Epic is just collecting ammunition right now to eventually convince governments to do something against Apple's dominance.
Awesome reading into everything. It's hard to find such analysis in A$PL related news - as the fanatism of some users seem to be the reason why they do all that evil.
Try telling Steam customers that Epic is doing everything right for consumers.
Seriously... the support for Epic here is not only irrational but flat-out misleading.
It's not support for Epic, it's support for the legal position that they are advancing in this specific case. Lawsuits are not referendums on the overall morality of the litigants.
Most comments here are about the overall morality of the litigants - people are largely supporting Epic because they think Apple’s App Store is immoral.
Yes, I support Epic here because I believe it would be good for users like me if someone limits Apple's power over ios developers. And yes, I consider Apple having that much power immoral.
> if a multi-billion dollar corporation like Epic can't take on Apple... what chance does the independent developer have to take on Apple?
Take on in what way? Forcing their hands with sheisty tactics and breaching contract? Plenty of indie devs get by just fine without that bs.
> Everyone must play by Apple's rules or pay the dire consequences for it.
It’s their platform, and who said anyone _had_ to write iOS apps? This is entitlement.
Take on in what way? Forcing their hands with sheisty tactics and breaching contract? Plenty of indie devs get by just fine without that bs.
> Everyone must play by Apple's rules or pay the dire consequences for it.
It’s their platform, and who said anyone _had_ to write iOS apps? This is entitlement.
You can put anything in a contract, but that doesn't make the contract enforceable. And the way our legal system is set up, you can't challenge the legality of a contract clause without (someone) entering into it.
I've been trying to figure out what Epic's end-game is here. What's the win state for them, besides the court case? I'm trying to wrap my head around how they hope to see the ecosystem change.
Epic also owns an app store, so any constraints on what Apple can do in their walled garden constrain what Epic is allowed to do in its walled garden.
Epic also owns an app store, so any constraints on what Apple can do in their walled garden constrain what Epic is allowed to do in its walled garden.
I like your portrayal here, though Epic is acting in their self-interest to maximize their own profits/revenue rather than being the "knight in shiny armor" for consumers everywhere. Apple just happens to be the biggest target and conversely the most opportunity for Epic.
A Hunger Games analogy: Epic isn't the one-person Mockingjay but an entire District 13. It will ultimately fail or fight to a stalemate against the might of the Capitol (Apple), unless other Districts (major game studios, or software developers) join in.
A Hunger Games analogy: Epic isn't the one-person Mockingjay but an entire District 13. It will ultimately fail or fight to a stalemate against the might of the Capitol (Apple), unless other Districts (major game studios, or software developers) join in.
Who cares what Epic's intentions are? Epic's actions make them a "knight in shiny armor" for me even if that's not the goal.
I think a lot of folks are missing this point. Epic has stumbled onto a vast source of wealth. They don't need to win this, they can afford to lose it. I honestly believe that Sweeney is fed up with the cut big distributors take, and for once has the firepower to make a difference.
Look at Unreal licensing, it's extremely developer friendly, they could ask for a cut of all sales easily but instead they aren't greedy.
I have no horse in this race but I'd love to see Epic lead the industry to change for the better.
Look at Unreal licensing, it's extremely developer friendly, they could ask for a cut of all sales easily but instead they aren't greedy.
I have no horse in this race but I'd love to see Epic lead the industry to change for the better.
Yes. It doesn't matter why the dragon is slain. The damsel in distress is saved regardless.
This entire argument falls flat when Apple just proved to the judge that the majority of its developer market grew as a result of their actions, especially when compared to the opposite happening in other marketplaces.
Epic isn't doing this to be altruistic and "the good guy". They're doing this because they want to be able to take advantage of customers 100% as opposed to only 70%.
Epic isn't doing this to be altruistic and "the good guy". They're doing this because they want to be able to take advantage of customers 100% as opposed to only 70%.
> Epic is making sure that they do everything "right" in the best interest of the consumer
That's highly debatable. If Epic really had their consumers best interests in mind they would cure the breach and put Fortnite back in the App Store while the lawsuit proceeded, as the judge recommended.
That's highly debatable. If Epic really had their consumers best interests in mind they would cure the breach and put Fortnite back in the App Store while the lawsuit proceeded, as the judge recommended.
I'd say refunding people for a game after they already played it is even more consumer friendly than selling it to them at inflated prices to cover for the app store fees.
Not quite. Apple's developer agreement specifically states they can terminate your developer account if you violate the App Store Review Guidelines. The App Store Review Guidelines say you're not allowed to sneak hidden code into your app. Epic very clearly broke that rule and therefore broke the agreement.
That Epic alleges some of the other terms of the agreement relating to Apple's IAP commissions are not enforceable doesn't change the fact that Epic did actually break the agreement.
(Keep in mind the agreement also has a severability clause that states that if any individual term is found unenforceable, the rest of the agreement remains in effect.)
That Epic alleges some of the other terms of the agreement relating to Apple's IAP commissions are not enforceable doesn't change the fact that Epic did actually break the agreement.
(Keep in mind the agreement also has a severability clause that states that if any individual term is found unenforceable, the rest of the agreement remains in effect.)
That is a very weird way to interpret the phrase "broke the rule." Just because the rule is invalid does not mean that you didn't break it, it just means that you can't be punished for breaking it.
It's kind of how it works. Like, if I sign a contract with Company A that is, by legal definitions, invalid, then they can't sue me for breach of contract because it was never a valid contract to begin with. I assume that's one of the arguments that Epic is making here.
This is a giant misunderstanding of how contract law works. Company A can certainly sue you for breach of contract and the burden of proof would be on you to show that the contract is invalid. The law looks kindly upon the aggrieved party and frowns upon parties that breach a contract.
I'm sure you can come up with plenty of examples of contracts that are on their face invalid and which would be ludicrous to sue over ("what if it was a contract to kill someone!?"); however, the contract at issue here is certainly not so clear cut and, even in those cases, they could still sue you for breach of contract and you would need to still prove that the contract is invalid (no matter how easily it could be done). A subsidiary question: if the contract is so obviously illegal, why did you (or Epic) agree to it?
I'm sure you can come up with plenty of examples of contracts that are on their face invalid and which would be ludicrous to sue over ("what if it was a contract to kill someone!?"); however, the contract at issue here is certainly not so clear cut and, even in those cases, they could still sue you for breach of contract and you would need to still prove that the contract is invalid (no matter how easily it could be done). A subsidiary question: if the contract is so obviously illegal, why did you (or Epic) agree to it?
The point being that the rules are arguably illegal.
So it does not make sense to phrase this conversation as "They broke the rules!", because that is implying that they did something "wrong".
> if the contract is so obviously illegal, why did you (or Epic) agree to it?
Because Apple has significant market power, as defined by US anti-trust law, and is using that market power in an illegal manner?
Thats the point. Apple is illegally using its market power, to push these contracts.
So it does not make sense to phrase this conversation as "They broke the rules!", because that is implying that they did something "wrong".
> if the contract is so obviously illegal, why did you (or Epic) agree to it?
Because Apple has significant market power, as defined by US anti-trust law, and is using that market power in an illegal manner?
Thats the point. Apple is illegally using its market power, to push these contracts.
> So it does not make sense to phrase this conversation as "They broke the rules!", because that is implying that they did something "wrong".
That's because they did. Apple's developer agreement (like most contracts) has a severability clause that says if any individual term of the contract is unenforceable, the rest of the contract still remains in effect.
This means that even if Epic's theory of the case is right, they still breached the contract by sneaking hidden code into the App Store, and Apple can still legally exercise their right to terminate the contract.
That's because they did. Apple's developer agreement (like most contracts) has a severability clause that says if any individual term of the contract is unenforceable, the rest of the contract still remains in effect.
This means that even if Epic's theory of the case is right, they still breached the contract by sneaking hidden code into the App Store, and Apple can still legally exercise their right to terminate the contract.
> Apple can still legally exercise their right to terminate the contract.
No, not if ending the contract helps them maintain their significant market power, and helps Apple continue their illegal anti-competitive behavior, or helps keep out competitors.
The courts have ruled in the past, that if enforcement of certain contract provisions helps a company maintain their significant market power, then this all falls under anti-competitive behavior, and can all be illegal.
This is generally referred to as the concept of "monopoly maintenance".
Contract enforcement, that would be otherwise legal in other situations, can be illegal, if it is helps maintain a companies market position.
> That's because they did.
Nope. Companies have no obligation to follow illegally anti-competitive contracts. If the contract is illegally anti-competitive, then they can break it.
And the company that is trying to maintain their illegally anti-competitive market position can be forced to take certain actions, and continue to deal with the company that was within their rights to not follow the anti-competitive contract.
No, not if ending the contract helps them maintain their significant market power, and helps Apple continue their illegal anti-competitive behavior, or helps keep out competitors.
The courts have ruled in the past, that if enforcement of certain contract provisions helps a company maintain their significant market power, then this all falls under anti-competitive behavior, and can all be illegal.
This is generally referred to as the concept of "monopoly maintenance".
Contract enforcement, that would be otherwise legal in other situations, can be illegal, if it is helps maintain a companies market position.
> That's because they did.
Nope. Companies have no obligation to follow illegally anti-competitive contracts. If the contract is illegally anti-competitive, then they can break it.
And the company that is trying to maintain their illegally anti-competitive market position can be forced to take certain actions, and continue to deal with the company that was within their rights to not follow the anti-competitive contract.
Before I engage any further can you clarify whether 1) you are American and 2) you have any actual experience with US law? Also, since you claim "courts have ruled in the past" can you clarify which specific legal cases you are referring to?
Hey, if you want references to how market power is defined, them I recommend that you read this link.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
This is the definition that I am referring to when talking about what the FTC is referring too regarding market and monopoly power.
And according to the FTC, all that is required to fall under section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act is significant and durable market power.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
This is the definition that I am referring to when talking about what the FTC is referring too regarding market and monopoly power.
And according to the FTC, all that is required to fall under section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act is significant and durable market power.
You didn't answer any of my questions.
That goes to political philosophy and the concept "A law not enforced is no law at all."
Technically, some states still have laws in the books that certain types of sex is punishable as "sodomy," regardless of the consent of the practitioners. Since the US Supreme Court ruled that it's a violation of civil rights to constrain two consenting adults on how they get freaky in the bedroom, the existence of those laws is utterly moot. Are they still "laws" if nobody can enforce them?
Technically, some states still have laws in the books that certain types of sex is punishable as "sodomy," regardless of the consent of the practitioners. Since the US Supreme Court ruled that it's a violation of civil rights to constrain two consenting adults on how they get freaky in the bedroom, the existence of those laws is utterly moot. Are they still "laws" if nobody can enforce them?
>no court has ruled in Apple's favor yet
The court hasn't ruled yet but the judge on the case has agreed with all of Apple's responses and denied all of Epic's claims in the preliminary injunction. The only action taken was to prevent Apple from continuing further action based on what's in the terms until damages could be established.
The court hasn't ruled yet but the judge on the case has agreed with all of Apple's responses and denied all of Epic's claims in the preliminary injunction. The only action taken was to prevent Apple from continuing further action based on what's in the terms until damages could be established.
And in the meantime Epic is accruing quite the sizable damages claim against Apple.
Obviously not as large an amount as Apple stand to lose once a court decides they are stealing from developers, but a tidy bundle for Epic for standing up for us.
Epic will get nothing. They were leaving anyways(their own words said it is not a sizable portion of their revenue at around 5%, I think). Apple has no obligation to help Epic make money on their platform. Now, if anyone has a claim, it could be the users of the devices themselves. They are stuck between two Titans throwing mountains at each other. In addition, the more they lose is an argument for Apple helping them make money.
it's not their platform, it's users' platform. such a twisted mindset is the real reason why all the a$pl monopoly hurts.
When you buy into the Apple mobile ecosystem, it's very much because it's Apple's platform, and that's the value-add Apple brings to the table.
Rewinding the clock: The iPhone hit a market that was full of low-quality hardware running lower-quality software. Apple brought to the consumer a tightly-controlled ecosystem that came with a quality guarantee. For my relatives who don't want to think hard about their phone working, I still recommend they buy Apple; pay Jobs's company the money, and they'll take care of you, from extended warranties to an app store designed to tamp down as best it can on scams and crap apps.
Rewinding the clock: The iPhone hit a market that was full of low-quality hardware running lower-quality software. Apple brought to the consumer a tightly-controlled ecosystem that came with a quality guarantee. For my relatives who don't want to think hard about their phone working, I still recommend they buy Apple; pay Jobs's company the money, and they'll take care of you, from extended warranties to an app store designed to tamp down as best it can on scams and crap apps.
While what you are saying is true, those facts don't matter if the law has been broken. Apple's rules are not the law, it is a set of arbitrary rules which have to be enforced in the court of law.
And Epic is currently trying to do just that, make the law say that those "arbitrary rules" are non-valid and anti-competitive.
Even if it is the Apple ecosystem, "the Apple platform which brings value", if they engage in anti-competitive behaviour, they need to be dealt with.
Some might argue that there were people who enjoyed using Bell Systems and were content with the value it was providing, it also had a "vertical integration" in the communications systems, and yet they were forced to comply with the anti-competitive laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System )
And Epic is currently trying to do just that, make the law say that those "arbitrary rules" are non-valid and anti-competitive.
Even if it is the Apple ecosystem, "the Apple platform which brings value", if they engage in anti-competitive behaviour, they need to be dealt with.
Some might argue that there were people who enjoyed using Bell Systems and were content with the value it was providing, it also had a "vertical integration" in the communications systems, and yet they were forced to comply with the anti-competitive laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System )
Oh, 100% agree. It's entirely possible offering the ecosystem users want is illegal, and illegal for good reasons.
If that is illegal, I would hate to be Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Amazon... They are all doing the same thing. The 30% isn't what will be decided, it will be the ability of manufactures to make walled gardens at all. Also, this would be the US only.
[deleted]
This whole thing may provide energy to any alternatives to Unreal Engine, though that may take time. Still, they'd probably prefer not to do too much to stimulate vigorous competition to their platform.
I don't think so. The clever thing Epic did here was to openly talk about how little of their revenue came from iOS. Who would want to build an engine for the (difficult to deal with) <5% of gamers that use Apple hardware?
I'm pretty sure there is a good reason why Epic got early support from Microsoft. As much as this is about the app store tax, it is also a massive PR play to convince game developers to shun Apple.
I'm pretty sure there is a good reason why Epic got early support from Microsoft. As much as this is about the app store tax, it is also a massive PR play to convince game developers to shun Apple.
I don't think Epic is standing up for 'us'. They have their own self-interests in mind, and they stand to gain a boatload of money (from developers like 'us') if they can get a victory.
I'm 100% sure they have their own self interest in mind.
But if it was solely that they could easily have negotiated a fee cut and left everyone else in the lurch.
Or perhaps they tried and this was the next step.
Either way we all stand to gain from google and apple stores being forced to play by the same rules everyone else has to abide by.
But if it was solely that they could easily have negotiated a fee cut and left everyone else in the lurch.
Or perhaps they tried and this was the next step.
Either way we all stand to gain from google and apple stores being forced to play by the same rules everyone else has to abide by.
No business is forced to deal with anyone else. So google and apple stores are playing by the same rules as every other store in the world. Companies can't win a lawsuit against Whole Foods for not allowing their products to be sold in Whole Foods.
Apple and Google have both seen how the completely open app download model works (it's been how PCs have worked for a long time). Most consumers want their phones to work and not have any risk of downloading spyware or viruses or apps that brick their phone. Most consumers don't want to research every app to see if the app is trustworthy enough to trust with their identity information or payment information. That said, there's probably a middle ground between where Apple/Google are now and a completely open marketplace that gets most customers what they're hoping to get while also giving larger app developers more of what they want.
Apple and Google have both seen how the completely open app download model works (it's been how PCs have worked for a long time). Most consumers want their phones to work and not have any risk of downloading spyware or viruses or apps that brick their phone. Most consumers don't want to research every app to see if the app is trustworthy enough to trust with their identity information or payment information. That said, there's probably a middle ground between where Apple/Google are now and a completely open marketplace that gets most customers what they're hoping to get while also giving larger app developers more of what they want.
> No business is forced to deal with anyone else.
Actually, if the company has significant market power, which does not require a monopoly, then anti-trust law can absolutely force a company to do business with others.
And in this case, Apple has about 50% of the US smartphone market, which is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies.
To give a relevant example, if microsoft banned all browsers from being installed on a windows PC, that did not go through their app store, then this would be clearly illegally anti-competitive.
> ompanies can't win a lawsuit against Whole Foods for not allowing their products to be sold in Whole Foods.
If whole foods had significant market power, then they absolutely could be forced to allow products to be sold in their stores. They don't have this much market power, that this would be illegal, though.
Actually, if the company has significant market power, which does not require a monopoly, then anti-trust law can absolutely force a company to do business with others.
And in this case, Apple has about 50% of the US smartphone market, which is within the realm of when anti-trust law applies.
To give a relevant example, if microsoft banned all browsers from being installed on a windows PC, that did not go through their app store, then this would be clearly illegally anti-competitive.
> ompanies can't win a lawsuit against Whole Foods for not allowing their products to be sold in Whole Foods.
If whole foods had significant market power, then they absolutely could be forced to allow products to be sold in their stores. They don't have this much market power, that this would be illegal, though.
> Actually, if the company has significant market power, which does not require a monopoly, then anti-trust law can absolutely force a company to do business with others.
Actually, this is incorrect. This is known as a refusal to deal and very specifically applies to companies with monopoly power only.
More than eighty years ago, the Supreme Court set out the fundamental principle that still guides consideration of cases involving refusals to deal in the United States. As the Court stated in United States v. Colgate, ìin the absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, the Sherman Act does not restrict the long-recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in any entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. Accordingly, refusals to deal are actionable only when done by a firm creating or maintaining a monopoly power.
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us-submi...
Actually, this is incorrect. This is known as a refusal to deal and very specifically applies to companies with monopoly power only.
More than eighty years ago, the Supreme Court set out the fundamental principle that still guides consideration of cases involving refusals to deal in the United States. As the Court stated in United States v. Colgate, ìin the absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, the Sherman Act does not restrict the long-recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in any entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. Accordingly, refusals to deal are actionable only when done by a firm creating or maintaining a monopoly power.
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/us-submi...
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
The FTC itself says that there are situations that a company with significant market power can be forced to deal with other companies in certain situations.
> very specifically applies to companies with monopoly power only
Monopoly power, according to FTC, is defined as significant market power. So not a literal monopoly.
The FTC defines that here:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct"
> nly when done by a firm creating or maintaining a monopoly power.
This supports my point. The FTC is agreeing with me here, by saying that the government can force companies to deal with others, if it relates to their anti-competitive behavior, and they have signficant market power.
Read up on what the FTC means, when it is talking about this. It is talking about significant market power.
The FTC itself says that there are situations that a company with significant market power can be forced to deal with other companies in certain situations.
> very specifically applies to companies with monopoly power only
Monopoly power, according to FTC, is defined as significant market power. So not a literal monopoly.
The FTC defines that here:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct"
> nly when done by a firm creating or maintaining a monopoly power.
This supports my point. The FTC is agreeing with me here, by saying that the government can force companies to deal with others, if it relates to their anti-competitive behavior, and they have signficant market power.
Read up on what the FTC means, when it is talking about this. It is talking about significant market power.
> So not a literal monopoly.
You're really fixated on this phrase but you don't really seem to understand what they mean. A literal monopoly means a single company that controls the entire market. Of course that is not required. I did not say a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted did not say a literal monopoly was required. No one said a literal monopoly was required.
The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. That is all.
You're really fixated on this phrase but you don't really seem to understand what they mean. A literal monopoly means a single company that controls the entire market. Of course that is not required. I did not say a literal monopoly was required. The text I quoted did not say a literal monopoly was required. No one said a literal monopoly was required.
The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required. That is all.
> The text I quoted says that monopoly power is required.
Which is in reference to significant market power.
So cool. It seems like you agree with me, that it is significant market power which is required.
And Apple's significant market power, of ~50% of the US smartphone market can fall within that realm.
The point that I am making is that 50% of a market is within the realm of what courts have deemed to be significant market power, where significant market power is defined according to section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act.
And it seems like you agree with me and the FTC that 50% of the market share can fall within this definition, and can be within the realm where section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act applies.
Here is another quote talking about this, from the FTC:
"A "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.".
So significant and durable market power. That is the definition. Glad you agree with my definition that is simply a quote from the FTC.
Which is in reference to significant market power.
So cool. It seems like you agree with me, that it is significant market power which is required.
And Apple's significant market power, of ~50% of the US smartphone market can fall within that realm.
The point that I am making is that 50% of a market is within the realm of what courts have deemed to be significant market power, where significant market power is defined according to section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act.
And it seems like you agree with me and the FTC that 50% of the market share can fall within this definition, and can be within the realm where section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act applies.
Here is another quote talking about this, from the FTC:
"A "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.".
So significant and durable market power. That is the definition. Glad you agree with my definition that is simply a quote from the FTC.
> To give a relevant example, if microsoft banned all browsers from being installed on a windows PC, that did not go through their app store, then this would be clearly illegally anti-competitive.
The FTC case against Microsoft was specifically that Microsoft was a monopoly. It's clear that there's a duopoly right now with Apple and Google in the US mobile phone OS space.
The FTC case against Microsoft was specifically that Microsoft was a monopoly. It's clear that there's a duopoly right now with Apple and Google in the US mobile phone OS space.
> The FTC case against Microsoft was specifically that Microsoft was a monopoly
This is a misrepresentation of how section 2 of the sherman anti trust law works.
It is a very common misconception, though, so don't worry.
The sherman anti-trust act does not require a literal monopoly. Instead, it only requires significant market power.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct"
So, according to the officially released government information and guidance from the experts on the matter, the previous point still stands.
Apple can still be illegally using market power, even if they do not have a literal monopoly. As a literal monopoly is not required, under section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act.
It is a completely uncontroversial statement, backed up by the information released by the government, that a literal monopoly is not required, for something to be covered by section 2 of the sherman anti trust act, and that, instead, only significant market power is required.
50% of the market share, in the US, is within the realm of market share, where anti-trust law may apply.
This is a misrepresentation of how section 2 of the sherman anti trust law works.
It is a very common misconception, though, so don't worry.
The sherman anti-trust act does not require a literal monopoly. Instead, it only requires significant market power.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct"
So, according to the officially released government information and guidance from the experts on the matter, the previous point still stands.
Apple can still be illegally using market power, even if they do not have a literal monopoly. As a literal monopoly is not required, under section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act.
It is a completely uncontroversial statement, backed up by the information released by the government, that a literal monopoly is not required, for something to be covered by section 2 of the sherman anti trust act, and that, instead, only significant market power is required.
50% of the market share, in the US, is within the realm of market share, where anti-trust law may apply.
What makes you think Apple would have ‘easily’ given them a few cut?
There is nothing altruistic about anything Epic is doing.
There is nothing altruistic about anything Epic is doing.
Have they finished crushing Steam yet? How's that going?
They've progressed to the "Literally giving away games for free" phase on their store. No idea if it's working.
I've still managed to hold out. I mean, I don't love Steam, but I absolutely don't want a fragmented marketplace either.
The way things are going, Valve will roll out a subscription-based model for Steam and then we'll be truly screwed. A fragmented marketplace is so good for competition. Look at all the indie studios that have been funded just because Epic wants to challenge the status quo. I'm no fan of their store, but the ecosystem is benefitting from their competition.
And Apple has a few weeks of damages accruing in the other direction while Fortnite on iOS has/had a 3rd-party payment option. Technically, I think you can still launch a pre-installed Fortnite and buy stuff even if you can't play the latest season.
But agree that Fortnite's 70% of IAP in presumed perpetuity is going to be a larger number than Apple's 30% for a limited window (the time during which Epic's own payment solution continued to work).
But agree that Fortnite's 70% of IAP in presumed perpetuity is going to be a larger number than Apple's 30% for a limited window (the time during which Epic's own payment solution continued to work).
[deleted]
>Epic for standing up for us
Epic isn't standing up for anyone except their own shareholders. This isn't some play to help consumers. It's a play to collect more money from a customer-base that is not theirs.
Epic isn't standing up for anyone except their own shareholders. This isn't some play to help consumers. It's a play to collect more money from a customer-base that is not theirs.
That's true, but in this case their actions are to promote competition, and increasing competition in an area where it was arbitrarily suppressed is likely to benefit consumers.
Whether they are doing it for us or not, we are likely to benefit through reduced store fees, and thus reduced cost of goods in the store, if they succeed.
Whether they are doing it for us or not, we are likely to benefit through reduced store fees, and thus reduced cost of goods in the store, if they succeed.
Only on the mind of FOSS hippies is Apple stealing.
30% vs 80% was a very generous gift.
30% vs 80% was a very generous gift.
Right, like when Rosa Parks went to the front of the bus. It is a commonly used tactic to fight unjust laws by first breaking them.
What a terrible example to use as a comparison to two giant companies with lots of power fighting over mutually agreed to contracts.
At best it shows a complete miss on the meaning of Rosa Parks' bravery and the value civil rights overall.
Rosa parks wasn't one person making a stand, she was working on behalf of a group of people that wanted to change the law and needed a case to get behind. It wasn't a spur of the moment thing, it was pre-planned and supported by many people. That group obviously didn't compare to the government they were standing up against, but they were far larger than any individual person.
In that respect, it is very similar factually, even if you find it repugnant to equate the two in any way.
In that respect, it is very similar factually, even if you find it repugnant to equate the two in any way.
The rosa parks case required the law to be broken. The law could only be challenged by a plaintiff who has standing.
In Epic’s case, they could have sued without violating the terms. The judge presiding over the case has been very clear on this. Epic already has standing by nature of being an Apple developer.
There are many reasons the two situations are not comparable, but the very basis of your analogy is incorrect.
In Epic’s case, they could have sued without violating the terms. The judge presiding over the case has been very clear on this. Epic already has standing by nature of being an Apple developer.
There are many reasons the two situations are not comparable, but the very basis of your analogy is incorrect.
I think epic braking the rules makes their case much stronger. If they say "Apple's rules are unfair" they have a much stronger case if they can show damages caused by Apple's unfairness. My guess this is just another example of them showing the courts that Apple cost them $X in lost revenue because they could no longer make any money on macOS.
The update was live for a couple hours, and I am sure a lot of people purchased the cheaper (against the rules) option. They now have an exact number to tell the courts how much they are loosing to Apple, instead of a hypothetical situation where Apple could argue that customers love apple pay and would use apple pay over 3rd party payment systems.
The update was live for a couple hours, and I am sure a lot of people purchased the cheaper (against the rules) option. They now have an exact number to tell the courts how much they are loosing to Apple, instead of a hypothetical situation where Apple could argue that customers love apple pay and would use apple pay over 3rd party payment systems.
The damage that has been caused was created by Epic's breaking of the rules. If they had followed the contract they signed, their app would be in the store and earning money. They knowingly created this problem.
They "could no longer make any money" because of their own actions. Apple did not make them break the contract. I think we will see them lose big in the courts. Public opinion is a different matter of course.
They "could no longer make any money" because of their own actions. Apple did not make them break the contract. I think we will see them lose big in the courts. Public opinion is a different matter of course.
> I think we will see them lose big in the courts.
Thus you think their fight has no merits and you pretty much explained why they did this.
If their case has merit, then the contract is null and void, thus no breach happened and they'll get back on the shop and everyone's win.
If they lose the case, then now the public, including law makers, has a better understanding of the impact of this kind of policies, which in the longer term may means some changes will happens around monopoly laws.
Thus you think their fight has no merits and you pretty much explained why they did this.
If their case has merit, then the contract is null and void, thus no breach happened and they'll get back on the shop and everyone's win.
If they lose the case, then now the public, including law makers, has a better understanding of the impact of this kind of policies, which in the longer term may means some changes will happens around monopoly laws.
Let's think about it a different way. Suppose a vendor has a deal with Bloomingdale's to create a small boutique within the store and sell products. The deal states that the vendor use the store's payment system and give them 30% of revenue. That is not an unusual setup. With Apple, the 30% is the first year, 15% after that.
Now suppose the vendor decides to start using their own payment system and give Bloomingdale's no share of the revenue. This is of course counter to the signed contract. Bloomingdale's takes the step that is already spelled out in the contract they both agreed to. First, they issue a warning and ask the vendor to stop and return to the terms of the contract. The vendor refuses. Bloomingdale's now takes the next steps specified in the contract and removes the vendor's property from the store and ends their revenue from the store.
So now imagine that the vendor runs to the courts (and the public) and says Bloomingdale's damaged their business by not allowing them to sell in the store at no cost. They would be laughed out of the court room. This is what Epic has done. Using the "damage" caused by their own actions to justify their actions is a losing strategy.
Its actually a bit worse than my example because Epic wants to sell other vendor's goods through their store and make a cut of all of those sales. They basically don't want to follow the rules of Apple's app store so they can create their own app store. The hypocrisy is telling.
If Epic felt they had sound legal basis to question the Apple store rules (and existence) they would simply bring a lawsuit and try to effect change. They also could have simply entered into direct negotiations with Apple and made their case. They could lobby other vendors to join them. They could continue to follow the rules until the court's decide and no users would be impacted and their revenue would continue the entire time. They made other choices and so they have hurt their own business.
Personally, I think the app store royalties and policies need to be updated and made more appropriate to the scale of the business and the community. However, I also disagree with Epic's approach to the issue. You don't have to be an Apple acolyte to consider Epic's choices to be inappropriate.
Now suppose the vendor decides to start using their own payment system and give Bloomingdale's no share of the revenue. This is of course counter to the signed contract. Bloomingdale's takes the step that is already spelled out in the contract they both agreed to. First, they issue a warning and ask the vendor to stop and return to the terms of the contract. The vendor refuses. Bloomingdale's now takes the next steps specified in the contract and removes the vendor's property from the store and ends their revenue from the store.
So now imagine that the vendor runs to the courts (and the public) and says Bloomingdale's damaged their business by not allowing them to sell in the store at no cost. They would be laughed out of the court room. This is what Epic has done. Using the "damage" caused by their own actions to justify their actions is a losing strategy.
Its actually a bit worse than my example because Epic wants to sell other vendor's goods through their store and make a cut of all of those sales. They basically don't want to follow the rules of Apple's app store so they can create their own app store. The hypocrisy is telling.
If Epic felt they had sound legal basis to question the Apple store rules (and existence) they would simply bring a lawsuit and try to effect change. They also could have simply entered into direct negotiations with Apple and made their case. They could lobby other vendors to join them. They could continue to follow the rules until the court's decide and no users would be impacted and their revenue would continue the entire time. They made other choices and so they have hurt their own business.
Personally, I think the app store royalties and policies need to be updated and made more appropriate to the scale of the business and the community. However, I also disagree with Epic's approach to the issue. You don't have to be an Apple acolyte to consider Epic's choices to be inappropriate.
This has nothing to do with human rights violations. Two very resourceful companies are fighting over money.
>Two very resourceful companies are fighting over money.
Epic appears to be valued at 17-ish billion. Apple is the largest company on earth.
Comparing their sizes, that's something like the People's Republic of China fighting with New Zealand.
I've seen this strange attempt of comparing Epic to Apple before though, as if a single individual games company actually has the same resources as the company controlling a significant part of the global computing infrastructure
Epic appears to be valued at 17-ish billion. Apple is the largest company on earth.
Comparing their sizes, that's something like the People's Republic of China fighting with New Zealand.
I've seen this strange attempt of comparing Epic to Apple before though, as if a single individual games company actually has the same resources as the company controlling a significant part of the global computing infrastructure
Nobody says they have the same resources.
But a $17B company has all the resources it needs to fight a lawsuit, bully, buy press, etc.
But a $17B company has all the resources it needs to fight a lawsuit, bully, buy press, etc.
They don't just need resources to fight the lawsuit, they also need the resources to take the hit of essentially being cut off from half of their North American customers. How many companies do you think can do that for a long time over years long law suits even if they're fairly large?
The lawsuit is a drop in the bucket compared the sustained economic damage that Apple causes by simply turning the light switch off. And this is where the size matters, because Apple can easily sever every individual developer, while the reverse is not true.
The lawsuit is a drop in the bucket compared the sustained economic damage that Apple causes by simply turning the light switch off. And this is where the size matters, because Apple can easily sever every individual developer, while the reverse is not true.
Less than 10% of Fortnite’s revenue comes from iOS according to Epic. Epic’s market is not mobile. It’s market includes consoles and PCs. Epic is the last company that can say that Apple has a “monopoly” on the market it cares about.
Epic themselves have stated that iOS is nowhere near half of their North American customers.
As for the lights being turned off - Epic did that to themselves. Even after filing the lawsuit they were given the option to remain in the store, by both Apple, and the court, as long as the returned to compliance with the rule. They would have been able to continue their lawsuit while still shipping through the App Store.
Epic is completely responsible for the damage to their own business and to their customers. They were given the option to continue both the lawsuit, and to sell through the App Store, which they declined.
As for being cut off from customers. It’s worth considering that Epic is part owned by TenCent, and must remain on good terms with them if they want to retain access to the Chinese market.
The totality of the Chinese market is larger than the iOS segment of the US market. There is no reason to suppose that this move is not driven by the desire of the CCP to reduce Apple’s power.
That would be a good explanation for why they are continuing to harm their iOS customers when they don’t otherwise have to. Perhaps they chose to take that hit because it’s less than the hit they would take if they were forced to exit China.
As for the lights being turned off - Epic did that to themselves. Even after filing the lawsuit they were given the option to remain in the store, by both Apple, and the court, as long as the returned to compliance with the rule. They would have been able to continue their lawsuit while still shipping through the App Store.
Epic is completely responsible for the damage to their own business and to their customers. They were given the option to continue both the lawsuit, and to sell through the App Store, which they declined.
As for being cut off from customers. It’s worth considering that Epic is part owned by TenCent, and must remain on good terms with them if they want to retain access to the Chinese market.
The totality of the Chinese market is larger than the iOS segment of the US market. There is no reason to suppose that this move is not driven by the desire of the CCP to reduce Apple’s power.
That would be a good explanation for why they are continuing to harm their iOS customers when they don’t otherwise have to. Perhaps they chose to take that hit because it’s less than the hit they would take if they were forced to exit China.
Epic Games is > 50% owned by Tim Sweeney, and 40% owned by Tencent. Tencent's current market cap is $654 billion.
Your analogy is a little loaded because everyone knows that driving 120 in a 40 is dangerous. A less loaded analogy would be doing something like taking a picture of the police in a state where it's not legal. Something that could be argued either way.
I used the speeding analogy because it shares many similarities: speed limits are posted (Epic read the contract), you are aware that exceeding them is breaking the law generally (Epic knew what would breach the contract), and you agreed to follow that rule when you got a license (Epic signed the contract). Taking a picture of a cop is not similar: it's not illegal to take a picture of a cop in public generally, everyone knows that, and you never agreed to not take a cop's picture in any way.
A better speeding analogy would be your neigbour putting up a 5mph limit sign on your street then saying he doesnt have to give your lawn mower back because you broke it.
It sounds like you’re implying it should be safe to sign any contract you don’t intend to honor, so far as it’s your opinion it’s a ridiculous contract. I’m not certain that’s true in practice.
Its perfectly safe to invalidate a contract in court, recommended practice even.
How is that a better analogy in any way? A better analogy would be going to a race track and breaking the rules and having them tell you that you can't race your car there anymore. Apple owns their app store. In the same way that no one can force a mom and pop shop to sell their goods, no one can force Apple to sell their goods.
Apple owns the app store, but they do not own the most of the apps on peoples phones.
Behaving like they do is called "antitrust"
Behaving like they do is called "antitrust"
I did not mean to question your motives for using the analogy. Nonetheless it is loaded because it casts Epic as an actor doing something extremely dangerous. I just wanted to note that because it significantly affects the framing.
> I used the speeding analogy because it shares many similarities:
That's so an obvious lie, seriously please be honest. You could use ANY analogy where there's no danger, which would then have more similarities, but still decided not to do that?
Hell you could even go with going 80 miles an hours in a 60 miles an hour zone and then challenging the legality of that. Why would you go with an infraction that big as an analogy?
You chose a dangerous one to break, while there's literally no danger involved in the infringement of Epic. You chose to use theses emotions to support your argument.
That's so an obvious lie, seriously please be honest. You could use ANY analogy where there's no danger, which would then have more similarities, but still decided not to do that?
Hell you could even go with going 80 miles an hours in a 60 miles an hour zone and then challenging the legality of that. Why would you go with an infraction that big as an analogy?
You chose a dangerous one to break, while there's literally no danger involved in the infringement of Epic. You chose to use theses emotions to support your argument.
By locking Epic out of MacOS version game updates aren't Apple punishing Epic outside the bounds of the agreement Epic is accused of breaking?
That's like being caught for speeding, but being punished for breaking and entering in addition to speeding.
That's like being caught for speeding, but being punished for breaking and entering in addition to speeding.
Apple isn’t punishing Epic for anything. They had a business agreement. Epic isn’t just ‘accused’ of breaking the agreement. They admit that they did so.
They could have disputed the agreement in court without breaking it first, but they chose to break it.
Apple has no reason to continue to do business with Epic. Epic is clearly demonstrating their hostility to Apple. It would be self-harm, and possibly even a breach of fiduciary duty for Apple to continue to do business with a hostile party.
They could have disputed the agreement in court without breaking it first, but they chose to break it.
Apple has no reason to continue to do business with Epic. Epic is clearly demonstrating their hostility to Apple. It would be self-harm, and possibly even a breach of fiduciary duty for Apple to continue to do business with a hostile party.
Or perhaps better stated that after being caught speeding multiple times they have their license taken away.
Apple needs to disclose their agreement with Netflix, which gives away their app for free and charges outside of the ecosystem. This is just one example.
Except most speed limits are set by a government and not by a private entity.
Let's also remember that Epic didn't just breach the contract.
They made a detailed plan, in advance, to breach the contract, and prepared attack ads against Apple to run immediately after their planned breach, and they prepared a detailed PR attack agenda to unleash as well.
If I were Apple, I'd be tempted to unleash hell and completely destroy Epic over this. That's what Epic deserves.
They made a detailed plan, in advance, to breach the contract, and prepared attack ads against Apple to run immediately after their planned breach, and they prepared a detailed PR attack agenda to unleash as well.
If I were Apple, I'd be tempted to unleash hell and completely destroy Epic over this. That's what Epic deserves.
There’s a difference between what someone deserves and what’s legal to dole out.
Epic saw a play in breaking their contract strategically and then claiming it was illegal in the first place.
Apple is “unleashing hell”, but the problem is that’s (likely) illegal. It’s going to count as retaliation.
Epic saw a play in breaking their contract strategically and then claiming it was illegal in the first place.
Apple is “unleashing hell”, but the problem is that’s (likely) illegal. It’s going to count as retaliation.
I agree. Companies bigger than Epic [0] have tried to use scummy tactics to drag Apple into the dirt, and though they got their few minutes in the limelight from doing so because of the tall poppy syndrome, we hardly hear about them in the news anymore, while Apple is more successful and popular as ever.
Honestly, the sooner these so-called devs complaining about Apple pack up and leave the better. Apple doesn't need you and Apple's users don't want you. Good riddance and good luck making your fortunes on Android.
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+paid+students+to+wri...
Honestly, the sooner these so-called devs complaining about Apple pack up and leave the better. Apple doesn't need you and Apple's users don't want you. Good riddance and good luck making your fortunes on Android.
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+paid+students+to+wri...
> But legally, the iOS and the Mac developer agreements are separate contracts.
This might have been true in the past but I don't believe it's true anymore. The two have been combined into a single program governed by the Apple Developer Program License Agreement which can be found here: https://developer.apple.com/terms/
This might have been true in the past but I don't believe it's true anymore. The two have been combined into a single program governed by the Apple Developer Program License Agreement which can be found here: https://developer.apple.com/terms/
What's really troubling is that a legitimate anti-malware feature has been tied to "we can do whatever we want" TOS.
The Developer Id system was a decent compromise: gave developers way out from App Store walled garden, and still protected users from random "Update your Flash!" malware downloads.
But now Apple has demonstrated that it will use it as a weapon in App Store disputes, even on a different platform, even when the Developer Id app clearly isn't malware, and the Mac app didn't violate any rules.
The Developer Id system was a decent compromise: gave developers way out from App Store walled garden, and still protected users from random "Update your Flash!" malware downloads.
But now Apple has demonstrated that it will use it as a weapon in App Store disputes, even on a different platform, even when the Developer Id app clearly isn't malware, and the Mac app didn't violate any rules.
Code signing has been a thing for a while, Windows has had it for ages.
With Windows though you have to get a cert from an authorized partner, with Apple you go directly to the source.
That includes agreeing with the terms of the developer agreement, which clearly states that if you violate the rules, you lose access to your developer account, and thus access to the signing keys to sign new applications.
With Windows though you have to get a cert from an authorized partner, with Apple you go directly to the source.
That includes agreeing with the terms of the developer agreement, which clearly states that if you violate the rules, you lose access to your developer account, and thus access to the signing keys to sign new applications.
There's a difference between those two systems. You can get normal code signing certs from multiple vendors and if one of them unfairly revokes your certificate [1] it doesn't prevent you from getting one from another vendor. If your business is big enough you might even have more than one code signing certificate on hand.
Compare that to a developer account (Apple, Google, or Microsoft) where there's ONE vendor for the signing certificate and it comes along with a significantly more complex (developer) agreement that includes curation and (often arbitrary) requirements and ToS.
1. https://it.slashdot.org/story/19/06/02/0042209/ask-slashdot-...
Compare that to a developer account (Apple, Google, or Microsoft) where there's ONE vendor for the signing certificate and it comes along with a significantly more complex (developer) agreement that includes curation and (often arbitrary) requirements and ToS.
1. https://it.slashdot.org/story/19/06/02/0042209/ask-slashdot-...
There are a few inaccuracies in your comment. For one, every agreement, regardless of the device it applies to very clearly states that violating the terms of the developer account on one device can be grounds for terminating the entire developer account and that either party has the ability to sever the agreement if any part of it is violated. That's what Apple chose to do so that's not illegal. If there's one thing in contract law that's iron-clad, it's the ability to terminate an agreement for violations of said agreement.
Two, you say that "Epic is basically using Apple to send a very strong signal to game developers: Everyone serious about gaming is on Windows anyway." If that was the case, then why is Epic pushing so hard for this? Obviously, iOS is a huge market for them so your statement can't possibly be true and it's also gatekeeping the "seriousness" of gamers.
Lastly, why do you think Apple silicon won't be able to run stock Windows? Windows 10 has been available for ARM processors for years and Apple silicon is all ARM processors.
I think you're confusing techy gamers with gamers in general. PC gamers aren't even the majority of the gaming market now.
Two, you say that "Epic is basically using Apple to send a very strong signal to game developers: Everyone serious about gaming is on Windows anyway." If that was the case, then why is Epic pushing so hard for this? Obviously, iOS is a huge market for them so your statement can't possibly be true and it's also gatekeeping the "seriousness" of gamers.
Lastly, why do you think Apple silicon won't be able to run stock Windows? Windows 10 has been available for ARM processors for years and Apple silicon is all ARM processors.
I think you're confusing techy gamers with gamers in general. PC gamers aren't even the majority of the gaming market now.
> That's what Apple chose to do so that's not illegal.
Not necessarily. Perhaps it was illegal for Apple to include that clause in their terms in the first place because it was leveraging their monopoly power in one area to gain dominance in another and this violated antitrust law. This is Epic's claim.
Not necessarily. Perhaps it was illegal for Apple to include that clause in their terms in the first place because it was leveraging their monopoly power in one area to gain dominance in another and this violated antitrust law. This is Epic's claim.
>leveraging their monopoly power
Apple does not have a monopoly so that can't possibly be true and the judge has already stated that. If this was true, then Sony, Microsoft, Steam, and even Epic themselves would not be able to sell goods on their own stores. That's ridiculous.
Apple does not have a monopoly so that can't possibly be true and the judge has already stated that. If this was true, then Sony, Microsoft, Steam, and even Epic themselves would not be able to sell goods on their own stores. That's ridiculous.
On Windows, Microsoft is trying to extend the Xbox-exclusive store to cover Windows 10 gaming.
On Mac you can distribute outside Apple’s App store[1,2,3], as you can on Windows. But Microsoft is laying groundwork for shift towards Apple’s model.
1. https://setapp.com/
2. https://www.gog.com/games?system=osx_106,osx_107&sort=popula...
3. https://store.steampowered.com/macos
On Mac you can distribute outside Apple’s App store[1,2,3], as you can on Windows. But Microsoft is laying groundwork for shift towards Apple’s model.
1. https://setapp.com/
2. https://www.gog.com/games?system=osx_106,osx_107&sort=popula...
3. https://store.steampowered.com/macos
Microsoft has been trying to "boil the frog" for a long time now, but that has always failed, and it will fail as long as Windows remains relevant as a gaming platform. MS might be the captain of the ship, but they never owned the ship, despite their best attempts. For gamers, the current power equilibrium on the Windows platform with multiple competing stores is pretty much perfect. Even Microsoft caved in and started to offer their games on Steam too instead of insisting on making them Windows Store exclusives.
Their only mistake was not making the store Win32 from the get go, but as their Windows 10X roadmap and Project Reunion reboot shows, that will eventually arrive.
Classical PCs are now a niche in a consumer world full with laptops and tablets.
Little frogs will keep complaining without noticing that it has actually already taken place.
Classical PCs are now a niche in a consumer world full with laptops and tablets.
Little frogs will keep complaining without noticing that it has actually already taken place.
Microsoft can do what they want with their own store because nobody cares about it anyway. And the moment they try to "ban" Steam, Epic Store, Gog etc, they essentially kill Windows as gaming platform and turn it into a business-only offering. I don't think that's in their own interest (as their renewed interest in PC gaming demonstrates).
I mean what's the harm to Windows though? The only money they make on sales of those games is $100 for the Windows license from an audience that loves to pirate it anyway.
They stand to make much more money by enforcing a 30% cut on a new, restricted platform and cutting some sort of deal with Valve.
They stand to make much more money by enforcing a 30% cut on a new, restricted platform and cutting some sort of deal with Valve.
> I mean what's the harm to Windows though?
Except for every house suddenly having an alternative OS running on their most powered computer?
You may think business take all the rational decisions. But I bet in a few years after gaming moves into another OS, every business will be pressured into supporting that OS as a desktop alternative too.
Except for every house suddenly having an alternative OS running on their most powered computer?
You may think business take all the rational decisions. But I bet in a few years after gaming moves into another OS, every business will be pressured into supporting that OS as a desktop alternative too.
"Linux to the rescue! Windows XP support discontinued today"
https://opensource.com/business/14/4/windows-xp-expires-inst...
6 years later, 2% on Steam, in spite of the amount of games on ChromeOS and Android.
And applications? Electron bloat.
https://opensource.com/business/14/4/windows-xp-expires-inst...
6 years later, 2% on Steam, in spite of the amount of games on ChromeOS and Android.
And applications? Electron bloat.
Windows XP support ended, people moved to the platform that still supported all of their favorite applications and games (Windows 8/10) instead of to the platforms like Linux/Mac that didn't -- even in business settings where those games didn't matter.
I don't understand what claim you're making, it sounds like you're agreeing with GP. People will move to the mainstream platform that has the stuff they want on it, and a big part of the reason everyone uses Windows is that it has everything -- that's what GP is saying.
Of course when an old OS is abandoned people aren't going to say, "well, let's try something new and adventurous." They're going to download the OS that runs all their Steam games.
I don't understand what claim you're making, it sounds like you're agreeing with GP. People will move to the mainstream platform that has the stuff they want on it, and a big part of the reason everyone uses Windows is that it has everything -- that's what GP is saying.
Of course when an old OS is abandoned people aren't going to say, "well, let's try something new and adventurous." They're going to download the OS that runs all their Steam games.
Are you claiming that games wouldn't run on Linux if Microsoft blocked them based on the evidence that they don't run on Linux when Microsoft isn't blocking them?
Because I fail to see the relevance.
Because I fail to see the relevance.
I am claiming that since XP there are continuous failures to move the market into Linux, despite the endless posts that "now it is going to happen".
What will happen is everyone playing their DirectX 12 Ultimate games downloaded from the store in WSL 2.
What will happen is everyone playing their DirectX 12 Ultimate games downloaded from the store in WSL 2.
Apparently you missed what Windows 10X is all about.
"How Windows 10X runs UWP and Win32 apps"
https://youtu.be/ztrmrIlgbIc
Due to the situation we are all in, Windows 10X plans have been put aside for the time being, but rest assured they will be back when the world returns to business as usual.
Windows as gaming platform has managed quite well without Steam, Epic Store, Gog, no need to pollute my OS with third party garbage.
"How Windows 10X runs UWP and Win32 apps"
https://youtu.be/ztrmrIlgbIc
Due to the situation we are all in, Windows 10X plans have been put aside for the time being, but rest assured they will be back when the world returns to business as usual.
Windows as gaming platform has managed quite well without Steam, Epic Store, Gog, no need to pollute my OS with third party garbage.
What games are you playing?
Digital PC games pretty much universally have launchers needed, whether it's a store like Steam or Epic, or publisher specific like Uplay, Paradox or Blizzard's.
Physical PC sales have barely been a thing for the last decade. Even when you could get it, by the end they were usually a key for a given retailer and a disc that had a much outdated version of the game to initially install on only to download as much in patches.
Digital PC games pretty much universally have launchers needed, whether it's a store like Steam or Epic, or publisher specific like Uplay, Paradox or Blizzard's.
Physical PC sales have barely been a thing for the last decade. Even when you could get it, by the end they were usually a key for a given retailer and a disc that had a much outdated version of the game to initially install on only to download as much in patches.
Plenty of places to buy physical games in Germany, and when not plenty of XBox games are available on Windows store.
I guess from my point of view the Windows Store is not different to the other stores, especially Steam which been the defacto standard for years.
As for physical games, what are you playing it on? Looking at my local PC retailer, none of their gaming desktops or laptops and only 1/47 of their other laptops actually have a disk drive. Even many of the cases have no 5.25" bays.
As for physical games, what are you playing it on? Looking at my local PC retailer, none of their gaming desktops or laptops and only 1/47 of their other laptops actually have a disk drive. Even many of the cases have no 5.25" bays.
ThinkPad graphical workstations.
External and pluggable drives do exist.
Plus there are docking stations.
As for the surviving desktops, all models still on sale around here do come with drives.
Steam doesn't come on my Windows OEM discs.
External and pluggable drives do exist.
Plus there are docking stations.
As for the surviving desktops, all models still on sale around here do come with drives.
Steam doesn't come on my Windows OEM discs.
As a developer my next laptop will absolutely be a Windows 10 machine running WSL2 for development workloads, likely with an AMD 4xxx series chip. Up until about 6 months ago I was on the fence, actions like this have been a validation I'm sharing with all my friends and family making similar purchasing decisions.
I encourage you to try Linux straight up -- Proton works wonders. It's not a perfect solution but I can play every game I care about, and don't have to worry about WSL's impotence.
I run ubuntu on my desktop computer, it's alright but I still get wireless connection issues on fresh installs. On top of that I prefer the various settings interfaces on windows 10 especially when interacting with third party hardware such as high-end monitors and graphics cards. Finally, native windows software is frequently better than native linux GUI software. In my opinion there is just less craftsmanship (i.e. loading animations around network latency, general responsiveness (multi-threading support?)), that effects the user experience.
I will always keep an installation of linux on one of my devices, but I don't want it to be my main driver.
I will always keep an installation of linux on one of my devices, but I don't want it to be my main driver.
I think there's being more and more work being done to make cross platform easier, and I think the move to Silicon is going to be great for the community at large. I don't expect to play Triple A titles on my Mac, no. But I do expect "develop once, deploy everywhere" including iOS and MacOS as target OS's to get significantly more funding and investment. And I think indie titles are going to take advantage of that ability.
> Everyone serious about gaming is on Windows anyway.
Everyone serious about gaming is going to have a console too.
Most AAAAs are exclusive to consoles for a year or more (GTA V, RDR 2, FF7RM, Bloodborne, and many others). Even if you had the most tweaked out PC you'd still be waiting for some of the latest and hottest to get ported.
I used to be Windows-only until about a decade ago, and between Mac-compatible games, CrossOver/VMs, consoles and handhelds, I don't really miss the PC.
Everyone serious about gaming is going to have a console too.
Most AAAAs are exclusive to consoles for a year or more (GTA V, RDR 2, FF7RM, Bloodborne, and many others). Even if you had the most tweaked out PC you'd still be waiting for some of the latest and hottest to get ported.
I used to be Windows-only until about a decade ago, and between Mac-compatible games, CrossOver/VMs, consoles and handhelds, I don't really miss the PC.
Not neccesarily - I know tons of people happy they waited for GTA V on PC since they really took care to beef up graphics and work out bugs. PC gaming is at a huge high point in the last decade or so, thanks in large part to twitch.
> And in addition, Epic is basically using Apple to send a very strong signal to game developers: Everyone serious about gaming is on Windows anyway.
This is the message Apple has given from the start, and it hasn't changed much even though it was key to the app store's success. This is also the same reason why VR is mainly PC and consoles.
This is the message Apple has given from the start, and it hasn't changed much even though it was key to the app store's success. This is also the same reason why VR is mainly PC and consoles.
It's brilliant in terms of marketing. It's not so brilliant in terms of actual legal reasons.
Maybe Apple doesn’t actually want a bunch if whiny gamers as customers...
As a user and developer, it’s a little frustrating to see Apple try so hard to ban an app that (like it or not) has real value to millions of people, while in the meantime allowing so much trash to exist in their stores.
Sneaking code into Fortnite? Really? I could probably pull up 10 examples of sketchy apps in no time that clearly are doing things they shouldn’t (and that’s just the “weather”).
Harm to Apple? I would argue that trash apps harm Apple considerably. For instance, I have effectively stopped even looking for software on the Mac App Store, and the difficulty of searching/filtering has curtailed much of my activity on the iOS App Store too. I know for certain that if the average quality was higher and the search was way better, I would be buying more. Shouldn’t Apple care about things like that too?
Sneaking code into Fortnite? Really? I could probably pull up 10 examples of sketchy apps in no time that clearly are doing things they shouldn’t (and that’s just the “weather”).
Harm to Apple? I would argue that trash apps harm Apple considerably. For instance, I have effectively stopped even looking for software on the Mac App Store, and the difficulty of searching/filtering has curtailed much of my activity on the iOS App Store too. I know for certain that if the average quality was higher and the search was way better, I would be buying more. Shouldn’t Apple care about things like that too?
Agree. Right now they are aggressively enforcing rules, but the rules are not producing a high quality bar.
Apple needs to decide if they want the App Store to be carefully curated like an Apple retail store, or broad like Amazon.com. Today they're squeezing the quality while ignoring the shit; it's so backwards.
It really feels like there's two teams with different priorities.
Apple needs to decide if they want the App Store to be carefully curated like an Apple retail store, or broad like Amazon.com. Today they're squeezing the quality while ignoring the shit; it's so backwards.
It really feels like there's two teams with different priorities.
It makes perfect sense depending on how you look at it. If you look at it as a question of quality, and Apple wanting to keep a high bar for quality, it looks scatterbrained and ineffective. If you look at it as Apple trying to wring all the money they can out of the market, then it only makes sense for them to focus all their attention on the apps that are good enough to actually make money.
If Apple truly cared about keeping the quality high in their walled garden, and it wasn't just about extracting all the money they could, wouldn't they do both?
If Apple truly cared about keeping the quality high in their walled garden, and it wasn't just about extracting all the money they could, wouldn't they do both?
The "wring all the money out of the market" theory explains Hey and Fortnite, but not the many, many apps that receive arbitrary rejections, like this recent HN browser: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24410652
This arbitrary friction of "what if the user searches for covid" is applied to useful software, but not Candy Crush clones. So naturally the store fills with shit. Even in the free app tier!
In some weird way, this shows it's not all about the money, since they're fighting to keep out the quality free stuff too.
This arbitrary friction of "what if the user searches for covid" is applied to useful software, but not Candy Crush clones. So naturally the store fills with shit. Even in the free app tier!
In some weird way, this shows it's not all about the money, since they're fighting to keep out the quality free stuff too.
Well, who wants to pay for something when a good free alternative exists? And if people aren't paying, how is Apple going to get their 30%?
Free apps are only in Apple's interest as much as they think it makes people like their platform more. I think they care less about that then they used to, since there's so many different things pulling and pushing people to use iOS already.
Free apps are only in Apple's interest as much as they think it makes people like their platform more. I think they care less about that then they used to, since there's so many different things pulling and pushing people to use iOS already.
I agree that Apple lets too much crap into the App Store. But to be clear, that’s not an argument in defense of Epic. On the contrary, I think Apple should be much much more restrictive in what third-party apps they allow on iPhones.
Honestly, people complain about the impact of FANG on the crushing effect on the market. The counter balance has always been the consumer good and innovation they provide -- but it's been a LONG time since we've since anything that isn't just incremental from Apple (others too - but not relevant here).
Good on Epic and Tim S sticking hard to it. I hope they prevail.
You’ve positioned this argument to make everyone who could counter you sound like an Apple fanboy.
But let’s be clear here: Apples “innovation” is usually around usability and accessibility.
Even with that said: the Apple Watch does not have an equal. It is the absolute king of smart watches.
Or we could mention that their CPUs (on mobile) are usually 2 generations ahead of other mobile devices.
You can fault them for many things, but they are innovating even if they oversell the little innovation they make.
But let’s be clear here: Apples “innovation” is usually around usability and accessibility.
Even with that said: the Apple Watch does not have an equal. It is the absolute king of smart watches.
Or we could mention that their CPUs (on mobile) are usually 2 generations ahead of other mobile devices.
You can fault them for many things, but they are innovating even if they oversell the little innovation they make.
I guess. Buttttt its all extremely incremental.
All accesories, feauture copying, and solid but boring improvements?
Here's a test. How many non-iPhone users own Apple Watch?
All accesories, feauture copying, and solid but boring improvements?
Here's a test. How many non-iPhone users own Apple Watch?
Rest in peace Pebble, in my opinion producer of the best smartwatches. A 1 or 2 day battery life is a drain!
I prefer the Garmin Fenix Sapphire to the Apple watch. I absolutely can't stand the 18 hour battery life. I actually laughed out loud during the Apple event when they mentioned you could monitor your blood oxygen levels while you were sleeping. How is a dead watch the next day usable?
I have an Apple Watch that I have been using for sleep tracking for the last 2 years. I use Sleep Cycle and charge my watch for 1 hour while I shower and get ready for work. I have never, in that 2 years, had a dead watch the next day. Since installing iOS 14, nothing has changed in that regard.
I charge my Garmin once a week. Also it has full offline navigation (though using it constantly will bring the battery life to only 2-3x the Apple watch battery life.)
Yeah, it's doable if you try or have a daily ritual. Camping trips or simply being away from home for a day, business travel and leaving the charger in a hotel etc, that constant upkeep is what keeps mine in the drawer. It would be much easier if it used the same lightning connector.
And yet every point you made was a personal one and established on your POV which quite frankly does make you sound like an Apple fanboy.
"It is the absolute king of smart watches." LOL
Depending on how you want to measure that, Apple Watch is the single most popular health tracking device and smart watch and that statement can be objectively supported by usage, satisfaction surveys, and sales figures.
Well, how else can we see such posts as yours except as writings of a fanboy? The quality of the Apple Watch has NOTHING TO DO with the juvenile bully tantrum Apple is throwing here over a company daring to question their abusive practices.
Nothing.
Not to mention that the Watch has multiple good competitors which really makes your point even weaker - even their god given right to command you what content you're allowed to see on your device does not result in a single most superior device on the market.
Nothing.
Not to mention that the Watch has multiple good competitors which really makes your point even weaker - even their god given right to command you what content you're allowed to see on your device does not result in a single most superior device on the market.
Apple Watch is a good example of a recent "blue ocean" innovation. FaceID is a recent usability innovation of the kind Apple has historically been known for. I think they're still doing good work.
Microsoft release Windows Hello (Passport) with Windows 10 on July 2015.[1] Apple copied it as "FaceID" into their smartphone devices on November 2017.[2]
A marketing innovation certainly, but calling this a usability innovation is quite a stretch.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10#System_security
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_ID
A marketing innovation certainly, but calling this a usability innovation is quite a stretch.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10#System_security
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_ID
Android had trusted face unlock since 2014
Worth noting is Apples face id is not just face recognition but depth scan for security.
Many devices dont have the depth scan making it all pretty unsecure when you can unlock with someones photo.
So Apples inmplementation is probably top.
Many devices dont have the depth scan making it all pretty unsecure when you can unlock with someones photo.
So Apples inmplementation is probably top.
Android actually did depth from movement for a while. Or at least many Android vendors.
[deleted]
This feature even existed on smartphones. I had a lumia 950 in 2015 and it used retina IR scanning to unlock. Worked pretty well, although the angle of detection was narrow.
That's not the same thing at all. Hello uses the webcam on your computer to try and recognize which user is signing in to the computer. FaceID uses a combination of camera, IR, and depth mapping to determine whether the user is a live person signing into the system and paying attention to the device. You could trick Windows Hello with a piece of paper with a picture printed on it.
How is the apple watch a blue ocean innovation when smart watches existed before that? It might be better but it's not a new product, similar to how the ipod wasn't the first mp3 player. Is faceid a usability innovation over previous face recognition systems or is just more secure?
One can argue that almost nothing is a new product then. Everything is build upon previous work. The iPod wasn't the first MP3 player but it was the best one out there and it changed the entirely industry. The same can be said about the iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch and pretty much all of Apple's products. They don't always come out with a feature first because they generally don't believe in releasing half baked products (Apple Maps withstanding).
For example the Motorola Atrix was the first smart phone with a finger print scanner, but if you actually owned one of these you'll know that it was awful. It wasn't until Apple put Touch ID on the iPhone that people actually were interested in using finger print scanners, and the rest of the industry followed suit and copied Apple, not Motorola even though Motorola was first.
Another example is app stores. Apple didn't invent app stores. But after the iPhone added an app store, it changed the entire industry because of how easy Apple made it for anyone to develop for iPhone.
For example the Motorola Atrix was the first smart phone with a finger print scanner, but if you actually owned one of these you'll know that it was awful. It wasn't until Apple put Touch ID on the iPhone that people actually were interested in using finger print scanners, and the rest of the industry followed suit and copied Apple, not Motorola even though Motorola was first.
Another example is app stores. Apple didn't invent app stores. But after the iPhone added an app store, it changed the entire industry because of how easy Apple made it for anyone to develop for iPhone.
Right, very few products are entirely new. That's especially true with apple devices which is why I didn't agree that the apple watch is a blue ocean innovation. They are good at taking ideas and making them better.
I would argue that the app store became popular because the iphone was already popular due to being the newest product from apple that had built a following with the ipods and keynotes where the journalists where applauding everything Steve Jobs said. It's easy to forget how bad the iphone was when it was first released.
I would argue that the app store became popular because the iphone was already popular due to being the newest product from apple that had built a following with the ipods and keynotes where the journalists where applauding everything Steve Jobs said. It's easy to forget how bad the iphone was when it was first released.
Apple is like Microsoft, they’re successful not because they were first, but because they were the first to get it right and then commercialize it successfully. That matters as much as the original idea. Not that either haven’t made original contributions, but that’s not why they’re successful.
Aaand then the COVID-19 mask situation happened. Having TouchID back would be much appreciated.
Why are you expecting something other than incremental from Apple (or others)?
We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.
Everything is synthesis. Nothing is original.
Everything is incremental.
Iteration is everything.
We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.
Everything is synthesis. Nothing is original.
Everything is incremental.
Iteration is everything.
People expect more from Apple because Appled used to do more than small incremental changes.
For a while Apple was coming out with products on a regular basis that redefined the industry, changing or increasing both consumers and the entire industry's focus. I don't consider things like the "camera notch" to be in that class of product development.
Sure, everyone stands on the shoulders of giants, but not everyone is a giant. For a little while though, Apple was.
Now I look at things like the Oculus Quest, which has gone a long way towards democratizing VR, and wonder "Where is Apple? Why aren't they here?"
Their prior track record had them revolutionizing such things with an uncanny ability to understand UX at the same time that they dumped a ton of upgrades on their products compared to competitors. Sure, I guess if you break down each individual thing they did, then each one is incremental. But what we came to expect from Apple was that they'd release products with so many of those things that they changed the entire industry. Now we get a bezel that's 0.3mm smaller, the addition of an "ultra wide" camera lens, and a sprinkling of OS changes.
For a while Apple was coming out with products on a regular basis that redefined the industry, changing or increasing both consumers and the entire industry's focus. I don't consider things like the "camera notch" to be in that class of product development.
Sure, everyone stands on the shoulders of giants, but not everyone is a giant. For a little while though, Apple was.
Now I look at things like the Oculus Quest, which has gone a long way towards democratizing VR, and wonder "Where is Apple? Why aren't they here?"
Their prior track record had them revolutionizing such things with an uncanny ability to understand UX at the same time that they dumped a ton of upgrades on their products compared to competitors. Sure, I guess if you break down each individual thing they did, then each one is incremental. But what we came to expect from Apple was that they'd release products with so many of those things that they changed the entire industry. Now we get a bezel that's 0.3mm smaller, the addition of an "ultra wide" camera lens, and a sprinkling of OS changes.
> For a while Apple was coming out with products on a regular basis that redefined the industry
That sentence is carrying quite a heavy load! Can you list some Apple products you consider redefining, and what year they were released?
It seems like the strongest cases are for "they are still doing that," or "they've done that literally four times ever, in 30+ years," so I'm curious how your list differs from either of mine.
That sentence is carrying quite a heavy load! Can you list some Apple products you consider redefining, and what year they were released?
It seems like the strongest cases are for "they are still doing that," or "they've done that literally four times ever, in 30+ years," so I'm curious how your list differs from either of mine.
Here's mine:
1. The original Macintosh, 1984 (desktop metaphor GUI for the masses)
2. Newton, 1993 (the original PDA, but not commercially successful--so "redefined the industry" is arguable)
3. The iMac, 1997 (industrial design matters for computers. You could argue SGI got there first, but PCs didn't notice until the iMac)
4. iPod/iTunes, 2001/2003 (capacitive-touch interfaces, buying music online)
5. iPhone, 2007 (too many things to list)
6. Apple Watch, 2015 (the Right Stuff to make smart watches popular)
7. FaceID, 2017 (depth-sensitive facial recognition that is actually secure)
1. The original Macintosh, 1984 (desktop metaphor GUI for the masses)
2. Newton, 1993 (the original PDA, but not commercially successful--so "redefined the industry" is arguable)
3. The iMac, 1997 (industrial design matters for computers. You could argue SGI got there first, but PCs didn't notice until the iMac)
4. iPod/iTunes, 2001/2003 (capacitive-touch interfaces, buying music online)
5. iPhone, 2007 (too many things to list)
6. Apple Watch, 2015 (the Right Stuff to make smart watches popular)
7. FaceID, 2017 (depth-sensitive facial recognition that is actually secure)
AirPods, 2016. iPad, 2010.
Note that they’re virtually unassailable in the tablet market, the watch market, and the mobile CPU market.
Apple has almost never made products that were completely unprecedented, which is the bar people always seem to hold them to for some reason. They do, however, excel at finding a way to build a complete product that has dramatically more appeal than its earlier or contemporary competitors.
The Mac had prior art, the iPhone had prior art, AirPods had prior art, but all of their breakout products were so because they figured out how push the right areas of technology to overcome the things holding that product category back. And then they iterate hard.
Whereas other companies seem to use vertical integration to cut costs and retain more profits, Apple appears to be better at using vertical integration to achieve things that competitors can’t, the most recent example of which is acquiring PA Semi to push forward on performance and power consumption, but also to make specialized coprocessors that improve their other features and products (TouchID, FaceID, AirPods, as some examples).
Note that they’re virtually unassailable in the tablet market, the watch market, and the mobile CPU market.
Apple has almost never made products that were completely unprecedented, which is the bar people always seem to hold them to for some reason. They do, however, excel at finding a way to build a complete product that has dramatically more appeal than its earlier or contemporary competitors.
The Mac had prior art, the iPhone had prior art, AirPods had prior art, but all of their breakout products were so because they figured out how push the right areas of technology to overcome the things holding that product category back. And then they iterate hard.
Whereas other companies seem to use vertical integration to cut costs and retain more profits, Apple appears to be better at using vertical integration to achieve things that competitors can’t, the most recent example of which is acquiring PA Semi to push forward on performance and power consumption, but also to make specialized coprocessors that improve their other features and products (TouchID, FaceID, AirPods, as some examples).
Can't believe I forgot AirPods!
Agree with all your points--but my interpretation of the phrase "redefined the industry" means something more than just being the dominant seller. I don't know exactly how to define it, but I think it should include things like creating a new product category, or changing how other participants act.
So, for that reason, I almost didn't include Apple Watch, and I feel like iPad is iffy.
iPad certainly got the Right Stuff for tablets... but it doesn't feel that different than what came before. Tablets already existed and the iPhone already existed, and Apple "just" put iPhoneOS on a tablet. Part of what probably drove iPad sales over other tablets was the existing ecosystem of iPhone apps that would run in scaled mode.
Agree with all your points--but my interpretation of the phrase "redefined the industry" means something more than just being the dominant seller. I don't know exactly how to define it, but I think it should include things like creating a new product category, or changing how other participants act.
So, for that reason, I almost didn't include Apple Watch, and I feel like iPad is iffy.
iPad certainly got the Right Stuff for tablets... but it doesn't feel that different than what came before. Tablets already existed and the iPhone already existed, and Apple "just" put iPhoneOS on a tablet. Part of what probably drove iPad sales over other tablets was the existing ecosystem of iPhone apps that would run in scaled mode.
In both the Apple Watch case and the iPad case, it's interesting because Apple is the industry. Nobody else has figured out how to compete here for the time being, and Apple is taking almost the entire profit margin from the product market.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm honestly not sure if you are trolling me here. Apple's track record for industry-defining products is fairly basic industry knowledge.
I may be leaving something off here but with 10 entries below + 4 honorable mentions. That's an average of redefining some industry or another once every 3-4 years. Over 40 years, I think it's fair to say that represents enough of a trend to expect that sort of thing from Apple. But we've had about 13 years of small annual incremental changes in iPhones.
--Apple II
--Mac
--Newton (though a market failure, its functionality was copied and gave rise to a new generation of smarter PA's similar to how the iPhone gave rise to the new generation of smart phones)
--iMac
--Physical Apple stores (strongly influenced retail store designs and had Apple's competitors like Microsoft & Sony scrambling to create their own retail presence)
--iPod
--iTunes
--iPhone
--iPad
--Apple Watch
--Honorable mentions would include voice control assistants, air pods, power mac pcs, and apple tv.
I may be leaving something off here but with 10 entries below + 4 honorable mentions. That's an average of redefining some industry or another once every 3-4 years. Over 40 years, I think it's fair to say that represents enough of a trend to expect that sort of thing from Apple. But we've had about 13 years of small annual incremental changes in iPhones.
--Apple II
--Mac
--Newton (though a market failure, its functionality was copied and gave rise to a new generation of smarter PA's similar to how the iPhone gave rise to the new generation of smart phones)
--iMac
--Physical Apple stores (strongly influenced retail store designs and had Apple's competitors like Microsoft & Sony scrambling to create their own retail presence)
--iPod
--iTunes
--iPhone
--iPad
--Apple Watch
--Honorable mentions would include voice control assistants, air pods, power mac pcs, and apple tv.
Okay, so your list, like mine, includes a steady series of new products with huge impacts, and the most recent is just a few years old.
You seem to be making the argument that one of the previous products (iPhone) must somehow deliver the same impact as an entirely new product, because... I guess I'm not getting that part.
I mean, draw the parallel for the other products you mention.
Apple II... was replaced completely by the next generation.
Mac has reinvented itself a few times, but they've been spaced out a bit. They're currently in the process of transitioning to entirely new CPUs for the third time (68000 -> PowerPC -> Intel -> Apple Silicon), and have gone through a couple of complete overhauls on the OS side as well.
Newton was innovative, ahead of its time, and...
iMac is also Mac, but okay, specifically the candy-colored all-in-ones shifted the industry in some interesting ways and the current iteration is very nice, but essentially unchanged in a long time. I mean, using the same lens you seem to be using for iPhone, they haven't really changed the body style since 2004 when they replaced the half-melon with the currently style, or maybe since 2007 when they switched to aluminum. I mean, sure, they updated the screen quality, and there have been some minor tweaks, but put a 13-year-old iMac next to a new one, and they haven't changed that much.
I think that's my point. You've picked iPhone specifically and insist that iPhone alone must somehow bear the fruits of Apple's history of delivering industry-changing products, but since 2007 they've delivered substantial iterations in iMacs, PowerBooks, Apple TVs, and iPhones, while also launching iPad, Apple Watch, and AirPods, as well as new record-setting CPUs every one of the last ten years.
So I dunno. I think somehow you've convinced yourself that there is some new world-shaking innovation possible in the phone space, that Apple not having delivered it yet is somehow a failure, and yet I suspect you wouldn't recognize it if they launched it tomorrow. I mean, set a 2007 iPhone next to the phone they'll launch this year and aks yourself: is it the problem that they ship something every year? If they skipped a few years, and only delivered every three or four years, would they seem innovative, or just iterative?
iPhone, iPhone 4 (Retina), iPhone 5S (TouchID), iPhone 6 (5.5" screen), iPhone X (FaceID). I think each of those is a substantial bundle of innovations over the previous, and I'm not even considering the CPU inside them, or many, many, many smaller things that we take for granted today.
My iPhone X might as well have been a completely different phone, it was so different from everything that came before. That was announced three years ago.
To recap: I think one can either say that Apple's only real innovations are the Macintosh, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, or that they've released innovations every 2-3 years for the past couple of decades, but saying that iPhones are a single innovative product rather than a series of at least 5 and probably closer to 8 real game-changers is mistaken.
You seem to be making the argument that one of the previous products (iPhone) must somehow deliver the same impact as an entirely new product, because... I guess I'm not getting that part.
I mean, draw the parallel for the other products you mention.
Apple II... was replaced completely by the next generation.
Mac has reinvented itself a few times, but they've been spaced out a bit. They're currently in the process of transitioning to entirely new CPUs for the third time (68000 -> PowerPC -> Intel -> Apple Silicon), and have gone through a couple of complete overhauls on the OS side as well.
Newton was innovative, ahead of its time, and...
iMac is also Mac, but okay, specifically the candy-colored all-in-ones shifted the industry in some interesting ways and the current iteration is very nice, but essentially unchanged in a long time. I mean, using the same lens you seem to be using for iPhone, they haven't really changed the body style since 2004 when they replaced the half-melon with the currently style, or maybe since 2007 when they switched to aluminum. I mean, sure, they updated the screen quality, and there have been some minor tweaks, but put a 13-year-old iMac next to a new one, and they haven't changed that much.
I think that's my point. You've picked iPhone specifically and insist that iPhone alone must somehow bear the fruits of Apple's history of delivering industry-changing products, but since 2007 they've delivered substantial iterations in iMacs, PowerBooks, Apple TVs, and iPhones, while also launching iPad, Apple Watch, and AirPods, as well as new record-setting CPUs every one of the last ten years.
So I dunno. I think somehow you've convinced yourself that there is some new world-shaking innovation possible in the phone space, that Apple not having delivered it yet is somehow a failure, and yet I suspect you wouldn't recognize it if they launched it tomorrow. I mean, set a 2007 iPhone next to the phone they'll launch this year and aks yourself: is it the problem that they ship something every year? If they skipped a few years, and only delivered every three or four years, would they seem innovative, or just iterative?
iPhone, iPhone 4 (Retina), iPhone 5S (TouchID), iPhone 6 (5.5" screen), iPhone X (FaceID). I think each of those is a substantial bundle of innovations over the previous, and I'm not even considering the CPU inside them, or many, many, many smaller things that we take for granted today.
My iPhone X might as well have been a completely different phone, it was so different from everything that came before. That was announced three years ago.
To recap: I think one can either say that Apple's only real innovations are the Macintosh, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, or that they've released innovations every 2-3 years for the past couple of decades, but saying that iPhones are a single innovative product rather than a series of at least 5 and probably closer to 8 real game-changers is mistaken.
I think I don't understand your argument here.
ineedasername listed about a dozen industry-redefining products, which span a 40 year period. You seem to be arguing that, because the innovative product continued to be sold with incremental improvements Apple is not innovative.
* The point isn't that the 1995 Quadra is innovative. It's that the 1984 Mac brought the desktop metaphor to the masses (where it was previously a research toy with each seat costing as much as a house)
* The point isn't that the 2020 iMac is innovative. It's that the 1997 iMac changed how the computer industry thought about the industrial design of home computers.
* The point isn't that the 2020 iPhone 12 Max Excess is innovative. It's that the 2007 iPhone completely changed what a smartphone was, with multi-touch, on-screen keyboard, data plans that actually made sense, desktop-quality graphics and more.
* The point isn't that the 2023 AirPods are going to be innovative. It's that the 2016 AirPods created an entire sub-industry of "totally wireless" headphones.
The original point was the people hold Apple to a higher standard because Apple has a track record of introducing something every 3-6 years that makes people say "wow". That Apple continues to make incremental improvements after the "wow launch" doesn't diminish the track record of major innovation.
Where I disagree with ineedasername is that I think it only looks like Apple isn't innovative right now because the next big thing hasn't been announced yet, and innovations don't happen on a fixed cadence.
ineedasername listed about a dozen industry-redefining products, which span a 40 year period. You seem to be arguing that, because the innovative product continued to be sold with incremental improvements Apple is not innovative.
* The point isn't that the 1995 Quadra is innovative. It's that the 1984 Mac brought the desktop metaphor to the masses (where it was previously a research toy with each seat costing as much as a house)
* The point isn't that the 2020 iMac is innovative. It's that the 1997 iMac changed how the computer industry thought about the industrial design of home computers.
* The point isn't that the 2020 iPhone 12 Max Excess is innovative. It's that the 2007 iPhone completely changed what a smartphone was, with multi-touch, on-screen keyboard, data plans that actually made sense, desktop-quality graphics and more.
* The point isn't that the 2023 AirPods are going to be innovative. It's that the 2016 AirPods created an entire sub-industry of "totally wireless" headphones.
The original point was the people hold Apple to a higher standard because Apple has a track record of introducing something every 3-6 years that makes people say "wow". That Apple continues to make incremental improvements after the "wow launch" doesn't diminish the track record of major innovation.
Where I disagree with ineedasername is that I think it only looks like Apple isn't innovative right now because the next big thing hasn't been announced yet, and innovations don't happen on a fixed cadence.
You've really misread the thread. I was making exactly the point you're making.
I am arguing that Apple continues to innovate, in response to ineedasername's claim that Apple has ceased to innovate like they once did.
I am arguing that Apple continues to innovate, in response to ineedasername's claim that Apple has ceased to innovate like they once did.
>Oculus Quest, which has gone a long way towards democratizing VR
The irony of seeing this in a comment thread about how Apple is draconian and overstepping their boundaries is laughable. Oculus Quest is doing the exact opposite of democratizing VR. They're selling the people themselves.
The irony of seeing this in a comment thread about how Apple is draconian and overstepping their boundaries is laughable. Oculus Quest is doing the exact opposite of democratizing VR. They're selling the people themselves.
There's a difference in innovative quality between releasing the first iphone and the next iteration of the iphone. There's a similar difference between building the first PC and building an improved version of the first PC.
Thats just straight up reductionism. You can describe every progress as an iteration, but obviously some steps are much bigger than others, the prime example being the iPhone. Some company-cultures enable or incentivize innovation, others don't. Apples entire branding is about "revolutionizing [area]", therefore one expects them to do more than the stuff everyone else gets done
It's normal for huge innovations like that to only come around once in a blue moon even in companies that foster it. That's nothing new.
Sure, yet still we're right to expect more from a company fostering innovation than from one that doesn't, no? Because that was the original question
I don't think so. There was no claim that other companies are out-innovating Apple, only that Apple is not innovating fast enough for their opinion of how fast Apple should be innovating.
If Epic prevails, it pretty much wrecks the idea behind contract law. This case is about Epic agreeing to a thing and then reneging on the agreement, then crying “look what the evil mean company did!”
Apple is no saint, but in this case, they aren’t in the wrong. From reading the filings, Apple has gone to some extraordinary lengths to support Fortnite, behind the scenes, only to have Epic shred the hand that’s helping them.
Apple is no saint, but in this case, they aren’t in the wrong. From reading the filings, Apple has gone to some extraordinary lengths to support Fortnite, behind the scenes, only to have Epic shred the hand that’s helping them.
>If Epic prevails, it pretty much wrecks the idea behind contract law
TOS's have already wrecked the idea of contract law. A contract isn't a one sided agreement forced upon people with arbitrary changes allowed at any time by only one party at a whim.
Terms of services are an abhorrence in contract law.
TOS's have already wrecked the idea of contract law. A contract isn't a one sided agreement forced upon people with arbitrary changes allowed at any time by only one party at a whim.
Terms of services are an abhorrence in contract law.
One could argue that TOS for electronics and software are simply an extension of the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” mantra of yesteryear. Companies have always been able to have “shrinkwrap” contacts that decide who can visit their place.
The argument with smartphones hinges on whether the device is yours or Apple’s. It’s very clearly your device, but it was bought knowing that only iOS could be installed.
The argument with smartphones hinges on whether the device is yours or Apple’s. It’s very clearly your device, but it was bought knowing that only iOS could be installed.
Not at all. Questions of unconscionability, undue influence, whether the contract formed a meeting of the minds, etc, are all up for discussion in court. As with any contract. Without undermining the validity of the idea of contracts as a whole.
Maybe you mean the specifics of this case, but until a court decides that, it hardly seems something one is qualified to weigh in on (even if you have a law background or similar).
Maybe you mean the specifics of this case, but until a court decides that, it hardly seems something one is qualified to weigh in on (even if you have a law background or similar).
I’m definitely an outsider on this. However, Epic surely didn’t enter into this contract blindly; they had to have lawyered this thing backwards and forwards and accountancied it up and down. They’re not some small developer doing a gut-check before rolling over and taking one for the team.
From where I sit, it’s looking like they planned to do this for a long time, which leads to the possibility that they entered into the contract in bad faith.
As for undue influence, etc. - those are immeasurable terms. Ultimately, if you can’t trust what’s on the paper, what’s the point? I have yet to see a filing where Epic shows that Apple didn’t deliver what they said they would. I have seen the filing where Apple lays out what they did do for Epic.
From where I sit, it’s looking like they planned to do this for a long time, which leads to the possibility that they entered into the contract in bad faith.
As for undue influence, etc. - those are immeasurable terms. Ultimately, if you can’t trust what’s on the paper, what’s the point? I have yet to see a filing where Epic shows that Apple didn’t deliver what they said they would. I have seen the filing where Apple lays out what they did do for Epic.
> If Epic prevails, it pretty much wrecks the idea behind contract law. This case is about Epic agreeing to a thing and then reneging on the agreement, then crying “look what the evil mean company did!”
Courts have invalidated parts of or entire contracts for ages, extortionary practices by a dominant entity being one of the chief reasons.
We are just unused to this sort of legal battles.
Courts have invalidated parts of or entire contracts for ages, extortionary practices by a dominant entity being one of the chief reasons.
We are just unused to this sort of legal battles.
The latest Fortnite for Mac installer was code signed and notarized 3 days ago, so this all seems very fishy to me.
https://epicgames-download1.akamaized.net/Builds/UnrealEngin...
codesign -d -vv ~/Downloads/EpicInstaller-10.18.8-fortnite.dmg
It uses the Epic Games International certificate, which is protected by the court's temporary restraining order.
https://epicgames-download1.akamaized.net/Builds/UnrealEngin...
codesign -d -vv ~/Downloads/EpicInstaller-10.18.8-fortnite.dmg
It uses the Epic Games International certificate, which is protected by the court's temporary restraining order.
Interesting find. That would seem to strengthen Apple's case that they are not separate entities.
The Epic installer is also used to install Unreal Engine, I wonder if the actual Fortnite.app that it downloads is signed with the same certificate.
I'm not sure it really matters. Only the Epic installer needs to go through macOS Gatekeeper. The downloaded games don't need to go through Gatekeeper. They can be signed with the same cert, or even be completely unsigned.
You're correct, however being able to do that is probably a ticking time bomb since Apple could slip child process verification into Big Sur or the 2021 MacOS release. Steam suggests their developers sign their games to ensure they work in the future[0].
As for what Fortnite is signed with, here's the dump of running codesign -dvvv [1].
0: https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/d...
1: https://gist.github.com/judge2020/880eb246fc36e3a128861eddf1...
As for what Fortnite is signed with, here's the dump of running codesign -dvvv [1].
0: https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/d...
1: https://gist.github.com/judge2020/880eb246fc36e3a128861eddf1...
Thanks for the info! I wanted to download the full game to check the code signature, but the size is so big (almost 100GB) that I didn't even have enough free disk space.
I believe that "Fortnite Save The World" and "Fortnite" are different things; is that the discrepancy?
They both run in the same game, but you get to choose which one to boot into once the game is open[0]. It doesn't launch another process, however to use it you do have to install optional game files[1].
0 : https://i.judge.sh/fuzzy/Fleet/FortniteClient-Win64-Shipping...
1: https://i.judge.sh/caring/Dash/EpicGamesLauncher_e5xeoBNuA0....
0 : https://i.judge.sh/fuzzy/Fleet/FortniteClient-Win64-Shipping...
1: https://i.judge.sh/caring/Dash/EpicGamesLauncher_e5xeoBNuA0....
What I find really interesting in this debate is how the same story can be spun two ways. Here, the headline is listed as "Apple Ending "Fortnite Save the World" Updates for Mac" which is a word for word title from Epic's blog post. Fair enough.
The same story on Techmeme linked to an article about the blog post has the title "Epic says it will shut down Fortnite: Save the World on macOS on September 23rd".
Notice the tone shift from "Apple is shutting this down" to "Epic is shutting this down". I guess I don't really have a point here other than the title is not enough to draw a conclusion. Even reading a single source's take on a story is not enough context to draw a balanced conclusion. There is bias and nuance to every side and a healthy dose of skepticism is needed.
The same story on Techmeme linked to an article about the blog post has the title "Epic says it will shut down Fortnite: Save the World on macOS on September 23rd".
Notice the tone shift from "Apple is shutting this down" to "Epic is shutting this down". I guess I don't really have a point here other than the title is not enough to draw a conclusion. Even reading a single source's take on a story is not enough context to draw a balanced conclusion. There is bias and nuance to every side and a healthy dose of skepticism is needed.
Well, it makes sense that this story's headline would favor Epic - it's a headline on epicgames.com. They're the only ones still pretending like they're the victim.
Epic cannot do anything to release updates and fix bugs on the macOS platform. Epic wants to continue to support their application on macOS - but because of a completely unrelated issue regarding an iOS application they can't. Are you suggesting that they aren't a victim of Apple's anti-competitive and draconian tactics?
Sure, I'll go ahead and suggest that Epic may not be "a victim of Apple's anti-competitive and draconian tactics".
"Anti-competitive" is a matter for courts to decide. Epic could have taken Apple to court without violating Apple's ToS, but they decided to use their fans as leverage in hopes of forcing Apple into an agreement faster than the traditionally slow legal system.
"Draconian" is an inflammatory label a reasonable person could easily dismiss.
"Victim" depends on whether Apple's ToS are actually anti-competitive. Reasonable people can make arguments to support either position, which is why we have a legally system to resolve conflicts like this. Only time will tell which is legally true.
Until then, it's just as true that Epic is an irresponsible aggressor abusing their fans in the hopes of gaining leverage in a negotiation.
It's hard to feel bad for either company, only the fans deserve sympathy, but I don't see how any reasonable person could claim that Epic couldn't foresee the consequence of their strategy.
"Anti-competitive" is a matter for courts to decide. Epic could have taken Apple to court without violating Apple's ToS, but they decided to use their fans as leverage in hopes of forcing Apple into an agreement faster than the traditionally slow legal system.
"Draconian" is an inflammatory label a reasonable person could easily dismiss.
"Victim" depends on whether Apple's ToS are actually anti-competitive. Reasonable people can make arguments to support either position, which is why we have a legally system to resolve conflicts like this. Only time will tell which is legally true.
Until then, it's just as true that Epic is an irresponsible aggressor abusing their fans in the hopes of gaining leverage in a negotiation.
It's hard to feel bad for either company, only the fans deserve sympathy, but I don't see how any reasonable person could claim that Epic couldn't foresee the consequence of their strategy.
They can release updates and bug fixes on the macOS platform by removing the native payment feature they included that tries to route around Apple's in-app payment system. Epic broke the rules on purpose and then started a public relations fight when Apple enforced the rules that Epic agreed to when they started developing on Apple's platforms. They are in no way a victim; that's a hilarious idea. This is all part of a deliberate strategy born from their desire to not pay Apple the cut that every other developer on the platform pays. You can argue that Apple's cut is too high, but that isn't germane to this issue. Apple's cut is a tradeoff you make in order to have access to the large audience of Apple users.
If you're a landlord and I rent your apartment and you tell me that I can't smoke on the balcony and I go ahead and do it anyway, I'm going to face the consequences of breaking that rule. Epic isn't a victim, they are just unsuccessfully trying to use their own enormous leverage to try to make Apple back down.
If you're a landlord and I rent your apartment and you tell me that I can't smoke on the balcony and I go ahead and do it anyway, I'm going to face the consequences of breaking that rule. Epic isn't a victim, they are just unsuccessfully trying to use their own enormous leverage to try to make Apple back down.
No, I'm suggesting that their tactics are neither anti-competitive nor draconian. Epic violated the terms of a store that they willingly entered into. Apple owns the App Store. They do not have a monopoly on mobile phones, app stores, or devices and, as Apple just provided to the judge in the case (who agreed with the response), Apple was the single largest driver in mobile growth and competition. How can they be anti-competitive if they've nearly single-handedly been responsible for the growth of those market segments?
> No, I'm suggesting that their tactics are neither anti-competitive nor draconian. Epic violated the terms of a store that they willingly entered into. Apple owns the App Store.
I think perhaps you don't know what anti-competitive means, or are thinking of it purely as a portion of monopolistic practices. Apple's actions in multiple levels of their platform are by definition anti-competitive.
> They do not have a monopoly on ...
A monopoly is not a prerequisite for anti-competitive practices, it's just something the U.S. identified in the late 1800's and early 1900's as something that makes anti-competitive practices very effective, so laws were made to combat them because they are easier to identify and classify. Stopping anti-competitive behavior that harms consumers (though increased prices and reduced options) is the goal. Stopping monopolies is just a side-effect.
I think perhaps you don't know what anti-competitive means, or are thinking of it purely as a portion of monopolistic practices. Apple's actions in multiple levels of their platform are by definition anti-competitive.
> They do not have a monopoly on ...
A monopoly is not a prerequisite for anti-competitive practices, it's just something the U.S. identified in the late 1800's and early 1900's as something that makes anti-competitive practices very effective, so laws were made to combat them because they are easier to identify and classify. Stopping anti-competitive behavior that harms consumers (though increased prices and reduced options) is the goal. Stopping monopolies is just a side-effect.
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
Apple has nearly 50% of mobile market share. Anything above 30% is close to a monopoly in my opinion, as it has a high impact in number of people reached.
And thats just mobile, they absolutely decimate the tablet market. I've vowed never to become an Apple Developer, since I've had 2 different apps rejected based on arbitrary rules.
Indies are hurt the most in this battle. Game publishers like Voodoo steal people's ideas and Apple lets them corner the market, removing/rejecting those who were there first.
Other stores are starting to mimic Apple's behavior, which is leaving Indies to battle it out in the last free open space... The world wide web.
Apple has nearly 50% of mobile market share. Anything above 30% is close to a monopoly in my opinion, as it has a high impact in number of people reached.
And thats just mobile, they absolutely decimate the tablet market. I've vowed never to become an Apple Developer, since I've had 2 different apps rejected based on arbitrary rules.
Indies are hurt the most in this battle. Game publishers like Voodoo steal people's ideas and Apple lets them corner the market, removing/rejecting those who were there first.
Other stores are starting to mimic Apple's behavior, which is leaving Indies to battle it out in the last free open space... The world wide web.
Epic moved the pawn that resulted in a check. Apple built the board. Who's responsible? 'Round and 'round we go.
Probably fairer to just refer to them as a tuple: "Apple/Epic ending Fortnite updates for Mac." Voila.
Probably fairer to just refer to them as a tuple: "Apple/Epic ending Fortnite updates for Mac." Voila.
I think your general point is valid, but the first line of this is literally:
> Apple is preventing Epic from signing games and patches for distribution on Mac, which ends our ability to develop and offer Fortnite: Save the World for the platform.
If we assume that that statement is true (and isn't Epic straight up lying), it's pretty clear cut that this is Apple's decision and not Epic's. By taking away Epic's capability to release updates, Apple is the one that has made the decision. Again, unless you are insinuating that Epic is lying.
> Apple is preventing Epic from signing games and patches for distribution on Mac, which ends our ability to develop and offer Fortnite: Save the World for the platform.
If we assume that that statement is true (and isn't Epic straight up lying), it's pretty clear cut that this is Apple's decision and not Epic's. By taking away Epic's capability to release updates, Apple is the one that has made the decision. Again, unless you are insinuating that Epic is lying.
Apple’s argument is that Epic forced this action by violating their contract. Epic will respond that the contract is unfair and illegal, and Apple’s treatment of different developers under the contract is inconsistent. It ends up being a conversation about who you favor in the Apple vs Epic fight, and not really a falsifiable factual question.
But did epic actually violate any part of their MacOS developer agreement, or just their iOS agreement? I've seen some conflicting information here that makes it seems as though Epic did nothing wrong on the MacOS side.
The Apple-defense being pushed here seems to be that all Apple agreements are one Apple agreement. Ie, if you have an issue with Apple in one are of business, that Apple-as-a-company can retaliate in any other area of business.
It will get interesting if it extends to (although I can't image it would) "Epic violated our App Store rules, therefore we were forced to disable Apple services usage from all of their Apple devices. Unfortunately for security reasons Apple devices are unable to function without those Apple services".
It will get interesting if it extends to (although I can't image it would) "Epic violated our App Store rules, therefore we were forced to disable Apple services usage from all of their Apple devices. Unfortunately for security reasons Apple devices are unable to function without those Apple services".
Framing this as an "Apple-defense" seems kind of odd when it's just the legal reality of the situation. There is a single agreement that covers development for all Apple products.
The fact that you might be involved in multiple areas of business is no more relevant here than it would be if you had a food delivery app, a yoga app, and a music app. The same agreement governs all of your conduct with Apple.
The fact that you might be involved in multiple areas of business is no more relevant here than it would be if you had a food delivery app, a yoga app, and a music app. The same agreement governs all of your conduct with Apple.
Even if it is the "legal reality", Apple wrote that "reality" in a way to use its market position in one vertical to control people's actions in other.
I'm not sure the point you're trying to make with your analogy, but I personally don't think it's reasonable that doing a chargeback on a food delivery app (for any reason) should be grounds for me to lose access to my music or yoga apps.
Google taking action like this (blocking accounts across their entire network of companies) comes up on HN every once in a while, and Google is always "the evil one". Apple is doing the same thing here but it's apparently more acceptable?
I'm not sure the point you're trying to make with your analogy, but I personally don't think it's reasonable that doing a chargeback on a food delivery app (for any reason) should be grounds for me to lose access to my music or yoga apps.
Google taking action like this (blocking accounts across their entire network of companies) comes up on HN every once in a while, and Google is always "the evil one". Apple is doing the same thing here but it's apparently more acceptable?
> Apple wrote that "reality" in a way to use its market position in one vertical to control people's actions in other.
Again, that is your framing and doesn't take into account that maintaining independent contracts for each individual app would be incredibly impractical. Some developers have hundreds of apps in the app store. Are you really suggesting that if the developer commits a fraudulent act in a single app within a large portfolio of apps, that Apple should only be allowed to take action against that one specific app as opposed to banning the developer entirely?
> I'm not sure the point you're trying to make with your analogy
My point is that this is standard industry practice so framing it as something particularly evil that Apple has done is kind of silly. Look at Google's Play Store agreement, or Steam, or even Epic's own game store. The fact that all these different companies do things the same way indicates there's probably a valid reason for it.
> I personally don't think it's reasonable that doing a chargeback on a food delivery app (for any reason) should be grounds for me to lose access to my music or yoga apps.
As a consumer, no. But we're talking about two businesses here. If you commit fraud in your food delivery app why should Apple (or any company) be required to continue distributing your music or yoga apps? How do they know you won't do the exact same thing in your other apps?
This example isn't just hypothetical, it's a real issue in the Google Play Store. Malicious developers will build up a portfolio of apps, and then once the install base is large enough, begin to sneak malware into future releases of the apps. Google is constantly playing a whack-a-mole game against these developers. Imagine how much harder that game would be if they couldn't ban the developer and had to wait until malware was discovered in each individual app before they could ban that app.
Again, that is your framing and doesn't take into account that maintaining independent contracts for each individual app would be incredibly impractical. Some developers have hundreds of apps in the app store. Are you really suggesting that if the developer commits a fraudulent act in a single app within a large portfolio of apps, that Apple should only be allowed to take action against that one specific app as opposed to banning the developer entirely?
> I'm not sure the point you're trying to make with your analogy
My point is that this is standard industry practice so framing it as something particularly evil that Apple has done is kind of silly. Look at Google's Play Store agreement, or Steam, or even Epic's own game store. The fact that all these different companies do things the same way indicates there's probably a valid reason for it.
> I personally don't think it's reasonable that doing a chargeback on a food delivery app (for any reason) should be grounds for me to lose access to my music or yoga apps.
As a consumer, no. But we're talking about two businesses here. If you commit fraud in your food delivery app why should Apple (or any company) be required to continue distributing your music or yoga apps? How do they know you won't do the exact same thing in your other apps?
This example isn't just hypothetical, it's a real issue in the Google Play Store. Malicious developers will build up a portfolio of apps, and then once the install base is large enough, begin to sneak malware into future releases of the apps. Google is constantly playing a whack-a-mole game against these developers. Imagine how much harder that game would be if they couldn't ban the developer and had to wait until malware was discovered in each individual app before they could ban that app.
There's a just single agreement that covers development for all Apple products (iOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS).
None of this changes the fact that Apple is using technical measures to prevent Epic from developing software for Apple's “open” platform, the Mac. Everything else is some distant tiny noise from another conversation. This is the moment the frog has been boiled.
The statement "Apple is preventing Epic from signing games and patches for distribution" is 100% a falsifiable factual question.
Because your argument seems to be "well Epic made them do it", you don't seem to disagree that it is true either.
Because your argument seems to be "well Epic made them do it", you don't seem to disagree that it is true either.
>it's pretty clear cut that this is Apple's decision and not Epic's
This is a chicken or egg problem. Epic was the one that violated the rules of the App Store, not Apple. If Epic hadn't done that, Apple wouldn't have been forced to take away their capabilities to provide updates. You can follow that chain of events without insinuating that Epic is lying.
This is a chicken or egg problem. Epic was the one that violated the rules of the App Store, not Apple. If Epic hadn't done that, Apple wouldn't have been forced to take away their capabilities to provide updates. You can follow that chain of events without insinuating that Epic is lying.
Epic publishing an app on iOS that breaks Apple's policies does not force Apple to prevent Epic from publishing any software on any of their platforms. That's a choice Apple made. The whole thing is a choice by Apple because Apple is the one writing the policies in the first place. They're not forced to do anything, it's their platform.
> one that violated the rules of the App Store, not Apple
This is an invalid comparison because Apple cannot, by definition of them writing the rules with the ability to change them whenever they want, violate the "rules" of the App Store. Phrasing it like this implies that "Apple violating the rules" is even a possibility.
This is an invalid comparison because Apple cannot, by definition of them writing the rules with the ability to change them whenever they want, violate the "rules" of the App Store. Phrasing it like this implies that "Apple violating the rules" is even a possibility.
You're using a silly grammatical error to gloss over the entire point of my statement. Apple obviously can't violate their own rules. That wasn't the point. The point was that the impetus of the situation was Epic, not Apple. Epic willingly chose to violate the rules and that kicked off the whole situation. If you want me to rephrase the statement, then here: "Epic was the one that violated the rules of the App Store. Apple didn't start the chain of events that caused this situation. Epic did."
Happier?
Happier?
They violated the rules of the iOS App Store, this is the Mac one. In fact, it effectively blocks them from releasing it as a direct download as well.
This is likely going to be a significant mistake from Apple in hindsight.
This is likely going to be a significant mistake from Apple in hindsight.
It's one agreement and Epic violated it.
I'm pretty sure they are separate agreements and separate charges, and therefore separate transactions and contracts.
This has not been true since 2015, when the various developer programs (Mac, iOS, and Safari) were combined into a single Apple Developer program (for $99/year).
Source: I've been a member of the Apple Developer program since at least 2006, which was the first year I attended WWDC. The current program is described at <https://developer.apple.com/programs/>.
Source: I've been a member of the Apple Developer program since at least 2006, which was the first year I attended WWDC. The current program is described at <https://developer.apple.com/programs/>.
With how horrible the trajectory of macOS has been due to Apple being almost exclusively an iOS profit driven company, this may be better for everyone by forcing consumers to move towards more open PC architectures.
I definitely dislike what computers have become.
The explosion of home computers followed by the Internet was based on standards and compatibility. If companies would have needed the approval of IBM to distribute an app on an IBM PC or even create some compatible hardware, almost none of the big player now would exists. Same for the web, email etc...
The explosion of home computers followed by the Internet was based on standards and compatibility. If companies would have needed the approval of IBM to distribute an app on an IBM PC or even create some compatible hardware, almost none of the big player now would exists. Same for the web, email etc...
Compaq spoiled IBM plans.
Relevant to this discussion: Compaq had to reverse-engineer the IBM PC BIOS instead of just copying it because of this decision involving... Apple Computer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Frankl....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Frankl....
I'm not sure it's in relation to iOS. If it was just that they wouldn't have invested in building a whole new cheese grater, nor would they bother to move the whole ecosystem to ARM when they could keep coasting on x86.
There is in my opinion a level of care about macOS on its own, it's more about misguided goals and detrimental choices (Touch Bar, butterfly keyboard, etc.)
There is in my opinion a level of care about macOS on its own, it's more about misguided goals and detrimental choices (Touch Bar, butterfly keyboard, etc.)
With the new Nvidia cards and Cyberpunk release coming up fast in November I predict an enormous surge in new/upgraded PC owners. It's already next to impossible to buy the new hardware due to demand.
With the performance specs of NVIDIA I can't imagine a good reason for professionals in the media arts world to buy a Mac for work. It seems like Apple will never replace AMD with NVIDIA GPUs in their products. Maybe a reason to stay with the Mac platform would be if you were locked into Finalcut or Sketch.
Apple catered to that niche crowd when it was the runner up.
The addressable market of the media arts is a peanut next to the mountain of consumers they are now successfully targeting.
It's like asking why Apple is making the value proposition of the Mac Pro so bad. It's so they can cancel that bring the userbase down enough so they can cancel it all together without it creating too much fuzz.
The addressable market of the media arts is a peanut next to the mountain of consumers they are now successfully targeting.
It's like asking why Apple is making the value proposition of the Mac Pro so bad. It's so they can cancel that bring the userbase down enough so they can cancel it all together without it creating too much fuzz.
My friend used to joke that macOS is dead once iPhones are strong enough to power XCode running on iOS.
That timeline doesn't look very far.
That timeline doesn't look very far.
> I can't imagine a good reason for professionals in the media arts world to buy a Mac for work
Has it ever really been about performance? How could you know your mac is slower when everyone else in the office has a mac, it's just bikeshedding and humans being human. They're nice computers but that's about it
Has it ever really been about performance? How could you know your mac is slower when everyone else in the office has a mac, it's just bikeshedding and humans being human. They're nice computers but that's about it
Once upon a time it absolutely was about performance, but I would argue those days have long since passed.
Fortnite has been all but unplayable on even 2-3 year old Macs, taking _minutes_ to initialize to the menu screen. So while it would've been nice to see Apple to take a hit, not much of a loss here unfortunately.
I downloaded the macOS build of Fortnite for a test yesterday (great timing!) and even on my 2020 iMac, I noticed the massive amount of time to get past any load screens and became very, very confused.
Windows with store?
ChromeOS and Android with everything going through Google servers?
Linux distributions with their 2% market size, going to take over the desktop since DX 10 wasn't available in XP?
ChromeOS and Android with everything going through Google servers?
Linux distributions with their 2% market size, going to take over the desktop since DX 10 wasn't available in XP?
The fact that Windows has an app store does not make it equivalent to MacOS in terms its application environment and how open it is.
Windows likes people to use the store, sure. But they don't exercise the kind of control over Windows that would allow them to something like this move by Apple.
Windows likes people to use the store, sure. But they don't exercise the kind of control over Windows that would allow them to something like this move by Apple.
Give it time. Up until recently Google was trusted as BDFL.
Android users are now looking to disconnect from Google.
The play store isn't bad, and I can always download an apk.
Android users are now looking to disconnect from Google.
The play store isn't bad, and I can always download an apk.
fwiw, I switched to Windows from macos two weeks ago. Now I can't imagine going back, the xps feels a lot better than the mbp. The microsoft store has no relevance to me as a user whatsoever, which is a completely different story than the one macos is telling.
You mean the windows store with no relevancy that Noone distributes on anyway?
No, the Xbox Games Store, designed as vertically integrated sole app source for the Xbox console, making its way to Windows 10:
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/pc-gaming
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/pc-gaming
And yet, curiously, Microsoft very recently made the move to stop exclusively distributing all their apps on the Microsoft Store, with recent titles like Flight Sim being available on Steam.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-08-01-microsoft-is-h...
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-08-01-microsoft-is-h...
I have lots of software on my Windows machine and none of it is from the Windows Store, it thankfully hasn't done much harm.
[deleted]
That is what many in HN like circles keep thinking, meanwhile I know of several Fortune 500 where that is the only distribution channel enabled by IT.
Windows 10X might not have been released as planned, but it will come.
Windows 10X might not have been released as planned, but it will come.
> by forcing consumers to move
> Fortune 500
Those aren't the same groups, even if that's true and those companies only use software that's available on the Microsoft store.
> Fortune 500
Those aren't the same groups, even if that's true and those companies only use software that's available on the Microsoft store.
I mean, hey, its a great tool to install WSL asap!
Also their Windows Terminal app which is, for some reason, very hidden. But it allows WSL, cmd, and powershell tabs all in the same Window.
And its amazing! https://i.imgur.com/7p5g5os.png
The one thing I'm still missing from iTerm is the hotkey-implementation, but we'll get there eventually :-)
The one thing I'm still missing from iTerm is the hotkey-implementation, but we'll get there eventually :-)
Most consumers are on Windows, which is worse in just about every respect.
Point the last time MS has blocked an app?
At least it can snap windows
Can you provide concrete examples of this "horrible trajectory" you say macOS is on? Because I do not see it.
I do see constant chicken-little-ing about macOS being hamstrung or locked down like iOS or whatever, but it's not, you know, actually true.
I do see constant chicken-little-ing about macOS being hamstrung or locked down like iOS or whatever, but it's not, you know, actually true.
From someone who ditched macos two weeks ago: macos just doesn't feed good anymore. Ignoring things like their horribly outdated window-management (what the hell is that splitscreen-mess?) and the mess that are locked down and all-over-the-place plist-files (good luck with those!), it seems pretty obvious that windows has a different relevance for microsoft than macos has for apple.
When I first got a macbook at work four years ago, I couldn't even figure out how to install software (you drag'n'drop an icon to a folder within an pseudo-installer? are you serious?) without asking a colleague.
Then: when I'm writing code, I'm writing for linux-machines. Opening a shell in macos just doesn't give me that. Instead I'm either left with the insult that is homebrew, or the alternative, macports, which is functional but so out of vogue its not even fun.
Meet Windows 10: I click on vscode and it's already open.. Not only open, but already connected to WSL, where I write code on a microsoft-maintaned linux-kernel, with proper package management, without ever firing up a vm by hand. In Windows' vscode I'm writing a flask-app running on linux, available without intermediate steps from Windows' Chrome.
The platform that is windows 10 feels so much more powerful and up-to-date than macos, it's not even a fair comparison.
All that being said, of course there are things one misses, because of course, apple has done a lot of things right. But overall, going back to the best macbook money can buy would feel like a massive downgrade.
What apple and macos are good at is the "all from one team" approach. Designing the OS and the hardware hand in hand with native integration to your other apple-devices has some clear advantages that windows just can't provide. But the sentiment I'm used to from my company is that "windows is completely unusable garbage, and apples computers are perfect", and I just have to disagree with that, typing this from my fully loaded xps 15.
When I first got a macbook at work four years ago, I couldn't even figure out how to install software (you drag'n'drop an icon to a folder within an pseudo-installer? are you serious?) without asking a colleague.
Then: when I'm writing code, I'm writing for linux-machines. Opening a shell in macos just doesn't give me that. Instead I'm either left with the insult that is homebrew, or the alternative, macports, which is functional but so out of vogue its not even fun.
Meet Windows 10: I click on vscode and it's already open.. Not only open, but already connected to WSL, where I write code on a microsoft-maintaned linux-kernel, with proper package management, without ever firing up a vm by hand. In Windows' vscode I'm writing a flask-app running on linux, available without intermediate steps from Windows' Chrome.
The platform that is windows 10 feels so much more powerful and up-to-date than macos, it's not even a fair comparison.
All that being said, of course there are things one misses, because of course, apple has done a lot of things right. But overall, going back to the best macbook money can buy would feel like a massive downgrade.
What apple and macos are good at is the "all from one team" approach. Designing the OS and the hardware hand in hand with native integration to your other apple-devices has some clear advantages that windows just can't provide. But the sentiment I'm used to from my company is that "windows is completely unusable garbage, and apples computers are perfect", and I just have to disagree with that, typing this from my fully loaded xps 15.
This sounds like you just don't know, or didn't know, how MacOS differs from Windows, and that you're confusing your ignorance for a decline.
"the mess that are locked down and all-over-the-place plist-files (good luck with those!)"
I have utterly no idea what you're on about here. .plist files are preference files, and they're overwhelmingly contained within either ~/Library or /Library. And they are not ever "locked down," at least not in my experience.
"When I first got a macbook at work four years ago, I couldn't even figure out how to install software"
See prior note. That you think you need an installer to install software is you mistaking Windows methods for methods universal to computing.
"when I'm writing code, I'm writing for linux-machines."
Many folks do x-platform dev on Macs, but you certainly DO need to take steps to accurately model your target environment before doing so. It sounds like you'd be happier on a Linux machine, but that isn't an example of failure or decline from Apple.
Your tie-in on vscode and your WSL sounds like a good feature for you. But this, too, isn't an example of "decline" for MacOS.
"The platform that is windows 10 feels so much more powerful and up-to-date than macos, it's not even a fair comparison."
This is a truly weird statement. I use both systems side by side, and have for 25 years. Windows is a fragile house of cards if you frequently add and remove software. C:\Windows inexorably expands, and the only fix is to wipe and reinstall from scratch.
You know what I've literally NEVER had to do on a Mac? Wipe and reinstall from scratch.
"But the sentiment I'm used to from my company is that "windows is completely unusable garbage, and apples computers are perfect""
As with most binary reductions of real-world situations, I agree that this is not a great statement. But Windows as a system still doesn't strike me as something I'd want to depend on in any meaningful way.
I run VMs (on my Mac, and on the Dell), and I have a fairly minimal environment my own loaded XPS 15, because that way I can get the whole setup running again with minimal effort when Windows shits the bed, as it very very often does.
"the mess that are locked down and all-over-the-place plist-files (good luck with those!)"
I have utterly no idea what you're on about here. .plist files are preference files, and they're overwhelmingly contained within either ~/Library or /Library. And they are not ever "locked down," at least not in my experience.
"When I first got a macbook at work four years ago, I couldn't even figure out how to install software"
See prior note. That you think you need an installer to install software is you mistaking Windows methods for methods universal to computing.
"when I'm writing code, I'm writing for linux-machines."
Many folks do x-platform dev on Macs, but you certainly DO need to take steps to accurately model your target environment before doing so. It sounds like you'd be happier on a Linux machine, but that isn't an example of failure or decline from Apple.
Your tie-in on vscode and your WSL sounds like a good feature for you. But this, too, isn't an example of "decline" for MacOS.
"The platform that is windows 10 feels so much more powerful and up-to-date than macos, it's not even a fair comparison."
This is a truly weird statement. I use both systems side by side, and have for 25 years. Windows is a fragile house of cards if you frequently add and remove software. C:\Windows inexorably expands, and the only fix is to wipe and reinstall from scratch.
You know what I've literally NEVER had to do on a Mac? Wipe and reinstall from scratch.
"But the sentiment I'm used to from my company is that "windows is completely unusable garbage, and apples computers are perfect""
As with most binary reductions of real-world situations, I agree that this is not a great statement. But Windows as a system still doesn't strike me as something I'd want to depend on in any meaningful way.
I run VMs (on my Mac, and on the Dell), and I have a fairly minimal environment my own loaded XPS 15, because that way I can get the whole setup running again with minimal effort when Windows shits the bed, as it very very often does.
>[...] you're confusing your ignorance for a decline
Fair enough. That point hits home with regard to the installer-situation, however what I tried to illustrate with that sentence is that macos is far from the state of borderline-perfection that is often attributed to it.
You're also correct on stability: I wouldn't run Windows on anything that my life depends on. As should nobody. However, serverlike stability simply isn't the core quality I look for in my OS. Its nice to have, but I can tolerate some instability as long as other benefits outweigh it. I feel like that's exactly the case now (and I wouldn't have made the same statement, say, three years ago): Windows simply serves me better as a user, the ue is miles ahead of my last year on macos.
> "Windows is a fragile house of cards if you frequently add and remove software"
well, I don't. I live enirely in the linuxworld, except for Chrome, Vscode and Steam (which should be stable, no? To be fair, I haven't spent the recent years in windows-land, so I might underestimate how close to water windows is built). If that's a minimal environment to you, we're in the same boat.
To the point about the plist-files: I've had a few encounters when I tried to modify things to my liking, and the experience was terrible. Maybe my memory serves me wrong with respect to 'all over the place', but in order to edit them, I had to download specific software, which is a big no no, given that we talk about system config files. And by "big no no" I mean user-hostile behaviour.
I probably failed to make clear enough how all my points relate to the so-perceived decline: to me it feels like apple just completely stopped caring about ux-related progression, doesn't care about powerusers, doesn't care about linux-devs, doesn't care about how terrible their window-management is (seriously, show me how to toggle through windows of the same application, or how to move a window from one screen to another with your keyboard. It's 2020 and this isn't a thing in macland, and thats just bad and can't be justified imo) - all of which is a shame, because their platform is so much more stable than windows is, and because their integration with other apple-devices is simply unmatched in any other product line.
On top of that, to get my macos working the way I wanted it to, I ineeded what, four extra applications? By the time I migrated to windows, I had about 10 extra icons in that bar. Things like caffeine, that should have been implemented as system-settings about ten years ago, but weren't. Macos is full of these little issues, and at least to me it felt like its a dead-end product. Like, great, they're gonna get a touchscreen-implementation, but that's not what I missed as a user.
If I'd need to bet my life on the stability of a computer, I'd take a macbook - any macbook. But I'm not in the business of betting lifes on laptop-stability, and for my consulting-job + playing games after work without a reboot, the choice seems pretty damn clear to me. I wasn't too confident before I actually made the jump, but I haven't looked back since
Fair enough. That point hits home with regard to the installer-situation, however what I tried to illustrate with that sentence is that macos is far from the state of borderline-perfection that is often attributed to it.
You're also correct on stability: I wouldn't run Windows on anything that my life depends on. As should nobody. However, serverlike stability simply isn't the core quality I look for in my OS. Its nice to have, but I can tolerate some instability as long as other benefits outweigh it. I feel like that's exactly the case now (and I wouldn't have made the same statement, say, three years ago): Windows simply serves me better as a user, the ue is miles ahead of my last year on macos.
> "Windows is a fragile house of cards if you frequently add and remove software"
well, I don't. I live enirely in the linuxworld, except for Chrome, Vscode and Steam (which should be stable, no? To be fair, I haven't spent the recent years in windows-land, so I might underestimate how close to water windows is built). If that's a minimal environment to you, we're in the same boat.
To the point about the plist-files: I've had a few encounters when I tried to modify things to my liking, and the experience was terrible. Maybe my memory serves me wrong with respect to 'all over the place', but in order to edit them, I had to download specific software, which is a big no no, given that we talk about system config files. And by "big no no" I mean user-hostile behaviour.
I probably failed to make clear enough how all my points relate to the so-perceived decline: to me it feels like apple just completely stopped caring about ux-related progression, doesn't care about powerusers, doesn't care about linux-devs, doesn't care about how terrible their window-management is (seriously, show me how to toggle through windows of the same application, or how to move a window from one screen to another with your keyboard. It's 2020 and this isn't a thing in macland, and thats just bad and can't be justified imo) - all of which is a shame, because their platform is so much more stable than windows is, and because their integration with other apple-devices is simply unmatched in any other product line.
On top of that, to get my macos working the way I wanted it to, I ineeded what, four extra applications? By the time I migrated to windows, I had about 10 extra icons in that bar. Things like caffeine, that should have been implemented as system-settings about ten years ago, but weren't. Macos is full of these little issues, and at least to me it felt like its a dead-end product. Like, great, they're gonna get a touchscreen-implementation, but that's not what I missed as a user.
If I'd need to bet my life on the stability of a computer, I'd take a macbook - any macbook. But I'm not in the business of betting lifes on laptop-stability, and for my consulting-job + playing games after work without a reboot, the choice seems pretty damn clear to me. I wasn't too confident before I actually made the jump, but I haven't looked back since
I'm moving quickly b/c I have a call to lead, but the installation thing is still something I find weird -- and not that YOU were flummoxed, but that anyone is. "Drag to /Applications" is about as simple as it can be, but MSFT's years of dominance led people to a place where they really, really feel like that can't be right. I've had many conversations with new Mac users about this. It's wild, and is kind of an example of something my pals and I used to say about Windows in the 90s: even in light of the monopolistic behavior, it may well be that the worst thing MSFT ever did was the degree to which they lowered user expectations.
It sounds like you're on the toolchain that serves you best. That's precisely where you oughta be! Good for you!
Regarding plists, I guess I wonder why you needed to edit them outside of the app that wrote them. When I've needed to do that, I've just used emacs -- they're nearly always text, aren't they? I mean, I would definitely consider myself a power user of the platform, but it's been a LOOOOONG time since I needed to mess with a .plist manually, so I could be misremembering.
I would definitely be willing to stipulate, though, that editing those files manually is pretty far off the rez, so to speak, from normal user behavior.
> "to me it feels like apple just completely stopped caring about ux-related progression,
I don't think that's exactly fair, but it probably IS fair to say that they don't care about the things in the UX that you care about, which can feel like the same thing.
> doesn't care about powerusers, doesn't care about linux-devs,
This probably IS fair, to a point, but the core system is still there and is still pretty friendly to linux dev types. It's just that Windows has made a big stride in the meantime.
> doesn't care about how terrible their window-management is (seriously, show me how to toggle through windows of the same application, or how to move a window from one screen to another with your keyboard.
I actually prefer the Mac window management, fwiw. Cmd-tab flips apps, as you know; Cmd-tilde switches windows in the current app. I use both all the time. The distinction here between apps and windows is one that Windows doesn't make, so I totally get being wrong-footed by this, but it's really just an example of the system being different to Windows, not "wrong" in an objective way.
I don't know how to move windows from screen to screen in any OS, so I can't help you there. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some way to do it, though, since Apple is typically pretty forward-thinking when it comes to accessibility.
> four extra applications
I have NEVER seen ANY OS that I didn't want to add bits to. I'd be lost on a Mac without Alfred, for example, plus a real cloud backup too, plus Little Snitch, plus Dropbox, etc.
My "home set" includes a bunch of these things, but it was the same in Windows, and when I set up Linux environments it's the same there, too. So I guess I'm not sold that this is a problem so much as an inevitable thing that advanced users like you and I do.
You get my meaning?
Anyway, I don't find myself wanting anything in MacOS that I don't have, to be super honest. It's powerful and flexible enough for me, and it doesn't make me want to pull my hair out like Windows always does. I definitely DO think that desktop OS options are looking less shiny generally because mobile has taken pretty much all the limelight in these last 10 or so years, especially as iOS on iPads has become so dang powerful and usable (no lie, I rarely take my laptop off my desk anymore -- the iPad is plenty, even if I need to connect to some work server or something). Many folks are in a position where an iPad plus a keyboard is all they need, which is kind of amazing -- it's GREAT for people like my 80 year old mother.
It sounds like you're on the toolchain that serves you best. That's precisely where you oughta be! Good for you!
Regarding plists, I guess I wonder why you needed to edit them outside of the app that wrote them. When I've needed to do that, I've just used emacs -- they're nearly always text, aren't they? I mean, I would definitely consider myself a power user of the platform, but it's been a LOOOOONG time since I needed to mess with a .plist manually, so I could be misremembering.
I would definitely be willing to stipulate, though, that editing those files manually is pretty far off the rez, so to speak, from normal user behavior.
> "to me it feels like apple just completely stopped caring about ux-related progression,
I don't think that's exactly fair, but it probably IS fair to say that they don't care about the things in the UX that you care about, which can feel like the same thing.
> doesn't care about powerusers, doesn't care about linux-devs,
This probably IS fair, to a point, but the core system is still there and is still pretty friendly to linux dev types. It's just that Windows has made a big stride in the meantime.
> doesn't care about how terrible their window-management is (seriously, show me how to toggle through windows of the same application, or how to move a window from one screen to another with your keyboard.
I actually prefer the Mac window management, fwiw. Cmd-tab flips apps, as you know; Cmd-tilde switches windows in the current app. I use both all the time. The distinction here between apps and windows is one that Windows doesn't make, so I totally get being wrong-footed by this, but it's really just an example of the system being different to Windows, not "wrong" in an objective way.
I don't know how to move windows from screen to screen in any OS, so I can't help you there. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some way to do it, though, since Apple is typically pretty forward-thinking when it comes to accessibility.
> four extra applications
I have NEVER seen ANY OS that I didn't want to add bits to. I'd be lost on a Mac without Alfred, for example, plus a real cloud backup too, plus Little Snitch, plus Dropbox, etc.
My "home set" includes a bunch of these things, but it was the same in Windows, and when I set up Linux environments it's the same there, too. So I guess I'm not sold that this is a problem so much as an inevitable thing that advanced users like you and I do.
You get my meaning?
Anyway, I don't find myself wanting anything in MacOS that I don't have, to be super honest. It's powerful and flexible enough for me, and it doesn't make me want to pull my hair out like Windows always does. I definitely DO think that desktop OS options are looking less shiny generally because mobile has taken pretty much all the limelight in these last 10 or so years, especially as iOS on iPads has become so dang powerful and usable (no lie, I rarely take my laptop off my desk anymore -- the iPad is plenty, even if I need to connect to some work server or something). Many folks are in a position where an iPad plus a keyboard is all they need, which is kind of amazing -- it's GREAT for people like my 80 year old mother.
20 years ago who would have thought that Apple would become the company that hides behind corporate talk about ToS and restricts what can run on their platforms, and Microsoft would become a company with many open source projects and an open platform?
> an open platform
Microsoft has an open platform?
Microsoft has an open platform?
way more than Apple?, yes
> Microsoft has an open platform?
Compared to Apple?
Absolutely yes.
I can even run Linux transparently on Windows.
Compared to Apple?
Absolutely yes.
I can even run Linux transparently on Windows.
relatively, yes.
But that isn't good enough for me, so I run linux :)
I still don't trust them but Microsoft is no longer opposed to open source as a matter of principle.
Apple's response looks very silly or childlike. I guess they want to pick a fight but I don't know what they have to gain from it. I pick Apple devices because they are easy to use. I don't play Fortnite but if this happened to any software I used on a weekly basis I would be pretty upset at Apple.
Apple have to maintain a vice-like grip on their ecosystem as their approach relies on controlling the entire vertical.
As more and more pressure is placed on them by the EU, the Right-to-Repair movement, big partners, etc. something has to give but i'm not sure Apple have the mindset to comply.
As more and more pressure is placed on them by the EU, the Right-to-Repair movement, big partners, etc. something has to give but i'm not sure Apple have the mindset to comply.
I think the inevitable move here is for the EU to enact a maximum % commission for platforms above $1b revenue, at something like 20%. Maybe for sales from that region or for developers in that region.
Unfortunately the EU is going the opposite way - increasing VAT and digital taxes, which are passed straight onto developers.
Unfortunately the EU is going the opposite way - increasing VAT and digital taxes, which are passed straight onto developers.
Except this fight is not about percentages themselves. It's not about whether it's 30%, 20%, 5% or 1%. It's about the fact that there's no free market and that Apple dictates content, prices and censors at their own whim and there cannot be free market competition to them on one of the most popular computing platforms.
Capping the commission does nothing to solve this - opening up a competition when someone else can provide better terms, vetting or different type of content (now deemed unacceptable to Apple political outlook or prudish stance) is the solution.
It also makes Apple actually work harder and start thinking about what ACTUALLY means to build a secure, user respecting OS instead of copping out by randomly rejecting app updates.
Capping the commission does nothing to solve this - opening up a competition when someone else can provide better terms, vetting or different type of content (now deemed unacceptable to Apple political outlook or prudish stance) is the solution.
It also makes Apple actually work harder and start thinking about what ACTUALLY means to build a secure, user respecting OS instead of copping out by randomly rejecting app updates.
Looking forward to Epic Store on the Playstation 5.
Looking forward to when people recognize game consoles and general purpose computing devices that carry an LTE antennae are understood to be different classes of devices with vastly less competition.
Apparently someone missed the news on PSP, PlayStation Vita, DS and Switch capabilities and ecosystems.
I can provide some learning materials to catch up with the world.
I can provide some learning materials to catch up with the world.
> [...]with vastly less competition.
On consoles, as far as the majority of consumers are concerned, there’s three players: Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. On phones, there’s... Apple, Google, Samsung, Huawei, OnePlus, etc. Sure, it’s basically iOS and Android, but even then, it’s 3 for consoles and 2 for phones. So to say that phones have “vastly less competition” is simply disingenuous.
On consoles, as far as the majority of consumers are concerned, there’s three players: Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. On phones, there’s... Apple, Google, Samsung, Huawei, OnePlus, etc. Sure, it’s basically iOS and Android, but even then, it’s 3 for consoles and 2 for phones. So to say that phones have “vastly less competition” is simply disingenuous.
[deleted]
Sure, eventually gaming consoles should be opened up. It would allow people to have a free, powerful computer, and save a lot of resources as well as reduce pollution.
Please don't mix up a small market of entertainment devices with a market of computers that half of Americans use as primary communication method with others, primary source of news, primary source of media and many other things. Coincidentally, all of those sources are supervised and censored by Apple having effective control of political and any other messaging for half of countries population.
If that's equivalent to a gaming console then perhaps you need to adjust your comparison algorithm.
If that's equivalent to a gaming console then perhaps you need to adjust your comparison algorithm.
You might feel like there is a practical distinction between the two, but for legal purposes there isn't. If Epic wins their case then their theory of Apple's "monopoly" over their own products will also directly apply to Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and any other hardware device where the manufacturer controls what software is allowed to run on it.
I don't know about inevitable, but price regulation would not be the best outcome here.
My hope for this is to see regulation that recognizes that hardware, operating systems, application distribution and payment processing are four separate markets and must be unbundled.
That does not mean breaking Apple and Google up or preventing them from providing all these things within an integrated user experience; it should however prohibit:
- using technical or legal methods to prevent consumers from installing any operating system or app store on their hardware, and independent developers from creating such operating systems or app stores.
- using technical or legal methods to prevent developers from using a payment processor of their choice while using Apple's or Google's application distribution service.
I think the judgements against Microsoft in the browser wars might serve as precedent.
The tricky part is recognizing that in two-sided markets, the threshold of market share at which a company achieves a harmful, competition-stifling amount of market power is much lower than in traditional one-sided markets.
My hope for this is to see regulation that recognizes that hardware, operating systems, application distribution and payment processing are four separate markets and must be unbundled.
That does not mean breaking Apple and Google up or preventing them from providing all these things within an integrated user experience; it should however prohibit:
- using technical or legal methods to prevent consumers from installing any operating system or app store on their hardware, and independent developers from creating such operating systems or app stores.
- using technical or legal methods to prevent developers from using a payment processor of their choice while using Apple's or Google's application distribution service.
I think the judgements against Microsoft in the browser wars might serve as precedent.
The tricky part is recognizing that in two-sided markets, the threshold of market share at which a company achieves a harmful, competition-stifling amount of market power is much lower than in traditional one-sided markets.
No. The solution is to allow third party app stores, and then Apple can keep charging whatever commission they want.
The high commission percentage is not the only issue with Apple's monopoly. It's also that they are gate keepers of apps they don't approve of, they can decide to throw out apps to destroy competition, etc.
The high commission percentage is not the only issue with Apple's monopoly. It's also that they are gate keepers of apps they don't approve of, they can decide to throw out apps to destroy competition, etc.
To be fair most digital content is still purchased out of app stores so I dont think the developers are the losers there.
Losers are the governments if they cant pay for their healthcare or care for their elderly because all the big internet co's dont pay any taxes for their profits in their countries. A digital tax would at least put pressure on them to take a smaller slice of the pie. Granted, it might be not the optimal solution for the problem.
Losers are the governments if they cant pay for their healthcare or care for their elderly because all the big internet co's dont pay any taxes for their profits in their countries. A digital tax would at least put pressure on them to take a smaller slice of the pie. Granted, it might be not the optimal solution for the problem.
Europe generates a lot of content, but owns none of the platforms. Lower commissions on those stores would translate directly to higher profits and investment by those content creators, which would be taxed directly and indirectly.
> I guess they want to pick a fight
Are you referring to Apple or Epic? It seems that Epic are the ones who wanted to pick a fight, for better or worse.
edit: it is amusing to see this post get so many upvotes and so many downvotes. Obviously this is a very polarized community w.r.t. Apple.
Are you referring to Apple or Epic? It seems that Epic are the ones who wanted to pick a fight, for better or worse.
edit: it is amusing to see this post get so many upvotes and so many downvotes. Obviously this is a very polarized community w.r.t. Apple.
Epic picked the fight but this is Apple's move at the end of the day. They could allow Epic to give the option to buy through apple or buy for cheaper skipping apple. It wouldn't be a particularly rational business decision to do so, but they do need to own the fact that putting their foot down is their call.
> They could allow Epic to give the option to buy through apple or buy for cheaper skipping apple.
How do you propose that Apple could give this option to Epic?
If they allowed Epic to skirt their rules, they'd have to do the same for everyone, so it is a fight that Epic picked and Apple is choosing not to continue that fight, that's all. You make it sound like it would have been just fine if Apple let Epic do what they were doing.
We can debate that Apple should change its rules for everyone, but it sounds like you think they should have just let Epic continue violating their policies.
How do you propose that Apple could give this option to Epic?
If they allowed Epic to skirt their rules, they'd have to do the same for everyone, so it is a fight that Epic picked and Apple is choosing not to continue that fight, that's all. You make it sound like it would have been just fine if Apple let Epic do what they were doing.
We can debate that Apple should change its rules for everyone, but it sounds like you think they should have just let Epic continue violating their policies.
> If they allowed Epic to skirt their rules, they'd have to do the same for everyone
Apple is already allowing Amazon to "skirt their rules".
Apple is already allowing Amazon to "skirt their rules".
You're writing this as if Apple gets a sort of status quo advantage. Their policies aren't law. They're making the choice to enforce this and they're fully capable of not doing so. It's Apple's choice.
Would Apple likely have to forfeit more exceptions to other companies if they did this? Probably yes.
Still Apple's decision.
Would Apple likely have to forfeit more exceptions to other companies if they did this? Probably yes.
Still Apple's decision.
Apple is already allowing Epic's parent company to skirt the rules. Tencent runs the biggest app store in China.
Tencent is not a parent company of Epic, they are a minority shareholder of 40% [1], while Epic's CEO is the owner with >50% ownership.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games
> If they allowed Epic to skirt their rules, they'd have to do the same for everyone ...
Er... yes?
Er... yes?
The point is that Apple doesn’t want to do that, so if they do it for one person, they’d have to do it to all. Ultimately doing something they didn’t want to do in the first place.
They already did that.
"Documents show Apple gave Amazon special treatment to get Prime Video into App Store"
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-pri...
"Documents show Apple gave Amazon special treatment to get Prime Video into App Store"
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/21348108/apple-amazon-pri...
Apple did not pick a fight. Epic did by explicitly doing something to knowingly break the rules to cause this issue and even had a heavily produced marketing video about it prepared day one. While people can debate the value of what is provided for 30% cut, intentionally breaking the rules / picking a fight has consequences that were laid out ahead of time.
So... Apple did pick a fight. Consequences might never be the same.
Epic did not pick a fight. Apple did by introducing the 30% tax in the first place and then keep sticking with the 30% tax on everything when everyone have already realized that that tax is not normal.
Apple didn’t “introduce” a 30% “tax”. Apple looked around at mobile marketplaces charging 70%, and undercut them by matching the cost structure of other vertically integrated digital storefronts while adding a tremendous number of customer “peace of mind” features that shifted the value proposition and generated — and still generate — far more revenue per user than competing offerings.
Exactly.
Those marketplaces were a monopoly, and opening up competition helped the consumer.
Now apple is an oligopoly, and opening up competition will help the consumer.
Those marketplaces were a monopoly, and opening up competition helped the consumer.
Now apple is an oligopoly, and opening up competition will help the consumer.
the 'tax' has been there since before Fortnite even existed
Again, how much does playstation, xbox, steam and google play charge?
Steam goes down to 20%
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/d...
https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/d...
Epic Games takes 12%.
It could be argued Apple created an illegal rules which require a violation to raise them in the justice system
A judge should be the one to decide if the rules are valid or not.
But, for now, this action is entirely on Epic. Epic broke the rules, Apple (and the court, for that matter) said that they would continue to sign and publish Epic's Fortnite updates if they brought Fortnite back in line with their contract, and Epic not only refused to do so, they submitted more Fortnite updates that broke the rules, before eventually entirely removing Apple's IAP from the iOS version of Fortnite (just before Epic's developer account was banned).
One other thing to consider: even if the IAP rules are invalid, Apple still can decide who it wants to do business with (unless the court rules iOS an essential facility, which basically invalidates the entire closed ecosystem business model, which would really up-end the tech world).
But, for now, this action is entirely on Epic. Epic broke the rules, Apple (and the court, for that matter) said that they would continue to sign and publish Epic's Fortnite updates if they brought Fortnite back in line with their contract, and Epic not only refused to do so, they submitted more Fortnite updates that broke the rules, before eventually entirely removing Apple's IAP from the iOS version of Fortnite (just before Epic's developer account was banned).
One other thing to consider: even if the IAP rules are invalid, Apple still can decide who it wants to do business with (unless the court rules iOS an essential facility, which basically invalidates the entire closed ecosystem business model, which would really up-end the tech world).
A judge can't decide that until someone actually breaks them and then takes that to court. Someone needs to have "standing" to challenge the rule.
Did you miss the part where Apple and the judge said that Epic could remove the “offending” code and they’d be let back on without the case being dismissed?
This is incorrect. Epic already has standing from the fact that Apple has collected $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees. They could have sued to recover those fees without also getting Fortnite removed from the App Store.
I don't think you can go before a judge without having the rules enforced against you.
I think Epic initially violating the rules and getting Fortnite taken down initially would have been enough of an action to justify the suit.
Epic willfully not coming back into compliance with their contract is entirely on them, and lends more credence to actions Apple take against them.
Epic willfully not coming back into compliance with their contract is entirely on them, and lends more credence to actions Apple take against them.
I mean, it could also be argued that the moon is made of green cheese, with roughly equal fidelity to real life.
So the possibility of Apple's rules being illegal is equivalent to the moon being made of cheese?
I used the phrase "can be argued" because I think the idea has enough merit to warrant being tested in court. These companies certainly have enough money and market influence to justify exploring it.
I used the phrase "can be argued" because I think the idea has enough merit to warrant being tested in court. These companies certainly have enough money and market influence to justify exploring it.
I have yet to see any serious, respectable theory under which Apple's App Store rules would be illegal AT ALL. People keep yammering about "monopoly," but they have no such thing. Closed platforms with rules for participation are utterly normal and utterly legal.
(What's really amazing is the arguments I see -- presumably from either very young or very ill-informed people -- that this is "just like" Microsoft in the 90s.)
(What's really amazing is the arguments I see -- presumably from either very young or very ill-informed people -- that this is "just like" Microsoft in the 90s.)
This most certainly is one fight Apple didn't pick.
That's like saying that a bully didn't pick fights because everyone could just back down and be abused.
Ironically I can't even tell who you think the bully here is. It sure seems to me that Epic was the bully in this situation.
Apple forcing Epic to agree to a completely one sided TOS forced Epic to fight back.
The smaller one with less power is usually not able to be the bully, pretty much by definition.
Strong words for an ecosystem that didn't exist 13 years ago.
For the Mac version, they certainly picked it.
I wouldn't say Apple are being childlike at all. They're simply enforcing the policy they set and the consequences that Epic knew would come if they violated that policy.
The argument can be made that Apple's rules are bad rules. I think I would agree that changes to the rules should be made, and I expect that they will make some concessions eventually. But you can't fault them for enforcing those rules the way they are, especially when Epic are provoking Apple so brazenly and publicly.
The argument can be made that Apple's rules are bad rules. I think I would agree that changes to the rules should be made, and I expect that they will make some concessions eventually. But you can't fault them for enforcing those rules the way they are, especially when Epic are provoking Apple so brazenly and publicly.
The rules are for the iOS app store (or the mac app store, but on mac os you can thankfully get your software elsewhere and the mac app store is mostly a failure). Apple has revoked Epic's license over iOS brouhaha, which means they can't sign their macOS software either. Blocking them from making mac software over an iOS dispute is very questionable, no?
It's not that much different than Google nuking an organization account because a member did something stupid with their org account. Or steam/eBay/PayPal/Amazon/etc banning an account for a rightful chargeback.
Bad behaviour by some other third party does not justify bad acts by Apple.
Sure, Google tying way too many things to a single Google account is exactly the same antipattern. I'm not sure if this is supposed to refute my comment. If so, this rhetorical antipattern is called "whataboutism" ;)
I answered a question you asked, and then you accuse me of whataboutism?
Eesh.
Eesh.
Good point. Those are examples of crap behaviour too. ;)
Thanks. To add, All the big companies behave horribly at every opportunity they have to make money. Epics trying to use the courts to increase their profit from Apple's walled garden. Apple's trying to protect their moat. Google Facebook and Amazon are trying to mine every single detail about everyone's life, for money. Instead of these ridiculous court battles we should have gambling laws that restrict underage gambling in video games, and antitrust suits to break open all the walled gardens.
We were told the MacOS signature system was only about security. Now it is about iOS business disputes.
That's a bit of a stretch.
Epic abused the security update workflow of the iOS app review system. Specifically, they submitted an update which was not a hotfix as if it were a hotfix. They (apparently) did that intentionally so that the update would not be inspected closely.
The signature system is built on trust. Apple allows trusted partners to submit hotfixes to address security bugs. Those updates receive expedited (read: cursory) review. Epic abused that trust to push an update which added their own payment system, not to address a bug (security or otherwise).
If Epic is going to abuse the trust of system for submitting security updates, why should they be trusted by the signature system?
Epic abused the security update workflow of the iOS app review system. Specifically, they submitted an update which was not a hotfix as if it were a hotfix. They (apparently) did that intentionally so that the update would not be inspected closely.
The signature system is built on trust. Apple allows trusted partners to submit hotfixes to address security bugs. Those updates receive expedited (read: cursory) review. Epic abused that trust to push an update which added their own payment system, not to address a bug (security or otherwise).
If Epic is going to abuse the trust of system for submitting security updates, why should they be trusted by the signature system?
Source on that? They sent a server update to activate a feature flag on a preexisting build. Apple characterizes this as a hotfix process, but not as their own expedited review hotfix process I don't believe.
If that build that first added the unactivated flagged feature used expedited review I don't see any sources saying so. But even then, expedited review isn't exclusively for security, it is also for events (Fortnite has frequent events):
"to coincide with an event you are directly associated with,"
https://web.archive.org/web/20190326213414/https://developer...
Adding an alternate payment option wasn't a security breach for users.
This is a complete stretch to relate it to desktop security in any way.
If that build that first added the unactivated flagged feature used expedited review I don't see any sources saying so. But even then, expedited review isn't exclusively for security, it is also for events (Fortnite has frequent events):
"to coincide with an event you are directly associated with,"
https://web.archive.org/web/20190326213414/https://developer...
Adding an alternate payment option wasn't a security breach for users.
This is a complete stretch to relate it to desktop security in any way.
I don't have a source. It's an inference based on the public statements of both companies.
Apple characterizes it as a hotfix and Epic has not disputed that. Apple has a well-known expedited review process.
> This is a complete stretch to relate it to desktop security in any way.
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. The same (apparently untrustworthy) entity is responsible for both Fortnight-the-iOS-game and Fortnight-the-MacOS-game. If you don't trust that entity on one platform, why on earth would you trust them on a different platform?
Apple characterizes it as a hotfix and Epic has not disputed that. Apple has a well-known expedited review process.
> This is a complete stretch to relate it to desktop security in any way.
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. The same (apparently untrustworthy) entity is responsible for both Fortnight-the-iOS-game and Fortnight-the-MacOS-game. If you don't trust that entity on one platform, why on earth would you trust them on a different platform?
Good thing you can disable Gatekeeper in five seconds if you don’t like it! That’s what I do.
I don’t understand why Epic isn’t releasing unsigned updates...
I don’t understand why Epic isn’t releasing unsigned updates...
Isn’t Fortnite normally installed and launched through another launcher? Wouldn’t replacing the signed app with an unsigned version mean that the user would have to go find the app bundle in Finder (which they wouldn’t normally need to interact with) to launch it after an update?
I haven’t played Fortnite on a Mac, but I’m assuming EGS generally behaves like Steam here.
I haven’t played Fortnite on a Mac, but I’m assuming EGS generally behaves like Steam here.
I'm pretty sure existing processes can launch other unsigned processes, unless something has changed in Catalina.
(And of course, if you were to disable Gatekeeper none of this would be a problem, although I can see why Epic wouldn't want to make users do that, and they shouldn't have to.)
(And of course, if you were to disable Gatekeeper none of this would be a problem, although I can see why Epic wouldn't want to make users do that, and they shouldn't have to.)
What an odd thing for Epic to announce.
Save the World has already been announced as receiving no further gameplay updates. In other words, the game is just as much of a zombified husk as the mobs you're asked to kill in it.
Just like most of the rest of Epic's announcements about their conflict with Apple, this just seems like more empty propaganda.
Save the World has already been announced as receiving no further gameplay updates. In other words, the game is just as much of a zombified husk as the mobs you're asked to kill in it.
Just like most of the rest of Epic's announcements about their conflict with Apple, this just seems like more empty propaganda.
> Just like most of the rest of Epic's announcements about their conflict with Apple, this just seems like more empty propaganda.
Well, it is. They're in a PR battle with Apple. And weirdly this massively rich company that is complaining about not having enough money is actually considered right by a lot of folk. What they're complaining about is pretty much agreed by everyone, the only things that differ is if Apple's wall garden is a good thing or a bad thing.
Well, it is. They're in a PR battle with Apple. And weirdly this massively rich company that is complaining about not having enough money is actually considered right by a lot of folk. What they're complaining about is pretty much agreed by everyone, the only things that differ is if Apple's wall garden is a good thing or a bad thing.
Also, you don't need to sign code to distribute it. Sure, it makes it a lot harder on the user, but the user can easily allow unsigned code to run.
So what they say isn't even true.
So what they say isn't even true.
It's worth noting that Apple in their latest legal filing (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265...) has made a fairly aggressive argument asking the judge to allow them to terminate Epic's international developer account which is used to develop Unreal Engine. The argument is based primarily on two factors:
1. Epic snuck hidden code into Fortnite. Apple no longer trusts that Epic won't also sneak hidden code into Unreal Engine.
2. Epic International is apparently collecting the payments from international iOS users that are using the hidden payment system in Fortnite, so it is directly linked to the breaching conduct.
So there's still a very real risk that Epic will lose access to the developer tools and signing capabilities for its Unreal Engine business as well.
1. Epic snuck hidden code into Fortnite. Apple no longer trusts that Epic won't also sneak hidden code into Unreal Engine.
2. Epic International is apparently collecting the payments from international iOS users that are using the hidden payment system in Fortnite, so it is directly linked to the breaching conduct.
So there's still a very real risk that Epic will lose access to the developer tools and signing capabilities for its Unreal Engine business as well.
It's interesting to note that Epic managed for a short while to get behavior into their app on people's iphones.
Apple doesn't instrument apps, malware can be uploaded to the app store and as long as it's not widely known can exist for a while. The app store provides little benefit for consumers and only moves power from them to Apple.
Apple doesn't instrument apps, malware can be uploaded to the app store and as long as it's not widely known can exist for a while. The app store provides little benefit for consumers and only moves power from them to Apple.
How would you propose that Apple “instrument” apps to prevent Epic from pushing a server side change?
They can't, and that's the whole point. The security comes from the sandbox, not from the review process.
[deleted]
This is a good example of why everyone should oppose code signing requirements. Users should be able to easily run any code they want on their system. No one should be able to prevent me from running something I choose to run.
And yes, it's possible to run it unsigned but Apple has intentionally obfuscated how to do it.
And yes, it's possible to run it unsigned but Apple has intentionally obfuscated how to do it.
That was one of the main reasons I left OS X when 10.7 came out.
I'll gladly give up the ability to run arbitrary software on my iPhone if it means I don't have to spend my weekend fixing my parents' phones after they install what they believed to be adobe flash, which some site said was necessary to boost iPhone performance when reading emails.
I won't. I'm not sure why my freedom, and the freedom of millions of other people, must be restricted for the sake of your technically unsophisticated parents.
Must we "child-proof" (parent-proof?) the entire world?
Must we "child-proof" (parent-proof?) the entire world?
> And yes, it's possible to run it unsigned but Apple has intentionally obfuscated how to do it.
It's literally right click on the .app and click 'Open'. Or alternatively, open up the security settings and click the 'Open Anyway' button.
---
Certainly not ideal for developers who do regularly open up unsigned binaries, but you have to admit it's probably somewhat effective at preventing malware for non-developers.
It's literally right click on the .app and click 'Open'. Or alternatively, open up the security settings and click the 'Open Anyway' button.
---
Certainly not ideal for developers who do regularly open up unsigned binaries, but you have to admit it's probably somewhat effective at preventing malware for non-developers.
Off topic, but is there a way to sideload like that on iOS without jailbreak?
Unfortunately, no.
If it's open source, then just compile it in Xcode and sign it with your personal Apple ID. You don't need a developer account or anything. You will have to resign it every seven days, although you can automate this process with something like AltStore.
So, now you need a mac.
Also do you realize how absurd the whole process sounds? If I want to install an app from an independent source I shouldn't be required to go through those steps, assuming the app is open source in the first place.
Also do you realize how absurd the whole process sounds? If I want to install an app from an independent source I shouldn't be required to go through those steps, assuming the app is open source in the first place.
It's not that simple. I wrote a blog post about this: "Can't you just right click?"
https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html
I don't get it, isn't it still possible for everyone to "sideload" Fortnite onto their Mac without it being signed? Why is Epic stopping development instead of just offering the update?
On macOS there are 3 tiers: AppStore, Developer Id, and "This is malware, move it to Trash". Apple has blocked the first two.
The third one has a workaround, but it's intentionally designed to be semi-hidden and confusing to an average person. I expect HN crowd to think it's not a problem, but to me as a developer it's a support headache, and embarrassment to tell every user "yeah, no, we're not malware, please do these steps to bypass all these scary security warnings".
All Macs have shitty GPUs, so Epic may even be happy they have a good excuse to drop Mac.
The third one has a workaround, but it's intentionally designed to be semi-hidden and confusing to an average person. I expect HN crowd to think it's not a problem, but to me as a developer it's a support headache, and embarrassment to tell every user "yeah, no, we're not malware, please do these steps to bypass all these scary security warnings".
All Macs have shitty GPUs, so Epic may even be happy they have a good excuse to drop Mac.
Eh, Fortnite runs on nearly all types of machines. It's designed to be playable on even potato level machines (that is part of its appeal and reach, see: League of Legends as well)
> All Macs have shitty GPUs, so Epic may even be happy they have a good excuse to drop Mac.
Fortnite runs on the Nintendo Switch, I doubt supporting Mac GPUs was too difficult for them.
Fortnite runs on the Nintendo Switch, I doubt supporting Mac GPUs was too difficult for them.
It's possible, but it would be very difficult. I wrote a blog post about this: "Can't you just right click?"
https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/unsigned.html
Support costs and chargebacks due to people not being able to figure it out. Fortnite also gets constant updates and they can no longer automatically do it, each with binary changes would have to manually be applied (or is there a way for them to automatically prompt and apply themselves?).
There's for sure ways for an app to update itself outside of the Mac appstore, Firefox and Chrome do so weekly. I'm not sure what kind of complications are added to that by using unsigned binaries but the malware developers over at Zoom certainly manage.
I think Fortnite came from the Epic Launcher, not Mac Store, and auto updated itself already too (this may have differed between battle royale and save the world?).
Doing it unsigned is the question. Do users have to do something manual each update, beyond just a prompt?
Doing it unsigned is the question. Do users have to do something manual each update, beyond just a prompt?
It is possible, I am equally confused! I’d posit that allowing an app through gatekeeper is easier than sideloading on Android!
Pre Tim Cook, Apple just out-innovated, not strong armed. Terrible. I really wish they were an alternative to Facebook/Google.
You mean "out marketed". Apple is notoriously slow to change.
Because the Watch, the AirPods, are nothing - even though they both make more in revenue than the iPods at peak.
The iPad is much better than the pre-Cook iPad 2.
Apple’s processor lines are head and shoulders above the competition and the ARM Macs will probably be some combination of faster, cheaper, more power efficient than any x86 PC.
And then we have Epic.
Selling Carlton Dances with virtual currency.
The iPad is much better than the pre-Cook iPad 2.
Apple’s processor lines are head and shoulders above the competition and the ARM Macs will probably be some combination of faster, cheaper, more power efficient than any x86 PC.
And then we have Epic.
Selling Carlton Dances with virtual currency.
The problem are all those GNU/Linux users that bought into Apple's ecosystem because UNIX without being really part of the Apple eco-system culture.
Now they complain, well should have spent money supporting GNU/Linux OEMs instead.
Same applies to Epic, fine with console restrictions, thinking that they can play their weight everywhere Tim feels like it.
Now they complain, well should have spent money supporting GNU/Linux OEMs instead.
Same applies to Epic, fine with console restrictions, thinking that they can play their weight everywhere Tim feels like it.
Linux user here, bold of you to assume that my workplace gave me any kind of choice in the matter.
To quote another part of the citation. Epic tried that with Apple.
https://bgr.com/2020/09/17/fortnite-lawsuit-apple-epic-games...
One particularly interesting tidbit from Schmid is that Epic would routinely threaten to release Fortnite updates on competing platforms first if Apple didn’t “accommodate their requests.” Schmid also said Epic on a number of occasions threatened to “terminate its relationship with Apple and remove its games” from the App Store if Apple didn’t comply with the company’s demands.
Apple called their bluff.
https://bgr.com/2020/09/17/fortnite-lawsuit-apple-epic-games...
One particularly interesting tidbit from Schmid is that Epic would routinely threaten to release Fortnite updates on competing platforms first if Apple didn’t “accommodate their requests.” Schmid also said Epic on a number of occasions threatened to “terminate its relationship with Apple and remove its games” from the App Store if Apple didn’t comply with the company’s demands.
Apple called their bluff.
I believe the parent said they just out-innovated, rather than also strong-arming others.
Apple did “strong arm” carriers to release their grip over customers and prevent them from installing their own bloatware, and allowing their customers to install updates directly.
Yes, they strong-armed carriers into only installing Apple's bloatware, and only allowing Apple to control updates.
The user still didn't gain anything.
The user still didn't gain anything.
The user didn’t gain anything from Apple sending updates to all of its customers globally on phones up to five years old without having to wait on the carriers like Android users do?
Cheaper you say?
Where can I get an equivalent tablet or laptop with the performance and specs of a $329 iPad - yes it can use any 3rd party Bluetooth keyboard and mouse.
The iPad Air is also more performant than most laptops being sold abd it’s cheaper.
The iPad Air is also more performant than most laptops being sold abd it’s cheaper.
Holding up the Apple Watch as an example of apple being innovative is a bit weak no? Maybe I'm just a pleb but a smartwatch is a toy, as opposed to the iPhone was a real innovation. I would use it for running telemetry, but I'm not aware of one that just does telemetry - I get a message on the little internet on my wrist, so I get the big internet out of my pocket to read it?
> I get a message on the little internet on my wrist, so I get the big internet out of my pocket to read it?
“No Wireless. Less Space than the Nomad. Lame”.
In the pre-Covid days. I loved being able to take my cellular Apple Watch to the gym and leave my phone in the car. I could listen to music and podcasts check my heart rate, make and receive calls and messages. I would swim with it. Run with it, etc. and leave my phone at home.
You could tap quick - yes/no replies or if someone asks you do you want $X or $Y, it will give you those two choices as quick replies. You can also dictate replies. I find my phone unusable when I’m working out. I sweat like a pig in heat. Any sensitive capacitive touch display is unusable.
Even now, I use my Watch as a remote for my AppleTV while I’m working out in my home gym.
That’s not even to mention in December with Apple Fitness, the on screen workouts will be able to automatically activate the appropriate workout on the watch and granularly record and show your stats.
My wife would often leave her phone in the car when she was out and about.
As far as the phone. Even in 2007, there were already 1 billion phones being sold a year. Jobs said he wanted the iPhone to capture 1% - 10 million during the first year.
Now there are close to 5 billion phones being sold a year. There isn’t really any conceivable way that anything will have the ubiquity of the smart phone market at 90%+ penetration in the developed world and even 70%+ in the developing world. What we call a “phone” may change. But the smart phone market is a once in a lifetime opportunity.
But we also have objective measures.
1. Did Apple create a new successful product line - success measured by revenue?
As I said before, the revenue is higher than the iPods and will have a longer product life cycle.
http://www.asymco.com/2019/12/12/ipods-pro/
http://www.asymco.com/2020/09/17/apple-watch-at-5/
2. We can also judge it technically. The Apple Watch has the fastest processor in the industry for a device its size, it has an always on display, heart rate monitor, GPS, cellular, WiFi, Bluetooth, U1 chip, ECG, altimeter, 16GB of RAM - o your wrist.
“No Wireless. Less Space than the Nomad. Lame”.
In the pre-Covid days. I loved being able to take my cellular Apple Watch to the gym and leave my phone in the car. I could listen to music and podcasts check my heart rate, make and receive calls and messages. I would swim with it. Run with it, etc. and leave my phone at home.
You could tap quick - yes/no replies or if someone asks you do you want $X or $Y, it will give you those two choices as quick replies. You can also dictate replies. I find my phone unusable when I’m working out. I sweat like a pig in heat. Any sensitive capacitive touch display is unusable.
Even now, I use my Watch as a remote for my AppleTV while I’m working out in my home gym.
That’s not even to mention in December with Apple Fitness, the on screen workouts will be able to automatically activate the appropriate workout on the watch and granularly record and show your stats.
My wife would often leave her phone in the car when she was out and about.
As far as the phone. Even in 2007, there were already 1 billion phones being sold a year. Jobs said he wanted the iPhone to capture 1% - 10 million during the first year.
Now there are close to 5 billion phones being sold a year. There isn’t really any conceivable way that anything will have the ubiquity of the smart phone market at 90%+ penetration in the developed world and even 70%+ in the developing world. What we call a “phone” may change. But the smart phone market is a once in a lifetime opportunity.
But we also have objective measures.
1. Did Apple create a new successful product line - success measured by revenue?
As I said before, the revenue is higher than the iPods and will have a longer product life cycle.
http://www.asymco.com/2019/12/12/ipods-pro/
http://www.asymco.com/2020/09/17/apple-watch-at-5/
2. We can also judge it technically. The Apple Watch has the fastest processor in the industry for a device its size, it has an always on display, heart rate monitor, GPS, cellular, WiFi, Bluetooth, U1 chip, ECG, altimeter, 16GB of RAM - o your wrist.
This is completely untrue. There are countless stories of Jobs strong-arming companies to get what he wanted. I do agree that the innovation has gone down, but the strong-arming has always been there.
Well, doesn’t seem like any additional action has taken place... it’s just an effect of revoking the developer ids used previously.
I wonder if they can just distribute the game as an unsigned binary from their website, post the SHA and tell uses to right-click launch the app. Sure the experience sucks, but it works
I wonder if they can just distribute the game as an unsigned binary from their website, post the SHA and tell uses to right-click launch the app. Sure the experience sucks, but it works
Agreed, Apple wouldn't really have any recourse here except to (long-shot) add Fortnite to the XProtect, which would be beyond extreme.
on macOS? Shure they could. And if they really wanted to give a middle finger to Apple, they could consider deploying the game on AltStore, but that would probably close all future doors for them with Apple.
I don’t understand why Epic isn’t releasing unsigned builds for Mac. Allowing an app through Gatekeeper is not any more difficult than sideloading an APK, and Epic seems perfectly happy to guide users through the latter.
Epic admitted that their side-loading on Android didn't work for their customers when Epic put Fortnite on the Google Play Store. They tried to make it as easy as possible and still couldn't get enough users to do it.
It could hardly be easier to do, just click the apk link and agree to the dialog box. The problem seems to be just that noone is looking for an app outside of the app stores.
One minor counter-example: to enable third-party apps on my Android-supporting Chromebook, I had to go through considerable contortions (1). It was not as easy as it is on typical Android devices.
1: Install Linux sub-system, install android-tools, wget the apk, and adb install it on the same host. Now I get a warning on the login page about 'unapproved apps'. It is not great.
1: Install Linux sub-system, install android-tools, wget the apk, and adb install it on the same host. Now I get a warning on the login page about 'unapproved apps'. It is not great.
Wait, WTF? You have to install the entire Linux subsystem to sideload APKs on a Chromebook that officially supports Android apps?
This is horrible!
I have a very clear line in the sand for this stuff. I don't mind Gatekeeper and SIP because if you know what you're doing, disabling them is painless, and you aren't punished for doing it. Disabling SIP doesn't add a constant watermark to the desktop, and the setting doesn't expire after a set amount of time or after updating. The OS says "okay, cool, you clearly know what you're doing so we'll get out of your way now," and I don't have to think about it again until I buy a new computer.
This is horrible!
I have a very clear line in the sand for this stuff. I don't mind Gatekeeper and SIP because if you know what you're doing, disabling them is painless, and you aren't punished for doing it. Disabling SIP doesn't add a constant watermark to the desktop, and the setting doesn't expire after a set amount of time or after updating. The OS says "okay, cool, you clearly know what you're doing so we'll get out of your way now," and I don't have to think about it again until I buy a new computer.
It was pretty bad - the Android sub-system does not seem to be available to external adb instances afaict. Also, this was a recent 'improvement': previous versions of ChromeOS required putting the device in dev mode to allow external apk installs.
Yes, but they’re still doing it now that Google kicked them off the play store. Why not follow the same strategy on Mac?
Marketing strategy, same reason Epic had an ad campaign already ready.
i think epic is going to demonstrate a "real damage" taken from apple to them, thats why they are dealing with these limits and also do refund their players on iOS/macOS
On the other hand, Apple has a real unclean hands argument. Yeah, Apple is clearly harming Epic, but Epic willfully broke the terms of their contract, and Apple is allowed to walk away from the contract for any reason (or no reason), taking all of Epic's code signing permissions with them.
I haven't followed this much, except for my kid being bummed his game isn't being updated on his iPad.
Maybe I can use it as a teaching moment to explain why dad uses Linux.
Maybe I can use it as a teaching moment to explain why dad uses Linux.
A quick story to illustrate why Apple will likely keep doing its thing despite Epic and any other criticism:
My neighbor has two young teenage sons who are into PC gaming, also Android tablets. They sometimes come to me with questions knowing that I'm in the industry. Several months ago there was an incident where the parent discovered over $2500 in credit card charges mostly due to in game purchases. A good chunk was on Fortnite V-Bucks but also some SuperCell games. They were able to request a refund for more than half, and it was a stressfull event for the family with a lot of disciplinary actions following. I was asked for advice on about any technical solutions to the problem. I was able to suggest monitoring credit card charges in realtime, some parental controls that were rather painful to setup. Another touchy subject was how to talk to and educate their kids about online spending.
This incident highlighted how unregulated and seemingly dangerous the Windows and Android platforms are to an average non-technical family. You need to install AntiVirus software, you have to worry about malware, you have to worry about kids installing random crapware that bogs down performance (remember the IE toolbars?). I have to say Amazon and Xbox Live parental controls are some of the most kafkaesque nightmares I've had to battle with.
I also see predatory techniques aimed at kids that have long been used by companies that are primary funded by in-app purchases. There is widely discussed concept of fun-pain in this genre of game development, where you induce some level of "pain" that would induce someone to pay money to alleviate it. Simple example is to eliminate wait time for artificial delays in game progression. Yes, in some ways Apple and this entire genre of mobile games, profited from it and is now trying to provide alternatives with the Apple Arcade model.
In comparison Apple and iOS provides a walled utopia for these families and justifies its tight controls as a method of providing that safe and worry free computing experience.
How many people bought an iPad for their older relatives because they were just tired of family tech support? Seems like it was enough for that to become a tired stereotype with a grain of truth.
I have sympathies for the idea of an open computing platform as a developer. I see the web and open source an excellent outlet for those that are willing to take on that level of responsibility with their devices.
However most takes on Apple in response to the Epic spat have been crude caricatures of a capricious monopolist robber baron type. I'm not in complete opposition to that idea, but that its not a particularly sophisticated or informative analysis, when their success clearly shows a market need for just this type of curated platform.
Also Epic knowingly violated terms of a contract that they agreed to when it suited them and are painting it as a moral imperative as opposed to an argument over money and how to extract it from customers.
My neighbor has two young teenage sons who are into PC gaming, also Android tablets. They sometimes come to me with questions knowing that I'm in the industry. Several months ago there was an incident where the parent discovered over $2500 in credit card charges mostly due to in game purchases. A good chunk was on Fortnite V-Bucks but also some SuperCell games. They were able to request a refund for more than half, and it was a stressfull event for the family with a lot of disciplinary actions following. I was asked for advice on about any technical solutions to the problem. I was able to suggest monitoring credit card charges in realtime, some parental controls that were rather painful to setup. Another touchy subject was how to talk to and educate their kids about online spending.
This incident highlighted how unregulated and seemingly dangerous the Windows and Android platforms are to an average non-technical family. You need to install AntiVirus software, you have to worry about malware, you have to worry about kids installing random crapware that bogs down performance (remember the IE toolbars?). I have to say Amazon and Xbox Live parental controls are some of the most kafkaesque nightmares I've had to battle with.
I also see predatory techniques aimed at kids that have long been used by companies that are primary funded by in-app purchases. There is widely discussed concept of fun-pain in this genre of game development, where you induce some level of "pain" that would induce someone to pay money to alleviate it. Simple example is to eliminate wait time for artificial delays in game progression. Yes, in some ways Apple and this entire genre of mobile games, profited from it and is now trying to provide alternatives with the Apple Arcade model.
In comparison Apple and iOS provides a walled utopia for these families and justifies its tight controls as a method of providing that safe and worry free computing experience.
How many people bought an iPad for their older relatives because they were just tired of family tech support? Seems like it was enough for that to become a tired stereotype with a grain of truth.
I have sympathies for the idea of an open computing platform as a developer. I see the web and open source an excellent outlet for those that are willing to take on that level of responsibility with their devices.
However most takes on Apple in response to the Epic spat have been crude caricatures of a capricious monopolist robber baron type. I'm not in complete opposition to that idea, but that its not a particularly sophisticated or informative analysis, when their success clearly shows a market need for just this type of curated platform.
Also Epic knowingly violated terms of a contract that they agreed to when it suited them and are painting it as a moral imperative as opposed to an argument over money and how to extract it from customers.
>Several months ago there was an incident where the parent discovered over $2500 in credit card charges mostly due to in game purchases.
This sounds more of a parenting issue. How and why did the kids have access to the credit card info?
This sounds more of a parenting issue. How and why did the kids have access to the credit card info?
Locking down and/or outright refusing to enable purchases is one of the first steps taken when getting my kids new devices. The most recent setup of my daughter's new PC in Windows 10 was easier than it had been on iOS for her iPhone.
How and why does your kids devices have access to your credit card info?
I could give you a quick example but do you expect the answer to this repeated question changing the fact that this is a real issue for responsible and engaged parents?
I was going to write more details, but I don't feel comfortable recounting other people's personal details. I could anonymize it but that would make it sound contrived. As someone who's daily job is consulting and helping solve tough technical problems for non-technical clients, I feel for these parents being overwhelmed. I can see how the technology is not always on their side when considering the marketing towards their kids and the type of e-commerce dark patterns.
I was going to write more details, but I don't feel comfortable recounting other people's personal details. I could anonymize it but that would make it sound contrived. As someone who's daily job is consulting and helping solve tough technical problems for non-technical clients, I feel for these parents being overwhelmed. I can see how the technology is not always on their side when considering the marketing towards their kids and the type of e-commerce dark patterns.
> I feel for these parents being overwhelmed.
I concur. I work with ACLs and permissions on a daily basis, my wife doesn't. This affinity for permissions structures rears it's head when she is entirely frustrated when setting up whitelisting for my daughter's MS account.
I concur. I work with ACLs and permissions on a daily basis, my wife doesn't. This affinity for permissions structures rears it's head when she is entirely frustrated when setting up whitelisting for my daughter's MS account.
Do you have children and/or have used most tech company's family account offerings?
Apple, for an example, has a "master" account which controls billing. All purchases made on any associated family account are routed through this master account.
My wife's purchases don't require approval, but all child accounts do.
Microsoft's account structuring is very similar.
Apple, for an example, has a "master" account which controls billing. All purchases made on any associated family account are routed through this master account.
My wife's purchases don't require approval, but all child accounts do.
Microsoft's account structuring is very similar.
No children and no family accounts. Every account I own is only used by me.
Sure, but it also an increasingly common pain point, especially when combine with e-commerce dark patterns. I see a clear market demand for solving it. Busy parents may not have a comprehensive understanding of what the technology enables and what they need to restrict, when its one of 3-4 different platforms in their house, all subtly broken.
This is often missed by technology enthusiasts that evaluate a merits of a platform from their own individual point of view that prizes flexibility and lack of constraints over everything else.
This is often missed by technology enthusiasts that evaluate a merits of a platform from their own individual point of view that prizes flexibility and lack of constraints over everything else.
Great comment.
I will have to point out that aside from Apple Arcade, iOS has its own problems. Problems that could be easily rectified by Apple but they choose not to:
1) Apple's Family Sharing has an "Ask To Buy" feature but it doesn't work as the name suggests. The feature actually requires parental permission for every download. It's not just a simple notification that you can click yes/no on either.... After clicking the notification, the app store opens and you must approve it there. Now, Apple has an age classification system that I generally trust so I don't have any desire to review every download. I just want to prevent the kid from spending money.
IMHO, it's purposefully designed to add friction in order to discourage its use. After being interrupted three or four times with this in a single day while coding, I just turned it off.
2) If your child does make a purchase (including a recurring subscription), it is not possible for you, the credit card holder, to view the details or cancel it anywhere in Apple's interface. It's like it doesn't exist. If you miss Apple's receipt email (or it goes to spam) you might never know.
To cancel the subscription? The child must do so on his or her device. Do you trust your child to do this correctly? Remember - they've already been "tricked" once by the App developer and Apple.
How about having the child uninstall the app? That should cancel any associated subscriptions right? No, sorry.
So, really, you must do it. And you must do it on their phone. Are they at school? Make a note to remind yourself when they get home. Are they away at school entirely during the week? Make a note to do it when you see them on the weekend (in the meantime, the weekly renewing subscription has billed you once again). Good luck if you forget to do it. Or they forget their phone at school or.... the phone is lost/stolen.
The point being: If Apple is billing my credit card, it should be my right to see it in their interface and cancel it. Neither of which is even possible. It's like it doesn't exist.
Both of the above are obvious, intentional dark patterns. There are no good reasons why they can't work properly. It's blatantly anti-consumer, and frankly disgusting that Apple engages in this sort of thing (and this is coming from someone who'd be largely considered a "fanboy" otherwise).
I will have to point out that aside from Apple Arcade, iOS has its own problems. Problems that could be easily rectified by Apple but they choose not to:
1) Apple's Family Sharing has an "Ask To Buy" feature but it doesn't work as the name suggests. The feature actually requires parental permission for every download. It's not just a simple notification that you can click yes/no on either.... After clicking the notification, the app store opens and you must approve it there. Now, Apple has an age classification system that I generally trust so I don't have any desire to review every download. I just want to prevent the kid from spending money.
IMHO, it's purposefully designed to add friction in order to discourage its use. After being interrupted three or four times with this in a single day while coding, I just turned it off.
2) If your child does make a purchase (including a recurring subscription), it is not possible for you, the credit card holder, to view the details or cancel it anywhere in Apple's interface. It's like it doesn't exist. If you miss Apple's receipt email (or it goes to spam) you might never know.
To cancel the subscription? The child must do so on his or her device. Do you trust your child to do this correctly? Remember - they've already been "tricked" once by the App developer and Apple.
How about having the child uninstall the app? That should cancel any associated subscriptions right? No, sorry.
So, really, you must do it. And you must do it on their phone. Are they at school? Make a note to remind yourself when they get home. Are they away at school entirely during the week? Make a note to do it when you see them on the weekend (in the meantime, the weekly renewing subscription has billed you once again). Good luck if you forget to do it. Or they forget their phone at school or.... the phone is lost/stolen.
The point being: If Apple is billing my credit card, it should be my right to see it in their interface and cancel it. Neither of which is even possible. It's like it doesn't exist.
Both of the above are obvious, intentional dark patterns. There are no good reasons why they can't work properly. It's blatantly anti-consumer, and frankly disgusting that Apple engages in this sort of thing (and this is coming from someone who'd be largely considered a "fanboy" otherwise).
I agree that Apple does not have a reputation beyond reproach and your criticism is valid on all points. However they do have a consistent track record of putting more power and control in the user's hands in terms of privacy, security and controlling access to their personal device. So I do recommend Apple products to overwhelmed parents and older relatives that I would otherwise have to spend hours supporting.
Quick google search (that apparently I've been to several times before) points me to a list of options on how to cancel subscriptions: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202039
But you are right that it takes more work to stop paying them money, that for example to swipe on the home screen and disable all push notifications from Facebook. The latter being something that doesn't impact Apple's revenue.
Quick google search (that apparently I've been to several times before) points me to a list of options on how to cancel subscriptions: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202039
But you are right that it takes more work to stop paying them money, that for example to swipe on the home screen and disable all push notifications from Facebook. The latter being something that doesn't impact Apple's revenue.
None of those cancel options work, that's the point. There is no record or indication anywhere about the child's subscription. You have the same level of access to see, or cancel, what my child subscribes to as I do.
That is... absolutely none.
The only option is to open a support request, and they will cancel a subscription for you (it takes a couple of days). Gee, thanks Apple.
If my credit card is being charged a recurring subscription, I should damn well be able to view or cancel that charge. Period. It's my credit card, and my account.
It reminds me of the gym membership cancellation scams. The harder companies can make it to cancel, the less likely people will.
That is... absolutely none.
The only option is to open a support request, and they will cancel a subscription for you (it takes a couple of days). Gee, thanks Apple.
If my credit card is being charged a recurring subscription, I should damn well be able to view or cancel that charge. Period. It's my credit card, and my account.
It reminds me of the gym membership cancellation scams. The harder companies can make it to cancel, the less likely people will.
Walled utopias soon become hells that block innovation. Incompetence of parents you mentioned is no reason to advocate closed gardens. I hope Apple gets struck with monopoly rulings like MS did.
Luckily there are a multitude of computing platforms where people with such uncompromising and dismissive views can take their business and let the market sort out the rest.
Can't help but think of parallel to programming languages as an analogy: Would you say that incompetence of programmers is a valid reason to advocate for languages with strict type systems that prevent them for making mistakes? If not, then assembly language should be the only way to program with maximum flexibility and opportunity for innovation.
Can't help but think of parallel to programming languages as an analogy: Would you say that incompetence of programmers is a valid reason to advocate for languages with strict type systems that prevent them for making mistakes? If not, then assembly language should be the only way to program with maximum flexibility and opportunity for innovation.
Apple is taking 30% of those lootboxes and skin purchases so Apple is the exact same level of scum as the shitty games.
The Apple game arcade will be just an alternative to make more money and avoid the "free game with ads issue" I will be shocked if Apple bans in game purchases.
So I am not sure what Apple and lootboxes argument is about(since Apple gladly endorses the practice with an open wallets)
So I am not sure what Apple and lootboxes argument is about(since Apple gladly endorses the practice with an open wallets)
I wonder what the Fortnite user base and revenue looks like by platform
This situation is very complex, but the outcome of the court case will have huge consequences. It wouldn't surprise me if it gets pushed around a couple courts for a year or two.
On the one hand, I think Epic's decision to flagrantly ignore the developer agreement in order to tease out a ban was a mistake. At the most basic level its going to cost them a ton of money, but its also become something of a red herring in the court case. It may work to their favor, as Apple goes scorched earth on all of their properties and ability to develop on Apple platforms, but its a huge gambit that could just as easily end with them never being allowed back on an Apple platform. That won't benefit anyone.
Apple's side came out with a statement maybe yesterday which essentially outlined the insane amount of effort Apple went through to support Fortnite on iOS, including setting up a 24/7 support team, express reviewing dozens of updates, and sending engineers to North Carolina to help them integrate with Metal/Apple Silicon. That also doesn't come off good for Epic. The effort Apple put in may not be explicitly valued at the low-hundreds of millions of dollars Apple has made off of their 30% cut, but its also not worth nothing (and certainly worth more than the $100/year developers pay to have an Apple Developer account). It comes off like Epic wants all of the support, marketing, and customers Apple provides, then when its convenient for them, they sue for the ability to release their own store on iOS and bypass all the cuts Apple would take.
Additionally, Epic has chosen Apple as the target for this crusade, while they still gladly lay in bed with Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo, and actively cast Linux aside via refusing to support it in Fortnite/Epic Games Store, and even removing support for it in Rocket League. I'm firmly on the side that iOS needs a more open and equitable application ecosystem; whether that means alternate storefronts, or alternate payment processors, or lessened app submission rules, I don't know. But Epic is schizophrenic. Valve is a great example of a company that, excepting a few isolated releases that they likely treat as mistakes, actually does push for supporting open platforms in both word and deed. It can be done. But, again, this comes off like Epic wanting their cake and eating it too. Why does Epic still put up with PlayStation, despite they also taking 30% and disallowing alternate storefronts? Well, they probably negotiated a lower rate, and it doesn't hurt that Sony owns like 3% of Epic. So Apple argues that they don't negotiate, and everyone is charged the same rate? That doesn't look good for Epic.
But, on Apple's side: I can't in good faith trust their desire to get into TV, Music, and Gaming while still being fair in App Store policies. There are zero examples of megacorps having that much broad & specific control over the success of their competitors and not abusing it. Apple needs to lose this case, to some degree. There are billions of computer users totally beholden to Apple's policies, and tens of thousands of developers who can't just ignore those users and expect their business to survive. Would Spotify be ok without iOS? Netflix? Hey? I don't know, but while Epic will absolutely be fine, I suspect one click in an App Store administrative console could mean the end of many businesses. These businesses don't need App Store marketing. They don't need highly complex platform technologies, nor A22x Apple Hyper-Silicon, nor Apple Pay, nor anything differentiable Apple provides; they just need the eyes and ears of their customers, who happened to pick iOS for reasons unrelated to their business. There should be a place for applications like these on iOS, which are fundamentally different from applications that are built to their core with Apple tech, rely on Apple marketing, the App Store's 70%, and legitimately gain a lot from the relationship with Apple.
On the one hand, I think Epic's decision to flagrantly ignore the developer agreement in order to tease out a ban was a mistake. At the most basic level its going to cost them a ton of money, but its also become something of a red herring in the court case. It may work to their favor, as Apple goes scorched earth on all of their properties and ability to develop on Apple platforms, but its a huge gambit that could just as easily end with them never being allowed back on an Apple platform. That won't benefit anyone.
Apple's side came out with a statement maybe yesterday which essentially outlined the insane amount of effort Apple went through to support Fortnite on iOS, including setting up a 24/7 support team, express reviewing dozens of updates, and sending engineers to North Carolina to help them integrate with Metal/Apple Silicon. That also doesn't come off good for Epic. The effort Apple put in may not be explicitly valued at the low-hundreds of millions of dollars Apple has made off of their 30% cut, but its also not worth nothing (and certainly worth more than the $100/year developers pay to have an Apple Developer account). It comes off like Epic wants all of the support, marketing, and customers Apple provides, then when its convenient for them, they sue for the ability to release their own store on iOS and bypass all the cuts Apple would take.
Additionally, Epic has chosen Apple as the target for this crusade, while they still gladly lay in bed with Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo, and actively cast Linux aside via refusing to support it in Fortnite/Epic Games Store, and even removing support for it in Rocket League. I'm firmly on the side that iOS needs a more open and equitable application ecosystem; whether that means alternate storefronts, or alternate payment processors, or lessened app submission rules, I don't know. But Epic is schizophrenic. Valve is a great example of a company that, excepting a few isolated releases that they likely treat as mistakes, actually does push for supporting open platforms in both word and deed. It can be done. But, again, this comes off like Epic wanting their cake and eating it too. Why does Epic still put up with PlayStation, despite they also taking 30% and disallowing alternate storefronts? Well, they probably negotiated a lower rate, and it doesn't hurt that Sony owns like 3% of Epic. So Apple argues that they don't negotiate, and everyone is charged the same rate? That doesn't look good for Epic.
But, on Apple's side: I can't in good faith trust their desire to get into TV, Music, and Gaming while still being fair in App Store policies. There are zero examples of megacorps having that much broad & specific control over the success of their competitors and not abusing it. Apple needs to lose this case, to some degree. There are billions of computer users totally beholden to Apple's policies, and tens of thousands of developers who can't just ignore those users and expect their business to survive. Would Spotify be ok without iOS? Netflix? Hey? I don't know, but while Epic will absolutely be fine, I suspect one click in an App Store administrative console could mean the end of many businesses. These businesses don't need App Store marketing. They don't need highly complex platform technologies, nor A22x Apple Hyper-Silicon, nor Apple Pay, nor anything differentiable Apple provides; they just need the eyes and ears of their customers, who happened to pick iOS for reasons unrelated to their business. There should be a place for applications like these on iOS, which are fundamentally different from applications that are built to their core with Apple tech, rely on Apple marketing, the App Store's 70%, and legitimately gain a lot from the relationship with Apple.
I ask myself if this is more an US vs. China issue (Epic is owned by a significant Chinese minority).
Guys, is it just me or is the real crime here that people actually game on a Mac?!
Gotta run up that damages bill
So I initially was a fan of the idea of the Mac App Store for the same reason why I think an iOS is, for most people, necessary: sandboxing apps is just a good idea. So is standardizing installs, removals and updates.
Epic defied Apple's rules here, quite openly. Faced with dissension, from a political point of view you have a choice to make. Apple chose to come down hard on this rebellion. It immediately went nuclear, spilling over the Fortnite-on-iOS dispute into both Mac and iOS and for anything that runs Unreal Engine.
Apple is clearly trying to send a message and keep everyone in line with this strategy. This is straight out of the despot's playbook. Just look at Vladimir Putin and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. By taking down the biggest oligarch sent the message to the others saying "you aren't untouchable". I see Apple's move here in the same light. Apple is saying "we don't care how big Fortnite is; we're going to make an example out of you".
This strongly suggests to me that Apple fears rebellion..
I think this strategy is a huge mistake. Apple's arguments are pretty weak here too. "We don't know what Trojan Horses Epic will put into the Unreal Engine so we have to ban any use of it". Uh... sure. And while Epic's move was clearly against Apple's rules, it wasn't clandestine or malicious (to the users) either.
By attempting to ban any use of Unreal Engine on iOS and OSX, Apple is doing nothing more than demonstrating they're a monopoly and are capable (if not actually) engaging in anticompetitive behaviour.
I still think Apple's payment ecosystem (and 30% cut) actually makes a lot of sense for the bottom 90% of publishers. For the likes of Epic, Netflix, Unisoft, Activision, Hulu and the likes it doesn't. These guys all have their own payment infrastructure and are cross-platform.
Apple's stance on the 30% cut for these guys just doesn't make sense. And I don't think it will last. Either the cut will come down or exceptions will eventually be carved out for top-tier publishers.
Epic defied Apple's rules here, quite openly. Faced with dissension, from a political point of view you have a choice to make. Apple chose to come down hard on this rebellion. It immediately went nuclear, spilling over the Fortnite-on-iOS dispute into both Mac and iOS and for anything that runs Unreal Engine.
Apple is clearly trying to send a message and keep everyone in line with this strategy. This is straight out of the despot's playbook. Just look at Vladimir Putin and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. By taking down the biggest oligarch sent the message to the others saying "you aren't untouchable". I see Apple's move here in the same light. Apple is saying "we don't care how big Fortnite is; we're going to make an example out of you".
This strongly suggests to me that Apple fears rebellion..
I think this strategy is a huge mistake. Apple's arguments are pretty weak here too. "We don't know what Trojan Horses Epic will put into the Unreal Engine so we have to ban any use of it". Uh... sure. And while Epic's move was clearly against Apple's rules, it wasn't clandestine or malicious (to the users) either.
By attempting to ban any use of Unreal Engine on iOS and OSX, Apple is doing nothing more than demonstrating they're a monopoly and are capable (if not actually) engaging in anticompetitive behaviour.
I still think Apple's payment ecosystem (and 30% cut) actually makes a lot of sense for the bottom 90% of publishers. For the likes of Epic, Netflix, Unisoft, Activision, Hulu and the likes it doesn't. These guys all have their own payment infrastructure and are cross-platform.
Apple's stance on the 30% cut for these guys just doesn't make sense. And I don't think it will last. Either the cut will come down or exceptions will eventually be carved out for top-tier publishers.
Good riddance.
Or maybe Epic is ending them? I think all they have to do is comply with the App Store policies and they'll be welcomed back.
It's literally Epic not wanting to comply with Apple's App Store policies and then crying that Apple is bullying them for not making an exception.
Certainly Epic is in a place that other Apple customers are not, in having the user base to profitably run a competing App Store. But I haven't heard any where that Epic wants an exception and fuck everyone else. Apple might do that if it shut Epic up, but they could also make TOS changes that made their customer relationships unilaterally less one-sided, and that would be less "exception" than "change". (at which point "crying" might better be described as "arguing" or even "protesting")
I don't particularly like either company here, but Apple using its market power to inhibit competition certainly sounds like the bigger problem.
I don't particularly like either company here, but Apple using its market power to inhibit competition certainly sounds like the bigger problem.
> But I haven't heard any where that Epic wants an exception and fuck everyone else.
Apple has made a few filings documenting this, including that Epic specifically asked for a side letter to the standard developer contract granting them special treatment.
Apple has made a few filings documenting this, including that Epic specifically asked for a side letter to the standard developer contract granting them special treatment.
Its time to ban Epic vs The World posts. No value. They decided to break TOS, thats all there is.
or do apple's TOS break the laws? thats why there is a lawsuit about this
Until that lawsuit completes, isn't it reasonable for Apple to continue enforcing the existing contract?
Didn't Epic even file for an injunction to stop them doing exactly this, and were denied? (the court just prevented apple from also applying it to the engine)
Didn't Epic even file for an injunction to stop them doing exactly this, and were denied? (the court just prevented apple from also applying it to the engine)
I think it's reasonable, as long as Apple doesn't cause lasting harm. The problem is that Epic is cross-pollinating between multiple corporate entities, so separating everything out in a way that doesn't cause lasting harm (especially to third-party licensees) is going to be difficult.
- Epic Games controls Fortnite
- Epic SARL controls the Unreal Engine dev work on macOS/iOS
- Epic SARL also collects direct international payments for the developer-agreement infringing version of Fortnite
In an ideal world, Epic Games should be banned for the duration of the trial, Epic SARL should be ordered to direct all revenues from the infringing Fortnite version into an escrow account (or at least provide the court with ongoing accounting so the court can issue damages, if necessary), and Epic SARL should be allowed to continue operating as normal.
Separately, if Apple prevails in the court, Apple should be allowed to ban Epic SARL as well. If Epic marketed iOS publishing as a feature of their engine, it's Epic's responsibility to deliver that feature to their customers; Apple should only be responsible for allowing the customer to publish with an app that uses any engine, not the Unreal Engine specifically.
- Epic Games controls Fortnite
- Epic SARL controls the Unreal Engine dev work on macOS/iOS
- Epic SARL also collects direct international payments for the developer-agreement infringing version of Fortnite
In an ideal world, Epic Games should be banned for the duration of the trial, Epic SARL should be ordered to direct all revenues from the infringing Fortnite version into an escrow account (or at least provide the court with ongoing accounting so the court can issue damages, if necessary), and Epic SARL should be allowed to continue operating as normal.
Separately, if Apple prevails in the court, Apple should be allowed to ban Epic SARL as well. If Epic marketed iOS publishing as a feature of their engine, it's Epic's responsibility to deliver that feature to their customers; Apple should only be responsible for allowing the customer to publish with an app that uses any engine, not the Unreal Engine specifically.
> - Epic SARL also collects direct international payments for the developer-agreement infringing version of Fortnite
I think it's possible that the judge allows Apple to ban Epic SARL based on this alone. The original justification was that they were two separate entities and only one breached its agreement. If Epic SARL is making money from the infringing version of Fortnite then it's involved in the breaching conduct as well.
I think it's possible that the judge allows Apple to ban Epic SARL based on this alone. The original justification was that they were two separate entities and only one breached its agreement. If Epic SARL is making money from the infringing version of Fortnite then it's involved in the breaching conduct as well.
I should note on this -- _Apple_ is the one asserting that Epic SARL is accepting payments in one of its legal filings; Epic may yet provide evidence that it is not, in which case this situation becomes a lot clearer for the duration of the trial.
Hacker News has a hide button that you can use to remove a post from your front page. It works quite well.
Next time Epic will think twice about bullying platform owners.
Nope, they aren't special above anyone else.
Nope, they aren't special above anyone else.
Abraham Lincoln should have thought twice before bullying slave owners, and providing support to slaves who broke the law and fled. Shame on supporting this illegal activity. Runaways aren't above anyone else.
I have a feeling Apple will come out far worse than epic when this is over.
Lawsuits have a way of ending up funny. AT&T sued UCB over BSD Unix, ended up having to admit they stole tons of shit from UCB.
That said, my prediction is that most of this lawsuit will be over contract law, and Apple has Epic over a barrel on that. Whether or not Epic should have to pay 30%, cloaking violating code changes in an update to slip it past the app store reviewers is a mortal sin under Apple's terms and they are perfectly within their rights to treat everything Epic does from now on as an unrepentant violator.
That said, my prediction is that most of this lawsuit will be over contract law, and Apple has Epic over a barrel on that. Whether or not Epic should have to pay 30%, cloaking violating code changes in an update to slip it past the app store reviewers is a mortal sin under Apple's terms and they are perfectly within their rights to treat everything Epic does from now on as an unrepentant violator.
The lawsuit is only round 1. Providing a nice demonstration of apple abusing their market position could result in regulatory action.
I on the other hand have a feeling of plenty of sore Apple haters taking care of battle wounds.
I don't care about Apple or epic, I own products from neither. But the regulators are looking at apples 30% cut now.
Which is nothing compared with what it used to be back in the J2ME, Symbian, Brew, Blackberry days where it went all the way up to 80%.
It is also the same value as game consoles, which apparently Epic is fine with.
It is also the same value as game consoles, which apparently Epic is fine with.
A company has to make profit to support their tens of thousands of engineers.
Google releases an enormous amount of products for free and gets the profit from advertisement and user data.
Apple on the other hand takes the cut from their products and software.
Somehow everyone seems to want things for free and never and keep the whole cake for themselves. Using any app store as a company is like renting renting selling space where customers browse. But the app store owner takes care of the maintenance so why wouldn't they get their cut for that?
Apple on the other hand takes the cut from their products and software.
Somehow everyone seems to want things for free and never and keep the whole cake for themselves. Using any app store as a company is like renting renting selling space where customers browse. But the app store owner takes care of the maintenance so why wouldn't they get their cut for that?
If Epic does win. Good luck at getting this level of support from Apple.
https://bgr.com/2020/09/17/fortnite-lawsuit-apple-epic-games...
As detailed by Grimm, Apple and Epic engineers over the past two years remained in “near-constant contact” to ensure that Fortnite could run optimally at all times and across a variety of devices. Grim notes that Apple provided Epic with a substantial amount of engineering support to “reduce Fortnite’s memory footprint” which allowed it to run on older iPhone models.
In addition, Apple has also provided hardware to Epic, including 16 Apple Silicon Developer Transitions Kits across Epic’s engineering organization, to ensure high-performance functioning of Unreal Engine 4 and the future Unreal Engine 5 on forthcoming Macintosh computers with new Apple silicon processors. This represents as much support as Apple provides to most any other developer. In addition, in response to repeated demands by Epic, Apple has permitted Epic to distribute builds on some 950 iPads and 1150 iPhones for app development and testing purposes— again, as much as Apple allocates to any other developer. These allowances are valuable to Epic as they magnify the company’s ability to fine tune their apps and refine their products in advance of going live with users.
https://bgr.com/2020/09/17/fortnite-lawsuit-apple-epic-games...
As detailed by Grimm, Apple and Epic engineers over the past two years remained in “near-constant contact” to ensure that Fortnite could run optimally at all times and across a variety of devices. Grim notes that Apple provided Epic with a substantial amount of engineering support to “reduce Fortnite’s memory footprint” which allowed it to run on older iPhone models.
In addition, Apple has also provided hardware to Epic, including 16 Apple Silicon Developer Transitions Kits across Epic’s engineering organization, to ensure high-performance functioning of Unreal Engine 4 and the future Unreal Engine 5 on forthcoming Macintosh computers with new Apple silicon processors. This represents as much support as Apple provides to most any other developer. In addition, in response to repeated demands by Epic, Apple has permitted Epic to distribute builds on some 950 iPads and 1150 iPhones for app development and testing purposes— again, as much as Apple allocates to any other developer. These allowances are valuable to Epic as they magnify the company’s ability to fine tune their apps and refine their products in advance of going live with users.
If apple is smart, they will continue to aggressively support companies that make highly demanded software for their ecosystem. Software is ultimately what motivates people to use a computer.
They can easily support, promote or even fund competitors to Epic. By the time this winds it’s way through courts, people will have moved on anyway.
Besides, no one buys a Mac for its great game software or hardware.
Besides, no one buys a Mac for its great game software or hardware.
But what they are doing is brilliant, because they have just demonstrated that their perceived infringement of the iOS rules has caused them to also lose Mac developer access, presumably due to it being the same account. But legally, the iOS and the Mac developer agreements are separate contracts. So from a legal standpoint, Apple has reacted to a perceived infringement in one contract by retaliating in a legally unrelated contract. That might be illegal.
And in addition, Epic is basically using Apple to send a very strong signal to game developers: Everyone serious about gaming is on Windows anyway.
I'm curious to see how this will mix with Apple silicon, which will effectively make running a stock Windows impossible. So in the future, you'll need to choose when buying your hardware if you want phone-quality games on Mac or triple A on PC.
I predict that the market segment of casual players using Apple hardware but Windows Bootcamp will now be driven away from Apple. In my opinion, the only way to avoid that would have been for Apple to demonstrate excellent UE5 performance on Apple silicon, but that now surely won't happen.