Apple tries to get Epic to admit there's porn on its store(kotaku.com)
kotaku.com
Apple tries to get Epic to admit there's porn on its store
https://kotaku.com/apple-tries-really-hard-to-get-epic-to-admit-theres-por-1846849388
324 comments
> 4. Tim Sweeney going off on a weird tangent trying to claim Fornite is a "metaverse" and not a game.
I’m quite sure that’s really his plan though. During the pandemic, my 12 year old son hung out with his friends on fortnite, and I had a feeling that “being together” was more important than the game itself. I think there’s more potential in becoming the Oasis than being just an online shooter and Sweeney sees that, but he needs iOS (and mini transactions without a middleman) to pull that off. That’s why they’re going all in on this.
I’m quite sure that’s really his plan though. During the pandemic, my 12 year old son hung out with his friends on fortnite, and I had a feeling that “being together” was more important than the game itself. I think there’s more potential in becoming the Oasis than being just an online shooter and Sweeney sees that, but he needs iOS (and mini transactions without a middleman) to pull that off. That’s why they’re going all in on this.
That was originally a surprise to Epic. It was just supposed to be a shooter, but then people started socializing in it. Then Epic realized they had a giant social network on their hands.
Isn't this trivially true for any online game though? I played Counter Strike for quite some time with the same group of people. And looking back, It's not like I disliked Counter Strike. But I would have never even played closed to the amount of hours if I didn't have that group of people.
I spent years playing an MMORPG called "Maplestory" where me and my online friends would just sit on virtual chairs and talk to each other.
There was something called the "Free Market" where there were no monsters to kill (so you couldn't die.) Guilds claimed different Free Market rooms as their "guild rooms" and people would just go AFK there. You'd always be able to find friends hanging out and talking in these rooms.
You could spend real-life money on their cash shop, which had cosmetics and small things like virtual chairs or couches to sit on.
You could even buy "friendship rings" that would display animations if the two of you were in close together.
There was something called the "Free Market" where there were no monsters to kill (so you couldn't die.) Guilds claimed different Free Market rooms as their "guild rooms" and people would just go AFK there. You'd always be able to find friends hanging out and talking in these rooms.
You could spend real-life money on their cash shop, which had cosmetics and small things like virtual chairs or couches to sit on.
You could even buy "friendship rings" that would display animations if the two of you were in close together.
I've been waiting for a single-player version of Maplestory to come out my entire life.
The overall art/gameplay style is lovely, there's not really a single-player offlin equivalent to the platformer-JRPG thing that I'm aware of.
I recently went back and tried to play it again almost a decade later with my partner (who had never played it) and it was not quite what I remembered.
Fantastic game back then though, as well as "Conquer Online" around the 2007-2009 era.
The overall art/gameplay style is lovely, there's not really a single-player offlin equivalent to the platformer-JRPG thing that I'm aware of.
I recently went back and tried to play it again almost a decade later with my partner (who had never played it) and it was not quite what I remembered.
Fantastic game back then though, as well as "Conquer Online" around the 2007-2009 era.
Conquer Online... ugh. I quit when some bug sent my market character to bot jail for no reason. Wish I'd have actually botted instead of wasting years on that game. My friend made a few bucks selling the rest of my characters, at least.
You quit? But what about all the glorious Fast Blade/Scent Sword megaduels with people hopping about the whole screen that went down in Bot Jail.
;^)
This adult stuff sucks, someone send me back to being 10 and clueless so I can relive this again.
;^)
This adult stuff sucks, someone send me back to being 10 and clueless so I can relive this again.
RIP the free market. Not the same anymore unfortunately.
Sitting in a lobby chatting on Discord with the team while waiting for someone to come back from a "short" afk is literally half of my hours in CS:GO.
Not even gonna count the amount of time spent just running around Dalaran in World of Warcraft while on voice with guildmates.
Not even gonna count the amount of time spent just running around Dalaran in World of Warcraft while on voice with guildmates.
I'm not big on Fortnite but iirc they had some events like virtual concerts etc. in game. This signals to me they're more interested in being that "metaverse" than, say, CS:GO.
It's oddly not true for previous attempts at the thing, though - Second Life was not very popular. (I think because originality is too much effort and the client performance was poor)
Also, previous metaverses were only popular among specific demographics, like perverts/furries, or suburban teenage boys.
Also, previous metaverses were only popular among specific demographics, like perverts/furries, or suburban teenage boys.
I in large part owe my adult software career to being an asocial, weird kid who learned Lua around ~9-10 from spending all their free time scripting random things in a 3D environment in Second Life's Lua dialect, LSL.
Really funny feeling, the sort of butterfly effect/unintended consequences.
Really funny feeling, the sort of butterfly effect/unintended consequences.
[deleted]
I think this has been a long-term vision.
I distinctly remember reading it in interviews with both Sweeney and Blezsinski from before the release of Unreal; that they had a vision of connecting virtual worlds. You hop into a portal and you're in a completely different game that you were in before. IIRC, Unreal Engine 1 had the capability of assigning an unreal:// URL to a portal.
You may find https://www.matthewball.vc/all/epicprimer1/#section1 an interesting discussion of the interlocking parts of Epic's business plan.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I hang out with my friends every day on Ventrilo voice chat playing Dota. This was just after school. No pandemic driving it. It was a game and anyone who thinks overwise is a headass or trying too hard to be smart.
Vent was your community, playing Dota. There is a place to distinguish between the two. Fortnite having a concert in the game was what made it 'not a game' to me.
lol so if Valve made a good enough voice chat software to replace Vent, it wouldn't qualify as a game anymore?
your community is your friends. there's nothing special about the software. if it wasn't a game they wouldn't touch it.
your community is your friends. there's nothing special about the software. if it wasn't a game they wouldn't touch it.
Wonder if the question is more like "did you meet these friends (eg for the first time) through that game, or were they existing friends beforehand"?
Because, if they're existing friends then yeah... you could all just move to a new place to hang out whenever it's needed. But if you generally met each other through the platform, it's more acting like that Community thing (or at least ways. :)
Because, if they're existing friends then yeah... you could all just move to a new place to hang out whenever it's needed. But if you generally met each other through the platform, it's more acting like that Community thing (or at least ways. :)
it was both
it was still a game
it was still a game
The metaverse point is sort of relevant, though. Epic has been trying to pin Apple down on their definition of a game. Apple says Roblox is permissible on the App Store, even though it's a user-generated content hub much like Fortnite.
But Fortnite wasn’t banned because it was or was not a game, it was banned because Apple alleged that Epic violated the App Store rules around payment.
By adding in non-apple transactions. Which is what Robles apparently does as well, and has been allowed to do so for years.
The defense from apple was apparently that roblox and Minecraft to do not in fact constitute games, whereas fortunate does, so the rules are different.
The defense from apple was apparently that roblox and Minecraft to do not in fact constitute games, whereas fortunate does, so the rules are different.
I don’t know enough to outright refute your claims, but I’m guessing you’re getting something wrong or leaving out an important detail (unintentionally). Apple doesn’t allow non-game apps selling digital goods to circumvent the 30%. So whether or not fortnite is a game or not seems irrelevant. I would be shocked if I could enter in a credit card number and buy something inside roblox without going through Apple.
There are Roblox gift cards that you can purchase at other retailers, which can be redeemed through a browser to credit the same account that you log into from the mobile app: https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/203312720-Where...
So it's not really entering a credit card number per se; it's more like giving someone else your credit card number so they can give you another number that you type into a different portal to make the digital goods "appear" on the iOS app.
Why are they making children jump through all these hoops just to enjoy an online video game https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005566223
So it's not really entering a credit card number per se; it's more like giving someone else your credit card number so they can give you another number that you type into a different portal to make the digital goods "appear" on the iOS app.
Why are they making children jump through all these hoops just to enjoy an online video game https://en.help.roblox.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005566223
Anyone can purchase currency outside of the App Store and use it in their iOS app, including Fortnite. Roblox doesn't bypass Apple's IAP requirement at all.
> 7. Epic paid so far 1 billion USD to convince devs to not sell in competitor stores.
This is kind of a toxic disingenuous spin on store exclusives, no?
This is kind of a toxic disingenuous spin on store exclusives, no?
I find it really fascinating that there are people bothered by Epic’s exclusives and not bothered by how the App Store works.
Epic paid developers money to get them to release games exclusively on the Epic store. Consumers have access to these games on the roughly same computers that can access other PC games. In other words, consumer or publisher freedom was not materially impacted. Epic’s deals with game developers are effectively subsidies, which save developers and/or consumers money.
On the other hand, Apple’s App Store policy makes it impossible for developers to access the iOS market without paying Apple’s tax. Every iOS app is an App Store exclusive, and Apple is not paying developers for the privilege. This costs consumers and developers huge amounts of money and limits their freedom.
I recognize the inconvenience of installing the Epic store, but comparing the effects of these two controversial policies reveals how benign Epic’s is.
Epic paid developers money to get them to release games exclusively on the Epic store. Consumers have access to these games on the roughly same computers that can access other PC games. In other words, consumer or publisher freedom was not materially impacted. Epic’s deals with game developers are effectively subsidies, which save developers and/or consumers money.
On the other hand, Apple’s App Store policy makes it impossible for developers to access the iOS market without paying Apple’s tax. Every iOS app is an App Store exclusive, and Apple is not paying developers for the privilege. This costs consumers and developers huge amounts of money and limits their freedom.
I recognize the inconvenience of installing the Epic store, but comparing the effects of these two controversial policies reveals how benign Epic’s is.
One certainly can be bothered by both. I can live without sideloading apps but expect some control on the version of app I prefer. Apple's decision to remove the option of backing up apps from the device was the final straw for me to abandon the entire ecosystem and I have not looked back.
That said, I really don't think Epic's policy and practice is necessarily benign. Multiple indie developers have reported that Epic is not even going to consider publishing your game unless you agree to some kind of exclusivity first. Has Apple every turned down an app submission because the same software is being offered on Android?
In the past I have bought several consoles to play titles exclusive to that platform and I was not bothered about that. For all I know the game may not even get made without the backing of Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo, not to mention they were marketed as "Console X exclusive" from the get go. Once upon a time when EA pulled their games off Steam there was much less controversy as people understand that EA has the right to make any business decision for their first party games. However things are quite different when Epic decides to waltz in at the last minute and scoop games from other store fronts because they can outspend others.
That said, I really don't think Epic's policy and practice is necessarily benign. Multiple indie developers have reported that Epic is not even going to consider publishing your game unless you agree to some kind of exclusivity first. Has Apple every turned down an app submission because the same software is being offered on Android?
In the past I have bought several consoles to play titles exclusive to that platform and I was not bothered about that. For all I know the game may not even get made without the backing of Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo, not to mention they were marketed as "Console X exclusive" from the get go. Once upon a time when EA pulled their games off Steam there was much less controversy as people understand that EA has the right to make any business decision for their first party games. However things are quite different when Epic decides to waltz in at the last minute and scoop games from other store fronts because they can outspend others.
>Multiple indie developers have reported that Epic is not even going to consider publishing your game unless you agree to some kind of exclusivity first. Has Apple every turned down an app submission because the same software is being offered on Android?
If Apple did that, it would be so much worse, because it would exclude developers from half of the market (all iOS devices).
If Epic doesn’t allow your game on their store, you can still sell your game on another store, to be purchased by the same consumers on the same devices. There just isn’t as much harm to be done there, because Epic doesn’t have the power to kick developers off the PC platform.
If Apple did that, it would be so much worse, because it would exclude developers from half of the market (all iOS devices).
If Epic doesn’t allow your game on their store, you can still sell your game on another store, to be purchased by the same consumers on the same devices. There just isn’t as much harm to be done there, because Epic doesn’t have the power to kick developers off the PC platform.
>Once upon a time when EA pulled their games off Steam there was much less controversy as people understand that EA has the right to make any business decision for their first party games.
we saw very different reactions back then. Most of it may have been existing unrest over EA, but I wouldn't downplay the reaction back then.
> However things are quite different when Epic decides to waltz in at the last minute and scoop games from other store fronts because they can outspend others.
I don't see the difference outside of it more immediately inconveniencing you with a title you care about more.
And I don't understand when the contractor became the sole fault over an agreement on 2 parties. I doubt epic is holding people agreeing to terms under duress.
> Has Apple every turned down an app submission because the same software is being offered on Android?
- if you made an app targeting IOS using native tools (to extract out the argument of "but X framework can target 10 platforms") and it was rejected, you're SOL on what to do with it unless you want to target the jailbreak homebrew market. - If you made an app targeting Android using native tools and it was rejected, you can still sideload it or use a few other stores out there to publish it. - if you made an app targeting Steam and it was rejected, you have the entire windows ecosystem to deploy your app on. Including hosts like Itch.IO if you don't want to spin up your own server.
I see epic just like Steam. It's their rules on what to accept or not. I care less about the rulings than the ability to have a plan B if they decide to not host the app. Which apple has practically zero option of.
we saw very different reactions back then. Most of it may have been existing unrest over EA, but I wouldn't downplay the reaction back then.
> However things are quite different when Epic decides to waltz in at the last minute and scoop games from other store fronts because they can outspend others.
I don't see the difference outside of it more immediately inconveniencing you with a title you care about more.
And I don't understand when the contractor became the sole fault over an agreement on 2 parties. I doubt epic is holding people agreeing to terms under duress.
> Has Apple every turned down an app submission because the same software is being offered on Android?
- if you made an app targeting IOS using native tools (to extract out the argument of "but X framework can target 10 platforms") and it was rejected, you're SOL on what to do with it unless you want to target the jailbreak homebrew market. - If you made an app targeting Android using native tools and it was rejected, you can still sideload it or use a few other stores out there to publish it. - if you made an app targeting Steam and it was rejected, you have the entire windows ecosystem to deploy your app on. Including hosts like Itch.IO if you don't want to spin up your own server.
I see epic just like Steam. It's their rules on what to accept or not. I care less about the rulings than the ability to have a plan B if they decide to not host the app. Which apple has practically zero option of.
[deleted]
I know that my use-case isn't exactly the most common one, but games being exclusive to the Epic store most definitely affect my ability to play them. I run linux. Just running the epic store itself under wine requires heaps of hacks just to get working, let alone the games it installs. Steam on the other hand is absolutely seamless these days. Steam handles all the wine hackery to make it all work.
People can reasonably get annoyed if they get forced to use a non-prefered launcher.
People can reasonably get annoyed if they get forced to use a non-prefered launcher.
People will be more invested in whatever immediately inconveniences them. Apple Arcade is doing the exact same thing with timed exclusives that appear before any console port (if at all). I didn't hear much fuss about Apple's "forcing" Oceanhorn 2 to stay on IOS for a year before coming to Switch (and still TBA on PC). It's in effect the exact same factor.
I'm sure once Apple had something the PC audience actually cared about, like Hades, that you'd hear the same complaints on Apple.
I understand some of the dislike on EGS, but the "anti-consumer" argument is a very shallow one. I also think it's a bit dishonest for a few others elsewhere to say "they've done nothing the past 2 years", despite having a public roadmap on Trello. Whether it's stuff you personally care about is certainly up for discussion, but they are much more transparent about plans than Valve is.
I'm sure once Apple had something the PC audience actually cared about, like Hades, that you'd hear the same complaints on Apple.
I understand some of the dislike on EGS, but the "anti-consumer" argument is a very shallow one. I also think it's a bit dishonest for a few others elsewhere to say "they've done nothing the past 2 years", despite having a public roadmap on Trello. Whether it's stuff you personally care about is certainly up for discussion, but they are much more transparent about plans than Valve is.
No, I was toning down what they did when I wrote that phrase.
What they actually did, was bribe developers to screw people that had already paid for their products, in efforts to damage Steam.
For example Shenmue debacle: It was kickstarter with the promise it would be on Steam, suddenly it went Epic exclusive, the people that backed on Kickstarter asked for their money back, the dev refused until people started to prepare to sue, even then it was a screwy process.
I remember at the time there was 2 or 3 other games the same thing happened, where Epic paid developers of crowdfunded games to literally break their contracts with their backers.
What they actually did, was bribe developers to screw people that had already paid for their products, in efforts to damage Steam.
For example Shenmue debacle: It was kickstarter with the promise it would be on Steam, suddenly it went Epic exclusive, the people that backed on Kickstarter asked for their money back, the dev refused until people started to prepare to sue, even then it was a screwy process.
I remember at the time there was 2 or 3 other games the same thing happened, where Epic paid developers of crowdfunded games to literally break their contracts with their backers.
Sorry, in what way is that Epic's fault? Isn't that the fault of the developers? What makes Epic offering exclusive agreements to game studios a "bribe", as opposed to any other financial/contractual commitment?
epic money incentives the developers to kick out the original investors (Kickstarter supporters are investors, with rather weak conditions) with no care for what they promised ,yesterday ( "not legally bing nah nah").
the word "bribe" connotes the motivation to over advantage and plain wrongdoing aspect in financial incentives, as opposed to an ethically clean normal "financial commitment", like dollar for milk.
the word "bribe" connotes the motivation to over advantage and plain wrongdoing aspect in financial incentives, as opposed to an ethically clean normal "financial commitment", like dollar for milk.
Lol, this happens all the time in the gaming world. Not excusing bad behavior but when a company agrees to something contractually that is how the legal system works.
You can't say... But they bribed me. They gave me a deal that was too good so I took it and it wasn't my fault so now I shouldn't have to honor it.
You can't say... But they bribed me. They gave me a deal that was too good so I took it and it wasn't my fault so now I shouldn't have to honor it.
Yeah it sounds like normal capitalism to me. Epic offers someone enough money to consider screwing over their existing investors and commitments, they take it. Why wouldn't Epic do this?
Because it is illegal to pay someone else to do a crime?
Breaking contracts is a crime, since these contracts are not "that serious", nobody attempted to prosecute devs, but that doesn't make it stop being a crime.
Also I believe in some countries what Epic is doing is called "Tortious Interference with Contract" or something like that. I am not a lawyer though.
But for example, Shenmue devs, if they didn't had backed down from refunds and got sued, they could get convicted of literally stealing money, since they got money and ran away with it.
Then in their defense, they could point out that Epic told them to do it and gave them a lot of money to ensure they would do it.
What you think would have happened in that case?
EDIT: I will be clear, and stop arguing this point because it is being stupid now.
I am not "angry" at epic, or at anyone.
I am only explaining what I meant on my point above about Epic paying people to not sell on other stores, this is a fact, not a negative and toxic spin, Epic DID pay devs to not sell on other stores, they said that themselves on the trial. I am not "angry" at them for it, or with the devs, I am only saying what happened.
I am not a Valve fanboy, not a Epic fanboy, I am not a fanboy, I don't like Apple disallowing sideloading, but I also think Epic approach to this subject could been done differently (not breaking rules, to start).
Breaking contracts is a crime, since these contracts are not "that serious", nobody attempted to prosecute devs, but that doesn't make it stop being a crime.
Also I believe in some countries what Epic is doing is called "Tortious Interference with Contract" or something like that. I am not a lawyer though.
But for example, Shenmue devs, if they didn't had backed down from refunds and got sued, they could get convicted of literally stealing money, since they got money and ran away with it.
Then in their defense, they could point out that Epic told them to do it and gave them a lot of money to ensure they would do it.
What you think would have happened in that case?
EDIT: I will be clear, and stop arguing this point because it is being stupid now.
I am not "angry" at epic, or at anyone.
I am only explaining what I meant on my point above about Epic paying people to not sell on other stores, this is a fact, not a negative and toxic spin, Epic DID pay devs to not sell on other stores, they said that themselves on the trial. I am not "angry" at them for it, or with the devs, I am only saying what happened.
I am not a Valve fanboy, not a Epic fanboy, I am not a fanboy, I don't like Apple disallowing sideloading, but I also think Epic approach to this subject could been done differently (not breaking rules, to start).
> Also I believe in some countries what Epic is doing is called "Tortious Interference with Contract" or something like that. I am not a lawyer though.
No, it doesn't sound at all like what you're bringing up. You can read about what you referenced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
> But for example, Shenmue devs, if they didn't had backed down from refunds and got sued, they could get convicted of literally stealing money, since they got money and ran away with it.
Again, why aren't you angry at the Shenmue devs instead?
> Then in their defense, they could point out that Epic told them to do it and gave them a lot of money to ensure they would do it.
Epic's agreement didn't say "Break the law to sell exclusively in our store." Epic's agreement said "Sell exclusively in our store." The decision to (potentially) break the law rests purely on the developer.
No, it doesn't sound at all like what you're bringing up. You can read about what you referenced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
> But for example, Shenmue devs, if they didn't had backed down from refunds and got sued, they could get convicted of literally stealing money, since they got money and ran away with it.
Again, why aren't you angry at the Shenmue devs instead?
> Then in their defense, they could point out that Epic told them to do it and gave them a lot of money to ensure they would do it.
Epic's agreement didn't say "Break the law to sell exclusively in our store." Epic's agreement said "Sell exclusively in our store." The decision to (potentially) break the law rests purely on the developer.
Shenmue did not promise Steam, it promised PC. There's absolutely no mention of Steam in the original Kickstarter : https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ysnet/shenmue-3/
In what way do you think this contradicts what the user you're responding to wrote?
If you promise PC exclusivity, that doesn't mean Steam. That means PC. You can promise PC exclusivity and then sign with Epic and maintain your commitment to PC exclusivity. Briefly having a Steam page doesn't change any of that.
If you promise PC exclusivity, that doesn't mean Steam. That means PC. You can promise PC exclusivity and then sign with Epic and maintain your commitment to PC exclusivity. Briefly having a Steam page doesn't change any of that.
"Previous" is an update blogpost that happened after the Kickstarter had ended. After people have given money for a promise of a PC game, not for a promise of a Steam key like you suggest.
It definitely is a negative spin. I know people like the convenience of having one store, but Valve isn't entitled to a monopoly and frankly Epic using their Fortnite cash to get as many exclusives as possible to get as many people on their store as fast as possible was their only move when facing a juggernaut. Competition between them will be good.
There is a difference between buying exclusivity in the early stages and buying exclusivity after the game was announced for a different platform.
In my case, phoenix point is the final straw that made me REALLY hate epic.
In my case, phoenix point is the final straw that made me REALLY hate epic.
> There is a difference between buying exclusivity in the early stages and buying exclusivity after the game was announced for a different platform.
Again, how is this Epic's problem?
Again, how is this Epic's problem?
>buying exclusivity after the game was announced for a different platform
contracts take two parties to agree to something.
contracts take two parties to agree to something.
IMO epic is still majorily at fault for that, due to offering the incentive in the first place, either due to incompetence or malice, while also saying that valve is engaging in monopolistic tactics.
No, it's actually quite accurate. In many cases, the games were allowed to be sold on any platform and digital service _except_ Steam. Epic was, quite literally, paying developers to not sell on Steam.
Accurrate in how Microsoft acquisition literally pays a studio to not sell on Sony, yes.
I'm not sure about that. If I had an axe to grind I'd probably write something like "Epic paid so far 1 billion USD to bribe, coerce, directly incite and enable game developers and publishers to abandon previous commitments and break existing contracts, in a concerted effort to make said games not available on certain platforms such as Steam for as long as possible"[0]
[0]:Metro Exodus was supposed to be an EGS exclusive for a year but they released it on Microsoft windows store in less than 6 months. We all KNEW what was this fuss really about.
[0]:Metro Exodus was supposed to be an EGS exclusive for a year but they released it on Microsoft windows store in less than 6 months. We all KNEW what was this fuss really about.
Can you explain how this post is again not just a toxic disingenuous misrepresentation of store exclusives?
[deleted]
Can you point out which part of my statement and the one above has been misrepresenting the facts?
"Epic Exclusive on PC" does not translate well into "Available anywhere but not Steam".
"Epic Exclusive on PC" does not translate well into "Available anywhere but not Steam".
...what? "Epic Exclusive on PC" means not available on Steam
But what does that have to with all of the other things you said? You're just saying derogatory comments about store exclusives without saying why you think they're bad.
But what does that have to with all of the other things you said? You're just saying derogatory comments about store exclusives without saying why you think they're bad.
Well let's see:
Metro Exodus: Originally slanted to release on steam in Feb 2019 with preorders starting in Aug 2018. Publisher suddenly announced the game will be EGS exclusive only 2 weeks head of this date with the explicit promise "Metro Exodus will return to Steam and on other store fronts after 14 February 2020." This turned out to be a bold faced lie as they quietly made the game available through the Windows Store in Jun 2020.
Anno 1800: Originally planned for release on Steam and Uplay. Switched to EGS "exclusive" very shortly before release without warning. Still not available on steam to this day unless you have preordered before the switch. Best part of this "exclusive" deal was that it has always been available on PC through Uplay, but gettig it back on steam is a no-no.
https://twitter.com/anno_en/status/1311215185114300416?lang=...
I could go on but after seeing how Epic had behaved in this market for the last couple for years I find it very hard to accept any excuse they make in good faith.
Metro Exodus: Originally slanted to release on steam in Feb 2019 with preorders starting in Aug 2018. Publisher suddenly announced the game will be EGS exclusive only 2 weeks head of this date with the explicit promise "Metro Exodus will return to Steam and on other store fronts after 14 February 2020." This turned out to be a bold faced lie as they quietly made the game available through the Windows Store in Jun 2020.
Anno 1800: Originally planned for release on Steam and Uplay. Switched to EGS "exclusive" very shortly before release without warning. Still not available on steam to this day unless you have preordered before the switch. Best part of this "exclusive" deal was that it has always been available on PC through Uplay, but gettig it back on steam is a no-no.
https://twitter.com/anno_en/status/1311215185114300416?lang=...
I could go on but after seeing how Epic had behaved in this market for the last couple for years I find it very hard to accept any excuse they make in good faith.
You're communicating with me as though I know what you're talking about and disagree with you. In reality I have no idea what you're talking about and am trying to understand. Just so we're crystal clear.
So it sounds as though Epic offered exclusive agreements to studios that reneged on other commitments to comply with Epic? Why isn't the anger at those studios? How is Epic at fault for other studios' behavior?
So it sounds as though Epic offered exclusive agreements to studios that reneged on other commitments to comply with Epic? Why isn't the anger at those studios? How is Epic at fault for other studios' behavior?
>You're communicating with me as though I know what you're talking about and disagree with you.
You came into this discussion with a very strong opinion. It's only natural for other commentators to assume you arrived at that conclusion through your own experiences and research. If your claims of ignorance is genuine, on what grounds are you calling me "toxic" and "misrepresenting" earlier? Why are you making indictments instead of asking questions?
>So it sounds as though Epic offered exclusive agreements to studios that reneged on other commitments to comply with Epic? Why isn't the anger at those studios? How is Epic at fault for other studios' behavior?
The other parties have already received their share of backlash but Epic deserves to be singled out as the instigator.
It's one thing to pay indie developers a fat sum to bring their titles as a exclusive - nobody should be too upset about that. However, paying an industry heavyweight like Ubisoft to keep Anno 1800 off Steam is different: The latter has nothing to gain from not publishing their games on Steam, if anything they will miss out on some potential purchases put off by the behavior plus the bad publicity.
In other words, this deal would not have happened without Epic reimbursing Ubisoft for the potential losses and fallout, and this kind of malicious anti-competitive is what bothers me.
You came into this discussion with a very strong opinion. It's only natural for other commentators to assume you arrived at that conclusion through your own experiences and research. If your claims of ignorance is genuine, on what grounds are you calling me "toxic" and "misrepresenting" earlier? Why are you making indictments instead of asking questions?
>So it sounds as though Epic offered exclusive agreements to studios that reneged on other commitments to comply with Epic? Why isn't the anger at those studios? How is Epic at fault for other studios' behavior?
The other parties have already received their share of backlash but Epic deserves to be singled out as the instigator.
It's one thing to pay indie developers a fat sum to bring their titles as a exclusive - nobody should be too upset about that. However, paying an industry heavyweight like Ubisoft to keep Anno 1800 off Steam is different: The latter has nothing to gain from not publishing their games on Steam, if anything they will miss out on some potential purchases put off by the behavior plus the bad publicity.
In other words, this deal would not have happened without Epic reimbursing Ubisoft for the potential losses and fallout, and this kind of malicious anti-competitive is what bothers me.
> You came into this discussion with a very strong opinion.
Yes, the insanely strong opinion of "recite facts instead of injecting opinion". IE, the original post was a bunch of inflammatory nonsense that wrapped "I don't like store exclusives".
> Why are you making indictments instead of asking questions?
You may be excited to learn my first post was exactly a question.
> In other words, this deal would not have happened without Epic reimbursing Ubisoft for the potential losses and fallout, and this kind of malicious anti-competitive is what bothers me.
The anti competitive behavior of "Have more gamestores than Steam"?
I don't really think we're going to get anywhere with this conversation. I'm sorry you do not like store exclusives. I don't think Epic has done anything wrong (as it's just how business works) in this specific instance. We can disagree.
Yes, the insanely strong opinion of "recite facts instead of injecting opinion". IE, the original post was a bunch of inflammatory nonsense that wrapped "I don't like store exclusives".
> Why are you making indictments instead of asking questions?
You may be excited to learn my first post was exactly a question.
> In other words, this deal would not have happened without Epic reimbursing Ubisoft for the potential losses and fallout, and this kind of malicious anti-competitive is what bothers me.
The anti competitive behavior of "Have more gamestores than Steam"?
I don't really think we're going to get anywhere with this conversation. I'm sorry you do not like store exclusives. I don't think Epic has done anything wrong (as it's just how business works) in this specific instance. We can disagree.
>the original post was a bunch of inflammatory nonsense
The top comment was diplomatic and mine was not. I'm sorry if blunt words hurt any feelings.
>Why are you making indictments instead of asking questions?
Instead of refuting the points being raised here you immeidately resorted to calling any critical comment "toxic spin".
>The anti competitive behavior of "Have more gamestores than Steam"?
So lemme get this right. We need to have more game stores......by making games available from fewer game stores. If that how competition works?
>I don't really think we're going to get anywhere with this conversation.
Agreed. You could have summed up everything in one sentence "Epic can do nothing wrong" and that would probably sound less apologetic.
The top comment was diplomatic and mine was not. I'm sorry if blunt words hurt any feelings.
>Why are you making indictments instead of asking questions?
Instead of refuting the points being raised here you immeidately resorted to calling any critical comment "toxic spin".
>The anti competitive behavior of "Have more gamestores than Steam"?
So lemme get this right. We need to have more game stores......by making games available from fewer game stores. If that how competition works?
>I don't really think we're going to get anywhere with this conversation.
Agreed. You could have summed up everything in one sentence "Epic can do nothing wrong" and that would probably sound less apologetic.
>Can you point out which part of my statement and the one above has been misrepresenting the facts?
disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
this post here is disingenuous in that no one was arguing with the technical correctness of the interpretation. and the above post is disingenuous with describing the situation.
There certainly is a difference between saying "Epic blocks game from being submitted on steam" and "Epic signs contract to sell game on EGS". Pretending these have the same connotations is in fact... disingenous.
disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
this post here is disingenuous in that no one was arguing with the technical correctness of the interpretation. and the above post is disingenuous with describing the situation.
There certainly is a difference between saying "Epic blocks game from being submitted on steam" and "Epic signs contract to sell game on EGS". Pretending these have the same connotations is in fact... disingenous.
>8. Epic tried to convince Nintendo to sell on Epic Store (lol)
This didn't happen, Epic specifically said they were NOT in talks with nintendo
This didn't happen, Epic specifically said they were NOT in talks with nintendo
This is a lie because The World Ends With You NEO is coming to PC via the Epic Game Store. Maybe this is lawyer speak for "we were in talks but we have a deal so we are not in talks any more"
> Neo: The World Ends With You is an upcoming action role-playing game developed and published by Square Enix.
Doesn't sound like it's a Nintendo game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo:_The_World_Ends_With_You
Doesn't sound like it's a Nintendo game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo:_The_World_Ends_With_You
Neo: TWEWY is made and published by Square Enix. Why would this imply they had talks with Nintendo?
That's my mistake. I knew it was developed my Square Enix but for some reason I thought it was published by Nintendo. My fault I should've double checked.
It seems Epic put more energy into the commercial announcing the trial than they put into the actual trial. I’m rooting for them but I really don’t know what they’re doing or how they’ve lost control of the narrative so badly so early on. Maybe they underestimated Goliath’s PR machine? I don’t envy their legal team trying to regroup this weekend.
It's a sure-to-lose lawsuit launched in the hopes of motivating a Congress strongly influenced by an anti-tech, anti-corporate progressive insurgency in the ruling party and, oh yeah, a global pandemic. I appreciate Epic's position, and would support it if it had been litigated through the legislature. But as it is, it's a flagrant waste of our courts' time, a public resource.
Its not anti-tech or anti-corpprate, its anti-monopoly. Remember its two huge corporations fighting this battle, Epic isn't some innocent tiny startup but in this case they have a point that Apple and Google have too much control and the fight has already resulted in smaller developers getting more share of their sales on the two app stores.
> Its not anti-tech or anti-corpprate, its anti-monopoly
Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to the current mood in Congress. Epic has tailwinds in there being a desire to reign in Big Tech. It has headwinds in being, itself, a tech company. That balance is, on the net, favourable to Epic. But marginally favourable isn’t a great position to be in when it comes to policy in a crowded legislative session.
Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to the current mood in Congress. Epic has tailwinds in there being a desire to reign in Big Tech. It has headwinds in being, itself, a tech company. That balance is, on the net, favourable to Epic. But marginally favourable isn’t a great position to be in when it comes to policy in a crowded legislative session.
Epic is certainly not anti-monopoly.
And Apple is actually trashing them in court because of that.
For example Apple lawyer asked if Epic would have accepted a deal where Apple maintained the current ecosystem but let Epic have an exception... Epic said yes.
At another point Apple asked difference between them, Xbox, Switch, etc..., Epic said that because consoles are sold at loss they having a monopoly is fine... so that is a bad argument if you are trying to prove you are anti-monopoly.
And this goes on and on...
Then there is the fact Epic paid 1 billion USD to developers not sell in other stores, including in some cases to break contracts to do so (for example kickstarted games, that promised Steam delivery, and then told the people that paid them that it would be Epic only and there would be no refunds).
And Apple is actually trashing them in court because of that.
For example Apple lawyer asked if Epic would have accepted a deal where Apple maintained the current ecosystem but let Epic have an exception... Epic said yes.
At another point Apple asked difference between them, Xbox, Switch, etc..., Epic said that because consoles are sold at loss they having a monopoly is fine... so that is a bad argument if you are trying to prove you are anti-monopoly.
And this goes on and on...
Then there is the fact Epic paid 1 billion USD to developers not sell in other stores, including in some cases to break contracts to do so (for example kickstarted games, that promised Steam delivery, and then told the people that paid them that it would be Epic only and there would be no refunds).
Sounds like OP meant this case is anti-monopoly, not Epic itself.
Epic doesn’t have to convince the jury that they’re innocent or even not despicable. They only need to convince the jury that Apple is doing bad things.
Epic’s “position” that came out in trial was that they wanted a special deal from Apple. They are fighting for no one other than themselves.
3,7, and 8 aren't related to the trial.
And 8 is normal business practice with little reprecussion (not unlike how Microsoft attempted to buy Nintendo 20 years ago). I believe they even called the point a "moonshot", so it's not like Epic had high hopes.
And 8 is normal business practice with little reprecussion (not unlike how Microsoft attempted to buy Nintendo 20 years ago). I believe they even called the point a "moonshot", so it's not like Epic had high hopes.
I hope finding out how much an Xbox really costs isn't too much to ask for after these disclosures.
Emphasis mine:
> “You may not be aware, then, that the description of that game includes a list of fetishes, which include many words that *are not appropriate for us to speak in federal courts*,”
> “So Epic Games, your store, is on the hook for whatever process itch.io put in place to review these games that are *so offensive we cannot speak about them here*, correct?”
I'm floored that this line of reasoning is allowed in court, it all hinges on the assumed puritanism of the court and the implied ethics of that.
It gives no information whatsoever about the actual content either, it allows the judge and everyone to fill in what they find "offensive" while we know Apples bar for this is low and extremely wonky.
Just for example, Facebook removes images of breastfeeding. You cannot discuss that just mentioning "offensive images" - the content matters for the judgement.
> “You may not be aware, then, that the description of that game includes a list of fetishes, which include many words that *are not appropriate for us to speak in federal courts*,”
> “So Epic Games, your store, is on the hook for whatever process itch.io put in place to review these games that are *so offensive we cannot speak about them here*, correct?”
I'm floored that this line of reasoning is allowed in court, it all hinges on the assumed puritanism of the court and the implied ethics of that.
It gives no information whatsoever about the actual content either, it allows the judge and everyone to fill in what they find "offensive" while we know Apples bar for this is low and extremely wonky.
Just for example, Facebook removes images of breastfeeding. You cannot discuss that just mentioning "offensive images" - the content matters for the judgement.
This is the world we are heading towards. All those law professors getting called racists when teaching old case law that has n-bombs is where it's started.
That's not where it started. Religion is where it started and continues to spew from.
For being non-religious the current left is surprisingly puritanical themselves.
Except that the modern left that pushes these things is non-theistic (or maybe you mean they are a non-theistic religion?)
What do you mean by "modern left"? The left that I know (I myself am a socialist) is largely against the nonsensically puritanical restrictions that Griffinsauce mentioned.
The leftist woke mobs are the ones who went after that professor (and many others).
Travel too far right or left and authoritarianism is always the result.
Travel too far right or left and authoritarianism is always the result.
I noticed that too. I also think it's a weird line of reasoning considering every iphone ships with an absolutely disgusting app called "safari" that will allow easy access to the most extreme kinds of pornography and hate-content
This whole thing is a shit show. I’ve said for awhile that App Store monopolies won’t last forever. But it’s not clear to me what the alternative is and maybe that’s why they will last.
First there are a couple of different issues. Deciding what’s on the App Store is one issue but payment processing is a potential separate issue.
Second 30% May have made sense once when this was a small business. It’s not anymore. Apple is inviting these lawsuits by simply not throwing big publishers a home with reduced rates.
Third, the whole tax on digital purchases is completely arbitrary. There was a time when Apple was working out what to do with Amazon and that’s when this role came about. Not being able to purchase kindle books just highlights the artificial and arbitrary nature of all this.
Fourth, at the risk of offending HN folks who self-servingly believe everyone wants or needs side-loading apps, most people benefit from the filtering of apps. Side-loading and unrestricted third party payments would simply be another attack vector.
Lastly, a bunch of different app stores is a terrible user experience. Just look at the friction of finding which streaming service has a particular movie or TV show.
I honestly think Apple could make most of these objections and potential problems go away by simply having a tiered percentage that rewards high volume publishers. It could scale down to 10% at which point the business case for an expensive legal challenge mostly disappears.
First there are a couple of different issues. Deciding what’s on the App Store is one issue but payment processing is a potential separate issue.
Second 30% May have made sense once when this was a small business. It’s not anymore. Apple is inviting these lawsuits by simply not throwing big publishers a home with reduced rates.
Third, the whole tax on digital purchases is completely arbitrary. There was a time when Apple was working out what to do with Amazon and that’s when this role came about. Not being able to purchase kindle books just highlights the artificial and arbitrary nature of all this.
Fourth, at the risk of offending HN folks who self-servingly believe everyone wants or needs side-loading apps, most people benefit from the filtering of apps. Side-loading and unrestricted third party payments would simply be another attack vector.
Lastly, a bunch of different app stores is a terrible user experience. Just look at the friction of finding which streaming service has a particular movie or TV show.
I honestly think Apple could make most of these objections and potential problems go away by simply having a tiered percentage that rewards high volume publishers. It could scale down to 10% at which point the business case for an expensive legal challenge mostly disappears.
> First there are a couple of different issues. Deciding what’s on the App Store is one issue but payment processing is a potential separate issue.
This is all the same issue -- whether there should be other stores. If there are other stores then the other stores could filter apps differently and use other payment methods.
> Second 30% May have made sense once when this was a small business. It’s not anymore. Apple is inviting these lawsuits by simply not throwing big publishers a home with reduced rates.
> Third, the whole tax on digital purchases is completely arbitrary. There was a time when Apple was working out what to do with Amazon and that’s when this role came about. Not being able to purchase kindle books just highlights the artificial and arbitrary nature of all this.
Other stores could also charge lower fees and not charge any fee for digital purchases, and provide competitive pressure for Apple to do so. This is probably the largest reason they don't want to.
> Fourth, at the risk of offending HN folks who self-servingly believe everyone wants or needs side-loading apps, most people benefit from the filtering of apps. Side-loading and unrestricted third party payments would simply be another attack vector.
Nothing about third party stores prevents filtering. It only provides a choice of who does the filtering separate from your choice of hardware and operating system.
But naturally if anyone can operate a store then you can operate your own and do your own filtering. Maybe most people don't want to do that; that's fine. They don't have to. Anyone could still choose to leave it to Apple or Debian.
> Lastly, a bunch of different app stores is a terrible user experience. Just look at the friction of finding which streaming service has a particular movie or TV show.
The problem there was never finding which service has it. There are several interfaces that allow you to search through all of them. The problem there is that you have to pay for each subscription and nobody wants to pay a monthly fee to a thousand separate subscription services.
But there is no monthly fee for an app store app. It's not a subscription service.
This is all the same issue -- whether there should be other stores. If there are other stores then the other stores could filter apps differently and use other payment methods.
> Second 30% May have made sense once when this was a small business. It’s not anymore. Apple is inviting these lawsuits by simply not throwing big publishers a home with reduced rates.
> Third, the whole tax on digital purchases is completely arbitrary. There was a time when Apple was working out what to do with Amazon and that’s when this role came about. Not being able to purchase kindle books just highlights the artificial and arbitrary nature of all this.
Other stores could also charge lower fees and not charge any fee for digital purchases, and provide competitive pressure for Apple to do so. This is probably the largest reason they don't want to.
> Fourth, at the risk of offending HN folks who self-servingly believe everyone wants or needs side-loading apps, most people benefit from the filtering of apps. Side-loading and unrestricted third party payments would simply be another attack vector.
Nothing about third party stores prevents filtering. It only provides a choice of who does the filtering separate from your choice of hardware and operating system.
But naturally if anyone can operate a store then you can operate your own and do your own filtering. Maybe most people don't want to do that; that's fine. They don't have to. Anyone could still choose to leave it to Apple or Debian.
> Lastly, a bunch of different app stores is a terrible user experience. Just look at the friction of finding which streaming service has a particular movie or TV show.
The problem there was never finding which service has it. There are several interfaces that allow you to search through all of them. The problem there is that you have to pay for each subscription and nobody wants to pay a monthly fee to a thousand separate subscription services.
But there is no monthly fee for an app store app. It's not a subscription service.
> There are several interfaces that allow you to search through all of them.
So I have to download an app to search through store fronts, which I have to download, to download my app?
So I have to download an app to search through store fronts, which I have to download, to download my app?
And the same is true for traditional stores like groceries.
You can use a web browser to search (for exclusives and lower prices) through groceries web sites, which you have to go to or order from, to buy your desired groceries.
Competition is good.
You can use a web browser to search (for exclusives and lower prices) through groceries web sites, which you have to go to or order from, to buy your desired groceries.
Competition is good.
Yes the same process done on any PC.
So many layers of indirection does not seem like a good user experience.
Not being able to subscribe to netflix from an Iphone sounds like a less convenient user experience.
The obvious answer that satifies everyone would be to a) allow alternate payment processors if the developers choose to forgoe the 30% or b) give the big companies than can roll these processors a lower cut to incenivize them to make one.
But if the answer was that obvious, this case would not have started.
The obvious answer that satifies everyone would be to a) allow alternate payment processors if the developers choose to forgoe the 30% or b) give the big companies than can roll these processors a lower cut to incenivize them to make one.
But if the answer was that obvious, this case would not have started.
It’s not just about Apple here. Credit card companies don’t let Apple pass along those fees to customers.
An app that costs 100$ and sells 1,000 copies has much lower transaction fees than an app that costs 1$ and sells 100,000 copies.
An app that costs 100$ and sells 1,000 copies has much lower transaction fees than an app that costs 1$ and sells 100,000 copies.
It’s not that much of a difference. Apple bundles app purchases over days/weeks into a single charge to save fees.
That only helps when people are making frequent purchases, most people aren’t buying apps/coins multiple times a week or even month.
Maybe not, but many people may have iCloud, Apple Music, etc. subscriptions and bundling those together with the occasional app or iTunes Store purchase saves a good amount of money on processing fees.
Do you have evidence for this? I have never seen them bundled and I don’t think they are allowed to bundle purchases and subscriptions.
> Fourth, at the risk of offending HN folks who self-servingly believe everyone wants or needs side-loading apps, most people benefit from the filtering of apps. Side-loading and unrestricted third party payments would simply be another attack vector.
Yes, but those people can still stick with the App Store. That's not a good reason to take that freedom away from others.
Yes, but those people can still stick with the App Store. That's not a good reason to take that freedom away from others.
I can see the argument here that if there are other app stores, some apps that these users would want would then be exclusive to these app stores, much like Epic does on PC, so they may be forced into using them anyway.
Compared to the current option where I have an emulator app on Android (or whichever other app you can think of) which isn't on IOS at all, only because Apple chooses to not allow most apps.
Maybe others think differently, but the friction to purchase a new phone and adapt to a new ecosystem is more onerous than downloading yet another app.
Maybe others think differently, but the friction to purchase a new phone and adapt to a new ecosystem is more onerous than downloading yet another app.
If Apple provided a blessed way to install Cydia[1] without jailbreaking, I would be a customer again in no time.
[1]: https://cydia.saurik.com/
[1]: https://cydia.saurik.com/
That would never happen for as long as you can add custom repos which might contain piracy, and I don't think Saurik would be thrilled to outright prevent the addition of certain apt repos (there's already a piracy notice).
To me, the simplest route is to allow sideloading with big nasty disclaimers.
That neuters almost all App Store related complaints-- about fees, about curation mistakes, about impermissible content types, about the cost of admission for a hobbyist publishing a free app. "Just tell users to side load" is enough to make the affected developers whole.
They must be dead terrified of sideloading that it doesn't even seem to be in the discussion. I'm curious whether it's actually a fear that major revenue streams will bypass the 30% cut (doesn't seem to be too much of a problem for Google Play), or if they're afraid of losing control over their curated ecosystem and it ending up looking more like the MacOS level of flexibility?
That neuters almost all App Store related complaints-- about fees, about curation mistakes, about impermissible content types, about the cost of admission for a hobbyist publishing a free app. "Just tell users to side load" is enough to make the affected developers whole.
They must be dead terrified of sideloading that it doesn't even seem to be in the discussion. I'm curious whether it's actually a fear that major revenue streams will bypass the 30% cut (doesn't seem to be too much of a problem for Google Play), or if they're afraid of losing control over their curated ecosystem and it ending up looking more like the MacOS level of flexibility?
Except Epic was not happy with this which is why they also challenged Google and were kick from the Play Store at the start of all this.
[EDIT]
Actually in the court filings they stated they was OS level access to the device with no warning or approval process from Apple.
They challenged Google for a multitude of reasons, one of which being that Google stepped in and forced manufacturers to cancel deals that epic had made to get the EGS launcher pre-installed on phones.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-ga...
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368395/fortnite-epic-ga...
> But it’s not clear to me what the alternative is and maybe that’s why they will last.
We already know what the alternative is, in fact that was what we had for a long time: App Store + freedom to install/execute third party apps. Just like how all three desktop OSes always did, just like how Apple's own MacOS does it, and it's doing just fine.
Nobody cares about what Microsoft Store does or how Steam curates, because there are options. If Apple would unlock these pocket computers that we still call "phones" out of habit, this category of issues would largely go away.
> Lastly, a bunch of different app stores is a terrible user experience. Just look at the friction of finding which streaming service has a particular movie or TV show.
I can't follow this argument. Would you rather have SamsungTV to come pre-installed and be the only option for your TV? or LG to carefully curate what you can and can't watch on your own TV, and take a major cut of sales so your subscription is now %30 more expensive?
As a consumer I'm happy with competition and options.
We already know what the alternative is, in fact that was what we had for a long time: App Store + freedom to install/execute third party apps. Just like how all three desktop OSes always did, just like how Apple's own MacOS does it, and it's doing just fine.
Nobody cares about what Microsoft Store does or how Steam curates, because there are options. If Apple would unlock these pocket computers that we still call "phones" out of habit, this category of issues would largely go away.
> Lastly, a bunch of different app stores is a terrible user experience. Just look at the friction of finding which streaming service has a particular movie or TV show.
I can't follow this argument. Would you rather have SamsungTV to come pre-installed and be the only option for your TV? or LG to carefully curate what you can and can't watch on your own TV, and take a major cut of sales so your subscription is now %30 more expensive?
As a consumer I'm happy with competition and options.
> If Apple would unlock these pocket computers that we still call "phones" out of habit, this category of issues would largely go away.
I think the fact that Microsoft didn't do this with Windows and therefore allowed the entire computer revolution to go forward is lost on many people.
There are so many ideas that are killed in their crib because 30% is too much to give away when you're a startup.
On Android I basically stopped using many official play store apps and instead went open source. Ungoogled chromium for example allows desktop extensions and I'm currently typing this comment with ublock origin on mobile working perfectly just like on desktop.
I don't understand how a self proclaimed techie can cede control to that level and not be able to install programs without big brother Apple's blessing.
I think the fact that Microsoft didn't do this with Windows and therefore allowed the entire computer revolution to go forward is lost on many people.
There are so many ideas that are killed in their crib because 30% is too much to give away when you're a startup.
On Android I basically stopped using many official play store apps and instead went open source. Ungoogled chromium for example allows desktop extensions and I'm currently typing this comment with ublock origin on mobile working perfectly just like on desktop.
I don't understand how a self proclaimed techie can cede control to that level and not be able to install programs without big brother Apple's blessing.
I was lurking for years here and i just registered to ask you where do i find the ungoogled chrome that allows extensions on android? The official ungoogled version does not support extensions. Do you mean Kiwi?
https://git.droidware.info/wchen342/ungoogled-chromium-andro...
You'll need to manually install an extension to allow installing from the official chrome extension website.
You'll need to manually install an extension to allow installing from the official chrome extension website.
>We already know what the alternative is, in fact that was what we had for a long time: App Store + freedom to install/execute third party apps. Just like how all three desktop OSes always did, just like how Apple's own MacOS does it, and it's doing just fine.
Also today on HN: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/apple-brass-discusse...
>XcodeGhost billed itself as faster to download in China, compared with Xcode available from Apple. For developers to have run the counterfeit version, they would have had to click through a warning delivered by Gatekeeper, the macOS security feature that requires apps to be digitally signed by a known developer.
Developers (should be) in the top half of user sophistication and they download a counterfeit version of XCode and ignore warnings about an unsigned app and install it anyway causing a breach affecting 128 million iOS users. Imagine what Aunt Ethel will be able to accomplish with CuteKittyAppStore.kp
Also today on HN: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/apple-brass-discusse...
>XcodeGhost billed itself as faster to download in China, compared with Xcode available from Apple. For developers to have run the counterfeit version, they would have had to click through a warning delivered by Gatekeeper, the macOS security feature that requires apps to be digitally signed by a known developer.
Developers (should be) in the top half of user sophistication and they download a counterfeit version of XCode and ignore warnings about an unsigned app and install it anyway causing a breach affecting 128 million iOS users. Imagine what Aunt Ethel will be able to accomplish with CuteKittyAppStore.kp
Both developers and Aunt Ethel's of the world have been able to install anything they wanted on all three PC platforms since their inception, yet the world keeps spinning.
Locking people out of choices to protect some supposed interest is paternalistic, especially considering Apple already has a horse in the race (its fat %30 cut) and has almost no incentive to consider what is right for the consumer. If you don't want the government have a say on content you consume (like, Apple and porn/erotica), decisions you make and products you buy, why would you let Apple do those things?
Either way, simple act of allowing users to unlock their devices does not immediately mean Aunt Ethel would care to do that. In another topic here it was recently discussed that a large potion of users likely don't even open Settings app, and even the most enthusiastic aunts will likely be happy with a few trustworthy stores like, say Steam and Kindle, and that'd be all.
btw,
> ignore warnings about an unsigned app and install it anyway
that sounds like a policy/enforcement failure to me.
Locking people out of choices to protect some supposed interest is paternalistic, especially considering Apple already has a horse in the race (its fat %30 cut) and has almost no incentive to consider what is right for the consumer. If you don't want the government have a say on content you consume (like, Apple and porn/erotica), decisions you make and products you buy, why would you let Apple do those things?
Either way, simple act of allowing users to unlock their devices does not immediately mean Aunt Ethel would care to do that. In another topic here it was recently discussed that a large potion of users likely don't even open Settings app, and even the most enthusiastic aunts will likely be happy with a few trustworthy stores like, say Steam and Kindle, and that'd be all.
btw,
> ignore warnings about an unsigned app and install it anyway
that sounds like a policy/enforcement failure to me.
Notice how the supposedly "quality controlled" App Store walled garden totally and utterly failed to protect its users from XcodeGhost infected apps.
You claim that OSX App Store is doing just fine, but where are you getting your numbers?
I claim OS X/Mac (from a consumer's perspective) is doing just fine, or at least it's not doing any worse because it allows apps outside of App Store.
//filtering of apps//
IMO one of the biggest stories about tech in 2021 is how easy it was to uncover multimillion dollar scams on the Apple App Store:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-store-s...
IMO one of the biggest stories about tech in 2021 is how easy it was to uncover multimillion dollar scams on the Apple App Store:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/21/22385859/apple-app-store-...
https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/8/22272849/apple-app-store-s...
This is like saying “we shouldn’t have a police and justice system because despite all the money we spend on it my bike was still nicked.”
There are reportedly ~4.4 million apps on the Apple App Store[0]; if 0.01% of those are scams, that’s still ~440. How many do you expect to find? And how many false reports do you expect Apple to receive from scammers, trying to take down the legitimate apps they compete with?
Yes, there does seem to be something wrong with the rating system they use, based on what is said in that article. Yes, Apple should take down an entire developer account for scanning not just an app.
The counterpoint is, successfully taking them down requires more than just that, because just that is an arms race between the scanners and those hunting the scammers.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in...
There are reportedly ~4.4 million apps on the Apple App Store[0]; if 0.01% of those are scams, that’s still ~440. How many do you expect to find? And how many false reports do you expect Apple to receive from scammers, trying to take down the legitimate apps they compete with?
Yes, there does seem to be something wrong with the rating system they use, based on what is said in that article. Yes, Apple should take down an entire developer account for scanning not just an app.
The counterpoint is, successfully taking them down requires more than just that, because just that is an arms race between the scanners and those hunting the scammers.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/268251/number-of-apps-in...
> rewards high volume publishers
Am I the only one that finds this backwards? I've always though it should be a "progressive tax" (for lack of a better term)...
game companies that make under, say, $1mil a year shouldn't pay 30% and watch larger companies making 100m+ a year pay 10% (or whatever sweetheart deal).
My other problem is FORCING the use of payment systems... if Apple provides a system? fine... but not letting companies use alternatives is assinine and my large honest complaint. No reason Netflix, Epic or other companies should be forced to pay Apple when they can host their own infrastructure. (same for google/steam/etc)
Am I the only one that finds this backwards? I've always though it should be a "progressive tax" (for lack of a better term)...
game companies that make under, say, $1mil a year shouldn't pay 30% and watch larger companies making 100m+ a year pay 10% (or whatever sweetheart deal).
My other problem is FORCING the use of payment systems... if Apple provides a system? fine... but not letting companies use alternatives is assinine and my large honest complaint. No reason Netflix, Epic or other companies should be forced to pay Apple when they can host their own infrastructure. (same for google/steam/etc)
One reason (one I find valid) is user experience. Digital Purchases made on iOS are extremely easy to deal with since they are all dealt through Apple. Especially the way subscriptions are done. It’s consistent and I always know where to go for refunds in the event that’s needed. I would also prefer not giving every company payment information if I can help it.
That's fine and dandy... but I've never had an issue with payment processors in Netflix or other subscription services I use. It's nice having it one place but why should Netflix pay 30% to someone who signs up on Apple and then switches to Android? or never uses Netflix on the iPhone other than to signup for the service?
I'm picking on Netflix but the point stands - many companies are able to stand up payment processes. It's not a hard problem and it's not uncommon for companies to have them.
"because apple" isn't a reason to tax a company 30% for things like Netflix that are only tangentally iPhone or when a company can provide a standard level of payment processing.
Apples payment processing isnt THAT good. Definitely not 30% good.
I'm picking on Netflix but the point stands - many companies are able to stand up payment processes. It's not a hard problem and it's not uncommon for companies to have them.
"because apple" isn't a reason to tax a company 30% for things like Netflix that are only tangentally iPhone or when a company can provide a standard level of payment processing.
Apples payment processing isnt THAT good. Definitely not 30% good.
And it is perfectly fine to require any app available on the Apple App Store to offer Apple Payments as the default option. Anyone who wants to stick to Apple payments should be able to do so.
It is not ok to block any other option or even mentions of external options when you are also the gatekeeper of the only marketplace.
The monopoly Apple has in this case is on distribution of software to iOS devices. They are leveraging this monopoly power to maintain a monopoly on payments.
Antitrust laws say this leveraging should not be allowed.
It is not ok to block any other option or even mentions of external options when you are also the gatekeeper of the only marketplace.
The monopoly Apple has in this case is on distribution of software to iOS devices. They are leveraging this monopoly power to maintain a monopoly on payments.
Antitrust laws say this leveraging should not be allowed.
Apple's App store does little to filter malware as they don't instrument they Apps.
Even large companies abuse this, quit spreading misinformation.
Even large companies abuse this, quit spreading misinformation.
There is no app store monopoly on Android. All Apple needs to do is flip a switch and bingo you can use F droid.
If Apple Store is so fucking good people will use it.
If Apple Store is so fucking good people will use it.
You can download an app from the App Store called a "browser". This browser lets you access anything on the world wide web. There's explicit content on the web. Therefore you must remove browsers from the App Store.
There's explicit content in reddit which is allowed in App Store. Also there's parental controls in iOS, Safari respects that setting while other browsers do not, so other browsers are 18+ in AppStore.
AFAIK explicit content is allowed in AppStore as long as you're clearly separate it from non-explicit with a setting.
AFAIK explicit content is allowed in AppStore as long as you're clearly separate it from non-explicit with a setting.
> AFAIK explicit content is allowed in AppStore as long as you're clearly separate it from non-explicit with a setting.
Example: Telegram blocks channels known for containing porn. You can disable the block, but only through a setting in Telegram Web (and no mention of that is allowed inside the app).
I think that’s stupid, inconsistent, benefits nobody and only makes for a bad UX, but I guess the argument, as always, is “think of the children”.
Example: Telegram blocks channels known for containing porn. You can disable the block, but only through a setting in Telegram Web (and no mention of that is allowed inside the app).
I think that’s stupid, inconsistent, benefits nobody and only makes for a bad UX, but I guess the argument, as always, is “think of the children”.
Apple actually has been on a big crusade against any semblance of sexual content on the Store since early 2021, actually - Discord is now forced to hide all servers with NSFW content on iOS and a few art apps(e.g. Procreate) have removed art with sexual content from their sharing platform in recent updates.
I assume this is related to the case. Discord is sort of like a browser for people under 20 now.
I assume this is related to the case. Discord is sort of like a browser for people under 20 now.
[deleted]
Discord already gave up on that, and it was probably part of their discussions with Microsoft about a merger, not an app store thing.
Tumblr's porn ban was popularly thought to be an app store thing, but it was more likely about sex trafficking laws.
Tumblr's porn ban was popularly thought to be an app store thing, but it was more likely about sex trafficking laws.
This is still a thing.
https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500005389362-...
> Additionally, a subset of NSFW servers that are specifically focused on explicit pornographic content will be blocked entirely on iOS. iOS users aged 18+ will only be able to join and access these dedicated pornography servers on the desktop and web versions of Discord.
I don't think anything like this would be part a MS merger which is apparently now off the table.
https://support.discord.com/hc/en-us/articles/1500005389362-...
> Additionally, a subset of NSFW servers that are specifically focused on explicit pornographic content will be blocked entirely on iOS. iOS users aged 18+ will only be able to join and access these dedicated pornography servers on the desktop and web versions of Discord.
I don't think anything like this would be part a MS merger which is apparently now off the table.
The one everyone remembers is that Discord was going to ban all NSFW channels on any server. This is no longer happening.
The version I remember is that Discord was going to opt out everyone from NSFW channels, and require ID to prove am accounts age before opting in. This may or may not still be happening, but is much more extreme than the current rules.
"a thing" is still happening, but it's vastly reduced from the original version.
There are no browsers on the app store though... Apple doesn't allow it already. Eg: Firefox on iOS is actually just a skin on top of safari. Agree that in general the stance is ridiculous though.
That really isn't true unless you greatly shrink the definition of browser.
For 99.99% of people the browser is not the renderer, it is the skin and all that comes with it (synced history, bookmarks, adblocking etc etc).
For 99.99% of people the browser is not the renderer, it is the skin and all that comes with it (synced history, bookmarks, adblocking etc etc).
Yea, that'd also be like saying Edge and Brave aren't browsers either. They're just skins on top of Chrome. The browser is way more than its rendering engine.
Both Edge and Brave make deeper changes than are allowed on iOS, such as making their own decisions about which APIs to expose. Yes, they are mostly Chromium, but they are in a technical position to change anything they want in a way Apple prohibits.
(Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
(Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
Chrome and Safari; Chrome and Edge all use or used the same rendering engine (on one platform or another) for years, but you would never say you’re using one or the other when you don’t.
Similarly if my Chevy has the exact same engine as a model of Dodge I would never say I’m driving a Dodge.
Similarly if my Chevy has the exact same engine as a model of Dodge I would never say I’m driving a Dodge.
But would you still call it a car?
I don't see how this means that Firefox without Gecko isn't a browser. I can see how you might take issue with calling it Firefox, but it's clearly a browser that's in the app store.
I don't see how this means that Firefox without Gecko isn't a browser. I can see how you might take issue with calling it Firefox, but it's clearly a browser that's in the app store.
Thesus's ship has left the building.
I could see both sides, but ultimately I use Firefox as an attempt to try and keep chromium's monopoly as a web renderer at bay, even if for seconds longer. Firefox on IOS being forced to basically be built on top of a chromium engine defeats that purpose.
It's for similar reasons that I don't recognize "Visual Studio for Mac" as VS, but a rebranded Xamarin. It lacks several core features of VS that devs hearing the name would expect (let alone hundreds of more specialized features).
I could see both sides, but ultimately I use Firefox as an attempt to try and keep chromium's monopoly as a web renderer at bay, even if for seconds longer. Firefox on IOS being forced to basically be built on top of a chromium engine defeats that purpose.
It's for similar reasons that I don't recognize "Visual Studio for Mac" as VS, but a rebranded Xamarin. It lacks several core features of VS that devs hearing the name would expect (let alone hundreds of more specialized features).
The browser is the whole thing. All of it. If you can't replace the rendering engine then you can't replace the browser. Not only because you can't replace the rendering engine but because many of the other things depend on the ability to add features to the rendering engine.
If you put a Dodge engine in a Chevy, you don't call it a Dodge, you call it a Frankenstein's monster which isn't either one and both Dodge and Chevy fans (but especially Chevy fans) will think less of you for it.
If you put a Dodge engine in a Chevy, you don't call it a Dodge, you call it a Frankenstein's monster which isn't either one and both Dodge and Chevy fans (but especially Chevy fans) will think less of you for it.
You don't call it a Dodge or a Chevy, but you still call it a car.
If anything this seems to me like an argument why Firefox with a Safari rendering engine is indeed a browser on the app store.
If anything this seems to me like an argument why Firefox with a Safari rendering engine is indeed a browser on the app store.
A Tesla with a Honda engine in it is a car, but it's missing the thing that causes people to want a Tesla.
I don't see your point. The topic in question is browsers in the App Store. The suggestion was made that these aren't real "browsers" because they use the Safari rendering engine.
If a Telsa with a Honda engine is a car, why isn't Firefox with WebKit (which is what Safari uses) as it's rendering engine a browser?
You could argue it's not "real" Firefox, and I might see where your coming from, but my comment was specifically addressing the claim it's not a browser.
If a Telsa with a Honda engine is a car, why isn't Firefox with WebKit (which is what Safari uses) as it's rendering engine a browser?
You could argue it's not "real" Firefox, and I might see where your coming from, but my comment was specifically addressing the claim it's not a browser.
Pretty sure "there are no browsers in the app store" was not meant to be taken literally, it's a snarky way of implying that the options are incomplete in some way (because they're "just" skins on top of the Safari rendering engines.) You're reading this overly literally, which is why people are reacting to your comments with confusion.
That's for reasons of disallowing VMs or any kind of program interpreter, officially.
In reality it suppresses web apps from gaining capabilities of native apps, like notifications.
In reality it suppresses web apps from gaining capabilities of native apps, like notifications.
There in fact is at least one VM in the App Store.
https://ish.app/
It emulates x86. The only thing I have tried with it is downloading the x86 version of the aws cli.
https://ish.app/
It emulates x86. The only thing I have tried with it is downloading the x86 version of the aws cli.
iSH is more an emulator than an actual VM.
What’s the difference between an emulator and a VM? You run applications for other platforms on both.
You can actually run GUI apps on it.
You can actually run GUI apps on it.
VMs generally use hardware virtualization features; iSH is just an interpreter.
There is no requirement for a VM to use hardware virtualization features. It’s more efficient. But not a requirement.
Usually VMs for real hardware (as opposed to VMs for runtimes, such as “Java VM” or “JavaScript VM”) are defined by the Popek and Goldberg virtualization requirements, which require efficient hardware virtualization.
Are you saying that Apple preloads their phones with (gasp) porn?
Heh. Time for a fun anecdote. I once bought a Motorola phone (new, but from eBay) that came loaded with whatever bloatware the carrier loaded on. One of those was a shortcut to “offers”, which I assume would be advertisements for new phones or services or whatever. I say “assume”, because apparently its domain had expired, and upon opening it loaded a webview with explicit porn (the spammy “real singles” kind).
In that case, the phone did in fact come preloaded with porn.
In that case, the phone did in fact come preloaded with porn.
and the Apple browsers are laughably restricted and the weakest browsers available.
If companies like Google weren't forced to be tied to garbage like Safari, you might have a point...
I know I saw a story recently that talked about how all "alternative" browsers on the iPhone are tied to webkit and how webkit doesn't support basic internet parts and lags in support for stuff like bluetooth, game controllers, etc.
Why remove the browser when Apple purposely hamstrings it to block the benefits you tout?
If companies like Google weren't forced to be tied to garbage like Safari, you might have a point...
I know I saw a story recently that talked about how all "alternative" browsers on the iPhone are tied to webkit and how webkit doesn't support basic internet parts and lags in support for stuff like bluetooth, game controllers, etc.
Why remove the browser when Apple purposely hamstrings it to block the benefits you tout?
All those things enable fingerprinting, so they can't be added without losing privacy. If Chrome's renderer wasn't banned from the store we'd be back in an IE6 world where it's the only browser there is - it's already defeated Edge and Opera.
Being able to use a controller enables fingerprinting? Producing a laughably restricted browser experience is protection?
"fingerprinting" is one interesting counterpoint to the fact that the browser was highlighted as an alternative to the app store. but that browser is still laughably restricted.
And "because chrome" doesn't change the fact that restricting competition doesn't remove the restrictions put into place largely to force people into an overpriced app store.
lack of competition is a big thing... blocking people from better browsers and not fixing the bad browser in iOS isn't an acceptable answer when the tax for doing so is 30% and a subpar environment.
"fingerprinting" is one interesting counterpoint to the fact that the browser was highlighted as an alternative to the app store. but that browser is still laughably restricted.
And "because chrome" doesn't change the fact that restricting competition doesn't remove the restrictions put into place largely to force people into an overpriced app store.
lack of competition is a big thing... blocking people from better browsers and not fixing the bad browser in iOS isn't an acceptable answer when the tax for doing so is 30% and a subpar environment.
> If Chrome's renderer wasn't banned from the store we'd be back in an IE6 world where it's the only browser there is - it's already defeated Edge and Opera
The difference being that Chrome is based on an open source project, Chromium, which can and is actively forked ( Edge and Brave to name two popular ones). And all the APIs it adds are wither standards, betas for standards hidden behind flags, or proposals for standards hidden behind flags.
So nothing like IE6?
The difference being that Chrome is based on an open source project, Chromium, which can and is actively forked ( Edge and Brave to name two popular ones). And all the APIs it adds are wither standards, betas for standards hidden behind flags, or proposals for standards hidden behind flags.
So nothing like IE6?
Just means Google controls the standard body as well as the only browser, so they'll be the only people who get to make up ideas, and will therefore make up tons of silly (and user-identifying) ideas to make it harder to enter the market.
And that still doesn't change the fact that Apple controls their ecosystem and has in place a substandard browser with restrictions built to keep people locked into its appstore.
Nothing in your 'Google Bad' diatribe challenges the fact that Safari is substandard, limited and - to your diatribe - safari in no way shape or form "makes ideas" and brings new things to the table... or "makes it easier to enter the market" (opposites of your complaint that google makes it harder).
Google is "Evil"? Okay? What does that have to do with a substandard experience and browser/app-store lock-in from Apple? It's not like Apple is "good" to counter apples "evil"...
To your IE6 point... Safari is the IE6 of Apple - stagnant, tied to the OS and blocks innovation because of company decisions. Its even worse because alternatives aren't allowed on iOS.
Nothing in your 'Google Bad' diatribe challenges the fact that Safari is substandard, limited and - to your diatribe - safari in no way shape or form "makes ideas" and brings new things to the table... or "makes it easier to enter the market" (opposites of your complaint that google makes it harder).
Google is "Evil"? Okay? What does that have to do with a substandard experience and browser/app-store lock-in from Apple? It's not like Apple is "good" to counter apples "evil"...
To your IE6 point... Safari is the IE6 of Apple - stagnant, tied to the OS and blocks innovation because of company decisions. Its even worse because alternatives aren't allowed on iOS.
Please don’t give them any ideas.
I’m not familiar with itch.io; is it actually relevant whether or not itch.io lists adult content, even if itch.io is listed on the Epic store? Apple blocks adult content (as much to my frustration as to one of the top comments on the kotaku article), but I can go into the iOS App Store, download the Amazon app, and see their dildo and porn collections, so it feels like a hypocritical argument on Apple’s part. (I don’t even have to be signed into the Amazon app).
Apple has never really enforced App Store rules consistently.
Consistent enforcement requires perfect moderation.
not perfect, just reasonable moderation. Much like any other digital service.
How does that help Apple's case? Isn't the fact that some competing store can't offer porn apps on iOS proof in Epic's favor that Apple should allow 3rd party stores?
There are plenty of VR 3D Porn games (not video). They could potentially run on iOS but since there is no way to install them and no alternative store they aren't allowed.
Note: Apple themselves argued code = speech in their FBI trial. Given that, disallowing certain apps is disallowing certain speech. Apple might not sell porn videos, or porn books (though they probably actually do), or porn music (though the probably actually do) but, all of those things can be installed on your iOS device in other ways. But, porn apps can not and there are plenty of types of porn apps that can't be done via web apps, and certainly not via iOS Safari with it's lack of APIs.
If Apple blocked users from watching/reading/listening to porn on their iOS device people would be likely find it unacceptable. The same should be true for porn apps by Apple's own logic.
There are plenty of VR 3D Porn games (not video). They could potentially run on iOS but since there is no way to install them and no alternative store they aren't allowed.
Note: Apple themselves argued code = speech in their FBI trial. Given that, disallowing certain apps is disallowing certain speech. Apple might not sell porn videos, or porn books (though they probably actually do), or porn music (though the probably actually do) but, all of those things can be installed on your iOS device in other ways. But, porn apps can not and there are plenty of types of porn apps that can't be done via web apps, and certainly not via iOS Safari with it's lack of APIs.
If Apple blocked users from watching/reading/listening to porn on their iOS device people would be likely find it unacceptable. The same should be true for porn apps by Apple's own logic.
IIRC (and IANAL), the USA’s free speech thing is about preventing the government from limiting it (except they do limit it anyway), and never prevented private companies from limiting it on their own turf.
I do feel that super-massive companies need similar restrictions on what they can do as governments, and for similar reasons, but that’s for the future not for the present.
I do feel that super-massive companies need similar restrictions on what they can do as governments, and for similar reasons, but that’s for the future not for the present.
While all of that is true, the bigger question in this argument is whether or not Apple can justify the premise of restricting speech on its platform as arbitrarily/selectively as it does without being taking to task for interfering in the operation of the product they sold.
For example, was Apple in the right to threaten Telegram with expulsion from the App Store for user-generated chatrooms protesting the election in Belarus when such events are the function of chatroom services?
Would Apple have done the same with iMessage, Discord, Facebook Messenger, IRC clients, etc for similar discussions Apple deemed inappropriate the previous example?
We can all agree Apple has a 1st amendement right to freedom of association. But how far does it justify hypocrisy, unwritten rules, retroactive changes to their EULA, and interference in commerce at point of sale or after the fact? At some point a contract must be a contract and not a list of suggestions or commands subject to whimsical application. Not on Apple's or Epic's.
On another note, I'm surprised Apple hasn't interfered with Tinder or dating apps as a whole considering that user-generated content on those is almost certainly pornographic.
For example, was Apple in the right to threaten Telegram with expulsion from the App Store for user-generated chatrooms protesting the election in Belarus when such events are the function of chatroom services?
Would Apple have done the same with iMessage, Discord, Facebook Messenger, IRC clients, etc for similar discussions Apple deemed inappropriate the previous example?
We can all agree Apple has a 1st amendement right to freedom of association. But how far does it justify hypocrisy, unwritten rules, retroactive changes to their EULA, and interference in commerce at point of sale or after the fact? At some point a contract must be a contract and not a list of suggestions or commands subject to whimsical application. Not on Apple's or Epic's.
On another note, I'm surprised Apple hasn't interfered with Tinder or dating apps as a whole considering that user-generated content on those is almost certainly pornographic.
By the definition you're using here, any messaging app has user generated pornographic content. People sext on every service. Policing private messages isn't expected though.
They have and that's my point. Any medium of communication can and has been used for pornographic distribution. Mail, Lithograph, Magazines, Comic Books, Movies, Telephone, SMS, the Internet, BBS, Usenet, etc and I'm sure there'll be more by the time Apple is gone. If wants to dictate what people can watch or receive in addition to what they say, at any point in time they can boot off UPS and Netflix. And it's telling that they haven't.
Apple's decision points have no consistency if such consistency is predicated on Mr.Cook's claim that all developers are treated equally (however he happens to define it). Why Telegram and not Tinder or iMessage as a medium of distrribution? With respect to your point about private messages, do those private messages become public when more than two people are involved? Would that mean that conferencing apps like Skype, Zoom, Teams, or Slack fall under the aegis of Apple's benevolent dictatorship so long as they wish to keep a cubby in App Store? Or is there something more going on. (My money is on the latter but who knows?)
To cut to the chase, Apple's positions are similar to a tyrannical parent justifying it's trigger-happy hot-and-cold approach in a roundabout pseudological fashion that ,once untangled, spells out "ipse dixit". The company affirms the conclusions of its arguments by merely citing their name, whereas similar actions from Microsoft or Amazon would warrant shaming or at least suspicion even where the latter two would a plausible justification. While I don't recommend anti-trust provisions (as that doesn't solve the underlying problem with how Apple or an Apple rump company engages in business) an investigation by the FTC into Apple's actual business conduct cross-examined with Apple's/Cook's lofty if shallow claims is more than appropriate to assess whether Apple has perpetrated a fraud against developers and consumers.
Apple's decision points have no consistency if such consistency is predicated on Mr.Cook's claim that all developers are treated equally (however he happens to define it). Why Telegram and not Tinder or iMessage as a medium of distrribution? With respect to your point about private messages, do those private messages become public when more than two people are involved? Would that mean that conferencing apps like Skype, Zoom, Teams, or Slack fall under the aegis of Apple's benevolent dictatorship so long as they wish to keep a cubby in App Store? Or is there something more going on. (My money is on the latter but who knows?)
To cut to the chase, Apple's positions are similar to a tyrannical parent justifying it's trigger-happy hot-and-cold approach in a roundabout pseudological fashion that ,once untangled, spells out "ipse dixit". The company affirms the conclusions of its arguments by merely citing their name, whereas similar actions from Microsoft or Amazon would warrant shaming or at least suspicion even where the latter two would a plausible justification. While I don't recommend anti-trust provisions (as that doesn't solve the underlying problem with how Apple or an Apple rump company engages in business) an investigation by the FTC into Apple's actual business conduct cross-examined with Apple's/Cook's lofty if shallow claims is more than appropriate to assess whether Apple has perpetrated a fraud against developers and consumers.
Wait till they ban GPT-3 because it can be prompted to write porn.
... unless you Think of The Children™ and conclude that the potential to transmit child porn is a sufficient reason to criminalize e2ee...
That’s a common misconception. The supreme court has ruled that free speech applies to places that act as a public square. That’s why, in some areas, malls aren’t allowed to kick out protestors, because they mall is considered a public square in the community. Currently they don’t consider any online platform a public square, but nothing prevents them from changing their mind on that issue
While I'm not fond of Apple's schizophrenic application of its own contracts, your statements miss some considerations in those Supreme cases
1.physical presence
2.access to private infrastructure for the common person
In both cases, protesting from a company-town owned (and therefore private) sidewalk or within a mall (only in California) is allowed due to the fact a person had to be there to enjoy the right to free expression and the access to private infrastructure granted to the average person under normal circumstances must be granted to a common protester. Neither the web nor the App Store would qualify as a public square any more than privately owned networks on cable TV. There is no physical presence (self-explanatory) and access to private infrastructure for the common person is the same for the common protestor (Apple's way or the highway in both cases).
In other words, it doesn't change Apple's position. In fact there would be plenty of Supreme court issues against such a decision. One such argument is that, given code=speech, Apple carrying an application against its will would be compelled speech. As I've previously said, I don't agree with the idea that Apple or the App Store must be subject to anti-trust provisions (e.g public square, common carrier, etc).Apple shouldn't have to bear a fiduciary relationship with developers or consumers. Apple should just follow a consistent contract and not reinterpret it willy nilly.
1.physical presence
2.access to private infrastructure for the common person
In both cases, protesting from a company-town owned (and therefore private) sidewalk or within a mall (only in California) is allowed due to the fact a person had to be there to enjoy the right to free expression and the access to private infrastructure granted to the average person under normal circumstances must be granted to a common protester. Neither the web nor the App Store would qualify as a public square any more than privately owned networks on cable TV. There is no physical presence (self-explanatory) and access to private infrastructure for the common person is the same for the common protestor (Apple's way or the highway in both cases).
In other words, it doesn't change Apple's position. In fact there would be plenty of Supreme court issues against such a decision. One such argument is that, given code=speech, Apple carrying an application against its will would be compelled speech. As I've previously said, I don't agree with the idea that Apple or the App Store must be subject to anti-trust provisions (e.g public square, common carrier, etc).Apple shouldn't have to bear a fiduciary relationship with developers or consumers. Apple should just follow a consistent contract and not reinterpret it willy nilly.
I feel the points mark similar allegories to physical presence. The idea is that you cannot just shoo protestors to protest in a little corner of the town where few see them. Because that impacts the effectiveness of a protest and can effectively squash revolution before it begins.
In this respect, with the conglomeration of the internet into a few dozen big news hubs you can argue that the defense of "don't do this on Twitter, protest on your own blog" is becoming increasingly similar to "don't protest in the mall, do it at your own home". spinning up a competitor to twitter to get the reach needed to effectively protest is about as feasible as buying a lot of land in a public area to protest on (heck, nowadays, change that to any land at all).
The metaphor isn't perfect, but that's because the digital space is a very different area , and I sort of hate the constant comparisons of the internet to physical land in terms of ruling. If we had access to instant, worldwide teleportation technology in the 1700's, I'm sure we'd need entirely new rulesets and ethics to take this into account. That's basically what the digital space is.
In this respect, with the conglomeration of the internet into a few dozen big news hubs you can argue that the defense of "don't do this on Twitter, protest on your own blog" is becoming increasingly similar to "don't protest in the mall, do it at your own home". spinning up a competitor to twitter to get the reach needed to effectively protest is about as feasible as buying a lot of land in a public area to protest on (heck, nowadays, change that to any land at all).
The metaphor isn't perfect, but that's because the digital space is a very different area , and I sort of hate the constant comparisons of the internet to physical land in terms of ruling. If we had access to instant, worldwide teleportation technology in the 1700's, I'm sure we'd need entirely new rulesets and ethics to take this into account. That's basically what the digital space is.
>The idea is that you cannot just shoo protestors to protest in a little corner of the town where few see them. Because that impacts the effectiveness of a protest and can effectively squash revolution before it begins.
That might have been the idea of the California Superior Court. However, the Federal Supreme Court's role in that decision (Pruneyard) was relegated to determining the technical merits of whether the protesters' positive right to free speech guaranteed under the California State Constitution conflicts with the negative right to freedom of speech (that is freedom from government-compelled or government-limited speech)under the Federal Constitution [1]. The finding was that, in the case of shopping malls, California's interpretation is, with in its own borders, acceptable so long as protesters are given no special rights dissimilar to those of the conventional shopper. The protesters would have those rights so long as a) a protester has physical presence and b) a protestors access to infrastructure (i.e. areas to walk around) is the same as that of the common shopper. These requirements don't work for protesting at Costco[2], much less protesting on Twitter or the App Store.
If comparisons between not being able to protest on websites and "don't protest in the mall, do it at your own home" are being made, then these comparisons are superficial at best. A mall is different from a home in use and limitations. That's obvious from their respective designs. However, all websites have the same starting requirements (i.e. buy a domain name, rent/build/collocate, add HTML) and the same opportunities to be designed to the full needs of their owners. That's what one is purchasing when he or she owns a website. The right to a canvas. Not the right to a Twitter and the attention and investment that follows it. And spinning up a financially successful alt-Twitter was never a guaranteed right to begin with, anymore than spinning up an alt-Apple or alt-Microsoft would be. There is no secret money-making lever jealously guarded from the public by the mega-corporations to prevent fledging websites from becoming behemoths in their own right. The Internet is a medium. It doesn't solely or consistently function as a pulpit, product, or a content factory. It has no defined, concrete purpose in the way the Pruneyard Shopping Center did.
>The metaphor isn't perfect, but that's because the digital space is a very different area , and I sort of hate the constant comparisons of the internet to physical land in terms of ruling. If we had access to instant, worldwide teleportation technology in the 1700's, I'm sure we'd need entirely new rulesets and ethics to take this into account. That's basically what the digital space is.
I'm not requiring that the metaphor be perfect. But a metaphor or, more appropriately, an analogy, must be "like for like" even if such an analogy is not 1:1. To go back to protesting in a mall, competition in the digital space isn't banked on "land" or "territory". Facebook and its success isn't predicated on IPV4 address ownership or domain names in the same way that a manorial lord is with respect to his fiefdom. There isn't a neat division between hobby forums or commercial websites as there would be between a house and a mall. Apps are not based on "physical value" (nearly zero) or "physical size" (none). Thus comparisons to land or common areas are irrelevant. While what constitutes a "digital space" is hard to enumerate, it's clear that land or malls are not an appropriate framework with which to make such a comparison.
A better comparison for app stores, or websites in general, would be cable/satellite television. In television's case, value is determined by consumer response to content (as measured by Nielsen ratings and resulting ad dollars), not how many televisions are in every American household, how many satellites Ted Turner owns, or how many homes have cable wiring installed. The infrastructure behind it, past a certain threshold of saturation, is not the point. This is compatible with how competition for attention works on the Internet and is, certain limitations notwithstanding, a more appropriate comparison.
[1]https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/pru...
[2]https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/...
That might have been the idea of the California Superior Court. However, the Federal Supreme Court's role in that decision (Pruneyard) was relegated to determining the technical merits of whether the protesters' positive right to free speech guaranteed under the California State Constitution conflicts with the negative right to freedom of speech (that is freedom from government-compelled or government-limited speech)under the Federal Constitution [1]. The finding was that, in the case of shopping malls, California's interpretation is, with in its own borders, acceptable so long as protesters are given no special rights dissimilar to those of the conventional shopper. The protesters would have those rights so long as a) a protester has physical presence and b) a protestors access to infrastructure (i.e. areas to walk around) is the same as that of the common shopper. These requirements don't work for protesting at Costco[2], much less protesting on Twitter or the App Store.
If comparisons between not being able to protest on websites and "don't protest in the mall, do it at your own home" are being made, then these comparisons are superficial at best. A mall is different from a home in use and limitations. That's obvious from their respective designs. However, all websites have the same starting requirements (i.e. buy a domain name, rent/build/collocate, add HTML) and the same opportunities to be designed to the full needs of their owners. That's what one is purchasing when he or she owns a website. The right to a canvas. Not the right to a Twitter and the attention and investment that follows it. And spinning up a financially successful alt-Twitter was never a guaranteed right to begin with, anymore than spinning up an alt-Apple or alt-Microsoft would be. There is no secret money-making lever jealously guarded from the public by the mega-corporations to prevent fledging websites from becoming behemoths in their own right. The Internet is a medium. It doesn't solely or consistently function as a pulpit, product, or a content factory. It has no defined, concrete purpose in the way the Pruneyard Shopping Center did.
>The metaphor isn't perfect, but that's because the digital space is a very different area , and I sort of hate the constant comparisons of the internet to physical land in terms of ruling. If we had access to instant, worldwide teleportation technology in the 1700's, I'm sure we'd need entirely new rulesets and ethics to take this into account. That's basically what the digital space is.
I'm not requiring that the metaphor be perfect. But a metaphor or, more appropriately, an analogy, must be "like for like" even if such an analogy is not 1:1. To go back to protesting in a mall, competition in the digital space isn't banked on "land" or "territory". Facebook and its success isn't predicated on IPV4 address ownership or domain names in the same way that a manorial lord is with respect to his fiefdom. There isn't a neat division between hobby forums or commercial websites as there would be between a house and a mall. Apps are not based on "physical value" (nearly zero) or "physical size" (none). Thus comparisons to land or common areas are irrelevant. While what constitutes a "digital space" is hard to enumerate, it's clear that land or malls are not an appropriate framework with which to make such a comparison.
A better comparison for app stores, or websites in general, would be cable/satellite television. In television's case, value is determined by consumer response to content (as measured by Nielsen ratings and resulting ad dollars), not how many televisions are in every American household, how many satellites Ted Turner owns, or how many homes have cable wiring installed. The infrastructure behind it, past a certain threshold of saturation, is not the point. This is compatible with how competition for attention works on the Internet and is, certain limitations notwithstanding, a more appropriate comparison.
[1]https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/pru...
[2]https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/...
In the past, the US has absolutely acted laws that require third parties to respect fee speech of other third parties.
> limiting it on their own turf
After I pay Apple $1000 for their product, is it really their turf any more?
It’s certainly not the case when buying a house from someone.
Or basically anything but an iPhone or Tesla.
After I pay Apple $1000 for their product, is it really their turf any more?
It’s certainly not the case when buying a house from someone.
Or basically anything but an iPhone or Tesla.
it seems most ppl on HN have already conceded their rights to private property. We are moving to a sort of digital peasantry and everyone is okay with that because Apple is like a digital lord, and their 'rights' to their land are more important than our personal liberty
> Note: Apple themselves argued code = speech in their FBI trial. Given that, disallowing certain apps is disallowing certain speech.
You're using the wrong terms. This is an anti-trust case, not a free speech case.
You kind of end up in the same place though. Apple provides various services and doesn't allow porn. That's fine, someone else can provide a competing service that does allow porn and people can choose what they want. Until Apple prohibits the competitor from operating, an anti-competitive act.
You're using the wrong terms. This is an anti-trust case, not a free speech case.
You kind of end up in the same place though. Apple provides various services and doesn't allow porn. That's fine, someone else can provide a competing service that does allow porn and people can choose what they want. Until Apple prohibits the competitor from operating, an anti-competitive act.
Well sort of. Apple saying "we don't want porn on IPhone" isn't anticompetitive. Apple saying that only they can provide such content probably would be though.
> Note: Apple themselves argued code = speech in their FBI trial. Given that, disallowing certain apps is disallowing certain speech.
It's disheartening to see how many people have no clue what 'free speech' means when they use this argument online.
Legal Definition of freedom of speech:
: the right to express information, ideas, and opinions *free of government restrictions* based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
There are also things that are NOT considered protected speech. For example, you cannot shout "Fire" in a movie theater and claim it's a free speech right. This falls under the "harm principle" exception. Fighting words is another example.
Two things people need to remember when it comes to free speech:
1) It's not absolute, you still suffer the consequences of the things you say, and
2) It doesn't apply to privately owned locations, services or media.
So, no, being banned from Twitter is not a violation of your free speech.
No, Apple banning or blocking porn from within apps is not a violation of free speech.
No, being arrested for threatening to kill someone is not a violation of your free speech.
It's disheartening to see how many people have no clue what 'free speech' means when they use this argument online.
Legal Definition of freedom of speech:
: the right to express information, ideas, and opinions *free of government restrictions* based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
There are also things that are NOT considered protected speech. For example, you cannot shout "Fire" in a movie theater and claim it's a free speech right. This falls under the "harm principle" exception. Fighting words is another example.
Two things people need to remember when it comes to free speech:
1) It's not absolute, you still suffer the consequences of the things you say, and
2) It doesn't apply to privately owned locations, services or media.
So, no, being banned from Twitter is not a violation of your free speech.
No, Apple banning or blocking porn from within apps is not a violation of free speech.
No, being arrested for threatening to kill someone is not a violation of your free speech.
This is completely incorrect. Free speech is a moral principle, and the First Amendment is but one legal implementation of said principle. The argument here is that large corporations should be restrained just like governments are (and for the same reasons, too).
You invite me to a party, I show up and say things that you find offensive. I become disruptive. You ask me to leave. Is it a moral principle that you must allow me to remain at your party and to allow me to continue to say things that you find offensive?
Your house + invitation and expectation of behaving = Private company + service they allow you to sign up for under agreement with the TOS
No company is under any obligation to continue to allow you to use their service once the invitation to their party has been revoked for you.
Your house + invitation and expectation of behaving = Private company + service they allow you to sign up for under agreement with the TOS
No company is under any obligation to continue to allow you to use their service once the invitation to their party has been revoked for you.
They're an individual. Apple is a powerful corporation
Completely different circumstances.
"Corporations are people."
Regardless of your feelings on the matter, corporations are not a government entity. Period.
There is no legal precedent that requires a company to be bound by the same rules as the government when it comes to free speech. They invite you to their party and they can disinvite you for any reason whatsoever.
If a corporation says they don't want guns on their property, are you going to say it's your moral right under the 2nd Amendment?
When you use an arbitrary term like "moral" (what is moral to you may not be moral to me, as it's personally defined), you can redefine the circumstances to mean virtually anything.
To continue to demand 'free speech' to mean that anything private, individual resident or company service, must continue to allow you to say what you want to say within somebody else's space is morally offensive to me. I have a right to say "No." So do the owners of Hacker News. Are you going to say every account flagged as [dead] is being deprived of their free speech?
Regardless of your feelings on the matter, corporations are not a government entity. Period.
There is no legal precedent that requires a company to be bound by the same rules as the government when it comes to free speech. They invite you to their party and they can disinvite you for any reason whatsoever.
If a corporation says they don't want guns on their property, are you going to say it's your moral right under the 2nd Amendment?
When you use an arbitrary term like "moral" (what is moral to you may not be moral to me, as it's personally defined), you can redefine the circumstances to mean virtually anything.
To continue to demand 'free speech' to mean that anything private, individual resident or company service, must continue to allow you to say what you want to say within somebody else's space is morally offensive to me. I have a right to say "No." So do the owners of Hacker News. Are you going to say every account flagged as [dead] is being deprived of their free speech?
> Regardless of your feelings on the matter, corporations are not a government entity. Period.
Obviously.
> If a corporation says they don't want guns on their property, are you going to say it's your moral right under the 2nd Amendment?
No, because I'm aware that what's moral and what's currently legal are entirely different things.
> When you use an arbitrary term like "moral" (what is moral to you may not be moral to me, as it's personally defined), you can redefine the circumstances to mean virtually anything.
So what you're saying is the only arguments you accept are appeals to authority – which is what legal arguments are.
> To continue to demand 'free speech' to mean that anything private, individual resident or company service, must continue to allow you to say what you want to say within somebody else's space is morally offensive to me.
Not somebody – something. Apple is not a person (except legally).
> I have a right to say "No."
Absolutely.
> So do the owners of Hacker News.
I think so. It's no real danger to free speech.
We're talking about Apple though.
Obviously.
> If a corporation says they don't want guns on their property, are you going to say it's your moral right under the 2nd Amendment?
No, because I'm aware that what's moral and what's currently legal are entirely different things.
> When you use an arbitrary term like "moral" (what is moral to you may not be moral to me, as it's personally defined), you can redefine the circumstances to mean virtually anything.
So what you're saying is the only arguments you accept are appeals to authority – which is what legal arguments are.
> To continue to demand 'free speech' to mean that anything private, individual resident or company service, must continue to allow you to say what you want to say within somebody else's space is morally offensive to me.
Not somebody – something. Apple is not a person (except legally).
> I have a right to say "No."
Absolutely.
> So do the owners of Hacker News.
I think so. It's no real danger to free speech.
We're talking about Apple though.
I am completely devoid of Apple products and services and yet somehow there is absolutely zero danger to my free speech.
Imagine that.
Drawing a line at size of a company before you feel you can impose your morals upon them is still a hypocritical position.
Imagine that.
Drawing a line at size of a company before you feel you can impose your morals upon them is still a hypocritical position.
> I am completely devoid of Apple products and services and yet somehow there is absolutely zero danger to my free speech.
> Imagine that.
Good for you?
> Drawing a line at size of a company before you feel you can impose your morals upon them is still a hypocritical position.
Not, size, power. No company should be permitted to restrict free speech. But most aren't able to anyway.
Treating people and companies differently is not hypocritical, they are fundamentally different kinds of entities.
> Imagine that.
Good for you?
> Drawing a line at size of a company before you feel you can impose your morals upon them is still a hypocritical position.
Not, size, power. No company should be permitted to restrict free speech. But most aren't able to anyway.
Treating people and companies differently is not hypocritical, they are fundamentally different kinds of entities.
> Drawing a line at size of a company before you feel you can impose your morals upon them is still a hypocritical position.
How? What definition of hypocritical applies here?
And the goal isn't to impose morals, the goal is to treat it more and more like a public space.
How? What definition of hypocritical applies here?
And the goal isn't to impose morals, the goal is to treat it more and more like a public space.
> "Corporations are people."
That is a useful legal fiction only because saying otherwise infringes on the rights of the people within those corporations. It is not useful for dictating public policy for billions of people.
> To continue to demand 'free speech' to mean that anything private, individual resident or company service, must continue to allow you to say what you want to say within somebody else's space is morally offensive to me.
This assumes that freedom of speech is a positive right. It's not. It's a negative right. We are not asking Apple or Google to speak, we are asking them not to censor. There is a difference.
That is a useful legal fiction only because saying otherwise infringes on the rights of the people within those corporations. It is not useful for dictating public policy for billions of people.
> To continue to demand 'free speech' to mean that anything private, individual resident or company service, must continue to allow you to say what you want to say within somebody else's space is morally offensive to me.
This assumes that freedom of speech is a positive right. It's not. It's a negative right. We are not asking Apple or Google to speak, we are asking them not to censor. There is a difference.
Party in my house is not equivalent to event in a public square
My house is not one of only two party places on planet earth
Corporations are not people, they don't have human rights, they don't have feeling and they don't go to jail when they kill people.
They are legal fiction that exists only to enable economic growth, and they cause economic harm instead, they must be shut down.
My house is not one of only two party places on planet earth
Corporations are not people, they don't have human rights, they don't have feeling and they don't go to jail when they kill people.
They are legal fiction that exists only to enable economic growth, and they cause economic harm instead, they must be shut down.
Private property, of which corporations reside within and servers consist of, are not equivalent to an event in a public square, either.
Apple is not the only company of its kind on Planet Earth.
Whether it's Twitter, Hacker News, Reddit, Slashdot or your 10 user niche hobby forum, none of the people who own the private servers that each of those venues reside on are required to host your words.
That is the part that you're missing when you misinterpret the private party metaphor.
Apple is not the only company of its kind on Planet Earth.
Whether it's Twitter, Hacker News, Reddit, Slashdot or your 10 user niche hobby forum, none of the people who own the private servers that each of those venues reside on are required to host your words.
That is the part that you're missing when you misinterpret the private party metaphor.
public square means public access and public importance, it can be private property
Apple is one of two companies, that can single-handedly shut down any business, globally, that requires mobile software to function, at any time for no reason. When our national governments required contact tracing software to deal with the pandemic, it was Apple and Google that could block democratic government from protecting it's people.
This has massive implications for liberty, economy and national security. The private party metaphor is simply delusional.
Apple is one of two companies, that can single-handedly shut down any business, globally, that requires mobile software to function, at any time for no reason. When our national governments required contact tracing software to deal with the pandemic, it was Apple and Google that could block democratic government from protecting it's people.
This has massive implications for liberty, economy and national security. The private party metaphor is simply delusional.
The "fire in a crowded theater" example originates from a Supreme Court case that was later largely overturned. Moreover, in some situations private institutions have been deemed public spaces, and as such speech within them at least partially protected by free speech. That doesn't apply to Twitter, or Apple, at least until a case makes it so, but it's not completely out of the question.
> The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).
Relevant (to my example) portion still applies and was not overturned. May seem like a nitpick but I do think it's an important distinction to make.
Relevant (to my example) portion still applies and was not overturned. May seem like a nitpick but I do think it's an important distinction to make.
It's absolutely not a nitpick, but does that example still apply? I was under the impression that the 'clear and present' danger had been extremely narrowed to 'absolutely clear (as in an actual plan) and present (with explicit time)'. My recollection might not be right, but I could have sworn I remember the very justice that wrote the fire in the theater example rolling it back bit by bit over the course of the next several cases.
That's the definition of protected free speech, not the definition of free speech.
Don't be pedantic about the wrong term.
Don't be pedantic about the wrong term.
Americans, stop. The world doesn't revolve around you. There are other countries besides U.S.A. (shocker, I know). These other countries can also have free speech, even though they don't fall under U.S. jurisdiction (double shocker!). It turns out free speech is something larger than your little laws, who would've thought!
Don't assume that popularity would fall that way.
They have the kind of erotica that used to be done in Flash. So what? That stuff is more funny than erotic. PornHub is easily available to anyone with access to a web browser. Get over it.
Fussing about porn is usually an excuse for controlling something else.
Fussing about porn is usually an excuse for controlling something else.
What is the issue with porn? Is there something bad about it? If so, what? Seeing people naked? Seeing people having sex?
The article even mentions porn in one sentence with hate:
The article even mentions porn in one sentence with hate:
A little further down, you say
no porn and no hate,” Apple’s
lawyer continued. “Do you see that?"
Content many parents want to keep away from their children
Apple sells iPhones to children? Couldn't the just sell children's iPhones then?
It's not uncommon to have two different products for adults and for children.
It's not uncommon to have two different products for adults and for children.
Yeah. But maybe that should be up to the parent?
Which they can do with parental controls. Even something like sideloading could be behind parental controls. Why make everyone else's experience worse for some lazy parents?
interesting, I'm the exact opposite, i don't see an issue with mean words but I consider porn personally destructive.
I don't think "mean words" is an adequate description of people egging each other on to violence and sexual violation.
I agree there's a pandoras box of "HATE" but I was referring to the non-violent mean words that are bucketed into the hate umbrella and used for censorship/banning.
How is epic having an app that can be used to get offensive content different from the Apple App Store allowing web browsers?
Reddit has some explicit content. How on earth is this relevant to the question of abusing a dominant market position which is what case is about. Is Apple arguing we can commercially abuse our partners and customers because we save you from porn? Seriously?
I assume their argument here is “It’s expensive to run an App Store that screens content effectively - here is an example where a cheaper store missed something.” This specific example doesn’t seem like strong evidence though.
>here is an example where a cheaper store missed something
I don't think they are saying itch missed something (itch certainly doesn't think so)
I don't think they are saying itch missed something (itch certainly doesn't think so)
Apple is saying that Epic missed that Itch allows offensive content via the Epic store (indirectly).
I’m fairly certain Epic missed nothing about that, and just didn’t care one way or the other.
Web browsers can be restricted using the iOS parental control system.
Oh boy. I'd reply back with Leisure Suit Larry on iOS, just to poke fun at the puritan rhetoric.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/leisure-suit-larry-reloaded/id...
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/leisure-suit-larry-reloaded/id...
Good to see itch.io getting so much press :) The founder is also the author of https://moonscript.org/
Imagine how high apples stock price will go when they're forced to allow porn on the app store. They're missing out on so much potential revenue right now.
Isn't it the same thing for mobile web browsers offered on the Apple app store? You can download them and use them to access and download porn.
What's the argument for banning porn, anyway?
It's important to make sure people have to use the least legitimate and most risky sources for anything that hypocrites feel the need to pretend to be morally outraged about. Sex and fun drugs are the classics. The only way to make them seem inherently bad is to force them to be illicit.
Steve Jobs didn't want it on the platform back in the day. I think that's about it.
Did he say why?
The process of creating a family isn't family-friendly.
I'm not a prude, but why ruin a family friendly product with porn?
I mean, we are not saying Apple should have shipped iPhones with porn preinstalled. What is the harm in allowing developers offer porn content FOR PEOPLE THAT SEARCH FOR IT IN THE APP STORE, possibly after turning on a flag for nsfw content? That is not possible, that content is not allowed on the app store, ever. It is their right to do so of course, their store and product and all, but people that support the decision confuse me a bit. There is literally no harm to you if it was allowed. You won't see it unless you search for it.
Probably because it seems to inherently attract a very “spammy” group that does every trick in the book to appear in front of people, so it would be an endless game of whack-a-mile making sure they didn’t appear in searches.
Not saying I necessarily agree with the decision but I can imagine there is an argument to be made for moderation. Just banning it outright probably saves them a bunch of money and overhead.
Hate to say I agree. Valve is going through this right now on Steam. They claimed back in 2018 to "allow everything onto the Steam Store, except for things that we decide are illegal, or straight up trolling. ".
In reality over 3 years, those lines became more like a mine field. Up to and including non-sexual Visual Novels that happen to be set in school (something even pre-2018 Steam allowed). It's to a point where it feels like the one who wrote that blog doesn't even work at the company anymore and the new moderators would rather just ban it all over again. Really sucks for devs, but I imagine Valve isn't having a good time either.
I think this is ultimately reflective of America's attitudes towards nudity as a whole and their ability to communicate around it. But ultimately, I don't expect some app stores to go up to bat to challenge that stereotype, so I can't blame them for just saying "no, leave that all out". Not unlike political topics on a casual forum.
In reality over 3 years, those lines became more like a mine field. Up to and including non-sexual Visual Novels that happen to be set in school (something even pre-2018 Steam allowed). It's to a point where it feels like the one who wrote that blog doesn't even work at the company anymore and the new moderators would rather just ban it all over again. Really sucks for devs, but I imagine Valve isn't having a good time either.
I think this is ultimately reflective of America's attitudes towards nudity as a whole and their ability to communicate around it. But ultimately, I don't expect some app stores to go up to bat to challenge that stereotype, so I can't blame them for just saying "no, leave that all out". Not unlike political topics on a casual forum.
Are you talking about computers?
Because I don't think a general purpose computing device is inherently family friendly. No more than I think any given day commuting around town is.
Would it be ruined?
It's not difficult to make the porn opt-in, so you wouldn't even see it if you didn't want to.
It's not difficult to make the porn opt-in, so you wouldn't even see it if you didn't want to.
and it's certainly readily available via a browser
Apple likes a family friendly facade on its products of Chinese slave labour
Porn usually has much higher risk for chargebacks when it comes to payment processing.
[deleted]
You can download Chrome, Firefox or even Safari and watch porn online for free from your xOS device, nothing easier and they know it.
> "Folks who want porn can buy an android."
> "You might care more about porn when you have kids. It’s not about freedom, it’s about Apple trying to do the right thing for its users."
—Steve Jobs
> "You might care more about porn when you have kids. It’s not about freedom, it’s about Apple trying to do the right thing for its users."
—Steve Jobs
open safari, search for porn, and tap the first link. I think your point is moot.
I think you are perhaps confusing my posting the quote with my agreeing with the quote.
That he said that is historical fact, which was my only point. I don't actually agree with his position on the matter at all.
That he said that is historical fact, which was my only point. I don't actually agree with his position on the matter at all.
Well Jobs has been dead for over 10 years. The current CEO said…
https://www.inverse.com/article/42982-tim-cook-porn-on-iphon...
> The Apple CEO said in an interview with Kara Swisher on Wednesday that people who want to use their smartphone to look at porn are free to use the web browser, but they shouldn’t expect Apple to start offering apps.
https://www.inverse.com/article/42982-tim-cook-porn-on-iphon...
> The Apple CEO said in an interview with Kara Swisher on Wednesday that people who want to use their smartphone to look at porn are free to use the web browser, but they shouldn’t expect Apple to start offering apps.
I don’t understand. Is there any reason the answer to these questions couldn’t have been.
‘Yes’ and ‘So what’?
Are they really trying to dance around the fact that some, if not most, people like sexual content?
‘Yes’ and ‘So what’?
Are they really trying to dance around the fact that some, if not most, people like sexual content?
Apple disallows sexual content in their ecosystem. Epic wants to be a part of it. That's a pretty good reason not to.
Reddit explicitly has tons of sexual content. So does chrome.
Saying "but you allow them" is not the best option, unless you're happy with the result of Apple blocking Reddit instead of allowing you to do it too. (I'm ignoring here the part where Reddit data is user-generated and not reviewed by the Reddit app publishers, which is a completely different situation than Epic and itch.io)
let's see apple ban reddit and browsers. Then we can talk about this argument.
> unless you're happy with the result of Apple blocking Reddit instead of allowing you to do it too
Yes, please. Maybe Apple-fanboy here will finally understand Apple's evilness.
Yes, please. Maybe Apple-fanboy here will finally understand Apple's evilness.
unless this theoretical IOS EGS is working on a universal Windows to IOS transpiler to deploy their games on, I feel the burden is on Apple to prove that itch.IO has an interest of hosting adult content on IOS, not Epic.
As for the answer to that; Itch developers for IOS tend to just link to the IOS store for their app, so the interest isn't there (and Apple's control is).
As for the answer to that; Itch developers for IOS tend to just link to the IOS store for their app, so the interest isn't there (and Apple's control is).
Apple disagrees with the last statement and puts an ethical judgment on it as well.
If apple are fored to allow other stores through its app store, then those stores and apps in them would have to adhere to the same app store guidlines. What I would like to see is a way to sideload alternative stores or ipa. They can make it as hard as to enabling this, instead of a simple switch for security and privcy purposes. So that we don't have to fiddle with the Altstore to install iTorrent, Emulators or Youtube++
Isn't it funny that itch.io even has a sexualized/porn game on iOS?
> https://fymm-game.itch.io/dead-dating-demo
> https://apps.apple.com/app/dead-dating-pd/id1554938911
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Good.
Apple has no right to demand that the entire world conform to their views on sexuality. That there has been a disagreement on this lasting this long is insane.
Apple can demand it on their platforms though. If you don’t like their world view you don’t have to buy an iPhone ya know.
Whether they can or can't demand it without violating antitrust laws is the central conclusion of the debate at hand not a fresh point that feeds into the discussion.
Violating antitrust laws isn't the same thing as running a monopoly (though that certainly makes an easier case). An alternative option being possible is not always enough on its own. Especially as Apple's user share and restrictions grow with time.
Violating antitrust laws isn't the same thing as running a monopoly (though that certainly makes an easier case). An alternative option being possible is not always enough on its own. Especially as Apple's user share and restrictions grow with time.
They should be able to do whatever they want in their store. What they shouldn't be able to do is prohibit competing stores.
"If you don't want the AT&T handset just build your own phone network" obviously isn't a reasonable alternative.
"If you don't want the AT&T handset just build your own phone network" obviously isn't a reasonable alternative.
Except that doesn’t hold. If you don’t like AT&T there is Verizon, Google FI, T-Mobile, etc.
If you don’t like Apple, there’s Google, Samsung, etc.
If you don’t like Apple, there’s Google, Samsung, etc.
It's a reference to the classic AT&T monopoly, when Verizon et al were still part of AT&T and you notoriously had to buy your phone from them (and they prohibited analog modems in favor of paying them for extortionately expensive ISDN lines etc.)
"You can just use Google" is the equivalent of saying "you can just use British Telecom." True only in some kind of theoretical sense. You can fly to Britain and subscribe to telephone service there. It's not realistic.
Saying that you have a choice for the $1 app and all you have to do is replace your $400 phone and all your other apps and convince all your friends to switch away from iMessage is at the same level of practicality. Worse, because there are multiple different apps. What do I do if I need both iMessage and a BitTorrent client?
"You can just use Google" is the equivalent of saying "you can just use British Telecom." True only in some kind of theoretical sense. You can fly to Britain and subscribe to telephone service there. It's not realistic.
Saying that you have a choice for the $1 app and all you have to do is replace your $400 phone and all your other apps and convince all your friends to switch away from iMessage is at the same level of practicality. Worse, because there are multiple different apps. What do I do if I need both iMessage and a BitTorrent client?
> And "you can just use Google" is the equivalent of saying "you can just use British Telecom." True only in some kind of theoretical sense. You can fly to Britain and subscribe to telephone service there. It's not realistic.
I'm not following. You can literally just go to a Best Buy and gaze at lots of different phone models to see for yourself. It's very realistic.
> Saying that you have a choice for the $1 app and all you have to do is replace your $400 phone and all your other apps and convince all your friends to switch away from iMessage is at the same level of practicality. Worse, because there are multiple different apps. What happens if I need both iMessage and a BitTorrent client?
A couple of things: first, you ideally should be doing research before buying a product. Second, if you need to replace a $400 phone for a $1 app, you're effectively buying that app for $401 - it must be really worth that amount for you to switch phones. If it's not, then it's just not. I think that's a personal choice and doesn't have much to do with anything other than making economic decisions for yourself. For example, I really like video games (but hardly play). There are games that I want to play that aren't available on the Mac. My choices are buy a Windows machine, or buy a Mac, or buy both (or neither). I chose to forgo a game I want to play in favor of having a Mac and to make that trade off. It's a trade off. I'm hopeful that game could come to the Mac but there's no good reason I can tell to force someone to make the game because I want to have my cake and eat it too.
Products have features and trade-offs. On the iPhone you have iMessage which might be very important to you so you can go with an iPhone. Or maybe you need a BitTorrent client and it's not available on the iPhone so you buy something else.
This is just how the world works.
I'm not following. You can literally just go to a Best Buy and gaze at lots of different phone models to see for yourself. It's very realistic.
> Saying that you have a choice for the $1 app and all you have to do is replace your $400 phone and all your other apps and convince all your friends to switch away from iMessage is at the same level of practicality. Worse, because there are multiple different apps. What happens if I need both iMessage and a BitTorrent client?
A couple of things: first, you ideally should be doing research before buying a product. Second, if you need to replace a $400 phone for a $1 app, you're effectively buying that app for $401 - it must be really worth that amount for you to switch phones. If it's not, then it's just not. I think that's a personal choice and doesn't have much to do with anything other than making economic decisions for yourself. For example, I really like video games (but hardly play). There are games that I want to play that aren't available on the Mac. My choices are buy a Windows machine, or buy a Mac, or buy both (or neither). I chose to forgo a game I want to play in favor of having a Mac and to make that trade off. It's a trade off. I'm hopeful that game could come to the Mac but there's no good reason I can tell to force someone to make the game because I want to have my cake and eat it too.
Products have features and trade-offs. On the iPhone you have iMessage which might be very important to you so you can go with an iPhone. Or maybe you need a BitTorrent client and it's not available on the iPhone so you buy something else.
This is just how the world works.
> I'm not following. You can literally just go to a Best Buy and gaze at lots of different phone models to see for yourself. It's very realistic.
You can just fly to Britain and rent a flat there. It's not physically impossible. It is an unreasonable thing to have to do in order to switch carriers.
> Second, if you need to replace a $400 phone for a $1 app, you're effectively buying that app for $401 - it must be really worth that amount for you to switch phones.
That's the point. The $400 is a switching barrier which acts as a wall segmenting the app markets by platform, with the result that Apple has a monopoly on the iOS side of the wall. Excluding competing stores is then monopoly abuse.
> Products have features and trade-offs. On the iPhone you have iMessage which might be very important to you so you can go with an iPhone. Or maybe you need a BitTorrent client and it's not available on the iPhone so you buy something else.
The point is that this trade off is artificial and only exists as a result of anti-competitive practices. Otherwise you could get iMessage on your iPhone from the Apple App Store and get a BitTorrent client from some other app store still on your iPhone.
It's one thing for something not to exist because there is no demand for it. If anybody can develop a Mac game and then not everybody does because there aren't enough Mac gamers to justify it, c'est la vie. It's caused by lack of demand, not anti-competitive behavior. If you want to develop a game for Mac, nobody is stopping you.
Whereas if the reason the Mac gaming market was small was that Apple had their own game studio and prohibited games from competing studios, that's anti-competitive behavior.
It's specifically problematic because the market can't fix it -- even if there is demand for alternatives, alternatives are prohibited, which is different than just not enough people wanting them for anybody to become a provider.
You can just fly to Britain and rent a flat there. It's not physically impossible. It is an unreasonable thing to have to do in order to switch carriers.
> Second, if you need to replace a $400 phone for a $1 app, you're effectively buying that app for $401 - it must be really worth that amount for you to switch phones.
That's the point. The $400 is a switching barrier which acts as a wall segmenting the app markets by platform, with the result that Apple has a monopoly on the iOS side of the wall. Excluding competing stores is then monopoly abuse.
> Products have features and trade-offs. On the iPhone you have iMessage which might be very important to you so you can go with an iPhone. Or maybe you need a BitTorrent client and it's not available on the iPhone so you buy something else.
The point is that this trade off is artificial and only exists as a result of anti-competitive practices. Otherwise you could get iMessage on your iPhone from the Apple App Store and get a BitTorrent client from some other app store still on your iPhone.
It's one thing for something not to exist because there is no demand for it. If anybody can develop a Mac game and then not everybody does because there aren't enough Mac gamers to justify it, c'est la vie. It's caused by lack of demand, not anti-competitive behavior. If you want to develop a game for Mac, nobody is stopping you.
Whereas if the reason the Mac gaming market was small was that Apple had their own game studio and prohibited games from competing studios, that's anti-competitive behavior.
It's specifically problematic because the market can't fix it -- even if there is demand for alternatives, alternatives are prohibited, which is different than just not enough people wanting them for anybody to become a provider.
> I'm not following. You can literally just go to a Best Buy and gaze at lots of different phone models to see for yourself. It's very realistic.
I agree with you here - this is a bad comparison, it's incredibly easy to just go buy something that isn't iOS-based - but that doesn't actually help much, at least from Epic's perspective. In fact, Epic is suing Google over how they treat Android as well:
* Google Play has similar restrictions to the iOS App Store, therefore neither Fortnite (assuming they want their own payment processing) nor EGS can exist on it.
* Sideloading is possible (and was/is (?) used for Fortnite) so that at least is fine, however...
* Sideloaded apps lose out on some important features - namely that they can't auto-update. Technically, this isn't a sideloading restriction but a restriction on non-system apps but the result is the same. System apps cannot be installed except via an OS flash (with a custom ROM)/root which is not something you can expect the average consumer to do.
* Additionally, Epic cannot make deals with manufacturers to get EGS installed as a system app due to Google blocking them from making those deals.
I have mixed feelings overall on whether we should be giving more opportunities for manufacturers to install possible bloatware on phones (something that plagued the early days of Android and still does to some degree) and whether it's a good idea to open up sideloading system apps. But even so, you have to admit that you can't "just" buy another phone to be able to do what Epic wants. Whether that's worthy of antitrust action... I really don't know.
I agree with you here - this is a bad comparison, it's incredibly easy to just go buy something that isn't iOS-based - but that doesn't actually help much, at least from Epic's perspective. In fact, Epic is suing Google over how they treat Android as well:
* Google Play has similar restrictions to the iOS App Store, therefore neither Fortnite (assuming they want their own payment processing) nor EGS can exist on it.
* Sideloading is possible (and was/is (?) used for Fortnite) so that at least is fine, however...
* Sideloaded apps lose out on some important features - namely that they can't auto-update. Technically, this isn't a sideloading restriction but a restriction on non-system apps but the result is the same. System apps cannot be installed except via an OS flash (with a custom ROM)/root which is not something you can expect the average consumer to do.
* Additionally, Epic cannot make deals with manufacturers to get EGS installed as a system app due to Google blocking them from making those deals.
I have mixed feelings overall on whether we should be giving more opportunities for manufacturers to install possible bloatware on phones (something that plagued the early days of Android and still does to some degree) and whether it's a good idea to open up sideloading system apps. But even so, you have to admit that you can't "just" buy another phone to be able to do what Epic wants. Whether that's worthy of antitrust action... I really don't know.
> But even so, you have to admit that you can't "just" buy another phone to be able to do what Epic wants.
Sure but why would we expect that this should be the case or be desirable?
Epic has restrictions on its own Epic store, for example.
Sure but why would we expect that this should be the case or be desirable?
Epic has restrictions on its own Epic store, for example.
Because EGS isn't the only store on the platform - if you can't sell through their store you can go elsewhere (or DIY it). They aren't obligated to sell your products, but you also aren't obligated to sell via their store.
On iOS it's outright impossible to have a native app that isn't distributed through the app store (testflight/enterprise apps aside). With Google Play it's technically possible but you're at a massive disadvantage not just due to Google Play's reach (which is fine) but due to technical and contractual limitations imposed by Google themselves (which is arguably not fine).
On iOS it's outright impossible to have a native app that isn't distributed through the app store (testflight/enterprise apps aside). With Google Play it's technically possible but you're at a massive disadvantage not just due to Google Play's reach (which is fine) but due to technical and contractual limitations imposed by Google themselves (which is arguably not fine).
I can’t sell my own Fortnite skins, for example. If I wanted to access the Fortnite user base I have to use the Epic Game Store. I also can’t sell any game I want on their platform. I have to follow their rules, get approval? Etc.
Not to mention video game exclusives. Why do I have to download Fortnite through the Epic Game Store and have an Epic account? Shouldn’t I be able to sign in with another provider? I should be able to download, install, and play Fortnite with my Steam account and buy and sell in game content via Steam or other providers. It seems like they are limiting competition by forcing me to use their login system and micro transaction platform.
I just don’t find the anger at the Apple App Store compelling. The only reason we are talking about it is because it’s a popular platform.
Not to mention video game exclusives. Why do I have to download Fortnite through the Epic Game Store and have an Epic account? Shouldn’t I be able to sign in with another provider? I should be able to download, install, and play Fortnite with my Steam account and buy and sell in game content via Steam or other providers. It seems like they are limiting competition by forcing me to use their login system and micro transaction platform.
I just don’t find the anger at the Apple App Store compelling. The only reason we are talking about it is because it’s a popular platform.
> I can’t sell my own Fortnite skins, for example. If I wanted to access the Fortnite user base I have to use the Epic Game Store.
You're right - and Epic isn't arguing that they have to be let on to the App Store, except in the case where there's no alternative. Ignoring the fact that Fortnite isn't actually a platform that allows you to submit skins to Epic (and as such isn't really comparable), you absolutely can make your own skins and 3d models and content and sell them somewhere else, you just can't in Fortnite.
And before you say "oh but they can just go to Android" - no, they can't, because Google Play has similar restrictions and while making a separate store is possible it isn't practical due to technical restrictions Google imposes on the OS.
> I also can’t sell any game I want on their platform. I have to follow their rules, get approval? Etc.
I've already addressed this. On iOS it is impossible to sell an app outside of the app store. If you're denied from EGS you can just go to Steam, itch.io, GOG, or host a website yourself.
> Not to mention video game exclusives.
This is a completely unrelated issue. The court case is about the rights of a developer and their relationship to the app store. This argument is about the rights of a consumer and I do not see it as even remotely relevant.
> The only reason we are talking about it is because it’s a popular platform.
You're right - the platform being popular is what gives Epic's argument merit. It makes Epic less able to ignore the app store if they want to go after the mobile market. Obviously if the platform wasn't popular then no one would care and this case never would have happened.
You're right - and Epic isn't arguing that they have to be let on to the App Store, except in the case where there's no alternative. Ignoring the fact that Fortnite isn't actually a platform that allows you to submit skins to Epic (and as such isn't really comparable), you absolutely can make your own skins and 3d models and content and sell them somewhere else, you just can't in Fortnite.
And before you say "oh but they can just go to Android" - no, they can't, because Google Play has similar restrictions and while making a separate store is possible it isn't practical due to technical restrictions Google imposes on the OS.
> I also can’t sell any game I want on their platform. I have to follow their rules, get approval? Etc.
I've already addressed this. On iOS it is impossible to sell an app outside of the app store. If you're denied from EGS you can just go to Steam, itch.io, GOG, or host a website yourself.
> Not to mention video game exclusives.
This is a completely unrelated issue. The court case is about the rights of a developer and their relationship to the app store. This argument is about the rights of a consumer and I do not see it as even remotely relevant.
> The only reason we are talking about it is because it’s a popular platform.
You're right - the platform being popular is what gives Epic's argument merit. It makes Epic less able to ignore the app store if they want to go after the mobile market. Obviously if the platform wasn't popular then no one would care and this case never would have happened.
> Obviously if the platform wasn't popular then no one would care and this case never would have happened.
Which I think strikes right at the point here. This is practiced throughout the world and throughout industries, but for some reason we think it should be different for mobile phones. I don't see why it should be, especially given that in the overall market, Epic can publish their game across multiple competing platforms: Android, Windows, macOS, Linux, Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, etc. and iOS until recently.
In fact, as you mentioned, if you don't like the Apple Store you can go to: Steam, itch.io, GOG, or host a website yourself. If I can't create an arbitrary game and have access to Epic's user base, I don't see how it's different. Can I use Epic accounts on my own indy game?
I think you are narrowly defining the marketplace as being only iOS, when in fact it's much larger, and you're not taking into account that this is all about access to users. In both of these areas, it's hard to find compelling activity for Epic. They can and do publish Fortnite on multiple platforms, and they also arbitrarily restrict access to their own user-base.
Epic just wants to have their cake and eat it too and I have yet to see compelling evidence to the contrary, myself.
Which I think strikes right at the point here. This is practiced throughout the world and throughout industries, but for some reason we think it should be different for mobile phones. I don't see why it should be, especially given that in the overall market, Epic can publish their game across multiple competing platforms: Android, Windows, macOS, Linux, Xbox, PlayStation, Switch, etc. and iOS until recently.
In fact, as you mentioned, if you don't like the Apple Store you can go to: Steam, itch.io, GOG, or host a website yourself. If I can't create an arbitrary game and have access to Epic's user base, I don't see how it's different. Can I use Epic accounts on my own indy game?
I think you are narrowly defining the marketplace as being only iOS, when in fact it's much larger, and you're not taking into account that this is all about access to users. In both of these areas, it's hard to find compelling activity for Epic. They can and do publish Fortnite on multiple platforms, and they also arbitrarily restrict access to their own user-base.
Epic just wants to have their cake and eat it too and I have yet to see compelling evidence to the contrary, myself.
If Apple makes up a monopoly in a given market by some important metric - be that userbase, units sold, revenue $ or %, etc. - then those alternatives may not be meaningful or reasonable for developers.
Except they literally turn a blind eye to it when convenient. Both Reddit and Twitter have ungodly amounts of porn available yet those apps have absolutely no problems being distributed on the app store. What's the difference?
The difference in the case of porn is whether or not the main purpose of the app in general is for porn.
Reddit for example is probably mostly not used for porn.
Pornhub the app has one purpose - porn.
I don’t think it’s difficult to see here why one is allowed and another isn’t. Same with web browsers.
I don’t really care about porn on the App Store too much myself either way. I actually think it would be nice to see creators have new revenue models (similar to podcasters and the like and yes I know OnlyFans exists) but I think it’s also a bit murky for Apple to get involved in for little benefit. I can already see the headlines: “Apple allows app that promotes and monetizes sex trafficked women!” and then we’ll have the same asinine discussions here we always do about App Store policy and how someone thinks Apple doesn’t do a good job. Why bother?
Reddit for example is probably mostly not used for porn.
Pornhub the app has one purpose - porn.
I don’t think it’s difficult to see here why one is allowed and another isn’t. Same with web browsers.
I don’t really care about porn on the App Store too much myself either way. I actually think it would be nice to see creators have new revenue models (similar to podcasters and the like and yes I know OnlyFans exists) but I think it’s also a bit murky for Apple to get involved in for little benefit. I can already see the headlines: “Apple allows app that promotes and monetizes sex trafficked women!” and then we’ll have the same asinine discussions here we always do about App Store policy and how someone thinks Apple doesn’t do a good job. Why bother?
Read the original article and the line of cross-examination in the trial. It has nothing to do the "primary purpose" of any app, it has to with whether sexual content is available. Assuming "itch.io" doesn't advertise sexual content in its entry in the Epic Games Store, what's the difference between it having discoverable sexual content after you download and install it, and Reddit in the Apple Store have the exact same thing?
> what's the difference between it having discoverable sexual content after you download and install it, and Reddit in the Apple Store have the exact same thing?
Because they're working practically as I described. It's very clear how they operate on this front.
It's like Twitter saying they treat everyone fairly. Sure Jack Dorsey says that on interviews and cross-examination but as a practice Twitter certainly doesn't [1].
[1] Maybe they do, but my point isn't about Twitter specifically but how these large organizations act.
Because they're working practically as I described. It's very clear how they operate on this front.
It's like Twitter saying they treat everyone fairly. Sure Jack Dorsey says that on interviews and cross-examination but as a practice Twitter certainly doesn't [1].
[1] Maybe they do, but my point isn't about Twitter specifically but how these large organizations act.
I believe both apps have NSFW content filtered out by default. Reddit wise , you would have to go into the Setting app to enable such content.
Assuming "itch.io" doesn't advertise sexual content in its entry in the Epic Games Store, what's the difference between it having discoverable sexual content after you download and install it, and Reddit in the Apple Store have the exact same thing? Turning on or off content controls and lying about age (which every single teen knows how to do) are beside the point. The point is whether Apple has any moral high ground whatsoever in pointing out that sexual content is indirectly available in the Epic Games Store.
I bought a pinephone because I don't like this. The result has been that I don't get to participate in the family group chat (and Apple has made the UI in the messaging app manipulative enough that we haven't managed to make an alternative group.)
Apple has separated me from my mother because I don't agree with them.
Apple has separated me from my mother because I don't agree with them.
I hate to sound callous here, but what is this supposed to convince me of?
I don’t have or use Facebook or Instagram, or Snapchat, or TikTok because I don’t agree with them and miss out on lots of things - I don’t get invited to some events or form relationships that others do.
So what?
I guess these companies are separating me from my friends and family. How dare they!
I don’t have or use Facebook or Instagram, or Snapchat, or TikTok because I don’t agree with them and miss out on lots of things - I don’t get invited to some events or form relationships that others do.
So what?
I guess these companies are separating me from my friends and family. How dare they!
The default text communication application on the phone silently converts messages into a proprietary format, and it only barely interoperates with SMS. If it came with some kind of proprietary voice system that only barely worked with Android phones, people would be out with pitchforks.
I don't have a problem with apps doing proprietary things. I do have a problem with the default app pushing you and everyone you know to buy an iPhone so you don't have to deal with the screwed up SMS integration. They're abusing their prevalence in the marketplace by making their messaging incompatible with others.
What if Facebook made a phone OS and made the default messaging app WhatsAppPlus, which can only be accessed from a Facebook phone, would that not be an issue?
I don't have a problem with apps doing proprietary things. I do have a problem with the default app pushing you and everyone you know to buy an iPhone so you don't have to deal with the screwed up SMS integration. They're abusing their prevalence in the marketplace by making their messaging incompatible with others.
What if Facebook made a phone OS and made the default messaging app WhatsAppPlus, which can only be accessed from a Facebook phone, would that not be an issue?
I'm one of the people who agrees that what Apple is doing is anti-competitive: they shouldn't have the right to dictate what apps run on their phones, and should be required to allow side-loading.
But I also think that families definitely have the right to choose which app they use for the group chat, even if it's only available on one platform.
You separated yourself from your mother, because you don't agree with Apple. Put like that, maybe you can pick yourself up a cheap iPod Touch and say hi?
It's Mother's Day tomorrow, I'm sure she'd like it.
But I also think that families definitely have the right to choose which app they use for the group chat, even if it's only available on one platform.
You separated yourself from your mother, because you don't agree with Apple. Put like that, maybe you can pick yourself up a cheap iPod Touch and say hi?
It's Mother's Day tomorrow, I'm sure she'd like it.
So in other words we don't actually have a choice.
You can't have it both ways.
I do have an OSX VM (these are always a major bitch to set up) which let me stay in the group chat for a while but Apple changed something in my account and now it doesn't work. I suspect an iPod touch would work the same way.
You can't have it both ways.
I do have an OSX VM (these are always a major bitch to set up) which let me stay in the group chat for a while but Apple changed something in my account and now it doesn't work. I suspect an iPod touch would work the same way.
If the phones are owned by Apple then people should only be allowed to rent them.
It's asinine to sell something to someone and then tell them that they can't do certain things with it.
It's asinine to sell something to someone and then tell them that they can't do certain things with it.
[deleted]
This last line is obnoxious...
> So there we go: That’s all cleared up now! Apple’s advertiser-sanitized, sex work- and LGBTQ-unfriendly utopia is saved from scary indie games like “Horny Chronicles.” Thank goodness.
I for one don’t want to see all that crap in app stores when I’m browsing for something, and I don’t want my kids seeing that stuff... it has nothing to do with being “LGBTQ utopia”. It’s simple called good taste.
Same reason when I turn on the TV I don’t want to be assaulted with this stuff.
We’ve all decided long ago that the way forward with free speech is to categorize, and rate content... movie, tv ratings, preview ratings, etc. By having proper channels and places for certain content free speech is actually extend.
I’m thankful Apple tries hard to make the App Store a place of quality. So let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water by forcing stores to be completely open un moderated spaces in the name of more competition.
Edit: People are missing the point here. The issue is about intent. Browsers and Amazon apps are not app stores. So having those available doesn’t point to intent to allow specific types of content on an app platform.
> So there we go: That’s all cleared up now! Apple’s advertiser-sanitized, sex work- and LGBTQ-unfriendly utopia is saved from scary indie games like “Horny Chronicles.” Thank goodness.
I for one don’t want to see all that crap in app stores when I’m browsing for something, and I don’t want my kids seeing that stuff... it has nothing to do with being “LGBTQ utopia”. It’s simple called good taste.
Same reason when I turn on the TV I don’t want to be assaulted with this stuff.
We’ve all decided long ago that the way forward with free speech is to categorize, and rate content... movie, tv ratings, preview ratings, etc. By having proper channels and places for certain content free speech is actually extend.
I’m thankful Apple tries hard to make the App Store a place of quality. So let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water by forcing stores to be completely open un moderated spaces in the name of more competition.
Edit: People are missing the point here. The issue is about intent. Browsers and Amazon apps are not app stores. So having those available doesn’t point to intent to allow specific types of content on an app platform.
The rating system you mention is not something that “we” decided. That was forced onto the people by the same group of people that think swear words should be banned from tv.
The great thing about the internet, is that we all don’t have to consume the same feeds anymore. We can all find our own level of filtering that makes us confortable. However, there is no reason to push that onto other people. The only rules that really should apply are the rule of the law, where “We” HAVE decided that certain things are illegal.
Like others said: Let me choose what i want or don’t want to see. That should be a few checkboxes when i setup my profile and that’s it. Why should apple tell me what i should and should not see?
The great thing about the internet, is that we all don’t have to consume the same feeds anymore. We can all find our own level of filtering that makes us confortable. However, there is no reason to push that onto other people. The only rules that really should apply are the rule of the law, where “We” HAVE decided that certain things are illegal.
Like others said: Let me choose what i want or don’t want to see. That should be a few checkboxes when i setup my profile and that’s it. Why should apple tell me what i should and should not see?
Funny.. because people vote for this stuff and support it. And if you poll the vast majority of Americans they support it too. So that constitutes “we”.
And I think swear words should be banned from general TV where kids can see it. You may not have a problem with it but I do and so do the majority at the moment. I have an issue with it because to me it’s about respect for other people. Children soak up everything, they’re sponges. I want a world where they see other people respecting each other.
And “we” get to decide that. If you want different then vote and campaign. Pretending you don’t have a voice when you do is just laziness.
And I think swear words should be banned from general TV where kids can see it. You may not have a problem with it but I do and so do the majority at the moment. I have an issue with it because to me it’s about respect for other people. Children soak up everything, they’re sponges. I want a world where they see other people respecting each other.
And “we” get to decide that. If you want different then vote and campaign. Pretending you don’t have a voice when you do is just laziness.
I just watched a movie with 84 murders on screen, and it's rated teen, but show a naked person and everybody looses their mind
So, ask for a feature where 18+ content is not allowed for children's accounts and where an adult's account can filter this stuff out if so desired. Or allow all kinds of stores, one for every taste.
Well I think I that’s the issue. If Apple loses control of the store then creating filters like this becomes much much harder.
I don't think so. If you like Apple's store, stick with it and you are good.
"If Apple loses control of the store then creating filters like this becomes much much harder."
WHy do people still think this is about Fortnite being on the app store? it was already on the app store.
Epic doesn't want to change the app store's content submission system (Epic has their own and it disallows adult apps). They want to host their own store for fortnite players and the other 12 people to download.
If the worry is about a kid installing external apps, Android already solves this. You need to explicitly opt into the choice to download 3rd party apps. Which can be hidden behind a password (like every other permission).
If your kid can crack that password, they probably already did it for Safari and have access to content you don't want them to see. At that point, it's a personal problem. Not Epic's, not Apple's.
WHy do people still think this is about Fortnite being on the app store? it was already on the app store.
Epic doesn't want to change the app store's content submission system (Epic has their own and it disallows adult apps). They want to host their own store for fortnite players and the other 12 people to download.
If the worry is about a kid installing external apps, Android already solves this. You need to explicitly opt into the choice to download 3rd party apps. Which can be hidden behind a password (like every other permission).
If your kid can crack that password, they probably already did it for Safari and have access to content you don't want them to see. At that point, it's a personal problem. Not Epic's, not Apple's.
Browsers are very close to app stores. Both of them can have parental controls enabled, and neither of them need to police perfectly legal content to prevent a subset of users getting harmed or offended. It's trivial to actively prevent porn being shown by default, for example, without banning it. The intent with banning porn is to create a PR narrative around moral policing.
> rate content... movie, tv ratings, preview ratings, etc.
There's quite a bit of opposition to how we do it and how those ratings were designed. For example the issue of "a city full of people evaporated but no blood is visible - good for all ages; wait, stop! there's a nipple visible for a moment - 18+"
There's quite a bit of opposition to how we do it and how those ratings were designed. For example the issue of "a city full of people evaporated but no blood is visible - good for all ages; wait, stop! there's a nipple visible for a moment - 18+"
I can agree that the rating systems should be updated. But that doesn’t mean they are worthless.
And one reason I think people miss for harsh rating on sexual imagery over violent, is it’s used by sexual predators in grooming.
I don’t think people have yet come to grips with the depth of the problem. Jeffrey Epstein is not an outlier... it’s the tip of the iceberg.
Increased sexual imagery in media is part of the process of normalizing behavior that predators use, and they typical start with introducing kids to material...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming
And one reason I think people miss for harsh rating on sexual imagery over violent, is it’s used by sexual predators in grooming.
I don’t think people have yet come to grips with the depth of the problem. Jeffrey Epstein is not an outlier... it’s the tip of the iceberg.
Increased sexual imagery in media is part of the process of normalizing behavior that predators use, and they typical start with introducing kids to material...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming
On the other hand current ratings are in line with people thinking that breastfeeding in public is somehow wrong. Or the weird double-standard of men's nipples on social media being ok, but omg-that's-a-woman's-breast bans.
The FCC doesn't really have ratings like that. It's either OK to show or they'll fine the broadcaster. Movie ratings, game ratings, etc are all voluntary and managed by the various industries themselves, as a way to try to avoid government regulators stepping in. They are only required by storefronts (like walmart or movie theaters), and totally optional otherwise.
Well the FCC uses the stick of regulation to force industry to police themselves. Although the ratings are voluntary, without them, then content would have the be limited because there are laws on the books requiring the ability of parents to filter content.
So yes, they could get rid of ratings, but then they also couldn’t publish certain content.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-120A1.pdf
So yes, they could get rid of ratings, but then they also couldn’t publish certain content.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-120A1.pdf
> and I don’t want my kids seeing that stuff...
They will, and they will fuck/get fucked too. This is called life.
They will, and they will fuck/get fucked too. This is called life.
No they won’t... because I pay attention to what my kids consume. They’ll see it when they’re older, and when they’re are no longer at risk of sexual predators. My parents managed it. To assume it’s a forgone conclusion is just laziness and bad parenting.
There are age appropriateness for these things and ages when they’re introduced. If you don’t think that’s an issue, then you don’t understand how the world of sexual predation works in which kids are groomed.
I take my responsibility to protect my kids seriously. And I want media that makes that possible.
Go have your crap elsewhere, because it’s a matter of safety, not prudishness.
There are age appropriateness for these things and ages when they’re introduced. If you don’t think that’s an issue, then you don’t understand how the world of sexual predation works in which kids are groomed.
I take my responsibility to protect my kids seriously. And I want media that makes that possible.
Go have your crap elsewhere, because it’s a matter of safety, not prudishness.
I've been jerking off on porn since I'm 14, believe me, my parents didn't know (thanks to me coding apps to cover my tracks) not approved. No matter how puritan you are, when puberty hits, they'll find a way.
TMI. Also given past comments I feel like you yourself prove my point... you seem to be the type that objectifies women and sees sex as a power/control thing.
Sex for most people is about love, not dominance. And the porn you’ve been consuming since childhood objectifies women, and makes them seem like sex toys. If you think those women like that kind of stuff, and aren’t just doing it for a paycheck, then you haven’t been around many women.
And just to be clear, this is not a “Puritan” thing. I have no issue with consenting adults watching and enjoying sexual imagery.
The problem again is those who groom children. Unfortunately the reality is that many men do use sex as a power and control over those with less power. If you think about the me too movement, and how much sexual predation has been occurring to adult women behind closed doors... now imagine what happens with children who really have no voice.
Sex for most people is about love, not dominance. And the porn you’ve been consuming since childhood objectifies women, and makes them seem like sex toys. If you think those women like that kind of stuff, and aren’t just doing it for a paycheck, then you haven’t been around many women.
And just to be clear, this is not a “Puritan” thing. I have no issue with consenting adults watching and enjoying sexual imagery.
The problem again is those who groom children. Unfortunately the reality is that many men do use sex as a power and control over those with less power. If you think about the me too movement, and how much sexual predation has been occurring to adult women behind closed doors... now imagine what happens with children who really have no voice.
mnouquet(2)
> because I pay attention to what my kids consume
and I'm sure you can pay attention to make sure they don't sideload apps. Much like how you currently need to pay attention to make sure they don't sideload videos.
I don't see the problem here on what makes this a "safety issue" if you claim to already be monitoring your kids. Even if IOS allowed adult content, this is already covered with the 18+ toggle. Because sex isn't the only thing not appropriate for kids, as you can imagine.
If you don't trust that toggle: well, you probably already have issues with monitoring your kid's content.
and I'm sure you can pay attention to make sure they don't sideload apps. Much like how you currently need to pay attention to make sure they don't sideload videos.
I don't see the problem here on what makes this a "safety issue" if you claim to already be monitoring your kids. Even if IOS allowed adult content, this is already covered with the 18+ toggle. Because sex isn't the only thing not appropriate for kids, as you can imagine.
If you don't trust that toggle: well, you probably already have issues with monitoring your kid's content.
1. Day 1 kids screaming on stream.
2. A ton of confidential third party data leaking.
3. Sony refusing cross platform play because it wouldn't earn them money directly meanwhile they were claiming it was for technical reasons.
4. Tim Sweeney going off on a weird tangent trying to claim Fornite is a "metaverse" and not a game.
5. Judge getting annoyed with all the requests to seal records from a ton of companies.
6. Epic lawyer saying he wants a record sealed because he doesn't want to leak that Paradox is doing a deal with Epic. And Apple lawyer pointing out he just made his request pointless.
7. Epic paid so far 1 billion USD to convince devs to not sell in competitor stores.
8. Epic tried to convince Nintendo to sell on Epic Store (lol)
9. Apple lawyer pointing out that Epic bans rule breakers, and Epic broke rules.