4 ms·

> Notarization is about protecting users who are not capable of making an informed decision about code safety from developers who refuse to comply with Apple's

by untog 6y ago

> Notarization is about protecting users who are not capable of making an informed decision about code safety from developers who refuse to comply with Apple's terms of service. Epic willfully violated their terms with Apple to make a point, and Apple is responding in the same way that they did to Facebook: taking away their access to the users, because they cannot be trusted to comply with the restrictions placed on their behavior. You're conflating two things here: code safety, and what Epic did. At no point did Epic do anything unsafe, nor did they put their users in any danger. They simple violated a business rule Apple enforces.

floatingatoll 6y ago
If Epic chooses not to follow the rules, then Apple chooses not to trust them to deliver executable code to users. You are arguing that Apple is incorrect to assert that rulebreakers should not have privileges to deploy code to end-user devices worldwide, when the rule is not one that protects users. Apple's counter-argument would presumably be that this business rule exists specifically to protect users from being harmed by developers, given the prevalence of "free trial" subscription scams over the past X decades of Internet marketing (and before that, TV commercials). So, I don't buy the argument that Epic did nothing unsafe. It takes seconds to construct multiple scenarios where users have been abused by third-party payment systems, such that Apple would consider them "malicious behaviors that impact the user". ps. There's a technicality branch here on "malware" != "malicious behaviors", but, like, malicious payment processing is implemented using software, "malware" is "malicious software", so "malware" still applies to the scenario I constructed above — and that flexibility demonstrates why "malware" is a terrible abbreviation for whatever everyone individually thinks it means.
- dlubarov 6y ago
  You can make the case that using other payment systems sub-optimal from a security perspective, but malware? Would you also consider Uber, Lyft, and Amazon malware since they accept other payment systems?
- neop1x 6y ago
  The problem is the Apple, who owns the whole platform is deciding here on behalf of users. Taking 30% is like paying taxes to IRS. At the same time look at Apple's marketcap and tax evading practices in Ireland. Why is there still government and police if Apple can protect users themselves and dictate what users can and cannot do on their devices?
jimmydorry 6y ago
Imagine the wild west it would be if every app could redirect payment info to what ever their sketchy payment processor was. I shudder at the thought. I very much categorize Epic's actions in the "unsafe" basket.
- frosted-flakes 6y ago
  How would that be any different than general Internet e-commerce, where there is no landlord forcing everyone to use its services? It wouldn't, and nothing disastrous would happen.
  - tpetry 6y ago
    It would be the same as browser based e-commerce: stolen credit card information, fraud transactions, leaks of credit card information due to non existing security This is exactly what apple tried to prevent (snd is earning a shit ton money with it): manual credit card entry because except the big ones almost no one would be safe
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      The constant leaks of celebrity private documents (including videos and pictures) happen because Apple servers are too secure?
- eredengrin 6y ago
  For sure, I'm shuddering right now just thinking about all the software packages I've had installed on my linux box the past decade that have (or could have had) donation buttons that send me to their sketchy payment processors. Can't believe I trusted them!
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  Yeahh Imagine that Imagine a world where people buy things on a website let's name it Amazon Or pay for online auctions using something very sketchy, something like a PayPal Imagine paying online for cabs, food delivery, books or to rent a movie or a BnB on the other side of the World, to buy a flight, theater, museum ticket What a wild wild west it would be, we will be fighting each other like crazy if it wasn't for Apple that saved us all from ourselves...

by untog 6y ago

floatingatoll 6y ago

If Epic chooses not to follow the rules, then Apple chooses not to trust them to deliver executable code to users. You are arguing that Apple is incorrect to assert that rulebreakers should not have privileges to deploy code to end-user devices worldwide, when the rule is not one that protects users. Apple's counter-argument would presumably be that this business rule exists specifically to protect users from being harmed by developers, given the prevalence of "free trial" subscription scams over the past X decades of Internet marketing (and before that, TV commercials). So, I don't buy the argument that Epic did nothing unsafe. It takes seconds to construct multiple scenarios where users have been abused by third-party payment systems, such that Apple would consider them "malicious behaviors that impact the user". ps. There's a technicality branch here on "malware" != "malicious behaviors", but, like, malicious payment processing is implemented using software, "malware" is "malicious software", so "malware" still applies to the scenario I constructed above — and that flexibility demonstrates why "malware" is a terrible abbreviation for whatever everyone individually thinks it means.

dlubarov 6y ago
You can make the case that using other payment systems sub-optimal from a security perspective, but malware? Would you also consider Uber, Lyft, and Amazon malware since they accept other payment systems?
neop1x 6y ago
The problem is the Apple, who owns the whole platform is deciding here on behalf of users. Taking 30% is like paying taxes to IRS. At the same time look at Apple's marketcap and tax evading practices in Ireland. Why is there still government and police if Apple can protect users themselves and dictate what users can and cannot do on their devices?

jimmydorry 6y ago

Imagine the wild west it would be if every app could redirect payment info to what ever their sketchy payment processor was. I shudder at the thought. I very much categorize Epic's actions in the "unsafe" basket.

frosted-flakes 6y ago
How would that be any different than general Internet e-commerce, where there is no landlord forcing everyone to use its services? It wouldn't, and nothing disastrous would happen.
- tpetry 6y ago
  It would be the same as browser based e-commerce: stolen credit card information, fraud transactions, leaks of credit card information due to non existing security This is exactly what apple tried to prevent (snd is earning a shit ton money with it): manual credit card entry because except the big ones almost no one would be safe
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    The constant leaks of celebrity private documents (including videos and pictures) happen because Apple servers are too secure?
eredengrin 6y ago
For sure, I'm shuddering right now just thinking about all the software packages I've had installed on my linux box the past decade that have (or could have had) donation buttons that send me to their sketchy payment processors. Can't believe I trusted them!
romanoderoma 6y ago
Yeahh Imagine that Imagine a world where people buy things on a website let's name it Amazon Or pay for online auctions using something very sketchy, something like a PayPal Imagine paying online for cabs, food delivery, books or to rent a movie or a BnB on the other side of the World, to buy a flight, theater, museum ticket What a wild wild west it would be, we will be fighting each other like crazy if it wasn't for Apple that saved us all from ourselves...