3 ms·
I wouldn't say Apple are being childlike at all. They're simply enforcing the policy they set and the consequences that Epic knew would come if they violated th
by Edd314159 6y ago
I wouldn't say Apple are being childlike at all. They're simply enforcing the policy they set and the consequences that Epic knew would come if they violated that policy.
The argument can be made that Apple's rules are bad rules. I think I would agree that changes to the rules should be made, and I expect that they will make some concessions eventually. But you can't fault them for enforcing those rules the way they are, especially when Epic are provoking Apple so brazenly and publicly.
- bla3 6y agoThe rules are for the iOS app store (or the mac app store, but on mac os you can thankfully get your software elsewhere and the mac app store is mostly a failure). Apple has revoked Epic's license over iOS brouhaha, which means they can't sign their macOS software either. Blocking them from making mac software over an iOS dispute is very questionable, no?
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y agoIt's not that much different than Google nuking an organization account because a member did something stupid with their org account. Or steam/eBay/PayPal/Amazon/etc banning an account for a rightful chargeback.
- justinclift 6y agoGood point. Those are examples of crap behaviour too. ;)
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y agoThanks. To add, All the big companies behave horribly at every opportunity they have to make money. Epics trying to use the courts to increase their profit from Apple's walled garden. Apple's trying to protect their moat. Google Facebook and Amazon are trying to mine every single detail about everyone's life, for money. Instead of these ridiculous court battles we should have gambling laws that restrict underage gambling in video games, and antitrust suits to break open all the walled gardens.
- jonatanheyman 6y agoBad behaviour by some other third party does not justify bad acts by Apple.
- bla3 6y agoSure, Google tying way too many things to a single Google account is exactly the same antipattern. I'm not sure if this is supposed to refute my comment. If so, this rhetorical antipattern is called "whataboutism" ;)
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y agoI answered a question you asked, and then you accuse me of whataboutism? Eesh.
- cma 6y agoWe were told the MacOS signature system was only about security. Now it is about iOS business disputes.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoGood thing you can disable Gatekeeper in five seconds if you don’t like it! That’s what I do. I don’t understand why Epic isn’t releasing unsigned updates...
- ryukafalz 6y agoIsn’t Fortnite normally installed and launched through another launcher? Wouldn’t replacing the signed app with an unsigned version mean that the user would have to go find the app bundle in Finder (which they wouldn’t normally need to interact with) to launch it after an update? I haven’t played Fortnite on a Mac, but I’m assuming EGS generally behaves like Steam here.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoI'm pretty sure existing processes can launch other unsigned processes, unless something has changed in Catalina. (And of course, if you were to disable Gatekeeper none of this would be a problem, although I can see why Epic wouldn't want to make users do that, and they shouldn't have to.)
- labcomputer 6y agoThat's a bit of a stretch. Epic abused the security update workflow of the iOS app review system. Specifically, they submitted an update which was not a hotfix as if it were a hotfix. They (apparently) did that intentionally so that the update would not be inspected closely. The signature system is built on trust. Apple allows trusted partners to submit hotfixes to address security bugs. Those updates receive expedited (read: cursory) review. Epic abused that trust to push an update which added their own payment system, not to address a bug (security or otherwise). If Epic is going to abuse the trust of system for submitting security updates, why should they be trusted by the signature system?