11 ms·

> This is almost certainly due to their developer account being blocked, so it's not like Epic is fully innocent here. It looks more and more like Apple made a

by hrktb 6y ago

> This is almost certainly due to their developer account being blocked, so it's not like Epic is fully innocent here. It looks more and more like Apple made a mistake in blocking the developper account. Arguably the reaction should have stopped at pulling Fortnite out of the store. If extra steps were really needed, forcing suppression of Fortnite from existing iOS devices could have been accepted as a related measure. But blocking the whole developper account is so overreaching it still generates news weeks after the initial issue. It feels like Epic waived a red cloth and Apple just ran full speed into it. I see the current mess completely of Apple's own doing.

cma 6y ago
It was even crazier when they tried to deactivate their Apple signin users. Apple has just a few months ago started mandating you allow Apple sign in if you allow any other third party sign in. This gives Apple a huge hammer over your business, as it causes Apple sign in to leak into your web properties or properties on other platforms and Apple now has a hammer over some portion of your users who didn't even find your stuff through their store or even their devices or have moved on from using those devices.
- paxys 6y ago
  Yeah that was the worst one for me. They don't even have user email addresses in all cases, so those users are just permanently lost. People were hailing it as a great privacy move (which it still may be), but it gives Apple a massive lock-in advantage.
  - katbyte 6y ago
    tbh i use it when i don't really care and whatever rando app required a login for some reason. For that purpose it's fantastic and no different then google/fb/ect except more private. for anything i care about i use a real email/password
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Exactly. I get to choose who I want to have my email address. If it is a company I trust, I give them my real email address.
- judge2020 6y ago
  > When reached for comment about yesterday’s news, Apple told The Verge that it was not doing anything to stop “Sign In with Apple” accounts from working with Epic Games. Someone was lying. https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/10/21431396/epic-sign-in-with-apple-will-keep-working-fortnite https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/10/21431396/epic-sign-in-wit...
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    I believe the company saying they were threatened over one as large as Apple, where one group could have said "yes we're threatening you with this" and another disparate group could say "we would never do that" - Actually looking at other sources it's very clear that is exactly what happened: - Epic Games doesn't just tweet they're being threatened with termination, they start updating all documentation on accounts to reflect this fact with a specific termination date - Verge reaches out, gets an immediate reply from Apple that they'd never do this - Epic Games gets an indefinite extension on the removal. - Verge reaches out to Apple about Epic's claims that they got an extension on a ban... no reply. Most likely the "lower level" developer relations people have the power to terminate access to the program, and did threaten Epic with it Higher level legal/strategy dealing with the fact this is a matter about to enter court and in the public spotlight step in and clarify this is not a case where the lower level relations people should terminate their access. Once the fact Epic had in fact been threatened with termination bubbled up, they stop replying. The problem is very much, most people never get that higher-level involvement. The fact these lower level development relationship people are showing it's a lever they were at some point willing to pull is more than a little worrying...
  - partiallypro 6y ago
    I'd be interested to see if correspondence between Apple and Epic included threats to disable "sign in with Apple" though. This seems fairly possible to me, that someone made that threat without going through legal. Apple is pretty power drunk in this scenario, imo. So I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.
  - cma 6y ago
    Apple's wording is loose enough not to preclude it. "Not doing anything" is present tense, but they could still have said they were going to. No one has to be lying. When Apple watched reached for comment on whether they just gave an indefinite extension: no comment. When earlier reached for comment on whether they were restricting it: immediate non-denial denial.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  I don't know why this was downvoted, maybe people don't realize why this is so serious? Sign in with Apple doesn't give you a user's email, it uses randomized forwarding addresses. So if Apple blocks you from it, those users can never log in again, and you can never recover the accounts that used it There's no way to send a link saying "Hey we got blocked from Apple, log in here". That's it, those user accounts are dead. Combine that with a requirement that you use this log in system? Complete and utter insanity that Apple would try and use that to threaten a company.
  - ptero 6y ago
    I do not know why you are being downvoted (I upvoted this not because I agree with your view, but because I see your point as the one that deserves to be argued). I agree that the ability to reach user directly is a valuable feature to a developer. And your request sounds completely fine. But it is wide open to abuse. Now, that said, as a user I would be very unhappy if Apple started blasting my AppleID email to every app I decided to try. That would generate a ton of spam and probably make that email unusable for anything else. If a developer wants direct access to the user nothing prevents them from asking the user in an app (where the user has a chance to say "Hell, no!"). My 2c.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      You're inferring a request that isn't there though, I'm not saying Apple should send any emails without asking I'm saying Apple should not force anyone to implement it. Some apps just work even if users lose accounts easily. They tend to not push for logins immediately. Sign-in with Apple is a great match for them. But in others, if the user doesn't want to share their email, the dev wants that to be treated as "the user isn't logged in", "I haven't justified logging in". The dev wants to demonstrate enough value to justify you being logged in with an email. Sign-in with Apple is a terrible match for them creates a limbo state where users have accounts, but not full accounts. In those apps it's very awkward to handle in not just the app itself, but real world customer lifecycle events, like support - Not to mention other logins (and OAuth in general) already handle this, you ask permission to access email with an "email" scope and the user is clearly made aware they're sharing their email address And I mean it, the UX is not some shady misleading thing, it's in the best interests of Google and Facebook that your email doesn't become spam either.
me_me_me 6y ago
> it still generates news weeks after the initial issue Its two dragons lying on two giant piles of gold fighting to get more gold. And bystanders are getting hurt. I couldn't care less about which dragon is going win. I have better thing to worry about.
- foepys 6y ago
  > And bystanders are getting hurt. Who are those bystanders?
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    People/studios trying to make money releasing games written with Unreal engine.
    - dpkonofa 6y ago
      Those people and studios are currently still able to release games written with the Unreal Engine and will continue to be able to do so regardless of the outcome of this situation unless Epic decides that they want to continue violating the guidelines of the platform. In the future, every dev on Unreal Engine can still compile their game and put it on the App Store without needing Epic at all.
      - fxtentacle 6y ago
        Sadly no. They'll need compatibility patches with new hardware, for example. Those won't come of Epic cannot build them.
  - kzrdude 6y ago
    Those who use epic games or apple devices and wanted to use epic games.
- baumandm 6y ago
  The issues at play here have nothing to do with how much money Epic or Apple have.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
WilTimSon 6y ago
> It feels like Epic waived a red cloth and Apple just ran full speed into it. I see the current mess completely of Apple's own doing. What kind of repercussions could it have? I'm sure it's not great PR, but is it really likely this damages Apple in the long run? I'd presume Epic could challenge the legality of these actions in a lawsuit but, other than that, isn't Epic totally at Apple's mercy?
- airza 6y ago
  They are already challenging them in a lawsuit, right?
- monadic2 6y ago
  > I'm sure it's not great PR, but is it really likely this damages Apple in the long run? Why would you base your income on their platform knowing how they treat their users and developers? Seems pretty harebrained to me. There's many ways to sell software which don't involve paying a third party for your own work.
  - oivey 6y ago
    Doesn’t most mobile app revenue come from iOS? That’s not an accident, and a lot of it arguably has to do with the walled garden.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Or could it be that people who both have and are willing to spend money buy Apple devices?
      - oivey 6y ago
        Sure, that’s probably the most major reason. Having an app store that requires apps to meet certain quality standards, respect privacy, and not contain malware is part of why people are willing to pay a premium for iPhones. It goes without saying there are other factors, too, like the high quality hardware and integration with cool accessories. Again, it’s not an accident that iOS apps are more profitable than Android apps. Apple’s overall ecosystem is designed to attract people who are willing to pay for good products.
marcosdumay 6y ago
Everything that happened is a logical consequence of their decision to completely lock-down their products. Whatever was the reason for that decision (anti-competitive exploitation, hubris of vision, etc), after it was taken (and while it's kept), there wasn't any other course of action possible.
shadowgovt 6y ago
This is Apple business as usual. I worked at a company that got slightly disrupted when Apple blocked our dev credentials because of something else it didn't like we were doing. That broke our public-facing apps, but also broke our ability to deploy software we'd written in-house to our corporate iPhones, because it's the same code-signing credentials. I'm glad this hippo-fight is shedding light on this aspect of the Apple dev ecosystem. (Our Android devices, of course, had no such issues, since even if Google had objected, you can side-load an APK).
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > but also broke our ability to deploy software we'd written in-house to our corporate iPhones, because it's the same code-signing credentials. This is an important point. Apple will retaliate and hinder your ability to get work done using your own in-house software if they decide they don't like you.
  - Bud 6y ago
    "If they decide they don't like you"? That's simply not what occurred, here. Nobody at Apple blithely decided randomly one day that they "didn't like" Epic. Epic violated the terms of their agreement with Apple. It's as simple as that. Now yes, there has been a shitstorm of other conflict rising out of that, but on a fundamental level, Epic decided to blatantly violate a contract. That's what happened.
    - elliekelly 6y ago
      Where’s the part where Apple didn’t decide they don’t like Epic? Whether or not Epic’s actions were the catalyst for that decision (and I agree, they were) is irrelevant to GP’s point.
      - ianmobbs 6y ago
        What does that even mean? Of course Epic's actions being the catalyst is relevant. It's the whole reason this is even happening. Are you trying to imply that Epic's actions are irrelevant, but "Apple just plain not liking Epic" is? When you make a claim that Apple is doing this just because they don't like Epic, you have the burden of proof for that claim, and you can't just flip that around with "where’s the part where Apple didn’t decide they don’t like Epic".
dpkonofa 6y ago
How do you figure? >Apple made a mistake in blocking the developper account. The judge on the case doesn't feel that way. They have, thus far, agreed with Apple's side on everything except their decision to block Epic's other developer accounts and even that is only a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo until it can be ascertained if any damages were caused by either party through their actions. >so overreaching it still generates news weeks after the initial issue. It's not generating news. Epic's blog posts are generating news because they're acting like the victim and it's sensational enough to get clicks. >It feels like Epic waived a red cloth and Apple just ran full speed into it. I see the current mess completely of Apple's own doing. That's a really weird take considering that Epic was the one that willfully violated the terms of service and got their app removed and their developer account cancelled. Fortnite use is down. iOS downloads are waaaay up.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > Fortnite use is down. iOS downloads are waaaay up. Why even both making that comparison? It makes no sense. By definition Fortnite usage would go down unless new users could make up for users now prevented from playing. iOS just released a new version, of course there are downloads of it as people upgrade their phone OS. What do these have to do with each other?
- pier25 6y ago
  > Fortnite use is down. iOS downloads are waaaay up. Maybe you're not aware, but 80% of Fortnite players are on consoles. https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-royale-sentiment-study-understanding-the-phenomena-and-what-draws-players-to-particular-franchises/ https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-royale-s...

by hrktb 6y ago

cma 6y ago

It was even crazier when they tried to deactivate their Apple signin users. Apple has just a few months ago started mandating you allow Apple sign in if you allow any other third party sign in. This gives Apple a huge hammer over your business, as it causes Apple sign in to leak into your web properties or properties on other platforms and Apple now has a hammer over some portion of your users who didn't even find your stuff through their store or even their devices or have moved on from using those devices.

paxys 6y ago
Yeah that was the worst one for me. They don't even have user email addresses in all cases, so those users are just permanently lost. People were hailing it as a great privacy move (which it still may be), but it gives Apple a massive lock-in advantage.
- katbyte 6y ago
  tbh i use it when i don't really care and whatever rando app required a login for some reason. For that purpose it's fantastic and no different then google/fb/ect except more private. for anything i care about i use a real email/password
- scarface74 6y ago
  Exactly. I get to choose who I want to have my email address. If it is a company I trust, I give them my real email address.
judge2020 6y ago
> When reached for comment about yesterday’s news, Apple told The Verge that it was not doing anything to stop “Sign In with Apple” accounts from working with Epic Games. Someone was lying. https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/10/21431396/epic-sign-in-with-apple-will-keep-working-fortnite https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/10/21431396/epic-sign-in-wit...
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  I believe the company saying they were threatened over one as large as Apple, where one group could have said "yes we're threatening you with this" and another disparate group could say "we would never do that" - Actually looking at other sources it's very clear that is exactly what happened: - Epic Games doesn't just tweet they're being threatened with termination, they start updating all documentation on accounts to reflect this fact with a specific termination date - Verge reaches out, gets an immediate reply from Apple that they'd never do this - Epic Games gets an indefinite extension on the removal. - Verge reaches out to Apple about Epic's claims that they got an extension on a ban... no reply. Most likely the "lower level" developer relations people have the power to terminate access to the program, and did threaten Epic with it Higher level legal/strategy dealing with the fact this is a matter about to enter court and in the public spotlight step in and clarify this is not a case where the lower level relations people should terminate their access. Once the fact Epic had in fact been threatened with termination bubbled up, they stop replying. The problem is very much, most people never get that higher-level involvement. The fact these lower level development relationship people are showing it's a lever they were at some point willing to pull is more than a little worrying...
- partiallypro 6y ago
  I'd be interested to see if correspondence between Apple and Epic included threats to disable "sign in with Apple" though. This seems fairly possible to me, that someone made that threat without going through legal. Apple is pretty power drunk in this scenario, imo. So I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.
- cma 6y ago
  Apple's wording is loose enough not to preclude it. "Not doing anything" is present tense, but they could still have said they were going to. No one has to be lying. When Apple watched reached for comment on whether they just gave an indefinite extension: no comment. When earlier reached for comment on whether they were restricting it: immediate non-denial denial.
BoorishBears 6y ago
I don't know why this was downvoted, maybe people don't realize why this is so serious? Sign in with Apple doesn't give you a user's email, it uses randomized forwarding addresses. So if Apple blocks you from it, those users can never log in again, and you can never recover the accounts that used it There's no way to send a link saying "Hey we got blocked from Apple, log in here". That's it, those user accounts are dead. Combine that with a requirement that you use this log in system? Complete and utter insanity that Apple would try and use that to threaten a company.
- ptero 6y ago
  I do not know why you are being downvoted (I upvoted this not because I agree with your view, but because I see your point as the one that deserves to be argued). I agree that the ability to reach user directly is a valuable feature to a developer. And your request sounds completely fine. But it is wide open to abuse. Now, that said, as a user I would be very unhappy if Apple started blasting my AppleID email to every app I decided to try. That would generate a ton of spam and probably make that email unusable for anything else. If a developer wants direct access to the user nothing prevents them from asking the user in an app (where the user has a chance to say "Hell, no!"). My 2c.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    You're inferring a request that isn't there though, I'm not saying Apple should send any emails without asking I'm saying Apple should not force anyone to implement it. Some apps just work even if users lose accounts easily. They tend to not push for logins immediately. Sign-in with Apple is a great match for them. But in others, if the user doesn't want to share their email, the dev wants that to be treated as "the user isn't logged in", "I haven't justified logging in". The dev wants to demonstrate enough value to justify you being logged in with an email. Sign-in with Apple is a terrible match for them creates a limbo state where users have accounts, but not full accounts. In those apps it's very awkward to handle in not just the app itself, but real world customer lifecycle events, like support - Not to mention other logins (and OAuth in general) already handle this, you ask permission to access email with an "email" scope and the user is clearly made aware they're sharing their email address And I mean it, the UX is not some shady misleading thing, it's in the best interests of Google and Facebook that your email doesn't become spam either.

me_me_me 6y ago

> it still generates news weeks after the initial issue Its two dragons lying on two giant piles of gold fighting to get more gold. And bystanders are getting hurt. I couldn't care less about which dragon is going win. I have better thing to worry about.

foepys 6y ago
> And bystanders are getting hurt. Who are those bystanders?
- me_me_me 6y ago
  People/studios trying to make money releasing games written with Unreal engine.
  - dpkonofa 6y ago
    Those people and studios are currently still able to release games written with the Unreal Engine and will continue to be able to do so regardless of the outcome of this situation unless Epic decides that they want to continue violating the guidelines of the platform. In the future, every dev on Unreal Engine can still compile their game and put it on the App Store without needing Epic at all.
    - fxtentacle 6y ago
      Sadly no. They'll need compatibility patches with new hardware, for example. Those won't come of Epic cannot build them.
- kzrdude 6y ago
  Those who use epic games or apple devices and wanted to use epic games.
baumandm 6y ago
The issues at play here have nothing to do with how much money Epic or Apple have.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

WilTimSon 6y ago

> It feels like Epic waived a red cloth and Apple just ran full speed into it. I see the current mess completely of Apple's own doing. What kind of repercussions could it have? I'm sure it's not great PR, but is it really likely this damages Apple in the long run? I'd presume Epic could challenge the legality of these actions in a lawsuit but, other than that, isn't Epic totally at Apple's mercy?

airza 6y ago
They are already challenging them in a lawsuit, right?
monadic2 6y ago
> I'm sure it's not great PR, but is it really likely this damages Apple in the long run? Why would you base your income on their platform knowing how they treat their users and developers? Seems pretty harebrained to me. There's many ways to sell software which don't involve paying a third party for your own work.
- oivey 6y ago
  Doesn’t most mobile app revenue come from iOS? That’s not an accident, and a lot of it arguably has to do with the walled garden.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Or could it be that people who both have and are willing to spend money buy Apple devices?
    - oivey 6y ago
      Sure, that’s probably the most major reason. Having an app store that requires apps to meet certain quality standards, respect privacy, and not contain malware is part of why people are willing to pay a premium for iPhones. It goes without saying there are other factors, too, like the high quality hardware and integration with cool accessories. Again, it’s not an accident that iOS apps are more profitable than Android apps. Apple’s overall ecosystem is designed to attract people who are willing to pay for good products.

marcosdumay 6y ago

Everything that happened is a logical consequence of their decision to completely lock-down their products. Whatever was the reason for that decision (anti-competitive exploitation, hubris of vision, etc), after it was taken (and while it's kept), there wasn't any other course of action possible.

shadowgovt 6y ago

This is Apple business as usual. I worked at a company that got slightly disrupted when Apple blocked our dev credentials because of something else it didn't like we were doing. That broke our public-facing apps, but also broke our ability to deploy software we'd written in-house to our corporate iPhones, because it's the same code-signing credentials. I'm glad this hippo-fight is shedding light on this aspect of the Apple dev ecosystem. (Our Android devices, of course, had no such issues, since even if Google had objected, you can side-load an APK).

heavyset_go 6y ago
> but also broke our ability to deploy software we'd written in-house to our corporate iPhones, because it's the same code-signing credentials. This is an important point. Apple will retaliate and hinder your ability to get work done using your own in-house software if they decide they don't like you.
- Bud 6y ago
  "If they decide they don't like you"? That's simply not what occurred, here. Nobody at Apple blithely decided randomly one day that they "didn't like" Epic. Epic violated the terms of their agreement with Apple. It's as simple as that. Now yes, there has been a shitstorm of other conflict rising out of that, but on a fundamental level, Epic decided to blatantly violate a contract. That's what happened.
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    Where’s the part where Apple didn’t decide they don’t like Epic? Whether or not Epic’s actions were the catalyst for that decision (and I agree, they were) is irrelevant to GP’s point.
    - ianmobbs 6y ago
      What does that even mean? Of course Epic's actions being the catalyst is relevant. It's the whole reason this is even happening. Are you trying to imply that Epic's actions are irrelevant, but "Apple just plain not liking Epic" is? When you make a claim that Apple is doing this just because they don't like Epic, you have the burden of proof for that claim, and you can't just flip that around with "where’s the part where Apple didn’t decide they don’t like Epic".

dpkonofa 6y ago

How do you figure? >Apple made a mistake in blocking the developper account. The judge on the case doesn't feel that way. They have, thus far, agreed with Apple's side on everything except their decision to block Epic's other developer accounts and even that is only a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo until it can be ascertained if any damages were caused by either party through their actions. >so overreaching it still generates news weeks after the initial issue. It's not generating news. Epic's blog posts are generating news because they're acting like the victim and it's sensational enough to get clicks. >It feels like Epic waived a red cloth and Apple just ran full speed into it. I see the current mess completely of Apple's own doing. That's a really weird take considering that Epic was the one that willfully violated the terms of service and got their app removed and their developer account cancelled. Fortnite use is down. iOS downloads are waaaay up.

kbenson 6y ago
> Fortnite use is down. iOS downloads are waaaay up. Why even both making that comparison? It makes no sense. By definition Fortnite usage would go down unless new users could make up for users now prevented from playing. iOS just released a new version, of course there are downloads of it as people upgrade their phone OS. What do these have to do with each other?
pier25 6y ago
> Fortnite use is down. iOS downloads are waaaay up. Maybe you're not aware, but 80% of Fortnite players are on consoles. https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-royale-sentiment-study-understanding-the-phenomena-and-what-draws-players-to-particular-franchises/ https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-royale-s...