Epic says Apple no longer plans to disable 'Sign in with Apple'

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 59

    The level of Apple fanboyism here is taking religious proportions. 
    If you want to help Epic, do what I did. Put forth an argument. I even got compliments from several of those fanboys for my pro-Epic argument.
  • Reply 42 of 59
    qwerty52 said:
    I think, Apple could arguing, that the control in the AppStore is not about content but precisely to avoid the other six sources of danger, from (a) to (f) for the  users. In (g), there are no any restrictions about content. You are free to use everything in the store
    Thanks for opining. I do appreciate anyone who tries to poke holes in the argument and I see what you are saying. You are saying that Apple should be denying that (g) is about restricting content. Okay, but I think any judge will see that (g) actually does restrict content, so I think your point is only of value with the court of public opinion, not in the court of a judge.
  • Reply 43 of 59

    Pascalxx said:
    @22july2013 ;

    I am somewhat sympathetic to this hypothetical argument on a general level.

    I do see a few problems with it, though, as expressed in the following statement:
    "the founding principles of general purpose computers were to give full control of the computer to the user"

    1. While I like the idea of giving full control to the user, I wonder how this ideal would be relevant to a legal argument since it is not codified anywhere nor promised by Apple (or is it?)
    2. Is a smartphone really a general-purpose computer? (could apply to iPad, though)
    3. Censorship by private companies, including Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, is probably done not because it's an internal priority to these companies but because it is mandated by law  or at least discussed under the issue of platform responsibility/liability (to block illegal content).
    4. The critique of censorship (as in approving apps) in these broad strokes also apply to Epic's store or any other App store.
    Your questions are legitimate, although not entirely persuasive. Just remember, it's not the job of the argument to see the whole picture or come up with an entire solution. That's the job of lawmakers. Our job is to simply win a judgment in court. One of Epic's original claims was to be allowed to install their own App Store in iOS, and that was exactly the kind of injunction I was aiming for with my argument. I made the best case I could to get that judgment. That's all.
    Living in the U.K. I am thinking of opening my own supermarket. I asked Tesco, the country’s biggest supermarket, if I could open my supermarket within one of their stores for free. The told me to #*!% off. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 59
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member

    crowley said:
    Pascalxx said:
    @22july2013 ;

    I am somewhat sympathetic to this hypothetical argument on a general level.

    I do see a few problems with it, though, as expressed in the following statement:
    "the founding principles of general purpose computers were to give full control of the computer to the user"

    I think there may have been some truth in that when the audeicen for "general purpose" computers were enthusiasts and nerds.  We've moved on a bit from then and the audience is much wider, and that principle has been pushed to back behind safety and privacy, which are tasks for the platform vendor to ensure.
    The audience for my argument is not wide, it is exactly one. The judge. Epic has been focussed on the wide audience, but I'm trying to make an argument that will help Epic win its case in court.
    I wasn't responding to you.
  • Reply 45 of 59
    crosslad said:

    Pascalxx said:
    @22july2013 ;

    I am somewhat sympathetic to this hypothetical argument on a general level.

    I do see a few problems with it, though, as expressed in the following statement:
    "the founding principles of general purpose computers were to give full control of the computer to the user"

    1. While I like the idea of giving full control to the user, I wonder how this ideal would be relevant to a legal argument since it is not codified anywhere nor promised by Apple (or is it?)
    2. Is a smartphone really a general-purpose computer? (could apply to iPad, though)
    3. Censorship by private companies, including Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, is probably done not because it's an internal priority to these companies but because it is mandated by law  or at least discussed under the issue of platform responsibility/liability (to block illegal content).
    4. The critique of censorship (as in approving apps) in these broad strokes also apply to Epic's store or any other App store.
    Your questions are legitimate, although not entirely persuasive. Just remember, it's not the job of the argument to see the whole picture or come up with an entire solution. That's the job of lawmakers. Our job is to simply win a judgment in court. One of Epic's original claims was to be allowed to install their own App Store in iOS, and that was exactly the kind of injunction I was aiming for with my argument. I made the best case I could to get that judgment. That's all.
    Living in the U.K. I am thinking of opening my own supermarket. I asked Tesco, the country’s biggest supermarket, if I could open my supermarket within one of their stores for free. The told me to #*!% off. 
    I see your point, which is valid, but it doesn't seem that you saw or addressed my point. My point was that the information and data that passes through an iPhone does not belong to Apple. That is why I argued a position Epic should take, that, like telephones, Apple should not be able to restrict anything that passes through them. I argued that voice and data MUST NOT be monitored or controlled by Apple. If you object to telephone companies listening to your phone calls and censoring what you might say (do you??), why are you in favour of Apple being able to do that very thing with user data? Do you really believe Apple should be able to block or monitor anything that passes through their operating system including, in addition to software, voice calls? Using your stated logic, Apple should be able to listen in to your phone calls and use that information for advertising "because it's their store". And Apple could also block objectionable content by causing a phone to hang up every time the word "trump" is spoken. After all, it's their operating system and you signed their Terms of Service saying they can do whatever they want. What I would like you to answer is why you think voice and data need to be treated differently? Why are they different?
    edited September 2020
  • Reply 46 of 59
    qwerty52 said:
    I think, Apple could arguing, that the control in the AppStore is not about content but precisely to avoid the other six sources of danger, from (a) to (f) for the  users. In (g), there are no any restrictions about content. You are free to use everything in the store
    Thanks for opining. I do appreciate anyone who tries to poke holes in the argument and I see what you are saying. You are saying that Apple should be denying that (g) is about restricting content. Okay, but I think any judge will see that (g) actually does restrict content, so I think your point is only of value with the court of public opinion, not in the court of a judge.
    I still think, in the case with AppStore, the restrictions aren’t about the content self. The restriction are about preventing, that eventually some developers may use the content, to cover one of those  six dangers you have mentioned, to harm the users.
    I think the judge would  take the side of the users.
  • Reply 47 of 59
     I like Apple’s closed platform that’s One of the main reason Why I buy their products, if something’s not working right whether it’s hardware or software I go straight to the Apple store and tell them to fix it or show me what the hell I’m suppose to be doing! Lol! I don’t want to give that up.
    cornchipcrossladwatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 48 of 59
    qwerty52 said:
    qwerty52 said:
    I think, Apple could arguing, that the control in the AppStore is not about content but precisely to avoid the other six sources of danger, from (a) to (f) for the  users. In (g), there are no any restrictions about content. You are free to use everything in the store
    Thanks for opining. I do appreciate anyone who tries to poke holes in the argument and I see what you are saying. You are saying that Apple should be denying that (g) is about restricting content. Okay, but I think any judge will see that (g) actually does restrict content, so I think your point is only of value with the court of public opinion, not in the court of a judge.
    I still think, in the case with AppStore, the restrictions aren’t about the content self. The restriction are about preventing, that eventually some developers may use the content, to cover one of those  six dangers you have mentioned, to harm the users.
    I think the judge would  take the side of the users.
    A judge will decide whether what's being done is legal, Apple's motivation is irrelevant.

    If Apple sold a phone that had Android installed, which doesn't have a curated app store, since it allows side loading, would you still complain that iOS devices have a curated app store? Or is your position that Apple has no right at all to curate anything? As many people have said on these threads, they specifically buy from Apple because it has curation, and you are trying to take that free choice away from them.
  • Reply 49 of 59
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,753member
    tommikele said:
    elijahg said:
    Good, the courts would not have looked kindly on this.
    You are not a lawyer and have no idea what the courts would or would not have looked kindly on.
    Thank you for telling me what I am or am not. You have no idea whether I am a lawyer or not but apparently voicing your opinion as fact is just fine.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 50 of 59
    mac_dog said:
    Is it literally hurting users? The most frequently (and poorly) used word in the American language these days. 

    It’s called a dictionary. Look it up. 
    Yes I used it correctly. See definition 2 here because you obviously didn't consult a dictionary yourself. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

    It would have harmed users by depriving them on what they have paid for with no recourse. But continue to defend a 2 trillion dollar company threatening to delete access to user accounts as ammo in a company vs company lawsuit. I'm certain you're bound to get a $5,000 Apple Store credit one of these days.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 51 of 59
    qwerty52 said:
    qwerty52 said:
    I think, Apple could arguing, that the control in the AppStore is not about content but precisely to avoid the other six sources of danger, from (a) to (f) for the  users. In (g), there are no any restrictions about content. You are free to use everything in the store
    Thanks for opining. I do appreciate anyone who tries to poke holes in the argument and I see what you are saying. You are saying that Apple should be denying that (g) is about restricting content. Okay, but I think any judge will see that (g) actually does restrict content, so I think your point is only of value with the court of public opinion, not in the court of a judge.
    I still think, in the case with AppStore, the restrictions aren’t about the content self. The restriction are about preventing, that eventually some developers may use the content, to cover one of those  six dangers you have mentioned, to harm the users.
    I think the judge would  take the side of the users.
    A judge will decide whether what's being done is legal, Apple's motivation is irrelevant.

    If Apple sold a phone that had Android installed, which doesn't have a curated app store, since it allows side loading, would you still complain that iOS devices have a curated app store? Or is your position that Apple has no right at all to curate anything? As many people have said on these threads, they specifically buy from Apple because it has curation, and you are trying to take that free choice away from them.

    What are you talking about man? Are you crazy? Where did you read it in my threads here, that I am complaining about iOS devices
    have a curated App Store, or that I am trying to take away someone’s free choice?
    Are you sure you are readIng with the needed attention the threads of all of us, like we do yours?
    It is just because of the curation and privacy policy of AppStore, that all my devices are Apple!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 52 of 59
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,036member
    mac_dog said:
    Is it literally hurting users? The most frequently (and poorly) used word in the American language these days. 

    It’s called a dictionary. Look it up. 
    Yes I used it correctly. See definition 2 here because you obviously didn't consult a dictionary yourself. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

    It would have harmed users by depriving them on what they have paid for with no recourse. But continue to defend a 2 trillion dollar company threatening to delete access to user accounts as ammo in a company vs company lawsuit. I'm certain you're bound to get a $5,000 Apple Store credit one of these days.
    "With no recourse"? Give us a break. What are you, a 13 year old Fortnite fan? Of course there's a "recourse". Epic support can help their players gain back access to their accounts. You actually think that Epic has no record what so ever, of their users account?  You don't think Epic has some sort of "Forgot your password or login name" link for players that forgot their user login name and/or password? What do you you think, Epic is some 2 bit operation? If Epic can't help their users gain back access to their accounts, do you really want to trust them with your CC number? 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 59
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    davidw said:
    mac_dog said:
    Is it literally hurting users? The most frequently (and poorly) used word in the American language these days. 

    It’s called a dictionary. Look it up. 
    Yes I used it correctly. See definition 2 here because you obviously didn't consult a dictionary yourself. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

    It would have harmed users by depriving them on what they have paid for with no recourse. But continue to defend a 2 trillion dollar company threatening to delete access to user accounts as ammo in a company vs company lawsuit. I'm certain you're bound to get a $5,000 Apple Store credit one of these days.
    "With no recourse"? Give us a break. What are you, a 13 year old Fortnite fan? Of course there's a "recourse". Epic support can help their players gain back access to their accounts. You actually think that Epic has no record what so ever, of their users account?  You don't think Epic has some sort of "Forgot your password or login name" link for players that forgot their user login name and/or password? What do you you think, Epic is some 2 bit operation? If Epic can't help their users gain back access to their accounts, do you really want to trust them with your CC number? 
    Sign In With Apple takes the place of username and password, and email as well.  If it's deactivated for an app, then users can't get any access to any of those details, and unless theres some other identifiable aspect to the account then there's nothing Epic would be able to do about it (as I understand).
  • Reply 54 of 59

    MplsP said:
    crowley said:
    Pascalxx said:
    @22july2013 ;

    I am somewhat sympathetic to this hypothetical argument on a general level.

    I do see a few problems with it, though, as expressed in the following statement:
    "the founding principles of general purpose computers were to give full control of the computer to the user"

    I think there may have been some truth in that when the audeicen for "general purpose" computers were enthusiasts and nerds.  We've moved on a bit from then and the audience is much wider, and that principle has been pushed to back behind safety and privacy, which are tasks for the platform vendor to ensure.
    The other question is whether you are talking about the computer or the software. I can do anything I want with my iPhone. I can't do anything I want with iOS. 
    Can you jailbreak your iPhone using software from Apple? No, you have to run software from an untrustworthy source, currently the software says it is written by "Kim John Cracks." Apple does not support or document how to jailbreak safely.
    r u sirius? Do you expect Volvo to aid their customers in bypassing their safety system as well? You must be the one on crack.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 55 of 59
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,077member
    crowley said:
    davidw said:
    mac_dog said:
    Is it literally hurting users? The most frequently (and poorly) used word in the American language these days. 

    It’s called a dictionary. Look it up. 
    Yes I used it correctly. See definition 2 here because you obviously didn't consult a dictionary yourself. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

    It would have harmed users by depriving them on what they have paid for with no recourse. But continue to defend a 2 trillion dollar company threatening to delete access to user accounts as ammo in a company vs company lawsuit. I'm certain you're bound to get a $5,000 Apple Store credit one of these days.
    "With no recourse"? Give us a break. What are you, a 13 year old Fortnite fan? Of course there's a "recourse". Epic support can help their players gain back access to their accounts. You actually think that Epic has no record what so ever, of their users account?  You don't think Epic has some sort of "Forgot your password or login name" link for players that forgot their user login name and/or password? What do you you think, Epic is some 2 bit operation? If Epic can't help their users gain back access to their accounts, do you really want to trust them with your CC number? 
    Sign In With Apple takes the place of username and password, and email as well.  If it's deactivated for an app, then users can't get any access to any of those details, and unless theres some other identifiable aspect to the account then there's nothing Epic would be able to do about it (as I understand).
    We don't really know what Apple was threatening to do, if it was threatening to do anything with regard to Sign in with Apple functionality. Was Apple just going to disable its use for new accounts that might have used it? Or also stop old accounts that used it from continuing to use it? Even if it was the latter, do you think Apple would have then blocked users from seeing the appleid.com email address their account used? That seems unlikely to me. I wouldn't criticize Apple for doing that until I saw that that is what Apple did or threatened to do. Until I saw otherwise, I'd expect that people would still be able to see the email addresses used for their accounts.

    That said, there's also the name which (by default) is shared when an account is set up using Sign in with Apple.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 56 of 59
    qwerty52 said:
    qwerty52 said:
    qwerty52 said:
    I think, Apple could arguing, that the control in the AppStore is not about content but precisely to avoid the other six sources of danger, from (a) to (f) for the  users. In (g), there are no any restrictions about content. You are free to use everything in the store
    Thanks for opining. I do appreciate anyone who tries to poke holes in the argument and I see what you are saying. You are saying that Apple should be denying that (g) is about restricting content. Okay, but I think any judge will see that (g) actually does restrict content, so I think your point is only of value with the court of public opinion, not in the court of a judge.
    I still think, in the case with AppStore, the restrictions aren’t about the content self. The restriction are about preventing, that eventually some developers may use the content, to cover one of those  six dangers you have mentioned, to harm the users.
    I think the judge would  take the side of the users.
    A judge will decide whether what's being done is legal, Apple's motivation is irrelevant.

    If Apple sold a phone that had Android installed, which doesn't have a curated app store, since it allows side loading, would you still complain that iOS devices have a curated app store? Or is your position that Apple has no right at all to curate anything? As many people have said on these threads, they specifically buy from Apple because it has curation, and you are trying to take that free choice away from them.

    What are you talking about man? Are you crazy? Where did you read it in my threads here, that I am complaining about iOS devices
    have a curated App Store, or that I am trying to take away someone’s free choice?
    Are you sure you are readIng with the needed attention the threads of all of us, like we do yours?
    It is just because of the curation and privacy policy of AppStore, that all my devices are Apple!
    I asked you those questions because you said that the judge would "take the side of the users" which I inferred to mean that you thought Epic would and should win this case. Are you changing your mind about who should win now? Great, maybe my argument caused you to see the problem with your opinion.
  • Reply 57 of 59


    MplsP said:
    crowley said:
    Pascalxx said:
    @22july2013 ;

    I am somewhat sympathetic to this hypothetical argument on a general level.

    I do see a few problems with it, though, as expressed in the following statement:
    "the founding principles of general purpose computers were to give full control of the computer to the user"

    I think there may have been some truth in that when the audeicen for "general purpose" computers were enthusiasts and nerds.  We've moved on a bit from then and the audience is much wider, and that principle has been pushed to back behind safety and privacy, which are tasks for the platform vendor to ensure.
    The other question is whether you are talking about the computer or the software. I can do anything I want with my iPhone. I can't do anything I want with iOS. 
    Can you jailbreak your iPhone using software from Apple? No, you have to run software from an untrustworthy source, currently the software says it is written by "Kim John Cracks." Apple does not support or document how to jailbreak safely.
    r u sirius? Do you expect Volvo to aid their customers in bypassing their safety system as well? You must be the one on crack.
    Apple already allows Mac owners to bypass their Mac operating system and its security with other operating systems. Why do you think I need to be on crack to say that Apple could do the EXACT same thing for iPhones? I estimate that less than 1% of users have replaced MacOS with anything else, and I think it would be the same 1% for iOS if Apple allowed the same thing there. I don't think you are seeing the parallels. And it would get the regulators off Apple's back. Do you see any regulators complaining about the growing curation in Macs? No, because Mac users can remove the OS and replace it with other OSs.
    elijahg
  • Reply 58 of 59
    Every time this guy communicates, it leads one to wonder what he's on... He's either incoherent, or when coherent, full of blather.
    Kinda like Elon Musk.
    No comparison. 
    I was simply alluding to the time Elon Musk actually was literally stoned. 
    So what?

    Don't know where you live, but it's legal in many parts of the USA, including where he smoked it. It is no different from his smoking a cigarette (although, in many places in the US, tobacco smoking is considered far more taboo and dirty than marijuana smoking).

    For the record, I smoke neither.
  • Reply 59 of 59
    Every time this guy communicates, it leads one to wonder what he's on... He's either incoherent, or when coherent, full of blather.
    Kinda like Elon Musk.
    No comparison. 
    I was simply alluding to the time Elon Musk actually was literally stoned. 
    So what?

    Don't know where you live, but it's legal in many parts of the USA, including where he smoked it. It is no different from his smoking a cigarette (although, in many places in the US, tobacco smoking is considered far more taboo and dirty than marijuana smoking).

    For the record, I smoke neither.
    It's not legal federally. He's a federal contractor. He broke federal law. But that wasn't my point. The point I made was that he sometimes appears incoherent, and that point was right. Furthermore, he also broke Tesla's own policy about not to ever use "illegal drugs" (it doesn't say drugs that are illegal in California.) He also uses lots of Ambien causing him to ramble on Twitter and get his own board of directors upset with him over this drug use. He was in danger of losing SpaceX's contracts with NASA because he broke federal law. Even though you are wrong about him breaking the law, this is a distraction from my point. My point was that he has been a veritable nutcase on a wide variety of issues and it would take me several paragraphs to list all of them. Dozens of issues.
Sign In or Register to comment.