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

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion edited September 2020
Apple has reportedly provided an "indefinite extension" to Epic Games' access to the "Sign in with Apple" feature.

Credit: Apple
Credit: Apple


The update comes a day after Epic Games tweeted that Apple was disabling their users' access to the quick sign-in feature. Apple closed Epic Games' developer account on Aug. 28.

In a tweet on Thursday, the Fortnite Status profile told users that Apple had "reversed course" and would not terminate "Sign in with Apple" support by Sept. 11.

UPDATE: Apple previously stated they would terminate "Sign In with Apple" support for Epic Games accounts after Sept 11, 2020, but today provided an indefinite extension. We still recommend you prepare your accounts now for "Sign In with Apple" removal. https://t.co/T0Rq0tfrR7

-- Fortnite Status (@FortniteStatus)


The Twitter account still recommends that Epic Games users "prepare" their accounts for the removal of the feature.

It isn't clear if Apple decided to back off on the threat of terminating "Sign in with Apple," or if the closure of Epic's developer account led to some sort of automated cancellation notice. There appears to be discrepancies in Epic's claims, however.

In a statement to The Verge, Apple said it was not actively seeking to disable "Sign in with Apple" compatibility with Epic Games. The comment suggests at least one party is distorting or misrepresenting the facts.

The update is only the latest chapter in the legal saga between Apple and Epic Games. It kicked off when Epic baited Apple into removing "Fortnite" from the App Store, filed an antitrust lawsuit against the company, and unsuccessfully attempted to restore the game in court.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 59
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Well, if one party is distorting or misrepresenting the facts, my money’s on Epic doing the distorting. 
    edited September 2020 anantksundaramaderutterericthehalfbeeBiggieTalltommikeleFileMakerFellerflyingdpmwhiterobabafotoformat
  • Reply 2 of 59
    FatmanFatman Posts: 513member
    Epic hurts it’s users, Apple does not.
    anantksundarammwhitewatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 59
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,166member
    Fatman said:
    Epic hurts it’s users, Apple does not.
    Any company that makes most of its money with endless IAP does this.
    superklotoncornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 59
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,404member
    Every time this guy communicates, it leads one to wonder what he's on... He's either incoherent, or when coherent, full of blather.
    qwerty52watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 59
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,486member
    People are missing a bigger issue.

    When you lose a developer account you lose access to Sign In with Apple because they’re tied together.

    So Epic didn’t have their developer account FULLY revoked as Sign In still works. I don’t know of any other company that had their account revoked, but still retained access to some features. It’s an all-or- nothing ban.

    So Epic is getting “preferred” treatment here.
    Gilliam_Batesaderuttercornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 59
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,929member
    ericthehalfbee said:
    People are missing a bigger issue.

    When you lose a developer account you lose access to Sign In with Apple because they’re tied together.

    So Epic didn’t have their developer account FULLY revoked as Sign In still works. I don’t know of any other company that had their account revoked, but still retained access to some features. It’s an all-or- nothing ban.

    So Epic is getting “preferred” treatment here.
    That’s what I was wondering. For the benefit of the users, I’m glad Apple isn’t shutting down the Sign In with Apple features, but it would appear that apple is making an exception. 
    superklotonaderutterwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 59
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,759member
    Good, the courts would not have looked kindly on this.
    johnbear
  • Reply 8 of 59
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,486member
    MplsP said:
    ericthehalfbee said:
    People are missing a bigger issue.

    When you lose a developer account you lose access to Sign In with Apple because they’re tied together.

    So Epic didn’t have their developer account FULLY revoked as Sign In still works. I don’t know of any other company that had their account revoked, but still retained access to some features. It’s an all-or- nothing ban.

    So Epic is getting “preferred” treatment here.
    That’s what I was wondering. For the benefit of the users, I’m glad Apple isn’t shutting down the Sign In with Apple features, but it would appear that apple is making an exception. 

    It’s more than that.

    Standard practice for Apple would be to terminate everything on Aug 28th. They didn’t. Further, Epic never announced to users that Sign In would stop working on Aug 28th. How did they know this? Most likely because Apple told them so way back then.
    aderutterwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 59
    ArianneFeldryArianneFeldry Posts: 62member
    Fatman said:
    Epic hurts it’s users, Apple does not.
    Hurting users is literally what disabling Sign in With Apple would have done. It would have stolen money from users if they decided to commit with the threat. It would kill user faith in the system and would have been even more ammo for the courts.  
    elijahg
  • Reply 10 of 59
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,572member
    anantksundaram said:
    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.
    JanNLcornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 59
    ihatescreennamesihatescreennames Posts: 1,904member
    MplsP said:
    People are missing a bigger issue.

    When you lose a developer account you lose access to Sign In with Apple because they’re tied together.

    So Epic didn’t have their developer account FULLY revoked as Sign In still works. I don’t know of any other company that had their account revoked, but still retained access to some features. It’s an all-or- nothing ban.

    So Epic is getting “preferred” treatment here.
    That’s what I was wondering. For the benefit of the users, I’m glad Apple isn’t shutting down the Sign In with Apple features, but it would appear that apple is making an exception. 

    It’s more than that.

    Standard practice for Apple would be to terminate everything on Aug 28th. They didn’t. Further, Epic never announced to users that Sign In would stop working on Aug 28th. How did they know this? Most likely because Apple told them so way back then.
    Or, the whole thing was more BS from Epic. Considering the statement from Apple was they aren’t actively seeking to disable Sign in with Apple. The accusation originated with Epic and only Epic said there was a reversal. Something’s fishy. 
    edited September 2020 mwhiterobabasuperklotonaderutterjahbladewatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 59
    tommikeletommikele Posts: 599member
    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.
    Rayz2016watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 13 of 59
    FileMakerFellerFileMakerFeller Posts: 1,546member
    People are missing a bigger issue.

    When you lose a developer account you lose access to Sign In with Apple because they’re tied together.

    So Epic didn’t have their developer account FULLY revoked as Sign In still works. I don’t know of any other company that had their account revoked, but still retained access to some features. It’s an all-or- nothing ban.

    So Epic is getting “preferred” treatment here.
    Is the SIwA feature tied to the Epic account (developer of Fortnite) or the Epic S.a.r.l. account (developer of Unreal Engine)?

    It's quite possible that the feature was disabled for the blocked account and not the forced-by-a-judge-to-remain-active account.

    (edited to remove typo)
    edited September 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 59
    FileMakerFellerFileMakerFeller Posts: 1,546member

    ArianneFeldry said:
    Fatman said:
    Epic hurts it’s users, Apple does not.
    Hurting users is literally what disabling Sign in With Apple would have done. It would have stolen money from users if they decided to commit with the threat. It would kill user faith in the system and would have been even more ammo for the courts.  
    Let's say I'm a bus driver and I drive a bus that helps old and infirm people travel into town and back to get their shopping and other errands done. I know that there are rules that I have to follow, and I obey those rules for more than a decade.

    Then, one day I decide I want to be able to drink alcohol while driving the bus. I check with the DMV, who say it's not allowed, but I decide to do it anyway and then complain loudly that I have a right to do whatever I want and those rules are illegal so I shouldn't have to follow them. I lose my driver's licence, and now those old folk don't have access to the service I used to provide.

    WHO CAUSED THE HARM TO THE OLD PEOPLE?
    aderutterJanNLjahbladeSamsonikkwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 59
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 1,069member
    anantksundaram said:
    Every time this guy communicates, it leads one to wonder what he's on... He's either incoherent, or when coherent, full of blather.
    And he’ll come out with a bipolar diagnosis which he hopes will explain his bad behavior. He’s a child and needs to be disciplined. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 59
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 1,069member
    Hurting users is literally what disabling Sign in With Apple would have done. It would have stolen money from users if they decided to commit with the threat. It would kill user faith in the system and would have been even more ammo for the courts.  
    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. 
    edited September 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 59
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,572member
    Since nobody has put a cogent argument to support Epic, and since I like a challenge, I'm going to try to make a case for them. I think the case is weak, but I'm bored with all the lame defense of Epic here. So I'm going to put forward my best defense. Even if we fully agree with Apple, we have to understand our opponent's position. I'm sure Apple has good lawyers who are considering every argument Epic might proffer. Here's what I think Epic should argue. Don't blame me for making a case for Epic.
    In short, Epic wants phones to function like computers. As Tim Sweeney tweeted, the founding principles of general purpose computers were to give full control of the computer to the user, not to the hardware manufacturer or operating system manufacturer. Nobody at either IBM, or Microsoft, or Apple (all of which wrote operating systems for PCs) ever tried to stop anyone from running anything on their own PC hardware. There was nothing to jailbreak because all computers were delivered, essentially, jailbroken. As time progressed the dangers of malicious software increased but the defenses available to users increased in parallel. These days there are numerous different mechanisms to keep computers safe, including (a) anti-virus software; (b) firewalls; (c) file permissions; (d) digital signatures; (e) online license validation; (f) SSL-protected websites; and (g) curated app stores. Each of these defense mechanisms is mature and effective. All of these defense mechanisms put security in the hands of the user except for the last one, "(g) curated app stores." It's this one, and only this one, that introduces a sinister danger into society, not unlike the dangers in Orwell's book "1984." Because this is the only mechanism that puts your security and privacy in the hands of another person. Who is this person, and how does this person decide what you may do and what you may not do? And to whom is this person accountable, if anyone? There are several countries in the world where the government curates everything that users see and touch. We won't mention which countries here but that should be obvious to the courts. In these countries the curation has gone amok. Users are under constant scrutiny; users try to access remote data but are blocked by Great Firewalls; users do not know what the criteria of their own government's monitoring are. This curation of software in some countries has led, and is still leading, to brutal dictatorial rule. Do we want or need this sort of UNCHECKED control of our online freedoms, and all that in the hands of unaccountable private citizens? Although censorship by private companies is legal in America, it goes against the guiding principles of the Constitution. This is not just a censorship of a company's employees, which Epic would not object to, but it's a censorship of all people who use a phone. Traditional phone companies, which are private companies like Apple (and also publicly traded), have never been allowed to censor or monitor individual phone calls in America. Voice and data are just two forms of the same thing: data. "Smart phones" are the new telephones. Telephone companies may not legally monitor or curate anyone's telephone calls, and for the same reasons as that, Epic asks the court to place an injunction on Apple from being able to block or monitor any data or speech that occurs on their phones too.
    There, does that argument hold any water? Is it at least cogent and thought provoking? Let me repeat, I'm not at all on Epic's side here, but Sweeney and anyone arguing on his side has been acting brain dead, so I thought I'd try to make their case for them. And I wrote that out in full in one brief sitting. In order to help ensure Apple wins, they need to examine every possible argument Epic might make, and although I doubt Apple needs help, this post is intended to help them. Feel free to support or attack the argument above. Ultimately, I think, this is really a matter for lawmakers and not for the courts. The law has not been keeping up with technology very well.
    edited September 2020 superklotonGabygilly33
  • Reply 18 of 59
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,486member
    FileMakerFeller said:
    People are missing a bigger issue.

    When you lose a developer account you lose access to Sign In with Apple because they’re tied together.

    So Epic didn’t have their developer account FULLY revoked as Sign In still works. I don’t know of any other company that had their account revoked, but still retained access to some features. It’s an all-or- nothing ban.

    So Epic is getting “preferred” treatment here.
    Is the SIwA feature tied to the Epic account (developer of Fortnite) or the Epic S.a.r.l. account (developer of Unreal Engine)?

    It's quite possible that the feature was disabled for the blocked account and not the forced-by-a-judge-to-remain-active account.

    (edited to remove typo)

    It’s tied to the account that was used to publish the game (in this case the Fortnite account).

    It wasn’t disabled on the 28th or we would have heard likely millions of complaints from
    users. So Apple made an exception for Epic and customers and Epic repays Apple with more bullshit.
    Gilliam_Batesaderutterwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 59
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,053member
    People are missing a bigger issue.

    When you lose a developer account you lose access to Sign In with Apple because they’re tied together.

    So Epic didn’t have their developer account FULLY revoked as Sign In still works. I don’t know of any other company that had their account revoked, but still retained access to some features. It’s an all-or- nothing ban.

    So Epic is getting “preferred” treatment here.
    Is the SIwA feature tied to the Epic account (developer of Fortnite) or the Epic S.a.r.l. account (developer of Unreal Engine)?

    It's quite possible that the feature was disabled for the blocked account and not the forced-by-a-judge-to-remain-active account.

    (edited to remove typo)

    It’s tied to the account that was used to publish the game (in this case the Fortnite account).

    It wasn’t disabled on the 28th or we would have heard likely millions of complaints from
    users. So Apple made an exception for Epic and customers and Epic repays Apple with more bullshit.
    May not an exception for Epic, but for iOS Fortnite players that already and still have Fortnite, installed on their iDevice. The last I read, iOS users that had Fortnite installed on their iDevice, before Fortnite was banned from the Apple App Store, can still play Fortnite. There's no updating to newer versions of the game, but they could still play the version that they already and still had installed on their iDevice. So these users would still need access to their Epic accounts and since Apple was still allowing them to play their still installed Fortnite, Apple did not disable the Apple sign in, for them. Which might be standard practice for Apple. 

    Now if Apple had disabled Fortnite completely from their iDevices, even for those that had Fortnite already installed before the ban, then I can see Apple disabling Apple sign in for Epic accounts. No need to sign into your Epic account from your iDevice using Apple sign in, if you can't play Fortnite on any iDevice. 
    edited September 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 59
    qwerty52qwerty52 Posts: 367member
    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
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.