When the game (like “the product”) is free to download, and you just have to pay within to extend it’s functionality, then I would say Apple can disable any associated functionality, like Sign In With Apple. It’s not like crippling functionality of the goods I already paid for.
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.
I think most would probably agree that this is an exceptional circumstance. Apple probably didn't conceive of this sort of situation when they wrote the policy, and thought they would only revoke an account for actual malware or the kind of app that they would be protecting users from. In such a case then removing Sign In With Apple would be a positive step for users. Even though the situation is of Epic's making, I think they're rather different from a malware creator, i.e. this is a contractual dispute, with users getting caught in the middle, and they would not benefit from Sign In With Apple being revoked.
While this is a case of policies being revised on the fly, which isn't great, it is neverthless good that Apple is sensitive to the fact that Apple and Epic aren't the only parties being affected, and a little bit of forbearance will mean they don't further antagonise users.
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.
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.
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.
What Epic wants is all of the benefits of the curated app store with none of the constraints. They're not the first to take Apple on with regard to this. I'm not very familiar with jail-breaking and unauthorized apps. However, Epic presumably could have gone this route. They would have gotten tens or maybe hundreds of users. Instead, they chose to play by the rules until they had millions of users. They know that if they pull away and go the unauthorized route now, most users will find another game to play. So they are attempting to use the power of their user base to force Apple into changing the rules Epic and everybody else agreed to follow. It could be that an executive woke up one morning and realized how much money they were paying to Apple and chose to fight about it. They may have made the agreement thinking conceptually that a percentage sounds reasonable, but now they are coping with a difficult reality when they see how much real money they are not getting. However, it surely looks like Epic planned this revolt all along.
I appreciate the argument. It is thought-provoking, especially to consider it from a censorship and control issue that could lead to a slippery slope. I think it's a reasonable argument for someone to make...but not Epic. If Epic made that argument, most people would see it for what it is...a lot of extraneous information intended to distract from the core issue that they don't want to pay Apple so much money.
Epic goaded them into this. This is the first time Epic's had an upper hand in the public imagine and Apple knows it, which is why they rescinded this.
People need to remember, the average person isn't that smart and there's 50% of the population dumber than that. The average Epic/Fortnite user, if they lose sign in with apple, will probably just have lost their account and move on with their life regardless of whatever procedure is in place to recover the account. Bad for epic? Yea. However the media backlash is that Apple has the power to disable user accounts for non-Apple services on their platform and that makes them look very, very bad - which is proving the fundamental point Epic is attempting to make with this whole crusade.
Epic played this card well, they may be shooting themselves in the foot short term but this was straight up provocation that Apple played into.
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.
Two or three people made some sort of positive comments towards my pro-Epic argument. Wow, thanks. A couple of you even tried to poke holes in it. Thanks for the peaceful cooperation. I'm going to reread your comments now.
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.
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.
What Epic wants is all of the benefits of the curated app store with none of the constraints. They're not the first to take Apple on with regard to this. I'm not very familiar with jail-breaking and unauthorized apps. However, Epic presumably could have gone this route. They would have gotten tens or maybe hundreds of users. Instead, they chose to play by the rules until they had millions of users. They know that if they pull away and go the unauthorized route now, most users will find another game to play. So they are attempting to use the power of their user base to force Apple into changing the rules Epic and everybody else agreed to follow. It could be that an executive woke up one morning and realized how much money they were paying to Apple and chose to fight about it. They may have made the agreement thinking conceptually that a percentage sounds reasonable, but now they are coping with a difficult reality when they see how much real money they are not getting. However, it surely looks like Epic planned this revolt all along.
I appreciate the argument. It is thought-provoking, especially to consider it from a censorship and control issue that could lead to a slippery slope. I think it's a reasonable argument for someone to make...but not Epic. If Epic made that argument, most people would see it for what it is...a lot of extraneous information intended to distract from the core issue that they don't want to pay Apple so much money.
Thanks for the response. You said "most people" wouldn't go for this argument. But my argument wasn't about convincing "most people", it was simply about winning one person over, namely, the judge. Epic shouldn't even be trying to win in the court of public opinion, for example, they shouldn't have released that 1984 parody video. Everything should be focussed on winning over that one judge. My attack went for the jugular, rather than aiming for a pinky left toe. Let the judge find a compromise, that's not Epic's job.
P.S. I just got a pop-up that welcomed me to the "Thousand Posts Club." Yay. Now I'm a senior. I feel different already. Older.
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 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.
When the game (like “the product”) is free to download, and you just have to pay within to extend it’s functionality, then I would say Apple can disable any associated functionality, like Sign In With Apple. It’s not like crippling functionality of the goods I already paid for.
I'm listening to you, but I'm not sure what you want. To clarify, do you also want Apple to remove the restriction on alternate payment systems from its terms of service? Do you also want Apple to allow Epic to install its own App Store? Do you also want Apple to remove its curation of all apps, or only apps from Epic?
Comments
Short is such a relative term …obv
While this is a case of policies being revised on the fly, which isn't great, it is neverthless good that Apple is sensitive to the fact that Apple and Epic aren't the only parties being affected, and a little bit of forbearance will mean they don't further antagonise users.
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.
People need to remember, the average person isn't that smart and there's 50% of the population dumber than that. The average Epic/Fortnite user, if they lose sign in with apple, will probably just have lost their account and move on with their life regardless of whatever procedure is in place to recover the account. Bad for epic? Yea. However the media backlash is that Apple has the power to disable user accounts for non-Apple services on their platform and that makes them look very, very bad - which is proving the fundamental point Epic is attempting to make with this whole crusade.
Epic played this card well, they may be shooting themselves in the foot short term but this was straight up provocation that Apple played into.
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.
Thanks for the response. You said "most people" wouldn't go for this argument. But my argument wasn't about convincing "most people", it was simply about winning one person over, namely, the judge. Epic shouldn't even be trying to win in the court of public opinion, for example, they shouldn't have released that 1984 parody video. Everything should be focussed on winning over that one judge. My attack went for the jugular, rather than aiming for a pinky left toe. Let the judge find a compromise, that's not Epic's job.
P.S. I just got a pop-up that welcomed me to the "Thousand Posts Club." Yay. Now I'm a senior. I feel different already. Older.
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.
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.
I'm listening to you, but I'm not sure what you want. To clarify, do you also want Apple to remove the restriction on alternate payment systems from its terms of service? Do you also want Apple to allow Epic to install its own App Store? Do you also want Apple to remove its curation of all apps, or only apps from Epic?