ericthehalfbee
About
- Username
- ericthehalfbee
- Joined
- Visits
- 210
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 9,787
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 4,499
Reactions
-
Epic says Apple no longer plans to disable 'Sign in with Apple'
FileMakerFeller said:
Is the SIwA feature tied to the Epic account (developer of Fortnite) or the Epic S.a.r.l. account (developer of Unreal Engine)?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.
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.
-
Epic says Apple no longer plans to disable 'Sign in with Apple'
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.
-
Italy launches antitrust investigation into Apple, Google, and Dropbox
gatorguy said:
You left out a fair bit. From another site's explanation:ericthehalfbee said:Cash grab, plain and simple. I read Apples TOS for iCloud and they’re very reasonable.
They’re taking the terms and dumbing them down to a single sentence to try and make them appear egregious.
For example, the types of data losses Apple is talking about include natural disasters, war, government intervention or you losing your password for encrypted data. Things they have no control over. Yet they want to imply Apple takes no precautions and has a careless attitude towards your data, and they protect themselves by claiming no liability for losses.First, that the companies state they have the right to suspend the service, even though users may rely on them for access to important documents.
Second, the cloud services claim they cannot be held liable for loss of data, even if it includes everything the user stores there.
Third, that the companies reserve the right to change the terms and conditions at any time.
Finally, that the English version of the contract takes precedence over the Italian one, even if it’s the Italian version which was accepted by customers.
The investigation falls under the antitrust heading as it will be argued that the companies are so dominant in their fields that they can impose any terms they like, fair or unfair.
Didn’t miss them at all, just didn’t feel like typing for pages to show how stupid this is.
First off, suspension. Not likely to happen to anyone unless you’re doing something illegal (like hosting child pornography). Apples terms (which I’m sure are almost identical to Google or Dropbox, as is typical of boilerplate contracts) give numerous examples of what you’re not allowed to do. They also state that repeated violations may result in account termination. Which basically means you’re not getting suspended instantly without prior warning. Apple states they have the right to remove illegal content, so obviously their first choice is to do that with a warning instead of an outright instant ban.
Second, changing terms. Again, very common in contracts by companies providing a service. That said, Apple states they will give 30 days notice of upcoming “adverse change” which could have an impact on your service (adverse being a price increase, reduction in storage amounts or reduced service). They mention “adverse change” so I’m assuming if there was a beneficial change (a price reduction or extra storage) they aren’t entitled to give notice. This also ties in with the first complaint (suspension of service) as Apple would likely still be required to give 30 days notice of suspension or termination, with only a few exceptions. Criminal cases are one example (government might seize the account) and interfering with others services is another (if you’re trying to tamper with or hack their servers). Im sure you’d agree these are perfectly good reasons for Apple to suspend/terminate an account.
The last one about English vs Italian I can’t comment on since I don’t know the laws surrounding contracts involving companies from different countries doing business. But that seems like a minor issue compared to the other ones.So yes, they are over simplifying the issues.
-
Judge orders Apple can't block Epic's Unreal Engine, Fortnite to remain banned
GeorgeBMac said:According to Reuters, Apple got blasted for its App Store policies in "terse" exchanges between the judge and Apple's lawyer:"During a terse exchange with Apple counsel Richard Doren at a hearing on Monday, the judge said she saw “no competition” to Apple’s App Store on the iPhone.“The question is, without competition, where does the 30% (App Store commission) come from? Why isn’t it 10? 20? How is the consumer benefiting?” she asked.
Doren replied that consumers had choices when deciding to buy an Android device or an iPhone.
“The competition is in the foremarket,” he said, reiterating an argument that has been central to Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook’s defense during Congressional antitrust hearings.
Gonzalez Rogers replied that there was “plenty of economic theory” to show that switching brands imposed costs on consumers.
She at one point muted Doren in the virtual proceedings."Essentially the judge called Bull on what she sees as Apple's bullshit contention that the iPhone has not created a monopolistic market that it exploits with the App Store.My personal thoughts on it are that Apple needs to go beyond (or drop) its claim that it has not created any sort of monopoly and iPhone users are free to go over to Android and claim (correctly) that the Apple Store is an integral part of what makes the iPhone private, secure and stable.Bullshit.
Judges always talk like this - they play devil’s advocate. When questioning Apple they will appear in favor of Epic and when questioning Epic they would appear in favor of Apple.
You pretending that Apple is in the wrong because of how the conversation went shows you don’t understand how this works, and are simply looking for anything to show Apple in a negative light.
-
Epic calls Apple's 'Fortnite' & developer tool block 'overbroad retaliation'
Why is nobody stating the obvious?
You DON’T NEED a developer account to code for iOS. You need an account if you want to put your Apps in The App Store.
Xcode isn’t going to suddenly stop working on all Epic computers and Epic isn’t going to be prevented from writing iOS software and deploying/testing it on all their own internal devices (like they now do).
They will lose access to some tools, but Epic is making it sound like development is going to grind to a halt and anyone who uses Unreal Engine in their Apps are going to find those Apps no longer working.That’s not even close to being true. It’s scare mongering.
