|OT| Epic vs Apple/Google - Battle of the Tims

[Nyarlathotep]

i find it unlikely they would lie about a business deal in a public document when any of the involved companies could easily disprove that assertion at any time.

the specific assertion is that google is blocking manufacturers from putting on alternate app stores, not carriers and their own apps.

It's not even that they need to be knowingly lying; their assumption is that that is the reason, because at best it would be third party hearsay from a manufacturer regarding contractual disputes with another party.
It's not like LG were disclosing their Google contracts to Epic - the most information Epic would have got would have been "Google said we can't", which covers an entire range of possible scenarios, including ones where they didn't but it was easier to just blame them to fob epic off.

 

[ISee]

I didn't say they did; I said there are a myriad of reasons people buy a phone.
The fact that the appstore is exactly how it is is not one of the major compelling reasons.

The condition of the app stores is irrelevant to them, I agree. But the whole package Apple is giving them, and the perceived advantages of iOS isn't. It is the reason they bought into that eco system in the first place.

Myriad of reasons? Sure, I agree, but my point stands: those aren't random reasons; they are all tide and exist because of Apple. Either because of hardware development, software development or pure marketing. Even if it's just because somebody thinks an iPhone is a "status symbol" or "good looking". That's all linked to Apple.

even though their success is entirely independent of Apples

That's awesome and means that getting access to iOS customers is a bonus, and not mandatory at all. So much for iOS being a dominating monopoly that's hindering technological advancements, stops competition and holds domination over a crucial market. Even more reason to not regulate Apple and iOS now.

Apple is more than just a handset manufacturer. Apple is providing a unique, complete package of hardware, software, and marketing.

Customers want Spotify and Netflix on their phone.

They have Spotify and Netflix on their Phones.
The problem is that Apple wants a share from Netflix and Spotify for accessing the customers that Apple acquired.

Customers could easily circumvent the share apple is demanding from Netflix, Spotify and Fortnite by subscribing/buying through a web browser. Nobody is stopping them from doing so. But as stated above, they just do not care. And I have no problem with that, nor see a reason a customer should care.





I'm not arguing that there should be a lesser number of Apps on the Apple Store or anything like that.

Tim Sweeny is arguing that he should be allowed to sell apps on iOS devices like the iPhone, without giving Apple a share because Apple is just processing payments (not exactly, but it is close enough), Appel is also an iOS monopoly under the Sherman act etc.

I'm arguing against that that. Apple has a right to get a share because they created the iOS market, which is only a part of the bigger Smartphone market. They deserve to be remunerated for providing access to a brand they own and heavily invest into through research, manufacturing, development, and marketing. There is fierce competition in the form of Android and because of that third-party success isn't tide to access to iOS. If you want to make extra money through iOS though, you need to pay Apple for access to their brand. A brand that people willingly and deliberately buy into despite other options existing. There is a myriad of reasons to go with apple, but those reasons all exist because of apple.

Therefore, an EGS on iOS in the form Tim Sweeny envisions is not viable. Should there be an EGS iOS Epic needs to pay Apple a fair share. Now if thirty percent is fair. That's another topic.

 

[warp_]

It's not even that they need to be knowingly lying; their assumption is that that is the reason, because at best it would be third party hearsay from a manufacturer regarding contractual disputes with another party.
It's not like LG were disclosing their Google contracts to Epic - the most information Epic would have got would have been "Google said we can't", which covers an entire range of possible scenarios, including ones where they didn't but it was easier to just blame them to fob epic off.

if you want to theorize about what's stated in the lawsuits, they are available in the first post for your perusal.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The problem is that Apple wants a share from Netflix and Spotify for accessing the customers that Apple acquired.

Yes, that's how Apple sees it, even though that customer base inherently includes returning lapsed subscribers who - again - apple contributed nothing towards earning as a scutomer, but demand a 30% share of subscription revenue for the first year of membership.

Customers could easily circumvent the share apple is demanding from Netflix, Spotify and Fortnite by subscribing/buying through a web browser. Nobody is stopping them from doing so. But as stated above, they just do not care. And I have no problem with that, nor see a reason a customer should care.

Apple are stopping them doing that.
They pull the app if the app maker tries to do that. That's literally the underlying basis of the suit by Spotify.

Let's use an example everyone here is more familiar with - Steam link.

Steam Link was pulled from IOS because it linked to the steam storefront, and apple therefore demanded a 30% cut of any PC games purchased via steam link.
Steam had to hack in removing the storefront entirely on IOS steam link only, just to be permitted to release Steamlink on IOS, something that their existing customers wanted.

That is precisely the point where Apple are being unreasonable; that any service on IOS that provides a paid service that can be accessed via IOS, must allow Apple a cut of that service when using IOS, irregardless of whether IOS provides a customer, or is permitting access to an existing customer.

Should there be an EGS iOS Epic needs to pay Apple a fair share. Now if thirty percent is fair. That's another topic.

I don't think Epics case has merit, because they knew what they were doing and went in with eyes open.
BUT:
I don't think Apples claims that any users of IOS must pay a tithe to Apple for using services that they may already be using prior to buying an iPhone, and that not having an Apple-get-paid option means the app is rejected is a fair stance.

Valve avoid this by only taking a cut of the sales they themselves make; despite being in control of key generation they permit alternative vendors.
Apple being sole distributor AND prohibiting alternative vendors is - frankly - just greed.

if you want to theorize about what's stated in the lawsuits, they are available in the first post for your perusal.

yes, read what I said; those deals fell through, and Epic can repeat what they were told abut those deals.
They do not have access to the contracts between handset manufacturers and Google, and they're not going to have access to those contracts, because any attempts at discovery are going to be lawyered the fuck up with injunctions for trade secrets / commercially sensitive information.

Epic can state what they were told by a third party, but what they were told could be anywhere between false, partially true, or wholly true.

 

[warp_]

so whats the purpose of them lying? i don't really find it hard to believe that google would leverage the biggest asset they have over these phone makers in order to protect their 30% cut.

i see no reason why a phone maker in this situation would make something up for no reason in order to cost themselves the deal with epic. what a strange point to keep pressing on for multiple pages that maybe there was some secret language in the google contract that said...what exactly?

i hate to be this blunt but your argument is honestly kind of dumb. maybe there are things we don't know and we could argue any number of hypothetical but that leads nowhere. we can only discuss what is public and that is what i have posted. you can choose to not believe it but that's really a personal issue and saying "well i don't believe it" isn't actually an argument.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

so whats the purpose of them lying? i don't really find it hard to believe that google would leverage the biggest asset they have over these phone makers in order to protect their 30% cut.

i see no reason why a phone maker in this situation would make something up for no reason in order to cost themselves the deal with epic. what a strange point to keep pressing on for multiple pages that maybe there was some secret language in the google contract that said...what exactly?

It's like I said - they don't even have to be knowingly lying, but don't trust that just because Epic said that it is so means that it definitely is.
Contract law at that level is hugely complicated and there are a myriad of reasons why the deal could have fallen through, that could just be handwaved away as "our existing contracts won't allow this new contract" to avoid any bad blood, or indeed any litigation.

It could be they had second thoughts about business partnerships after seeing crazy man Tim Sweeneys crazy man tweets.
They might have seen what happened to Huawei reconsidered what possible steps the US might take if they are offering a partially Chinese owned storefront in todays political climate.
They could have just run the numbers and figured the upfront payment by epic wasn't worth it in the long run.
And yes, google might have sent the heavies round and told them not to.

The point is, Googles business model is not Apples business model, and if Google really wanted to kill third party markets on Android, they could do in a number of different ways.
But where your Xiaomi and your Samsungs can sell phones with a preloaded marketplace, but LG and Oneplus can't isn't necessarily because Google are so invested in the Playstore for their ongoing business that they are maliciously chasing Epic in particular.

 

[warp_]

perhaps you are right that any of those factors are at play but i'd think google is probably chasing any alternate app stores off their system to the best of their ability. i believe that the call of the 30% cut and the amount they make from it is a strong one, epic just happens to be the loudest at bitching about this issue and is one of the few companies to operate their own app store/launcher.

that and epic don't have the reach and power of someone like samsung or the ccp who managed to even get apple to allow alternate app stores in china lol.

 

[Alexandros]

Are you asking why companies who don't exactly like those policies have to put up with them for their customers sakes?

For their customers' sake? How so?

 

[Wok]

I'd like to play devil's advocate and ask, why do you have to open your shop in that shopping mall?

1.4 billion people can only shop at this specific shopping mall. That is ~ 20% of mankind, which also happens to be (more or less) the richest people on Earth.

There is no other way to reach them than to go to this unique mall. As a business, you may want to reach a bigger audience, because you make a profit from every sale and you are willing to increase your revenue. One has to do some napkin maths to figure out whether it can be profitable to pay the 30% fee to the landlord to reach up to 1.4 billion people. In most cases, I believe companies want to try their chance and end up accepting to pay the landlord the entry fee.

One issue that I have with this system is that they don't get any actual service in exchange, just the right to try their chance at getting in touch with a large customer base with tons of money to burn.

Another issue is that there could be any number of stores, and the mall would work just as fine, so why is it that the landlord feels so entitled in the choice of shops and rental terms of shop locations? If this shopping mall had imprisoned fewer people (like 1 or 2 orders of magnitude fewer people), I feel like the situation would be very different: there would be other equivalent shopping malls, and they would have to compete on at least one feature.

A third issue, the most obvious one, is that one has to wonder how customers got trapped in that shopping mall in the first place.

 

[Alexandros]

1.4 billion people can only shop at this specific shopping mall. That is ~ 20% of mankind, which also happens to be (more or less) the richest people on Earth.

There is no other way to reach them than to go to this unique mall. As a business, you may want to reach a bigger audience, because you make a profit from every sale and you are willing to increase your revenue. One has to do some napkin maths to figure out whether it can be profitable to pay the 30% fee to the landlord to reach up to 1.4 billion people. In most cases, I believe companies want to try their chance and end up accepting to pay the landlord the entry fee.

One issue that I have with this system is that they don't get any actual service in exchange, just the right to try their chance at getting in touch with a large customer base with tons of money to burn.

Another issue is that there could be any number of stores, and the mall would work just as fine, so why is it that the landlord feels so entitled in the choice of shops and rental terms of shop locations? If this shopping mall had imprisoned fewer people (like 1 or 2 orders of magnitude fewer people), I feel like the situation would be very different: there would be other equivalent shopping malls, and they would have to compete on at least one feature.

A third issue, the most obvious one, is that one has to wonder how customers got trapped in that shopping mall in the first place.

Very well said. It is an interesting topic for discussion for sure because there are no easy answers for many of the details. Two companies being the gatekeepers for the entirety of modern mobile computing is an abnormality that has to change. I think that most people, regardless of personal preference, would agree on that. The problem is: how do you do it? Any ideas?

 

[lashman]

i regret to inform you Sweeney is tweeting again

 

[ISee]

apple contributed nothing towards earning as a cutomer, but demand a 30% share of subscription revenue for the first year of membership.

I don't think that's the case. People are consuming media on smartphones, even at home.
As said, there are plenty of people who subscribe directly to Netflix and Co. through their iPhones or this whole cut conversation would be irrelevant.
I'd argue that a large number of people doing so are customers that could be acquired through iOS only, because they've chosen to not buy android devices.

They pull the app if the app maker tries to do that.

That's not different from what Epic did with Fortnite and I see why Apple has a problem with that.

But I meant customers opening a web page voluntary on a random device. I subscribed to Netflix through my windows 10 PC and gave my account data to my mother so she can access Netflix on her iPad. That was unproblematic. Apple is not seeing a cent from my Netflix sub.
I'm pretty sure an iOS user could open Safari, type in Netflix.com and subscribe that way.

But as said, people do not care. It's more easy and more comfortable for them to probably sub through the app. Which speaks volume about what is more relevant to them: The app or the device they bought.

IOS provides a customer,

Best case scenario for Netflix and co.: Things are entwined and this more of an egg - hen situation. I think millions of people would still choose to get an iPhone, even if Netflix wasn't available on it and that Netflix is more profiting from Apple than Apple from Netflix.
But in the end they both do not need each other to be successful.

I don't think Epics case has merit, because they knew what they were doing and went in with eyes open.

I think there is a malicious undertone in how they did things. Or to be honest: Epic played vicious, tried to be manipulative but with a strategy that was written by a five years old. The basic idea of challenging the 30% cut is fair enough. but that is already being challenged. I just do not think zero percent is fair. There is too much value in the brand.

Valve avoid this by only taking a cut of the sales they themselves make; despite being in control of key generation they permit alternative vendors.

Unfortunately Valve is a unique company. They even allow "fans" to use their IPs to make games, like Black Mesa. I've never seen anything like that.
I can't give valve enough credit for what they are doing and I think this is one of the reasons why so many people side with them.
But Apple is clearly not Valve and Epic isn't either. We are talking about two companies with questionable Morales and Netflix may look like prince charming but is no innocent lamb either. They are all strictly motivated by money and act accordingly. My compassion for all of them is low to non existent.

I don't think Apples claims that any users of IOS must pay a tithe to Apple for using services that they may already be using prior to buying an iPhone, and that not having an Apple-get-paid option means the app is rejected is a fair stance.

I think it's fair enough to demand a share for giving a third party access to your brand. But a court will make a decision about that. It will take years, but we'll have an answer eventually.

But I'm really enjoy the conversation about it.

---

i regret to inform you Sweeney is tweeting again

I swear, should there be any reason for Tim to make a court statement in person (there won't).
He'd wear a neck bracelet and sit in a wheelchair with one foot in plaster cast.
It would look silly and manipulative, but because it was his idea nobody would find the courage to stop him.

 

[Alexandros]

I'd like to hear some opinions on how a platform like iOS could become more open. Side-loading is not acceptable to Tim Sweeney. Distributing something like EGS through the App Store could work as an initial security layer but how do you monetize it and who has the responsibility to guarantee security for software that is distributed through it?

 

[Le Pertti]

I'd like to hear some opinions on how a platform like iOS could become more open. Side-loading is not acceptable to Tim Sweeney. Distributing something like EGS through the App Store could work as an initial security layer but how do you monetize it and who has the responsibility to guarantee security for software that is distributed through it?

I too want things to be open but I just don't know how if could be done because I very much prefer one app store made by phone manufacturer than having a bunch of stores to find different apps I want.

One big question is, are rules for security and such tied to the store or to the phone? Because how hard apple is on that stuff, that is a great thing and one of the main reasons I want to jump ship to an iphone again, it can't be only tied to a store front. But if security is "voluntary" on a store to store basis then then I rather have a strict walled garden that also controls the phone because I would just use one store that I trust and that store would be the one of the phone manufacturer.

Sure it could work just like on a computer where one downloads apps and installs, well side loading but without a app store but honestly I don't want that on my phone. And I don't think store fronts are going away.

 

[Alexandros]

I too want things to be open but I just don't know how if could be done because I very much prefer one app store made by phone manufacturer than having a bunch of stores to find different apps I want.

One big question is, are rules for security and such tied to the store or to the phone? Because how hard apple is on that stuff, that is a great thing and one of the main reasons I want to jump ship to an iphone again, it can't be only tied to a store front. But if security is "voluntary" on a store to store basis then then I rather have a strict walled garden that also controls the phone because I would just use one store that I trust and that store would be the one of the phone manufacturer.

Sure it could work just like on a computer where one downloads apps and installs, well side loading but without a app store but honestly I don't want that on my phone. And I don't think store fronts are going away.

It is a tough question because there is value and usefulness in a controlled environment. I think that a good example is Steam, a controlled environment within an open platform. Balancing out competition and freedom of choice with convenience and security will be a tough nut to crack.

 

[ISee]

I'd like to hear some opinions on how a platform like iOS could become more open. Side-loading is not acceptable to Tim Sweeney. Distributing something like EGS through the App Store could work as an initial security layer but how do you monetize it and who has the responsibility to guarantee security for software that is distributed through it?

How do you guarantee that EGS enforces the same security standards as Apple does? Good question. In a scenario where Epic is allowed to operate freely, without any kind of supervision or strict rules: You simply can't.

Epic does not have the same investment into iOS, iPhone and iPads as Apple does. Epic doesn't care if it damages the Apple or iOS brand, as demonstrated with the malicious turd tycoon, FreeFortnite and reverse 1984 apple campaign. Because of that Epic has less motivation to be as strict and as thoroughly as Apple when it comes to security. If a malicious app makes it to iOS the headlines would be about people having problems with their iPhones. The reputation damage would hit Apple, despite Epic being the culprit. After all the software was downloaded through an official Store.

I further do not think EGS would do anything to help in making iPhones. more open.
Epic is here for the money and I think it is reasonable to assume that they would start buying up and encouraging EGSculisivity on iOS, just like they are doing on PC. Those kind of business practices are a determine to the goal of opening up a system.
There is no difference in having to download "Netflix" exclusive through the App store or the EGS. In the end exclusive content is exclusive content. You are switching who gets 100% of the paycheck, that's all.

The only way I see this working if you give customers the ability to take over the security question, if they so wish. App store stays as it is and Apple keeps sovereignty over that. But you force Apple to open up a path for users to install packages freely, if they so wish. Maybe even add the ability to regulate in detail what such an app can access.
This way customers can decide if they stay secure, but swallow whatever app limitations Apple enforces or they to do whatever they wish with their phones. It's now up to Netflix, Spotify, Epic and co. to encourage people to download an app outside of the App Store. If they can't do it, than customers obviously see a lot of value in security and a unified shopping experience on their Phones and Apple should be compensated for building that level of trust and comfort into their own devices.

But as you said, that's not good enough for Tim, because it doesn't give him leverage to introduce egsclusivity on another platform. But I think it is okay to neglect Tim Sweeney's omnipotence fantasies to create a truly better system.

 

[Wok]

I'd like to hear some opinions on how a platform like iOS could become more open.

The first step which I would like to see would be to dissociate the hardware from the software:

• allow iPhone owners to use other operating systems,
  • old iPhones which struggle to run the latest iOS could be switched to a lighter operating system,
  • the 1.4 billion iPhones would not all be tied to the Apple store,
• allow other phone owners to buy a license and use iOS.
  • people who are not into the Apple ecosystem but decide to get iOS would push Apple to open their operating system to other stores, etc.
  • this would mean that you can always switch from an OS and back if you are not satisfied, so no penalty for trying another OS.

 

[Le Pertti]

The first step which I would like to see would be to dissociate the hardware from the software:

• allow iPhone owners to use other operating systems,
• and allow other phone owners to buy a license and use iOS.

This would mean that:

• old iPhones which struggle to run the latest iOS would be able to switch to other lighter operating systems,
• people who are not into the Apple ecosystem but decide to get iOS would push Apple to be open their operating system to other stores, etc.

I really like these ideas! It isn't as much about getting rid of the walled garden but have choice in which one I want. Would love to have ios on my oneplus phone and macos for work on a future pc!

 

[Alexandros]

and allow other phone owners to buy a license and use iOS.

This is something that I've been thinking about a lot but that is more or less how Android works and Sweeney is suing Google too.

I really like these ideas! It isn't as much about getting rid of the walled garden but have choice in which one I want. Would love to have ios on my oneplus phone and macos for work on a future pc!

How would iOS work in that scenario though? If the App Store is bundled with the OS you get the Android/Play Store situation that Sweeney is suing Google for. If it isn't bundled then iOS developers will have to port their apps to whatever new store the device uses which would mean a dearth of available apps. How do you solve that?

 

[Swenhir]

I'd like to hear some opinions on how a platform like iOS could become more open. Side-loading is not acceptable to Tim Sweeney. Distributing something like EGS through the App Store could work as an initial security layer but how do you monetize it and who has the responsibility to guarantee security for software that is distributed through it?

Why does it even have to be centralized download applications? Why can't you just do the same as on every other platform that ever existed : download either the portable software or the installer and go to town? The only ones that are supposed to bear responsibility are the software makers.

I mean, that's how the PC operates, that's how Linux operates and the world hasn't ended yet .

 

[Alexandros]

Why does it even have to be centralized download applications? Why can't you just do the same as on every other platform that ever existed : download either the portable software or the installer and go to town? The only ones that are supposed to bear responsibility are the software makers.

I mean, that's how the PC operates, that's how Linux operates and the world hasn't ended yet .

I think that this scenario is unrealistic for the type of audience that smartphones are mainly designed for. I honestly think that it would be a colossal disaster if you unleash the average person on such a smartphone. Many people are tremendously bad with technology.

 

[Swenhir]

I think that this scenario is unrealistic for the type of audience that smartphones are mainly designed for. I honestly think that it would be a colossal disaster if you unleash the average person on such a smartphone. Many people are tremendously bad with technology.

That's true, but then again just having that capability along with a centralized installer/downloader not unlike apt-get or yum would achieve that goal of openness.

Also Wok's ideas are rock solid.

 

[warp_]

funny enough, i just got a notice that apple is sending me a $25 check from their most recent class action suit loss due to iphone 6/se battery and ios issues, which probably means this

• old iPhones which struggle to run the latest iOS could be switched to a lighter operating system,

won't be happening as much anymore. that's at least one benefit of the court system, heh.

 

[Alexandros]

That's true, but then again just having that capability along with a centralized installer/downloader not unlike apt-get or yum would achieve that goal of openness.

Also Wok's ideas are rock solid.

Isn't that the same as current Android?

 

[Swenhir]

Isn't that the same as current Android?

No, the default installer is the play store, which is tied to google. Yum and apt-get are independent and only aim at delivery software while handling dependencies. The aren't commercial in essence, they are just here to aid the user.

As for installing or running things in a portable manner, you would require to enable side-loading and in some cases even enable developer mode. You get the feeling this is very much not how the device is supposed to be utilized and I strongly expect issues to crop up with the level of automation and assumptions made about the state of the OS by most applications. Hell, even some services are mandatory and can't be uninstalled despite how mundane and unnecessary they are.

 

[Alexandros]

No, the default installer is the play store, which is tied to google. Yum and apt-get are independent and only aim at delivery software while handling dependencies. The aren't commercial in essence, they are just here to aid the user.

As for installing or running things in a portable manner, you would require to enable side-loading and in some cases even enable developer mode. You get the feeling this is very much not how the device is supposed to be utilized and I strongly expect issues to crop up with the level of automation and assumptions made about the state of the OS by most applications. Hell, even some services are mandatory and can't be uninstalled despite how mundane and unnecessary they are.

So how would this work in practice? Would the Play Store cease to exist? Or would it still be available as an option?

 

[Durante]

Ultimately it's not that hard a problem to solve on a technical level.

Basically, give anyone the ability to sign software, and give the users the ability to decide which signing authorities they trust. Then you can pull sotware packages from wherever (including an integrated user friendly store with UI, a webpage, a script, another program, whatever) and if they are signed by a trusted authority you install them and if they are not you don't.

Two "issues" with this:

• No one, not Apple and also not Epic, can create a captive audience and get a cut, so neither of the Tims will be perfectly happy with that.
• It puts responsibility for security in the hands of the user, at least to the extent that they can break open their system by explicitly choosing to trust untrustworthy sources. Personally, I'm very much in the camp that says "as it should be" regarding that concern.
  We also don't prevent people from giving their house keys to thieves, and when it happens we don't blame the locking system.

 

[Swenhir]

So how would this work in practice? Would the Play Store cease to exist? Or would it still be available as an option?

Still available as an option - a woefully inferior one in comparison to a no-frills, no-ads, functional installer.

I mean this was solved decades ago in the PC environment, why should mobile be any different? The form factor and interaction method only affect the UI, not the underlying workings of the OS - as their linux-based kernel demonstrates.

As Durante pointed out, trusted installers aren't rocket science, the only reason it isn't being made easy is that Google wants its cut and to control the lifecycle of whatever gets installed. It's not so much that the Play Store locks you in, it's that it's by far the easiest and most encouraged option by design in the OS.

That's a position it shouldn't have.

 

[Alexandros]

I understand the premise as explained but I think that trusting the user is a recipe for disaster in the mobile market and there is a very small chance that the courts and regulators will settle on such a solution.

 

[Swenhir]

I understand the premise as explained but I think that trusting the user is a recipe for disaster in the mobile market and there is a very small chance that the courts and regulators will settle on such a solution.

I respectfully disagree. I think it's more of a culture and education thing that we are going to have to struggle through. We've learned our ways around knifes, fire and cars. This is more of the same in my opinion.

I agree with you regarding the dangers and they certainly have to be a priority, at least for now, but I think we can't avoid educating people little by little, lest we loose sanity in the process. We can't make tools completely fool-proof without hindering the tools themselves.

 

[Alexandros]

I respectfully disagree. I think it's more of a culture and education thing that we are going to have to struggle through. We've learned our ways around knifes, fire and cars. This is more of the same in my opinion.

I agree with you regarding the dangers and they certainly have to be a priority, at least for now, but I think we can't avoid educating people little by little, lest we loose sanity in the process. We can't make tools completely fool-proof without hindering the tools themselves.

I certainly agree with that, so here's hoping. I would honestly love to be proven wrong.

 

[xinek]

These takes saying that users can be responsible for security are ridiculously naive. I've worked in the IT industry for a long long time at all levels, and the majority of non-programmers I've worked with have almost zero idea how technology works, even though they should have a massive self interest in understanding it. The average person will absolutely not learn how their phone works, and they will never be able to evaluate the security implications of installing an app or god forbid a different app store. Look at the router botnets that exist for evidence of this. The average smartphone user will never think farther than "I want to play that game" before installing something.

 

[ZKenir]

We've learned our ways around knifes, fire and cars. This is more of the same in my opinion.

No we didn't, we didn't learn our ways around those and a lot of other more dangerous stuff

edit: that'd be a bit off topic so i'll leave it at that
edit 2: also not trying to be funny or ironic, I'm serious

 

[Swenhir]

These takes saying that users can be responsible for security are ridiculously naive. I've worked in the IT industry for a long long time at all levels, and the majority of non-programmers I've worked with have almost zero idea how technology works, even though they should have a massive self interest in understanding it. The average person will absolutely not learn how their phone works, and they will never be able to evaluate the security implications of installing an app or god forbid a different app store. Look at the router botnets that exist for evidence of this. The average smartphone user will never think farther than "I want to play that game" before installing something.

I completely believe you, but counter-point : I think it can be assumed that the vast majority of smartphones in circulation today are running versions of android and of its software that haven't been updated by the manufacturer in years. The security holes are arguably larger than sagittarius A.

I am fully aware that this is a whataboutism but if we are going to talk about restricting the tools for the sake of security, I'd argue there is a much lower-hanging fruit to deal with first right there. And if they won't, that simply demonstrates that the security concerns aren't that bad and that it's more about the capability and control than security itself.

I also believe most people use PCs at home and once again that one hasn't caused the apocalypse despite its openness. I just don't agree with the overall decision to not at least attempt to put some of the duty on the user, tempered by excellent tools and security defaults.

 

[Durante]

These takes saying that users can be responsible for security are ridiculously naive. I've worked in the IT industry for a long long time at all levels, and the majority of non-programmers I've worked with have almost zero idea how technology works, even though they should have a massive self interest in understanding it. The average person will absolutely not learn how their phone works, and they will never be able to evaluate the security implications of installing an app or god forbid a different app store. Look at the router botnets that exist for evidence of this. The average smartphone user will never think farther than "I want to play that game" before installing something.

As a society, we have somehow managed to allow almost anyone to steer around multiple-ton hunks of mass at extreme velocities and ridiculous kinetic energy without killing too many people in the process. Given that, I don't believe that sufficiently educating your citizens on the dangers to allow them to freely (as in freedom) use their own hardware is an inherently unsolvable problem.
If we get some botnets in the process then that is just something we'll have to deal with -- and make the underlying infrastructure capable of dealing with. Again, that's also not an unsolveable problem.

Perhaps most importantly: we've survived with people being able to install whatever they want on their PCs (and Android phones) until now. That's the most direct evidence against the idea that people need to be protected by some corporate hand from using their own hardware lest we fall into total chaos.

 

[Alexandros]

These takes saying that users can be responsible for security are ridiculously naive. I've worked in the IT industry for a long long time at all levels, and the majority of non-programmers I've worked with have almost zero idea how technology works, even though they should have a massive self interest in understanding it. The average person will absolutely not learn how their phone works, and they will never be able to evaluate the security implications of installing an app or god forbid a different app store. Look at the router botnets that exist for evidence of this. The average smartphone user will never think farther than "I want to play that game" before installing something.

It is possible that we've gotten used to how things are being done so far that the unknown scares us. I share your concerns but several posters have made good arguments for why the nightmare scenario we are imagining will not come to pass.

 

[xinek]

As a society, we have somehow managed to allow almost anyone to steer around multiple-ton hunks of mass at extreme velocities and ridiculous kinetic energy without killing too many people in the process. Given that, I don't believe that sufficiently educating your citizens on the dangers to allow them to freely (as in freedom) use their own hardware is an inherently unsolvable problem.
If we get some botnets in the process then that is just something we'll have to deal with -- and make the underlying infrastructure capable of dealing with. Again, that's also not an unsolveable problem.

Perhaps most importantly: we've survived with people being able to install whatever they want on their PCs (and Android phones) until now. That's the most direct evidence against the idea that people need to be protected by some corporate hand from using their own hardware lest we fall into total chaos.

Comparing a phone to physical things like cars, keys, and fire is just not reasonable. They're also far from PCs -- your PC doesn't track your location 24/7, collect health information, act as a key fob, connect to unknown networks constantly, or do loads of other things your phone does. It's not even close to the same thing. Malicious software also is pretty much an unsolvable problem, even within the walled gardens. You can see it pretty much weekly in reports about misbehaving apps that made it through Apple or Google's review processes. It's why electronic/internet voting can never be a thing unless there's some kind of massive technology leap. Personally, I don't particularly care if people are victims of data stealing or other malicious software -- I'm mostly talking about Apple's point of view regarding brand damage, which will be real. Or at least, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that Epic can suck it.

 

[Ascheroth]

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but Apple's counterfiling also contains stuff about booting Epic International (the Unreal Engine account).

The Hoeg Law video about it with the timestamp for that particular point (but the entire thing is once again very interesting).

So yeah, one potential end of this whole thing could very well be Epic just being cut off entirely from Apples ecosystem, even their Unreal Engine part.

 

[NarohDethan]

ngl, the shit Apple is trying to pull with xCloud is making me reconsider my next phone purchase. I'm really interested in xCloud.

 

[Alexandros]

ngl, the shit Apple is trying to pull with xCloud is making me reconsider my next phone purchase. I'm really interested in xCloud.

It really is completely ridiculous. Apple really wants to make sure it gets money from every possible transaction.

 

[NarohDethan]

It really is completely ridiculous. Apple really wants to make sure it gets money from every possible transaction.

Especially concerning given that mobile gaming and streaming is where the industry wants to go mainstream. I can't afford a new phone right now (not that I need it lol) but I'll keep this in mind when selecting my next upgrade.

 

[C-Dub]

The rules are dumb but the best way to deal with it is to vote with your feet and ditch Apple. They're not going to react to anything other than people leaving their platforms.

 

[Trisolarian]

ngl, the shit Apple is trying to pull with xCloud is making me reconsider my next phone purchase. I'm really interested in xCloud.

Apple bullshit as usual.

Trying to side with a villain IRL isn't as fun as it was when playing Fable.

 

[NarohDethan]

Apple bullshit as usual.

Trying to side with a villain IRL isn't as fun as it was when playing Fable.

I like iOS but Apple is fucking up big time. Not to mention, the newest Samsung phones are sexy as fuck.

 

[warp_]

guess it's time for apple to be removed from the google play store

 

[NarohDethan]

 

[crimsonheadGCN]

Fortnite: Save The World pulled from Macs

The co-op PvE version of Fortnite will no longer be playable on Mac computers while Apple and Epic continue their legal squabble.

www.rockpapershotgun.com

 

[ISee]

Fortnite: Save The World pulled from Macs

The co-op PvE version of Fortnite will no longer be playable on Mac computers while Apple and Epic continue their legal squabble.

www.rockpapershotgun.com

That was the paid version, wasn't it?

 

[lashman]

That was the paid version, wasn't it?

it was, yes

 

[Swenhir]

The original version of that game getting banned because of Tim's antics (and to be fair, Apple's overreach - at least in my opinion) is pretty ironic.

Is the f2p version still up?