
Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11 - feross
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/09/09/sign-in-with-apple-epic-games-disabled/
======
aboringusername
This is something many people feared might happen, and now, it's become a
reality:

Apple can, at will, remove your entire foundation or business, your (their)
customers and your existence on iOS is just gone.

Apple is a company that needs to be brought down a peg or two, it's far too
'valuable' in terms of its market worth, and needs a huge kick up the ass as
Microsoft once had to show them some respect.

And the EU will levy the world's biggest fine at Apple, I predict north of $5
billion if not $10 billion for abusing their status with this being a notable
case.

Certainly, for public opinion, it means you now have to "tow the line", no
protesting allowed. If you dare challenge us, we WILL REMOVE YOU.

Horrible company.

~~~
jmpman
Replace Apple’s iOS ecosystem with Microsoft’s Xbox, Sony’s PlayStation or
Nintendo’s Switch. Either you destroy the console ecosystem by forcing them
all to open up, or classify iOS as somehow different... or you leave them all
to enforce their business agreements through mutually accepted legal term. If
Epic doesn’t want a different agreement than Apple, they can negotiate
alternative legal terms.

~~~
gamblor956
Unlike Apple, larger developers can use their market leverage to negotiate
better rates, and many have, which is why you don't hear Epic or Rockstar
complaining about MS or Sony. This point is key to the difference, since
antitrust is about market interference. If market participants can use their
own leverage to push back against another participant's market activities,
then you don't have an antitrust violation. _Apple does not allow negotiation.
It 's take it-or-leave it._

Microsoft and Playstation also allow for cross-platform play, and crucially
unlike Apple, actually provide a significant amount of services to developers
for their cuts, including but not limited to QA services, SDK and hardware
support from actual MS/Sony employees, and marketing spend.

Additionally, while MS and Sony require all developers to use their stores or
APIs for IAP, they allow developers (at least large ones) to heavily customize
those storefronts, and charge significantly less than 30% for the enforced
privilege of using their IAP APIs; the exact rates being a matter of
negotiation.

~~~
ctroein89
> Microsoft and Playstation also allow for cross-platform play

Sony explicitly didn't allow for cross-play until 2 years ago
[[https://kotaku.com/sony-is-finally-allowing-cross-play-on-
th...](https://kotaku.com/sony-is-finally-allowing-cross-play-on-the-
ps4-1829326043)], even though it was technically possible before then
[[https://www.engadget.com/2017-06-24-rocket-league-cross-
netw...](https://www.engadget.com/2017-06-24-rocket-league-cross-network-play-
ps4-xbox-one-interview.html)]. In fact, the only reason Sony opened up to
cross-play is due to pressure to stay competitive with rival platform Xbox.
This was a take-it-or-leave it situation, but Sony was too big to leave.
Nothing changed until Sony caved to social pressure.

If the argument is that Apple is a unique kind of device that Apple has a
monopoly over, it would hard to argue that Sony and Microsoft don't enjoy the
same monopoly powers. On the other hand, if argument is that it's easy enough
to switch from Playstation to Xbox, then how is that different from buying a
new phone?

In fact, I would bet that Epic sued Apple not because it's more monopolistic,
but because they want to set a legal precedent that they can then apply to
Playstation, Xbox and Switch, without threatening Epic's core business on
consoles.

~~~
xnyan
> On the other hand, if argument is that it's easy enough to switch from
> Playstation to Xbox, then how is that different from buying a new phone?

Would you be willing to agree that the relative importance of a smartphone in
2020 is far greater than the relative importance of a video game console in
virtually everyone’s lives?

~~~
ralfd
As we are talking about a first person shooter game and not some “relative
important” app, no I would not.

------
sandstrom
Alright, so Apple are forcing all developers to add Sign-in with Apple (if
they have other third-party login services), privacy benefits aside.

But if you Apple decide that they don't like you anymore, they'll not only cut
you off the App Store, they'll also bury all (or a subset of) your users.

Apple is starting to act more and more like a bully.

[1] [https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/#sig...](https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/#sign-in-with-apple)

~~~
RL_Quine
Intentionally breaking the rules and filing a lawsuit against them with a
marketing campaign isn't as if apple just decided they "didn't like" Epic.

~~~
modeless
Epic alleges that Apple is breaking the law, and breaking the App Store rules
was a pretty much required step to establish standing to sue. Is Apple above
the legal system, such that they should be able to destroy businesses that
dare to challenge them in court, regardless of the merits of their claims and
before they are even heard?

~~~
minhazm
Your comment makes it sound it sound like Apple is breaking the law.

Epic could have brought on this lawsuit while still complying with the App
Store rules, in fact the judge suggested they do that so their users aren't
impacted. They wouldn't be getting kicked off right now and the Sign-in with
Apple button wouldn't be getting disabled. They chose to break the app store
rules, which they did agreed to, AND they also decided to sue Apple.

They could revert their app right now and Apple would restore their account
and they could still continue their lawsuit. Epic is just weaponizing their
user base in their fight against Apple.

~~~
henryfjordan
> Your comment makes it sound it sound like Apple is breaking the law.

Epic is alleging that Apple is breaking the law. That's the whole point of the
antitrust lawsuit, to decide if they are or are not.

> Epic could have brought on this lawsuit while still complying with the App
> Store rules

No they could not. They needed standing to sue. "Apple is doing what the
contract says and we don't like it" does not establish standing. Epic needed
to act as though the contract was illegal, suffer some harm, and then they
have standing to sue. That's exactly what happened.

You are correct that they could revert their changes and comply for the time
being and Apple seems amenable to that.

~~~
nodamage
Epic already had standing to sue from the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees
Apple has collected. They already "suffered harm", they did not need to do
anything further in order to sue.

~~~
modeless
You are fixated on this because of my imprecise use of the legal term
"standing", but it's not really relevant. Standing to bring a suit that will
probably get thrown out on summary judgement is not useful. What's relevant is
that there is harm to consumers here and Epic needed to specifically
demonstrate it to have a real chance of prevailing in an antitrust case. An
allegedly illegal contract should not restrain them from doing so.

~~~
nodamage
I'm not sure you actually understand the issue, it's not simply a question of
terminology. Whether consumer harm exists or not is a question to be
determined during the trial, not before.

~~~
modeless
The question will be decided during the trial, but the evidence is gathered
before.

~~~
nodamage
You seem to think if Epic fails to prove consumer harm exists, that their case
will not survive summary judgement? This is not true.

What Epic needs to do to survive summary judgement is to present a trialable
claim that _injury to competition_ has occurred. The trial itself will then
determine whether the claim is accurate not.

I still don't think Fortnite being in or out of the App Store makes a
difference to Epic's case. If Epic's theory of Apple's behavior is correct,
then they have a winning case regardless of whatever happened to Fortnite
specifically.

------
drenvuk
I don't get why on Hackernews anyone would ever defend Apple here. Regardless
of whether they're right to do this if Epic wins their court case against them
we stand to gain the most benefit. Apple's incredibly high walled garden is
honestly the scariest thing for me. If I develop for windows I can simply
distribute my application on my site easily. With Android I can tell people to
download from F-Droid if necessary. With MacOS We're nearly at the point that
Apple will tell us and users what we can and cannot install or develop for the
system. iOS and iPad OS are already there.

Epic caused their own pain here, sure but What other way can we actually get a
semi open platform that we're not being taxed on? Why can't we as users and
developers have options on iOS? I think that if an operating system allows
third party apps they should be _legally_ required to allow other app stores,
sideloading of programs without penalty for doing so, or both. That goes for
any platform, developed at any time by anyone.

I have been completely at a loss for anyone defending Apple while hoping that
Epic loses their fight. The first makes sense but the second is absolutely
baffling.

~~~
lolsal
> Epic caused their own pain here, sure but What other way can we actually get
> a semi open platform that we're not being taxed on?

As an Apple user, the whole point here is that it's not an open system.

I just can't get riled up over a developer not following the rules of a
platform. I use Apple because the Apple ecosystem is valuable to me - the
store, the SSO, the Apple ID, the UI/UX, the hardware - all of it. I don't
care about Epic or any other developer that doesn't want to play nice with
that ecosystem. Those kinds of developers don't have any value to me.

~~~
subsection1h
Hacker News in 2020: Where "hackers" prefer closed systems and perceive no
value in developers who don't want to "play nice" with closed systems.

~~~
lolsal
It's a fallacy to think you can play gatekeeper regarding 'hacking' just
because I (or more generally the HN audience) like and value one phone
ecosystem over another. Surely you knew that already though, right?

~~~
drenvuk
He's not playing gatekeeper. Hackers have generally been known to like open
systems or to force closed ones open. Just look at history. You're talking
about a phone ecosystem, he's talking about a closed ecosystem.

~~~
lolsal
They are implying I'm not a hacker because I like the Apple ecosystem, aren't
they?

~~~
drenvuk
They're implying that you're not a hacker because you appear to lack the
hacker's mindset. Maybe you have it for some interests but not others but from
the hackers that I've seen it's usually a driver for much of their technology
interaction.

------
joshstrange
It's always interesting to read the comments on articles about the Epic Games
situation. We can have discussions about Apple's cut or how Apple operates
their store but this is such a clear cut case that I'm honestly surprised so
many HN readers are siding with Epic (or maybe it's just the anti-Apple crowd
looking for any reason to crap on Apple).

Epic tried to get Apple to allow a whole new store on their platform AND allow
Epic to do all its own CC processing. Apple said no and Epic flipped a switch
to offer CC processing for Fortnite and so Apple removed the app and disabled
the account. Part of that account access included the Sign in with Apple and
so that is going away as well.

Epic isn't fighting for the little guy, they wanted their own store where they
would take their own percentage of sales.

Lastly I'll just say that while 30% might be too high I think a lot of people
are overlooking the value that the App Store and the iOS platform as whole
provides. I swear all of the comments about "I could host it myself and use
stripe and pay way less" just reeks of "...you can already build such a system
yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with
curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem..."

~~~
bmarquez
> Epic isn't fighting for the little guy

Nobody is fighting for the little guy, but this is still advantageous for the
consumer. Apple is even fighting with Facebook, since you are forbidden to
disclose the 30% cut with consumers.

~~~
oefrha
If Epic’s PC store is any indication, consumers will eventually have to face
bullshit exclusives that force them to use the Epic store and largely cost the
exact same.

~~~
Rebelgecko
I don't see that as a downside to Epic . Some games on their storefront are
exclusives and ones that are available elsewhere often have the same price?*

Isn't that an argument to get rid of the App store? EVERY game there is
exclusive- there's no other way to buy it for iOS. And it's a bit
tautological, but games on the App Store will _never_ be able to undercut
prices of competing stores on the platform because there aren't any.

*btw I don't totally agree with the implication. Even though many games cost the same as Steam, many of them also don't. Even if only a subset of games is cheaper on Epic, that's a win for consumers.

------
hienyimba
A petty move like this clearly shows that Apple as a company has nothing
valuable to offer developers.

Shutting down "sign in" options shows that internally, Apple is looking for a
way to hurt Epic in a manner that hurts the most but they are coming up short.
Although iOS accounts for over one-thirds of Fortnite's 360million users, Epic
has already made the brave decision to let that portion of revenue go and
nothing Apple does will hurt them into begging Apple to let them back into
their walled garden.

~~~
DonaldPShimoda
I don't think this is a specific targeted thing. It just comes with the
general deactivation of the Epic account. It's the same as the whole "Apple is
banning all apps made with Unreal Engine!" which was a poor take on the issue.
(What actually happened was Apple un-approved Epic's license, which had a
cascading effect because Unreal Engine was signed under the same license, and
so software dependent on Unreal Engine became no longer signed and thus was
not going to be allowed on the App Store.)

I'm not saying Apple's in the right here, but people keep construing it as
Apple "looking for way[s] to hurt Epic" and I don't think that's quite what's
going on. Epic performed a significant breach of the App Store terms in a way
never tried before, and the repercussions (which are detailed in those terms!)
are being enforced on a scale never seen before. But it's not like Apple's
execs are scouring, looking for minute and petty ways to hurt Epic. They're
just going to let the lawsuit run its course, and in the meantime enforce the
terms of the agreement (willingly broken by Epic) to the fullest capacity.

~~~
mthoms
>What actually happened was Apple un-approved Epic's license, which had a
cascading effect because Unreal Engine was signed under the same license, and
so software dependent on Unreal Engine became no longer signed and thus was
not going to be allowed on the App Store.

Developers using Unreal Engine certainly _do not_ sign their app with Epic's
credentials.

~~~
DonaldPShimoda
No, I mean the Engine is signed with Epic's credentials, so if the Unreal
Engine isn't approved for App Store stuff because Epic's credentials are
revoked then things dependent on it are impacted.

~~~
mthoms
That’s still not how it works. Apple attempted to remove Epic from its
developer program completely, meaning they wouldn’t have access to the tools
to keep the engine up to date. It has nothing to do with signing.

------
ineedasername
It might only end up as little more than a rounding error, but I think Apple
is losing this fight with consumers: Both my kids like Fortnite, and preferred
to play on hand-me-down iPads. It was their main activity on any iOS device.
Now they barely touch their iPads:

We already had a single Nintendo Switch that they both shared, so we let them
spend the money they saved to split the cost & buy a second Switch lite so
that they can both still play together. After getting used to haptic joystick
controls, they much prefer them to touch controls.

They both now say "I hate Apple". They didn't get that from me: I think both
companies are engaged in an arms race of their own self interest, and have
explained the issue to my kids as being about both companies wanting to make
money. Something like this:

"Apple created a store and wants people who sell items in the store to share
money from their sales, which is the way stores generally work. Epic thinks
that Apple & Google take way too much of that money and Epic wants to keep
more of that money, though they are willing to let users get some saving too."

They both still hate Apple now, and when my daughter did pick up her iPad for
the first time in days, she was afraid to spend her money on a different game
she wanted because she thought Apple might take it away. (She's 7... she also
kicks my --s in Fortnite. I'm smart, and decades of practice mean I pickup
videogames fast enough to be above average in any new game. She is better &
smarter than me in every way. I work in data science, and I'm half convinced
that if I taught her the basics of SQL, python, R and a few presentation-layer
reporting technologies, she could do my job in an hour of her free time each
day. But, you know, child labor laws.)

------
gpm
Apple is doing it's absolute best to allow Epic to demonstrate irreparable
harm in their motion for a preliminary injunction...

This is a curious decision considering that the primary distinction between
the part of the temporary restraining order the court granted (against Apple
interfering with unreal engine) and the part the court denied (against Apple
interfering with fortnite) was that the court thought that Epic had
demonstrated irreparable harm with respect to the former and not the latter.

I don't get it.

(Legalities note: A temporary restraining order is basically a "preliminary
preliminary injunction", the same idea, but granted earlier and only lasts
until the court rules on the actual preliminary injunction)

~~~
fooey
The judge ruled there is no irreparable harm because it's trivial for Epic
themselves to repair the harm at any time that they themselves caused.

~~~
gpm
*because it was trivial for Epic to return the situation to the status quo. The court was very much not making statements about harm in general (that's just not what happens at this phase of litigation).

Apple is moving the situation farther from the status quo... which strikes me
as a very bad legal strategy when the ruling for them was based on the idea
that maintaining the status quo did not cause irreparable harm.

I expect the judge is going to have some serious questions about whether this
action is in response to them violating the terms of service (status quo as I
believe the judge is interpreting the phrase), or if it's about retaliating
against the lawsuit [1]. Novel punitive actions using services that aren't
directly related don't strike me as business as usual.

[1] Unless the court rules in some way that makes the whole question moot. We
shouldn't read too much into how the court ruled on the TRO.

~~~
user5994461
Considering that the court didn't find harm in banning Epic developer account,
I don't see why the court would find harm in banning sign-in with Apple for
Epic.

It's very similar, seems like a reasonable next move. We can agree that there
is a risk of being found retaliatory and it might not be the greatest
strategic move as found in court 5 years later, but the risk is worthwhile.

------
bmarquez
This just makes it risky for the consumer to rely on 'Sign in with Apple',
especially for cross-platform applications.

I found it extremely convenient especially from a privacy perspective (your
name and email are hidden) but the risk I'll lose access to my accounts is too
much.

~~~
prophesi
I think this shows the risks of relying on _any_ social sign in. If that
endpoint breaks, whether via a protocol upgrade, server downtime, or what have
you, you can now no longer access any services relying on that social login.

------
tynpeddler
It's astonishing the number of people in this thread that don't understand the
basis of Epic's lawsuit. There's way to much of "Epic broke the ToS, therefore
everything Apple decides to do in retaliation is justified".

First off, Epic's whole lawsuit is that parts of Apple's ToS are illegal, and
thus Apple has no grounds to enforce it as they did. Secondly, the kind of
retaliation Apple has attempted to do here very much resembles anti-consumer
monopolistic behavior. Apple is using their position in one market (common
sign in, developer tools, hardware) to enforce their position in another (app
store). Classic no-no.

Obviously the final determination on these points will be made by the courts.
In the meantime, if Apple isn't an anti-consumer monopoly, they sure are
walking, talking and quacking like one.

------
SergeAx
So, for app developers, there's no feasible strategy out of it.

Apps need social login, disabling it at all is out of the question.
Implementing any social login means implement login with Apple ID (and
following desing guidelines), or app will not pass review.

By default, login with Apple gives a bogus email not connected to anything, so
there's no way to send there a random password "just in case Apple want to
kick us out". And app cannot ask for real email just in case, because it will
not pass the review.

Check and mate.

~~~
mvanbaak
The flaw in your comment is: "just in case Apple want to kick us out"

If you simply decide to break the terms of your contract with them, yes, they
will kick you out. But this is not 'in case Apple wants'. It's because the
developer wants to break contract.

~~~
SergeAx
Tell that to the author of HN reader app, which was twice rejected for not
applying censorship inside his app [0]

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24410652](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24410652)

~~~
user5994461
That example is pure bullshit.

Apple and Google have banned applications about COVID since the world was
littered with apps and scams trying profit from the COVID pandemic.

The author is making a news app that's promoting COVID articles and content,
so it got instant banned on sight. That's super clear cut and straightforward
even though he doesn't like that.

You really shouldn't call that censorship. You're making a disservice to
countries who experience real censorship, where people risk their life for
saying innocent things.

~~~
SergeAx
The app is just a viewer for this very website we are having a discussion at.
And yes, there are articles on this site with COVID in text or even heading
(oops, I did it again!). Banning app for showing this content among other is
literally a demand for implementing China-like keyword censorship.

------
ping_pong
To me Apple is only proving Epic's point. Don't you dare make Apple mad,
otherwise your entire business on Apple ecosystem will be destroyed.

~~~
fooey
All it's showing is that breaking contracts has repercussions.

If you abuse a service, and they cut you off, you don't get to cry about them
enforcing their rules.

~~~
foepys
Contracts are not necessarily lawful.

------
Jaxkr
I really hope this will damage Apple’s brand and platform... They enforce
their TOS randomly and this will happen to smaller companies too.

Hurts the consumer too. People will be locked out of their Epic accounts.

~~~
mythz
This wasn't some random ToS violation, this was a willful egregious violation
done with subversion & malice to undermine the App Store's revenue model. I
don't fault Apple for wanting to sever all ties with bad actors.

> They enforce their TOS randomly and this will happen to smaller companies
> too.

If their ToS is randomly enforced, which other App/Company violated the same
terms as Epic which Apple chose to not enforce? I can't imagine there'll ever
be a single case where a remote activated violation to sneak pass App Review
would ever be allowed to remain on the App Store once identified.

~~~
cochne
Don't "premium video companies" like Netflix and Amazon get a special deal?
[https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-
vide...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-video-ios-in-
app-purchases-iphone-ipad-apple-tv-change)

~~~
mythz
There's no "special deal" for large companies because of who they are, there
are multiple exemptions [1] for which types of Apps are free, what sales are
exempt and which are subject to Royalty, e.g. "Reader" Apps like Kindle,
Audible, Netflix & Spotify don't pay any Royalty. They have been relaxing the
categories of Apps which are exempt as previously Spotify & Netflix were
subject to the 30% Royalty.

[1] [https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-
practices/#:~...](https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-
practices/#:~:text=These%20are%20apps%20where%20users%20exclusively)

------
newbie578
Again so many people defending Apple here just because they love their Macs...

This just shows how Apple has a "deity" like status in the community, fanboys
here are willing to die defending Apple and their arbitrary "rules".

Just dare to imagine if tomorrow Microsoft came out and said Steam broke ToS
and starting September 11 all accounts signed-up over outlook.com will be
disabled.

There would be riots on the streets and buildings burning, Nadella would give
a resignation within a week.

Yet for Apple, the rules don't apply (ironically). Tim Cook blatantly commits
perjury in front of Congress and no one bats an eye, yet people are still
willing to trash Gates how "arrogant" he was to Congress 20 years ago.

The only true hope is for EU step in and completely revamp the App Store

------
GiorgioG
As an iPhone X owner/user I'm less and less inclined to go with Apple for my
next phone. Apple & Google have a duopoly on mobile phone OSes. It's been how
many years that they've been taking a 30% cut? You mean they haven't
optimized/streamlined the App Store processes in what 10 years?

At least Google is not the only Android handset game in town and you can still
sideload apps.

------
snyp
Epic here is not telling the truth. Apple has revoked their developer license
which revoked the Sign In with Apple certificates. Apple probably sent them a
courtesy notice about it but epic is just spinning it as if Apple is disabling
their Sign In with Apple capabilities. This just looks bad on Epic.

~~~
user5994461
This here, should be the top comment.

The court already validated that Apple disabling Epic account was okay.

------
floatingatoll
This should, at worst, only affect users who hide their email address from
Epic and use the Apple relay service. Users who share their email address with
Epic would be able to simply continue using it, with a reset password if
necessary.

Apple also has the option to continue allowing Epic to deliver password reset
emails to private relay email addresses, using their pre-11th DKIM/SPF
settings, so that users can continue to reset their account passwords by email
and login and change their email address.

Cynically, I assume that if Apple does continue relaying password resets, Epic
would change their systems in some way that intentionally breaks that somehow,
in order to create further public pressure on Apple.

------
zxcvbn4038
There we go! I’ve been saying forever that social logins are a bad idea for
just this reason. What do you do when someone separates you from your users
with no appeal and no recourse? In this place you can just shrug it off
because nobody uses Apple sign-in anyway (look bellow for the one guy who
does’s outrage). But imagine if Google or Facebook did this? The couple extra
people you picked up by not making them create a new account wouldn’t be worth
losing all your users or customers that sign in with either behemoth.

Prediction: future iOS release disables Fortnite app from running.

------
iJohnDoe
Not sure if this has been mentioned in other threads yet -

The Fortnite iOS app is critical even if you don’t play Fortnite on iOS. The
app has the team voice feature so you can talk to teammates while playing
Fortnite.

Everyone in your party can be playing on different devices (Xbox, PS4, etc.).
If you open the iOS app then you can transfer the party voice to an iPhone.
The sound is really clear and you can use your headphones or AirPods to talk
and listen.

I’m sure some will be pissed if they lost access to that.

If you deleted the app or bought a new iOS device, can you still install
Fortnite from previous purchases?

------
jbverschoor
Yeah.. that's really uncool.

So I'm all pro-Apple for the whole Epic thing, but by this one action, I will
refuse to use sign in with Apple for good.

They're basically hijacking users

~~~
mvanbaak
No, they are not. Epic broke the contract, they were warned, they laughed it
off and got their apple developer account terminated. There is no 'login with
apple' when the developer account implementing it is terminated. It's one of
the services Epic knew was going to be impacted. If anyone is hijacking users,
it's Epic.

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
This is like the mafia asking me to pay up or else they will kidnap my
children, and when I refuse to pay up and my children get kidnapped, you tell
me "Well this was one of the things you knew was going to happen".

If the demands are unfair or extortionate I don't blame people for not
capitulating to them. This the same idea that forms the basis of civil
disobedience.

~~~
user5994461
I don't think it's fair to compare the case to child abduction.

Epic can continue to serve Fortnite just fine through the app store while the
case goes though court. There is nobody being kidnapped and murdered here.

~~~
jbverschoor
What if they actually can’t? For example if trump kicks out fortnite?

I’m sure there have been some incidents, maybe murder, related to fortnite.

------
londons_explore
Epic can't currently send updates for any of their games.

I'd guess that by disabling 'Sign in with apple', those games will now throw
errors and stop working. And it'll look like Epics fault.

It's all a big game of optics and PR....

------
sneak
I think Apple’s brain drain over the last decade is finally starting to show.

This undermines their entire user-facing SSO strategy with anyone paying
attention. (The dev-facing “implement our SSO or you can’t be on the iPhone”
isn’t really a “strategy” per se.) Of course apps will have to support it to
be in the App Store, but this means that any user paying attention now knows
that their accounts/logins for PAID SERVICES are potentially at the mercy of
Apple’s control crusade battles.

Dangerous precedent.

~~~
threeseed
> I really hope this will damage Apple’s brand and platform

This is a really ignorant and pretty crazy comment.

Apple is this year moving to their own silicon and likely next year we will
see the fruits of the large number of AR/VR acquisitions.

Seems to me like you would need a lot of specialist talent to do both.

~~~
sneak
Wrong thread? That quote isn’t me.

------
snyp
I don’t think what epic says here is entirely true. Apple said that they were
going to remove / revoke Epic’S developer account which would probably revoke
the certificates for Sign In with Apple as a result Apple would have emailed
them about it. I think epic is just spinning it to suit their narrative. You
wouldn’t want apps on the App Store with expired certificates to be able to
use login and registration systems.

------
cletus
So this showdown between Epic and Apple is really interesting. My thoughts:

1\. Epic had to know Apple would go nuclear. If they didn't, they're
completely incompetent. Let's assume that's not the case. So Epic was itching
for a fight. Maybe they were delusional about Fortnite's power here?

2\. Apple is going nuclear here. The message is that Apple wants to crush
this. This is Apple making an example of Epic. It looks like Apple is prepared
for this fight and doesn't want it to gain traction;

3\. Personally I think for the vast majority of developers the Apple payment
ecosystem makes sense. It's just for the likes of Epic, Amazon or Netflix it
doesn't as they're large enough to have their own so 30% is a huge fee for
those companies and ultimately untenable;

4\. Apple's monopoly will end at some point. I have to believe that even Apple
knows that. So it's just a question of time and Apple doesn't want it to be
now;

5\. I don't think the solution is for anyone to be able to have payment
infrastructure. That kind of Wild West is no good for anyone. It's just a
question of what the compromise looks like;

I really do see this as the dying days of the Apple and Google app ecosystems.

~~~
mikestew
_I think for the vast majority of developers the Apple payment ecosystem makes
sense._

Considering that one can get payment processing for a tenth of Apple's fee, I
consider Apple's 30% to be outright usurious. I would be a little more
forgiving if that same fee bought some discovery in the App Store, but no. Or
maybe faster app reviews. Okay, finally; after how many years of multiple week
waits?

~~~
wvenable
Apple makes $500 million a year on app store search ads (they expected to make
$2 billion this year). It's crazy that you pay 30% of every purchase to be
listed in a store -- but that means nothing -- you still have to pay to be
visible.

You have people in this thread that are _shocked_ anyone would side with Epic
because they obviously broke the agreement but on the other you have people
_amazed_ that you can justify paying hundreds of dollars in markup per device,
then be charged 30% for any software, and then developers still have to pay
annually for access and pay for visibility. And even attempting to tell users
cheaper ways to pay isn't allowed. It's like people desperately want to chuck
all their income at Apple like dollars to a stripper.

------
mywittyname
This is exactly why I never use OAuth for any account unless it's a throw away
account. I always assumed that it would be Google who first decides to push
around their weight by removing login capabilities.

Can you sign into your account using an id and password?

------
type0
Both users and developers should learn that they can not trust Apple with
anything, not their data, not their income, nothing. It's the most abhorrent
consumer tech company and should receive much more public shaming.

------
mlazos
I honestly don’t think Apple should be investigated for antitrust and I don’t
think they can be considered a monopoly. There are plenty of choices in the
gaming space, and there are a lot of android competitors to the App Store. I
really don’t think epic should have any standing here. They’re just mad about
Apple’s 30% cut. Apple charges a premium to people to be in their ecosystem
and they do it anyway. This isn’t a monopoly by any definition. I do think
removing Sign In with Apple is a bad look, but Epic is in over their head
here, they really shouldn’t be suing Apple.

------
grwthckrmstr
The comments and discussions are fascinating to observe. Here's the voices you
can hear loudest and my thoughts on those.

> Epic broke Apple's ToS

Just because terms have been set, does not mean they are right or that they
shouldn't be challenged. Remember, these terms were arbitrary when they were
first set, why defend them as if it's written in the constitution?

> But Epic is a big greedy corp that only cares about its own profits

Yeah but Epic's win extends as a win to every small player in the ecosystem.
In terms of size, Apple is a trillion-dollar company whereas Epic is multi
billion-dollar company. The only people who can challenge Apple are companies
like Epic, and not the small players and indie app & game developers.

> Apple's reactionary behaviour is just proving Epic's case

I know right! But that's the whole point that Epic started this saga with.
Actually, it started before. Earlier this year HEY/Basecamp guys faced the
same issue. Obviously they created a huge uproar, figured a path that works
for them, and then shut up completely (instead of continuing the fight, as
they promised they would). Epic here is fighting to make a change that will
benefit everyone.

> But I'm an Apple user because I like the closed ecosystem

I get it, you want a platform to make decisions for you. In which case, you
can continue using the App Store to get your dose of apps and games. But why
does your indecision stand in the way of having alternative app stores where
people who want to have a choice, get to make that choice.

> But Apple isn't a monopoly

There's 2 major phone OSes in the world. If you're making any kind of mobile
game or mobile application, you HAVE to be on either or both mobile OSes. iOS
has 60% of US market share, which means it IS a monopoly. Apple exclusively
owns iOS. Apple is a monopoly.

 __Closing thoughts __

In the end, I feel that people who don 't understand the stand Epic is taking
are people who have never done something of their own and failed or faced
undue stress on their venture due to a large gatekeeper who stamps on whoever
it pleases.

I feel the people defending Apple here NEED to defend Apple to satisfy their
internal narrative, which would reflect in their life's pursuit to be a 1 in
10,000 employee of a billion-dollar company.

I'm airing the dirty laundry in the hopes that everyone gains empathy and
perspective.

------
poorman
How is this not Anti-Competitive behavior? "If you go up against us, we will
take away your users and thus your source of income." Seems cut and dry to me.

~~~
m3kw9
“Go against” meaning purposely breaking a TOS and then suing Apple. Epic
wanted this so the crowd can call Apple the bad guy when they react to the
terms.

------
paulsmal
Would be nice if Epic could join Valve in making Linux a better platform for
games.

~~~
DivisionSol
Epic has no interest in doing things that are for the good of average gamer.
Just trying to slice of various pieces of pies, and Linux gaming is too small
to care.

------
extremeMath
This is why you should avoid Apple entirely. They can do this to you, your
company, your apps.

I'm a big fan of FOSS as much as possible.

~~~
dpc_pw
If you don't own your platform, the platform owns you.

------
cryptica
Games are often very low margin products, so it makes completely sense that
Apple's one-size-fits all 30% fee wouldn't be suitable for a lot of companies.
What doesn't make sense is how Apple got away with it for so long.

The ad '1984' by Apple has become the biggest, most hypocritical piece of
propaganda every created.

~~~
mvanbaak
> Games are often very low margin products

Yeah, so, did you check how much Epic earns with fortnite? I wont call this
'low margin' at all.

~~~
cryptica
Profit margin is about the percentage they make after costs have been factored
in. Their profit margin is indeed low; 12% of the revenue... compared to Apple
who takes 30%. See [https://gamerant.com/epic-games-store-revenue-split-
explaine...](https://gamerant.com/epic-games-store-revenue-split-
explained/#:~:text=Sweeney%20also%20said%20that%20Epic,payment%20processing%2C%20and%20customer%20service).

So my point is absolutely valid and it is shocking that Apple makes almost 3
times more money from Fortnight than Epic makes.

Imagine spending years building an app and then someone else ends up making 3
times more money from it than you do...

~~~
mvanbaak
The 30% apple (and all other stores) “take” are not pure profits. They offer a
lot of services that cost them money. So no, apple is not making 3 times as
much.

~~~
cryptica
Apple's offering is a lot simpler and a lot more hands-off. I doubt their
costs are very high and if they are, they're probably wasting the money
because I can't see what's so complex about the Apple App store... And I'm a
developer so I know that operating at that scale comes with challenges but it
really doesn't compare to the challenges which the creators of Fortnight must
face on a daily basis.

------
marcosscriven
The thing I find fascinating is how people come together in groups to form
companies. And then the behaviour of those people is no longer assigned to
them, but the company. Apple does this, Epic does that. But both are made of
individuals. All those individuals have choices. Some of those individuals are
unspeakably greedy.

------
bokohut
So many entrepreneurs "drinking the kool aid" building their great idea that
depends on others platforms of which on the surface appears warm and receptive
however welcome to the real world which is cold and shunning. If you do not
own your hardware and software systems your weakest links are the 3rd party
providers which do not even know your name.

Interesting again to see that "fees" started the core battle fight. Visa and
MasterCard, along with other brands, are acutely aware of the coming payments
swing and continue on buying sprees to protect their toll road. Whether it be
crypto, RTP, FedNow or remains to be credit card is yet to be known however
these events and more will continue to push businesses to bring payments in
house cutting out more and more middlemen. This is long overdue.

------
zxcb1
Just installed Linux on my Mac; it felt like freedom.

~~~
dazhbog
Had alot of issues with power when i last tried Linux on a mac air.. Something
with alot of interrupts firing and the linux kernel was using more power as a
result. Thinking of wiping macos and putting windows pro only and using wsl or
something.

If anyone runs linux/win on mac hardware smoothly I want to know more details.

~~~
alrs
Sell your old mac and buy five comparable used Thinkpads?

------
ajhurliman
Folks are always talking about whether tech companies are monopolies or not,
and I just don't think we're using the right vocabulary. Why not just create a
new legal definition of a platform and create regulations that rein in the
companies that fit that description?

Namely, self-preference on the platform (Google, Amazon), false information
(Facebook, Twitter), transparency of the source of ads, or in Apple's case
usurious rates.

I imagine if platforms came with some regulations, all those folks clambering
to "be the Uber of X" would sound about as cool as being a wastewater
treatment plant, or a fire station.

------
g42gregory
I would like to know what happened to the anti-trust laws and their
enforcement?

------
dpc_pw
Apple is just returning to its roots.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiAgrrwL_mk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiAgrrwL_mk)

I know, I'm old.

------
nojvek
At this point if people really think Apple is a bully and want to do something
out it, pull your apps out of App Store. Better yet do an over the air update
letting the users know how much of a bully Apple is.

If a significant % of apps protest, then Apple has to bend down. Apple isn’t
with much if they don’t have the developer and customer mindshare.

Microsoft lost the mobile market because they couldn’t make a viable AppStore.
Those Nokia phones were fantastic but the apps were very subpar.

------
pmarreck
Of the many things I never counted on happening this year that happened
anyway, becoming a Fortnite fan was certainly near the top

------
ineedasername
Does this prevent users from accessing their existing account/loot/vbucks etc
through Epic directly?

------
iainctduncan
My impression so far is that Epic is playing a long game. And playing it
perfectly. God I hope so.

------
lexusgx
My gut reaction: it is a win to put the brakes on a virtual currency shop
disguised as a video game. Perhaps this is something that needs legislative
action. Addictive behaviors that turn people into paypigs for a minimally
productive business are harmful.

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
I don't care about Epic but I welcome this lawsuit. If they win, it will
significantly improve the lives of millions of developers and users.

------
speedgoose
As an user, it means that I must not use Sign in with Apple.

------
atarian
All this trouble just to save 30% on a pair of digital trousers.

------
lawlessone
The bootlicking comments on that page..

------
newobj
Now that's what I call a slapfight

------
mas3god
I dont like apple, but they should be allowed to do what they want with their
platform. Nobody's forcing us to buy macs & iPhones.

------
shepting
This is bad.

------
troughway
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

