I mean it certainly is a ****** situation, but there is a remedy. It’s just a PIA to have to call, chat, email or whatever EPIC prefers in these cases. I hope in the future it is easier to fix though.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11 [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I mean it certainly is a ****** situation, but there is a remedy. It’s just a PIA to have to call, chat, email or whatever EPIC prefers in these cases. I hope in the future it is easier to fix though.
To use SiwA, you need to have a developer account as you need to enter the unique keys provided in your system so in can communicate with apple’s servers. This isn’t apple doing anything more to Epic, but the way that any SSO system works.
From Apple’s Website:
“You’ll need to use Certificates, Identifiers & Profiles to set up identifiers and keys in your Apple Developer account before you can implement Sign in with Apple. Organizations can register up to 100 website URLs for each Service ID enabled for Sign in with Apple. Individuals can register up to 10.”
Yes, they send the message that no one is off limits when it comes to breaking a contract.
Exactly as it should be. Epic started this whole thing off - this is 100% on them. They planned out the subterfuge then executed it deliberately and methodically.
They even had the legal paperwork ready in advance.
I support Apple for several reasons:
1) Epic created this entire situation,
2) Apple have created an environment where the risk of malware is lower than the competition,
3) I believe that, based on US law of rulings by either the district court or the supreme court, that Apple are legally in the right here.
If it’s the case that sign-in with apple requires an active developer account Apple could confirm and say that’s the reason Epic is losing it. But I am curious why it wouldn’t break immediately when the developer account was deactivated.
Last edited:
Do you have detailed knowledge of how much it cost Apple to run this platform? And why are mad at Apple for charging what every other platform charges?
Actually... they do if they also provide other sign ins, like Sign in with Google. Another example of how Apple is using its market position as gatekeeper, it can unilaterally, and does that indeed, change the “contract” that everyone says Epic broke. That contract can be modified by Apple at any time, and if you don’t agree, you’re out. That‘s abuse of power.
Like Apple, you omit the most important part of the email with your ellipsis, much to the point of the first bullet. The full sentence reads "Apple would need to provide a side letter or alter its contracts and standards documents to remove such restrictions to allow Epic to provide a competing app store and competing payment processing options to iOS customers."
Epic then goes on to advocate for a change in policy so that all developers (like me 😄) can benefit from their request. That is to say, Epic was not seeking a side letter per se, but rather an amendment to the contract - an amendment to be equally applied. The side letter is only mentioned as it is the sole mechanism the Apple Developer Agreement provides for making changes to the contract, including those beyond your normal releases/exclusions an individual would seek (I agree, it's silly). If you actually read the email, you will see that it is clear as day. It also affirmed in later emails. For ease of reference, you can find all three emails here:
So no, not everything Apple said was true. No, Epic did not demand a side deal. Epic demanded a change in App Store policy, a change that would benefit all developers.
Both Apple and Epic are beholden to their shareholders and to think they are concerned about the well being of others is misguided. Neither one is concerned about other developers -- what we developers must do instead is think for ourselves and determine which outcome is best for our own well being. For developers, that would be Epic's, as it provides more freedoms and more choice.
I encourage everyone to read the rest of the post, it makes for a fun read and it is good to see/understand other people's perspectives.
Next you have some article saying EPIC is banned from campus visitors lot. You have to meet and negotiate at the local Starbucks.
This makes me uncertain about using Sign In with Apple for any third-party service if a spat could lead to Apple revoking sign-in for that service.
It’s not the most important point just because you say so. Anybody who can read can see that the whole letter is “give EPIC this and that and, oh, by the way, if you want to do that for everyone else too, fine.”
What about Nintendo? Microsoft? Sony? Steam? The list can go on and on.
True, but it was the most relevant since that was the sentence you chose to clip. I think the email itself is most important, as it reads for itself. A better representation of the letter is: Hi Apple, you develop really great stuff, but some of the things you require us to do isn't so great and stifles innovation, competition, and consumer choice. Can you please play fair for the benefit of all users? Thanks!
To which Apple responds: No.
It's clear that Epic requested a side-deal for them and only hoped for the others.
It's also clear that they requested an amendment to the contract to benefit others and, failing that, hoped for a side deal.
It means that I do not need to trust the security of some random internet site. Instead, they go to Apple (or Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) to verify me. They have no password of mine. If I choose, they also do not have my real eMail address, so they can not connect my information with that from other sources and build a profile of me without my permission.
That is because it is. Their model is to sell security and privacy, so their interests and mine align.
Actually, Apple’s Privacy by Design approach makes it so the collect less data on me. They do things on device whenever they can, so that the data never ends up on their servers. When they have to send the data to their servers, they aggregate, obfuscate and truncate (only ask for part of a route, rather than the whole route as an example).
Actually, most of these approaches take control from the developer and give it to the user. I need to opt in for various privacy-destroying tracking services. Developers need to disclose all the trackers they use. They need permission to access device ID.
They do not collect that data (they have no process to monetize it) and having it can mean they are forced to comply with government requests for that data (at considerable cost to them). They let anyone collect any data they can get their users to give them permission to collect.
The devil's in the details:
First and foremost Epic wanted a side deal. Then they added that if Apple wanted to do this for everyone as well then Epic would be OK with that.
But this was Epic first and foremost. And the letter makes it very clear that the side deal was not contingent on opening it up to everyone else.
Anyone who thinks that Epic were looking out for anyone other than Epic is a fool who's happy to get ripped off by Epic's empty promises.
And this is where Epic explicitly ask for the side letter.
It's all there in black and white.
Now, care to show me where it then talks about making this contingent on a fully open app store?
They cancelled their account, of which one of the benefits is sign in with Apple. I'm surprised Apple gave an extension PAST the deadline of account closure. To me, it looks like Apple gave them "special treatment" to allow their users time to migrate. Epic said Apple provide them no benefits so I'm not entirely sure what the problem is.
Only registered developers can get Sign in with Apple keys. If one is not an Apple Developer, one cannot use it.