Apple Disabling 'Sign in with Apple' for Epic Games on September 11 [Updated]

[I7guy]

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.

Because, Apple doesn't think it's a benefit to all users, just because Epic believes it is?

 

[Analog Kid]

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.

No, Epic knew at the time they sent this that they were going to sue so they put some pretty language in to look good when it went public. The whole indication of intent is in the “please confirm within two weeks if you’ll change your decade old business model for us”.

Nothing of this magnitude happens in two weeks. This letter was sent for show.

 

[Alan Wynn]

So exactly what is your point? My point is to avoid a single point of failure and to break the chains. I‘m using a multi platform keystore, CalDAV, CardDav - so I just don‘t care about what Apple supports or terminates.

That is great. Glad you have the time and mental energy to manage all that. I picked the Apple ecosystem so I would not have to care about doing all that myself.

I‘m still with Apple - but I could switch in a second and a lot of workflows moved to Linux just because Apple is not a reliable partner.

Given that you made it clear that you do not use any of their services, I am not sure what you mean you “are still with Apple”. In what way is Apple not a reliable partner? (In what context are you and Apple partners?)

And Apple is not trustworthy. Remember recently Apple bought an outstanding weather app/weather service and the first thing Apple does is to terminate the Android part.

How is that not trustworthy? Apple bought a company that provided services to various parties. It was not Apple that was providing those services it was the company. That company no longer exists. Why should Apple provide services to its competitors if it does not want to do so?

Every modern service company would have turned this deal into A business - best weather app onto Windows/Linux/macOS/iOS/Android ...

If this company was profitable enough selling those services, they would not have sold the company to Apple. Apple wanted the developers and (maybe the codebase). They do things to enhance their platform. This was not a meaningful business and there would be no reason for them to deal with the opportunity cost that maintaining it would have been.

However, to be clear, I am glad that Apple has nothing that locks you in to them. I love that that choice exists. I just wish that you and those like you, would stop arguing that the only model that should exist in the world is the one that you want. I (any millions of others) picked this ecosystem because of the choices that Apple has made, not in spite of them.

 

[szw-mapple fan]

Hmm... does add some risk to the whole Sign in with Apple thing.

Same things happens to sign in with Google or Facebook. If you breach the dev agreement they will terminate account authentications associated with your product.

 

[mazz0]

Yeah, this does seem like very bad press for Sign In with Apple.

 

[Scipster]

The devil's in the details:

View attachment 951607

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.

View attachment 951611

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?

You bring up very good points! But upon closer inspection of the details, the operators (and, also, or, etc.) matter.

Epic says that it is "requesting that Apple agrees in principle to permit Epic to roll out these options for the benefit of all iOS customers. We also hope that Apple will also make these options equally available to all iOS developers in order to make software sales and distribution on the iOS platform as open and competitive as it is on personal computers."

"Also" is a variant of the logical operator "and". If I'm writing a line of code that says:

if (dog = short && happy) {return true};

Then the dog must be both short and happy to be true. The same logic applies to this letter. Epic's request is for both the inclusion of the Epic Game Store and the equal application of these policies to all developers. While neither proposition is contingent on the other, just as a short dog does not have to be happy and happy dog does not have to be short, both are need to satisfy Epic's request.

And yes, Epic does mention a side letter. But they also mention alterations to the contract in equally strong terms, using an "or" operator to separate the two conclusions: "Apple would need to provide a side letter or alter its contracts and standards documents to remove such restrictions..."

So Epic is not explicitly asking for side letter, nor is it asking for one first and foremost. Instead, it is asking for one or the other, equally. For example, If I were to ask what two integers I should multiply to get a sum of 10, one may say "1 and 10" or "2 and 5". The person who replies is not suggesting that I choose 1 and 10 over 2 and 5, just that I can arrive at the same outcome. Indeed, if Apple were to include all developers in the scope of the side letter - again, the only legal mechanism Apple provides for making bilateral changes to the App Developer Agreement - Epic would achieve the same result.

This is emphasized in an email two months later, when Epic reiterates its wish for a change in policy and makes no mention of a side letter:

If Epic wanted a side letter, they would have consistently asked for it in all of their communications. Instead, they only ask for "historic change" to lift platform restrictions and changes to the contract.

The devil really is in the details.

 

[notabadname]

To all you Apple pros stating that epic broke contract etc. I bet every sum in the universe - everyone of you has broken some rules or contract on purpose or by chance.
Do you guys really wanna live in a world where companies more and more dictate great parts of our lives because of their ‚rules‘ or ‚contracts‘.
I am even almost sure no one ever read and understand the whole Apple AGBs you have to accept using their software, etc.

It’s an App Store not the UNO, Apple is defending just profit not anything of real worth or value.

please consider this in your evaluation and statements!

and also consider if I leave Apple which I already tried I can only go to google - so you consider that really as an option? We have here a situation where the USA has established a worldwide duopoly - you can’t get away, so the minimum would be some kind of choice whom you flip your coins!

Whether people have broken a contract In their personal lives (I would agree it happens - giving out your netflix account to another family, sharing cable, not returning your rental car with a truly full tank), it does not mean those people would find it wrong if they got busted or held accountable. BUt multi-billion dollar companies (TCEHY largest stake-holder) violating their legal contracts with other companies is a totally different game - and amounts to millions of dollars of “breech” by the bad actor. Epic is certainly not equivalent to the family struggling to make its mortgage, and is caught cheating on its cable bill here. Epic, i am betting, is just as aggressive at defending its licensing contracts on its ”Unreal Engine” - the most successful in the world. They know just what it is like to defend a #1 position.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Hmm... does add some risk to the whole Sign in with Apple thing.

That's a very good point! Knowing that your sign in may stop working if Apple has a tiff with the app company does make it a security fail.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Or users will find a new platform to play with the toys they love. Platforms function are to enable content. Apple is limiting this (xcloud, forced in-app purchases). I don't like Fortnite and not big fan of Epic, but at the end if they succeed, it will benefit consumers.

Nope. It might benefit some users, and will mostly likely hurt many more. There are at least two mobile platforms out there (one could argue that AOSP was at least a third) and many other gaming platforms. Apple has created a platform where I as user do not need to create a new store or payment account with every service that wants my personal information. I do not have to know that XXX is exclusive to YYY store, and that I should not trust store ZZZ with personal information because it is insecure. That may not be the model that you prefer. That is great. Buy one of the hundreds of competing products. Their ”success” takes a choice off the table, it does not add one.

I for one I am glad they are not taking the easy out and just come back and play by Apple Terms.

You mean you think it is better for them to hold their customers hostage while they sue, rathe than let them play while they sue? I do not see how you can view that as anything other than a consumer hostile approach. If they agreed to abide by the terms of their contract, and returned to the store (assuming Apple would allow them back), what exactly do they risk? If they win, Apple would have to compensate them for their losses (which would be purely monetary in that case), and they could compensate their players. If they lose, they either have to revert and hope Apple lets them back or decide they do not want to be there anyway.

They only who get hurt by their decision are their customers.

I just care of what will benefit me, as a consumer, and Epic course of action seems to be the one that would benefit us consumers the most.

If you want that open world, you are free to buy a device that supports it. If you prefer the Apple ecosystem, what is it that you think it offers that is not bound up in these privacy/security/convenience rules that Apple requires of its developers?

But hey, if you instead of reasonable consumers want to blindly cheer for Apple, sure go ahead!

Are you incapable or accepting that other people have different views and have made different choices in good faith? That maybe not everyone who prefers the Apple approach is an idiot. Can you understand that many of us who have made money developing games for both Android and iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/WatchOS have evaluated the platforms and know how much more we make in Apple’s ecosystem even in markets where it has under 20% share

Unfortunate, as that's part of why Apple gets away with some things no one else would, but not much I can do about it.

Apple does what makes its customers happy (see its high customer sat scores). If you do not like their restrictions, their are lots of other options.

Also, I get a kick out of the many "lawyers" out here, who seem to know all their in and outs around contracts, applicability and all. Amazing!

You might want to go look up @cmaier (the chip designer turned IP lawyer) who is a frequent poster on here. Quite a few of the rest of us on the pro-App Store side are developers and/or content owners.

 

[TiggrToo]

You bring up very good points! But upon closer inspection of the details, the operators (and, also, or, etc.) matter.

Epic says that it is "requesting that Apple agrees in principle to permit Epic to roll out these options for the benefit of all iOS customers. We also hope that Apple will also make these options equally available to all iOS developers in order to make software sales and distribution on the iOS platform as open and competitive as it is on personal computers."

"Also" is a variant of the logical operator "and". If I'm writing a line of code that says:

if (dog = short && happy) {return true};

Then the dog must be both short and happy to be true. The same logic applies to this letter. Epic's request is for both the inclusion of the Epic Game Store and application of these policies made available to equally, to all developers. While neither proposition is contingent on the other, just as a short dog does not have to be happy and happy dog does not have to be short, both are need to satisfy Epic's request.

And yes, Epic does mention a side letter. But they also mention alterations to the contract in equally strong terms, using an "or" operator to separate the two conclusions: "Apple would need to provide a side letter or alter its contracts and standards documents to remove such restrictions..."

So Epic is not explicitly asking for side letter, nor is it asking for one first and foremost. Instead, it is asking for one or the other, equally. For example, If I were to ask what two integers I should multiply to get a sum of 10, one may say "1 and 10" or "2 and 5". The person who replies is not suggesting that I choose 1 and 10 over 2 and 5, just that I can arrive at the same outcome. Indeed, if Apple were to include all developers in the scope of the side letter - again, the only legal mechanism Apple provides for making bilateral changes to the App Developer Agreement - Epic would achieve the same result.

This is emphasized in an email two months later, when Epic reiterates its wish for a change in policy and makes no mention of a side letter:

View attachment 951618

If Epic wanted a side letter, they would have consistently asked for it in all of their communications. Instead, they only ask for "historic change" to lift platform restrictions and changes to the contract.

The devil really is in the details.

First off, you can't go converting words into pseudo code.

Epic asked for a side deal. They had a SEPERATE sentence about also offering it to developers.

They could have said "open it up to everyone then Epic could take advantage of...", yet they did not. They asked for their store first, then stated that th hey be OK if it wasn't exclusive.

That is not the same as asking something on behalf of all developers.

Then 17 odd days later, they reply with

So, one request then attack. Yup, great way to do business.

You also forgot to mention the first paragraph of the letter 2 months later:

You tell me, what were Apple to do? They've just been informed by a Developer that they intend to deliberately break the terms and conditions of the deal.

And, as we now know, Epic had already produced the 1984 parody video, got the legal cation ready AND had the new code installed and waiting to be triggered BEFORE Apple received the letter.

In other words, they operated in a total disingenuous fashion.

These are all the reasons why they were never granted the TRO.

 

[lec0rsaire]

While Epic is ultimately doing this for their bottom line the fact is that if they succeed it will benefit all developers and customers.

The worst thing about the iPhone from the beginning has been the locked down OS. The App Store isn’t the problem. The problem is that you can install software without it. This is unacceptable for a general purpose computing device.

Because iPhones aren’t mobile phones. They're pocket PCs. Epic’s lawyers will point out that macOS isn’t locked down. It will be very hard for Apple to convince the court that iOS is radically different.

Now Epic’s case is weaker against Google because Google allows the installation of software without Google Play even though they have made it inconvenient to do so.

 

[johnnytravels]

Epic Makes Billions of Dollars.This is what happens when your too greedy
Greed Kills

Just pay apple there 30%, Who Cares ?

Now you get 0

Apple makes billions of dollars. This is what happens when you’re to greedy.

Just let devs decide what’s best for them. Who cares?
Their, fixed it for ya 😂😂😂

 

[cecil444]

I bet Epic is really starting to regret their decision.

They could have reached out to other large companies and negotiated with Apple as a coalition and I'm willing to bet they would have had much better results.

Exactly. They could have gone about this in a better way and built a movement around it. Instead they overestimated their own clout and now that miscalculation is starting to sting.

 

[4jasontv]

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.

You mean life. That's life.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Good on Apple. Epic needs to be completely removed.

 

[4jasontv]

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:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1296919363157659648

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.

Epic wanted a side deal. They just said it would be OK if they offered the deal to others.

Hey Walmart, I want this TV for free, but to be fair you could give one to everyone for free.

 

[edgonzalez32]

People are commenting “good kill them off lol” or “I bet epic is regretting their decisions” without even realizing this is not just affecting epic. It’s now affecting its users who are Apple users. This is a very hostile-user choice by Apple. This is now hurting their users as much as it hurts Epic’s. The users didn’t do anything here.

And somehow, some of you are still going to defend them.

 

[cmaier]

People are commenting “good kill them off lol” or “I bet epic is regretting their decisions” without even realizing this is not just affecting epic. It’s now affecting its users who are Apple users. This is a very hostile-user choice by Apple. This is now hurting their users as much as it hurts Epic’s. The users didn’t do anything here.

And somehow, some of you are still going to defend them.

The only users it is hurting are epic’s. Some may also be Apple’s, but only if you use epic software does any of this affect you. Sign in with apple works for all apple’s customers. Just not when they try to use it for fortnite, which, by the way, you can;t download anymore anyway.

 

[Yoshimura]

However, to be clear, I am glad that Apple has nothing that locks you in to them. I love that that choice exists. I just wish that you and those like you, would stop arguing that the only model that should exist in the world is the one that you want. I (any millions of others) picked this ecosystem because of the choices that Apple has made, not in spite of them.

Exactly.

And I really hope someone would create a petition so we can show our appreciation of Apple ecosystem and hopefully keep it the way it's is.

 

[TiggrToo]

People are commenting “good kill them off lol” or “I bet epic is regretting their decisions” without even realizing this is not just affecting epic. It’s now affecting its users who are Apple users. This is a very hostile-user choice by Apple.

And somehow, some of you are still going to defend them.

Epic created this. Not Apple. Epic.

Epic knew full well what the risks were. They went ahead with it anyway.

They were given a chance to reverse direction - they chose not to.

Epic made that decision. Epic planned for this.

Epic were denied the TRO because the judge agreed with Apple that Epic had manufacturered this debacle.

All Apple are doing is enforcing the Terms and Conditions that Epic had signed.

 

[edgonzalez32]

The only users it is hurting are epic’s. Some may also be Apple’s, but only if you use epic software does any of this affect you. Sign in with apple works for all apple’s customers. Just not when they try to use it for fortnite, which, by the way, you can;t download anymore anyway.

But if you own fortnite, and use Sign In with Apple, you’re about to be ****ed. When you didn’t do anything.

 

[CJ Dorschel]

This entire situation seems so petty. I’m sorry but both parties have behaved ridiculously.

 

[TiggrToo]

But if you own fortnite, and use Sign In with Apple, you’re about to be ****ed. When you didn’t do anything.

And? Again, Epic created this mess. Not Apple. Epic no longer have a Developer account and it would not surprise me one iota if SIWA was contingent on having an active Apple developer account.

 

[edgonzalez32]

Epic created this. Not Apple. Epic.

Epic knew full well what the risks were. They went ahead with it anyway.

They were given a chance to reverse direction - they chose not to.

Epic made that decision. Epic planned for this.

Epic were denied the TRO because the judge agreed with Apple that Epic had manufacturered this debacle.

All Apple are doing is enforcing the Terms and Conditions that Epic had signed.

Wow dude thanks I haven’t been following this AT ALL.

I’m not talking about what epic did. Their USERS didn’t do anything, as well as apples users.
Again, the backflips you people do around here really amazes me.

 

[Doomtomb]

This is likely a pretty small blow