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

[TiggrToo]

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.

How is any of that "back flips"?

Users get inconvenienced all the time. I can't watch HBO Max on my Roku right now because of a spat between them.

Life sucks. Deal with it and move on. It's only a bloody game for dogs sake.

 

[Analog Kid]

I’m not talking about what epic did. Their USERS didn’t do anything

The fact that Epic took hostages shouldn't be a reason to acquiesce to their demands.

 

[Analog Kid]

it would not surprise me one iota if SIWA was contingent on having an active Apple developer account.

I've gotten at least one response in this thread that says it is. It's a little disconcerting though that the argument has gone 8 pages already and nobody seems entirely clear on the rules.

If someone thinks Apple is in the wrong here, it would go a long way if you could post a reference to how the SiwA program is administered and under what conditions Epic Games could continue to provide that service without an active developer account.

Otherwise we'll be on page 32 of "[Apple|Epic] sucks" before I have time to do the research and form an updated opinion. For now I'm going on the assumption, based on an earlier comment from @Nick05, that this was just a natural consequence of Epic losing their dev account for violation of the AppStore agreement.

 

[cmaier]

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

You already can’t play the next season, and you won’t get any updates. Epic’s fault. They could fix it in 3 seconds on their server. They refuse.

(also - you CAN log in - Epic gave instructions on how to do that).

 

[Abazigal]

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!

Obviously, both companies care about their profits first and foremost. I am under no illusion that Apple or Epic are my friend. But Apple’s strategy to put security and safety first align much more with my concerns than Epics’s strategy to have their own game store on iOS so they can take 100% of the cut.

A win by Epic is not necessarily a win for consumers. It’s a win for Epic’s bottom line. A win that blows open the safe and secure environment that Apple has created with iOS and allows more viruses and malware and garbage to infiltrate our devices is a loss for consumers.

Apple is not the enemy here.

 

[cmaier]

I've gotten at least one response in this thread that says it is. It's a little disconcerting though that the argument has gone 8 pages already and nobody seems entirely clear on the rules.

If someone thinks Apple is in the wrong here, it would go a long way if you could post a reference to how the SiwA program is administered and under what conditions Epic Games could continue to provide that service without an active developer account.

Otherwise we'll be on page 32 of "[Apple|Epic] sucks" before I have time to do the research and form an updated opinion. For now I'm going on the assumption, based on an earlier comment from @Nick05, that this was just a natural consequence of Epic losing their dev account for violation of the AppStore agreement.

What difference does it make that you can’t log into an app that you can no longer download, update, or buy in-app contact for, and which will be removed from existing users’ devices shortly?

 

[Colonel Blimp]

This just reminds other developers that if they rely on too many Apple services, Apple can kneel on their necks anytime they want..... it really feels more like intimidation efforts towards other developers at this point to keep them in line.

You’re comparing the termination of Sign in with Apple to the killing of George Floyd? Really? 😳

 

[BootLoxes]

You’re comparing the termination of Sign in with Apple to the killing of George Floyd? Really? 😳

You must be Gumby because you really had to stretch to make this statement

 

[Analog Kid]

What difference does it make that you can’t log into an app that you can no longer download, update, or buy in-app contact for, and which will be removed from existing users’ devices shortly?

In the end, probably not much-- but that argument cuts both ways as well. If the app was going to age out, why kill access before that happens.

There are at least 3 potential interpretations of what I'm reading here:

1. This is a natural consequence of losing your dev account, and Apple would have had to make a special effort to keep it alive.
2. This is a perfectly legal and maybe even justifiable move by Apple, but it is an additional action meant as an escalation and provocation.
3. Apple is repeating what they did with the Unreal Engine account and it's not likely to withstand judicial review.

The world may not look any different next year as a result of which of those cases holds true, but which it is does reflect on Apple's character.

I suspect it's the first. If it's the second or third, I do think Apple has the right to fight back, and even fight a little dirty, in response to the aggression and disingenuity that Epic has been showing, but they're also losing public support if people can stand back and say:

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

So far, I don't see any factual support for comments like that, but if Apple pokes Epic in the eye enough times just for the sake of it, then those opinions gain traction.

 

[Alan Wynn]

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

No backflips are required. To use Sign in with Apple as an App or Website, one needs a valid certificate. It is simply how the service works. That certificate is created and managed by one’s developer account. When one does not have a developer account one cannot offer Sign in with Apple. Epic does not have a developer account. Apple gave them extra time to migrate their users, while their contract let them terminate immediately.

Epic could have done so many things to prevent this situation. They could have followed their contract and still sued. The could have removed Fortnite from the App Store while they were suing. They could have reverted the App when they lost the motion for their TRO.

They choose to do none of those things, because they wanted to hold their customers hostage.

To argue that Apple has any responsibility in this is absurd. Epic was completely in control of this situation.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I've gotten at least one response in this thread that says it is. It's a little disconcerting though that the argument has gone 8 pages already and nobody seems entirely clear on the rules.

Since you do not want to take my word on this, here is the quite from the Apple Developer site:

Sign in with Apple is the fastest way to onboard new users securely and provides two-factor authentication. Using Sign in with Apple JS, users can to log into your website with their Apple ID rather than creating a new account and password.

Enabling Sign in with Apple for your app begins with registering your app in your Apple Developer account. When integrating the API with your app, consider button presentation style, notification options, server integration, and what kind of user information to request.

To communicate between your server and Apple servers, use the Sign in with Apple REST API. Alternatively, to let users set up accounts and sign in to your native iOS, macOS, tvOS, and watchOS apps, use the Authentication Services framework.

 

[Scipster]

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

View attachment 951633

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:

View attachment 951634

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.

Actually, you can. Language, math, and code are all founded on the same basic principles of logic. In fact, computer code is often referred to as computer languages. I'll save you the explanation, but Patrick J. Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic is an excellent textbook on the matter, and one that I use in my own courses. The pseudo-code I provided was meant to act as a shorthand for a more formal, logical proof. If you break the sentences down, clause by clause, and word by word, one can derive a very different meaning than reading the text with original intent.

Of course, not everyone subscribes to this philosophy. This is often the historical divide between legal scholars (textualism vs originalism). I identify more as a textualist, and from our banter, I see you identify more as an originalist. And that's totally fine! We'll disagree on the matter, and neither one of us will be right or wrong. It's simply up for interpretation.

Epic could have done a lot of things differently. So could Apple. But once you take an action, you own it. Even if it is caused by another. Epic is a fault for putting all of their customers in the cross hairs, absolutely. Apple is at fault for pulling the trigger. Both lay claims the other started it (Apple, with unfair business practices, and Epic, for breaking contract), but neither side should blame the other for the negative press they receive. Every action is a choice every person is responsible for the actions they take.

As for the original topic, ending the Sign In With Apple is the next, rational step in the process. And it will hardly be felt by non-fortnite users like me. But there's a still a choice to take it, and I think what worries consumers and developers alike is that often it is a unilateral choice, underscoring the very real fear that SSOs cannot be fully trusted. Sure, it makes life easier, but it won't replace separate logins for each service or third party, nor will it replace consumer owned and licensed password managers that you know will last into perpetuity. And oftentimes, those password managers come with add-ons that make signing in just as easy.

 

[AuraSphere999999]

Epic made the premeditated choice to violate the App Store Terms of Service. Now they are paying the price for their grave violations. Fortnite has been trending for quite some time. Unfortunately, just like everything else, the trend must eventually come to an end. The rolling drums should amplify the volume on September 28th and we shall see the new results (although probably not the ultimate).

 

[AuraSphere999999]

I think Epic’s introduction of their direct payment system was a fatal mistake.

 

[arvinsim]

That's why I never use Sign in with Apple.

 

[arvinsim]

Tinfoi hat on: This whole thing is playing out exactly as Epic has planned.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Actually, you can. Language, math, and code are all founded on the same basic principles of logic.

Sorry, ”also” is not logical AND. It is logical non-exclusive OR.

“We could go to a movie, also we could go have ice cream.”

That means: We could go to a movie. We could go have ice cream. We could do both. (In common parlance, it could additionally mean we could do something else, not either of the other options, but let us just ignore that for this case.)

Epic is a fault for putting all of their customers in the cross hairs, absolutely.

This was not an oversight, this was their goal. Their hope was the out cry would force Apple (or force the courts to force Apple) to back down. They had many ways of doing letting the courts decide without holding their customers hostage.

1. They could have sued without violating the contract.
2. They could have violated the contract and when they were not granted the TRO they could have repaired the breach.
3. They could have worked out a deal with Sony (and/or Microsoft/Nintendo) to give super discounted (or free) systems for people who were App Store exclusive users.

They did not do any of those things because they wanted to use their customers’ pain for their benefit.

Apple is at fault for pulling the trigger.

If Apple did not enforce their contract, they would hurt their legal case and invite further breeches. They have no fault here.

Both lay claims the other started it (Apple, with unfair business practices, and Epic, for breaking contract),

There is no question that Epic created this problem. They could have sued without affecting their case or their customers, but they choose not to do so.

but neither side should blame the other for the negative press they receive. Every action is a choice every person is responsible for the actions they take.

Someone breaks into my store, holds a gun to my customers heads and threatens them. I am under no obligation (moral or otherwise) to accede to the hostage taker’s demands.

As for the original topic, ending the Sign In With Apple is the next, rational step in the process.

Not a rational additional step, a simple consequence of not having a developer account. I quoted the relevant portion. Took about six seconds to find it. Pretty sure Epic understood this as well.

But there's a still a choice to take it, and I think what worries consumers and developers alike is that often it is a unilateral choice, underscoring the very real fear that SSOs cannot be fully trusted.

It is not a unilateral choice. It is a simple consequence of a developer leaving the App Store. Epic was completely able to prevent this. It would be the same as if they had decided to not renew their developer account and had left the App Store because they decided they did not want to provide iOS games. There would be no difference.

Sure, it makes life easier, but it won't replace separate logins for each service or third party, nor will it replace consumer owned and licensed password managers that you know will last into perpetuity. And oftentimes, those password managers come with add-ons that make signing in just as easy.

Life is about trade-offs. Using Sign In with Apple has them just like everything else. As for your claim about licensed password managers, you might want to go look up some of the threads about the changes that 1Password made to their service/software before you talk about “perpetuity”.

 

[ulyssesric]

I've had a lot of problems with "Sign in with Apple" for several products. Sometimes it works, most of the time it doesn't.
I don't see this as a setback or real punishment for Epic.

"Sign in with Apple" is just an API set for Apple's proprietary OAUTH implementation. It involves communications from you to service provider, from you to Apple, from Apple to service provider, and reply from server provider back to you again. For most of the cases it's the problem of service provider that failed to associate response in the 2nd step to the initial login request you made in the first step, when you refresh the authentication status in 3rd step.

Yeah it's a big complex. TL;DR: error handling is very important in 3rd-party certifying procedure, and unfortunately not every coder knows to check the return codes.

 

[boss.king]

And this is why signing in with Apple/Google/Facebook is something you should avoid wherever possible. Make accounts that don't rely on third parties getting along.

 

[Don Waters]

Apple demands this, Apple demands that, I don't think federal judges are just going to give Apple a pass. Apple app store approved malware, while they say they are taking a 30% cut to keep out apps like that. I'm sure Epic will throw that in their face and should.

 

[TiggrToo]

Apple demands this, Apple demands that, I don't think federal judges are just going to give Apple a pass. Apple app store approved malware, while they say they are taking a 30% cut to keep out apps like that. I'm sure Epic will throw that in their face and should.

Guess you don't know much about the law, then.

Even the world's best musicians flub a note from time to time.

 

[Abazigal]

And this is why signing in with Apple/Google/Facebook is something you should avoid wherever possible. Make accounts that don't rely on third parties getting along.

I dunno. This also means that if I ever want to terminate my relationship with any app developer, I just need to flip a switch and Sign In with Apple automatically severs it for me.

Sounds like a pretty good deal, especially if I want to put a stop to all those pesky advertising newsletters that keep coming non-stop long after I have deleted said app from my device.

Problem right now is that many developers seem to be half-assing the Sign In with Apple implementation, and if I use said feature, it creates a new account for me, rather than merging it with my existing account, which is something I don’t want. But better late than never, and it’s still an added option for any new accounts I want to create moving forward.

After all, to quote a favourite phrase on this forum - choice is never a bad thing, right?

 

[Alan Wynn]

That's why I never use Sign in with Apple.

You never use Sign In with Apple because you expect the companies with whom you do business to intentionally violate their contract with Apple, sue, demand a TRO, lose, refuse to cure the breech, get kicked out of the App Store and as a result lose access to Sign In with Apple, slightly inconveniencing you by making you change your account information?

Wow.

Given this is the first time this has happened, you are amazingly prescient. What stocks do you like?

I, on the other hand, prefer Sign In with Apple because I have had way more experience with companies that have my eMail address losing it in a breech or continuing to contact me long after I asked to be removed.

We must live in different worlds.

 

[j1huynh]

Hahaha “epic”...failure!

 

[hot-gril]

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

Yeah, that's what I'm interested in. So there's no way for customers to migrate their own accounts off of Sign in with Apple? Has to be done manually via support? That's a pretty brutal lock-in. Makes me uhhh not want to use this.