Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

suns93

macrumors regular
Nov 21, 2017
133
168
I love it for two reasons:

1) No one will know about or even use this
2) This kills Epic's argument about Apple being the only App Store for stuff like this.

Hahaha.
Regarding #2, it is a truly mystifying move. I suppose they’re giving up on trying to fight Apple directly and will transition all their money and effort into lobbying Congress to resolve this via new legislation.
 

4jasontv

Suspended
Jul 31, 2011
6,272
7,548
You mean adding a feature to software? It's called software development.
Oh, you mean the thing Apple did because Epic added a feature to their software? It's called gatekeeping.
Epic didn’t disclose the, I’m going to call it a “securely vulnerable” for now, security vulnerability.

Software development is when you build a product that does what you say it did. Epic didn’t do that. Also, it wasn't a feature, it was an unapproved and undisclosed securely vulnerable.

I’m not sure gatekeeping is the right word since that’s what I paid Apple to do.

Epic can make any software they like but they have to do four things first:
1. Notify Apple of all changes.
2. Get Apple's permission to offer the update.
3. Notify the user of all changes.
4. Get the user's permission to apply the update.

Even if you have permission to apply updates without review if you don't notify the user of changes they can't consent to the update being applied.

Epic didn't do any of them. At best, Epic committed fraud with malicious intent. Both Tim Sweeney and the person who created the code need prison time. The only question is, who else at Epic is guilty because they knew and didn't speak up.

Even if Epic made a case and convinced a judge they have the right to circumvent Apple (parts 1 and 2), they still need the users to know what is being applied and get their consent to do so (parts 3 and 4) if for no other reason than it puts them at significant financial risk.
 
Last edited:

Unregistered 4U

macrumors G4
Jul 22, 2002
10,206
8,199
Epic didn’t disclose the, I’m going to call it a “securely vulnerable” for now, security vulnerability.

Software development is when you build a product that does what you say it did. Epic didn’t do that. Also, it wasn't a feature, it was an unapproved and undisclosed securely vulnerable.

I’m not sure gatekeeping is the right word since that’s what I paid Apple to do.

Epic can make any software they like but they have to do four things first:
1. Notify Apple of all changes.
2. Get Apple's permission to offer the update.
3. Notify the user of all changes.
4. Get the user's permission to apply the update.

Even if you have permission to apply updates without review if you don't notify the user of changes they can't consent to the update being applied.

Epic didn't do any of them. At best, Epic committed fraud with malicious intent. Both Tim Sweeney and the person who created the code need prison time. The only question is, who else at Epic is guilty because they knew and didn't speak up.

Even if Epic made a case and convinced a judge they have the right to circumvent Apple (parts 1 and 2), they still need the users to know what is being applied and get their consent to do so (parts 3 and 4) if for no other reason than it puts them at significant financial risk.
And, when one considers that THIS is the kind of thing that’s possible with the controls that are in place, there is no way in heck that anything gets BETTER by removing the controls. Some people seem to feel that just by using the word sideloading, all developers will just magically start behaving themselves. :)
 

jakey rolling

macrumors 6502a
Mar 8, 2022
577
1,267
Epic didn’t disclose the, I’m going to call it a “securely vulnerable” for now, security vulnerability.

Software development is when you build a product that does what you say it did. Epic didn’t do that. Also, it wasn't a feature, it was an unapproved and undisclosed securely vulnerable.

I’m not sure gatekeeping is the right word since that’s what I paid Apple to do.

Epic can make any software they like but they have to do four things first:
1. Notify Apple of all changes.
2. Get Apple's permission to offer the update.
3. Notify the user of all changes.
4. Get the user's permission to apply the update.

Even if you have permission to apply updates without review if you don't notify the user of changes they can't consent to the update being applied.

Epic didn't do any of them. At best, Epic committed fraud with malicious intent. Both Tim Sweeney and the person who created the code need prison time. The only question is, who else at Epic is guilty because they knew and didn't speak up.

Even if Epic made a case and convinced a judge they have the right to circumvent Apple (parts 1 and 2), they still need the users to know what is being applied and get their consent to do so (parts 3 and 4) if for no other reason than it puts them at significant financial risk.
Man, I could watch 20 episodes of The Real Housewives of Silicon Valley and get less dramatic hand-wringing than what comes from you iFanatics. Jail time? Because a software developer decided that Apple's rent seeking was enough and decided to put their own link to a secure payment processor into their game? Geezus.
 

sideshowuniqueuser

macrumors 68030
Mar 20, 2016
2,879
2,886
I love it for two reasons:

1) No one will know about or even use this
Delusional. Fortnight is hugely popular amongst the kids. Huge. I'm presuming you have no kids.
2) This kills Epic's argument about Apple being the only App Store for stuff like this.
It has to run as a web app. It's not a native app. The only way to get a native app, is via the App Store. Native apps have a massive advantage of capabilities. Your argument is nonsensical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elgaard

sideshowuniqueuser

macrumors 68030
Mar 20, 2016
2,879
2,886
Before you rush to let your kids jump into this, or any other Epic loot-box driven game (Rocket League et al), remember that renowned consumer privacy company PrivacySpy rates creepy, sleazy Epic as just 2.2/10.

That makes it worse than Amazon, Google, and even Zuckerberg’s Facebook.

That makes it the third worst company in the world for user privacy. The dubious honor of number one on that list? Houseparty.

Guess who owns Houseparty?
Privacy? What are you even talking about? The kids are just playing games. What privacy, pray tell, is being invaded? This "privacy" word is thrown around as a strawman every time someone gets on their high horse to defend their favourite brand. You may as well be saying "Christianity is the best religion because of privacy and security."
 

4jasontv

Suspended
Jul 31, 2011
6,272
7,548
Man, I could watch 20 episodes of The Real Housewives of Silicon Valley and get less dramatic hand-wringing than what comes from you iFanatics. Jail time? Because a software developer decided that Apple's rent seeking was enough and decided to put their own link to a secure payment processor into their game? Geezus.
Yes, jail time. For exactly the reason you give. Because what they want - and this is important - doesn't matter. They don't get to decide the rules of the game, they only get to play by them if Apple and end users agree. They put people at real financial risk in order to avoid fulfilling their contracts.

It wasn't an accident. And, since they did it on purpose then their punishment should not be lenient.
 

jakey rolling

macrumors 6502a
Mar 8, 2022
577
1,267
Yes, jail time. For exactly the reason you give. Because what they want - and this is important - doesn't matter. They don't get to decide the rules of the game, they only get to play by them if Apple and end users agree. They put people at real financial risk in order to avoid fulfilling their contracts.

It wasn't an accident. And, since they did it on purpose then their punishment should not be lenient.
All that hand wringing again. Breach of contract is a civil offense, not a criminal one. You seriously need to rethink your civics education.

Exactly zero people were "put at real financial risk". Heck, given the software quality coming from Cupertino lately, I'm not sure that I would trust Apple's payment portal any more than I would trust Epic's.
 

Unregistered 4U

macrumors G4
Jul 22, 2002
10,206
8,199
It has to run as a web app. It's not a native app. The only way to get a native app, is via the App Store. Native apps have a massive advantage of capabilities. Your argument is nonsensical.
Not really. Fortnite “the game” apparently doesn’t require a native app to work. SOME apps may need to be native, but not specifically Fortnite.

If Fortnite was still unavailable on iOS, then there would be a case to be made. As Fortnite IS available on iOS, the whole point of “We’re at the mercy of the App Store!” was, quite clearly, untrue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: suns93

A MacBook lover

Suspended
May 22, 2009
2,011
4,582
D.C.
What a great service, it allows me enjoy great games -like Fortnite or Control- on my Mac with high quality. And I don’t need a powerful CPU or GPU (my 2014 dual core mac is pretty limited in that matter). Until the day I get a PS5, GeforceNow is the way.

If I had to point a flaw, Is the lack of some games that I’d really want to be on the platform, like the latest Arkane’s Prey.
Hard agree. I HATED streaming services because I only play multiplayer, and having that input lag was annoying.

Trying GFN (3080 tier) on the Mac completely changed my mind (1600p, 120fps, and input latency that is LESS than my native pc). It really is amazing, it's truly feels like your playing natively.

PS. No, don't bother with the $10 tier, the $20 tier is on another level input latency wise
 

sunny5

Suspended
Jun 11, 2021
1,712
1,581
Geforce Now with Fortnite already available a long time ago. Not a news at all.
 

EntropyQ3

macrumors 6502a
Mar 20, 2009
707
796
All that hand wringing again. Breach of contract is a civil offense, not a criminal one. You seriously need to rethink your civics education.

Exactly zero people were "put at real financial risk". Heck, given the software quality coming from Cupertino lately, I'm not sure that I would trust Apple's payment portal any more than I would trust Epic's.
Epic was putting players and developers in the line of fire by that breach of contract.
If they weren’t pleased by Apples business conditions, there were options available to them other than what they did. It was a choice, a choice at the cost of others who had no interest in this.
 
Last edited:

4jasontv

Suspended
Jul 31, 2011
6,272
7,548
All that hand wringing again. Breach of contract is a civil offense, not a criminal one. You seriously need to rethink your civics education.

Exactly zero people were "put at real financial risk". Heck, given the software quality coming from Cupertino lately, I'm not sure that I would trust Apple's payment portal any more than I would trust Epic's.
If anyone paid via the alternate method they were harmed.

If anyone paid via the alternative method epic stole money from apple.

Why are you talking about criminal vs civil? Stealing and wire fraud are crimes. Crimes Epic planned Uber the instruction of the their ceo, crimes they carried out, and then admitted to.
 
Last edited:

ACHD

macrumors regular
Jul 28, 2015
193
332
I love it for two reasons:

1) No one will know about or even use this
2) This kills Epic's argument about Apple being the only App Store for stuff like this.

Hahaha.
Lol not even close to what is going on buddy.
This is basically a website. Thats it.
Apple basically created the idea of Web Apps which is a bookmark basically and then has been trying to get rid of it and even fought with MS because they were doing their streaming service to the website after apple said fck off. Even though MS would've put just the AAA games which you can't at apple. And offered apple money. Apple said fck off.

SO EVGA NOW decided to just push it to the website as well. Same with STEAM.

EVGA,MS, and Steam all mostly carry games that cant run on the apple ecosystem in any format outside of very few games. Its anti competitive entirely. Apple has been vocal about being against what they are doing lol
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cocky jeremy

cocky jeremy

macrumors 603
Jul 12, 2008
6,196
6,546
Delusional. Fortnight is hugely popular amongst the kids. Huge. I'm presuming you have no kids.

It has to run as a web app. It's not a native app. The only way to get a native app, is via the App Store. Native apps have a massive advantage of capabilities. Your argument is nonsensical.
1) Luckily, no. Hate them.
2) That's their problem.
 

Unregistered 4U

macrumors G4
Jul 22, 2002
10,206
8,199
even fought with MS because they were doing their streaming service to the website after apple said fck off.
No, they didn’t fight with MS. MS said what they wanted to do with native apps, Apple said no, and then helped them on their Safari solution. No fighting required.
 

jakey rolling

macrumors 6502a
Mar 8, 2022
577
1,267
If anyone paid via the alternate method they were harmed.
They weren't harmed by anything Epic did. They may have been harmed by losing access to a game because Apple removed it from the App store. You're villifying the wrong entity here.

If anyone paid via the alternative method epic stole money from apple.
No. No they didn't. They breached their contract with Apple. Those are entirely different things. They didn't steal anything from Apple.
 

jakey rolling

macrumors 6502a
Mar 8, 2022
577
1,267
No, they didn’t fight with MS. MS said what they wanted to do with native apps, Apple said no, and then helped them on their Safari solution. No fighting required.
And Apple fans far and wide cheered while now happily paying the same amount as everyone else for a watered down experience.

Man, I miss the days when it was third party software developers and peripheral manufacturers that made Apple users feel like second-class citizens, instead of Apple themselves.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: mejsric

Unregistered 4U

macrumors G4
Jul 22, 2002
10,206
8,199
And Apple fans far and wide cheered while now happily paying the same amount as everyone else for a watered down experience.

Man, I miss the days when it was third party software developers and peripheral manufacturers that made Apple users feel like second-class citizens, instead of Apple themselves.
I don’t know about all that. I was just saying you’d said there was a fight and there wasn’t one.
 

4jasontv

Suspended
Jul 31, 2011
6,272
7,548
They weren't harmed by anything Epic did. They may have been harmed by losing access to a game because Apple removed it from the App store. You're villifying the wrong entity here.
They were harmed because the user has every right to believe that Apple gets 30%. They were harmed because they didn't approve the changes to their software. They were harmed because their financial information was transmitted via an unapproved method.
No. No they didn't. They breached their contract with Apple. Those are entirely different things. They didn't steal anything from Apple.
Not paying for a service is theft. Using someone else's property without approval or paying them is stealing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mejsric

jakey rolling

macrumors 6502a
Mar 8, 2022
577
1,267
They were harmed because the user has every right to believe that Apple gets 30%.
No, user's don't have any such right. Users aren't privy to contracts between Apple and developers. Not all developers pay Apple a 30% cut. Users don't really care at all whether or how much of a cut Apple gets from developers.

They were harmed because they didn't approve the changes to their software.
Users don't approve of most changes to their software. That's how auto-updates work. Given your metrics, you would call it "harming the user" if Microsoft suddenly decided to update the iOS Outlook app to add additional spam filters, or to add Xlookup and Lambda functionality to iOS versions of Excel. Or if Apple themselves added a Sunday Morning Cartoons section to the Apple TV app.

Most updates happen without strictly informing users. This isn't new.

They were harmed because their financial information was transmitted via an unapproved method.
Unapproved by Apple, that is. The only way that their financial information was ever involved was if they set up an account on Epic's store with their financial information. Users who actually prefer to pay through Apple were never under any illusions that they were paying through Apple. Ever.

Not paying for a service is theft. Using someone else's property without approval or paying them is stealing.
In an actual legal sense (which we are talking about here), that is categorically false.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.