This is why devs are afraid of publicly criticizing Apple, let alone testifying against them in the court.
Apple has shown that they will then prevent you from accessing 50%+ of the US market.
In short Apple is a bully, has been for more than a decade now, and it has worked out well for them.
But you’ve left out part of the narrative: Developer pushes an App update which purposefully violates the TOS, expecting rejection- having planned in advance to kick off an expensive PR campaign and legal battle.
I don’t deny Apple’s pettiness… Nonetheless, can you provide a different example of why devs are afraid of publicly criticizing Apple?
>I don’t deny Apple’s pettiness… Nonetheless, can you provide a different example of why devs are afraid of publicly criticizing Apple?
Every subscription service should have a banner on their pages saying signing up through iOS takes 30%. Many just disabled signing up.
Of course maybe this isn't the best example since Apple actually made it against their rules to tell users it'd be cheaper to purchase on their site.
Apple's rules undeniably cost end users money. Epic proved it by taking some of that 30% fee and giving it back to the consumer (you got more Fortnite credits buying on Epic store instead of Apple store).
Why people try to defend Apple I'll never understand, my guess is some people who own an iPhone have decided that's 'their team' and who wants to see their team lose? But I'm not sure.
> Every subscription service should have a banner on their pages saying signing up through iOS takes 30%.
Why do I as a user need this information? When I'm a on gas station, I don't see banners how much tax or fees I'm paying. I can find this information if needed, but total price is what I'd like to see in the first place.
> Why people try to defend Apple I'll never understand, my guess is some people who own an iPhone have decided that's 'their team' and who wants to see their team lose? But I'm not sure.
Happy to help! It's because some of us are Apple's customers, not Apple's suppliers, contractors or "vendor partners".
We customers like that Apple plays hardball with the people who would otherwise try to fuck us over. Remember that dev a few weeks ago who was giving examples of the "ways that Apple's IAP sucks"? Most of the things he wanted to do were dark patterns that are bad for customers.
If devs have to raise their prices by 15%, so be it. I would much rather that one company has my PII than fifty, anyway.
> Why people try to defend Apple I'll never understand, my guess is some people who own an iPhone have decided that's 'their team' and who wants to see their team lose
It's this. Apple somehow managed to cultivate cult-like behavior in their users, which I've also never understood.
Because everyone who likes how Apple has made it easy for users to manage their subscriptions and enjoy the overall user friendliness of their products we are thus cultists who just blindly do as we’re told. Maybe some people don’t agree with your views; that doesn’t make them cult followers for having a different opinion.
Edit: fuck I just got trolled. According to jillyboel profile we are all just fascists. And dang is preventing him from spamming his trolls on HN.
There's no law against you overpaying Apple when you could get more value by going off app. If you want to spend $14 for something that's $10 on Epics website, your welcome to do so. Epic will still get their $10, and you can gift Apple $4 for making it easy to cancel your future subscriptions.
Yeah, not arguing the legal specifics. It’s good for Apple to be challenged in court.
But Epic did go out of their way to ‘trash’ Apple in the press. For this and other reasons I can’t generally relate to Epic. (e.g. targeting kids with microtransactions, burning piles of money on Epic Games exclusives.)
Apple is the primary beneficiary by far of games like Fortnite because they allow and tax them in aggregate, even without Fortnite they offer thousands of games for kids to spend a grand or ten in. The legality of the tactics employed by the gaming industry, that can only occur with the platforms complicity, are being challenged in Europe which is hopefully going to end a lot of these practices and derail both Tims grifting off children and cultivated addicts.
So don't put yourself in the position where you have to do business with Epic, like forcing them to use your store to get software on the platform over a billion users use.
Apple could easily just do what various courts have ordered them to do: Open up the ecosystem and allow anyone to distribute apps. This has the added benefit of allowing apple to stop doing business with the entities they don't like, because they are no longer involving themselves in a transaction between the user and the business the user has chosen.
It will also save their executives from a prison sentence if they keep this up.
Yeah, there's no good guys in this fight. Apple may be behaving badly, but Epic broke the terms they agreed to, tried to use the courts to force Apple to change their App Store business model, and even kicked off a public PR campaign trashing Apple... and now they're whining because Apple is not treating them nicely after all that? You went nuclear on Apple, Epic. That's not going to make them interested in having you as a business partner.
Shrug. They can open up the apple ecosystem so you don't need their store and then they can refuse to do business.
Apple put themselves in the position that they have to do business with entities they don't approve of, thankfully the courts are reminding them of this. Soon one or more of the apple execs will wind up in prison.
Yeah, though Epic put themselves in the position of having the gatekeeper of an important part of their business want nothing to do with them, and now they're being whiny babies about it. Both parties suck here.
No, apple is clearly the evil one. They are bullying many, many, many other companies and individiuals in a similar, and often even worse, fashion. Those don't speak up because they're afraid of Apple's wrath. Thankfully Epic did have the balls to stand up, and now various various legal entities are forcing apple to make changes that benefit everyone (except apple).
As a user I love apple products for making payments safe. I can get a refund if the item I bought is not as advertised or I bought it by mistake, I don't need to figure out how to cancel a subscription, it's couple clicks to cancel for any subscription. I don't want apple to allow purchases outside the app as I'm afraid companies will leverage their power to redirect users outside of App Store to bypass those "payment safety" features that do not benefit them and will use fishy tactics to increase their profits.
I trust Sweeney’s intentions far, far more than I do Cook’s. The man is a bona fide hacker from the trenches and does not hide his true feelings behind a corporate firewall.
Not that it's an excuse, but industry darling Gabe Newell has engaged in similar dark patterns since well before Fortnite[1]. Yet, for some reason, there's not a lot of "fuck Newell" people out there.
To be frank, I think this is an issue people only opportunistically care about.
Of course not, but resulting changes to Apple's policy are still a good thing for everyone else. Anything that forces apple to bully other organizations and people less is a good thing.
Epic broke the terms they agreed to, filed the lawsuit, launched an advertising and PR campaign to support it, and continue to make whiny complaints after they got what they asked for, but Apple are the bullies here? I'm not convinced.
Terms that were illegal and thus not binding in many jurisdictions. If I were to write: "By replying to this comment you agree to my Terms of Service which require you to paypal me 10k", you would laugh and disregard it. Same thing.
Anyway, just look at how apple forced their payment service so they can take a 30% cut of every transaction made by any iPhone user. Then they banned price differences between Apple's own payment service and external, cheaper, ones. This forces companies to raise their prices by 30% everywhere. So we're all paying more to fund apple's greed. This is just one example of many, and you have to look beyond the apple vs epic fight since that is just the most public instance. Apple are the bullies.
Apple are involving themselves in business between their customers and companies those users have chosen to use. Apple are the bullies.
> Apple may be behaving badly, but Epic broke the terms they agreed to, tried to use the courts to force Apple to change their App Store business model, and even kicked off a public PR campaign trashing Apple... and now they're whining because Apple is not treating them nicely after all that?
> You went nuclear on Apple, Epic. That's not going to make them interested in having you as a business partner.
this is unfortunately the same language abusers use when their victims try to gain support (pr campaign), seek help (use the courts), or fight back (violate unfair terms)
maybe epic just wants apple to stop abusing them and leave them alone while they interact with their customers on a platform that apple has been ordered several times to open up
not being abused shouldn't require you to "be nice" to your abuser, or to want to be their "business partner"
that is unfortunately also a thing that abusers often say
it is not for you to decide, though
also, I'm not really interested in being the subject of discussion, but if you're going to tell me what I'm doing, at least be right about it: I haven't followed any public statements from either party in the matter; I've only read court documents and rulings; and I have never patronized either company and have no plans or interest to do so. I think that makes me more impartial here.
They couldn't start the legal battle without doing this. They needed to get solid legal standing. So yes, they planned it, but they couldn't easily challenge Apple without getting the rejection.
Your suggestion is that they sit on the sidelines and complain about the situation. That's what plenty of people have done, and it makes no difference.
I'm not a fan of Epic, I don't play their games. They did all this for their own benefit. But it's probably a good thing overall.
What's abusive TOS? Aren't EPIC TOS abusive where the payments to EPIC are non refundable in many cases or that you don't own your account or that your account can be terminated any second without a notice?
Isn't it a free market where if you don't like TOS you just don't use the product?
They didn’t ban them for publicly criticizing, they banned them for intentionally breaking the rules. So yes, this makes devs more afraid of knowingly breaking the rules like how jail makes people more afraid of breaking the law. And yes fornite team has been quite a bully in their incessant tweets but glad to see Apple not stopping to their level.
Devs are more afraid of breaking the rules because the rules change all the time, and they know Apple is petty and cares more about money than being good to customers and developers.
I think a big portion of the problem is that Apple is both the platform (phone) and the store. Similar to Google and Chrome for the web, it creates a conflict.
Bad faith movies like slapping warnings, geo blocking dev tools (remember you have to be in Europe to be able to develop an alternative web browser engine lol), limiting side loading etc … feels like “let’s milk the cashcow until people don’t need iPhones anymore”. The longer they can drag it the better. Disappointing tbh.
Apple gets around this by saying they are "Promising to Create 30000 american jobs" which the politicians then peddle in their election campaigns. But then it never happens because it is all a promise...
The politicians of course only care about the PR stunt and give them concessions either way.
A youtuber did a dissection of all the big tech jobs Trump "created" with his talks with big tech, and all of the new US jobs announced by the likes of Apple or Nvidia were jobs they were planning to create anyway, before Trump got elected Trump is just taking credit for it as if he did anything.
Job creation, retention or destruction is a powerful political tool that companies use everywhere as leverage to get politicians to do what they want. You can see the auto sector in Germany. So the US defending Apple is understandable. All countries protect their domestic big players.
Apple's guidelines pertaining to banning developers from linking to or communicating alternative payment methods were illegal. In the EU, in the US, now in Brazil too.
What's next is the EU fines them harder and faster than ever if they continue breaking the law in about 30 - 40 days, Brazil too in about 90 days, while the criminal contempt referrals hopefully leads to charges and at least one jailed executive, and the developers suing for restitution for unwarranted fees since the injunction prohibited the above behavior prevail, and the consumers suing for restitution in the US and UK prevail, because Apple broke the law to get and maximize those fees yet testified they do nothing for them.
And the DOJ antitrust later this year will feast on this.
> Apple's guidelines pertaining to banning developers from linking to or communicating alternative payment methods were illegal.
If those guidelines were always clearly illegal, why has it taken decades to take Apple to court?
I don't think they should be legal, but there are of a lot of other questionable licensing conditions that seem to be legal too so why all the focus on Apple? You have to be very naive to believe it's all about the law and there's nothing like some political power grab going on.
It’s taken six years since the EU investigated, leading to the DMA which took time to write then had a lengthy lead-in before it came into effect and the 1.8 billion anti-steering fine was incurred. Compliance is still “pending”, with contrived fees and scare walls and hardware restrictions against the EU’s wishes.
And in that time there was the 2020 congressional investigation in the US and failed attempt at similar laws. Later this year the DOJ antitrust stemming from this investigation will finally commence.
In 2021 the steering terms were ruled illegal in the US and it took three years to bounce back from the Supreme Court then another year for Apple’s noncompliance contempt to be measured.
Part of their noncompliance has been dragging things out to the extent the judge recently made sure their ruling applied immediately, and delivered it before Apple even finished debating which amongst 10,000s of pages of evidence documents to provide or suppress.
In that time the EU and DOJ have gone after Meta, Alphabet, Amazon and Microsoft extensively too.
>you're just leeching of the effort Apple made to build their ecosystem.
Since when is paying 30% of your earnings considered "leeching"? It's not like Apple gives their marketspace for free to the developers. They pay Apple for that, fair and square.
> Porn sites suing because Apple won't allow them to put apps in their store and that's costing them their livelihood
Great example, actually. Why do you think it's okay for apple to unilaterally decide what more than a billion people are allowed to use their device for? Is it because you are projecting your own fears and insecurities on everyone else?
From all of them - take it away from Google too. Frankly - Microsoft never actually got much buy in for their store, but take it away from them as well.
Hardware that has only a single approved distribution channel for software, that is owned by someone other than the owner of the hardware, shouldn't be legal.
Further - if you own a piece of hardware, you legally should own EVERY fucking key. If there's a lock in that device, hardware or software based, that has a key - you get a damn copy.
---
Some physical comparisons that show how outrageously unethical this setup is:
You buy a home, but your realtor gets the only copy of the keys. "Don't worry" they say, "I'll just pop by and open er up whenever you need to get in and out. Oh, and by the way, I don't like Ikea - so I won't open the door if you're trying to move Ikea furniture in. Great working with you guys, enjoy your new home!".
You've just bought a new car, you tried turning into your neighborhood, but suddenly the car stops. You call the dealer: "Oh, I see your neighborhood road was paved by PavingCo, They don't pay our manufacturers' yearly inspection fee, so we can't certify that our car can safely drive on that road. So we disable it when the GPS detects you're about to drive there."
---
This is fundamentally about ownership. Hardware manufacturers are playing with utter fire here, because this is the first time in history there exists enough infrastructure that a device can phone home and ask "Is this ok?" to the maker, rather than operating as the owner desires.
As far as I'm concerned - you don't own a device that does that. You're just renting it, and the manufacturer can and will extort you with rent-seeking behavior at EVERY turn.
Phones are only the first stop - this is going to spread to absolutely everything that uses electricity unless this gets extinguished real fast. We're already starting to see the same games in Cars, IoT devices, TVs, etc...
I'm eagerly awaiting the day my drill stops working because I'm not trying to drill the manufacturers' overpriced screws with it...
Microsoft locking out third-party applications with Windows S, and/or pushing users to Microsoft's own game store, was actually a real threat to Valve. That's one of the major reasons Proton is a thing: Valve realized they were entirely dependant on a party they had no leverage over, so they built and invested in Linux.
Should Microsoft ever make a move now, Valve isn't completely at their mercy.
Valve is still at the Microsoft's mercy to tolerate Proton's existence.
They should have made it attractive for developers already targeting UNIX like systems, with PlayStation and Android NDK, to actually bother shipping GNU/Linux builds of their games.
> Valve is still at the Microsoft's mercy to tolerate Proton's existence.
No, they aren't. Valve is way, way too big a bear for Microsoft to poke. If they banned Steam, the backlash would be severe.
It would also result in even more users switching to Linux to keep access to the games they've already paid for, and which work under Linux due to proton.
Microsoft is at Valve's mercy. Valve doesn't need Microsoft, but Microsoft very badly needs Steam around to keep gamers on windows.
Epic didn't publicly criticize Apple or testify against them in court to get into this situation, they willfully and deliberately broke the legal developer agreement that they signed to get press coverage (they could have filed suit on the anti-steering rules regardless).
Not only did they do this, they then filed suit to say that Apple shouldn't have been allowed to suspend their account—and lost (though arguably won the broader war since anti-steering is currently dead).
There are a ton of things Apple is doing wrong around developer stuff and anti-steering rules and all of it, but I dunno, I feel pretty good about them saying to a specific developer, “actually, you've shown yourself to be willing to ignore the legal agreements you sign, so we're not going to be doing business with you any longer“. Epic's stunt should cost them, if they then want to talk about how they've martyred themselves for developers everywhere. Good work, but a martyr who comes back to life isn't really a martyr, right?
While I don’t claim to know the finer points of the law, I believe the judge was pretty crystal clear that Apple was 100% within their powers to kill the developer account that Epic used to do this.
>To store dollars with a precision of 1 cent, you store into your integers cents instead of dollars. No need to mess with anything more complicated.
As someone who does it, financial math is often done at a precision of more than 1 cent. This is the reason that most (high-latency) financial libraries use strings underneath.
This al doesn't address the high order floating point arithmetic of geo-spacial, which was the Patriot issue.
You start spending all your time programming in middle school. By the time you enter college you know everything needed to write simple emulators, and then you meet other students that motivate you to up your game and complexify your projects, like working on a Nintendo Switch emulator.
It doesn't require being a genius or a fast learner, it just requires the good fortune of having programming be your passion.
If you want to catch up to these guys when you only start to learn programming in college, it's doable but it requires you to be a fast learner and also be somewhat passionated in programming.
It's possible that the problem is that speech is not the right abstraction.
Perhaps we should be advocating for something along the lines of "free expression of reasoning".
No chance of Apple implementing this outside of the EU if they are not forced to.
They are getting billions from Google every year because Safari is the most used browser on iOS, and they will do what is necessary to make this last for as long as possible.
This ratio is key. Impact/pay. And from what I gathered working there until 2020, impact was starting to weigh more on how you elevate others around you. Meaning leadership. These “stars” might have personal brand power, but if they are collecting big pay and even working “hard” it might not be enough
IME, having worked with "tech celebrities", the veneer they can work so hard on maintaining isn't exactly reflective of actually working with them. I worked with one particularly famous person, who barely did anything internally, and spent all their time on external conferences and talks to preserve their external reputation - mostly coasting on past accomplishments. Not saying that's what happened here, but public visibility isn't correlated to internal engineering/leadership impact imo, and can even be detrimental.
Not to argue at all, but for some of those hires "Maintain Google's Brand Image in X Category" is their job - They're not there to work hard and drive innovation in those sectors, but to represent that Google hires and does work in that area.
It's not uncommon; There's a title for it - "Brand ambassador" - Though it's often the case that your official job title is something different while you act in that role. I doubt people in that position have illusions about what their role is, and in fact most are probably offered the choice of how much they lean into the branding and how much "Real Work" they do, with expectations set around "You are famous/known for X, we want X people to like us, go off and talk about X to cast us in positive light".
Pretty comparable is "Developer Advocate". The job is to grease the wheels between people using your services and the developers developing them. In that role, they playact as both customer and provider, both to developers and consumers. An awful lot of Developer Advocates are mediocre at both, but you don't need to be good; In fact, in some ways being mediocre is a plus, because the point is to represent each side to the other.
Whereas, the people who have done great things and spend their time on brand instead of "Doing X"; Often they are coasting on reputation, but it's a form of retirement for them. They still like X. They still want to do X, but as a hobby, and getting paid to talk about X and get others excited about X is like having your cake and eating it.
Brand ambassadors are a different thing. Thats like when a famous rapper is the official fan of an NBA club. Employees hired on to positions with technical contributions (developer advocate) which is just a cover for some kind of image building in the market.. dunno
What narrative is there to control? It's not like Twitter was about to put a big post out saying we fired him. He put all of this out their on his own. He wouldn't even need to bring up being fired in interviews, just say he left
He will be effective in doing so because the email screenshot he included indicates exactly that: he was fired for non-performance related reasons. "Your recent behavior has violated multiple policies" is pretty unambiguous to me.
I think the operant phrase is “policy violations.” I’ve never heard that associated with anything but breaking a corporate rule: talking to the media unauthorized, leaking, harassment, etc.
If I had headcount for his particular role, I'd hire him in a second and let him know it's OK to continue making his cartoons (which are very on-point and useful to execs who want to learn more about their orgs than what their middle managers are telling them) but he should of course be aware that my abilities to protect him if an SVP gets annoyed are going to be limited.
