Apple Ending "Fortnite Save the World" Updates for Mac
epicgames.com
epicgames.com
But what they are doing is brilliant, because they have just demonstrated that their perceived infringement of the iOS rules has caused them to also lose Mac developer access, presumably due to it being the same account. But legally, the iOS and the Mac developer agreements are separate contracts. So from a legal standpoint, Apple has reacted to a perceived infringement in one contract by retaliating in a legally unrelated contract. That might be illegal.
And in addition, Epic is basically using Apple to send a very strong signal to game developers: Everyone serious about gaming is on Windows anyway.
I'm curious to see how this will mix with Apple silicon, which will effectively make running a stock Windows impossible. So in the future, you'll need to choose when buying your hardware if you want phone-quality games on Mac or triple A on PC.
I predict that the market segment of casual players using Apple hardware but Windows Bootcamp will now be driven away from Apple. In my opinion, the only way to avoid that would have been for Apple to demonstrate excellent UE5 performance on Apple silicon, but that now surely won't happen.
It looks more and more like Apple made a mistake in blocking the developper account.
Arguably the reaction should have stopped at pulling Fortnite out of the store. If extra steps were really needed, forcing suppression of Fortnite from existing iOS devices could have been accepted as a related measure.
But blocking the whole developper account is so overreaching it still generates news weeks after the initial issue.
It feels like Epic waived a red cloth and Apple just ran full speed into it. I see the current mess completely of Apple's own doing.
I worked at a company that got slightly disrupted when Apple blocked our dev credentials because of something else it didn't like we were doing. That broke our public-facing apps, but also broke our ability to deploy software we'd written in-house to our corporate iPhones, because it's the same code-signing credentials.
I'm glad this hippo-fight is shedding light on this aspect of the Apple dev ecosystem.
(Our Android devices, of course, had no such issues, since even if Google had objected, you can side-load an APK).
This is an important point. Apple will retaliate and hinder your ability to get work done using your own in-house software if they decide they don't like you.
The best lawyers working at Apple would (I assume) direct Apple’s management towards the best course of action - including keeping the company out of any legal trouble.
I don’t know a fraction of the things Apple knows - but from what I do know Apple had zero rational reason nor cause to do anything beyond pulling Fortnite from the App Store for breaking the rules (fair-and-square). Everything - and anything - beyond that in a high-profile case like this runs a tremendous risk of PR backfire. In their position as custodians of their walled-garden that needs to attract developers to generate revenue Apple needs to project an image closer to Mister Rogers than Mister Burns.
Apple doesn’t need to be petty or combative - it they’re the /good guys/ they sure aren’t acting like it. As I don’t know all the facts my mind is racing to speculate a reason for their capriciousness and I come up blank.
If Apple’s playing some long-con to screw-over Google, perhaps by announcing some surprise 0% fee for IAP for “good citizens” on their platform or some alternative scheme then they’re going about it very poorly.
I agree with the other GP posters that at this point Apple is actively doing harm to their own platform by both scaring-off major software publishers like Epic and reminding the rest of us devs that Apple giveth and Apple takeawayeth.
I imagine a progressive EU state will pass legislation prohibiting walled-garden owners from abusing their position to extract excessive rent - and from inconsistent application of their own review guidelines, which will have a viral effect within the EU’s single market - which will severely mess-up Apple’s strategy because within the EU single market the rules mean that Apple cannot decide to withdraw from a single country that it doesn’t like but not the rest of the single-market (but before people point out that Apple is a US company remember that Apple’s tax-advantaged Irish corporation is central to their worldwide operations).
That's simply not what occurred, here. Nobody at Apple blithely decided randomly one day that they "didn't like" Epic.
Epic violated the terms of their agreement with Apple. It's as simple as that. Now yes, there has been a shitstorm of other conflict rising out of that, but on a fundamental level, Epic decided to blatantly violate a contract. That's what happened.
Was it because nobody spelled it out for you? Or because you thought it wouldn't happen? Or because you thought it couldn't really hurt anyone supporting such a shitty developer relationship?
Or because really, you thought you could still make a quick profit before you got screwed over?
Surely the next megalomanical super corporation will be fair to humans, or something.
Just to make it perfectly clear; Just because there's a lot of people using a certain platform, doesn't mean that platform actually supports those people. It's not a vote. Flies didn't vote for the spider's web. Look at users/consumers/etc anywhere they get the shitty end of the deal too.
So developers lose, consumers lose, Apple is the laughing third. And "Apple" isn't even human, but mostly made of pieces of paper, enslaving humans.
Meanwhile developers develop, and consumers consume, keeping them both in this ecosystem circling the drain.
You realise that there is an actual possibility that at some point, a few of these megacorps will win, at the same time, just cutting off our access to general purpose computing forever[0]. A battle that is already partially lost on certain fronts (chips). That's what you're risking playing stupid games.
Yes I'm getting a little bit annoyed because it's been pretty obvious for at least a decade now.
[0] yes Google/Android is also not supporting you being a dev on their platform, they WISH they had the power over devs that Apple had, and would make the same anti-consumer / anti-developer choices in a non-human heartbeat
This gives Apple a huge hammer over your business, as it causes Apple sign in to leak into your web properties or properties on other platforms and Apple now has a hammer over some portion of your users who didn't even find your stuff through their store or even their devices or have moved on from using those devices.
Sign in with Apple doesn't give you a user's email, it uses randomized forwarding addresses.
So if Apple blocks you from it, those users can never log in again, and you can never recover the accounts that used it
There's no way to send a link saying "Hey we got blocked from Apple, log in here". That's it, those user accounts are dead.
Combine that with a requirement that you use this log in system? Complete and utter insanity that Apple would try and use that to threaten a company.
I agree that the ability to reach user directly is a valuable feature to a developer. And your request sounds completely fine. But it is wide open to abuse.
Now, that said, as a user I would be very unhappy if Apple started blasting my AppleID email to every app I decided to try. That would generate a ton of spam and probably make that email unusable for anything else. If a developer wants direct access to the user nothing prevents them from asking the user in an app (where the user has a chance to say "Hell, no!"). My 2c.
They only require Sign in with Apple if third-party or social logins are offered.
4.8 Sign in with Apple
Apps that use a third-party or social login service (such as Facebook Login, Google Sign-In, Sign in with Twitter, Sign In with LinkedIn, Login with Amazon, or WeChat Login) to set up or authenticate the user’s primary account with the app must also offer Sign in with Apple as an equivalent option. A user’s primary account is the account they establish with your app for the purposes of identifying themselves, signing in, and accessing your features and associated services.
Sign in with Apple is not required if:
- Your app exclusively uses your company’s own account setup and sign-in systems.
- Your app is an education, enterprise, or business app that requires the user to sign in with an existing education or enterprise account.
- Your app uses a government or industry-backed citizen identification system or electronic ID to authenticate users.
- Your app is a client for a specific third-party service and users are required to sign in to their mail, social media, or other third-party account directly to access their content.
From: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#sig...
Someone was lying.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/10/21431396/epic-sign-in-wit...
Epic’s story stands, and Apple effectively didn’t do anything to stop the feature.
-
Actually looking at other sources it's very clear that is exactly what happened:
- Epic Games doesn't just tweet they're being threatened with termination, they start updating all documentation on accounts to reflect this fact with a specific termination date
- Verge reaches out, gets an immediate reply from Apple that they'd never do this
- Epic Games gets an indefinite extension on the removal.
- Verge reaches out to Apple about Epic's claims that they got an extension on a ban... no reply.
Most likely the "lower level" developer relations people have the power to terminate access to the program, and did threaten Epic with it
Higher level legal/strategy dealing with the fact this is a matter about to enter court and in the public spotlight step in and clarify this is not a case where the lower level relations people should terminate their access.
Once the fact Epic had in fact been threatened with termination bubbled up, they stop replying.
The problem is very much, most people never get that higher-level involvement. The fact these lower level development relationship people are showing it's a lever they were at some point willing to pull is more than a little worrying...
When Apple watched reached for comment on whether they just gave an indefinite extension: no comment.
When earlier reached for comment on whether they were restricting it: immediate non-denial denial.
Whatever was the reason for that decision (anti-competitive exploitation, hubris of vision, etc), after it was taken (and while it's kept), there wasn't any other course of action possible.
What kind of repercussions could it have? I'm sure it's not great PR, but is it really likely this damages Apple in the long run? I'd presume Epic could challenge the legality of these actions in a lawsuit but, other than that, isn't Epic totally at Apple's mercy?
It’s not hypothetical anymore.
Also, Epic now doesn’t have to prove that Apple is doing everything to damage their business, it has become a fact with quantifiable effects.
Apple won’t be able to say their contract is just standard legalese that they didn’t intend to enforce. Perhaps they’ll get away with everything they’re doing, but that looks like a lot of rope to get hanged high.
Of course it does. People like myself see the overreach Apple has taken with their platforms and hardware, and as a result, I'm not going to rest the viability of my business on Apple's whims.
Mostly, and I know I am not alone, that whole fiasco where Apple threatened to shut down Epic users who used Sign-In with Apple (regardless of which side is lying) has completely turned me 180 on that feature, where I am now actively avoiding to implement Sign-In with Apple in my apps.
I am quite aware that I am going to lose some users to that decision, I am more than willing to accept it, since that path is too dangerous for me to take after seeing how much power Apple has.
I only hope that others will also follow in that decision. Also, I am just waiting patiently for the EU hammer to hit Apple swiftly, it would be about damn time.
Why would you base your income on their platform knowing how they treat their users and developers? Seems pretty harebrained to me. There's many ways to sell software which don't involve paying a third party for your own work.
Its two dragons lying on two giant piles of gold fighting to get more gold.
And bystanders are getting hurt.
I couldn't care less about which dragon is going win.
I have better thing to worry about.
Who are those bystanders?
>Apple made a mistake in blocking the developper account.
The judge on the case doesn't feel that way. They have, thus far, agreed with Apple's side on everything except their decision to block Epic's other developer accounts and even that is only a temporary injunction to preserve the status quo until it can be ascertained if any damages were caused by either party through their actions.
>so overreaching it still generates news weeks after the initial issue.
It's not generating news. Epic's blog posts are generating news because they're acting like the victim and it's sensational enough to get clicks.
>It feels like Epic waived a red cloth and Apple just ran full speed into it. I see the current mess completely of Apple's own doing.
That's a really weird take considering that Epic was the one that willfully violated the terms of service and got their app removed and their developer account cancelled. Fortnite use is down. iOS downloads are waaaay up.
Why even both making that comparison? It makes no sense.
By definition Fortnite usage would go down unless new users could make up for users now prevented from playing.
iOS just released a new version, of course there are downloads of it as people upgrade their phone OS.
What do these have to do with each other?
Maybe you're not aware, but 80% of Fortnite players are on consoles.
https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoos-battle-royale-s...
But in any case, no court has ruled in Apple's favor yet, and Epic denies their claim, so at the moment the infringement is perceived to exist by Apple, but not proven as fact yet.
Epic knows that they broke the rule and they anticipated that Apple would react to the breaking of the rule. What they are trying to prove is that Apple can retaliate against a multi-BILLION dollar corporation in a way that not only hits the bottom line of the corporation, but it also has a negative effect on consumers (because ultimately the breaking of Antitrust laws in the USA revolves mostly around consumer damage, not corporate damage).
Epic is making sure that they do everything "right" in the best interest of the consumer, as Apple takes all these various actions against them. So in this case, they are now doing blanket refunds for this game (which by the way is technically a different game than the one that originally violated the rules on iOS). Epic is making sure that they have done the best for the consumer during each of these reactions that Apple has made.
Eventually we will see a court case about this where Epic basically shows exactly this. Apple cares more about itself and its' money than the consumers and made these reactions that do not benefit the consumer, but benefit themselves. Meanwhile poor little Epic, the "victim", continued to valiantly do the right thing for consumers while being bullied by scary Apple.
Also they want to show the extent that Apple controls Epic's business.
Lastly, if a multi-billion dollar corporation like Epic can't take on Apple... what chance does the independent developer have to take on Apple? Everyone must play by Apple's rules or pay the dire consequences for it.
This whole cat and mouse game between Apple and Epic is exactly that. Epic is just collecting ammunition right now to eventually convince governments to do something against Apple's dominance.
That Epic alleges some of the other terms of the agreement relating to Apple's IAP commissions are not enforceable doesn't change the fact that Epic did actually break the agreement.
(Keep in mind the agreement also has a severability clause that states that if any individual term is found unenforceable, the rest of the agreement remains in effect.)
The court hasn't ruled yet but the judge on the case has agreed with all of Apple's responses and denied all of Epic's claims in the preliminary injunction. The only action taken was to prevent Apple from continuing further action based on what's in the terms until damages could be established.
In Epic’s case, they could have sued without violating the terms. The judge presiding over the case has been very clear on this. Epic already has standing by nature of being an Apple developer.
There are many reasons the two situations are not comparable, but the very basis of your analogy is incorrect.
That's like being caught for speeding, but being punished for breaking and entering in addition to speeding.
They could have disputed the agreement in court without breaking it first, but they chose to break it.
Apple has no reason to continue to do business with Epic. Epic is clearly demonstrating their hostility to Apple. It would be self-harm, and possibly even a breach of fiduciary duty for Apple to continue to do business with a hostile party.
They made a detailed plan, in advance, to breach the contract, and prepared attack ads against Apple to run immediately after their planned breach, and they prepared a detailed PR attack agenda to unleash as well.
If I were Apple, I'd be tempted to unleash hell and completely destroy Epic over this. That's what Epic deserves.
Epic saw a play in breaking their contract strategically and then claiming it was illegal in the first place.
Apple is “unleashing hell”, but the problem is that’s (likely) illegal. It’s going to count as retaliation.
Honestly, the sooner these so-called devs complaining about Apple pack up and leave the better. Apple doesn't need you and Apple's users don't want you. Good riddance and good luck making your fortunes on Android.
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=samsung+paid+students+to+wri...
This might have been true in the past but I don't believe it's true anymore. The two have been combined into a single program governed by the Apple Developer Program License Agreement which can be found here: https://developer.apple.com/terms/
The Developer Id system was a decent compromise: gave developers way out from App Store walled garden, and still protected users from random "Update your Flash!" malware downloads.
But now Apple has demonstrated that it will use it as a weapon in App Store disputes, even on a different platform, even when the Developer Id app clearly isn't malware, and the Mac app didn't violate any rules.
With Windows though you have to get a cert from an authorized partner, with Apple you go directly to the source.
That includes agreeing with the terms of the developer agreement, which clearly states that if you violate the rules, you lose access to your developer account, and thus access to the signing keys to sign new applications.
Two, you say that "Epic is basically using Apple to send a very strong signal to game developers: Everyone serious about gaming is on Windows anyway." If that was the case, then why is Epic pushing so hard for this? Obviously, iOS is a huge market for them so your statement can't possibly be true and it's also gatekeeping the "seriousness" of gamers.
Lastly, why do you think Apple silicon won't be able to run stock Windows? Windows 10 has been available for ARM processors for years and Apple silicon is all ARM processors.
I think you're confusing techy gamers with gamers in general. PC gamers aren't even the majority of the gaming market now.
Not necessarily. Perhaps it was illegal for Apple to include that clause in their terms in the first place because it was leveraging their monopoly power in one area to gain dominance in another and this violated antitrust law. This is Epic's claim.
Apple does not have a monopoly so that can't possibly be true and the judge has already stated that. If this was true, then Sony, Microsoft, Steam, and even Epic themselves would not be able to sell goods on their own stores. That's ridiculous.
On Mac you can distribute outside Apple’s App store[1,2,3], as you can on Windows. But Microsoft is laying groundwork for shift towards Apple’s model.
2. https://www.gog.com/games?system=osx_106,osx_107&sort=popula...
Classical PCs are now a niche in a consumer world full with laptops and tablets.
Little frogs will keep complaining without noticing that it has actually already taken place.
I will always keep an installation of linux on one of my devices, but I don't want it to be my main driver.
Everyone serious about gaming is going to have a console too.
Most AAAAs are exclusive to consoles for a year or more (GTA V, RDR 2, FF7RM, Bloodborne, and many others). Even if you had the most tweaked out PC you'd still be waiting for some of the latest and hottest to get ported.
I used to be Windows-only until about a decade ago, and between Mac-compatible games, CrossOver/VMs, consoles and handhelds, I don't really miss the PC.
This is the message Apple has given from the start, and it hasn't changed much even though it was key to the app store's success. This is also the same reason why VR is mainly PC and consoles.
Sneaking code into Fortnite? Really? I could probably pull up 10 examples of sketchy apps in no time that clearly are doing things they shouldn’t (and that’s just the “weather”).
Harm to Apple? I would argue that trash apps harm Apple considerably. For instance, I have effectively stopped even looking for software on the Mac App Store, and the difficulty of searching/filtering has curtailed much of my activity on the iOS App Store too. I know for certain that if the average quality was higher and the search was way better, I would be buying more. Shouldn’t Apple care about things like that too?
Apple needs to decide if they want the App Store to be carefully curated like an Apple retail store, or broad like Amazon.com. Today they're squeezing the quality while ignoring the shit; it's so backwards.
It really feels like there's two teams with different priorities.
If Apple truly cared about keeping the quality high in their walled garden, and it wasn't just about extracting all the money they could, wouldn't they do both?
This arbitrary friction of "what if the user searches for covid" is applied to useful software, but not Candy Crush clones. So naturally the store fills with shit. Even in the free app tier!
In some weird way, this shows it's not all about the money, since they're fighting to keep out the quality free stuff too.
But let’s be clear here: Apples “innovation” is usually around usability and accessibility.
Even with that said: the Apple Watch does not have an equal. It is the absolute king of smart watches.
Or we could mention that their CPUs (on mobile) are usually 2 generations ahead of other mobile devices.
You can fault them for many things, but they are innovating even if they oversell the little innovation they make.
All accesories, feauture copying, and solid but boring improvements?
Here's a test. How many non-iPhone users own Apple Watch?
Nothing.
Not to mention that the Watch has multiple good competitors which really makes your point even weaker - even their god given right to command you what content you're allowed to see on your device does not result in a single most superior device on the market.
A marketing innovation certainly, but calling this a usability innovation is quite a stretch.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10#System_security
For example the Motorola Atrix was the first smart phone with a finger print scanner, but if you actually owned one of these you'll know that it was awful. It wasn't until Apple put Touch ID on the iPhone that people actually were interested in using finger print scanners, and the rest of the industry followed suit and copied Apple, not Motorola even though Motorola was first.
Another example is app stores. Apple didn't invent app stores. But after the iPhone added an app store, it changed the entire industry because of how easy Apple made it for anyone to develop for iPhone.
We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.
Everything is synthesis. Nothing is original.
Everything is incremental.
Iteration is everything.
For a while Apple was coming out with products on a regular basis that redefined the industry, changing or increasing both consumers and the entire industry's focus. I don't consider things like the "camera notch" to be in that class of product development.
Sure, everyone stands on the shoulders of giants, but not everyone is a giant. For a little while though, Apple was.
Now I look at things like the Oculus Quest, which has gone a long way towards democratizing VR, and wonder "Where is Apple? Why aren't they here?"
Their prior track record had them revolutionizing such things with an uncanny ability to understand UX at the same time that they dumped a ton of upgrades on their products compared to competitors. Sure, I guess if you break down each individual thing they did, then each one is incremental. But what we came to expect from Apple was that they'd release products with so many of those things that they changed the entire industry. Now we get a bezel that's 0.3mm smaller, the addition of an "ultra wide" camera lens, and a sprinkling of OS changes.
That sentence is carrying quite a heavy load! Can you list some Apple products you consider redefining, and what year they were released?
It seems like the strongest cases are for "they are still doing that," or "they've done that literally four times ever, in 30+ years," so I'm curious how your list differs from either of mine.
The irony of seeing this in a comment thread about how Apple is draconian and overstepping their boundaries is laughable. Oculus Quest is doing the exact opposite of democratizing VR. They're selling the people themselves.
Apple is no saint, but in this case, they aren’t in the wrong. From reading the filings, Apple has gone to some extraordinary lengths to support Fortnite, behind the scenes, only to have Epic shred the hand that’s helping them.
TOS's have already wrecked the idea of contract law. A contract isn't a one sided agreement forced upon people with arbitrary changes allowed at any time by only one party at a whim.
Terms of services are an abhorrence in contract law.
The argument with smartphones hinges on whether the device is yours or Apple’s. It’s very clearly your device, but it was bought knowing that only iOS could be installed.
Maybe you mean the specifics of this case, but until a court decides that, it hardly seems something one is qualified to weigh in on (even if you have a law background or similar).
From where I sit, it’s looking like they planned to do this for a long time, which leads to the possibility that they entered into the contract in bad faith.
As for undue influence, etc. - those are immeasurable terms. Ultimately, if you can’t trust what’s on the paper, what’s the point? I have yet to see a filing where Epic shows that Apple didn’t deliver what they said they would. I have seen the filing where Apple lays out what they did do for Epic.
Courts have invalidated parts of or entire contracts for ages, extortionary practices by a dominant entity being one of the chief reasons.
We are just unused to this sort of legal battles.
https://epicgames-download1.akamaized.net/Builds/UnrealEngin...
codesign -d -vv ~/Downloads/EpicInstaller-10.18.8-fortnite.dmg
It uses the Epic Games International certificate, which is protected by the court's temporary restraining order.
0 : https://i.judge.sh/fuzzy/Fleet/FortniteClient-Win64-Shipping...
1: https://i.judge.sh/caring/Dash/EpicGamesLauncher_e5xeoBNuA0....
As for what Fortnite is signed with, here's the dump of running codesign -dvvv [1].
0: https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/d...
1: https://gist.github.com/judge2020/880eb246fc36e3a128861eddf1...
The same story on Techmeme linked to an article about the blog post has the title "Epic says it will shut down Fortnite: Save the World on macOS on September 23rd".
Notice the tone shift from "Apple is shutting this down" to "Epic is shutting this down". I guess I don't really have a point here other than the title is not enough to draw a conclusion. Even reading a single source's take on a story is not enough context to draw a balanced conclusion. There is bias and nuance to every side and a healthy dose of skepticism is needed.
> Apple is preventing Epic from signing games and patches for distribution on Mac, which ends our ability to develop and offer Fortnite: Save the World for the platform.
If we assume that that statement is true (and isn't Epic straight up lying), it's pretty clear cut that this is Apple's decision and not Epic's. By taking away Epic's capability to release updates, Apple is the one that has made the decision. Again, unless you are insinuating that Epic is lying.
It will get interesting if it extends to (although I can't image it would) "Epic violated our App Store rules, therefore we were forced to disable Apple services usage from all of their Apple devices. Unfortunately for security reasons Apple devices are unable to function without those Apple services".
Because your argument seems to be "well Epic made them do it", you don't seem to disagree that it is true either.
This is a chicken or egg problem. Epic was the one that violated the rules of the App Store, not Apple. If Epic hadn't done that, Apple wouldn't have been forced to take away their capabilities to provide updates. You can follow that chain of events without insinuating that Epic is lying.
This is likely going to be a significant mistake from Apple in hindsight.
This is an invalid comparison because Apple cannot, by definition of them writing the rules with the ability to change them whenever they want, violate the "rules" of the App Store. Phrasing it like this implies that "Apple violating the rules" is even a possibility.
Happier?
Probably fairer to just refer to them as a tuple: "Apple/Epic ending Fortnite updates for Mac." Voila.
"Anti-competitive" is a matter for courts to decide. Epic could have taken Apple to court without violating Apple's ToS, but they decided to use their fans as leverage in hopes of forcing Apple into an agreement faster than the traditionally slow legal system.
"Draconian" is an inflammatory label a reasonable person could easily dismiss.
"Victim" depends on whether Apple's ToS are actually anti-competitive. Reasonable people can make arguments to support either position, which is why we have a legally system to resolve conflicts like this. Only time will tell which is legally true.
Until then, it's just as true that Epic is an irresponsible aggressor abusing their fans in the hopes of gaining leverage in a negotiation.
It's hard to feel bad for either company, only the fans deserve sympathy, but I don't see how any reasonable person could claim that Epic couldn't foresee the consequence of their strategy.
If you're a landlord and I rent your apartment and you tell me that I can't smoke on the balcony and I go ahead and do it anyway, I'm going to face the consequences of breaking that rule. Epic isn't a victim, they are just unsuccessfully trying to use their own enormous leverage to try to make Apple back down.
The explosion of home computers followed by the Internet was based on standards and compatibility. If companies would have needed the approval of IBM to distribute an app on an IBM PC or even create some compatible hardware, almost none of the big player now would exists. Same for the web, email etc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Frankl....
There is in my opinion a level of care about macOS on its own, it's more about misguided goals and detrimental choices (Touch Bar, butterfly keyboard, etc.)
The addressable market of the media arts is a peanut next to the mountain of consumers they are now successfully targeting.
It's like asking why Apple is making the value proposition of the Mac Pro so bad. It's so they can cancel that bring the userbase down enough so they can cancel it all together without it creating too much fuzz.
Has it ever really been about performance? How could you know your mac is slower when everyone else in the office has a mac, it's just bikeshedding and humans being human. They're nice computers but that's about it
ChromeOS and Android with everything going through Google servers?
Linux distributions with their 2% market size, going to take over the desktop since DX 10 wasn't available in XP?
Windows likes people to use the store, sure. But they don't exercise the kind of control over Windows that would allow them to something like this move by Apple.
Android users are now looking to disconnect from Google.
The play store isn't bad, and I can always download an apk.
Windows 10X might not have been released as planned, but it will come.
I do see constant chicken-little-ing about macOS being hamstrung or locked down like iOS or whatever, but it's not, you know, actually true.
When I first got a macbook at work four years ago, I couldn't even figure out how to install software (you drag'n'drop an icon to a folder within an pseudo-installer? are you serious?) without asking a colleague.
Then: when I'm writing code, I'm writing for linux-machines. Opening a shell in macos just doesn't give me that. Instead I'm either left with the insult that is homebrew, or the alternative, macports, which is functional but so out of vogue its not even fun.
Meet Windows 10: I click on vscode and it's already open.. Not only open, but already connected to WSL, where I write code on a microsoft-maintaned linux-kernel, with proper package management, without ever firing up a vm by hand. In Windows' vscode I'm writing a flask-app running on linux, available without intermediate steps from Windows' Chrome.
The platform that is windows 10 feels so much more powerful and up-to-date than macos, it's not even a fair comparison.
All that being said, of course there are things one misses, because of course, apple has done a lot of things right. But overall, going back to the best macbook money can buy would feel like a massive downgrade.
What apple and macos are good at is the "all from one team" approach. Designing the OS and the hardware hand in hand with native integration to your other apple-devices has some clear advantages that windows just can't provide. But the sentiment I'm used to from my company is that "windows is completely unusable garbage, and apples computers are perfect", and I just have to disagree with that, typing this from my fully loaded xps 15.
"the mess that are locked down and all-over-the-place plist-files (good luck with those!)"
I have utterly no idea what you're on about here. .plist files are preference files, and they're overwhelmingly contained within either ~/Library or /Library. And they are not ever "locked down," at least not in my experience.
"When I first got a macbook at work four years ago, I couldn't even figure out how to install software"
See prior note. That you think you need an installer to install software is you mistaking Windows methods for methods universal to computing.
"when I'm writing code, I'm writing for linux-machines."
Many folks do x-platform dev on Macs, but you certainly DO need to take steps to accurately model your target environment before doing so. It sounds like you'd be happier on a Linux machine, but that isn't an example of failure or decline from Apple.
Your tie-in on vscode and your WSL sounds like a good feature for you. But this, too, isn't an example of "decline" for MacOS.
"The platform that is windows 10 feels so much more powerful and up-to-date than macos, it's not even a fair comparison."
This is a truly weird statement. I use both systems side by side, and have for 25 years. Windows is a fragile house of cards if you frequently add and remove software. C:\Windows inexorably expands, and the only fix is to wipe and reinstall from scratch.
You know what I've literally NEVER had to do on a Mac? Wipe and reinstall from scratch.
"But the sentiment I'm used to from my company is that "windows is completely unusable garbage, and apples computers are perfect""
As with most binary reductions of real-world situations, I agree that this is not a great statement. But Windows as a system still doesn't strike me as something I'd want to depend on in any meaningful way.
I run VMs (on my Mac, and on the Dell), and I have a fairly minimal environment my own loaded XPS 15, because that way I can get the whole setup running again with minimal effort when Windows shits the bed, as it very very often does.
Microsoft has an open platform?
Compared to Apple?
Absolutely yes.
I can even run Linux transparently on Windows.
As more and more pressure is placed on them by the EU, the Right-to-Repair movement, big partners, etc. something has to give but i'm not sure Apple have the mindset to comply.
Unfortunately the EU is going the opposite way - increasing VAT and digital taxes, which are passed straight onto developers.
Capping the commission does nothing to solve this - opening up a competition when someone else can provide better terms, vetting or different type of content (now deemed unacceptable to Apple political outlook or prudish stance) is the solution.
It also makes Apple actually work harder and start thinking about what ACTUALLY means to build a secure, user respecting OS instead of copping out by randomly rejecting app updates.
My hope for this is to see regulation that recognizes that hardware, operating systems, application distribution and payment processing are four separate markets and must be unbundled.
That does not mean breaking Apple and Google up or preventing them from providing all these things within an integrated user experience; it should however prohibit:
- using technical or legal methods to prevent consumers from installing any operating system or app store on their hardware, and independent developers from creating such operating systems or app stores.
- using technical or legal methods to prevent developers from using a payment processor of their choice while using Apple's or Google's application distribution service.
I think the judgements against Microsoft in the browser wars might serve as precedent.
The tricky part is recognizing that in two-sided markets, the threshold of market share at which a company achieves a harmful, competition-stifling amount of market power is much lower than in traditional one-sided markets.
The high commission percentage is not the only issue with Apple's monopoly. It's also that they are gate keepers of apps they don't approve of, they can decide to throw out apps to destroy competition, etc.
Losers are the governments if they cant pay for their healthcare or care for their elderly because all the big internet co's dont pay any taxes for their profits in their countries. A digital tax would at least put pressure on them to take a smaller slice of the pie. Granted, it might be not the optimal solution for the problem.
Are you referring to Apple or Epic? It seems that Epic are the ones who wanted to pick a fight, for better or worse.
edit: it is amusing to see this post get so many upvotes and so many downvotes. Obviously this is a very polarized community w.r.t. Apple.
How do you propose that Apple could give this option to Epic?
If they allowed Epic to skirt their rules, they'd have to do the same for everyone, so it is a fight that Epic picked and Apple is choosing not to continue that fight, that's all. You make it sound like it would have been just fine if Apple let Epic do what they were doing.
We can debate that Apple should change its rules for everyone, but it sounds like you think they should have just let Epic continue violating their policies.
But, for now, this action is entirely on Epic. Epic broke the rules, Apple (and the court, for that matter) said that they would continue to sign and publish Epic's Fortnite updates if they brought Fortnite back in line with their contract, and Epic not only refused to do so, they submitted more Fortnite updates that broke the rules, before eventually entirely removing Apple's IAP from the iOS version of Fortnite (just before Epic's developer account was banned).
One other thing to consider: even if the IAP rules are invalid, Apple still can decide who it wants to do business with (unless the court rules iOS an essential facility, which basically invalidates the entire closed ecosystem business model, which would really up-end the tech world).
The argument can be made that Apple's rules are bad rules. I think I would agree that changes to the rules should be made, and I expect that they will make some concessions eventually. But you can't fault them for enforcing those rules the way they are, especially when Epic are provoking Apple so brazenly and publicly.
Epic abused the security update workflow of the iOS app review system. Specifically, they submitted an update which was not a hotfix as if it were a hotfix. They (apparently) did that intentionally so that the update would not be inspected closely.
The signature system is built on trust. Apple allows trusted partners to submit hotfixes to address security bugs. Those updates receive expedited (read: cursory) review. Epic abused that trust to push an update which added their own payment system, not to address a bug (security or otherwise).
If Epic is going to abuse the trust of system for submitting security updates, why should they be trusted by the signature system?
I don’t understand why Epic isn’t releasing unsigned updates...
Save the World has already been announced as receiving no further gameplay updates. In other words, the game is just as much of a zombified husk as the mobs you're asked to kill in it.
Just like most of the rest of Epic's announcements about their conflict with Apple, this just seems like more empty propaganda.
Well, it is. They're in a PR battle with Apple. And weirdly this massively rich company that is complaining about not having enough money is actually considered right by a lot of folk. What they're complaining about is pretty much agreed by everyone, the only things that differ is if Apple's wall garden is a good thing or a bad thing.
So what they say isn't even true.
1. Epic snuck hidden code into Fortnite. Apple no longer trusts that Epic won't also sneak hidden code into Unreal Engine.
2. Epic International is apparently collecting the payments from international iOS users that are using the hidden payment system in Fortnite, so it is directly linked to the breaching conduct.
So there's still a very real risk that Epic will lose access to the developer tools and signing capabilities for its Unreal Engine business as well.
Apple doesn't instrument apps, malware can be uploaded to the app store and as long as it's not widely known can exist for a while. The app store provides little benefit for consumers and only moves power from them to Apple.
And yes, it's possible to run it unsigned but Apple has intentionally obfuscated how to do it.
Must we "child-proof" (parent-proof?) the entire world?
It's literally right click on the .app and click 'Open'. Or alternatively, open up the security settings and click the 'Open Anyway' button.
---
Certainly not ideal for developers who do regularly open up unsigned binaries, but you have to admit it's probably somewhat effective at preventing malware for non-developers.
The third one has a workaround, but it's intentionally designed to be semi-hidden and confusing to an average person. I expect HN crowd to think it's not a problem, but to me as a developer it's a support headache, and embarrassment to tell every user "yeah, no, we're not malware, please do these steps to bypass all these scary security warnings".
All Macs have shitty GPUs, so Epic may even be happy they have a good excuse to drop Mac.
Fortnite runs on the Nintendo Switch, I doubt supporting Mac GPUs was too difficult for them.
Doing it unsigned is the question. Do users have to do something manual each update, beyond just a prompt?
The iPad is much better than the pre-Cook iPad 2.
Apple’s processor lines are head and shoulders above the competition and the ARM Macs will probably be some combination of faster, cheaper, more power efficient than any x86 PC.
And then we have Epic.
Selling Carlton Dances with virtual currency.
“No Wireless. Less Space than the Nomad. Lame”.
In the pre-Covid days. I loved being able to take my cellular Apple Watch to the gym and leave my phone in the car. I could listen to music and podcasts check my heart rate, make and receive calls and messages. I would swim with it. Run with it, etc. and leave my phone at home.
You could tap quick - yes/no replies or if someone asks you do you want $X or $Y, it will give you those two choices as quick replies. You can also dictate replies. I find my phone unusable when I’m working out. I sweat like a pig in heat. Any sensitive capacitive touch display is unusable.
Even now, I use my Watch as a remote for my AppleTV while I’m working out in my home gym.
That’s not even to mention in December with Apple Fitness, the on screen workouts will be able to automatically activate the appropriate workout on the watch and granularly record and show your stats.
My wife would often leave her phone in the car when she was out and about.
As far as the phone. Even in 2007, there were already 1 billion phones being sold a year. Jobs said he wanted the iPhone to capture 1% - 10 million during the first year.
Now there are close to 5 billion phones being sold a year. There isn’t really any conceivable way that anything will have the ubiquity of the smart phone market at 90%+ penetration in the developed world and even 70%+ in the developing world. What we call a “phone” may change. But the smart phone market is a once in a lifetime opportunity.
But we also have objective measures.
1. Did Apple create a new successful product line - success measured by revenue?
As I said before, the revenue is higher than the iPods and will have a longer product life cycle.
http://www.asymco.com/2019/12/12/ipods-pro/
http://www.asymco.com/2020/09/17/apple-watch-at-5/
2. We can also judge it technically. The Apple Watch has the fastest processor in the industry for a device its size, it has an always on display, heart rate monitor, GPS, cellular, WiFi, Bluetooth, U1 chip, ECG, altimeter, 16GB of RAM - o your wrist.
The iPad Air is also more performant than most laptops being sold abd it’s cheaper.
Now they complain, well should have spent money supporting GNU/Linux OEMs instead.
Same applies to Epic, fine with console restrictions, thinking that they can play their weight everywhere Tim feels like it.
https://bgr.com/2020/09/17/fortnite-lawsuit-apple-epic-games...
One particularly interesting tidbit from Schmid is that Epic would routinely threaten to release Fortnite updates on competing platforms first if Apple didn’t “accommodate their requests.” Schmid also said Epic on a number of occasions threatened to “terminate its relationship with Apple and remove its games” from the App Store if Apple didn’t comply with the company’s demands.
Apple called their bluff.
I wonder if they can just distribute the game as an unsigned binary from their website, post the SHA and tell uses to right-click launch the app. Sure the experience sucks, but it works
1: Install Linux sub-system, install android-tools, wget the apk, and adb install it on the same host. Now I get a warning on the login page about 'unapproved apps'. It is not great.
Maybe I can use it as a teaching moment to explain why dad uses Linux.
My neighbor has two young teenage sons who are into PC gaming, also Android tablets. They sometimes come to me with questions knowing that I'm in the industry. Several months ago there was an incident where the parent discovered over $2500 in credit card charges mostly due to in game purchases. A good chunk was on Fortnite V-Bucks but also some SuperCell games. They were able to request a refund for more than half, and it was a stressfull event for the family with a lot of disciplinary actions following. I was asked for advice on about any technical solutions to the problem. I was able to suggest monitoring credit card charges in realtime, some parental controls that were rather painful to setup. Another touchy subject was how to talk to and educate their kids about online spending.
This incident highlighted how unregulated and seemingly dangerous the Windows and Android platforms are to an average non-technical family. You need to install AntiVirus software, you have to worry about malware, you have to worry about kids installing random crapware that bogs down performance (remember the IE toolbars?). I have to say Amazon and Xbox Live parental controls are some of the most kafkaesque nightmares I've had to battle with.
I also see predatory techniques aimed at kids that have long been used by companies that are primary funded by in-app purchases. There is widely discussed concept of fun-pain in this genre of game development, where you induce some level of "pain" that would induce someone to pay money to alleviate it. Simple example is to eliminate wait time for artificial delays in game progression. Yes, in some ways Apple and this entire genre of mobile games, profited from it and is now trying to provide alternatives with the Apple Arcade model.
In comparison Apple and iOS provides a walled utopia for these families and justifies its tight controls as a method of providing that safe and worry free computing experience.
How many people bought an iPad for their older relatives because they were just tired of family tech support? Seems like it was enough for that to become a tired stereotype with a grain of truth.
I have sympathies for the idea of an open computing platform as a developer. I see the web and open source an excellent outlet for those that are willing to take on that level of responsibility with their devices.
However most takes on Apple in response to the Epic spat have been crude caricatures of a capricious monopolist robber baron type. I'm not in complete opposition to that idea, but that its not a particularly sophisticated or informative analysis, when their success clearly shows a market need for just this type of curated platform.
Also Epic knowingly violated terms of a contract that they agreed to when it suited them and are painting it as a moral imperative as opposed to an argument over money and how to extract it from customers.
This sounds more of a parenting issue. How and why did the kids have access to the credit card info?
This is often missed by technology enthusiasts that evaluate a merits of a platform from their own individual point of view that prizes flexibility and lack of constraints over everything else.
I will have to point out that aside from Apple Arcade, iOS has its own problems. Problems that could be easily rectified by Apple but they choose not to:
1) Apple's Family Sharing has an "Ask To Buy" feature but it doesn't work as the name suggests. The feature actually requires parental permission for every download. It's not just a simple notification that you can click yes/no on either.... After clicking the notification, the app store opens and you must approve it there. Now, Apple has an age classification system that I generally trust so I don't have any desire to review every download. I just want to prevent the kid from spending money.
IMHO, it's purposefully designed to add friction in order to discourage its use. After being interrupted three or four times with this in a single day while coding, I just turned it off.
2) If your child does make a purchase (including a recurring subscription), it is not possible for you, the credit card holder, to view the details or cancel it anywhere in Apple's interface. It's like it doesn't exist. If you miss Apple's receipt email (or it goes to spam) you might never know.
To cancel the subscription? The child must do so on his or her device. Do you trust your child to do this correctly? Remember - they've already been "tricked" once by the App developer and Apple.
How about having the child uninstall the app? That should cancel any associated subscriptions right? No, sorry.
So, really, you must do it. And you must do it on their phone. Are they at school? Make a note to remind yourself when they get home. Are they away at school entirely during the week? Make a note to do it when you see them on the weekend (in the meantime, the weekly renewing subscription has billed you once again). Good luck if you forget to do it. Or they forget their phone at school or.... the phone is lost/stolen.
The point being: If Apple is billing my credit card, it should be my right to see it in their interface and cancel it. Neither of which is even possible. It's like it doesn't exist.
Both of the above are obvious, intentional dark patterns. There are no good reasons why they can't work properly. It's blatantly anti-consumer, and frankly disgusting that Apple engages in this sort of thing (and this is coming from someone who'd be largely considered a "fanboy" otherwise).
Quick google search (that apparently I've been to several times before) points me to a list of options on how to cancel subscriptions: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202039
But you are right that it takes more work to stop paying them money, that for example to swipe on the home screen and disable all push notifications from Facebook. The latter being something that doesn't impact Apple's revenue.
That is... absolutely none.
The only option is to open a support request, and they will cancel a subscription for you (it takes a couple of days). Gee, thanks Apple.
If my credit card is being charged a recurring subscription, I should damn well be able to view or cancel that charge. Period. It's my credit card, and my account.
It reminds me of the gym membership cancellation scams. The harder companies can make it to cancel, the less likely people will.
Can't help but think of parallel to programming languages as an analogy: Would you say that incompetence of programmers is a valid reason to advocate for languages with strict type systems that prevent them for making mistakes? If not, then assembly language should be the only way to program with maximum flexibility and opportunity for innovation.
So I am not sure what Apple and lootboxes argument is about(since Apple gladly endorses the practice with an open wallets)
On the one hand, I think Epic's decision to flagrantly ignore the developer agreement in order to tease out a ban was a mistake. At the most basic level its going to cost them a ton of money, but its also become something of a red herring in the court case. It may work to their favor, as Apple goes scorched earth on all of their properties and ability to develop on Apple platforms, but its a huge gambit that could just as easily end with them never being allowed back on an Apple platform. That won't benefit anyone.
Apple's side came out with a statement maybe yesterday which essentially outlined the insane amount of effort Apple went through to support Fortnite on iOS, including setting up a 24/7 support team, express reviewing dozens of updates, and sending engineers to North Carolina to help them integrate with Metal/Apple Silicon. That also doesn't come off good for Epic. The effort Apple put in may not be explicitly valued at the low-hundreds of millions of dollars Apple has made off of their 30% cut, but its also not worth nothing (and certainly worth more than the $100/year developers pay to have an Apple Developer account). It comes off like Epic wants all of the support, marketing, and customers Apple provides, then when its convenient for them, they sue for the ability to release their own store on iOS and bypass all the cuts Apple would take.
Additionally, Epic has chosen Apple as the target for this crusade, while they still gladly lay in bed with Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo, and actively cast Linux aside via refusing to support it in Fortnite/Epic Games Store, and even removing support for it in Rocket League. I'm firmly on the side that iOS needs a more open and equitable application ecosystem; whether that means alternate storefronts, or alternate payment processors, or lessened app submission rules, I don't know. But Epic is schizophrenic. Valve is a great example of a company that, excepting a few isolated releases that they likely treat as mistakes, actually does push for supporting open platforms in both word and deed. It can be done. But, again, this comes off like Epic wanting their cake and eating it too. Why does Epic still put up with PlayStation, despite they also taking 30% and disallowing alternate storefronts? Well, they probably negotiated a lower rate, and it doesn't hurt that Sony owns like 3% of Epic. So Apple argues that they don't negotiate, and everyone is charged the same rate? That doesn't look good for Epic.
But, on Apple's side: I can't in good faith trust their desire to get into TV, Music, and Gaming while still being fair in App Store policies. There are zero examples of megacorps having that much broad & specific control over the success of their competitors and not abusing it. Apple needs to lose this case, to some degree. There are billions of computer users totally beholden to Apple's policies, and tens of thousands of developers who can't just ignore those users and expect their business to survive. Would Spotify be ok without iOS? Netflix? Hey? I don't know, but while Epic will absolutely be fine, I suspect one click in an App Store administrative console could mean the end of many businesses. These businesses don't need App Store marketing. They don't need highly complex platform technologies, nor A22x Apple Hyper-Silicon, nor Apple Pay, nor anything differentiable Apple provides; they just need the eyes and ears of their customers, who happened to pick iOS for reasons unrelated to their business. There should be a place for applications like these on iOS, which are fundamentally different from applications that are built to their core with Apple tech, rely on Apple marketing, the App Store's 70%, and legitimately gain a lot from the relationship with Apple.
Epic defied Apple's rules here, quite openly. Faced with dissension, from a political point of view you have a choice to make. Apple chose to come down hard on this rebellion. It immediately went nuclear, spilling over the Fortnite-on-iOS dispute into both Mac and iOS and for anything that runs Unreal Engine.
Apple is clearly trying to send a message and keep everyone in line with this strategy. This is straight out of the despot's playbook. Just look at Vladimir Putin and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. By taking down the biggest oligarch sent the message to the others saying "you aren't untouchable". I see Apple's move here in the same light. Apple is saying "we don't care how big Fortnite is; we're going to make an example out of you".
This strongly suggests to me that Apple fears rebellion..
I think this strategy is a huge mistake. Apple's arguments are pretty weak here too. "We don't know what Trojan Horses Epic will put into the Unreal Engine so we have to ban any use of it". Uh... sure. And while Epic's move was clearly against Apple's rules, it wasn't clandestine or malicious (to the users) either.
By attempting to ban any use of Unreal Engine on iOS and OSX, Apple is doing nothing more than demonstrating they're a monopoly and are capable (if not actually) engaging in anticompetitive behaviour.
I still think Apple's payment ecosystem (and 30% cut) actually makes a lot of sense for the bottom 90% of publishers. For the likes of Epic, Netflix, Unisoft, Activision, Hulu and the likes it doesn't. These guys all have their own payment infrastructure and are cross-platform.
Apple's stance on the 30% cut for these guys just doesn't make sense. And I don't think it will last. Either the cut will come down or exceptions will eventually be carved out for top-tier publishers.
I don't particularly like either company here, but Apple using its market power to inhibit competition certainly sounds like the bigger problem.
Apple has made a few filings documenting this, including that Epic specifically asked for a side letter to the standard developer contract granting them special treatment.
Didn't Epic even file for an injunction to stop them doing exactly this, and were denied? (the court just prevented apple from also applying it to the engine)
- Epic Games controls Fortnite
- Epic SARL controls the Unreal Engine dev work on macOS/iOS
- Epic SARL also collects direct international payments for the developer-agreement infringing version of Fortnite
In an ideal world, Epic Games should be banned for the duration of the trial, Epic SARL should be ordered to direct all revenues from the infringing Fortnite version into an escrow account (or at least provide the court with ongoing accounting so the court can issue damages, if necessary), and Epic SARL should be allowed to continue operating as normal.
Separately, if Apple prevails in the court, Apple should be allowed to ban Epic SARL as well. If Epic marketed iOS publishing as a feature of their engine, it's Epic's responsibility to deliver that feature to their customers; Apple should only be responsible for allowing the customer to publish with an app that uses any engine, not the Unreal Engine specifically.
Nope, they aren't special above anyone else.
That said, my prediction is that most of this lawsuit will be over contract law, and Apple has Epic over a barrel on that. Whether or not Epic should have to pay 30%, cloaking violating code changes in an update to slip it past the app store reviewers is a mortal sin under Apple's terms and they are perfectly within their rights to treat everything Epic does from now on as an unrepentant violator.
Apple on the other hand takes the cut from their products and software.
Somehow everyone seems to want things for free and never and keep the whole cake for themselves. Using any app store as a company is like renting renting selling space where customers browse. But the app store owner takes care of the maintenance so why wouldn't they get their cut for that?
https://bgr.com/2020/09/17/fortnite-lawsuit-apple-epic-games...
As detailed by Grimm, Apple and Epic engineers over the past two years remained in “near-constant contact” to ensure that Fortnite could run optimally at all times and across a variety of devices. Grim notes that Apple provided Epic with a substantial amount of engineering support to “reduce Fortnite’s memory footprint” which allowed it to run on older iPhone models.
In addition, Apple has also provided hardware to Epic, including 16 Apple Silicon Developer Transitions Kits across Epic’s engineering organization, to ensure high-performance functioning of Unreal Engine 4 and the future Unreal Engine 5 on forthcoming Macintosh computers with new Apple silicon processors. This represents as much support as Apple provides to most any other developer. In addition, in response to repeated demands by Epic, Apple has permitted Epic to distribute builds on some 950 iPads and 1150 iPhones for app development and testing purposes— again, as much as Apple allocates to any other developer. These allowances are valuable to Epic as they magnify the company’s ability to fine tune their apps and refine their products in advance of going live with users.
Besides, no one buys a Mac for its great game software or hardware.