Fortnite Creator Epic Files European Union Complaint Against Apple (axios.com) 149
Epic Games is taking its legal battle against Apple global, filing an antitrust complaint in Europe against the iPhone maker. From a report: The move adds another layer to the protracted dispute and brings it to a jurisdiction that has historically been tougher on U.S. tech companies. Last September, Epic added its own in-app purchase mechanism to Fortnite, knowingly setting up a confrontation with Apple, which doesn't allow payment systems other than its own. Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store and Epic immediately filed suit. A similar chain of events took place with Google on the Android side, though in that case, Epic can continue to distribute Fortnite on its own outside the Google Play store, while no similar option exists for iOS. Apple also countersued Epic in October, claiming breach of contract.
How it will go. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Apple "Is this the contract you agreed to?"
Epic "Yes."
Apple "And this is the part that says no circumventing our cut?"
Epic "Yes."
Apple "And you circumvented our cut?"
Epic "Yes."
Apple "And you're suing us for terminating you for breach of contract?"
Epic "Yes."
Apple "Are you fucking retarded?"
Epic "Yes."
Re:How it will go. (Score:4, Informative)
It won't go that way. The EU doesn't allow you to rewrite the law using contracts.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, laws like fair competition and monopoly situation. That is at least likely what Epic is training to prove.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Apple makes competition much more fair. A big company like Epic has to play by the same rules as a small developer.
Also you really do not need to use Apples services. They make a ton of money without using Apple Devices anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
And the small company has to play by the same rules as the big guys, and the kicker is the rules absolutely favor the big guys.
When Apple is taking 30% of your income, the government another 20%, patent payments 20% (yeah this happened to where I was working, patents are hell), and then another 40% your development costs, for a grand total of 110% percent, the only way to make a profit
Re: How it will go. (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple are slowly squeezing the life (margins) out of competitors in all fields they compete in.
They are the only company massively integrated both vertically and across a products where online ecosystem integration has become massively important in the last decade (online services have in fact created a new type of monopoly, which law is as of yet poorly suited to tackle).
Google has been a very bad influence on the market in that respect, they were always good enough for competitors not to try to build true
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple are slowly squeezing the life (margins) out of competitors in all fields they compete in.
They are the only company massively integrated both vertically and across a products where online ecosystem integration has become massively important in the last decade (online services have in fact created a new type of monopoly, which law is as of yet poorly suited to tackle).
Google has been a very bad influence on the market in that respect, they were always good enough for competitors not to try to build true competition to Apple ... but the limitations of lack of vertical hardware integration and relying on advertising to fund an online ecosystem are becoming increasingly clear.
It's all going to come tumbling down in the next few decades if nothing is done. Apple's entry in financial services is going to massively increase its income yet again, I think it's only a question of time they get into home automation. Mobile integration in high end cars is a major selling point too, so even in that market they could squeeze out competition due to ecosystem integration.
It's a bad idea to wait much longer dealing with it.
Google has a 80% market share in the global OS market. How is Apple squeezing the life out of them?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Margins ... making it up in volume while Apple absorbs most of the profit in the market and can invest more in R&D and acquisitions is a losing proposition.
You are seriously telling us that Apple is squeezing the life out of Google? You either need psychotherapy or you are a really lousy troll.
Re: (Score:2)
He may well be wrong, but if Apple is winning the overwhelming lion's share of the profits in a certain sector, then the argument is not crazy, at least when it comes to specific markets.
Let us focus on this part:
Apple are slowly squeezing the life (margins) out of competitors in all fields they compete in.
He is not saying Google is dying. He is suggesting the Apple is crushing the competition in specific markets. Generalized search is not a market Apple is attempting to compete in right now, so Google as a company is not going away (at least not because of Apple).
Re: (Score:2)
He may well be wrong, but if Apple is winning the overwhelming lion's share of the profits in a certain sector, then the argument is not crazy, at least when it comes to specific markets.
Let us focus on this part:
Apple are slowly squeezing the life (margins) out of competitors in all fields they compete in.
He is not saying Google is dying. He is suggesting the Apple is crushing the competition in specific markets. Generalized search is not a market Apple is attempting to compete in right now, so Google as a company is not going away (at least not because of Apple).
I don't give a hoot about generalised search. Now, to get back on topic, you are seriously claiming that Apple, with 10-15% of the mobile OS market is squeezing the life out of Google which holds 80% of the mobile OS market, presumably on App sales ??? Please explain how that works. How can a company that has 80% of the Mobile OS market get into a situation where it is having the life squeezed out of it by a company with a 10-15% mobile OS market share? How is it possible that a company with a 10-15% percen
Re: (Score:2)
It is conceivable if Google is willing to break even or even lose money in the mobile OS market and App store, counting on making it up via domination in advertising. If Google's advertising profits were to go down, this model would presumably collapse.
There was a time when Apple boasted something like 80% of the smartphone hardware sales profits. They were actually making real money selling smartphones when almost no one else was. The phone makers could only survive by getting a cut of the service contr
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: How it will go. (Score:2)
Apple Arcade games get preferential treatment in exchange for restrictions on the economic model, it's a separate and proprietary gaming platform which competes with Epic.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic isn't an Apple competitor on iOS because Apple doesn't allow it. On open operating systems, Epic does compete against other application stores.
Whether this harm is legal is something which will no doubt be decided in the courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How it will go. (Score:2)
Margins.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How it will go. (Score:2)
If that smaller customer was squeezing the margins of Amazon by only allowing them to be temporarily competitive in the least profitable part of the market ... then yes, they would have the lifeblood (margins) squeezed out of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple are slowly squeezing the life (margins) out of competitors in all fields they compete in.
By charging exactly the same industry rate as all competitors in an app store ecosystem that has been highly profitable for those involved for many many years?
I don't think you really understand how this market works.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple are slowly squeezing the life (margins) out of competitors in all fields they compete in.
And in what field does Apple have competitors? I'm not really aware of any.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple isn't squeezing competitors out of the smartphone business. They are squeezing competitors out of the smartphone app business. Note "competitors" -- Apple provides apps, too. They even provide gaming apps! That means that their actions are directly anticompetitive!
That's not what the OP said, he said:
Apple hardly has a competitor for every game app and every non game app out there that's sold on their App store. If Apple is squeezing the life (margins) out of Google on app sales then Google, the company which has 80% of the global Mobile OS market, is doing something very wrong. Apple has a few apps that compete with a few of the ~2 million apps on their store and a numbe
Re: How it will go. (Score:2)
It's just a question of time ... Apple doesn't have to be better, it just has to get close enough that the advantage of not having to pay the Apple tax and their strong marketing can take care of the difference.
Re: How it will go. (Score:2)
When Apple decides to publish an in house app as an alternative to one already on the app store, the existing app is living on borrowed time.
Apple has some inherent advantages, not the least of which is not having to pay the Apple tax. They can run a profit on a smaller margin.
Re: (Score:2)
Given Android's near monopoly market share in the mobile OS arena
If you'd at least read the summary, you'd know that Google kicked Epic off the Play Store too.
Re: (Score:2)
Did the console vendors kick Epic off the platform due to microtransactions? Once that happens and Epic sues, that example might be relevant.
Given Android's near monopoly market share in the mobile OS arena
If you'd at least read the summary, you'd know that Google kicked Epic off the Play Store too.
You mean Google, the creator of Android, isn't the benevolent entity we all thought it was ??? Why that's just SHOCKING!!
Re: (Score:2)
However, they still have an avenue to publish to Android. With Android third-party apps/app stores are possible (after clicking through a scary warning about it).
They do not have an avenue to publish to iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
In Android, you click a button where google says "oh, you are taking on risk, this could allow bad applications to install that google isn't able to vet, are you sure?" and then you get applications without 'rooting' that are still subject to an intact Android security model, with applications needing to explicitly get informed consent to do things and still utterly blocked from the most severe risks.
In Apple, you have to jailbreak. At launch you have to wait for someone to find a vulnerability, and when av
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Android, you click a button where google says "oh, you are taking on risk, this could allow bad applications to install that google isn't able to vet, are you sure?" and then you get applications without 'rooting' that are still subject to an intact Android security model, with applications needing to explicitly get informed consent to do things and still utterly blocked from the most severe risks.
In Apple, you have to jailbreak. At launch you have to wait for someone to find a vulnerability, and when available, then you have to jailbreak before Apple figures out a patch to defeat it. To partake of the third party apps, you necessarily have to break the security model.
For Android, Epic games can just say 'download our app/app store' and click through the prompts. For Apple, they would have to direct phone users to break the Apple security model to run their app, inflicting much greater risk on the user than they would on Android doing the same thing.
Yes, Epic would have to jailbreak iOS devices on top of violating the terms of a contract with Apple nobody forced Epic to sign. As for 3rd party Android stores that sounds like a good idea until you realise that a large majority of Android users does not bother with anything other than the Google Play Store and many of those who try the competition don't use it much because the Google Play Store is simply the biggest Android app store by a large margin. So, if Epic has been tossed from the Google Play Stor
Re: (Score:2)
On iOS you can accept a profile to allow third party app stores. It will tell you that it is untrusted etc. but if you really want to accept random SSL and push configuration certs from China, you can do that.
Every third party iOS app store I have seen so far is based on some kind of hack and most of them look dodgy. None of them have anything to offer that I want to pay for. This is basically the same situation as with Android. The Play Store is the one that has by far the most and best quality apps available. The runner up seems to be Amazon which has a few worthwhile apps, nothing that the Play Store doesn't have and the rest is shitty shovelware.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you jailbroke your iPhone, the security model is not removed. Pfffft ...
The only risk is the app you install, which most likely runs as root then, no idea, never dug into that.
Re: (Score:2)
> They do not have an avenue to publish to iOS.
Well they do have an avenue, they are just not willing to go down it.
Well, Google's goal is to eliminate all competition so why would they?
Re: (Score:2)
Note that Google also kicked out Epic from their store.
A duopoly is still against competition laws.
The laws are written in the form of misusing dominant market position, with no exact count given for that. I fact many companies have been convicted of such.
As for consoles: Yes, that are practically the same and should face the same possible sanctions. I think that Epic might go after consoles too at some point.
Re:How it will go. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The law doesn't say "You have to sue everyone at once or your argument is void."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Epic's legal argument is undermined by the fact that the wrong they are suffering is worse under Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo yet they chose not to sue them.
It is not.
The judge pointed out this exact flaw in their legal argument.
It was during the discussion of the preliminary injunction. Which is a different legal matter, with different legal standards. The question for the final case is whether Apple is breaking the law, not whether Sony is breaking the law.
Re: (Score:2)
The judge noted that this was a major flaw in their whole case not just in the preliminary injunction. They failed to convince the judge to overturn Apple's ban on Fortnite resting mostly that Epic caused their own situation. Read the ruling.
1) Please decribe what "laws" Apple is breaking. This is a civil case not a criminal one. Specifically this is a contracts case. 2) Epic's entire legal claim is that they are being wronged by Apple for imposing a fee on any app generated sales but they are not wronged t
Re: (Score:2)
1) Please decribe what "laws" Apple is breaking.
I'm going to give you your own advice, and tell you to read the filing by Epic. It lists the laws broken, every single one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand a claim in a lawsuit filing != a law. I can file a lawsuit that your responses to my posts illegally violate my free speech. That does not make it so. You said Apple violated the law. Please cite what law Apple violated. You made the first claim; you have to back up that claim.
In this exact case the judge said the following about the central point of Epic's case.
"Walled gardens have existed for decades," she said. "Nintendo has had a walled garden. Sony has had a walled garden. Microsoft has had a walled garden. What Apple's doing is not much different... It's hard to ignore the economics of the industry, which is what you're asking me to do."
By the way, Epic is also operating a wall garden by forcing exclusivity of certain games but is crying foul at Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you need to understand the difference between a preliminary injunction and a final result. They are very different standards.
Re: (Score:2)
You did not seem to understand or read my previous comments: the judge was commenting about Epic's ENTIRE case not just their preliminary injunction. Please read her ruling. Her comments said to rule Epic's way would overturn the entire idea of walled gardens. As a judge she will listen to their arguments when the trial comes, but she has already expressed skepticism about their case. Is this clear enough for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Please read her ruling.
Why? You didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you know that how? I seem to know more about what she said than you
You copied the quote from some article you read. Simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you are absolutely sure you know everything that I have done.
No, but I do know that if you were the type of person who read rulings, your comments would be more insightful. You should try it.
Re: (Score:2)
OR
Re: (Score:2)
You're not right. You still won't admit that there's a difference between a preliminary injunction and the actual case.
Re: (Score:2)
Bahahaha. When did I say there was no difference between a preliminary injunction and the case. That is a strawman argument. I specifically said in the preliminary I injunction, the judge expressed skepticism about Epic’s case. I said that MULTIPLE times. I said that the judge brought up ruling for Epic would rule have an impact in that it would rule against walled gardens affecting Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Please cite where I said otherwise.
You on the other hand have refused to cite one law tha
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know the difference between the two. Also, you didn't actually quote the ruling. Here is the quote. Note that the judge does not express skepticism. You are wrong.
"Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft all operate similar walled gardens or closed platform models as Apple, whereby the hardware, operating system, digital marketplace, and IAPs are all exclusive to the platform owner. As such, a final decision should be better informed regarding the impact of the walled garden model given the potential for significant and serious ramifications for Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft and their video game platforms."
Finally, if you had actually read the ruling (which you didn't) you would have noticed that the judge was fairly pointing out problems in both sides of the case. You might also have noticed that the judge ultimately ruled partly in favor of Apple, and partly in favor of Epic. It was a half victory for both sides.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know the difference between the two.
In my very first post [slashdot.org] to this thread, I said: "US judge noted that in the preliminary injunction that Epic's arguments. . . "
Which I followed up [slashdot.org] with "The judge noted that this was a major flaw in their whole case not just in the preliminary injunction."
I have clearly said what was specified elements of THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION multiples times. Yet you still insist I do not know that it is different from the trial when I keep saying the phrase "in the preliminary injunction. . ." and accurately posting
Re: (Score:2)
Are you aware of any laws that make a case for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if they go after game console companies as well. Apple devices are probably the largest pain point for them right now, and with the easiest comparison point for a way to do it in a more competitive way (Android).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Would it sound absurd if Apple insisted all purchases from Amazon had to pay 30% to Apple? Apple would if they could.
Would if sound absurd if every time you bought a game from GOG.com 30% of the price went to Microsoft? This is a pretty straight analogy with Apple.
OTOH console makers get a cut on every game sold AFAIK, should that end too?
Re: (Score:2)
>OTOH console makers get a cut on every game sold AFAIK, should that end too?
Yes. Or at least made reasonable. That is I could well see a service fee like thing both for the mobile platforms and consoles. That is the fees do not need to be the low as just normal credit card processing fees, but should not be monopolistic high.
Thus say a total of 5% to cover the credit card processing and the hosting as similar would be fair in my mind. As the fat is there are costs to running the app stores and such.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm neutral on this, the price of consoles is subsidised by the fees on games.
Re: (Score:2)
Would it sound absurd if Apple insisted all purchases from Amazon had to pay 30% to Apple? Apple would if they could.
Apple actually did that. They only started to relent last year as pressure mounted.
https://www.macworld.com/artic... [macworld.com]
You used to not be able to actually buy anything in the Amazon app for iOS because it would have required using Apple's payment system and giving them their cut. That changed last year when Apple introduced a program to allow some apps to do purchases outside their ecosystem, probably to try to stave off regulators and lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It won't go that way. The EU doesn't allow you to rewrite the law using contracts.
What law? The law that says subsidies of Chinese companies are free to breach any contract as they see fit?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And it's not even just about "Rewriting the law" either.
Antitrust legislation exists specifically to curtail activities of corporations which are too successful, in the interest of the public good. We know that when corporations become too dominant in a market, customers suffer. And we [sometimes] choose to regulate them so that doesn't happen. People like to cry foul but they forget that corporations are just legal fictions. They are allegedly creations for the benefit of The People, and if The People are
yay "troll" for explaining facts (Score:2)
This is what is ruining Slashdot.
Moderation is and always has been broken.
The trolls finally learned how to game the system well enough to win over those who want rational discourse, and the leadership of Slashdot is doing nothing to prevent it. Based on their inaction they either don't care, are wholly incompetent, or actively like it this way.
I'm actually betting it's some of all of the above.
Re: Boo hoo! (Score:2)
Zomg someone might associate my shit ideas with my identity!
Fucking coward.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a thing that is different in different countries in EU (ie no central regulation). So allowed in some, not allowed in others.
Re: How it will go. (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect more or less. I think the EU will find that consumers do benefit from Apple's contract and that alone will shutdown Epics arguments. Also, Apple has far less of a market share in the EU than the US, it's not a big monopoly there to worry the EU in terms of market manipulation.
Re: (Score:2)
The market share is most likely bigger in the EU than in the US.
Re: How it will go. (Score:2)
I can tell you that in corporate US the iPhones make up 50-80% of the fleets. In the EU, it looks closer to 10-30%. Obviously I am ignoring the Apple only shops.
General stats put the iPhone at 49% and 18%. The primary reasons for this is that iPhones are more expensive in the EU and there are a lot more Android options there. The US is almost a barren wasteland when it comes to Android devices compared to most of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, but corporations should not really be relevant to determine market share, or would they?
I would say, if apple sells 20% phones and all the others together 80%, that is the market share.
The US is almost a barren wasteland when it comes to Android devices compared to most of the world. Interesting to know. What might eb the reasons, besides the silly Huweii ban?
Re: (Score:2)
I think Epic can point to how they were ejected from both the Play Store and Apple store, and they are still able to deliver to Android users but not Apple.
Arguments about it compromising the experience can be countered by how third-party app distribution is only possible after informed consent about the risks, so users know what they are potentially in for.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that for Android and PC, if they don't want to give 30% of all their money to the vendor of the OS, they don't have to.
For Apple, they must give 30% of their money to the OS vendor to be available to users of the OS. If Microsoft did this to desktop applications, they would be absolutely thrashed by regulators.
Re: (Score:2)
Same issues apply there, in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the EU will find that consumers do benefit from Apple's contract
They don't, though.
Android users can enjoy all the same benefits of having a curated app store (both stores have delivered malware, so in neither case is one of the benefits security) without having to deal with vendor lock-in. If Android users don't enable installation from untrusted sources, then they have the same protection against apps delivered from other sources as Apple, which is to say solid but meaningless. It's like expecting a half-door to keep people out of your house.
Re: (Score:2)
It may sound funny but the case of EPIC is pretty solid. But filing a complaint is just the very first step.
Any competitor could file a complaint at the antitrust authority based on Article 101 or 102. It does not cost you anything.
Even anonymous facts could be submitted:
https://ec.europa.eu/competiti... [europa.eu]
Correct complaint, wrong complainant (Score:4, Insightful)
While I see a lot to complain about with Apple, but Epic is the wrong complainant. I understand why Epic is not interested in paying Apple their share, but in the case of Epic IMHO Apple has the right to do so.
Also in the case of Facebook is IMHO correct in enforcing certain rules.
There are much better cases against Apple (e.g. their handling of Gaming Streaming apps). In that case Apple is really stiffing competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it?
I mean, lets say you want to buy smurfberries. So you buy it in the app with Apple. But then you log into your streaming site and they're not there anymore? You call Apple and they refund you. You buy them on the streaming game site and then you find out they aren't in the app. You call Apple and they said they've refunded you, so you don't have them anymore. You
Re: (Score:3)
If Apple would grant gaming streaming the same way it grants video streaming, there would be no problem.
And it is all about money, nothing else.
Re: (Score:1)
I will be shocked if FB doesn't win the case against Apple specifically in Europe.
"oh, it's my device, so I could give my own apps an edge over yours" won't fly well in EU, not in case of a company that dominant in the market.
Apple has been fined numerous times before [nytimes.com].
Epic is more nuanced, especially in Google's case, when alternative stores exist, but it is much stronger in the case of Apple.
Re:Correct complaint, wrong complainant (Score:5, Insightful)
No chance for FB in front of any EU court, less than the one of a snowflake in hell.
The change of Apple is 100% covered by the EU GDPR directive.
Re:Correct complaint, wrong complainant (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
This is why it should be fixed at the legislative or competition regulator level, no through lawsuits. There should be a blanket rule on exclusivity deals that works both ways, no blocking other app stores and no blocking publishers from other platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sharp doesn't go out of their way to stop you modifying the software on your microwave though.
If Apple just didn't support apps then okay, but they have a vast ecosystem of apps. They created a large marketplace and control it with an iron grip. That kind of anti-competitive practice isn't normally acceptable, unless there is a really good technical reason. The existence of Android proves that there isn't such a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Modifying a Sharp microwave is only an issue if they then sell it as a Sharp product. Not an issue for apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also if Ford allowed uncurated 3rd party apps, they can be sued from anyone you cream because of a defective app for merely allowing outside apps. You can sign away your right to sue, but not anyone you run into.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary this is the perfect case in my view. I'm really interested in it. I want to know where the law stands here.
Can a company just do whatever it wants in its terms of service?
Yes, Apple says what it says in it's terms of service to developers and the app store.
But are those terms of service legal? Are they abuse of monopoly practices?
Epic makes use of the AppStore to distribute their application and pays whatever fees and compliance to make use of the AppStore. That sounds fine to me.
Yet, then t
Re: Correct complaint, wrong complainant (Score:2)
This analogy is nearly right, but not quite. Apple didnâ(TM)t just build the railroads. It built the customersâ(TM) terminals and rail freight handling equipment too. And Epic can and does ship to the same customers by other means (road = other devices), but wants to use the Apple terminals and equipment as well as the railroads, all for free. And it wants lots of data about the customers too, even though Apple won their business by promising it wouldnâ(TM)t allow shippers access to customer
Re: (Score:2)
Part of Apple's railroad terms of service is that if you use their railroads, you can't use any other shipping service.
Good analogy, since exclusive logistics terms are not illegal and widely employed when doing business with larger companies. Ever wonder why that last thing you ordered from a big mega corp was delivered by a single option from FedEx despite many cheaper options or services being available?
Your railroad analogy (and my logistics one) though falls flat. Apple isn't providing generic transit between a provider and a 3rd party customer. They are providing access to a completely captive market on a completely c
EU (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations are people too.
Re: (Score:2)
Better for which people, and better in what way? Be specific. We can look at other places where Epic is making things "better" in the Epic Game Store fight with Steam.
What does Epic with it's 12% fee offer customers:
Cyberpunk 2077 at 59.99EUR
Borderlands 3 at 59.99EUR
Control Ultimate Edition at 39.99EUR
All powered by a launcher with cloud saves.
What does Steam with it's 30% fee offer customers:
Cyberpunk 2077 at 59.99EUR
Borderlands 3 at 59.99EUR
Control Ultimate Edition at 39.99EUR
All powered by a launcher wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple should buy them and shut them down (Score:2)
That'd be funny!
Re: (Score:1)
How can this be reality?
In 2020, the sadistic, underhanded scumbags at Google have started harassing me by faking "authentication failed" IMAP/SMTP errors randomly, preventing me from using "my" Gmail account. It doesn't help to log in with a browser (which works), even though they tell me to do exactly that. In spite of zero changes on my end, or to the account, it claims that the password is wrong. Until it stops claiming that, in a few days of denying me access to "my" e-mail account, preventing me from fetching or sending a single message for all that time. No explanation of any kind is given when they silently restore access, and it's of course impossible to contact them.
Have you paid Google for this email account? No, so it isn't 'yours'.
In October 2020, my local bank removed the basic feature of allowing you to log in to their website with a simple "PIN" code, in a very limited "read only" state, without being forced to deal with obnoxious and crippling hardware/surveillance units each and every time you want to do anything whatsoever. I used to be able to automate checking the current account balance, the latest transactions and whether or not there were any new "internal messages" with the bank personnel. Now, I no longer have a clue how much money there is in "my" account unless I go through the painful process of manually logging in with the stupid hardware device and entering all kinds of numbers. They arrogantly ignore all complaints about this and refuse to support any other "interface" other than their malicious spyware "smart app"; no API, no RSS feed, not even a lousy e-mail notification. Nothing. Oh, and it's "for my security", they did it to "enhance the customer experience", and they "welcome feedback"...
So you'd rather have anyone using a simple PIN to access your account balance?
Want to contact any random company these days? Expect an e-mail address on their site? Hah! What a joke! You will only be allowed the privilege of e-mailing them if you send all your data to Google (reCAPTCHA). And most force you to use their awful, broken form on top of that, with an absurdly low limit on the number of characters you can type. (Not that they ever read what I ask/tell them anyway...)
You clearly have no idea what reCAPTCHA is...
Have you noticed that people who call Tor "TOR" are always morons? From Tor's official website: 'Tor is not spelled "TOR". Only the first letter is capitalized. In fact, we can usually spot people who haven't read any of our website (and have instead learned everything they know about Tor from news articles) by the fact that they spell it wrong.'
What?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you paid Google for this email account? No, so it isn't 'yours'.
Shit, in 2021, paying for a thing still doesn't make it yours. It gives you some limited right to use it in a way the manufacturer dictates.