Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

App stores and restrictive operation systems are a real threat in my opinion. We were really lucky that developers and users let at least the Windows store fail. You can earn good and easy money on those under the condition you get a minimal exposure, but I shudder to think this is the future of software.

I think Sweeney is correct, although I also think Epic tried to do the same. Their success with some of their games created capital that they used to create their own platform. Maybe as a defense mechanism or maybe because they wanted part of the pie.

If a larger developer like Epic has no recourse on store owners, the average developer will have even less. Remember the old times that actually isn't nostalgia? You could just install anything you wanted on your OS that respected your device. Great times.

Where the money cone from. Who help those small merchant that pay only $99 and some portion to get into such large platform.

Still remember the cost of Getting into windows developer.

To be honest they are not small player. If they fight for lower percentage for small player may be ... but if rich one do not pay

Actions can be judged independent from the actor.

If Apple fought against one or many extractive ecosystems that would be a good thing even though Apple itself does profit and plans to continue to profit from their own extractive ecosystem. ...same with Epic.

Apple's defense that they are not a monopolist in any traditional sense is correct as far as it goes.

But a novel definition of monopoly may be warranted. As smartphones become more and more a part of the fundamental infrastructure of society, and remain relatively expensive and slow to replace, it's not crazy to say that iPhone users are a market in itself and that market should be protected from monopoly. In the same way that a company in the 1800s might not have been a national or regional monopoly, but very much was a monopoly in their own company town, or how car manufacturers in the 20th Century were forced to allow competition in repair services.

I think ultimately, right now, my personal sense is that iPhones don't quite rise to the level of their own market that needs to be opened up, but it's close.

> We were really lucky that developers and users let at least the Windows store fail.

This might be an unpopular opinion but: I like the comfort of the Windows Store regarding installation & updates for Win32 apps. The app is installed into its own little corner and a lot of them also come with their own contained registry hive. I don't need a thousand auto update services or an app updating itself only when I open it. And the store requires extensive file signing so as long as I know it's the right developer, the need to manually check installer signatures goes out the window. And regarding minimal exposure, if you simply use it as a download source and redirect customers there, Microsoft takes only 5%.

I didn't like S Mode, Windows RT, the restriction to use just the store, etc. That shouldn't be forced upon the already-open PC platform. But I liked having a trusted channel for applications. (I don't mean that every app on there was trustworthy but you get what I mean, like above)

> I think Sweeney is correct, although I also think Epic tried to do the same. Their success with some of their games created capital that they used to create their own platform. Maybe as a defense mechanism or maybe because they wanted part of the pie.

That's what I think, too. Tim Sweeney likes to harp on about consumer choice, store freedom and such -- but with all the exclusives it's clear they just want to be the new Steam. They want you to have a big Epic Games Store library that you can't give up on, that you would always prefer to add to instead of going to another store. That's why they have these weekly free games, to get everyone to start a foundation of games without having to convince them to buy any for that to happen.