>Since then, Sweeney, an iconoclastic executive who owns enormous farms and dabbles in fast cars
And overworks his employees to exhaustion, while stomping on their unionizing...
Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
21–30 of 456 posts
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#22I think a lot of people have short memories. When Apple launched the iPhone computer security was a disaster, the security of the AppStore was a massive benefit and the fact that we don't have massive botnets of mobile phones is in no small part down to the massive effort that was put into security. But they seem to have solved this problem so well that people have forgotten it was even a problem to begin with.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#23I think it’s super unfair that I am not allowed to set up a lemonade stand inside of Walmart for free. Monopolistic, even.
Would this change at all if Walmart was the only store allowed to operate in an area corresponding to about half the US population?
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#24App 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 gam…
Windows store did not fail as such, it is just uptaking slowly than Microsoft had hoped for.
In fact, if it wasn't for the current situation the world is on, Windows 10X would have had UWP/Win32 sandbox only apps.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#25App 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 gam…
> 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.
I agree but people who are criticizing Epic for this are missing the real point. It is good if Epic can actually take a big chunk of the pie. Sure you could say they're being hypocrites, but from the point of view of users and developers, it's good to have more competition in the platform arena. Currently it's basically duopoly between Google and Apple. A new actor like Epic can change the dynamics and that is good.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#26Yes, it can be stopped. All Tim Sweeney is to do is build another mobile hardware/software platform and set the rules for app distribution however he likes. That is the way to beat a monopoly.
The closer you are to the root of the tree, the harder it is to "build an alternative". It's the same for the road system, power distribution system, mobile platforms(Android, Apple), etc. I can't afford as a customer to buy a device just to play Fortnite, nor should I.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Epic Store successfully taking games exclusive makes Sweeneys priorities clear: they are no different than Apple's or Google's. I hope Epic fighting this fight will not obscure that.
In all honesty Satan himself could have sued Apple for all we care, what's important now is that there is someone who has the resources and willingness to fight for our right to sideload apps on our own devices.
Sideloading is not the goal. The goal is to establish another store front to sell games with. This is no fight to open up the device, it's a fight to gain profit.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#28Microsoft is apparently not one of the monopolies he wants stopped, because he is incredibly hostile towards Linux and Linux support for games. I can't stand this dude and his ramblings.
He is just trying to push Epic Store and getting part of the pie, everything else is mindless blah blah.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#29App 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 gam…
> 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 i…
In my experience, Linux repositories are all of the upsides you mentioned (trusted, auto-updated, signed (at repo level, at least)) with none of the lock-in downsides, since you can add third party repositories (and then use them via the same workflow you're already comfortable with!).
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#30App 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 gam…
I've been thinking that the PC as an open platform was a "happy historical accident" that only happened because IBM lost its iron grip over the platform and failed to regain it because hardware clones and Microsoft were quick to jump into the opportunity that had presented itself because IBM didn't look for a second. And maybe Apple is looking at 80's IBM and is now afraid that the exact same thing may happen to them.
If this accident hadn't happened, the entire computing world would probably look very different. All the software giants like Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon wouldn't exist because they couldn't have become big on a closed IBM-controlled platform. Apple might only exist because IBM let them live as the convenient underdog, same way as Firefox is being kept alive by Google to thwart off any suspicions that there's a browser monopoly.
Maybe PCs wouldn't exist at all and we'd be all sitting in front of IBM mini-terminals now, connected to the cloud running on System/360 mainframes.