Two only choices of mobile OS, thats concerning for sure.
Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
41–50 of 456 posts
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#42App 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 believe the current system for protecting iOS and its users could easily be split in two. There could be two exit points from the review process. One would be for apps that don’t want to be on the App Store. They could be cleared as free from malware, egregious behaviour, etc. and allowed to be installed through any independent means. The higher level would be for apps that should be on the App Store. This means th…
This seems like a reasonable idea.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#43App 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…
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.
I wish people weren't so quick to jump to this simplistic "who's the good guy and who's the bad guy?" mentality. It's quite possible for Epic to be a bad guy in their own right and still have a valid grievance against Apple, and it's quite possible that it would be better for a lot of smaller devs that this was changed even if Epic is doing this for their own bottom line's sake, not because they are altruistic.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#44Doesn't Epic have a pretty big monopoly in the game industry?
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#45App 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…
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.
Valve did the same if I am not mistaken you had to install their launcher to play half Life. Now Epic is fighting back with similar tactics and as long as they offer a better deal to the developers, same or better prices for user then I am Ok with it (I did not install the Epic Launcher so far but I claimed a free game just in case)
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Sweeney wants the same software to be available on every app store. He wants users to have a choice of which app store to use. Effectively he wants the same deal as there is for PC gaming - eg multiple stores available that users can choose from - to be the case for mobile (and possibly consoles as well).
What? He explicitly forces users to use his/the Epic store, smh.
He doesn't force anybody to use the Epic Store. Unless you want to play Fortinite (which is made and published by Epic Games) or games that have an exclusivity contract with the Epic Store.
This is much, much different than the position of Apple or Google. They don't have to pass an exclusivity contract with anybody since they have a de-facto monopoly on their device. Want you game to be playable on iPhone ? You need to pay Apple rate, you can't just decide to go an publish your game on steam or any other platform.
Nobody is complaining that you can't have iTune on another platform. But for third-party developer, it means that you have no choice but to agree with Apple and Google rates. Granted, the situation with Google is a bit different since you can technically install another store, but remember that Microsoft was forced to stop pre-installing IE on Windows and offer user a choice of browser. I hardly see how this is any different than the current situation of Apple / Google.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#47App 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 believe the current system for protecting iOS and its users could easily be split in two. There could be two exit points from the review process. One would be for apps that don’t want to be on the App Store. They could be cleared as free from malware, egregious behaviour, etc. and allowed to be installed through any independent means. The higher level would be for apps that should be on the App Store. This means th…
>There could be two exit points from the review process. One would be for apps that don’t want to be on the App Store. They could be cleared as free from malware, egregious behaviour, etc. and allowed to be installed through any independent means.
I don't see how such a review process would work for free software. The user should be free to run whatever software they wish on their own device.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#48I think it’s super unfair that I am not allowed to set up a lemonade stand inside of Walmart for free. Monopolistic, even.
I agree.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#49App 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 believe the current system for protecting iOS and its users could easily be split in two. There could be two exit points from the review process. One would be for apps that don’t want to be on the App Store. They could be cleared as free from malware, egregious behaviour, etc. and allowed to be installed through any independent means. The higher level would be for apps that should be on the App Store. This means th…
I'm fine with that. As long as their Developer fee is significantly more.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#50I’m surprised to find myself siding with Apple / Google / etc on this. They did the work to build and maintain a distribution platform. They should be able to define its terms of use and costs. If you don’t like it, distribute differently. If everyone uses those companies’ devices, it’s a market endorsement that the world wants the standardization and managed ecosystem of each platform - that it’s a thing of value. I…
They don't have to run infrastructure, they just have to update iOS to remove the signature check on binaries and support installing IPAs from Safari downloads, so that there is no need for their app store anymore.