Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#51

Post by ben_w »

I think:

1. Multiple App Stores would be good for free speech, and for avoidance of USA cultural and legal hegemony.

2. How can this be done without loss of security for typical users? We don’t want phones to become botnets with microphones and cameras — imagine the opportunities for automatic criminal blackmail, theft planning, target acquisition, or 2FA interception. This is bad for the societies we live in even if we here on HN don’t personally install bad apps or bad stores.

3. It does feel like Sweeney is arguing in bad faith.

4. The the money is being raised as an issue implies these markets are now red-water rather than blue-water.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#52

Post by Someone »

dessant wrote: post #7
brnt wrote: post #3

Earlier 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.

Devil’s advocate: you’re free to run whatever you want on the device you bought, but some of the software you licensed prohibits you from running your software on top of it.

Also, actually running your software may be a challenge because the boot loader and OS are locked down, but you could have known that when you bought the device.

(This is similar to “right to repair”. That isn’t about being allowed to repair your devices, but about making it easier to do so. You’re free to repair your device, but it currently often is almost impossible)

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#53

Post by realusername »

bb123 wrote: post #17
raxxorrax wrote: post #2

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 gam…

For you a threat, for many others a feature. Lots of people buy iPhones specifically because they are restrictive, and are therefore more robust. Ask an average user which experience they prefer - sourcing software for a Windows PC, or downloading an App for an iPhone.

> Lots of people buy iPhones specifically because they are restrictive, and are therefore more robust

Just have a look at a mainstream Youtube video about the latest iPhone and see when they talk about the app review (hint: never). People buy phones based on camera, screen and interface, they never heard about the walled garden or Apple's practices.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#54

Post by MrScruff »

newbie578 wrote: post #37

Doesn't matter if you like or dislike Fortnite and the Epic Store, Tim Sweeney here is correct. Doesn't matter if people like it or not, but freedom of choice must be given to users and developers alike. Choice should not be an option, but a basic right. The people defending Apple and it's walled garden of life remind me of Socrates and his "Allegory of the cave" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave )…

What about the freedom to choose a highly curated platform because you want that and are prepared to pay a premium for it?

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#55

Post by CubsFan1060 »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #23
NoblePublius wrote: post #15

I 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?

Would it change at all if that half of the population chose to live there, knowing Walmart was the only store allowed to operate?

Would it change even further if people moved there BECAUSE Walmart was the only store that was allowed to operate?

And since someone will ask "why would you want that?". The analogy won't completely work, but I'll go with it. When my son wants to buy a bike, they go off and bike a bike. I can be sure that they bought it at Walmart, and that Walmart has done some work to make sure the bike is safe for my son.

If I don't have that, then maybe he buys a bike at "Joe's bike shop". Maybe that bike was made poorly in China. I don't know that the bike he bought was safe.

I mean, https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo.... And, what do you know, Sweeney was mad at Google for finding it.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#56

Post by nabla9 »

NoblePublius wrote: post #15

I think it’s super unfair that I am not allowed to set up a lemonade stand inside of Walmart for free. Monopolistic, even.

The difference is "relevant market" concept.

For physical marketplace we should define relevant geographic market. A relevant geographic market is the area where they the conditions of competition are sufficiently homogeneous. For buying lemonade it's not the case that consumers can reasonably only shop inside Walmart.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#57

Post by ginko »

flohofwoe wrote: post #30
raxxorrax wrote: post #2

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 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…

You seem to be completely forgetting all the other PCs and home computers of their time like the C64 or the Amiga. Without Microsoft opening the market for clones the IBM PC might have remained an overpriced office machine and some other company would have created the most popular computer system.

In any case, none of these(not IBM, not Apple, not Commodore etc.) restricted what software you could run on your computer.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#58

Post by whatever1 »

aetherson wrote: post #8

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 sa…

Following Apples way of thinking, Standard oil was not a monopoly. You could choose to source your energy from coal, power your train with steam etc. But the fact is that it was one.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#59

Post by simion314 »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #11

I’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…

Have you heard about Microsoft or Intel anti trust cases? If it could be done then it must be possible to be done in the present.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#60

Post by CincinnatiMan »

libertine wrote: post #39
CincinnatiMan wrote: post #13

In the global economy, monopolies become a tougher situation. In some ways I’d rather not split Apple or Google if it were to mean a non-US company takes their place, particularly a Chinese one. I understand Epic Games is partially owned by Tencent, which if I wore a tinfoil hat, may concern me in regards to their motives here.

The thing is: the world isn't the US and China. What if it was an European or Indian company?

Well if I have to pick between my country being the top player versus another country, I’d still always pick my country (US). Though an EU or Indian company would be less concerning than Chinese.
Post reply on HN