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

61–70 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#61

Post by willis936 »

ben_w wrote: post #51

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 don’t want phones to become botnets with microphones and cameras

They already are. Walled gardens do nothing to prevent this.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#63

Post by devit »

luastoned wrote: post #20
onion2k wrote: post #9

Earlier 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.

Why is that a problem?

You can just install all game stores on Windows and there is no downside to doing so, and no real difference between installing the Epic store and purchasing a game there and buying the game on the game publisher's website.

Also currently Steam has a dominant position and 30% cut, and if the Epic store succeeds it will result in a more competitive situation with at least two game stores probably taking a 5-15% cut, which is a drastic improvement for everyone except for Valve, which makes Steam.

Same thing on mobile if Epic succeeds in the antitrust lawsuit with Google/Apple stores instead of Steam.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#64

Post by flohofwoe »

ginko wrote: post #57
flohofwoe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compute…

Not forgotten, I was an Amiga owner myself ;) But somehow these machines feel like belonging to another universe today. Commodore management would have ruined the company either way, this didn't require any help from the PC. Atari would probably have focused on the games console business.

Anyway, it's fun to speculate about alternative futures :)

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#65

Post by whatever1 »

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…

Thankfully the legislators don’t think this way, otherwise we would all have only att service

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#66

Post by pharke »

myspy wrote: post #27
dessant wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If they set a precedent then it is likely we will get at least a few more stores if not an abundance. That's at least some improvement. There's an off chance of a complete opening up of iOS devices but I wouldn't bet on it.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#67

Post by mchristen »

tokamak-teapot wrote: post #38
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 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…

Isn't that how it works now though?

I have an app that is not distributed via the app store, but is still notarized by Apple and has no Gatekeeper warning when you install it.

You still have to pay the Apple Tax to get your software signed and notarized though.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#68

Post by summerlight »

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…

> They should be able to define its terms of use and costs.

As long as it doesn't conflict with public interests. For this purpose, antitrust laws are designed to tackle this particular type of situations.

> the world wants the standardization and managed ecosystem of each platform

This maybe true, and such standards might also be too important to be controlled by just one or two companies.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#69

Post by LegitShady »

chii wrote: post #33
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'…

Epic's platform is not a monopoly even if they successfully made one. steam is not a monopoly, even if they currently have a large market share, because the user is able to install their software outside of the steam platform. Some games choose to not release on multiple platforms - but that's not a monopoly. And other games _do_ choose to release on multiple platforms, or choose to release independently of a platfor…

Epic phase to have the monopoly on certain unique products while Tim Sweeney says he values consumer choice. Sweeney is a liar.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#70

Post by justaman »

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 CCP puts the US/EU is a tricky spot because of their state sponsored corporations. On one hand, they adopt capitalism; on the other, communism. If the CCP can pump a near endless flow of cash into something that will compete with a major corporation elsewhere in the world, is this a bad thing? Would Amazon be a monopoly without Alibaba? Is it reasonable to hold the position that both Alibaba and Amazon should be broken up into small companies? I think so. The CCP certainly will not agree.
Post reply on HN