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

71–80 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#71

Post by nabla9 »

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…

Just because company creates market where products and services are sold, does not mean that the market is outside competition law.

> If you don’t like it, distribute differently.

Relevant market for networked multiplayer games can't be divided between platforms. People who own iPhones and Android phones play the same game online with their friends. Epic can't stay competitive and stay outside Apple AppStore and sell only for Android pones.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#72

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

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…

> “As smartphones become more and more a part of the fundamental infrastructure of society”

This perspective underpins a lot of the pushback against Apple & Google but I just don’t understand it.

Any cell phone, and especially a smartphone, is not integral to modern society. Random usage by consumers is recreational. Businesses have a million ways to replace things they ask employees to rely on smartphones for. In fact not all uses of smartphones are productivity increasing, and it could easily be argued that we need better ways to just switch them off, whether at work or at home, to get things done.

An iPhone is like a video game console. Whether you use for seemingly “important” things like PagerDuty or day trading or checking your child’s location or hailing a car ride for a home-bound elder or sick person ... the smartphone is purely extra consumer gadgetry to do it and it could be accomplished many other ways.

Given that smartphones are just an optional, convenient luxury item, I don’t see how any argument about them being critical to modern society can possibly be used to claim Apple must be forced to operate its app distribution channel a certain way or cannot set its own monetization policies.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#73

Post by LegitShady »

pjmlp wrote: post #28
KitDuncan wrote: post #19

Microsoft 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.

It's not mindless it's just he's lying about what he values

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#74

Post by Igelau »

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…

> App stores and restrictive operation systems are a real threat

What we need is a true champion against this stuff. Someone who is willing to sacrifice normalcy and convenience to be fully committed to software that is free as in freedom, not free as in beer.

Imagine a "free software movement". It could center around the GNU toolchain and spiral out from there.

Now, where is our hero? We've put up the signal but I do not see him. I hope nothing bad has happened...

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#75

Post by ianai »

Crazy idea: if you want a free as in speech App Store then why isn’t the request for a free as in speech mobile OS?

The claim is there isn’t a company backing it - presumably from lack of market demand for it. There have been attempts but they’ve not gained steam. Even Google is now moving away from Linux as the core of android.

I generally agree that we need some countervailing pressure against the monopolies of today. But I can’t help to suspect there’s an argument to be made that turns the argument on its head: in a free market it is valid to tell someone asking for a product to produce their own desired good. If it’s a popular idea the implementation has a chance at being popular.

The counter to this would probably include lack of hardware to really target. Apples not letting anyone side load an entirely different OS on its phones, for instance.

Maybe that’s an angle to counter these monopolies without needing to go so far as to dissect them into smaller companies? Simply pass a law saying hardware and software should always be self contained goods - you can bundle them but have to offer them separately too.

Ninja edit- I think in that universe with self contained goods that hardware companies would have to make source code for drivers OSS (why should they care where it’s ran?) or enough information to make writing drivers possible.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#76

Post by madeofpalk »

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…

The Windows/Epic situation really is the "best case scenario". You can download and install software from anywhere. Plus, there's an "app store" from the OS vendor, plus a few specality competing ones for things like games, where both consumers and developers have the choice of where they download/publish.

Epic competing with Steam has been a great success for everyone I think. Developers get secure funding for games that they otherwise wouldnt be able to make. Consumers get more games, plus they get hefty discounts or even just free games. Ideally we would then see Valve/Steam trying to compete in response.

It's win/win/win.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#77

Post by IncRnd »

sunshinerag wrote: post #5

Yes, 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.

But, he cannot feasibly do that, which is exactly why Epic has sued Apple.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#78

Post by Zhyl »

kyran_adept wrote: post #26
sunshinerag wrote: post #5

Yes, 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.

You can leverage existing alternatives, which they already do to some extent. Epic has invested massively in Blender, for example.

It's interesting that they've gone the 'pick a fight' route, when 8 years ago when Valve had similar concerns about Windows 8 they did as GP suggested and rolled their own Linux distro and made a bid for the living room space. That particular offensive failed, but Valve's continued investment in the Linux space now means that now, 8 years later, most AAA games without Anti-cheat or some kinds of DRM can be played on Linux seamlessly.

If Epic wanted to do likewise, they could invest in Librem 5 or Pinephone and make alternatives more viable.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#79

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

nabla9 wrote: post #71
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…

Just because company creates market where products and services are sold, does not mean that the market is outside competition law. > If you don’t like it, distribute differently. Relevant market for networked multiplayer games can't be divided between platforms. People who own iPhones and Android phones play the same game online with their friends. Epic can't stay competitive and stay outside Apple AppStore and sell…

Sure Epic can. They can distribute their game as a fully in-browser web app, including building out all the infrastructure required to make this work (like Apple did). Or Epic can create standalone hardware devices that connect to their game network, do market research and user testing on what makes a good device, develop optimized supply chain and production systems to make the device realizable, and spend on marketing to convince consumers to buy and love the device, also like Apple did.

I play chess against people on any devices, through chess.com in a browser, even on my mobile devices.

“Epic can’t stay competitive” in that scenario is 100% Epic’s problem, they are not owed a slot in an app store distribution mechanism that they also don’t have to obey the policies of.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#80

Post by IncRnd »

MrScruff wrote: post #54
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?

What about it? You, personally, making that choice shouldn't force everyone else to pay 30% eternally to Apple.
Post reply on HN