Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#81

Post by jbverschoor » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:25 PM UTC

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…

The same can be said about creating graphics / games engines such as Unreal and Unity.

As game engines become more and more a part of the fundamental infrastructure of games, and remain relatively expensive and slow to replace, it's not crazy to say that Unreal developers are a market in itself and that market should be protected from monopoly.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#82

Post by pharke » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:25 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #35

luastoned wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? He explicitly forces users to use his/the Epic store, smh.

That’s not inconsistent. Users can choose to use the Epic store or not. If they choose not to use it, they can’t buy games from that store, just like I can’t buy Trader Joe’s food if I decide to not use the TJ’s store.

Exactly, people are having a hissy fit over exclusive content that has no further price than downloading a free store app. It's like whingeing about driving to another store to get the brand of ice cream that you like. I have no problem with that as long as the device manufacturer doesn't limit me to a single store. Preferably I'd like to be able to choose any store or independent content. More choices, more freedom, more competition.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#83

Post by Retric » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:25 PM UTC

ginko wrote: post #47

tokamak-teapot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The review process what makes iOS so useful. People can install random software in a way you can’t safely do on Windows. Sure power users might not notice the difference, but people feel safe hand their phones/tablets to little kids and let them install random games.

Scaling that review process across every update either means everyone pays a percentage which hurts large business or everyone pays a significant fee which hurts independent developers and discourages bug fixes.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#84

Post by major505 » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:25 PM UTC

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 don agree, for example in case of android, you do have the option of alternative app store like f-droid and amazon, and is easy enouth for any user to install them.

And while of apple you don't have this, when you buy a Iphone your trading this liberty for stability and security.

For example, my mother loves to install little games from the store, but she agree with any terms and conditions that pops in the screen. So I feel more secure giving her an Iphone that I know the apps pass for more scrutiny before entering the store.

So I don't see as a monopoly, since you do get option of changing platforms and alternative stores.

I think in this case epic is in the wrong. They start this on purpose to involve the government in the history, just so they can take a bigger share of gullible people who spends to much on skins in fortinite.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#85

Post by drummer » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:26 PM UTC

Apple has every right to decide about their platform. What everyone else needs to do, including Sweeney, is stop developing for that platform and choose open/free platforms. Please go have a chat with rms.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#86

Post by onion2k » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:26 PM UTC

mrbrianhinton wrote: post #49

tokamak-teapot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I strongly suspect that if Apple win this case against Epic and get an official court-sanctioned nod that their monopoly on iOS software sales is acceptable we'll see developer fees double or triple within a couple of years and the 30% IAP fee get ratcheted up to 40 or 50% over the next decade (unless you're big enough to negotiate).

Developers would make a bit less (although still more than they make on Android) and Apple would make a lot more.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#87

Post by Sangeppato » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:26 PM UTC

mchristen wrote: post #67

tokamak-teapot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He's talking about iOS, not macOS

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#88

Post by ubercow13 » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:26 PM UTC

smileybarry wrote: post #10

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…

> 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…

Is it possible to use something like SweetFX with Windows Store apps? Last I checked you didn't even have access to the where program's files are stored. It's designed to limit user freedoms just like the App Store is. Something like PCGamingWiki would be useless in a world where software was all distributed that way.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#89

Post by Google234 » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:28 PM UTC

realusername wrote: post #53

bb123 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think most users appreciate the lack of malware on IPhones.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#90

Post by pharke » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 12:28 PM UTC

realusername wrote: post #53

bb123 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

and branding, never forget the branding.