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

141–150 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#141

Post by fuu_dev »

A lot of the time i see people/youtubers mention that they like the benefits of the App store that would be gone if anything changes.

But why is this invalidated by allowing allowing the user to install software from other sources, allow a the user to install a browser that is not a skin on top of safari, allow non apple game streaming services on the platform, allow the use of images/text that mentions or shows competing software company logos/names, allow apps to show price differences in payment processing or allow established payment methods like PayPal to be used on the platform.

If would still allow the same user to only use apple pay or the apple version of their loved service of choice but also gives users that don't alternatives.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#144

Post by tempodox »

Since this war is about making money from controlling access to the users, I don't feel like siding with either Apple or Epic on this. Letting the sheep decide by which wolf they will be eaten isn't that great of a choice.

From my own personal perspective, I would like to be able to permanently install an app that I developed myself, on my own Mac, on the iOS devices that I own without having to go through the app store or Apple's review process. But I'm not holding my breath that the outcome of this fight will deliver even that.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#145

Post by pjmlp »

cheph wrote: post #94
ianai wrote: post #75

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 tod…

> Even Google is now moving away from Linux as the core of android. Could not find much about this, could you link to something that provides more details on it?

Besides Fuchsia, that no one knows what it might be all about.

Project Treble kind of isolates Linux kernel from modern Android drivers, where standard Linux drivers are considered legacy, while Treble drivers follow a mikrokernel like approach using Android IPC to talk to the kernel.

https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/hal-types

Also note that Linux specific calls aren't part of the official APIs exposed to userspace,

https://source.android.com/compatibility/11/android-11-cdd#3...

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#146

Post by rusticpenn »

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.

This is the main reason why I had to move my parents from android to IOS. The free apks were ruining their experience and my work/support/life balance.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#147

Post by anoraca »

trabant00 wrote: post #128
pjmlp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is just trying to push Epic Store and getting part of the pie, everything else is mindless blah blah.

Exactly. He's just using keywords like monopoly and stuff to gather support. And overall I don't understand why people take sides in corporate battles like any of those mega corporations stand for morals or the greater good or anything like that.

Because some corporations actually do make efforts towards improving society: https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/ https://www.apple.com/environment/

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#148

Post by tpxl »

viraptor wrote: post #134
tpxl wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean consumers need to download yet another gaming service collecting god knows what to get the same games they used to get on Steam? I've no problem with the Epic store, but their exclusives are a cancer and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me.

> they cost game devs money in lost sales from me. I still don't get how the exclusives are a good deal for the creators. They get more publicity and probably some extra money for the contract. But does it really offset the lost sales? There was a large number of times when I went though: this game looks awesome, I'll buy it, oh it's exclusive for whatever-platform-i-don't-have, ... and likely not remember about it e…

In the case of Epic games, they shovel money their way with a _biiig_ shovel, even for free games.

I don't know about PS/Xbox, but the situation is probably similar.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#149

Post by izacus »

trabant00 wrote: post #128
pjmlp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is just trying to push Epic Store and getting part of the pie, everything else is mindless blah blah.

Exactly. He's just using keywords like monopoly and stuff to gather support. And overall I don't understand why people take sides in corporate battles like any of those mega corporations stand for morals or the greater good or anything like that.

Because one side of this dispute benefits us as customers. It's that simple.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#150

Post by paulryanrogers »

tpxl wrote: post #118
madeofpalk wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You mean consumers need to download yet another gaming service collecting god knows what to get the same games they used to get on Steam? I've no problem with the Epic store, but their exclusives are a cancer and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me.

If the alternative is not publishing the game at all, or never on PC then it's still a benefit. Are any of their thirty party, exclusivity deals permanent?

If you want to play any Valve games without Steam then you're out of luck.

Having another store is a low barrier to entry.

Imagine there was only one store for groceries in your whole state. And when you go to court a chorus rebukes you for not selling your produce there instead of opening another nearby.

Post reply on HN