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

171–180 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#171

Post by enragedcacti »

mirthflat83 wrote: post #132
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…

It's the "best case scenario" for developers and Epic, but not for me as a customer. I vastly prefer the iPhone model where I can go to a single place to download all the apps that I need with a single payment method. I don't have to go to a specific url in the browser, download an executable, install a separate store for each game I want, and then finally install the game from that separate store. I don't know who w…

> all the apps that I need

Correction: all the apps that Apple thinks you need, regardless of whether or not it aligns with what you need or want.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#172

Post by kodablah »

mirthflat83 wrote: post #132
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…

It's the "best case scenario" for developers and Epic, but not for me as a customer. I vastly prefer the iPhone model where I can go to a single place to download all the apps that I need with a single payment method. I don't have to go to a specific url in the browser, download an executable, install a separate store for each game I want, and then finally install the game from that separate store. I don't know who w…

Well of course you're going to prefer an anti-competitive approach if you view competition as burdensome. This has analogies in many industries.

You should divorce your personal anti-competition desires from the non-personal discussion. Encouraging choice is often a better way to give more people what they want.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#173

Post by mcintyre1994 »

CubsFan1060 wrote: post #55
mcintyre1994 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's definitely a valid point. I've made the comment before that one of the problems of a more open App platform is that Facebook would replicate their malicious app advertising business on iOS and millions of people would have worse experiences with their phone because of it. It's ridiculous the stuff they're willing to push ads for on Android and Google are willing to host on their store, and it's no loss to iOS that suchs apps aren't available.

But a lemonade stand in a Walmart wouldn't necessarily harm consumers, and lots of things Apple blocks or requires a cut of wouldn't either if things were changed.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#174

Post by parasubvert »

m9ma35 wrote: post #129
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…

I think its a bit of a chicken/egg problem here. If there is no apps/appstore the OS will be a flop, but if there is no free OS there will probably not be a free app-ecosystem. Used to have a Nokia N9, awesome phone, great OS, but there weren't any apps to speak of which I think is a large part of why MeeGo died. Honestly the one way I see out of this is if web-apps largely replace native apps, which means that a new…

You’ve hit it.

There’s a reason the web once was a threat to Microsoft’s monopoly: it led to rich experiences they couldn’t control.

The web is so popular, Apple couldn’t block it. The trick to attacking them anticompetitively is to enhance the browser to take advantage of modern hardware capabilities and then go after the iOS browser restrictions as anticompetitive.

Google Stadia is an example of this arguably. But with things coming up like WASM I could see the browser being a local experience for games too.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#175

Post by tutino »

Zhyl wrote: post #78
kyran_adept wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 invest…

That's interesting because indeed Librem 5, Pinephone, etc. could be indeed a unique opportunity for Epic (and Valve) to have their own mobile stores under their own rules.

Sure, currently it is insignificant, but so is Linux Desktop, yet Valve invests in Wine/Photon/Wayland/etc. and on the long run it might pay off when they'll have their own consoles.

I don't really understand Tim S. , on one hand he hates Apple monopoly, on the other hand he also hates Linux which is the only viable alternative, yet he still supports open source a lot (e.g epic mega grant)

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#176

Post by jpambrun »

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.

That's a really simple view of the issue. You can't reasonably think even a large corporation such as Epic can achieve that. That is what makes Apple/Google a duopoly in the mobile computing space. At this point, without any state intervention, they can abuse their position of power to bully devs and consumer.

I don't care that they had to "work hard" to get there or whatever; the fact is they now have too much power.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#177

Post by willis936 »

Google234 wrote: post #92
willis936 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We don’t want phones to become botnets with microphones and cameras They already are. Walled gardens do nothing to prevent this.

They do a ton to prevent this. I’ve not heard of issues with botnets on IPhones or Macs

They don’t. The spying is by design.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/once-pariahs-location-tracking-...

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#178

Post by gimmeThaBeet »

I don't think attacks on Epic's sort of 'suitability' in fighting this dragon are really warranted. Like godzilla vs. king kong, I think the only entities with the financial strength and influence to tangle with apple/google is going to be a bit of a monster in their own right.

My feelings about this do tend to vacillate. My opinion right now is sort of circumstantial, in that I don't think it's even tongue in cheek to call 30% the apple/google tax.

apple defends itself with the work it puts into maintaining app store quality. But imo enforced app quality and the store experience is something you sell to customers, not developers.

So apple talks about how there's so many free apps that never give apple a nickel. I can understand differentiated pricing for different customers, but framing app developers as app store customers is where I feel apple and google run afoul. So it's like, why is it acceptable that mega-apps like fortnite are basically levied to support the app store, that apple turns around and presents to the customer and says "look how nice we made this"?

I don't know, it feels like the anti "developers, developers, developers". They don't have to make any concession to promote developers to use their platform, because there practically isn't much of a choice, between the two they're nearly the only game in town.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#179

Post by falcolas »

_coveredInBees wrote: post #170
jcstauffer wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how that's a benefit for users (multiple app stores). What he wants is the right to build his own App Store so that he can charge his own "tax" and (hopefully) become a monopolist.

How in the world do you not see competing app stores not providing value to consumers from a price competition perspective? It's not like every game on every platform on Windows is a platform exclusive. I've availed of exceptional prices on games strictly because of competition across platforms, especially when one decides to offer up a sale.

Because on the PC, the oft-heralded perfect platform because there are multiple stores, there is no price competition? Epic giveaways aside (which is marketing, not competition), games go on sale on most platforms at the same time, for the same prices.

I, a customer, am not getting a price discount for a game on the EGS, despite the lower middleman cut.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#180

Post by input_sh »

izacus wrote: post #140
isodev wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried buying a game from Epic on Windows? The "Epic Client" asks you for payment details, collects all kinds of private information and doesn't let you do anything unless it's up to date and connected to the internet. (DRM hello?) Then you go to the Windows Store to buy that candy crush ad that's been sitting in your Start Menu for no reason and oh surprise, they are asking for payment details again! Doesn't…

Note how you can easily just go to another provider (Steam, GoG) to buy the same content. Something you are forever and ever forbidden from doing if Apples data collection and terms bother you.

Epic purchases exclusivity whenever it can. Some games were kickstarted with the promise of being available on Steam until Epic gave them a sum of money to make them an Epic exclusive, screwing over their backers in the process. In some of those cases, Epic funded refunds to the backers, in others it didn't.

In plenty of cases this exclusivity also shut down cross platform support of the games. Fundraisers planned macOS and Linux versions of the games, but when Epic purchased exclusive rights they were effectively made Windows exclusives as well (Epic's store is only available on Windows).

Post reply on HN