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

201–210 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#201

Post by DivisionSol »

jpambrun wrote: post #176
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…

Apple & Google both did it, and are doing nothing to stop others from entering the (phone) market.

Just because a market is hard or expensive to get into doesn't mean it's not a market worth entering. The real crux is Epic doesn't actually want an open phone platform, they just want to be software rent-slurping middlemen for an arbitrary 'cut' of a pie.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#202

Post by parasubvert »

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 )…

This is a silly argument. By this logic there can be no contract law - which is all about exclusion and restricting freedoms by agreement.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#203

Post by simion314 »

mirthflat83 wrote: post #184
enragedcacti wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Please give me examples of apps I’m missing out on as an average consumer because I’m all for missing out on malwares

Any example that will be provided the fanboys will explain why they themselves don't need that application. The big example are web browsers (but you all are happy with the new IE) , GPL apps and some very popular game called Fortnite you might have hear of. I am wondering if you can refund your iPhone because a month ago you could play this game and now it will be blocked.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#204

Post by hortense »

nonane wrote: post #31
Traster wrote: post #22

I think a lot of people have short memories. When Apple launched the iPhone computer security was a disaster, the security of the AppStore was a massive benefit and the fact that we don't have massive botnets of mobile phones is in no small part down to the massive effort that was put into security. But they seem to have solved this problem so well that people have forgotten it was even a problem to begin with.

This line of argument is incorrect: It’s not the AppStore that makes secure apps possible: It’s the mandatory sandbox that apps run inside that actually makes the system secure. It’s fairly easy to push malicious code to the AppStore but bypassing the sandbox restrictions is what keeps bad apps at bay.

Reading the comments it seems that very few people understand this, which seems incredible to me.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#205

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

coldtea wrote: post #21

> Since then, Sweeney, an iconoclastic executive who owns enormous farms and dabbles in fast cars And overworks his employees to exhaustion, while stomping on their unionizing...

I think Epic has miscalculated the optics on this. There is no underdog in this story. It's just two enormous companies, run by very wealthy men, who put corporate profits and stock options above employee welfare, squabbling over how much of the pie they get to eat, when neither one can finish their first slice. I want them both to lose.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#206

Post by tpxl »

danShumway wrote: post #189
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.

> and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me. I don't think the exclusives are good for users, but from a developer perspective this is an oversimplification. Epic is essentially pre-funding games. If you're an indie dev who's been working on a game for 3-5 years, literally everything you have is riding on that release going well. It's incredibly stressful. So suddenly this billionaire shows up and says, "no…

I know the dev gets a good deal out of it (probably more money than all the lost sales). It's still bad for the consumer (except if the title would never get released otherwise).

If a developer chooses to only publish on steam, that's not really the platforms fault, is it? I dislike that some games use steam login/servers as well, but there is a trade-off: those steam servers will probably exist 10 years from now, where a lot of multiplayer games simply shut down their servers and you're out of luck. If Valve open sourced their steam infra, that would alleviate problems with self-hosting those games while allowing the devs ease of use and guaranteed infra.

>I won't install the Epic game store on my computer.

I won't either, and neither would I install steam, except for inertia (250 games bought).

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#207

Post by Danieru »

mirthflat83 wrote: post #184
enragedcacti wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Please give me examples of apps I’m missing out on as an average consumer because I’m all for missing out on malwares

You the average consumer would love to play Fortnite. Your kid has been pretty downer lately since Apple banned it. All your child's friends play it but you would prefer not to spend extra money just to buy a console. You the average consumer need Fornite.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#208

Post by parasubvert »

nabla9 wrote: post #115
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 market…

Are you trying to be sarcastic?

Not that I can tell. He is also completely right.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#209

Post by madeofpalk »

brnt wrote: post #3
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…

Epic Store successfully taking games exclusive makes Sweeneys priorities clear: they are no different than Apple's or Google's. I hope Epic fighting this fight will not obscure that.

> Epic Store successfully taking games exclusive

People keep bringing this up as a negative, but ignore a) that many games are exclusively on Steam and b) Epic gives guaranteed revenue to developers, derisking development.

There is absolutely nothing wrong imho with companies wanting to make their own stores, set their own rules, with whatever exclusivity, to make money for themselves, AS LONG AS there is (fair and equal) competition in the market so if people (developers and/or customers) do not like the rules, they can go elsewhere.

Competition is good!

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#210

Post by parasubvert »

summerlight wrote: post #68
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.

It is incredible that people actually think this is the end of history with regards to mobile device operating systems, and we should just declare Android and iOS And their ecosystems public utilities.

Windows once had 95% market share and that didn’t even happen.

Post reply on HN