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

221–230 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#221

Post by brnt »

coldpie wrote: post #185
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.

Hey there, I work in the Linux gaming space. Epic and Tim Sweeney are not hostile towards Linux. The worst you can say is they're indifferent (and can you blame them, given the size of that market?), but even that is not true. Epic's game engine supports Linux. Could they do more to support Linux gaming? Sure. But that's not the same as being "incredibly hostile."

No Epic Store in Linux. Repeatedly stated they've no plans to.

Meanwhile, Steam is doubling down with Proton. Since Proton, I don't have a Windows partition around anymore, it just works for an enormous number of titles.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#222

Post by brnt »

madeofpalk wrote: post #209
brnt wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

> Competition is good!

On Linux, the Epic Store does not compete and therefore it does not add choice for me.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#223

Post by wayneftw »

jcstauffer wrote: post #99
onion2k wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Sweeney wants the same software to be available on every app store. He wants users to have a choice of which app store to use. Effectively he wants the same deal as there is for PC gaming - eg multiple stores available that users can choose from - to be the case for mobile (and possibly consoles as well).

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.

> I'm not sure how that's a benefit for users (multiple app stores).

The same way multiple grocery stores benefit customers. It gives them a choice.

> 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.

That makes no sense because once the door is open for multiple app stores, there's even less of a chance to become a monopolist. To become a monopolist Epic would have to build their own smartphone platform and get enough market share to effectively control the market, like Apple has done.

Also, when using the generic term it's app store, not App Store. Apple does not have a trademark on the generic term app store [0], they have only registered for that trademark and they will lose even that if challenged. Apple is so petty though that your iPhone automatically capitalizes it anyway.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_store#%22App_Store%22_trad...

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#224

Post by _coveredInBees »

falcolas wrote: post #179
_coveredInBees wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> games go on sale on most platforms at the same time, for the same prices

Hmm... I wonder why that is? Must be some mysterious phenomena involving price competition between stores...

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#225

Post by arrrg »

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

Emulators are one large category that’s not allowed by Apple, for example.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#226

Post by parasubvert »

It is an incredible lack of imagination 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 that should be regulated by the government.

Because that really is the only recourse here to give people what they want.

Markets aren’t created by god, they’re created by customers. If you want to force the creation of an App Store market, one that customers aren’t actually asking for, it will need to be government-mandated.

Maybe there will be a weak sauce version of this where the review process isn’t regulated but the commission rates are regulated. We aren’t going back to the PC model where a thousand app stores bloom. No government will force that - there’s too much risk for malware and spyware as it is. At best it will be government-sanctioned stores with a government-sanctioned review process.

Windows once had 95% market share (still does!) and this hasn’t happened, even though Microsoft still gets a cut of almost every PC sale.

Be careful what you wish for. Folks here really haven’t studied history of antitrust beyond scanning Wikipedia.

There is a ton potential for new devices and platforms in VR, AR, and other experiences. The current state of affairs is not permanent. Most historical antitrust actions had very limited positive effects on consumers. The Standard Oil breakup, for example, is often cited. But it’s breakup didn’t really fix anything. Its children became bigger than the parent within a few years! Same with the AT&T breakup. It led to oligopoly. The only real telecom competition has been foreign entrants like T-Mobile. Microsoft’s consent decree had almost no impact on its monopoly status and revenue steam. What mattered was the market changing, to the point we didn’t care about the Windows monopoly anymore. There were other platforms that mattered in iOS, Android.

Valve has a near monopoly for PC game app stores and is poised to compete with Facebook and Apple for the next generation of VR/AR. Epic wants in on that. And likely there will be others.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#227

Post by brnt »

m12k wrote: post #43
brnt wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wish people weren't so quick to jump to this simplistic "who's the good guy and who's the bad guy?" mentality. It's quite possible for Epic to be a bad guy in their own right and still have a valid grievance against Apple, and it's quite possible that it would be better for a lot of smaller devs that this was changed even if Epic is doing this for their own bottom line's sake, not because they are altruistic.

To be clear: I'm not painting Epic to be bad or good, just that they're as much after their bottom line as the incumbents. That produces a potentially beneficial change for the incumbent platforms, but also a potentially negative change in the same way that having another video streaming service with a proprietary library does not add value at this point.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#228

Post by ece »

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…

To help convince you that Apple is a kind of monopoly, I found this article to be illuminating: https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/09/apple-goes-to-war-with-the...

If you want to get a game on iOS today, you have to go through the app store+IAP or Apple Arcade or make a browser-based game. That comes down to: pay the Apple cut/tax or make a browser based game. This is the opposite of what Steam/GOG/Itch do: buy it once, play on 3+ platforms. Not allowing emulators/flash/alternative browser engines a few years ago might have been overlooked, but not allowing MS xCloud, GF now, Stadia, FB gaming while pushing Apple Arcade and individual app store game submissions definitely seems like an anti-competitive move to me.

This combined with offering pre-installed apps that compete with Spotify/news/video app store apps (at a higher price) and trying to force apps to add subscriptions through iOS like Hey and Wordpress, Apple has shown it's willing and able to exploit the monopoly they have on iOS users.

A platform-agnostic free market is more important than the iOS+Metal+AppStore monopoly Apple offers it's users IMO, if you must have a "guaranteed" walled garden, build one for yourself using privacy/security/parental controls. Every other user should be able to run the apps that they want and expect, and developers should be able to negotiate fairer terms.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#229

Post by wayneftw »

falcolas wrote: post #179
_coveredInBees wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Because on the PC...there is no price competition?

If that's even true, it's a moot point then since there's no price competition when there's only one app store too.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#230

Post by ianai »

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…

I think that may be a non-legislative way out of it. But I see the current, bloated web stack in stark contrast against viability.
Post reply on HN