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

231–240 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#231

Post by horsawlarway »

ericmay wrote: post #192
kodablah wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The competition is in the marketplace. I'm not sure what value there is in having an Epic store, an Apple store, a Google store, a Netflix store, a Microsoft Store... Having choice isn't always better. I think the Apple iOS store is a very clear example where choice leads to negative experience for users. As I've mentioned before, Apple collectively bargains on behalf of users against developers. They enforce (albeit…

This is the same kind of response that used to be used when Google was discussed.

"Google is clearly making the right choice for me. Their motto is literally 'don't be evil'".

And in some respects it's true - A benevolent dictatorship is undeniably a great form of governance.

The problem (and this is a problem) is that benevolent dictatorships never, Never, NEVER stay benevolent.

At some point the guiding principles will change, or you will change, and you'll find yourself outside of the bubble you were so comfortable to live in.

Some of us are already outside of that bubble. I don't like not being able to run software of my choice on a device I (in theory only, in Apple's case) own.

Basically - I find this argument extremely short-sighted. It's trading any sense of long term thinking for the immediate convenience of letting someone else do the work for you in the short term. I have very, very little respect for this argument.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#232

Post by dageshi »

tokamak-teapot wrote: post #190
dageshi wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple wouldn't want to be responsible for something not in their store. They have all the downsides of verifying an app is safe but none of the upsides, worse they will inevitably be the ones who have to handle support.

Yes, this is not something that directly benefits Apple. Without external intervention, I don't believe any system which opens up iOS at all will be introduced. What I'm looking for is - given external intervention, what would be a workable compromise that: * Frees developers enough that they can produce applications without the full weight of Apple's process - and its rather hazy and inconsistent application - being…

Malware isn't really the primary threat. It's bad actors. It's specifically designed apps intended to rip people off. If an app goes through apples review process and then accepts credit card payment (which is the entire reason these apps want to bypass the app store) and subsequently use the users credit card details for fraud, who cleans it up?

The user will say that apple are culpable because it went through their review process, they approved the app.

I think more likely apple would reluctantly do the android model and just allow apps to be downloaded and installed via safari. The user is responsible for what they install, the risk is on them, they can use the app store if they want safety.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#233

Post by wayneftw »

toyg wrote: post #191
izacus wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

One side benefits some customers, the other benefits other customers.

If you don't like having choices and you think choices are bad for people then perhaps you'd prefer to live in a place like China.

This lawsuit is taking place in the USA where people overwhelmingly value freedom of choice.

Speaking of China - Apple gave the Chinese government their own app store. Perhaps Epic should point that out as well. It would make for a great headline: Apple gives China their own app store, but not US!

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#234

Post by dx87 »

coldpie wrote: post #200
skeeterbug wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epic purchased Rocket League developer Psyonix and ended Linux support for the game shortly after: https://www.rocketleague.com/news/ending-support-for-mac-and...

Also macOS[1]. It was part of their upgrade to use a newer DirectX version[2]. Rather than maintain two renderers, they chose to end support for OSes which don't have DirectX support. If it costs more to maintain support for a platform than that support brings in, why would they do it? [1] https://support.rocketleague.com/hc/en-us/articles/360042201... [2] https://support.rocketleague.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043307.…

The main reason they should support it is because people paid money for a Linux version.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#235

Post by coldpie »

brnt wrote: post #221
coldpie wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Choosing not to support a platform which may not be profitable is not "incredibly hostile."

Don't forget when calculating profitability that you also have to account for opportunity cost: the devs you hire to work on Linux could instead be working on improving your fledgling client for the much more profitable Windows platform. Valve is already over that hurdle with Steam, so their profitability calculations will be different. You can't draw a direct comparison.

Like I said, I work on Linux. Trust me when I say there's a lot of very good reasons not to support it that have nothing to do with one's personal opinions of the platform, or whatever it is the OP meant by "incredibly hostile."

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#236

Post by devit »

falcolas wrote: post #181
devit wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that a problem? You can just install all game stores on Windows and there is no downside to doing so, and no real difference between installing the Epic store and purchasing a game there and buying the game on the game publisher's website. Also currently Steam has a dominant position and 30% cut, and if the Epic store succeeds it will result in a more competitive situation with at least two game stores probabl…

How does that benefit me, Joe Customer? I’m not getting a lower price by going to EGS. I’m just getting more friction in finding a game I want to play.

If the game store takes a lower cut, then either games will cost less, or they will be better because at least some of the game developers will choose to use the extra money to pay more employees to work on the game.

Also, if there are more stores it's less likely that entire categories of games will be unavailable to you (or available but worse due to reduced budgets) due to all game stores having rules banning them, and in general game stores are less likely to be able to enact policies that serve them at your expense.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#237

Post by CubsFan1060 »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #173
CubsFan1060 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I apologize in advance for stretching the analogy so far here. But going back to my example, my son now goes into Walmart for a lemonade. The Lemonade stand is half the price, so he goes there. How do I know the lemonade isn't poisoned? Made with peanuts and not labeled as such? etc.. The argument would be that he doesn't have to go there, but that's easier said than done. I go to Walmart because I know that they verify their products.

Going back to an iPhone, the answer is usually "you don't have to use any other app stores". But what about if I _do_? What if I have to use the new Coronavirus test that requires an app? And the only way to get the app is to install Abbott's app store? Are you guaranteed that they aren't also consuming all your health information?

My view would be different if Android didn't exist, or if iPhone had a much higher market share. But for now, I'm happy to pay extra to be in the walled garden, because I trust the king of the castle to try to protect me (as opposed to figuring out who to trust out on the street).

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#238

Post by 013a »

brnt wrote: post #221
coldpie wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not hostile; that's indifferent.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#239

Post by DivisionSol »

mattigames wrote: post #112
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.

Steam only reason to be as big as they are is because they went ages without serious competition, so anyone who wants to have the slightest shoot to succeed without such advantage must use exclusives or similar tactics or just die trying.

What? How about make a product that actually works? Epic Games Store is a slog to operate, with weird UX decisions across the board.

People hated Ubisoft trying to cram their platform down their throats because it was a buggy mess. People are disgusted with the EGS because, likewise, it is a disaster.

You don't need a Steam Workshop (a bonus, for sure,) to distribute games. You don't need the Marketplace for Game Economy stuff (a bonus, sure.) You need a way to buy and launch games quickly, which even EGS struggles at.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#240

Post by nabla9 »

parasubvert wrote: post #208
nabla9 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you trying to be sarcastic?

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

His arguments seems to be completely rhetorical and absolutist.

"If it's in principle possible to offer an alternative regardless of any cost, even if it's not practical, then there is no monopoly."

Post reply on HN