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

281–290 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#281

Post by newbie578 »

MrScruff wrote: post #54
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 )…

What about the freedom to choose a highly curated platform because you want that and are prepared to pay a premium for it?

And you deserve to have it. Just let other users also use another platform if they want to. That is what Epic is trying to achieve. Let there be multiple App Stores on iOS so people are free to choose.

You can keep using the App Store and be inside your curated platform or you can alternatively also use Epic's or Amazon's, whoever tries to make their own platform on iOS and Android, so that people are free to choose.

Either that or the App Store needs to be separated from Apple Inc. which makes the hardware. Currently, the App Store doesn't cover the user's best interests but Apple's best (financial) interest, and as long as it is under one company, App Store will always push to the benefit of Apple and detriment to all others. Think Spotify and Apple Music, Chrome and Safari, Google Maps and Apple Maps.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#282

Post by romanoderoma »

tokamak-teapot wrote: post #38
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…

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…

> I believe the current system for protecting iOS and its users could easily be split in two.

Correct!

My phone downloads the App from the Play Store and then does a scan locally, on the device.

There's no need to have a centralized, proprietary, anti virus...

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#283

Post by danShumway »

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.

No they really don't. Spend time shopping around, games on Humble, GoG, and Itch often have different prices during different sale periods. I just got Into the Breach at 50% off on GoG a day or two ago, it was full price on Steam at the same time.

Different stores also cater to different niches: GoG prioritizes older games that wouldn't be updated for modern machines, itch has really experimental 'true' indie games. Neither one of those storefronts could handle the volume and diversity of both categories at the same time.

Unless you're only playing AAA games or something, I don't get the assertion that multiple storefronts don't increase consumer value. From my perspective as a user, they very clearly do. Having multiple storefronts has been a huge boon to the indie market.

> which is marketing, not competition

What on earth is the difference? Would Epic be offering those games for free if they weren't trying to pull users away from Valve? That's what competition is.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#284

Post by simion314 »

pjmlp wrote: post #256
simion314 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The new IE is Chrome actually. With 20% global market share, plenty of countries don't care about Safari support.

The new IE from the dragging things down point of view. Microsoft did not dare to not allow other browsers on Windows and because of that we can complain about Chrome.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#285

Post by doytch »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #154
mirthflat83 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200% No, we got free to play with endless micro transactions instead. I would have preferred the price bump.

Well, that was because developers demanded it. Apple initially didn't allow in-app payments for free apps.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#286

Post by romanoderoma »

Retric wrote: post #83
ginko wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

The review process what makes iOS so useful. People can install random software in a way you can’t safely do on Windows. Sure power users might not notice the difference, but people feel safe hand their phones/tablets to little kids and let them install random games. Scaling that review process across every update either means everyone pays a percentage which hurts large business or everyone pays a significant fee wh…

> The review process what makes iOS so useful. People can install random software in a way you can’t safely do on Windows

Counter opinion

Billions of devices are scanned everyday thanks to specialized software that do it locally

They are called anti virus (also check for malware, trojan, backdoor, rootkit etc. etc.)

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#287

Post by KitDuncan »

Kuinox wrote: post #143
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.

Hate against linux for a gamedev is understable.

I understand not actively supporting it, but why hate or actively try to work against it?

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#288

Post by aftergibson »

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.

I'm not the biggest fan of Epic Games or Tim Sweeney and it's probably a drop in the ocean, but Epic did donate $25k to Lutris.

Why do this if Tim is "incredibly hostile towards Linux"?

Seems more like indifference to me.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#289

Post by VikingCoder »

Mr. Sweeney is welcome to make his own mobile operating system and charge whatever rate he wants.

He's personally worth $5.3 billion.

Surely that's enough to take Android Open Source Project and make his own version.

It's easy to burn down a store that you think charges too much. It's harder to make a new store that people will like. Maybe take the high road, Mr. Sweeney.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#290

Post by mirthflat83 »

Anon1096 wrote: post #257
mirthflat83 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Apps for porn site/porn games aren't allowed on iOS. There's many 4chan apps for Android, but none for iPhone. And apps frequently have to gimp themselves to get around this requirement, like Telegram where on iOS you cannot see 18+ chats you can see everywhere else.

Ah 4chan, the app that every average user would like to install
Post reply on HN