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

291–300 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#291

Post by simion314 »

parasubvert wrote: post #214
simion314 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you heard about Microsoft or Intel anti trust cases? If it could be done then it must be possible to be done in the present.

Do you think Microsoft’s consent decree had any impact on Windows being a monopoly? It didn’t. Microsoft still gets a cut of almost every PC sold. It is valued up their with Amazon and Apple in the trillions. The difference is that no one cares anymore because new platforms arose in Android and iOS, and Windows mobile failed. In this case, people are requesting a far more extreme remedy: that iOS and Android and thei…

Without that pressure Intel and Microsoft would have become even more evil. I think that MS and Intel needed a giant punch for the anti-competitive things they did or tried to do. Intel is still crippling AMD CPUs and they just have to put somewhere one the web a disclaimer(well hidden). If Intel could lockdown their CPU to run only Intel approved apps then Linux and the BSDs would have been hit hard, maybe OSX would not have existed (Apple used and still uses open source code)

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#292

Post by ericmay »

horsawlarway wrote: post #268
ericmay wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I just don't find this compelling and don't really care about it. There are lots of products to choose from, you can build your own stuff, buy a generic phone and load whatever you want on it, etc. > The problem (and this is a problem) is that benevolent dictatorships never, Never, NEVER stay benevolent. Th…

> Also, can you clearly articulate what exactly I'm losing here with a single App Store? So far I just see more cons than pros. No. My whole point is that you're clearly happy in your benevolent dictatorship. But it really doesn't suite me. I just told you the reason I'm not happy, and you handily dismissed it as "not compelling". Which is fine. For you it probably isn't. For me, not having root on a device I own int…

> No. My whole point is that you're clearly happy in your benevolent dictatorship.

I wouldn't call it that. I'm not really sure it's a dictatorship. But whatever.

> But it really doesn't suite me. I just told you the reason I'm not happy, and you handily dismissed it as "not compelling". Which is fine. For you it probably isn't. For me, not having root on a device I own intended for general purpose computing is literally a no-go on every front. It's not just insulting, it's a literal threat to my source of income. I find it just as crazy as if Volvo told me I could only drive on Volvo certified roads. They may be great roads (the best roads, which will never damage the car, guaranteed!) but I don't give a shit. I bought the car to drive where I want to drive. I buy a computing device to run the software I want to run.

I think the crux of the problem is you're buying something with different expectations than you should have. If Volvo in this case said hey we sell a Volvo car and you can only drive it on Volvo roads, then if you got mad you couldn't drive it on other roads YOU bought the wrong car.

There is nothing stopping you from buying an Android phone and rooting it. As an iPhone user, as you mentioned, I want exactly what Apple is providing, or else I'd buy a different device. So when you want to change the product I like for your own benefit, then we'll certainly be at odds and I'll continue to support and campaign to maintain what I desire in the iPhone directly against you.

> So you claim that a new product will arise when Apple decides that you don't fit in their dictatorship, but watching what's happening with Google and search right now... Well, I'll quote you - "I just don't find this compelling"

> Google is still the only player in search. Youtube is still the only player in video. New products are at best fringe products that don't gain traction, because there's a clear monopoly effect in play here.

Certainly disagree. Google has quite a few competitors, Amazon, Facebook, Apple itself (searching via Siri in iOS versus a web browser) not to mention incumbents like Bing and DDG who have taken a little bit of market share. There are alternatives that work just fine. As for Youtube, Spotify is coming after them and then you always have new products like TikTok, or streaming services like Twitch.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#293

Post by d0100 »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #72
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…

> “As smartphones become more and more a part of the fundamental infrastructure of society” This perspective underpins a lot of the pushback against Apple & Google but I just don’t understand it. Any cell phone, and especially a smartphone, is not integral to modern society. Random usage by consumers is recreational. Businesses have a million ways to replace things they ask employees to rely on smartphones for. In fa…

> Given that smartphones are just an optional, convenient luxury item

A smartphone is not a luxury item.

It is a productivity device.

It is a general purpose computer, no matter how Apple wants to say it isn't.

It is also a vital machine for participation in the democracy. For many it is the only way they can talk to others and to their government representatives.

> An iPhone is like a video game console

The minute that video game consoles have "games" that are text editors, file editors, web browsers, email clients, etc, they stop being gaming platforms and become productivity devices that replace the household computer.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#294

Post by ericmay »

cycloptic wrote: post #272
ericmay wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I just don't find this compelling and don't really care about it. There are lots of products to choose from, you can build your own stuff, buy a generic phone and load whatever you want on it, etc. > The problem (and this is a problem) is that benevolent dictatorships never, Never, NEVER stay benevolent. Th…

>Also, can you clearly articulate what exactly I'm losing here with a single App Store? The ability to shop based on price. The 30% fee is non-negotiable which guarantees a certain level of price gouging. Apple is also known for implementing various anti-patterns and tracking, mostly related to promoting their own apps and cloud services over their competitors, so you lose any leverage you would have in getting them…

I definitely shop based on price. I look at different products in the App Store and then I see what their prices are.

> The 30% fee is non-negotiable which guarantees a certain level of price gouging.

Well, if you don't want to pay that to get access to the user base that Apple created and maintains then don't pay it and don't have your app on the App Store. This is pretty easy. Heck, companies get around this all the time (Spotify for example).

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#295

Post by nightski »

input_sh wrote: post #180
izacus wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ma…

And yet the vast majority of games (probably over 99%, but that is a guesstimmate) are not exclusive to one store on the PC.

We have so many options on PC that the few exclusives can be entirely ignored.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#296

Post by hellisothers »

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…

This assumes you want to install software from anywhere, or that you want your mom (who you suggested get and iPhone) to be able to install software from anywhere. For similar reasons that hardware admins don’t want you installing anything you like on company hardware, I don’t want my family installing anything they get tricked into installing on their phones.

There are other options out there where you can do whatever you want and side load, why not go use those yourself and stop demanding others be subjected to this same situation?

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#297

Post by romanoderoma »

bb123 wrote: post #17
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…

For you a threat, for many others a feature. Lots of people buy iPhones specifically because they are restrictive, and are therefore more robust. Ask an average user which experience they prefer - sourcing software for a Windows PC, or downloading an App for an iPhone.

> Lots of people buy iPhones specifically because they are restrictive, and are therefore more robust

You can put restrictions on any phone

Even on rotary phones (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gD2hcPNWc5k/hqdefault.jpg)

The problem arise when you want (or need) to remove the locks

> . Ask an average user which experience they prefer - sourcing software for a Windows PC, or downloading an App for an iPhone.

Have you ever tried to as people if they prefer a bulldozer or a Ford Ka?

Anyway, 3d artists, just to name one, prefer Windows by far

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#298

Post by moogly »

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.

Hmmm, I remember Epic spending quite a bit of effort to get the Unreal Engine running on Linux back in Unreal Tournament 99 times, even hiring Daniel Vogel full-time to work on it.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#299

Post by nightski »

blibble wrote: post #158
izacus wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

for a lot of recent releases you can't, because epic have bought exclusivity they're complaining about monopolies, while attempting to create them

It's not the same situation. I don't like exclusives either, but you still have the option to install games from other stores or publishers on your PC. The Apple situation is far, far worse.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#300

Post by pb7 »

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.

Like Epic’s Fortnite?
Post reply on HN