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

311–320 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#311

Post by gsich »

pjmlp wrote: post #151
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…

Looking forward to 3rd party stores for Unreal plugins.

Nothing is stopping you.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#312

Post by Retric »

romanoderoma wrote: post #286
Retric wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

You can do incredible amounts of harm to your PC without installing a virus. Ironically installing every virus scanning software at the same time results in massive issues.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#313

Post by koonsolo »

Here's my "old-timer" take on the 30%:

I used to develop games and apps for MS PocketPC. Our users could install apps straight from their PC to the PocketPC.

But guess how apps were sold: through portals. These portals also took around 30% (Handango and PocketGear were the biggest ones back then).

We were also selling straight from our website, where we could have had 0% cost. But guess what: We wanted to reach top 10 on Handango, and the best way to do that was send our customers through Handango. Once in the top 10 (front page), it would multiply our sales. So even on our own site we choose to 'lose' 30%.

Just take a look at Steam: it's PC games! You can sell all those things straight to the consumer. But developers still choose to give 30% (or how much is it now?) for the exposure.

Conclusion: there will always be some party taking around 30%. Why? Because it's well worth the 30%

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#314

Post by JimDabell »

IncRnd wrote: post #77
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.

But, he cannot feasibly do that, which is exactly why Epic has sued Apple.

> he cannot feasibly do that

Apple did. They were worth approximately the same as Epic are now when they launched the iPhone. They hadn’t any meaningful presence in the phone industry and people thought it was ridiculous that they were trying.

Palm CEO Ed Colligan:

> We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.

Telstra COO Greg Winn:

> There’s an old saying — stick to your knitting — and Apple is not a mobile phone manufacturer, that’s not their knitting…

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer:

> There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance.

In 2007, there were tonnes of people saying “Apple cannot feasibly do that” as well, just like you are saying it about Epic today. But Apple did it anyway and succeeded. Epic have that opportunity too, they could attempt to build their own mobile platform. Apple tried and succeeded. Google tried and succeeded. Epic could try, but instead they are asking the court to force Apple and Google to change their platforms to be more favourable to Epic’s wishes.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#315

Post by nemothekid »

romanoderoma wrote: post #286
Retric wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

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

1. And most anti-virus are considered a scam by most people

2. Apps that make egregious use of device APIs to implement tracking won't be flagged as a virus.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#316

Post by pb7 »

wayneftw wrote: post #233
toyg wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, bu…

For someone who preaches choice so much, you sure are against going with a different choice like, say, Android.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#317

Post by bb123 »

romanoderoma wrote: post #308
Google234 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most users appreciate the lack of malware on IPhones.

> I think most users appreciate the lack of malware on IPhones. Do they? What about bugs? https://www.cvedetails.com/product/15556/Apple-Iphone-Os.htm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#318

Post by enragedcacti »

parasubvert wrote: post #198
enragedcacti wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

17% of people in the US use their smartphone as their only portal to the internet [1]. Is your argument that as long as they can go use a computer at a library that their smartphone is a luxury item? Access to the internet (or someone to access it for you) is basically a prerequisite for existing in modern society and phones are how people choose to do it most of the time. This like saying "hey, if you don't like buy…

It is an incredible lack of imagination to think we are at the end of history on mobile device OSes and thus they should become utilities. Oil is a natural resource. This is software that didn’t exist 12 years ago.

We aren't really talking about OSes though, we are talking about software distribution. No one is trying to force Apple to let other phone manufacturers use iOS or force them to open source it.

Is advertising and hosting software so novel that it doesn't deserve any scrutiny?

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#319

Post by damnyou »

chii wrote: post #33
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think Sweeney is correct, although I also think Epic tried to do the same. Their success with some of their games created capital that they used to create their own platform. Maybe as a defense mechanism or maybe because they wanted part of the pie. I agree but people who are criticizing Epic for this are missing the real point. It is good if Epic can actually take a big chunk of the pie. Sure you could say they'…

Epic's platform is not a monopoly even if they successfully made one. steam is not a monopoly, even if they currently have a large market share, because the user is able to install their software outside of the steam platform. Some games choose to not release on multiple platforms - but that's not a monopoly. And other games _do_ choose to release on multiple platforms, or choose to release independently of a platfor…

Whether something is a "monopoly" or not is immaterial to US antitrust law. What is relevant is concentration of market power and the facts of how it's being wielded.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#320

Post by rphillips »

VikingCoder wrote: post #289

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.

+1, Sweeney took the low road by violating his contract with Apple, removing Apple IAP from the existing Fortnight on people's iOS devices, and generally making a point by doing it the wrong way. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Post reply on HN