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

321–330 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#321

Post by damnyou »

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

Apps that the totalitarian government ruling over you without your consent have decided should be banned.

The problem is that it creates a single point at which a state can impose restrictions on freedom, with no way to get around it for dissidents and other people who don't agree with it.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#322

Post by _qulr »

hellisothers wrote: post #296
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 whatev…

I have nothing against your mom, who I don't know, and I'm sure she's a fine person, but nonetheless, your mom is your problem. Why does your mom become my problem. Why must my freedom be restricted to protect your mom from herself on the computer?

Your mom is presumably able to drive a car, which is a killing machine in the wrong hands. Your mom can drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, buy a gun, use a chainsaw. All of these activities are infinitely more dangerous than using a smartphone. OS lockdown in completely unjustified in comparison. It's a vast overreaction by "helicopter children".

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#323

Post by yladiz »

nickflood wrote: post #303
DivisionSol wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple & Google both did it, and are doing nothing to stop others from entering the (phone) market. Just because a market is hard or expensive to get into doesn't mean it's not a market worth entering. The real crux is Epic doesn't actually want an open phone platform, they just want to be software rent-slurping middlemen for an arbitrary 'cut' of a pie.

Doing nothing is unfortunately a complete opposite of what they are doing.

How are they stopping other companies from entering (as in, with their own OS and/or hardware) the mobile phone market?

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#324

Post by zepto »

koonsolo wrote: post #313

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 1…

Totally - the argument isn’t anything to do with developer’s not paying the 30% - it’s that a whole load of parties want to run their own stores without having to maintain the platform.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#325

Post by horsawlarway »

ericmay wrote: post #292
horsawlarway wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 liter…

> 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.

Again, we don't share the same perspective here. As a consumer, some of the products you've mentioned are acceptable substitutes. But I'm not just a consumer of digital products. I also produce them.

As a producer, there's really not the same sense of competition you seem to be implying here. Google owns 92.5% percent of the search marketshare (globally). Bing/DDG/Yahoo might as well be rounding errors in comparison. 90% of customers say that they primarily find new video content on Youtube. Vimeo is next. The products you've listed are not really direct competitors (and this is actually pretty normal, entrenched monopolies don't lose to direct competition, they eventually get replaced with paradigm shifts).

So to hammer home my point here - As a producer, I literally have to make results available on Google, and upload videos to Youtube in order to reach most of my audience.

Now - I also use those other services as well - I happily send folks to vimeo links instead of youtube, and DDG links instead of Google search. So at least I have some chance to promote those alternatives.

In Apple's case, I have to release on their app store. Except... wait a minute... I can't even try to promote a possible alternative! If you use an Iphone, you literally cannot choose to get my software through another channel.

They are enforcing their own store monopoly with their software dictatorship. And just like a car, no one is going to go out and buy a completely different phone to use my one app. It's just not practical.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#326

Post by xaqfox »

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.

There are now more store-wide sales available ("Fall Sales" and whatnot). While at the developer's choice a game may have the same retail and sale price at different stores, since the sale dates are different, I the consumer am more likely to find and buy the game at the lower sale price. If you the consumer only want to purchase from one store it is still your choice to wait (just like timed exclusives).

Others have complained about Steam's lack of curation causing discoverability problems. It was at the height of this controversy that Epic launched their store promising better curation. Again, this helps consumers because not all consumers are alike. Some consumers do not want arbitrary moral decisions to block game availability, while others want this so that they do not have to wade through "garbage". Others, still, want to make that decision for all consumers.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#327

Post by madeofpalk »

isodev wrote: post #131
madeofpalk wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Windows/Epic situation really is the "best case scenario". You can download and install software from anywhere. Plus, there's an "app store" from the OS vendor, plus a few specality competing ones for things like games, where both consumers and developers have the choice of where they download/publish. Epic competing with Steam has been a great success for everyone I think. Developers get secure funding for games…

Have you tried buying a game from Epic on Windows? The "Epic Client" asks you for payment details, collects all kinds of private information and doesn't let you do anything unless it's up to date and connected to the internet. (DRM hello?) Then you go to the Windows Store to buy that candy crush ad that's been sitting in your Start Menu for no reason and oh surprise, they are asking for payment details again! Doesn't…

> Have you tried buying a game from Epic on Windows? > The "Epic Client" asks you for payment details

I do not find it surprising that a store asks for payment details when I purchase an item.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#328

Post by floatingatoll »

ben_w wrote: post #51

I think: 1. Multiple App Stores would be good for free speech, and for avoidance of USA cultural and legal hegemony. 2. How can this be done without loss of security for typical users? We don’t want phones to become botnets with microphones and cameras — imagine the opportunities for automatic criminal blackmail, theft planning, target acquisition, or 2FA interception. This is bad for the societies we live in even if…

> How can this be done without loss of security for typical users?

It cannot. Typical users are not capable of 'vetting' app stores for their security capabilities.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#329

Post by pb7 »

enragedcacti wrote: post #159
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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…

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…

Interesting how it was decided that the most luxurious manufacturer is the standard for accessing the internet. Like requiring driving a Ferrari to flip burgers at McDonald’s.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#330

Post by ecf »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #205
coldtea wrote: post #21

> Since then, Sweeney, an iconoclastic executive who owns enormous farms and dabbles in fast cars And overworks his employees to exhaustion, while stomping on their unionizing...

I think Epic has miscalculated the optics on this. There is no underdog in this story. It's just two enormous companies, run by very wealthy men, who put corporate profits and stock options above employee welfare, squabbling over how much of the pie they get to eat, when neither one can finish their first slice. I want them both to lose.

Epic miscalculated because they weren’t ever expecting a real legal battle.

They wanted Fortnite to get removed from the App Store in hopes that their rabid fan base of adolescent Fortnite gamers would create insane amounts of bad PR for Apple.

But It never reached critical mass and Apple stood their ground.

Post reply on HN