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

331–340 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#331

Post by falcolas »

danShumway wrote: post #283
falcolas wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 up…

> 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.

Fair enough, the timing on the sale was not the same. However, the discounted price while it's on sale is.

https://steamdb.info/app/590380/

> if they weren't trying to pull users away from Valve?

They're not trying to pull customers off Valve, they're trying to add customers to EGS. There's a difference.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#332

Post by 013a »

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…

I think we need to view it from the perspective of developers who release internet-hosted applications; not consumers. Consumers do have some amount of choice, but developers generally have to release applications for internet-hosted applications on as many devices as possible (because mobile web isn't "there" (yet?)). Its not about App Store revenue or leveraging really powerful proprietary iOS platform technology; its just about eyes-on-glass and meeting customers where they are. Without iOS users, many internet-hosted applications would fail (see: Hey).

With app stores, its difficult to build correlates to traditional marketplaces, but I think about it like: imagine if Toyota decided to begin building roads that only Toyota cars can drive on, and Toyota cars can only drive on those roads. Toyota defers the cost of building these roads on-to the businesses the roads connect. Toyota cars are awesome, so many consumers want them. Some businesses greatly benefit from being on the Toyota network, but others find the fees far too high. And, additionally, Toyota can refuse to connect your business to their network, for any reason, and has a demonstrated history of refusing to connect businesses to the network for very poor reasons.

There is a good argument for the App Store to be made: It helps with security, with privacy, with convenience, its not all bad. But, I also believe freedom is more important than any of those. I think there's a middle-ground to be found, which looks something like forcing Apple to approve any application submitted to the store which does not break the law.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#333

Post by tutino »

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…

Sacrificing freedom & rights for user experience and comfort, that's how we get dictatorships. Apple takes total control but we shouldn't worry because they are "the good guys" acting "on user behalf" ?

We have to distinguish User Experience (short term comfort) from User Respect/Freedom/Rights. Choice is bad for UX, but it is good for avoiding abuses.

If you download FB, Instagram, TikTok, etc. on the app store those are malwares that collect all your data and Apple is doing absolutely nothing about it. ICloud is not even end-to-end encrypted. Let's stop this myth that Apple provides actual privacy.

Apple doesn't care about you, they care about power.

If they need to put "Privacy" in their ads for you to buy it, they'll do it. If they need to keep malwares on the app store to generate revenues, they'll do it (but they'll make sure you believe you are safe thx to their fake privacy propaganda).

It's true other game platforms are closed but first we have more choice :

Mobile gaming = Google or Apple

Home gaming = Nintendo, Xbox, PlayStation, Linux/Windows/Mac, Steam, Itch.io, GameJolt, Windows store, Epic game store, Origin/Ubisoft/Blizzard, etc.

Second : it's not about gaming only, it's about the right of people to control the device they bought.

Iphone & Google have a far bigger monopoly and control on our life than an Xbox sitting in our living room, so it makes sense to worry about Apple and Google first.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#334

Post by _qulr »

doytch wrote: post #285
bryanlarsen wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, developers demanded time-limited trials for paid apps, which we had for many years before the App Store.

But Apple _never_ delivered on that. Instead, Apple pushed "subscriptions", which is just another name for rental.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#335

Post by ecf »

kyran_adept wrote: post #26
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.

The closer you are to the root of the tree, the harder it is to "build an alternative". It's the same for the road system, power distribution system, mobile platforms(Android, Apple), etc. I can't afford as a customer to buy a device just to play Fortnite, nor should I.

Just because it’s hard to start a new tree when you’re at the root doesn’t mean the up and coming tree can hire a lumberjack to cut down the existing tree.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#336

Post by Lev1a »

simion314 wrote: post #45
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.

Valve did the same if I am not mistaken you had to install their launcher to play half Life. Now Epic is fighting back with similar tactics and as long as they offer a better deal to the developers, same or better prices for user then I am Ok with it (I did not install the Epic Launcher so far but I claimed a free game just in case)

Valve was dev and publisher for Half-Life so their game is on their platform. Same with EA, Ubisoft etc. AND guess who?

Epic. Dev and publisher for Fortnite. What do you need to install and run to be able to play Fortnite? Epic Games Launcher.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#337

Post by falcolas »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #277
eertami wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epic games exclusives are not the kind of competing I want, and they're not a win/win/win. I'm happy to buy games on GOG or the Humble store for instance, but I will never in a million years install the privacy and security nightmare that is the Epic Game Store on a PC I own. Sure, steam is not perfect but they've not had issues on the scale of Epics software. I've played thousands of hours of Rocket League, but stil…

> I will never in a million years install the privacy and security nightmare that is the Epic Game Store on a PC I own. It turns out that in a surprising number of cases, you don’t have to. Control, Journey, and Beyond Two Souls (as of this writing, it launched with Denuvo) are all completely DRM Free and will run without EGS. You can download them via the open-source “Legendary” unofficial client, or even in a Virtu…

Control, as an example, is free of third party DRM on Steam. Ditto Journey and BTS. Compare Control with Doom Eternal's pages:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/870780/Control_Ultimate_E...

https://store.steampowered.com/app/782330/DOOM_Eternal/

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#338

Post by falcolas »

_qulr wrote: post #334
doytch wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, developers demanded time-limited trials for paid apps, which we had for many years before the App Store. But Apple _never_ delivered on that. Instead, Apple pushed "subscriptions", which is just another name for rental.

Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Google...

Subscription models produce lots of recurring revenue, so companies absolutely adore that model when they can get away with it.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#339

Post by 013a »

ece wrote: post #228
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…

To help convince you that Apple is a kind of monopoly, I found this article to be illuminating: https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/09/apple-goes-to-war-with-the... If you want to get a game on iOS today, you have to go through the app store+IAP or Apple Arcade or make a browser-based game. That comes down to: pay the Apple cut/tax or make a browser based game. This is the opposite of what Steam/GOG/Itch do: buy it once,…

The statistic I've found which illuminates this point to even people who know nothing about the situation: By revenue, Apple is the third largest gaming company on the planet, without making a single game.

Most people think about that for a second, then say "oh wow." Google is the only other company like Apple in the top twenty largest gaming companies, and at least they're trying to make some games and improve the ecosystem via Stadia. But Apple: they take 30%. For games like Fortnite, that represents hundreds of millions of dollars; have they actually provided hundreds of millions of dollars in value back?

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#340

Post by Retric »

madeofpalk wrote: post #211
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…

Really? How much of this comes from manual reviewing and not sandboxing and technical security policy of iOS?

iOS’s current sandboxing model is heavily dependent on the review process. It’s arguable what could be achieved in theory if they where going to let arbitrary apps be installed, but right now iOS on it’s own is simply inadequate.
Post reply on HN