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

371–380 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#371

Post by gruez »

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…

>The "Epic Client" asks you for payment details

This is sarcasm, right? How can you buy stuff without payment details?

>collects all kinds of private information

Like what? Moreover, does steam (or other digital storefronts) not collect the same information?

> doesn't let you do anything unless it's up to date and connected to the internet. (DRM hello?)

You clearly missed all the "steam updating" memes from the early/mid 2000s.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#372

Post by throwaway34241 »

ericmay wrote: post #252
horsawlarway wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same kind of response that used to be used when Google was discussed. "Google is clearly making the right choice for me. Their motto is literally 'don't be evil'". And in some respects it's true - A benevolent dictatorship is undeniably a great form of governance. The problem (and this is a problem) is that benevolent dictatorships never, Never, NEVER stay benevolent. At some point the guiding principles…

> 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.

I can think of some things that I haven't seen mentioned yet:

1) Cross platform app stores. I'd like to be able to purchase an app on one store, and automatically have access to it on Mac/Windows/iOS/Android etc.

2) Alternate web browser engines. It's hard to know exactly how much we are missing out on here, since web sites usually won't use features that aren't available on iOS. But web browsers might not exist at all if platform owners had as much control over app distribution in the 90s as Apple does now. There may be web-browser like technologies (apps that can host interactive 3rd party content), or extensions to existing web tech that never get off the ground because there's no way for it to run on iOS.

3) Emulators, game streaming services from Microsoft / Google, full featured steam link, indie games that don't pay $99/yr so aren't available.

4) App store with better discoverability and recommendations

5) "Premium" app store that isn't a race to the bottom with free apps that are designed around continued advertising / in app purchases. Could be related to (4)

6) On iPad, a wide variety of general purpose productivity software. Developer tools, etc.

> Then new products will arise when this happens.

I think the argument is it's already very difficult for new entrants in the platform space (for phones, Microsoft spent billions and failed), but the only reason app stores are not competitive is they are tied together with the platform.

There's certainly also been some benefits of Apple acting as a de facto regulator of application software. I think in a world where alternate app stores are allowed the Apple app store would continue to be a very important storefront that most developers would not want to skip (although Apple might want to make improvements to it in order to compete more effectively). Of course, other app stores would also have their own rules and hopefully Apple would continue to enforce automatic security measures like sandboxing.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#373

Post by gruez »

speeder wrote: post #135
maeln wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He doesn't force anybody to use the Epic Store. Unless you want to play Fortinite (which is made and published by Epic Games) or games that have an exclusivity contract with the Epic Store. This is much, much different than the position of Apple or Google. They don't have to pass an exclusivity contract with anybody since they have a de-facto monopoly on their device. Want you game to be playable on iPhone ? You need…

The problem is exactly those exclusivity contracts and how they were made. Epic literally bribed devs to do deals that went back on promises, people are not just upset about exclusivity, they are upset about exclusivity of stuff they PAID FOR on other platforms, there were kickstarted games, games pre-sold for Steam, etc... that suddenly became Epic exclusive, and devs went and explicitly said they wouldn't even retu…

>Epic literally bribed devs to do deals that went back on promises

By that logic, I'm literally "bribing" the grocer every week to get groceries

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#374

Post by Wowfunhappy »

falcolas wrote: post #337
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/

They are free of "third party DRM”, they are not free of first-party DRM, aka the DRM system integrated into Steam.

If you buy Horizon: Zero Dawn from Steam, you won’t be able to actually start the game unless Steam is installed. However, if you buy the game from EGS, it work fine even if EGS is not installed. The EGS version is a completely standalone copy of the game that does not require any clients in order to run.

This are a handful of Steam games like this as well. One example I purchased recently is Ori and the Will of the Wisps, which I downloaded in a VM before moving over to my main (Steamless) Windows install. It works fine. For whatever reason, however, this seems to work far more often with EGS games, and I really appreciate that!

Edit: Useful reference https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16BjnaBO40vkt6kFVl0QW...

------

Edit2: By the way, I mentioned in my parent post that Journey was DRM Free on EGS. I have just learned that as of a recent update, saving is broken without EGS (although the game still launches, and you may not need saving given its two-hour runtime).

I'm willing to chalk this up to a bug rather than anything malicious—and of course, the good thing about DRM-Free software is that if you've backed up your old copy, it will keep working, and no one can take it away from you. But, this type of thing is definitely a reason to still prefer GoG and itch.io where possible.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#375

Post by gruez »

bb123 wrote: post #93
realusername wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lots of people buy iPhones specifically because they are restrictive, and are therefore more robust Just have a look at a mainstream Youtube video about the latest iPhone and see when they talk about the app review (hint: never). People buy phones based on camera, screen and interface, they never heard about the walled garden or Apple's practices.

I mean why would they? It's not new and its been well known feature of the iPhone since day 1.

Really? If you asked the average Joe off the street to list off the features of an iPhone compared to android, how far down the list do you think "app store review" would show up, if at all? I think most people would say stuff like "speed, camera, display, apps, privacy" then stop.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#377

Post by mdoms »

eertami wrote: post #138
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…

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…

Isn't it great that you have that choice! That's the marketplace at work. Now imagine if you developed the same privacy concerns about the Apple App Store.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#378

Post by gruez »

kec wrote: post #310
coldpie wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also macOS[1]. It was part of their upgrade to use a newer DirectX version[2]. Rather than maintain two renderers, they chose to end support for OSes which don't have DirectX support. If it costs more to maintain support for a platform than that support brings in, why would they do it? [1] https://support.rocketleague.com/hc/en-us/articles/360042201... [2] https://support.rocketleague.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043307.…

If that were the real reason, why is rocket league still available on both the ps4 and Nintendo switch?

presumably because those platforms have way more users than linux?

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#379

Post by syspec »

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…

Can you elaborate on red vs blue water? I have not heard that phrasing before

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#380

Post by tln »

rphillips wrote: post #320
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.

Epic didn't remove IAP... they advertised a lower price elsewhere, which is against guidelines (which is not a contract), and did so via an unreviewed update.

Note that updates via webview or JS code are explicitly allowed by contracts, and what Fortnite did is very likely to have used that mechanism.

Post reply on HN