Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#381

Post by brendoelfrendo » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 4:22 PM UTC

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…

This argument is silly because it can so easily be turned on its head: why should a closed environment be the only option? Why don't you stick to the app store, but allow others to do with their devices as they please?

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#382

Post by himinlomax » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 4:28 PM UTC

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…

> Any cell phone, and especially a smartphone, is not integral to modern society

Neither is hot, running water. A bucket and a hole in the backyard were good enough for my ancestors, they're good enough for everyone else in 2020!

Joke aside, are you saying online banking and payment is a luxury? Do you realize that many basic services are switching over to smartphone payment? Such as public transport fares.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#383

Post by simion314 » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 4:41 PM UTC

mytherin wrote: post #360

simion314 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new IE from the dragging things down point of view. Microsoft did not dare to not allow other browsers on Windows and because of that we can complain about Chrome.

Internet explorer was actually a decent browser in its peak. The whole "dragging things down" happened later on because people kept on using really old versions of IE (mostly the one bundled with Windows XP). The main problem with Internet Explorer in its hay day was that they did not play nice with other browser vendors and implemented features outside of the standard. Those features were then relied upon by website…

I seen recently change logs like "reverting from webp to jpeg to support iOS users", so it seems to me that the lowest common denominator now is Safari.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#384

Post by uncoder0 » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

huhtenberg wrote: post #343

zepto wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What "platform" is it exactly they don't want to maintain?

iOS and Android + Google Play Services is probably what they are referring to.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#385

Post by gruez » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

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…

>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.

What's your opinion on the following:

* pay-for-play "acceptable ads" in ABP

* having to get a EV code signing certificate ($300+/yr) to bypass windows smartscreen warnings, which are enabled by default

Are they acceptable? Are they a net good for consumers? They're all examples of optional programs that clearly provide value to the buyers (otherwise they wouldn't be buying it), in exchange for a payment to the gatekeepers. This is basically the same role as steam (or the portals). However, I have a feeling that most hn readers would not have a positive opinion of either of those programs.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#386

Post by jpambrun » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 4:47 PM UTC

DivisionSol wrote: post #201

jpambrun wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really simple view of the issue. You can't reasonably think even a large corporation such as Epic can achieve that. That is what makes Apple/Google a duopoly in the mobile computing space. At this point, without any state intervention, they can abuse their position of power to bully devs and consumer. I don't care that they had to "work hard" to get there or whatever; the fact is they now have too much power…

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.

You're argument rely on the assumption that entering the smartphone market now is as easy as it was when Google and Apple did it, which is ludicrous.

Edit: even if it was as "easy". It's not like there are dozens of companies the size of Google and Apple that could pull it off.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#387

Post by simion314 » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 4:48 PM UTC

Lev1a wrote: post #336

simion314 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I ware Epic I would put Fortnie in Steam but make everything 30% more expensive in Steam (hopefully Steam let's the developer present users information like X is cheaper on Epic and is not like other companies that censors information they don't like).

With Fortninte on Steam the dudes that don't want to be bothered with 2 launchers can use only one(you still need Epic accounts like in all MMOs).

One of the most popular games is Minecraft and it did not need to be on Steam to get popularity, so it is still possible to host downloads for your game on your servers.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#388

Post by ericmay » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 4:52 PM UTC

throwaway34241 wrote: post #372

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. 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 mis…

1) Already done. You just log in to the software.

2) Hm, I see your point but I'm having a hard time envisioning what I'm missing out on. As I look at the web browser ecosystem on desktop, what features are we missing?

3) Not sure why this isn't possible? I think it's more of a limitation of interface than anything. Also why isn't Microsoft making their Xbox app available on Linux or macOS? Hmmm.

4) Eh, the App Store can be improved but I think you're reaching here.

5) As you said, related to #4. I have yet to see a premium model work. I don't think it does for many applications.

6) Yea that would be nice for developer tools, but the other limitations I don't see. You can install Office, JIRA, etc. on iPad.

> 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.

Sure, but the same is true of aircraft engines, investment banking, and any other specialized industry. Huawei and others will be competitive and will emerge as serious contenders. It just takes time. I also disagree with your assertion that app stores are not competitive, I don't think they need to be competitive. They just host the software. It's like downloading Spotify and then being confused that you can't put your own songs on it, or that you have to pay Spotify royalties.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#389

Post by JamesSwift » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

skocznymroczny wrote: post #133

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…

Steam is very close to a monopoly though. Not the store itself, but Steamworks integration. Most game developers use it because it's convenient, but it locks you to Steam. Often releases outside of Steam lose multiplayer support because of that, resulting in a crippled experience.

That is a prime example of exactly how it should work. Steam is cornering the market by providing value. Steamworks is exactly the kind of thing that justifies the cut they take.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#390

Post by mlthoughts2018 » Fri, Sep 11, 2020, 4:54 PM UTC

himinlomax wrote: post #382

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…

> Any cell phone, and especially a smartphone, is not integral to modern society Neither is hot, running water. A bucket and a hole in the backyard were good enough for my ancestors, they're good enough for everyone else in 2020! Joke aside, are you saying online banking and payment is a luxury? Do you realize that many basic services are switching over to smartphone payment? Such as public transport fares.

The joke doesn’t land though, because hot running water affects septic systems, sterilization, and many other public health concerns that easily make it considerable as a public utility.

Online banking or smartphone public transit passes aren’t just luxuries, they are extreme luxuries.

For example, I don’t have any banking apps on my phone and I get mailed a paper subway pass every month. Same for millions of others.

No banking app is owed a slot in an app store, and no consumer is owed an app based workflow. Those are just products in a marketplace, nowhere remotely close to the concept of public utilities.