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

441–450 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#441

Post by cycloptic »

ericmay wrote: post #294
cycloptic wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, can you clearly articulate what exactly I'm losing here with a single App Store? The ability to shop based on price. The 30% fee is non-negotiable which guarantees a certain level of price gouging. Apple is also known for implementing various anti-patterns and tracking, mostly related to promoting their own apps and cloud services over their competitors, so you lose any leverage you would have in getting them…

I definitely shop based on price. I look at different products in the App Store and then I see what their prices are. > The 30% fee is non-negotiable which guarantees a certain level of price gouging. Well, if you don't want to pay that to get access to the user base that Apple created and maintains then don't pay it and don't have your app on the App Store. This is pretty easy. Heck, companies get around this all th…

The 30% fee is factored into all the prices you're looking at.

Your argument that apple created and maintains the user base would be a lot stronger if google and all of the other phone makers were not quietly waiting to snatch up any customers that got sick of apple.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#442

Post by tln »

rphillips wrote: post #431
tln wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Check out the latest filing by Apple. Epic removed the IAP from Apple and only is allowing the Epic store purchases.

That's interesting. I wonder if they changed it. I was going off screenshots like this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EfTZ1pwWkAI3aUH.jpg:large

Either way violates guidelines

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#443

Post by tempodox »

parasubvert wrote: post #187
tempodox wrote: post #144

Since this war is about making money from controlling access to the users, I don't feel like siding with either Apple or Epic on this. Letting the sheep decide by which wolf they will be eaten isn't that great of a choice. From my own personal perspective, I would like to be able to permanently install an app that I developed myself, on my own Mac, on the iOS devices that I own without having to go through the app st…

You can already install your own software on your own iOS device without review. You can even install it on 3rd party devices (up to 100) without review!

Not permanently. You have to re-install every week.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#444

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

d0100 wrote: post #437
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a “productivity device”? You seem to think that’s some kind of platonic “thing” that exists, but it’s not. Web browsers, email clients, etc., are just discretionary products people may prefer to use for recreational or personal reasons. They are not structurally required. You seem to be conflating the idea of “this thing is convenient for what I like to do” with “this thing should be supported as a pivotal co…

> this thing should be supported as a pivotal component of civic life Covid shows us that a smartphone is a pivotal component of your literal life. At risk patients now can have doctor appointments over video and electronic prescriptions. This mostly happens on portable devices. These portable devices, despite branding and marketing, work in the same way to enable citizens to actively participate in the democracy (ac…

Covid has existed for less than a year, and cell phone for less than 40 years. People survived pandemics before either! It’s just crazy to say covid proves anything about cell phone being important or not important.

> “ When you replace the town square with your big backyard, it then becomes the townsquare”

Uhhh no, it doesn’t?

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#445

Post by pjmlp »

wayneftw wrote: post #410
pb7 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not at all. I have and use both because half of my customers use one and the other half uses the other. That’s the problem though. When half of the people in United States have no choice but to leave their digital home in order to get some rights to use their own equipment without begging Apple... that needs to change.

That other half has the option to replace their phones if they happen to be so pissed off with Apple.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#446

Post by MrScruff »

IncRnd wrote: post #80
MrScruff wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the freedom to choose a highly curated platform because you want that and are prepared to pay a premium for it?

What about it? You, personally, making that choice shouldn't force everyone else to pay 30% eternally to Apple.

Nobody is forced to pay 30% eternally to Apple. You make it sound as though people switching to Android isn't possible, yet I know many people who've done it.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#447

Post by MrScruff »

newbie578 wrote: post #281
MrScruff wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the freedom to choose a highly curated platform because you want that and are prepared to pay a premium for it?

And you deserve to have it. Just let other users also use another platform if they want to. That is what Epic is trying to achieve. Let there be multiple App Stores on iOS so people are free to choose. You can keep using the App Store and be inside your curated platform or you can alternatively also use Epic's or Amazon's, whoever tries to make their own platform on iOS and Android, so that people are free to choose.…

Allowing multiple app stores inherently breaks the 'curated' feature. It would make it like on my PC, where I have to install 10s of 'stores' to access individual pieces of software. Perhaps you think this is a positive thing, I don't.

One possible workaround would be for Apple to allow additional stores/sideloading, but all apps available via this method would need to also be available via the Apple store, if accepted. Not sure how this would be enforced though.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#448

Post by ben_w »

floatingatoll wrote: post #433
ben_w wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, none whatsoever. This would have to be forced upon them against their will. I just hope it’s done by governments who actually care about end users, not by those acting as though feudal aristocracy is the current economic standard and want a cut of Big Tech’s trillions.

I take it we've moved past the era of "governments shouldn't control the Internet", then.

Governments have always controlled it (SSL encryption ‘export’ limitations, for example); what we’ve moved past is the idea that those governments which control it are uniquely those which sit in Washington DC.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#449

Post by wayneftw »

pjmlp wrote: post #445
wayneftw wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. I have and use both because half of my customers use one and the other half uses the other. That’s the problem though. When half of the people in United States have no choice but to leave their digital home in order to get some rights to use their own equipment without begging Apple... that needs to change.

That other half has the option to replace their phones if they happen to be so pissed off with Apple.

No. If half the population would be forced to leave their digital home in order to make things right, the landlord is at fault.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#450

Post by romanoderoma »

bb123 wrote: post #317
romanoderoma wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

That's where you are wrong

If you say "I think US people are happy of having the higher life expectancy in the World" reminding them that it is the lowest in the West is just revealing a lie

There is no lack of malware on iPhones.

It's a lie.

Post reply on HN