So the NPR is now a mouthpiece of Epic, without any critical comment to any of their ridiculous claims?
Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
101–110 of 456 posts
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#102IBM was investigated for antitrust violations. After many years, they entered into a consent decree which required them to document all of their APIs. And not just that - they were not allowed to have any hidden interfaces that might place IBM application developers at an advantage over non-IBM application developers.
As long as you coded to the published API, you were good to go.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#103I’m surprised to find myself siding with Apple / Google / etc on this. They did the work to build and maintain a distribution platform. They should be able to define its terms of use and costs. If you don’t like it, distribute differently. If everyone uses those companies’ devices, it’s a market endorsement that the world wants the standardization and managed ecosystem of each platform - that it’s a thing of value. I…
> They should be able to define its terms of use and costs. As long as it doesn't conflict with public interests. For this purpose, antitrust laws are designed to tackle this particular type of situations. > the world wants the standardization and managed ecosystem of each platform This maybe true, and such standards might also be too important to be controlled by just one or two companies.
There’s more than 2 and also open alternatives for people that care about that
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#104Crazy idea: if you want a free as in speech App Store then why isn’t the request for a free as in speech mobile OS? The claim is there isn’t a company backing it - presumably from lack of market demand for it. There have been attempts but they’ve not gained steam. Even Google is now moving away from Linux as the core of android. I generally agree that we need some countervailing pressure against the monopolies of tod…
> Even Google is now moving away from Linux as the core of android. Could not find much about this, could you link to something that provides more details on it?
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? He explicitly forces users to use his/the Epic store, smh.
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…
> 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.
So you're not forced, except when you are... I think the GP meant people is forced to use their store to play certain games. Games not developed by Epic, which were meant to be released in other stores and operating systems. You can choose not to play those games. Many people do in fact just that. But that was not the point.
Of course Tim Sweeney does not force random people at gunpoint to use their store. That's never going to be the case because there's laws forbidding him!
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#106Apple has every right to decide about their platform. What everyone else needs to do, including Sweeney, is stop developing for that platform and choose open/free platforms. Please go have a chat with rms.
Exactly my thoughts. It's their platform, their well-written rules, and Epic always knew it from the beginning. They intentionally made a move against a legal agreement, didn't take a step back despite the warnings from Apple/Google, and now paying a price. Don't want to be devil's advocate here but Apple/Google did the right thing.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We were really lucky that developers and users let at least the Windows store fail. This might be an unpopular opinion but: I like the comfort of the Windows Store regarding installation & updates for Win32 apps. The app is installed into its own little corner and a lot of them also come with their own contained registry hive. I don't need a thousand auto update services or an app updating itself only when I open i…
In my experience, Linux repositories are all of the upsides you mentioned (trusted, auto-updated, signed (at repo level, at least)) with none of the lock-in downsides, since you can add third party repositories (and then use them via the same workflow you're already comfortable with!).
But (official) Linux repositories are curated. App Stores need to be able to deal with submissions for borderline malware freemium games that could contain content that is illegal in some countries for political reasons, too much violence, porn, etc.
The Linux model works for a handful of trusted curators who only concern themselves with software worth their time... it can't deal with every single publisher who wants their content in your platform. It doesn't have to deal with issues regarding content for the most part (trademarks, copyright, decency, etc.)
Also npm has shown that open repositories, at certain scale, become fertile ground for malware. pip also had issues with this. I sometimes worry about homebrew, since it wouldn't be that hard to get malware in.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, Linux repositories are all of the upsides you mentioned (trusted, auto-updated, signed (at repo level, at least)) with none of the lock-in downsides, since you can add third party repositories (and then use them via the same workflow you're already comfortable with!).
Many of them rely of a free-of-charge labour. Would you volunteer your free time to maintain Apple Store?
No, but I might volunteer at an open source store that Apple users were allowed to install from.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#109Microsoft is apparently not one of the monopolies he wants stopped, because he is incredibly hostile towards Linux and Linux support for games. I can't stand this dude and his ramblings.
think about steam whatever you want, but they've done some real fantastic work there with their linux support. the other day i installed forged alliance -from 2007, only supports win natively- on my linux machine and it was easy as pie: after a few mins of downloading and installing, the game was up and running.
Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google
#110Apple'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…
Following Apples way of thinking, Standard oil was not a monopoly. You could choose to source your energy from coal, power your train with steam etc. But the fact is that it was one.
That comparison would be calling every other phone on the market not just inferior, but entirely different technology. Seeing as they all can access the same networks and be comprised of varying hardware and use varying operating systems I just don’t think that’s true.
It’s like Apple being the sole supplier of a specific type of unleaded fuel. And people like me choosing that fuel because it might be more expensive and more restrictive, but I don’t have to worry as much about the condition of my car engine on a regular basis for using it.
There are plenty of other just as powerful, or even more powerful, fuels on the market that function on the same principles but with different features.