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

121–130 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#121

Post by flohofwoe »

luastoned wrote: post #20
onion2k wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Sweeney wants the same software to be available on every app store. He wants users to have a choice of which app store to use. Effectively he wants the same deal as there is for PC gaming - eg multiple stores available that users can choose from - to be the case for mobile (and possibly consoles as well).

What? He explicitly forces users to use his/the Epic store, smh.

It's up to the developers whether they want to sign an exclusive-deal with Epic (and of course up to Epic to offer one, because it turns out this is a very sweet deal which takes a lot of risk out of a game project, and especially independent developers would be foolish not to accept it).

Apart from Epic there are many other distribution opportunities on the PC platform. This is not the case on iOS. You either make a deal with Apple - and a very lousy deal at that, or you're not on iOS (the same problem exists on game consoles).

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#122

Post by ehnto »

madeofpalk wrote: post #76
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…

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…

One thing that has yet to occur but will one day, is one of these platforms disappearing and then a whole host of game libraries disappearing completely. We've all seen how some tech companies shut down, and supplying downloads and updates for downloads costs a lot of money. There's zero incentive for someone like Epic, Valve or Origin to keep their platforms working if the company goes bust.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#123

Post by mattigames »

jcstauffer wrote: post #99
onion2k wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Sweeney wants the same software to be available on every app store. He wants users to have a choice of which app store to use. Effectively he wants the same deal as there is for PC gaming - eg multiple stores available that users can choose from - to be the case for mobile (and possibly consoles as well).

I'm not sure how that's a benefit for users (multiple app stores). What he wants is the right to build his own App Store so that he can charge his own "tax" and (hopefully) become a monopolist.

Its a huge benefit, with competition the "taxes" would compete and developers would try to favor those with lower taxes, plus Apple store and Play Store both forbid adult apps because they want to be "family friendly", if the user wants to install the pornhub app on their iPhone they should have an easy and straightforward way to do so.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#124

Post by thathndude »

Zhyl wrote: post #119
KitDuncan wrote: post #19

Microsoft 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.

It seems silly to me. Commodification of the platform would be massively beneficial for Epic. At the very least I'd be neutral towards it and just allow Valve to do all the expensive heavy lifting, then work on my own Linux compatibility and support in the background.

If anyone thinks for one second that this guy actually cares about any of this (beyond the extra 30% he could pull) I have a bridge to sell you.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#125

Post by can16358p »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #97
devit wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have to run infrastructure, they just have to update iOS to remove the signature check on binaries and support installing IPAs from Safari downloads, so that there is no need for their app store anymore.

As a consumer of Apple devices, I want the app store, and I only want app store software to be possible on the device. So if Apple needs to meet consumer demands, I’m an example of a consumer who wants the app store to work like it currently does, and I feel Apple’s policies of taking a cut of subscriptions and in-app purchasing is fair. For a system where I want openness, I’ll use Librem 5 for example.

I've read all of your comments and think that it couldn't be more right! This, this, this! Thank you.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#126

Post by 52-6F-62 »

drummer wrote: post #85

Apple 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.

I’ve been mildly vocal in my support for not altering how iOS works. I bought into it explicitly because of how it works.

Your comment is my preferred outcome as well. It would at least be a sign of good faith that they’re in it for the values they’re professing rather than only diverting money into their pockets.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#127

Post by dageshi »

tokamak-teapot wrote: post #38
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…

I believe the current system for protecting iOS and its users could easily be split in two. There could be two exit points from the review process. One would be for apps that don’t want to be on the App Store. They could be cleared as free from malware, egregious behaviour, etc. and allowed to be installed through any independent means. The higher level would be for apps that should be on the App Store. This means th…

Apple wouldn't want to be responsible for something not in their store. They have all the downsides of verifying an app is safe but none of the upsides, worse they will inevitably be the ones who have to handle support.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#128

Post by trabant00 »

pjmlp wrote: post #28
KitDuncan wrote: post #19

Microsoft 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.

He is just trying to push Epic Store and getting part of the pie, everything else is mindless blah blah.

Exactly. He's just using keywords like monopoly and stuff to gather support.

And overall I don't understand why people take sides in corporate battles like any of those mega corporations stand for morals or the greater good or anything like that.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#129

Post by m9ma35 »

ianai wrote: post #75

Crazy 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…

I think its a bit of a chicken/egg problem here. If there is no apps/appstore the OS will be a flop, but if there is no free OS there will probably not be a free app-ecosystem.

Used to have a Nokia N9, awesome phone, great OS, but there weren't any apps to speak of which I think is a large part of why MeeGo died.

Honestly the one way I see out of this is if web-apps largely replace native apps, which means that a new OS only needs to support a standards compliant web-browser.

That or get the existing actors to agree on and support an open 'app-container' format ...

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#130

Post by onion2k »

setzer22 wrote: post #105
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…

> 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…

There's clearly a difference between a company having exclusive control over how people access a particular game on a particular platform (eg Fortnite on Windows) and a company having control over how people access all software on a platform (eg everything on iOS and Apple).
Post reply on HN