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

161–170 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#161

Post by doikor »

viraptor wrote: post #134
tpxl wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean consumers need to download yet another gaming service collecting god knows what to get the same games they used to get on Steam? I've no problem with the Epic store, but their exclusives are a cancer and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me.

> they cost game devs money in lost sales from me. I still don't get how the exclusives are a good deal for the creators. They get more publicity and probably some extra money for the contract. But does it really offset the lost sales? There was a large number of times when I went though: this game looks awesome, I'll buy it, oh it's exclusive for whatever-platform-i-don't-have, ... and likely not remember about it e…

Epic pays the developer for X units sold before selling anything. Basically guarantee the developer to make at least that much sold. The developer still stands to make extra buck if the game sells really well (when selling more then those X units Epic paid them beforehand)

This is great for smaller devs as you basically have 0 advertising budget and rely on worth of mouth for your game to be a success or not. So you can take guaranteed money and pay yourself (and your employees) or take the gamble and hope your game sells well.

Also Epic takes smaller cut then Valve does on Steam. (12% vs 30%)

Also these exclusives to Epic are timed. So after a couple months the developer is free to publish their game on Steam/GOG/Windows Store/whatever PC platform (Epic store exclusivity does not apply for consoles)

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#162

Post by kgabis »

tpxl wrote: post #118
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…

You mean consumers need to download yet another gaming service collecting god knows what to get the same games they used to get on Steam? I've no problem with the Epic store, but their exclusives are a cancer and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me.

Surely developers don't have to release games as epic exclusives if they don't want to. Also, epic's cut is much lower that valve's (12% vs 30%). I'd rather buy games on epic so that more money goes to creators.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#163

Post by tadzik_ »

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…

> Epic competing with Steam has been a great success for everyone I think

Not for Linux gamers who can no longer play Rocket League

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#164

Post by _coveredInBees »

mirthflat83 wrote: post #132
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…

It's the "best case scenario" for developers and Epic, but not for me as a customer. I vastly prefer the iPhone model where I can go to a single place to download all the apps that I need with a single payment method. I don't have to go to a specific url in the browser, download an executable, install a separate store for each game I want, and then finally install the game from that separate store. I don't know who w…

Erm... that's because that's always been baked into the price of software/apps on the app store since inception.

Not sure how higher prices for consumer is great for the consumer. I get the convenience argument, but not every consumer is willing to pay higher prices just for that. There is a huge difference between a 2-5% fee like CC merchants charge and a 30% across the board fee on the app store.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#165

Post by isodev »

mchristen wrote: post #67
tokamak-teapot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Isn't that how it works now though? I have an app that is not distributed via the app store, but is still notarized by Apple and has no Gatekeeper warning when you install it. You still have to pay the Apple Tax to get your software signed and notarized though.

The notarisation process is automated, scanning for commonly known API usage. In normal App Store review you get a real person to test and vet the app, the marketing presentation and if it works as advertised.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#166

Post by dageshi »

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…

They aren't relatively expensive. There's tons of cheap android phones out there which have 80-90% of the functionality in an iphone, just with a much crappier user experience and terrible cameras, but they work!

Somehow people have come to the conclusion that if something is so good that they can't contemplate using anything else then it's a monopoly.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#167

Post by parasubvert »

ginko wrote: post #57
flohofwoe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking that the PC as an open platform was a "happy historical accident" that only happened because IBM lost its iron grip over the platform and failed to regain it because hardware clones and Microsoft were quick to jump into the opportunity that had presented itself because IBM didn't look for a second. And maybe Apple is looking at 80's IBM and is now afraid that the exact same thing may happen to them…

You seem to be completely forgetting all the other PCs and home computers of their time like the C64 or the Amiga. Without Microsoft opening the market for clones the IBM PC might have remained an overpriced office machine and some other company would have created the most popular computer system. In any case, none of these(not IBM, not Apple, not Commodore etc.) restricted what software you could run on your compute…

The PC started its life as a hobby platform. And there were attempts to challenge the open model - the game consoles for example required devs to license their SDKs and often controllers publishing / retail distribution.

But no one seriously succeeded with a closed PC experience because no one could (or wanted to) do it all - be a fully integrated retail ecosystem - at the time when facing consumers. The internet was arguably a prerequisite for this: all software was sold in physical boxes and unlike game software , the hobby experience meant there was just too much available that was cheap/free/shareware. (My favorite was the assembly hex codes published in magazines like Ahoy! That you’d type in).

Plus, the security of a curated store was on few minds until the late 90s with the internet. Viruses and Trojans existed but they were spread through physical media.

also, Microsoft already was getting its tax from users in the form of Windows licensing, which eventually was deemed anticompetitive due to their exclusivity arrangements.

The closest to a curated ecosystem started with Qlink, CompuServe, AOL and other online services.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#168

Post by isodev »

_coveredInBees wrote: post #164
mirthflat83 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the "best case scenario" for developers and Epic, but not for me as a customer. I vastly prefer the iPhone model where I can go to a single place to download all the apps that I need with a single payment method. I don't have to go to a specific url in the browser, download an executable, install a separate store for each game I want, and then finally install the game from that separate store. I don't know who w…

Erm... that's because that's always been baked into the price of software/apps on the app store since inception. Not sure how higher prices for consumer is great for the consumer. I get the convenience argument, but not every consumer is willing to pay higher prices just for that. There is a huge difference between a 2-5% fee like CC merchants charge and a 30% across the board fee on the app store.

I've never made my users pay the difference.

The App Store is also a service for distribution. If it wasn't there, I would be forced to invest much more in marketing, cloud services and all kinds of "small things" which are not the primary purpose of my apps. If anything, my apps would be more expensive outside the store.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#169

Post by doikor »

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.

Well evidence shows that at least his stores tax is much smaller (12% on Epic store vs 30% on Steam). But he has been pretty clearly on the side of "everyone should be able to create whatever software they want on every platform" for a really long time. For example look at his rants against Windows Store and the potential path from it to locking down Windows iOS style (while very unlikely to ever happen is/was a possible path if the Windows Store got really popular)

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#170

Post by _coveredInBees »

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.

How in the world do you not see competing app stores not providing value to consumers from a price competition perspective? It's not like every game on every platform on Windows is a platform exclusive. I've availed of exceptional prices on games strictly because of competition across platforms, especially when one decides to offer up a sale.
Post reply on HN