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

211–220 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#211

Post by madeofpalk »

Retric wrote: post #83
ginko wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. I don't see how such a review process would work for free software. The user should be free to run whatever software they wish on their own device.

The review process what makes iOS so useful. People can install random software in a way you can’t safely do on Windows. Sure power users might not notice the difference, but people feel safe hand their phones/tablets to little kids and let them install random games. Scaling that review process across every update either means everyone pays a percentage which hurts large business or everyone pays a significant fee wh…

Really? How much of this comes from manual reviewing and not sandboxing and technical security policy of iOS?

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#212

Post by tpxl »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #150
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.

If the alternative is not publishing the game at all, or never on PC then it's still a benefit. Are any of their thirty party, exclusivity deals permanent? If you want to play any Valve games without Steam then you're out of luck. Having another store is a low barrier to entry. Imagine there was only one store for groceries in your whole state. And when you go to court a chorus rebukes you for not selling your produc…

>If the alternative is not publishing the game at all, or never on PC then it's still a benefit.

Yes, there is nuance that I left out of my post. I agree with you here.

>If you want to play any Valve games without Steam then you're out of luck.

If you want to play any Epic games without Epic game store, you're out of luck as well.

I have no problem with another store, I have problems with another store having exclusives which do not benefit the consumer in any way (directly).

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#213

Post by madeofpalk »

Sangeppato wrote: post #87
mchristen wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He's talking about iOS, not macOS

The idea is that if you side load on iOS, apps would still need to be notarised, like on macOS

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#214

Post by parasubvert »

simion314 wrote: post #59
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #11

I’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…

Have you heard about Microsoft or Intel anti trust cases? If it could be done then it must be possible to be done in the present.

Do you think Microsoft’s consent decree had any impact on Windows being a monopoly?

It didn’t. Microsoft still gets a cut of almost every PC sold. It is valued up their with Amazon and Apple in the trillions.

The difference is that no one cares anymore because new platforms arose in Android and iOS, and Windows mobile failed.

In this case, people are requesting a far more extreme remedy: that iOS and Android and their stores become regulated like public utilities.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#215

Post by sumtechguy »

flohofwoe wrote: post #30
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'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…

IBM did try to put the toothpaste back in the tube with PS/2 and OS/2 and especially with microchannel. The price points on those things were hard for most people to stomach. That reverse engineering white room case changed the landscape. Everything was bundled and IBM sliced it as fine as they could. I was looking to get a TCP stack for OS/2 at one point they quoted me something like 20k for a single seat licence as you needed the whole stack to make it work right. It was clear they wanted the business market and nothing else, with negotiated contracts all around. The hobby market had to go make their own. IBM had its own walled garden before that case. They milked it for all it was good for too.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#216

Post by Macha »

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…

Apps that would have previously been one time purchases that are now subscriptions because upgrade pricing is not a viable model in the app store are one example of a price increase that the app store has created (after the initial launch pushed many apps to $0.99/$4.99, admittedly).

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#217

Post by madeofpalk »

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.

> but their exclusives are a cancer and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me.

Developers are making an educated choice to take their games exclusive, in exchange for guaranteed revenue. Sometimes that can be make-or-break for a game.

You’re acting as if steam doesn’t have exclusive games either - I play Destiny 2 which is only available on Steam (on PC). I would not be surprised that larger games/publishers get negotiated terms on the store which comes with contractual exclusivity clauses.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#218

Post by yawn »

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.

I'm okay with that since others can compete with him. Right now nobody has a say except Apple.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#219

Post by brnt »

mirthflat83 wrote: post #184
enragedcacti wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all the apps that I need Correction: all the apps that Apple thinks you need, regardless of whether or not it aligns with what you need or want.

Please give me examples of apps I’m missing out on as an average consumer because I’m all for missing out on malwares

You got that inverted: F-droid is where I know I'll be free of malware, the Play Store is the one that is infested with malware and predatory stuff.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#220

Post by danShumway »

elondaits wrote: post #107
smichel17 wrote: post #29

Earlier 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!).

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…

> 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.

Sure it can, anyone can set up a Linux repository. Some apps have their own repositories just for themselves.

The Linux model is great for curation, because having multiple repositories means that you don't have to grow to npm's size if you don't want to.

Arch is a great example of this. The existence of the AUR repositories gives the official repositories much more freedom to more tightly moderate what goes into them, and it gives me a lot more confidence that packages aren't being blindly added to the official repositories.

It's the opposite of what people are implying, having more storefronts means that storefronts can be stricter about what they apply. It means as a storefront owner you don't have to come up with one moderation policy that binds literally everyone in the world, so you can be a lot more choosy and subjective about what you approve and reject.

Post reply on HN