Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

I absolutely agree that ad networks are spying on users, and violating their privacy to an unacceptable degree — hence my point 1, because I prefer the EU approach.

However, that is not a botnet.

Those systems cannot, at least not to my knowledge, turn on the microphone in the background and listen for useful blackmail-worthy phrases without alerting the user (like Siri et al are presumably capable of); They cannot subvert the WiFi chip to be a wall-penetrating radar capable of pose detection, heart rate monitoring, etc [0]; They cannot snap random photos, finding out who has anything worth stealing, nor also revealing the shape of their keys for 3D printed replication (ditto audio, at least for the keys) [1][2]; They cannot read your email and SMS messages and take over your bank accounts [3].

[0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/household-radar-c...

[1] https://kottke.org/20/08/researchers-can-duplicate-keys-from...

[2] https://www.wired.com/2015/08/this-app-lets-anyone-3-d-print... (not state of the art, but ICBA to go through all the irrelevant links)

[3] https://www.zdnet.com/article/android-malware-can-steal-goog... (old Android example, but even Google stamped down on this kind of thing because it is a threat to the value proposition of a smartphone)

I get free games from EGS, just like I got free games from Amazon App Store. For the same reason that the Amazon App Store exists, I can also get open source apps from F-Droid, including apps like Newpipe that aren't allowed on the primary app store on the device.

Do you wish that the Mac App Store were the only way to get apps on your Mac?

So I'm of two minds here.

On one mind the app stores do provide a mechanism for security, that is of great value to end users. On the other hand, the amount they collect is way too large.

I'm wondering if there is a middle path. If one wants to use the app store to make your apps discoverable, you pay the higher fee, but if you just use the app store for distribution (and hence don't disrupt the end user security model) you can pay a smaller fee.

so how would users install apps without being able to discover it on the store? via the desktop (and not mobile, if we want to be strict) web. i.e. epic can give users a url that they can use to connect to google' web market (which already allow you to install apps to your device, and apple can do the same).

This would be the only way to install these apps (though updates would proceed as normal). if one searches for the app in the marketplace, it wont come up. And as I said, perhaps even on mobile the direct link to app wont work (though of multiple minds on this as well).

For app developers that need the app store to drive interest and demand, the 30% cut google/apple take is then reasonable. For app developers that can drive their own demand, they would pay a much smaller cut (perhaps 5-10%, with a decent chunk of that being the normal credit card processing fees that they would have anyways).

just a thought

The indiepocalypse happened because Valve made it easier to publish on Steam.

In 2009, 343 games were published on Steam.

In 2010, 308 games.

In 2011, 300 games.

In 2012, 377 games. Valve introduced Greenlight, allowing developers to create a page for their game and selling those that gathered the most interest.

In 2013, 511 games. Valve expanded Greenlight, lowering the threshold to enter the platform

In 2014, 1641 games.

In 2015, 2732 games.

In 2016, 4489 games.

In 2017, 6508 games. Valve introduced Steam Direct, allowing anyone to sell their game once they complete the paperwork.

In 2018, 8237 games.

In 2019, 7950 games.

When Valve was the gatekeeper, only a lucky few indie developers made it onto the platform. However, with less than 1 game being released per day, there was plenty of space for these new games on the front page. With over 21 games released per day, being available on Steam is no longer a competitive advantage.

Valve "killed discoverability" in favor of availability. Epic's store has advantages such as a lower cut, subsidized by Fortnite money. It also has disadvantages (not available in many countries, missing features, reviews, and social functionality). There is definitely a place for a smaller, curated store, where only one or two games are put out per day, which is what Epic is aiming for.

> then either games will cost less

They don't. The prices, between MTX and multiple release versions, have gone up if anything.

> they will be better

Pretty close to unuantifiable. What quantification we have, critic scores, aren't showing any movement in the ~decade since Steam got competition (Origin, GoG, etc).

The only benefit seems to be for the shareholders and corporate executives thus far.