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

31–40 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#31

Post by nonane »

Traster wrote: post #22

I think a lot of people have short memories. When Apple launched the iPhone computer security was a disaster, the security of the AppStore was a massive benefit and the fact that we don't have massive botnets of mobile phones is in no small part down to the massive effort that was put into security. But they seem to have solved this problem so well that people have forgotten it was even a problem to begin with.

This line of argument is incorrect: It’s not the AppStore that makes secure apps possible: It’s the mandatory sandbox that apps run inside that actually makes the system secure. It’s fairly easy to push malicious code to the AppStore but bypassing the sandbox restrictions is what keeps bad apps at bay.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#32

Post by ysleepy »

Traster wrote: post #22

I think a lot of people have short memories. When Apple launched the iPhone computer security was a disaster, the security of the AppStore was a massive benefit and the fact that we don't have massive botnets of mobile phones is in no small part down to the massive effort that was put into security. But they seem to have solved this problem so well that people have forgotten it was even a problem to begin with.

It is the other way around though. I firmly believe iOS security is driven by preventing jail breaks and homebrew apps to protect their AppStore revenue.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#33

Post by chii »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #25
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 think Sweeney is correct, although I also think Epic tried to do the same. Their success with some of their games created capital that they used to create their own platform. Maybe as a defense mechanism or maybe because they wanted part of the pie. I agree but people who are criticizing Epic for this are missing the real point. It is good if Epic can actually take a big chunk of the pie. Sure you could say they'…

Epic's platform is not a monopoly even if they successfully made one. steam is not a monopoly, even if they currently have a large market share, because the user is able to install their software outside of the steam platform.

Some games choose to not release on multiple platforms - but that's not a monopoly. And other games _do_ choose to release on multiple platforms, or choose to release independently of a platform. This means the best _game_ wins. Ditto with software.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#34

Post by simion314 »

smileybarry wrote: post #10
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…

> 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…

I like the Linux repos too but I don't want some smart-ass dev to decide that since 95% of users only install from repos then I should not have the choice to install from a tar.gz or God forbid some unapproved content.

Alternatives stores could also provide sandboxing,review and maybe even better support.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#35

Post by sokoloff »

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.

That’s not inconsistent. Users can choose to use the Epic store or not. If they choose not to use it, they can’t buy games from that store, just like I can’t buy Trader Joe’s food if I decide to not use the TJ’s store.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#36

Post by nabla9 »

Traster wrote: post #22

I think a lot of people have short memories. When Apple launched the iPhone computer security was a disaster, the security of the AppStore was a massive benefit and the fact that we don't have massive botnets of mobile phones is in no small part down to the massive effort that was put into security. But they seem to have solved this problem so well that people have forgotten it was even a problem to begin with.

You misunderstand the case.

This is not case just about AppStore being only store. This is Apple misusing AppStore's monopoly position.

In many cases competition law allows single supplier, but they are not allowed to misuse their power. Epic makes three cases:

(1) Apple prevents other companies from setting up their own app stores;

(2) Apple prevents other companies from providing their own "payment processing" services in the market;

(3) Apple imposes an arguably unreasonably high fee upon sales in the market (30%), to the detriment of consumers.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#37

Post by newbie578 »

Doesn't matter if you like or dislike Fortnite and the Epic Store, Tim Sweeney here is correct.

Doesn't matter if people like it or not, but freedom of choice must be given to users and developers alike. Choice should not be an option, but a basic right.

The people defending Apple and it's walled garden of life remind me of Socrates and his "Allegory of the cave" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave ). This becomes a philosophical dilemma unless you believe freedom and truth should be absolute.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#38

Post by tokamak-teapot »

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 they meet the quality standards that Apple would like.

This would allow Apple to raise the quality bar for the App Store, while allowing indie development. Loading a non-app-store app could come with forced user acceptance flow, where you’re informed the app doesn’t meet Apple’s standards for user experience but has at least been checked for safety.

Independent app ‘stores’ would then be able to exist, and we’d have a compromise.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#39

Post by libertine »

CincinnatiMan wrote: post #13

In the global economy, monopolies become a tougher situation. In some ways I’d rather not split Apple or Google if it were to mean a non-US company takes their place, particularly a Chinese one. I understand Epic Games is partially owned by Tencent, which if I wore a tinfoil hat, may concern me in regards to their motives here.

The thing is: the world isn't the US and China.

What if it was an European or Indian company?

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#40

Post by chii »

brnt wrote: post #3
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…

Epic Store successfully taking games exclusive makes Sweeneys priorities clear: they are no different than Apple's or Google's. I hope Epic fighting this fight will not obscure that.

> Epic Store successfully taking games exclusive

exclusive games aren't the same as a monopoly platform. Exclusive games is a choice the creators of the game made. A monopoly platform is when that choice isn't available. If apple doesn't want your app on iOS, they can remove you with no recourse.

If Epic doesn't want your game on the Epic store, you have the choice to use steam, or to go alone and distribute independently.

Post reply on HN