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

351–360 of 456 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#351

Post by colinmhayes »

myspy wrote: post #27
dessant wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all honesty Satan himself could have sued Apple for all we care, what's important now is that there is someone who has the resources and willingness to fight for our right to sideload apps on our own devices.

Sideloading is not the goal. The goal is to establish another store front to sell games with. This is no fight to open up the device, it's a fight to gain profit.

I don't give a shit about their goal. If they win precedent will be set to not only allow anyone to open a store, it'll be set to allow sideloading too. The outcome is undeniably good for me, that's all that matters.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#352

Post by smnrchrds »

VikingCoder wrote: post #289

Mr. Sweeney is welcome to make his own mobile operating system and charge whatever rate he wants. He's personally worth $5.3 billion. Surely that's enough to take Android Open Source Project and make his own version. It's easy to burn down a store that you think charges too much. It's harder to make a new store that people will like. Maybe take the high road, Mr. Sweeney.

And you are welcome to build your own underwater fibre optic cables and network infrastructure if you want net neutrality. ISPs should be allowed to block any website for any reason or no reason whatsoever, including asking website owners for a cut of their revenue and block them if they refuse. /s

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#353

Post by bobthepanda »

belltaco wrote: post #344
eertami wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epic games exclusives are not the kind of competing I want, and they're not a win/win/win. I'm happy to buy games on GOG or the Humble store for instance, but I will never in a million years install the privacy and security nightmare that is the Epic Game Store on a PC I own. Sure, steam is not perfect but they've not had issues on the scale of Epics software. I've played thousands of hours of Rocket League, but stil…

>but I will never in a million years install the privacy and security nightmare that is the Epic Game Store on a PC I own. What issues? Anyway, having to install a new launcher, as annoying as it is, is a far cry from throwing out your entire phone and all your apps, and buying a different phone (which has many of the same restrictions again). I don't understand why people keep comparing the iOS App Store to the Epic…

At least with Fortnite they were slow to respond to reports of a data breach: https://www.greenmangaming.com/newsroom/2019/08/13/fortnite-...

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#354

Post by ericmay »

belltaco wrote: post #346
ericmay wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The competition is in the marketplace. I'm not sure what value there is in having an Epic store, an Apple store, a Google store, a Netflix store, a Microsoft Store... Having choice isn't always better. I think the Apple iOS store is a very clear example where choice leads to negative experience for users. As I've mentioned before, Apple collectively bargains on behalf of users against developers. They enforce (albeit…

>The iPhone is no more or less a computing device than those are The iPad Pro, the iPad and iPhone is are not general computing devices, but more like gaming consoles? Wow. Apart from that, gaming consoles subsidize or barely eke out a profit for their hardware, whereas Apple charges buyers a huge margin on the phones. I'll agree to the forced 30% cut if Apple cuts their phone prices by 50%.

Just sounds to me like Apple has the better business model.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#355

Post by belltaco »

falcolas wrote: post #250
devit wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the game store takes a lower cut, then either games will cost less, or they will be better because at least some of the game developers will choose to use the extra money to pay more employees to work on the game. Also, if there are more stores it's less likely that entire categories of games will be unavailable to you (or available but worse due to reduced budgets) due to all game stores having rules banning them…

> 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.

So if Apple makes the cut 99% instead of 30% it would make no difference to the customer?

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#356

Post by Lammy »

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…

> They could be cleared as free from malware, egregious behaviour, etc.

It amuses me that you're using exactly the same language used to justify the App Store in the first place. Check out Steve Job's original "Third Party Applications on the iPhone" announcement between the time of iPhoneOS 1.x and 2.0, in October 2007: https://macdailynews.com/2007/10/17/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_sdk...

"We are working on an advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively program the iPhone’s amazing software platform while at the same time protecting users from malicious programs."

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#357

Post by odshoifsdhfs »

belltaco wrote: post #344
eertami wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epic games exclusives are not the kind of competing I want, and they're not a win/win/win. I'm happy to buy games on GOG or the Humble store for instance, but I will never in a million years install the privacy and security nightmare that is the Epic Game Store on a PC I own. Sure, steam is not perfect but they've not had issues on the scale of Epics software. I've played thousands of hours of Rocket League, but stil…

>but I will never in a million years install the privacy and security nightmare that is the Epic Game Store on a PC I own. What issues? Anyway, having to install a new launcher, as annoying as it is, is a far cry from throwing out your entire phone and all your apps, and buying a different phone (which has many of the same restrictions again). I don't understand why people keep comparing the iOS App Store to the Epic…

They had security breaches.

They has some issues where people could use any email to register an account without verification, leaving thousands (millions?) without a way to register their own valid emails.

They were caught scanning your pc for everything to 'provide a better experience' if you had some things installed.

And if (want to think) they are 'fighting' for openness, 'buying' rights to games and taking them out of other stores.

All of them can be easily googled so not going to spend time providing sources

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#358

Post by nanidin »

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…

I don’t want to maintain a games collection across several game stores. If a game isn’t available standalone or on Steam, I’m not buying it. I may still play it, but in that case the developer and publisher are not gaining anything - case in point, Untitled Google Game.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#359

Post by belltaco »

falcolas wrote: post #183
pharke wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, people are having a hissy fit over exclusive content that has no further price than downloading a free store app. It's like whingeing about driving to another store to get the brand of ice cream that you like. I have no problem with that as long as the device manufacturer doesn't limit me to a single store. Preferably I'd like to be able to choose any store or independent content. More choices, more freedom,…

Having to go to the EGS for a given exclusive game is not choice. It’s not freedom. It’s definitely not competition. Even if I buy a game broadly available on multiple platforms, I’m not getting a discount on it for going to EGS, despite their lower cut.

Software exclusivity is definitely a choice compared to hardware exclusivity. And you don't even have to pay a cent to download the Epic launcher.

Re: Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google

#360

Post by mytherin »

simion314 wrote: post #284
pjmlp wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new IE is Chrome actually. With 20% global market share, plenty of countries don't care about Safari support.

The new IE from the dragging things down point of view. Microsoft did not dare to not allow other browsers on Windows and because of that we can complain about Chrome.

Internet explorer was actually a decent browser in its peak. The whole "dragging things down" happened later on because people kept on using really old versions of IE (mostly the one bundled with Windows XP).

The main problem with Internet Explorer in its hay day was that they did not play nice with other browser vendors and implemented features outside of the standard. Those features were then relied upon by website developers, causing many websites to only work on Internet Explorer. After all - most people were using internet explorer, why cater to anyone else?

Chrome is not quite in the same position as Internet Explorer was back then, but it's getting frighteningly close. There are several websites that only work on Chrome, and despite me not using Chrome as my primary browser I do have Chrome installed because for some websites I simply need Chrome. This is obviously very dangerous to the freedom of the internet.

Funnily enough Apple forcing iOS users to use Safari actually helps here. Because so many people use iOS and they need to use Safari, website developers need to cater to at least one non-Chrome web browser. That in turn makes it more likely they will also cater to others (e.g. Firefox) rather than relying on Chrome-only features.

Post reply on HN