Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 107 posts

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#81

Post by morelisp »

magic_man wrote: post #4

Apple basically didn't write anything down. Tim Sweeney: The thing with Apple is all of their antitrust trickery is internal to the company. They use their store, their payments, they force developers to all have the same terms, they force OEMs and carriers to all have the same terms. I think the Apple case would be no less interesting if we could see all of their internal thoughts and deliberations, but Apple was no…

To attack Apple you'd have to attack vertical integration in general more aggressively, not just when it's "unfair". Which Epic won't do because the integration between their games, their engine licensing, and their store is also a key part of their identity today.

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#82

Post by rezonant »

scarface_74 wrote: post #76
omeid2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get instant notifications for purchases. Add card to my digital wallet. As for your claims about markets and openness, I am not sure what are you even trying to say.

That in the United States, 60% of the users don’t care about “openness” and buy iPhones and pay on average twice as much for the privilege.

Good that we have you here to speak on their behalf.

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#83

Post by rezonant »

VikingCoder wrote: post #39
StressedDev wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a better lesson would be to comply with the law, do not destroy evidence, and to do what you say you are doing. Google sold Android as being open. Once Android succeeded, Google started closing it and making anti-competitive deals. Many of these deals were illegal because Google had a monopoly and abused its monopoly. Please explain why Google's conduct should not be punished? Why should Google be allowed to…

I see people on two sides arguing with each other, and not realizing they're having completely different conversations. You're in one conversation. Many other people are in a completely different conversation, something like: Isn't Android more open than tons of closed systems, who will never be punished... and isn't that evidence that the law itself is written poorly?

Well you know what they say; when the conversation doesn't agree with your world view, subtly change the conversation.

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#85

Post by rezonant »

morelisp wrote: post #81
magic_man wrote: post #4

Apple basically didn't write anything down. Tim Sweeney: The thing with Apple is all of their antitrust trickery is internal to the company. They use their store, their payments, they force developers to all have the same terms, they force OEMs and carriers to all have the same terms. I think the Apple case would be no less interesting if we could see all of their internal thoughts and deliberations, but Apple was no…

To attack Apple you'd have to attack vertical integration in general more aggressively, not just when it's "unfair". Which Epic won't do because the integration between their games, their engine licensing, and their store is also a key part of their identity today.

I think the only part of what you describe that is potentially a vertical tie is the Unreal Marketplace license requiring that assets you buy only be used in Unreal.

Otherwise, you can put non-Unreal games on EGS, and you can put Unreal games on other stores. EGS does not give you benefits if you choose to publish an Unreal game on EGS, and I'd be surprised if all the games EGS buys exclusivity for are Unreal games.

Epic does sell their own games on Epic Game Store, but they also sell most of their games on Steam too (with the huge exception of Fortnite, though it's free to play)

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#86

Post by morelisp »

rezonant wrote: post #85
morelisp wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To attack Apple you'd have to attack vertical integration in general more aggressively, not just when it's "unfair". Which Epic won't do because the integration between their games, their engine licensing, and their store is also a key part of their identity today.

I think the only part of what you describe that is potentially a vertical tie is the Unreal Marketplace license requiring that assets you buy only be used in Unreal. Otherwise, you can put non-Unreal games on EGS, and you can put Unreal games on other stores. EGS does not give you benefits if you choose to publish an Unreal game on EGS, and I'd be surprised if all the games EGS buys exclusivity for are Unreal games.…

> EGS does not give you benefits if you choose to publish an Unreal game on EGS

This is false. If you sell a UE game in Epic's store they don't charge the engine licensing fee.

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#87

Post by donkeybeer »

smoldesu wrote: post #45
StressedDev wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think the Switch runs Android. I think it runs BSD. Could you please provide a link showing the Switch runs Android?

It looks like I was wrong. Same family of hardware/drivers, different OS. Same principle and concept, though; I think BSD's success in the console industry proves that open OSes can find use (albeit as components of closed systems).

I'd say the main reason is that BSD licensed oses are attractive to these locked down devices because there is no requirement to keep your fork open source as well. Play Station 3, and if this is true then apparently Nintendo Switch as well, and so on.

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#88

Post by nolok »

COGlory wrote: post #55
Pxtl wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name one of those OSes that had a quality phone on the market with a zero-dollar-license OS in 2009. Android was first modern mobile OS to market that would run on 3rd party devices (unlike Apple and RIM). Tizen was 2013. Win phone was 2011, and had license fees to use it.

In this scenario (locked down like Apple), 3rd party devices aren't running Android.

You're confusing open and available for licensing

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#89

Post by nolok »

StressedDev wrote: post #33
GeekyBear wrote: post #26

The thing that landed Google in hot water was that they licensed Android to multiple vendors and then used anticompetitive shenanigans to control the marketplace. Look at XBox and Windows at Microsoft. XBox is a walled garden and you can't create a game for it without Microsoft's permission and giving Microsoft a cut. There have been zero legal repercussions for this. Windows is licensed to multiple vendors and Micro…

Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo sometimes lose money on hardware sales. Operating system venders never lose money on software sales because software costs nothing to reproduce (they can still lose money but the loses do not increase as sales increase). I do not know anti-trust law but I think the difference in business models should be acknowledged.

> Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo sometimes lose money on hardware sales.

Nintendo has never sold a console at a loss, Sony hasn't done it since the PS3 in 2006 and Microsoft since the 360. So it's not the norm since more than a decade.

Re: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court

#90

Post by rezonant »

morelisp wrote: post #86
rezonant wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the only part of what you describe that is potentially a vertical tie is the Unreal Marketplace license requiring that assets you buy only be used in Unreal. Otherwise, you can put non-Unreal games on EGS, and you can put Unreal games on other stores. EGS does not give you benefits if you choose to publish an Unreal game on EGS, and I'd be surprised if all the games EGS buys exclusivity for are Unreal games.…

> EGS does not give you benefits if you choose to publish an Unreal game on EGS This is false. If you sell a UE game in Epic's store they don't charge the engine licensing fee.

I stand corrected but your "False!" is in bad form.

Here's the docs, search for Epic Games Store in this FAQ. They waive the 5% royalties when sold on Epic Game Store. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/faq

Post reply on HN