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

91–100 of 107 posts

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

#91

Post by nox100 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #27
echelon wrote: post #6

> And I think Apple should be receiving at least as harsh antitrust scrutiny as Google. They both deserve antitrust attention, but Apple is the far worse offender. The cellphone is more essential than the car, and here are these two companies basically owning and taxing the roads, fuel, destinations, activities, and in-car entertainment. And you can't upgrade or change anything.

The problem with Apple is that while they don’t have a monopoly on cellphones, they seem to have a monopoly on good cellphone experiences. Your choice is a couple of platforms that are closed but works decently well, and other more open platforms that are much more chaotic and poorer user experiences. Linux phones or android phones not running Google’s stack being examples of the latter.

Apple has 58% market share in the USA. It's irrelevant if Android has bigger market in Europe or China. The anti-trust laws being discussed are for the USA

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

#92

Post by morelisp »

rezonant wrote: post #90
morelisp wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Right, the problem is that I said it was false, not that you said something totally false with such certainty.

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

#93

Post by rezonant »

morelisp wrote: post #92
rezonant wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Right, the problem is that I said it was false, not that you said something totally false with such certainty.

Hey I said, "I think", and was ready to accept that there was more to it. Yours was assertive about that being wrong without providing any supporting evidence for your claim. You made me find it instead. Hence the "bad form".

I'm not sure how "I think..." conveys certainty.

It's just an abrasive thing to do running around going "False!" and "Wrong!" on the Internet. So yeah I'll give you flak for it.

I put in effort to try to not be abrasive because people call that out when I do. You're just receiving the same.

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

#94

Post by jmye »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #59
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Apple is that while they don’t have a monopoly on cellphones, they seem to have a monopoly on good cellphone experiences. Your choice is a couple of platforms that are closed but works decently well, and other more open platforms that are much more chaotic and poorer user experiences. Linux phones or android phones not running Google’s stack being examples of the latter.

It feels silly to me to assess based on number of companies playing. If the market were three or four companies all behaving exactly like Apple, there still is a clear & present need for government intervention, a clear "consumer harm" by creating technological intermediary overlords with total control over information technology. Apple defenders love pointing out that there is choice, that folks can go to Android. B…

> But what if Android were just as lawful-evil malevolent a force?

Unnecessarily hyperbolic.

I don’t see it as “malevolent” that there aren’t multiple app stores of questionable quality, where I have to go hunt for apps I need. I don’t begrudge anyone who chooses not to use an Apple device, who chooses not to publish their program on an Apple device, or who prefer a device they can change anything on.

But I would think we don’t need every single phone to be identical to satisfy a small number of Android users who don’t want to understand any use case but their own.

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

#95

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #77
scarface_74 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What country are you living in? You mean the one with the highest incarceration rate in the world? Both sides are have been guilty of suppressing free speech that they don’t agree with.

Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style? You've unfortunately been doing a lot of that. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

[deleted]

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

#96

Post by COGlory »

Pxtl wrote: post #72
COGlory wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What? Why would devices locked down at the OS-level to only a 1st-party store and only permitting installing through that 1st-party store be hardware-bound? Winphones were bound to the Windows store, but were 3rd-party devices.

Because the comparison is to Apple.

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

#97

Post by _aavaa_ »

scarface_74 wrote: post #69
_aavaa_ wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We, as a society, have already made many such decision where certain kinds of goods/services cannot be legally sold and certain business practices are deemed illegal, even if people would choose to knowingly buy them in advanced. It is unfortunately that the idea of people being allowed to do what they wish with the devices they purchased and, supposedly, own need is the side that needs justifying.

Yes because people not being able to run Linux on their Apple Pencil is such a severe societal problem that we need government intervention. Or could it be that geeks hate when people make their own choices based on their own free will and other people’s choices aren’t aligned to a relatively few geeks

The tone and hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion.

You know very well that the argument is that companies should not have the right to dictate what you can and cannot do with your property.

The world would be worse off if our ovens only operate for manufacturer-approved recipes since it would “increase oven reliability and safety”.

Look at printers. Yes customers know the horrible situation before buying into it, but that in no way justifies their blatant power grab over what you can do with your own devices. The same for label makers. What those companies are doing should simply be illegal.

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

#98

Post by COGlory »

nolok wrote: post #88
COGlory wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're confusing open and available for licensing

No, the comparison here is to Apple.

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

#100

Post by Pxtl »

COGlory wrote: post #96
Pxtl wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Why would devices locked down at the OS-level to only a 1st-party store and only permitting installing through that 1st-party store be hardware-bound? Winphones were bound to the Windows store, but were 3rd-party devices.

Because the comparison is to Apple.

The lawsuits vs Google and Apple were about was allowing 3rd-party stores onto your platform, not about hardware lock-in.
Post reply on HN