
Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google - pseudolus
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/911658041/fortnite-maker-tim-sweeney-on-apple-and-google-these-monopolies-need-to-be-stopp
======
raxxorrax
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 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.

If a larger developer like Epic has no recourse on store owners, the average
developer will have even less. Remember the old times that actually isn't
nostalgia? You could just install anything you wanted on your OS that
respected your device. Great times.

~~~
madeofpalk
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 that they otherwise wouldnt be able to
make. Consumers get more games, plus they get hefty discounts or even just
free games. Ideally we would then see Valve/Steam trying to compete in
response.

It's win/win/win.

~~~
mirthflat83
It's the "best case scenario" for developers and Epic, but not for me as a
customer. I vastly prefer the iPhone model where I can go to a single place to
download all the apps that I need with a single payment method. I don't have
to go to a specific url in the browser, download an executable, install a
separate store for each game I want, and then finally install the game from
that separate store. I don't know who would call this as a superior user
experience.

You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app
prices by 200%, whereas in reality there hasn't remotely been such a thing
since the inception of the App Store.

~~~
bryanlarsen
> You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the
> app prices by 200%

No, we got free to play with endless micro transactions instead. I would have
preferred the price bump.

~~~
doytch
Well, that was because developers demanded it. Apple initially didn't allow
in-app payments for free apps.

~~~
lapcatsoftware
No, developers demanded time-limited trials for paid apps, which we had for
many years before the App Store.

But Apple _never_ delivered on that. Instead, Apple pushed "subscriptions",
which is just another name for rental.

~~~
falcolas
Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Google...

Subscription models produce lots of recurring revenue, so companies absolutely
adore that model when they can get away with it.

------
KitDuncan
Microsoft is apparently not one of the monopolies he wants stopped, because he
is incredibly hostile towards Linux and Linux support for games. I can't stand
this dude and his ramblings.

~~~
coldpie
Hey there, I work in the Linux gaming space. Epic and Tim Sweeney are not
hostile towards Linux. The worst you can say is they're indifferent (and can
you blame them, given the size of that market?), but even that is not true.
Epic's game engine supports Linux. Could they do more to support Linux gaming?
Sure. But that's not the same as being "incredibly hostile."

~~~
brnt
No Epic Store in Linux. Repeatedly stated they've no plans to.

Meanwhile, Steam is doubling down with Proton. Since Proton, I don't have a
Windows partition around anymore, it just works for an enormous number of
titles.

~~~
nvrspyx
Ignoring Linux != Hostile to Linux

Just because they don't want to build for and support a relatively tiny
platform does not mean that they're hostile toward that platform. They support
it in other ways via their game engine. Steam, on the other hand, has a vested
interest in supporting Linux due to SteamOS, which they hope to pursue again
in the future.

Just because Valve has a lot of goodwill in supporting Linux, even though
Proton hasn't really affected Linux's market share in gaming, does not mean
everyone else is actively hostile toward it.

------
Traster
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.

~~~
nonane
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.

~~~
JamesSwift
Yes, this is one of my biggest pet peeves and largest disconnects when reading
these threads. I dont understand how people can accept apples privacy and
protecting the consumer argument when that has nothing to do with the app
store. That is iOS itself and its permission model.

Do people really think app store approvers are doing malware analysis on apps
and analyzing network traffic to approve them?

~~~
finnthehuman
Conversation on this website is full of people who can't see a mixed bag and
acknowledge the bad parts are bad.

People who know better tend to have the self control not to engage. I often
get baited into engaging.

------
koonsolo
Here's my "old-timer" take on the 30%:

I used to develop games and apps for MS PocketPC. Our users could install apps
straight from their PC to the PocketPC.

But guess how apps were sold: through portals. These portals also took around
30% (Handango and PocketGear were the biggest ones back then).

We were also selling straight from our website, where we could have had 0%
cost. But guess what: We wanted to reach top 10 on Handango, and the best way
to do that was send our customers through Handango. Once in the top 10 (front
page), it would multiply our sales. So even on our own site we choose to
'lose' 30%.

Just take a look at Steam: it's PC games! You can sell all those things
straight to the consumer. But developers still choose to give 30% (or how much
is it now?) for the exposure.

Conclusion: there will always be some party taking around 30%. Why? Because
it's well worth the 30%

~~~
gruez
>Just take a look at Steam: it's PC games! You can sell all those things
straight to the consumer. But developers still choose to give 30% (or how much
is it now?) for the exposure.

What's your opinion on the following:

* pay-for-play "acceptable ads" in ABP

* having to get a EV code signing certificate ($300+/yr) to bypass windows smartscreen warnings, which are enabled by default

Are they acceptable? Are they a net good for consumers? They're all examples
of optional programs that clearly provide value to the buyers (otherwise they
wouldn't be buying it), in exchange for a payment to the gatekeepers. This is
basically the same role as steam (or the portals). However, I have a feeling
that most hn readers would not have a positive opinion of either of those
programs.

~~~
nodamage
> having to get a EV code signing certificate ($300+/yr) to bypass windows
> smartscreen warnings, which are enabled by default

Windows was a malware disaster before measures like this were added to the OS,
so I would argue this (and other warnings preventing people from randomly
clicking and installing things) _are_ a net good for the consumer.

You also technically don't need an _EV_ cert, you can get a regular code
signing cert (it will just take longer to build your reputation).

------
coldtea
> _Since then, Sweeney, an iconoclastic executive who owns enormous farms and
> dabbles in fast cars_

And overworks his employees to exhaustion, while stomping on their
unionizing...

~~~
TheRealDunkirk
I think Epic has miscalculated the optics on this. There is no underdog in
this story. It's just two enormous companies, run by very wealthy men, who put
corporate profits and stock options above employee welfare, squabbling over
how much of the pie they get to eat, when neither one can finish their first
slice. I want them both to lose.

~~~
ecf
Epic miscalculated because they weren’t ever expecting a real legal battle.

They wanted Fortnite to get removed from the App Store in hopes that their
rabid fan base of adolescent Fortnite gamers would create insane amounts of
bad PR for Apple.

But It never reached critical mass and Apple stood their ground.

------
ben_w
I think:

1\. Multiple App Stores would be good for free speech, and for avoidance of
USA cultural and legal hegemony.

2\. How can this be done without loss of security for typical users? We don’t
want phones to become botnets with microphones and cameras — imagine the
opportunities for automatic criminal blackmail, theft planning, target
acquisition, or 2FA interception. This is bad for the societies we live in
even if _we here on HN_ don’t personally install bad apps or bad stores.

3\. It does feel like Sweeney is arguing in bad faith.

4\. The the money is being raised as an issue implies these markets are now
red-water rather than blue-water.

~~~
floatingatoll
> _How can this be done without loss of security for typical users?_

It cannot. Typical users are not capable of 'vetting' app stores for their
security capabilities.

~~~
ben_w
It doesn’t have to be directly end-users — could it be like the HTTPS chain of
trust, only with Apple and Google as the roots of certification?

~~~
floatingatoll
What incentive does Google or Apple have to associate their name with someone
else’s security judgment calls?

~~~
ben_w
Oh, none whatsoever. This would have to be forced upon them against their
will.

I just hope it’s done by governments who actually care about end users, not by
those acting as though feudal aristocracy is the current economic standard and
want a cut of Big Tech’s trillions.

~~~
floatingatoll
I take it we've moved past the era of "governments shouldn't control the
Internet", then.

~~~
ben_w
Governments have always controlled it (SSL encryption ‘export’ limitations,
for example); what we’ve moved past is the idea that those governments which
control it are uniquely those which sit in Washington DC.

~~~
floatingatoll
I wasn’t talking about ITAR controls, but that’s an easier path to explain to
others. Good call, I’ll use it, thanks.

------
VikingCoder
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.

~~~
smnrchrds
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

~~~
VikingCoder
Android is literally open source, and any rooted phone can get a new operating
system. Can you name a lower barrier to entry in any industry?

------
aetherson
Apple's defense that they are not a monopolist in any traditional sense is
correct as far as it goes.

But a novel definition of monopoly may be warranted. As smartphones become
more and more a part of the fundamental infrastructure of society, and remain
relatively expensive and slow to replace, it's not crazy to say that iPhone
users are a market in itself and that market should be protected from
monopoly. In the same way that a company in the 1800s might not have been a
national or regional monopoly, but very much was a monopoly in their own
company town, or how car manufacturers in the 20th Century were forced to
allow competition in repair services.

I think ultimately, right now, my personal sense is that iPhones don't quite
rise to the level of their own market that needs to be opened up, but it's
close.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
> “As smartphones become more and more a part of the fundamental
> infrastructure of society”

This perspective underpins a lot of the pushback against Apple & Google but I
just don’t understand it.

Any cell phone, and especially a smartphone, is not integral to modern
society. Random usage by consumers is recreational. Businesses have a million
ways to replace things they ask employees to rely on smartphones for. In fact
not all uses of smartphones are productivity increasing, and it could easily
be argued that we need better ways to just switch them off, whether at work or
at home, to get things done.

An iPhone is like a video game console. Whether you use for seemingly
“important” things like PagerDuty or day trading or checking your child’s
location or hailing a car ride for a home-bound elder or sick person ... the
smartphone is purely extra consumer gadgetry to do it and it could be
accomplished many other ways.

Given that smartphones are just an optional, convenient luxury item, I don’t
see how any argument about them being critical to modern society can possibly
be used to claim Apple must be forced to operate its app distribution channel
a certain way or cannot set its own monetization policies.

~~~
enragedcacti
17% of people in the US use their smartphone as their only portal to the
internet [1]. Is your argument that as long as they can go use a computer at a
library that their smartphone is a luxury item? Access to the internet (or
someone to access it for you) is basically a prerequisite for existing in
modern society and phones are how people choose to do it most of the time.

This like saying "hey, if you don't like buying from standard oil, just get a
horse!" when 1) you might already have a car, 2) you can't afford a horse on
top of that, and 3) society has restructured itself such that a horse is not
even viable in your day-to-day life.

[1] [https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/06/17/pew-smartphone-
only...](https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/06/17/pew-smartphone-only-
internet-use/)

~~~
parasubvert
It is an incredible lack of imagination to think we are at the end of history
on mobile device OSes and thus they should become utilities.

Oil is a natural resource. This is software that didn’t exist 12 years ago.

~~~
enragedcacti
We aren't really talking about OSes though, we are talking about software
distribution. No one is trying to force Apple to let other phone manufacturers
use iOS or force them to open source it.

Is advertising and hosting software so novel that it doesn't deserve any
scrutiny?

------
qwertox
The podcast "Acquired" recently did an episode on Epic

[https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/epic-
games](https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/epic-games) (Season 7, Episode 3,
September 1, 2020)

It helped me a lot with positioning Epic and Sweeney, with his current
actions, into my mental knowledge base, in the context of Doom and what was
happening in the 90s and thereafter in the gaming industry. It also touches
the current topic. It's worth listening to.

~~~
degosuke
Thank you for introducing me to this podcast. Truly a valuable one.

------
sunshinerag
Yes, it can be stopped. All Tim Sweeney is to do is build another mobile
hardware/software platform and set the rules for app distribution however he
likes. That is the way to beat a monopoly.

~~~
kyran_adept
The closer you are to the root of the tree, the harder it is to "build an
alternative". It's the same for the road system, power distribution system,
mobile platforms(Android, Apple), etc. I can't afford as a customer to buy a
device just to play Fortnite, nor should I.

~~~
Zhyl
You can leverage existing alternatives, which they already do to some extent.
Epic has invested massively in Blender, for example.

It's interesting that they've gone the 'pick a fight' route, when 8 years ago
when Valve had similar concerns about Windows 8 they did as GP suggested and
rolled their own Linux distro and made a bid for the living room space. That
particular offensive failed, but Valve's continued investment in the Linux
space now means that now, 8 years later, most AAA games without Anti-cheat or
some kinds of DRM can be played on Linux seamlessly.

If Epic wanted to do likewise, they could invest in Librem 5 or Pinephone and
make alternatives more viable.

~~~
tutino
That's interesting because indeed Librem 5, Pinephone, etc. could be indeed a
unique opportunity for Epic (and Valve) to have their own mobile stores under
their own rules.

Sure, currently it is insignificant, but so is Linux Desktop, yet Valve
invests in Wine/Photon/Wayland/etc. and on the long run it might pay off when
they'll have their own consoles.

I don't really understand Tim S. , on one hand he hates Apple monopoly, on the
other hand he also hates Linux which is the only viable alternative, yet he
still supports open source a lot (e.g epic mega grant)

------
pjmlp
> "Everybody doesn't have a great incentive to challenge Apple and Google's
> 30% because they want to be the next bastard to charge 3̶0̶ 12%,"

There.

------
oneplane
Well, until we can play Forknife on Steam I don't see why he has any better
position than the brands he mentions.

------
gimmeThaBeet
I don't think attacks on Epic's sort of 'suitability' in fighting this dragon
are really warranted. Like godzilla vs. king kong, I think the only entities
with the financial strength and influence to tangle with apple/google is going
to be a bit of a monster in their own right.

My feelings about this do tend to vacillate. My opinion right now is sort of
circumstantial, in that I don't think it's even tongue in cheek to call 30%
the apple/google tax.

apple defends itself with the work it puts into maintaining app store quality.
But imo enforced app quality and the store experience is something you sell to
customers, not developers.

So apple talks about how there's so many free apps that never give apple a
nickel. I can understand differentiated pricing for different customers, but
framing app developers as app store customers is where I feel apple and google
run afoul. So it's like, why is it acceptable that mega-apps like fortnite are
basically levied to support the app store, that apple turns around and
presents to the customer and says "look how nice we made this"?

I don't know, it feels like the anti "developers, developers, developers".
They don't have to make any concession to promote developers to use their
platform, because there practically isn't much of a choice, between the two
they're nearly the only game in town.

------
ianai
Crazy idea: if you want a free as in speech App Store then why isn’t the
request for a free as in speech mobile OS?

The claim is there isn’t a company backing it - presumably from lack of market
demand for it. There have been attempts but they’ve not gained steam. Even
Google is now moving away from Linux as the core of android.

I generally agree that we need some countervailing pressure against the
monopolies of today. But I can’t help to suspect there’s an argument to be
made that turns the argument on its head: in a free market it is valid to tell
someone asking for a product to produce their own desired good. If it’s a
popular idea the implementation has a chance at being popular.

The counter to this would probably include lack of hardware to really target.
Apples not letting anyone side load an entirely different OS on its phones,
for instance.

Maybe that’s an angle to counter these monopolies without needing to go so far
as to dissect them into smaller companies? Simply pass a law saying hardware
and software should always be self contained goods - you can bundle them but
have to offer them separately too.

Ninja edit- I think in that universe with self contained goods that hardware
companies would have to make source code for drivers OSS (why should they care
where it’s ran?) or enough information to make writing drivers possible.

~~~
m9ma35
I think its a bit of a chicken/egg problem here. If there is no apps/appstore
the OS will be a flop, but if there is no free OS there will probably not be a
free app-ecosystem.

Used to have a Nokia N9, awesome phone, great OS, but there weren't any apps
to speak of which I think is a large part of why MeeGo died.

Honestly the one way I see out of this is if web-apps largely replace native
apps, which means that a new OS only needs to support a standards compliant
web-browser.

That or get the existing actors to agree on and support an open 'app-
container' format ...

~~~
parasubvert
You’ve hit it.

There’s a reason the web once was a threat to Microsoft’s monopoly: it led to
rich experiences they couldn’t control.

The web is so popular, Apple couldn’t block it. The trick to attacking them
anticompetitively is to enhance the browser to take advantage of modern
hardware capabilities and then go after the iOS browser restrictions as
anticompetitive.

Google Stadia is an example of this arguably. But with things coming up like
WASM I could see the browser being a local experience for games too.

~~~
DivisionSol
There is nothing stopping the Browser from providing AAA experiences, today,
other than... Most likely, only a 'good' game engine.

JavaScript + WebGL are very capable, right now, and for the past ~5 years.

------
holstvoogd
Meanwhile you get a fortnite installer on every xperia that you cannot and may
not remove...

He is probably right, not sure, but he only got on this high horse after Apple
and Google told him to get f*cked when he wanted a special deal. So maybe he
should sit this one out and let the relevant regulators handle it? He is just
in it to cry in the media if you ask me

------
CincinnatiMan
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.

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

What if it was an European or Indian company?

~~~
CincinnatiMan
Well if I have to pick between my country being the top player versus another
country, I’d still always pick my country (US). Though an EU or Indian company
would be less concerning than Chinese.

~~~
libertine
Don't take me wrong, that's precisely the point - admitting and accepting your
bias is the way to go, and that's fine.

It's just sad that the EU stance seems increasingly naive, the "lead by
example" stance doesn't seem to work at all, and we're steam rolled between US
and China.

Why isn't the EU stopping monopolies from acting in EU territory if it's in
the EU best interest? Why not stop predatory takeovers? It's like we're just
bystanders watching US and China... just sad.

Thank you for your honesty

------
compsciphd
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

------
isodev
Epic has monopoly on v-bucks, they need to be stopped.

------
gok
> Sweeney founded Epic Games in his parents' basement in the suburbs of
> Washington, D.C., in the early 1990s and grew the business into a $17
> billion gaming empire.

Well that's one way to look at it. What made him really rich was selling out
to Tencent, who just so happens to also have a mobile app store that they
would love to get onto your phone.

------
fuu_dev
A lot of the time i see people/youtubers mention that they like the benefits
of the App store that would be gone if anything changes.

But why is this invalidated by allowing allowing the user to install software
from other sources, allow a the user to install a browser that is not a skin
on top of safari, allow non apple game streaming services on the platform,
allow the use of images/text that mentions or shows competing software company
logos/names, allow apps to show price differences in payment processing or
allow established payment methods like PayPal to be used on the platform.

If would still allow the same user to only use apple pay or the apple version
of their loved service of choice but also gives users that don't alternatives.

------
parasubvert
It is an incredible lack of imagination that people actually think this is the
end of history with regards to mobile device operating systems, and we should
just declare Android and iOS And their ecosystems public utilities that should
be regulated by the government.

Because that really is the only recourse here to give people what they want.

Markets aren’t created by god, they’re created by customers. If you want to
force the creation of an App Store market, one that customers aren’t actually
asking for, it will need to be government-mandated.

Maybe there will be a weak sauce version of this where the review process
isn’t regulated but the commission rates are regulated. We aren’t going back
to the PC model where a thousand app stores bloom. No government will force
that - there’s too much risk for malware and spyware as it is. At best it will
be government-sanctioned stores with a government-sanctioned review process.

Windows once had 95% market share (still does!) and this hasn’t happened, even
though Microsoft still gets a cut of almost every PC sale.

Be careful what you wish for. Folks here really haven’t studied history of
antitrust beyond scanning Wikipedia.

There is a ton potential for new devices and platforms in VR, AR, and other
experiences. The current state of affairs is not permanent. Most historical
antitrust actions had very limited positive effects on consumers. The Standard
Oil breakup, for example, is often cited. But it’s breakup didn’t really fix
anything. Its children became bigger than the parent within a few years! Same
with the AT&T breakup. It led to oligopoly. The only real telecom competition
has been foreign entrants like T-Mobile. Microsoft’s consent decree had almost
no impact on its monopoly status and revenue steam. What mattered was the
market changing, to the point we didn’t care about the Windows monopoly
anymore. There were other platforms that mattered in iOS, Android.

Valve has a near monopoly for PC game app stores and is poised to compete with
Facebook and Apple for the next generation of VR/AR. Epic wants in on that.
And likely there will be others.

~~~
Slartie
> No government will force that - there’s too much risk for malware and
> spyware as it is.

Since when does any government anywhere on this planet care about "risk for
malware and spyware" on operating systems? If they did, they'd turn up the
heat on software developers in terms of responsibility for blatant security
violations and security-related software bugs. The fact that no government
does any of that tells us that they don't care about secure software. Some
governments - I'm not calling names now - may even have active interest in
insecure software due to their law enforcement and intelligence arms depending
on security flaws for their work.

~~~
parasubvert
In the US alone, there have been have been several congressional hearings and
FTC reports on malware and spyware over the past 20+ years. Microsoft was
under significant political and commercial pressure in the 2000s to clean this
up, and they answered the call.

------
drummer
Apple has every right to decide about their platform. What everyone else needs
to do, including Sweeney, is stop developing for that platform and choose
open/free platforms. Please go have a chat with rms.

~~~
can16358p
Exactly my thoughts. It's their platform, their well-written rules, and Epic
always knew it from the beginning. They intentionally made a move against a
legal agreement, didn't take a step back despite the warnings from
Apple/Google, and now paying a price. Don't want to be devil's advocate here
but Apple/Google did the right thing.

------
tempodox
Since this war is about making money from controlling access to the users, I
don't feel like siding with either Apple or Epic on this. Letting the sheep
decide by which wolf they will be eaten isn't that great of a choice.

From my own personal perspective, I would like to be able to permanently
install an app that I developed myself, on my own Mac, on the iOS devices that
I own without having to go through the app store or Apple's review process.
But I'm not holding my breath that the outcome of this fight will deliver even
that.

~~~
parasubvert
You can already install your own software on your own iOS device without
review. You can even install it on 3rd party devices (up to 100) without
review!

~~~
tempodox
Not _permanently_. You have to re-install every week.

------
tomohawk
IBM was investigated for antitrust violations. After many years, they entered
into a consent decree which required them to document all of their APIs. And
not just that - they were not allowed to have any hidden interfaces that might
place IBM application developers at an advantage over non-IBM application
developers.

As long as you coded to the published API, you were good to go.

------
xenophonf
"These monopolies need to be stopped," says man who wants to create his own
monopoly.

------
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave)
). This becomes a philosophical dilemma unless you believe freedom and truth
should be absolute.

~~~
MrScruff
What about the freedom to choose a highly curated platform because you want
that and are prepared to pay a premium for it?

~~~
IncRnd
What about it? You, personally, making that choice shouldn't force everyone
else to pay 30% eternally to Apple.

~~~
Google234
You don’t have to pay 30% to Apple. Jail break your phone is you want or just
buy one of the 1000s of other phones for. Sale

~~~
IncRnd
> You don’t have to pay 30% to Apple. Jail break your phone is you want or
> just buy one of the 1000s of other phones for. Sale

That's a completely unreasonable sales strategy for a company to take, telling
their customers to jailbreak their phones or to purchase a different phone.

------
TekMol

        Apples not letting anyone side
        load an entirely different OS
        on its phones
    

I tend to think that this practice has only downsides for society.

------
_aleph2c_
If he loses this fight, he should bankroll a Linux Phone and an iOS/android-
app-to-Linux phone cross compiler.

------
ngcc_hk
Where the money cone from. Who help those small merchant that pay only $99 and
some portion to get into such large platform.

Still remember the cost of Getting into windows developer.

To be honest they are not small player. If they fight for lower percentage for
small player may be ... but if rich one do not pay

------
elondaits
As a user of npm I'd really like to see some effort to create a framework for
trust in open(ish) repositories. Something that includes signing, reputation
(beyond "popularity"), trust network (people that vouch for your packages),
automated verification to check for obfuscation, etc.

I mention npm because it's always in the news, and because it's a much smaller
and simpler problem that a whole App Store.

If we could fix something like npm the solution could perhaps be generalized
or built on to open trustworthy repos for all kinds of content. At that point
we would have a very strong working argument against privately-run
monopolistic app stores. Until then I prefer Apple as a benevolent dictator to
mad-max style libertarianism. I need to use Adobe software for professional
reasons, but I'd rather not have to deal with an Adobe app store... or an EA
app store... or an Ubisoft app store... or apps stores from a variety of
shitty companies with bad practices.

------
helsinkiandrew
If Epic allowed users to create their own outfits and weapons and sell them in
fortnite using the users choice of credit card processing service they'd have
a lot more legs to stand on.

------
circa
I understand these companies are all different and obviously different in
size. But I still get a good feeling of the pot calling the kettle black here.

------
ekianjo
So the NPR is now a mouthpiece of Epic, without any critical comment to any of
their ridiculous claims?

------
mrbrianhinton
Doesn't Epic have a pretty big monopoly in the game industry?

~~~
Zhyl
Not a monopoly, but they have a captive audience with one of the biggest
gaming franchises of the current time.

Many of their current practices with the Epic Store could be potentially seen
as being anti-competitive, but they are currently being given the benefit of
the doubt because they are nowhere near as big as Steam.

------
kristianpaul
Two only choices of mobile OS, thats concerning for sure.

------
NoblePublius
I think it’s super unfair that I am not allowed to set up a lemonade stand
inside of Walmart for free. Monopolistic, even.

~~~
mcintyre1994
Would this change at all if Walmart was the only store allowed to operate in
an area corresponding to about half the US population?

~~~
CubsFan1060
Would it change at all if that half of the population chose to live there,
knowing Walmart was the only store allowed to operate?

Would it change even further if people moved there BECAUSE Walmart was the
only store that was allowed to operate?

And since someone will ask "why would you want that?". The analogy won't
completely work, but I'll go with it. When my son wants to buy a bike, they go
off and bike a bike. I can be sure that they bought it at Walmart, and that
Walmart has done some work to make sure the bike is safe for my son.

If I don't have that, then maybe he buys a bike at "Joe's bike shop". Maybe
that bike was made poorly in China. I don't know that the bike he bought was
safe.

I mean, [https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-
fo...](https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-for-android-
came-with-an-epic-security-risk/). And, what do you know, Sweeney was mad at
Google for finding it.

~~~
mcintyre1994
It's definitely a valid point. I've made the comment before that one of the
problems of a more open App platform is that Facebook would replicate their
malicious app advertising business on iOS and millions of people would have
worse experiences with their phone because of it. It's ridiculous the stuff
they're willing to push ads for on Android and Google are willing to host on
their store, and it's no loss to iOS that suchs apps aren't available.

But a lemonade stand in a Walmart wouldn't necessarily harm consumers, and
lots of things Apple blocks or requires a cut of wouldn't either if things
were changed.

~~~
CubsFan1060
I apologize in advance for stretching the analogy so far here. But going back
to my example, my son now goes into Walmart for a lemonade. The Lemonade stand
is half the price, so he goes there. How do I know the lemonade isn't
poisoned? Made with peanuts and not labeled as such? etc.. The argument would
be that he doesn't have to go there, but that's easier said than done. I go to
Walmart because I know that they verify their products.

Going back to an iPhone, the answer is usually "you don't have to use any
other app stores". But what about if I _do_? What if I have to use the new
Coronavirus test that requires an app? And the only way to get the app is to
install Abbott's app store? Are you guaranteed that they aren't also consuming
all your health information?

My view would be different if Android didn't exist, or if iPhone had a much
higher market share. But for now, I'm happy to pay extra to be in the walled
garden, because I trust the king of the castle to try to protect me (as
opposed to figuring out who to trust out on the street).

------
mlthoughts2018
I’m surprised to find myself siding with Apple / Google / etc on this. They
did the work to build and maintain a distribution platform. They should be
able to define its terms of use and costs. If you don’t like it, distribute
differently. If everyone uses those companies’ devices, it’s a market
endorsement that the world wants the standardization and managed ecosystem of
each platform - that it’s a thing of value.

I don’t see how there’s any way you can tell Apple how Apple has to run
infrastructure to support a distribution channel, but it cannot determine the
prices or policies for someone using it to distribute an app.

~~~
summerlight
> They should be able to define its terms of use and costs.

As long as it doesn't conflict with public interests. For this purpose,
antitrust laws are designed to tackle this particular type of situations.

> the world wants the standardization and managed ecosystem of each platform

This maybe true, and such standards might also be too important to be
controlled by just one or two companies.

~~~
parasubvert
It is incredible that people actually think this is the end of history with
regards to mobile device operating systems, and we should just declare Android
and iOS And their ecosystems public utilities.

Windows once had 95% market share and that didn’t even happen.

