5 ms·

To me this is exactly where their argument falls apart. I don’t get what Epic wants exactly. Even with Android where they initially had users side load their a

To me this is exactly where their argument falls apart. I don’t get what Epic wants exactly. Even with Android where they initially had users side load their apps they eventually gave up and put it on the Play Store after complaining that there’s too many warnings when users load third party APKs (how dare they include security warnings of un-reviewed apps!) It seems to me that Epic expects Apple and Google to offer up an Epic App Store/Epic made games in their own App Stores free of charge, and conveniently ignore any developer terms they previously agreed to. Talk about entitlement.

ViViDboarder 6y ago
They want platform providers (Apple with iOS and Google with Android) to get out of the way. They are both providing platforms, as well as market places, as well as competing apps/services.
- McAtNite 6y ago
  How do they expect those competing platforms to be delivered? If via side loading through a website then we’ve already seen them complain about Google having warnings for that. If through the app stores themselves then they’re essentially asking for discoverability, hosting, and distribution of their products for free. At what point does a company deserve the right to compete with you on your own product? If Amazon continues to engulf online shopping can another company eventually sue to have their own store listings put on Amazon with no money going to Amazon? To me these two situations aren’t that different. Apple and Google have each built hardware and software systems for their services. Other companies like Samsung have developed their own app stores that they distribute on their phones. If Epic wants to be a service provider then there are already charted pathways to doing so that don’t involve suing over service fees you already agreed to.
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    > At what point does a company deserve the right to compete with you on your own product? I get where you're coming from, I do -- but the answer to your question is somewhere around "when that company controls access to billions of eyeballs around the planet". These companies have greater access to and control of people than any government. They are beyond review, beyond accountability, and beyond reach. They are dictatorships controlling access to billions of people, the kind of power that would make any dictator in history blush. And I am not saying we should take from them all their power. They DID earn it, it's true and most of it is quite benign. But... giving them absolute power over who everyone in the world can do business with, just because they chose to buy that device (probably not knowing what the limitations would be)? For the sake of the future of the entire species I should think that this is not a situation we would consider ideal.
    - McAtNite 6y ago
      If the companies have become too large then I feel that’s really the responsibility of anti-trust regulators to address rather than the courts making a ruling that you have to let other companies sell their services in your store.
      - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        Actually I agree; but right now the US political landscape is extremely, painfully broken :-(
  - Reelin 6y ago
    Unless things have changed in the past couple of years it's not just a single security warning the first time you side load an app. On my device, F-Droid can't seem to update apps itself - rather I get a security warning dialog for _every single app_ whenever I do updates. This is in spite of the fact that I approved the initial security warning when installing the F-Droid apk itself and granted it all of the permissions it requested.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bubblethink 6y ago
In android's case, it's a lot simpler. Epic wants to partner with manufacturers who can preinstall epic's store, which google currently forbids.
- JiNCMG 6y ago
  They don't want the warnings from Android yet don't want to put the work/money in to build their own OS, even using AOSP (Android Open Source).
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    If Google's work on Android entitles them to be the only store on all Android-derived devices, what rights do Linus Torvalds and all the other Linux contributors have? Or is Google allowed to monetize their work for free, but Epic isn't? Both companies contribute to the open commons with open source software and sponsorships.
    - McAtNite 6y ago
      I think the right for Google to monetize and place restrictions mainly centers around the Play Services which are all tied back into their non open source projects. You could probably make a reasonable argument that Play Services are specifically designed to undermine the spirit of open source, but theoretically you could build an alternative, and use AOSP however you wish.
- LexGray 6y ago
  So this is step one and they intend to sue for more and more with the Epic endgame of getting the Epic store preloaded on iPhone? I look forward to the never ending news cycle.
indymike 6y ago
If we take Epic at their word, a better deal?

ViViDboarder 6y ago

They want platform providers (Apple with iOS and Google with Android) to get out of the way. They are both providing platforms, as well as market places, as well as competing apps/services.

McAtNite 6y ago
How do they expect those competing platforms to be delivered? If via side loading through a website then we’ve already seen them complain about Google having warnings for that. If through the app stores themselves then they’re essentially asking for discoverability, hosting, and distribution of their products for free. At what point does a company deserve the right to compete with you on your own product? If Amazon continues to engulf online shopping can another company eventually sue to have their own store listings put on Amazon with no money going to Amazon? To me these two situations aren’t that different. Apple and Google have each built hardware and software systems for their services. Other companies like Samsung have developed their own app stores that they distribute on their phones. If Epic wants to be a service provider then there are already charted pathways to doing so that don’t involve suing over service fees you already agreed to.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  > At what point does a company deserve the right to compete with you on your own product? I get where you're coming from, I do -- but the answer to your question is somewhere around "when that company controls access to billions of eyeballs around the planet". These companies have greater access to and control of people than any government. They are beyond review, beyond accountability, and beyond reach. They are dictatorships controlling access to billions of people, the kind of power that would make any dictator in history blush. And I am not saying we should take from them all their power. They DID earn it, it's true and most of it is quite benign. But... giving them absolute power over who everyone in the world can do business with, just because they chose to buy that device (probably not knowing what the limitations would be)? For the sake of the future of the entire species I should think that this is not a situation we would consider ideal.
  - McAtNite 6y ago
    If the companies have become too large then I feel that’s really the responsibility of anti-trust regulators to address rather than the courts making a ruling that you have to let other companies sell their services in your store.
    - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
      Actually I agree; but right now the US political landscape is extremely, painfully broken :-(
- Reelin 6y ago
  Unless things have changed in the past couple of years it's not just a single security warning the first time you side load an app. On my device, F-Droid can't seem to update apps itself - rather I get a security warning dialog for _every single app_ whenever I do updates. This is in spite of the fact that I approved the initial security warning when installing the F-Droid apk itself and granted it all of the permissions it requested.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bubblethink 6y ago

In android's case, it's a lot simpler. Epic wants to partner with manufacturers who can preinstall epic's store, which google currently forbids.

JiNCMG 6y ago
They don't want the warnings from Android yet don't want to put the work/money in to build their own OS, even using AOSP (Android Open Source).
- kevingadd 6y ago
  If Google's work on Android entitles them to be the only store on all Android-derived devices, what rights do Linus Torvalds and all the other Linux contributors have? Or is Google allowed to monetize their work for free, but Epic isn't? Both companies contribute to the open commons with open source software and sponsorships.
  - McAtNite 6y ago
    I think the right for Google to monetize and place restrictions mainly centers around the Play Services which are all tied back into their non open source projects. You could probably make a reasonable argument that Play Services are specifically designed to undermine the spirit of open source, but theoretically you could build an alternative, and use AOSP however you wish.
LexGray 6y ago
So this is step one and they intend to sue for more and more with the Epic endgame of getting the Epic store preloaded on iPhone? I look forward to the never ending news cycle.

indymike 6y ago

If we take Epic at their word, a better deal?