13 ms·

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

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.

brnt 6y ago
Epic Store successfully taking games exclusive makes Sweeneys priorities clear: they are no different than Apple's or Google's. I hope Epic fighting this fight will not obscure that.
- fwn 6y ago
  Actions can be judged independent from the actor. If Apple fought against one or many extractive ecosystems that would be a good thing even though Apple itself does profit and plans to continue to profit from their own extractive ecosystem. ...same with Epic.
- dessant 6y ago
  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.
  - myspy 6y ago
    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.
    - pharke 6y ago
      If they set a precedent then it is likely we will get at least a few more stores if not an abundance. That's at least some improvement. There's an off chance of a complete opening up of iOS devices but I wouldn't bet on it.
    - colinmhayes 6y ago
      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.
  - Someone 6y ago
    Devil’s advocate: you’re free to run whatever you want on the device you bought, but some of the software you licensed prohibits you from running your software on top of it. Also, actually running your software may be a challenge because the boot loader and OS are locked down, but you could have known that when you bought the device. (This is similar to “right to repair”. That isn’t about being allowed to repair your devices, but about making it easier to do so. You’re free to repair your device, but it currently often is almost impossible)
    - admax88q 6y ago
      > you’re free to run whatever you want on the device you bought, Great! > Also, actually running your software may be a challenge because the boot loader and OS are locked down, Oh, so you're not free to run what you want on your device.
    - tomohawk 6y ago
      This seems like circular reasoning.
- onion2k 6y ago
  I don't think Sweeney wants the same software to be available on every app store. He wants users to have a choice of which app store to use. Effectively he wants the same deal as there is for PC gaming - eg multiple stores available that users can choose from - to be the case for mobile (and possibly consoles as well).
  - luastoned 6y ago
    What? He explicitly forces users to use his/the Epic store, smh.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      That’s not inconsistent. Users can choose to use the Epic store or not. If they choose not to use it, they can’t buy games from that store, just like I can’t buy Trader Joe’s food if I decide to not use the TJ’s store.
      - pharke 6y ago
        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, more competition.
        falcolas 6y ago
        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.
        OCASM 6y ago
        It is in fact those three things. Different stores compete with each other providing different value, both users and devs having the freedom to choose to support one or the other (or all) based on their personal criteria.
- chii 6y ago
  > Epic Store successfully taking games exclusive exclusive games aren't the same as a monopoly platform. Exclusive games is a choice the creators of the game made. A monopoly platform is when that choice isn't available. If apple doesn't want your app on iOS, they can remove you with no recourse. If Epic doesn't want your game on the Epic store, you have the choice to use steam, or to go alone and distribute independently.
- m12k 6y ago
  I wish people weren't so quick to jump to this simplistic "who's the good guy and who's the bad guy?" mentality. It's quite possible for Epic to be a bad guy in their own right and still have a valid grievance against Apple, and it's quite possible that it would be better for a lot of smaller devs that this was changed even if Epic is doing this for their own bottom line's sake, not because they are altruistic.
  - brnt 6y ago
    To be clear: I'm not painting Epic to be bad or good, just that they're as much after their bottom line as the incumbents. That produces a potentially beneficial change for the incumbent platforms, but also a potentially negative change in the same way that having another video streaming service with a proprietary library does not add value at this point.
- simion314 6y ago
  Valve did the same if I am not mistaken you had to install their launcher to play half Life. Now Epic is fighting back with similar tactics and as long as they offer a better deal to the developers, same or better prices for user then I am Ok with it (I did not install the Epic Launcher so far but I claimed a free game just in case)
  - Lev1a 6y ago
    Valve was dev and publisher for Half-Life so their game is on their platform. Same with EA, Ubisoft etc. AND guess who? Epic. Dev and publisher for Fortnite. What do you need to install and run to be able to play Fortnite? Epic Games Launcher.
    - simion314 6y ago
      If I ware Epic I would put Fortnie in Steam but make everything 30% more expensive in Steam (hopefully Steam let's the developer present users information like X is cheaper on Epic and is not like other companies that censors information they don't like). With Fortninte on Steam the dudes that don't want to be bothered with 2 launchers can use only one(you still need Epic accounts like in all MMOs). One of the most popular games is Minecraft and it did not need to be on Steam to get popularity, so it is still possible to host downloads for your game on your servers.
- mattigames 6y ago
  Steam only reason to be as big as they are is because they went ages without serious competition, so anyone who wants to have the slightest shoot to succeed without such advantage must use exclusives or similar tactics or just die trying.
  - DivisionSol 6y ago
    What? How about make a product that actually works? Epic Games Store is a slog to operate, with weird UX decisions across the board. People hated Ubisoft trying to cram their platform down their throats because it was a buggy mess. People are disgusted with the EGS because, likewise, it is a disaster. You don't need a Steam Workshop (a bonus, for sure,) to distribute games. You don't need the Marketplace for Game Economy stuff (a bonus, sure.) You need a way to buy and launch games quickly, which even EGS struggles at.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  > Epic Store successfully taking games exclusive People keep bringing this up as a negative, but ignore a) that many games are exclusively on Steam and b) Epic gives guaranteed revenue to developers, derisking development. There is absolutely nothing wrong imho with companies wanting to make their own stores, set their own rules, with whatever exclusivity, to make money for themselves, AS LONG AS there is (fair and equal) competition in the market so if people (developers and/or customers) do not like the rules, they can go elsewhere. Competition is good!
  - brnt 6y ago
    > Competition is good! On Linux, the Epic Store does not compete and therefore it does not add choice for me.
    - madeofpalk 6y ago
      EGS exclusivity doesn't limit distribution for other platforms, im not sure if this also applies for Linux as well. Being on Steam does not guarantee the game will be on Linux. It sounds like your real problem is developers not bothering about shipping their game on Linux.
smileybarry 6y ago
> We were really lucky that developers and users let at least the Windows store fail. This might be an unpopular opinion but: I like the comfort of the Windows Store regarding installation & updates for Win32 apps. The app is installed into its own little corner and a lot of them also come with their own contained registry hive. I don't need a thousand auto update services or an app updating itself only when I open it. And the store requires extensive file signing so as long as I know it's the right developer, the need to manually check installer signatures goes out the window. And regarding minimal exposure, if you simply use it as a download source and redirect customers there, Microsoft takes only 5%. I didn't like S Mode, Windows RT, the restriction to use just the store, etc. That shouldn't be forced upon the already-open PC platform. But I liked having a trusted channel for applications. (I don't mean that every app on there was trustworthy but you get what I mean, like above) > 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. That's what I think, too. Tim Sweeney likes to harp on about consumer choice, store freedom and such -- but with all the exclusives it's clear they just want to be the new Steam. They want you to have a big Epic Games Store library that you can't give up on, that you would always prefer to add to instead of going to another store. That's why they have these weekly free games, to get everyone to start a foundation of games without having to convince them to buy any for that to happen.
- smichel17 6y ago
  In my experience, Linux repositories are all of the upsides you mentioned (trusted, auto-updated, signed (at repo level, at least)) with none of the lock-in downsides, since you can add third party repositories (and then use them via the same workflow you're already comfortable with!).
  - darthrupert 6y ago
    Many of them rely of a free-of-charge labour. Would you volunteer your free time to maintain Apple Store?
bb123 6y ago
For you a threat, for many others a feature. Lots of people buy iPhones specifically because they are restrictive, and are therefore more robust. Ask an average user which experience they prefer - sourcing software for a Windows PC, or downloading an App for an iPhone.
- realusername 6y ago
  > Lots of people buy iPhones specifically because they are restrictive, and are therefore more robust Just have a look at a mainstream Youtube video about the latest iPhone and see when they talk about the app review (hint: never). People buy phones based on camera, screen and interface, they never heard about the walled garden or Apple's practices.
  - Google234 6y ago
    I think most users appreciate the lack of malware on IPhones.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      > I think most users appreciate the lack of malware on IPhones. Do they? What about bugs? https://www.cvedetails.com/product/15556/Apple-Iphone-Os.html?vendor_id=49 https://www.cvedetails.com/product/15556/Apple-Iphone-Os.htm...
      - bb123 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
        romanoderoma 6y ago
        That's where you are wrong If you say "I think US people are happy of having the higher life expectancy in the World" reminding them that it is the lowest in the West is just revealing a lie There is no lack of malware on iPhones. It's a lie.
pjmlp 6y ago
Windows store did not fail as such, it is just uptaking slowly than Microsoft had hoped for. In fact, if it wasn't for the current situation the world is on, Windows 10X would have had UWP/Win32 sandbox only apps.
cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
> 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. I agree but people who are criticizing Epic for this are missing the real point. It is good if Epic can actually take a big chunk of the pie. Sure you could say they're being hypocrites, but from the point of view of users and developers, it's good to have more competition in the platform arena. Currently it's basically duopoly between Google and Apple. A new actor like Epic can change the dynamics and that is good.
- chii 6y ago
  Epic's platform is not a monopoly even if they successfully made one. steam is not a monopoly, even if they currently have a large market share, because the user is able to install their software outside of the steam platform. Some games choose to not release on multiple platforms - but that's not a monopoly. And other games _do_ choose to release on multiple platforms, or choose to release independently of a platform. This means the best _game_ wins. Ditto with software.
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    Epic phase to have the monopoly on certain unique products while Tim Sweeney says he values consumer choice. Sweeney is a liar.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Just like 80% of the world choses not to use Apple devices.
  - cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
    > Epic's platform is not a monopoly even if they successfully made one Same goes for Apple. The term "monopoly" is not really useful in this discussion. It's more about having a small number of gatekeepers. There are currently exactly 2 gatekeepers of mobile devices in the entire world: Apple and Google. It is possible that Epic could get into a similar position as what Apple is today, but for games. My point is that I support something like this happening, even though people may think that Epic is just another gatekeeper. Gatekeepers can't be avoided, so the solution is to have more gatekeepers, so they can't abuse their power easily.
flohofwoe 6y ago
I've been thinking that the PC as an open platform was a "happy historical accident" that only happened because IBM lost its iron grip over the platform and failed to regain it because hardware clones and Microsoft were quick to jump into the opportunity that had presented itself because IBM didn't look for a second. And maybe Apple is looking at 80's IBM and is now afraid that the exact same thing may happen to them. If this accident hadn't happened, the entire computing world would probably look very different. All the software giants like Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon wouldn't exist because they couldn't have become big on a closed IBM-controlled platform. Apple might only exist because IBM let them live as the convenient underdog, same way as Firefox is being kept alive by Google to thwart off any suspicions that there's a browser monopoly. Maybe PCs wouldn't exist at all and we'd be all sitting in front of IBM mini-terminals now, connected to the cloud running on System/360 mainframes.
- ginko 6y ago
  You seem to be completely forgetting all the other PCs and home computers of their time like the C64 or the Amiga. Without Microsoft opening the market for clones the IBM PC might have remained an overpriced office machine and some other company would have created the most popular computer system. In any case, none of these(not IBM, not Apple, not Commodore etc.) restricted what software you could run on your computer.
  - flohofwoe 6y ago
    Not forgotten, I was an Amiga owner myself ;) But somehow these machines feel like belonging to another universe today. Commodore management would have ruined the company either way, this didn't require any help from the PC. Atari would probably have focused on the games console business. Anyway, it's fun to speculate about alternative futures :)
  - parasubvert 6y ago
    The PC started its life as a hobby platform. And there were attempts to challenge the open model - the game consoles for example required devs to license their SDKs and often controllers publishing / retail distribution. But no one seriously succeeded with a closed PC experience because no one could (or wanted to) do it all - be a fully integrated retail ecosystem - at the time when facing consumers. The internet was arguably a prerequisite for this: all software was sold in physical boxes and unlike game software , the hobby experience meant there was just too much available that was cheap/free/shareware. (My favorite was the assembly hex codes published in magazines like Ahoy! That you’d type in). Plus, the security of a curated store was on few minds until the late 90s with the internet. Viruses and Trojans existed but they were spread through physical media. also, Microsoft already was getting its tax from users in the form of Windows licensing, which eventually was deemed anticompetitive due to their exclusivity arrangements. The closest to a curated ecosystem started with Qlink, CompuServe, AOL and other online services.
tokamak-teapot 6y ago
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 they meet the quality standards that Apple would like. This would allow Apple to raise the quality bar for the App Store, while allowing indie development. Loading a non-app-store app could come with forced user acceptance flow, where you’re informed the app doesn’t meet Apple’s standards for user experience but has at least been checked for safety. Independent app ‘stores’ would then be able to exist, and we’d have a compromise.
- blparker 6y ago
  This seems like a reasonable idea.
- ginko 6y ago
  >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. I don't see how such a review process would work for free software. The user should be free to run whatever software they wish on their own device.
  - Retric 6y ago
    The review process what makes iOS so useful. People can install random software in a way you can’t safely do on Windows. Sure power users might not notice the difference, but people feel safe hand their phones/tablets to little kids and let them install random games. Scaling that review process across every update either means everyone pays a percentage which hurts large business or everyone pays a significant fee which hurts independent developers and discourages bug fixes.
    - madeofpalk 6y ago
Igelau 6y ago
> App stores and restrictive operation systems are a real threat What we need is a true champion against this stuff. Someone who is willing to sacrifice normalcy and convenience to be fully committed to software that is free as in freedom, not free as in beer. Imagine a "free software movement". It could center around the GNU toolchain and spiral out from there. Now, where is our hero? We've put up the signal but I do not see him. I hope nothing bad has happened...
- pjmlp 6y ago
  The hero is busy reading email messages and web pages sent to him via a gateway system, while everyone keeps pushing for non-copyleft licenses.
madeofpalk 6y ago
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.
- tpxl 6y ago
  You mean consumers need to download yet another gaming service collecting god knows what to get the same games they used to get on Steam? I've no problem with the Epic store, but their exclusives are a cancer and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    > they cost game devs money in lost sales from me. I still don't get how the exclusives are a good deal for the creators. They get more publicity and probably some extra money for the contract. But does it really offset the lost sales? There was a large number of times when I went though: this game looks awesome, I'll buy it, oh it's exclusive for whatever-platform-i-don't-have, ... and likely not remember about it ever again. I even bought similar games which are available on platforms I already have instead.
    - tpxl 6y ago
      In the case of Epic games, they shovel money their way with a _biiig_ shovel, even for free games. I don't know about PS/Xbox, but the situation is probably similar.
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      Is installing another store really so burdensome? It costs nothing but a few minutes of time. GOG Galaxy can even help consolidate them.
major505 6y ago
I don agree, for example in case of android, you do have the option of alternative app store like f-droid and amazon, and is easy enouth for any user to install them. And while of apple you don't have this, when you buy a Iphone your trading this liberty for stability and security. For example, my mother loves to install little games from the store, but she agree with any terms and conditions that pops in the screen. So I feel more secure giving her an Iphone that I know the apps pass for more scrutiny before entering the store. So I don't see as a monopoly, since you do get option of changing platforms and alternative stores. I think in this case epic is in the wrong. They start this on purpose to involve the government in the history, just so they can take a bigger share of gullible people who spends to much on skins in fortinite.
matz1 6y ago
Epic has to step up their game, in order for google to compete in web, they made browser that better than everyone else and they made phone os that actually good to compete in smartphone world. Epic has to do something similar. Sure thats not easy but given they are billion dollar company, they should be able to do it.
hellisothers 6y ago
This assumes you want to install software from anywhere, or that you want your mom (who you suggested get and iPhone) to be able to install software from anywhere. For similar reasons that hardware admins don’t want you installing anything you like on company hardware, I don’t want my family installing anything they get tricked into installing on their phones. There are other options out there where you can do whatever you want and side load, why not go use those yourself and stop demanding others be subjected to this same situation?
- damnyou 6y ago
  Sideloaded Android software is treated as second class. For example, F-Droid cannot update apps in the background.
- _qulr 6y ago
  I have nothing against your mom, who I don't know, and I'm sure she's a fine person, but nonetheless, your mom is your problem. Why does your mom become my problem. Why must my freedom be restricted to protect your mom from herself on the computer? Your mom is presumably able to drive a car, which is a killing machine in the wrong hands. Your mom can drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, buy a gun, use a chainsaw. All of these activities are infinitely more dangerous than using a smartphone. OS lockdown in completely unjustified in comparison. It's a vast overreaction by "helicopter children".
- brendoelfrendo 6y ago
  This argument is silly because it can so easily be turned on its head: why should a closed environment be the only option? Why don't you stick to the app store, but allow others to do with their devices as they please?
kartayyar 6y ago
The difference is the cut that Epic takes is much less than 30% - he is walking the walk rather than just talking about it.

brnt 6y ago

Epic Store successfully taking games exclusive makes Sweeneys priorities clear: they are no different than Apple's or Google's. I hope Epic fighting this fight will not obscure that.

fwn 6y ago
Actions can be judged independent from the actor. If Apple fought against one or many extractive ecosystems that would be a good thing even though Apple itself does profit and plans to continue to profit from their own extractive ecosystem. ...same with Epic.
dessant 6y ago
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.
- myspy 6y ago
  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.
  - pharke 6y ago
    If they set a precedent then it is likely we will get at least a few more stores if not an abundance. That's at least some improvement. There's an off chance of a complete opening up of iOS devices but I wouldn't bet on it.
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    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.
- Someone 6y ago
  Devil’s advocate: you’re free to run whatever you want on the device you bought, but some of the software you licensed prohibits you from running your software on top of it. Also, actually running your software may be a challenge because the boot loader and OS are locked down, but you could have known that when you bought the device. (This is similar to “right to repair”. That isn’t about being allowed to repair your devices, but about making it easier to do so. You’re free to repair your device, but it currently often is almost impossible)
  - admax88q 6y ago
    > you’re free to run whatever you want on the device you bought, Great! > Also, actually running your software may be a challenge because the boot loader and OS are locked down, Oh, so you're not free to run what you want on your device.
  - tomohawk 6y ago
    This seems like circular reasoning.
onion2k 6y ago
I don't think Sweeney wants the same software to be available on every app store. He wants users to have a choice of which app store to use. Effectively he wants the same deal as there is for PC gaming - eg multiple stores available that users can choose from - to be the case for mobile (and possibly consoles as well).
- luastoned 6y ago
  What? He explicitly forces users to use his/the Epic store, smh.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    That’s not inconsistent. Users can choose to use the Epic store or not. If they choose not to use it, they can’t buy games from that store, just like I can’t buy Trader Joe’s food if I decide to not use the TJ’s store.
    - pharke 6y ago
      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, more competition.
      - falcolas 6y ago
        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.
        OCASM 6y ago
        It is in fact those three things. Different stores compete with each other providing different value, both users and devs having the freedom to choose to support one or the other (or all) based on their personal criteria.
chii 6y ago
> Epic Store successfully taking games exclusive exclusive games aren't the same as a monopoly platform. Exclusive games is a choice the creators of the game made. A monopoly platform is when that choice isn't available. If apple doesn't want your app on iOS, they can remove you with no recourse. If Epic doesn't want your game on the Epic store, you have the choice to use steam, or to go alone and distribute independently.
m12k 6y ago
I wish people weren't so quick to jump to this simplistic "who's the good guy and who's the bad guy?" mentality. It's quite possible for Epic to be a bad guy in their own right and still have a valid grievance against Apple, and it's quite possible that it would be better for a lot of smaller devs that this was changed even if Epic is doing this for their own bottom line's sake, not because they are altruistic.
- brnt 6y ago
  To be clear: I'm not painting Epic to be bad or good, just that they're as much after their bottom line as the incumbents. That produces a potentially beneficial change for the incumbent platforms, but also a potentially negative change in the same way that having another video streaming service with a proprietary library does not add value at this point.
simion314 6y ago
Valve did the same if I am not mistaken you had to install their launcher to play half Life. Now Epic is fighting back with similar tactics and as long as they offer a better deal to the developers, same or better prices for user then I am Ok with it (I did not install the Epic Launcher so far but I claimed a free game just in case)
- Lev1a 6y ago
  Valve was dev and publisher for Half-Life so their game is on their platform. Same with EA, Ubisoft etc. AND guess who? Epic. Dev and publisher for Fortnite. What do you need to install and run to be able to play Fortnite? Epic Games Launcher.
  - simion314 6y ago
    If I ware Epic I would put Fortnie in Steam but make everything 30% more expensive in Steam (hopefully Steam let's the developer present users information like X is cheaper on Epic and is not like other companies that censors information they don't like). With Fortninte on Steam the dudes that don't want to be bothered with 2 launchers can use only one(you still need Epic accounts like in all MMOs). One of the most popular games is Minecraft and it did not need to be on Steam to get popularity, so it is still possible to host downloads for your game on your servers.
mattigames 6y ago
Steam only reason to be as big as they are is because they went ages without serious competition, so anyone who wants to have the slightest shoot to succeed without such advantage must use exclusives or similar tactics or just die trying.
- DivisionSol 6y ago
  What? How about make a product that actually works? Epic Games Store is a slog to operate, with weird UX decisions across the board. People hated Ubisoft trying to cram their platform down their throats because it was a buggy mess. People are disgusted with the EGS because, likewise, it is a disaster. You don't need a Steam Workshop (a bonus, for sure,) to distribute games. You don't need the Marketplace for Game Economy stuff (a bonus, sure.) You need a way to buy and launch games quickly, which even EGS struggles at.
madeofpalk 6y ago
> Epic Store successfully taking games exclusive People keep bringing this up as a negative, but ignore a) that many games are exclusively on Steam and b) Epic gives guaranteed revenue to developers, derisking development. There is absolutely nothing wrong imho with companies wanting to make their own stores, set their own rules, with whatever exclusivity, to make money for themselves, AS LONG AS there is (fair and equal) competition in the market so if people (developers and/or customers) do not like the rules, they can go elsewhere. Competition is good!
- brnt 6y ago
  > Competition is good! On Linux, the Epic Store does not compete and therefore it does not add choice for me.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    EGS exclusivity doesn't limit distribution for other platforms, im not sure if this also applies for Linux as well. Being on Steam does not guarantee the game will be on Linux. It sounds like your real problem is developers not bothering about shipping their game on Linux.

smileybarry 6y ago

> We were really lucky that developers and users let at least the Windows store fail. This might be an unpopular opinion but: I like the comfort of the Windows Store regarding installation & updates for Win32 apps. The app is installed into its own little corner and a lot of them also come with their own contained registry hive. I don't need a thousand auto update services or an app updating itself only when I open it. And the store requires extensive file signing so as long as I know it's the right developer, the need to manually check installer signatures goes out the window. And regarding minimal exposure, if you simply use it as a download source and redirect customers there, Microsoft takes only 5%. I didn't like S Mode, Windows RT, the restriction to use just the store, etc. That shouldn't be forced upon the already-open PC platform. But I liked having a trusted channel for applications. (I don't mean that every app on there was trustworthy but you get what I mean, like above) > 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. That's what I think, too. Tim Sweeney likes to harp on about consumer choice, store freedom and such -- but with all the exclusives it's clear they just want to be the new Steam. They want you to have a big Epic Games Store library that you can't give up on, that you would always prefer to add to instead of going to another store. That's why they have these weekly free games, to get everyone to start a foundation of games without having to convince them to buy any for that to happen.

smichel17 6y ago
In my experience, Linux repositories are all of the upsides you mentioned (trusted, auto-updated, signed (at repo level, at least)) with none of the lock-in downsides, since you can add third party repositories (and then use them via the same workflow you're already comfortable with!).
- darthrupert 6y ago
  Many of them rely of a free-of-charge labour. Would you volunteer your free time to maintain Apple Store?

bb123 6y ago

For you a threat, for many others a feature. Lots of people buy iPhones specifically because they are restrictive, and are therefore more robust. Ask an average user which experience they prefer - sourcing software for a Windows PC, or downloading an App for an iPhone.

realusername 6y ago
> Lots of people buy iPhones specifically because they are restrictive, and are therefore more robust Just have a look at a mainstream Youtube video about the latest iPhone and see when they talk about the app review (hint: never). People buy phones based on camera, screen and interface, they never heard about the walled garden or Apple's practices.
- Google234 6y ago
  I think most users appreciate the lack of malware on IPhones.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    > I think most users appreciate the lack of malware on IPhones. Do they? What about bugs? https://www.cvedetails.com/product/15556/Apple-Iphone-Os.html?vendor_id=49 https://www.cvedetails.com/product/15556/Apple-Iphone-Os.htm...
    - bb123 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
      - romanoderoma 6y ago
        That's where you are wrong If you say "I think US people are happy of having the higher life expectancy in the World" reminding them that it is the lowest in the West is just revealing a lie There is no lack of malware on iPhones. It's a lie.

pjmlp 6y ago

Windows store did not fail as such, it is just uptaking slowly than Microsoft had hoped for. In fact, if it wasn't for the current situation the world is on, Windows 10X would have had UWP/Win32 sandbox only apps.

cocktailpeanuts 6y ago

> 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. I agree but people who are criticizing Epic for this are missing the real point. It is good if Epic can actually take a big chunk of the pie. Sure you could say they're being hypocrites, but from the point of view of users and developers, it's good to have more competition in the platform arena. Currently it's basically duopoly between Google and Apple. A new actor like Epic can change the dynamics and that is good.

chii 6y ago
Epic's platform is not a monopoly even if they successfully made one. steam is not a monopoly, even if they currently have a large market share, because the user is able to install their software outside of the steam platform. Some games choose to not release on multiple platforms - but that's not a monopoly. And other games _do_ choose to release on multiple platforms, or choose to release independently of a platform. This means the best _game_ wins. Ditto with software.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  Epic phase to have the monopoly on certain unique products while Tim Sweeney says he values consumer choice. Sweeney is a liar.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Just like 80% of the world choses not to use Apple devices.
- cocktailpeanuts 6y ago
  > Epic's platform is not a monopoly even if they successfully made one Same goes for Apple. The term "monopoly" is not really useful in this discussion. It's more about having a small number of gatekeepers. There are currently exactly 2 gatekeepers of mobile devices in the entire world: Apple and Google. It is possible that Epic could get into a similar position as what Apple is today, but for games. My point is that I support something like this happening, even though people may think that Epic is just another gatekeeper. Gatekeepers can't be avoided, so the solution is to have more gatekeepers, so they can't abuse their power easily.

flohofwoe 6y ago

I've been thinking that the PC as an open platform was a "happy historical accident" that only happened because IBM lost its iron grip over the platform and failed to regain it because hardware clones and Microsoft were quick to jump into the opportunity that had presented itself because IBM didn't look for a second. And maybe Apple is looking at 80's IBM and is now afraid that the exact same thing may happen to them. If this accident hadn't happened, the entire computing world would probably look very different. All the software giants like Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon wouldn't exist because they couldn't have become big on a closed IBM-controlled platform. Apple might only exist because IBM let them live as the convenient underdog, same way as Firefox is being kept alive by Google to thwart off any suspicions that there's a browser monopoly. Maybe PCs wouldn't exist at all and we'd be all sitting in front of IBM mini-terminals now, connected to the cloud running on System/360 mainframes.

ginko 6y ago
You seem to be completely forgetting all the other PCs and home computers of their time like the C64 or the Amiga. Without Microsoft opening the market for clones the IBM PC might have remained an overpriced office machine and some other company would have created the most popular computer system. In any case, none of these(not IBM, not Apple, not Commodore etc.) restricted what software you could run on your computer.
- flohofwoe 6y ago
  Not forgotten, I was an Amiga owner myself ;) But somehow these machines feel like belonging to another universe today. Commodore management would have ruined the company either way, this didn't require any help from the PC. Atari would probably have focused on the games console business. Anyway, it's fun to speculate about alternative futures :)
- parasubvert 6y ago
  The PC started its life as a hobby platform. And there were attempts to challenge the open model - the game consoles for example required devs to license their SDKs and often controllers publishing / retail distribution. But no one seriously succeeded with a closed PC experience because no one could (or wanted to) do it all - be a fully integrated retail ecosystem - at the time when facing consumers. The internet was arguably a prerequisite for this: all software was sold in physical boxes and unlike game software , the hobby experience meant there was just too much available that was cheap/free/shareware. (My favorite was the assembly hex codes published in magazines like Ahoy! That you’d type in). Plus, the security of a curated store was on few minds until the late 90s with the internet. Viruses and Trojans existed but they were spread through physical media. also, Microsoft already was getting its tax from users in the form of Windows licensing, which eventually was deemed anticompetitive due to their exclusivity arrangements. The closest to a curated ecosystem started with Qlink, CompuServe, AOL and other online services.

tokamak-teapot 6y ago

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 they meet the quality standards that Apple would like. This would allow Apple to raise the quality bar for the App Store, while allowing indie development. Loading a non-app-store app could come with forced user acceptance flow, where you’re informed the app doesn’t meet Apple’s standards for user experience but has at least been checked for safety. Independent app ‘stores’ would then be able to exist, and we’d have a compromise.

blparker 6y ago
This seems like a reasonable idea.
ginko 6y ago
>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. I don't see how such a review process would work for free software. The user should be free to run whatever software they wish on their own device.
- Retric 6y ago
  The review process what makes iOS so useful. People can install random software in a way you can’t safely do on Windows. Sure power users might not notice the difference, but people feel safe hand their phones/tablets to little kids and let them install random games. Scaling that review process across every update either means everyone pays a percentage which hurts large business or everyone pays a significant fee which hurts independent developers and discourages bug fixes.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago

Igelau 6y ago

> App stores and restrictive operation systems are a real threat What we need is a true champion against this stuff. Someone who is willing to sacrifice normalcy and convenience to be fully committed to software that is free as in freedom, not free as in beer. Imagine a "free software movement". It could center around the GNU toolchain and spiral out from there. Now, where is our hero? We've put up the signal but I do not see him. I hope nothing bad has happened...

pjmlp 6y ago
The hero is busy reading email messages and web pages sent to him via a gateway system, while everyone keeps pushing for non-copyleft licenses.

madeofpalk 6y ago

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.

tpxl 6y ago
You mean consumers need to download yet another gaming service collecting god knows what to get the same games they used to get on Steam? I've no problem with the Epic store, but their exclusives are a cancer and they cost game devs money in lost sales from me.
- viraptor 6y ago
  > they cost game devs money in lost sales from me. I still don't get how the exclusives are a good deal for the creators. They get more publicity and probably some extra money for the contract. But does it really offset the lost sales? There was a large number of times when I went though: this game looks awesome, I'll buy it, oh it's exclusive for whatever-platform-i-don't-have, ... and likely not remember about it ever again. I even bought similar games which are available on platforms I already have instead.
  - tpxl 6y ago
    In the case of Epic games, they shovel money their way with a _biiig_ shovel, even for free games. I don't know about PS/Xbox, but the situation is probably similar.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Is installing another store really so burdensome? It costs nothing but a few minutes of time. GOG Galaxy can even help consolidate them.

major505 6y ago

I don agree, for example in case of android, you do have the option of alternative app store like f-droid and amazon, and is easy enouth for any user to install them. And while of apple you don't have this, when you buy a Iphone your trading this liberty for stability and security. For example, my mother loves to install little games from the store, but she agree with any terms and conditions that pops in the screen. So I feel more secure giving her an Iphone that I know the apps pass for more scrutiny before entering the store. So I don't see as a monopoly, since you do get option of changing platforms and alternative stores. I think in this case epic is in the wrong. They start this on purpose to involve the government in the history, just so they can take a bigger share of gullible people who spends to much on skins in fortinite.

matz1 6y ago

Epic has to step up their game, in order for google to compete in web, they made browser that better than everyone else and they made phone os that actually good to compete in smartphone world. Epic has to do something similar. Sure thats not easy but given they are billion dollar company, they should be able to do it.

hellisothers 6y ago

This assumes you want to install software from anywhere, or that you want your mom (who you suggested get and iPhone) to be able to install software from anywhere. For similar reasons that hardware admins don’t want you installing anything you like on company hardware, I don’t want my family installing anything they get tricked into installing on their phones. There are other options out there where you can do whatever you want and side load, why not go use those yourself and stop demanding others be subjected to this same situation?

damnyou 6y ago
Sideloaded Android software is treated as second class. For example, F-Droid cannot update apps in the background.
_qulr 6y ago
I have nothing against your mom, who I don't know, and I'm sure she's a fine person, but nonetheless, your mom is your problem. Why does your mom become my problem. Why must my freedom be restricted to protect your mom from herself on the computer? Your mom is presumably able to drive a car, which is a killing machine in the wrong hands. Your mom can drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, buy a gun, use a chainsaw. All of these activities are infinitely more dangerous than using a smartphone. OS lockdown in completely unjustified in comparison. It's a vast overreaction by "helicopter children".
brendoelfrendo 6y ago
This argument is silly because it can so easily be turned on its head: why should a closed environment be the only option? Why don't you stick to the app store, but allow others to do with their devices as they please?

kartayyar 6y ago

The difference is the cut that Epic takes is much less than 30% - he is walking the walk rather than just talking about it.