5 ms·

Working in strides because they don't want to get shut out of the Windows market. Having a credible alternative stay's Microsoft's hand about going Apple and r

Working in strides because they don't want to get shut out of the Windows market. Having a credible alternative stay's Microsoft's hand about going Apple and requiring apps only come from the store except for Enterprise editions.

giobox 6y ago
Not trying to play devils advocate here, but who genuinely believes a Linux Steam client is a "credible alternative" to Steam on Windows? It's an alternative, I agree, but I can't imagine a world in which it makes a dent on their Windows revenues any time soon. If Microsoft try to really force Store only app distribution on all users, I think Valve's time would likely be better spent in the courts than trying to get hundreds of millions of users to install Linux.
- sli 6y ago
  It's usually better to have established alternatives before they're needed than to try and establish one after significant hurdles have been put in place. I'd say Steam on Linux is plenty credible without currently being a threat to Microsoft.
- rasz 6y ago
  Its an alternative in a same way Tizen is Samsungs alternative to Android, or Munich Linux deployment. Its there to get favorable treatment, nothing more.
- jay_kyburz 6y ago
  It's interesting you say that, because my response to Epic when they sued Apple was that their time would be better spent contributing to an open platform for phones.
  - giobox 6y ago
    It's beyond scope of a hacker news comment for me, but Epic case against Apple/Google store distribution terms is sufficiently different IMO. How exactly would Epic ship this open platform when Google and Apple expressly control what apps run and do not? From where I stand, without intervention their only option is inferior browser based streaming solutions like this: https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/5/21551152/fortnite-nvidia-geforce-now-game-streaming-to-iphone-ipad https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/5/21551152/fortnite-nvidia-... Courts are worth a gamble, worst case scenario Epic is back where it began (minus the legal fees of course), paying Apple/Google 30 percent and still selling plenty of software on the app stores. The Epic case also works to serve Epic's wider public agenda against app stores as litigation theatre too if nothing else.
    - jay_kyburz 6y ago
      By open platform I meant they they should release their own phone. I believe they could do it for not much more than the price of the lawsuit. The iPhone is not even a general purpose computer, it's a brick of consumer electronics that just happens to have an app store on it. It's Apples house and they get to make the rules. If Epic doesn't like it they can build their own house, or they can contribute to a house that is free for everybody. I see Valve contributing to an open house that is free for everybody just in case Microsoft stops inviting 3rd parties into their house.
      - giobox 6y ago
        Good luck _selling_ that phone to the hundreds of millions of users you lost immediately overnight, to users already perfectly happy with the phone they have. Your customers aren't going to pickup the tab just because you didn't like the distribution terms you had already willingly agreed to on iOS/Google app stores, and its a big tab. A new phone isn't cheap for most. I am also completely ignoring the fact building a competitive phone is likely really hard and Epic have no track record there. I'd love to be proved wrong of course - who doesn't like a cool new tech platform succeeding? Being realistic though, there isn't exactly a long list of new mobile hardware/OS platforms launching at the scale and success Epic would need to replace lost iOS/Android revenue. In fact, no one has ever managed to do that really! That Epic have already partnered with Nvidia to use browser streaming tech to get Fortnite back onto iOS suggest similar thinking to me. Epic's own lawyers are making similar arguments right now too. Imagine if every railway company had to build it own tracks, or every airline needed its own airports. Conceptually, app stores on mobile platforms are increasingly similar. It's not practical to keep building more airports and more track networks, especially when in this case the airport or network is a handset the customer has to buy. The railway example is one Courts had to deal with in early 20th century in a lot of countries, same too for shipping ports.
        jay_kyburz 6y ago
        I don't have much sympathy for anybody who helped Google and Apple into the monopoly position by making their products available on those platforms. If we all banded together and made sure that all the best apps were only available on a truly open phone platform then everybody would buy a phone on that platform. Epic could pump a few million into making sure their games ran well on Linux platforms, then partner with Asus, Razer, and others to make Gaming Phones a real thing with support for Linux on those phones. (or a Google free Android if that will lower the bar). I think the railways and airports are not a good analogy because those are physical things that need a lot of land. (and investment) We are just talking about software, and what we can and cannot run on our phones.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Qwertious 6y ago
  "If Microsoft try to really force Store only app distribution on all users, I think Valve's time would likely be better spent in the courts than trying to get hundreds of millions of users to install Linux." Valve has fuck-you money, they'd do both. Having Linux Steam development on a trickle gives them a massive time advantage, in that they already have a few years of experience with the project on day zero of the "we need a Windows-par Steam Linux client" focus.
mmcdermott 6y ago
I suspect Valve's interest is more in pushing PC gaming as a hardware platform. You saw some of that with the Steam Link and Steam Controller. I suspect they want to resurrect the Steam Machine and sell it with Linux OEM. If they start selling a portable (like the Switch or even the 3DS), I'd buy it on day one. What all of these have in common is that they would be easier (and probably more profitable) if you can make the operating system cheaper.

giobox 6y ago

Not trying to play devils advocate here, but who genuinely believes a Linux Steam client is a "credible alternative" to Steam on Windows? It's an alternative, I agree, but I can't imagine a world in which it makes a dent on their Windows revenues any time soon. If Microsoft try to really force Store only app distribution on all users, I think Valve's time would likely be better spent in the courts than trying to get hundreds of millions of users to install Linux.

sli 6y ago
It's usually better to have established alternatives before they're needed than to try and establish one after significant hurdles have been put in place. I'd say Steam on Linux is plenty credible without currently being a threat to Microsoft.
rasz 6y ago
Its an alternative in a same way Tizen is Samsungs alternative to Android, or Munich Linux deployment. Its there to get favorable treatment, nothing more.
jay_kyburz 6y ago
It's interesting you say that, because my response to Epic when they sued Apple was that their time would be better spent contributing to an open platform for phones.
- giobox 6y ago
  It's beyond scope of a hacker news comment for me, but Epic case against Apple/Google store distribution terms is sufficiently different IMO. How exactly would Epic ship this open platform when Google and Apple expressly control what apps run and do not? From where I stand, without intervention their only option is inferior browser based streaming solutions like this: https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/5/21551152/fortnite-nvidia-geforce-now-game-streaming-to-iphone-ipad https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/5/21551152/fortnite-nvidia-... Courts are worth a gamble, worst case scenario Epic is back where it began (minus the legal fees of course), paying Apple/Google 30 percent and still selling plenty of software on the app stores. The Epic case also works to serve Epic's wider public agenda against app stores as litigation theatre too if nothing else.
  - jay_kyburz 6y ago
    By open platform I meant they they should release their own phone. I believe they could do it for not much more than the price of the lawsuit. The iPhone is not even a general purpose computer, it's a brick of consumer electronics that just happens to have an app store on it. It's Apples house and they get to make the rules. If Epic doesn't like it they can build their own house, or they can contribute to a house that is free for everybody. I see Valve contributing to an open house that is free for everybody just in case Microsoft stops inviting 3rd parties into their house.
    - giobox 6y ago
      Good luck _selling_ that phone to the hundreds of millions of users you lost immediately overnight, to users already perfectly happy with the phone they have. Your customers aren't going to pickup the tab just because you didn't like the distribution terms you had already willingly agreed to on iOS/Google app stores, and its a big tab. A new phone isn't cheap for most. I am also completely ignoring the fact building a competitive phone is likely really hard and Epic have no track record there. I'd love to be proved wrong of course - who doesn't like a cool new tech platform succeeding? Being realistic though, there isn't exactly a long list of new mobile hardware/OS platforms launching at the scale and success Epic would need to replace lost iOS/Android revenue. In fact, no one has ever managed to do that really! That Epic have already partnered with Nvidia to use browser streaming tech to get Fortnite back onto iOS suggest similar thinking to me. Epic's own lawyers are making similar arguments right now too. Imagine if every railway company had to build it own tracks, or every airline needed its own airports. Conceptually, app stores on mobile platforms are increasingly similar. It's not practical to keep building more airports and more track networks, especially when in this case the airport or network is a handset the customer has to buy. The railway example is one Courts had to deal with in early 20th century in a lot of countries, same too for shipping ports.
      - jay_kyburz 6y ago
        I don't have much sympathy for anybody who helped Google and Apple into the monopoly position by making their products available on those platforms. If we all banded together and made sure that all the best apps were only available on a truly open phone platform then everybody would buy a phone on that platform. Epic could pump a few million into making sure their games ran well on Linux platforms, then partner with Asus, Razer, and others to make Gaming Phones a real thing with support for Linux on those phones. (or a Google free Android if that will lower the bar). I think the railways and airports are not a good analogy because those are physical things that need a lot of land. (and investment) We are just talking about software, and what we can and cannot run on our phones.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Qwertious 6y ago
"If Microsoft try to really force Store only app distribution on all users, I think Valve's time would likely be better spent in the courts than trying to get hundreds of millions of users to install Linux." Valve has fuck-you money, they'd do both. Having Linux Steam development on a trickle gives them a massive time advantage, in that they already have a few years of experience with the project on day zero of the "we need a Windows-par Steam Linux client" focus.

mmcdermott 6y ago

I suspect Valve's interest is more in pushing PC gaming as a hardware platform. You saw some of that with the Steam Link and Steam Controller. I suspect they want to resurrect the Steam Machine and sell it with Linux OEM. If they start selling a portable (like the Switch or even the 3DS), I'd buy it on day one. What all of these have in common is that they would be easier (and probably more profitable) if you can make the operating system cheaper.