9 ms·

Interview: Epic CEO Tim Sweeney after Google antitrust win

111 points by saikatsg 3y ago

mrbigbob 3y ago
if epic wants to gain market share and actually be competitive with steam they are not going to win users over with just free games. the steam client has so many nice features that work fairly well most of the time while epic to the best of my knowledge (havent checked recently) still doesnt have a shopping cart despite users very vocally asking for it for a long time. epic needs to put more money into their software not exclusives
Log_out_ 3y ago
Don t be evil to don't get caught in a decade..
dang 3y ago
Related ongoing thread re https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-why-epic-did-better-against-google-than-apple-in-court.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-why-epic-did-bet...: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38621557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38621557 That discussion is rather poor in quality and this article looks more substantive, so maybe we can try a reset.
ngcc_hk 3y ago
Seems mainly Google has treated people differently like Spotify and got caught for playing games. Apple play only 1 game and as in the article all internally, harder to catch. Still it is a surprise as both are so similar. And if it failed you would think it should be Apple. Strange world. Even stranger if you dig in seems “logically”. Just crazy.
- mcfedr 3y ago
  No one found inside documents showing apple was playing games, but I struggle to believe there is none of that going on.
  - broken_clock 3y ago
    There's a reason they changed Google's internal chat system to delete all messages after max 30 days. They don't want discovery happening again.
  - rezonant 3y ago
    But they did play games, check the other subthreads. They were willing to bend over backwards for Netflix including giving them a lower cut.
    - mcfedr 3y ago
      And yet that judge didn't find a problem, which is stunning really, when, at least as far as I can see, the case that apple is monopolising the app store is just so obvious
- esskay 3y ago
  Apple's always taken the "if you want to play in our court, you play by our rules" approach to this kind of thing so wouldn't be at all surprised if there are zero back door deals going on there. They don't need to do that as no major app provider is going to want to be the one who's not on their app store. If Spotify for example left iOS devices all it would do is drive up Apple Music subscriptions. Very, very few people would switch operating systems for a single app. The average joe doesn't even think about app availability when picking a phone. At most I'd say theres likely some grey area about managing 3rd party subscriptions that arent being done via the app store.
  - rtpg 3y ago
    It’s documented that Apple offers deals to companies to keep on using the App Store, or at least stick to its payments (Netflix in particular refused a sweetheart deal). If Spotify and Netflix were not on iOS I’m pretty sure lots of people would go look for an android. Not everyone, but a percentage above 0 (and probably above 2 or 3 percent I bet)
    - aurareturn 3y ago
      Is there evidence that suggests there are companies out there today that have different deals on the iOS App Store than the standard?
      - mcfedr 3y ago
        It's in the app store rules, media companies have a special deal, that no one else gets.
    - JimDabell 3y ago
      > It’s documented that Apple offers deals to companies to keep on using the App Store Is it? I know that it has happened in the past, but in 2020, Tim Cook testified to Congress that they treat everybody equally. Is there any evidence showing that they still offer special deals today?
  - dannyw 3y ago
- rezonant 3y ago
  Apple has explored deals with large app makers like Netflix as well (https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/5/22421734/apple-epic-netflix-in-app-purchase-removal-emails https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/5/22421734/apple-epic-netfli...). They even offered 15% to Netflix (https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-project-liberty-app-store-schiller-sweeney-cook-jobs https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-proj...) Certain parts of App Store policy are the result of this sort of thing. For example there is a carve out for media services-- unlike the rest of the app ecosystem, it is OK for subscriber only media services to have an app that requires login to use it. This was a result of Netflix refusing to use IAP. If you didn't know, it is otherwise not allowed to have a login only experience. You can't even require users to sign up for an account before a user purchases an IAP product or subscription, let alone require a signup before the app is used. While this is a pro consumer move, it does mean headaches for any user that purchases a subscription without attaching an email address and then expects the app's customer support to be able to identify their subscription. It also confuses users because they'll say they're emailing on the same email as their Apple account, but that doesn't help because a subscription purchase doesn't come with the user's email.
  - mcfedr 3y ago
    Is it pro consumer? Those exact reasons you describe are why apps want you to make an account. Doing customer service for people in this situation is a nightmare
    - rezonant 3y ago
      Well that's what they claim. And to be fair, since managing that subscription is entirely in the user's hands in the App Store UI/UX, it sort of makes sense- the user shouldn't have to receive spam to buy a random subscription. But I do fall more on the side of your opinion after spending 5 years managing these sorts of systems and working with the support team.
      - mcfedr 3y ago
        As a developer, It gives apple all the power, I don't own the relationship between me and my customers. And the same as a customer, you have this third party butting in, and getting in the way of the experience.
- julianozen 3y ago
  Apple also rewrote the rules to allow Amazon Prime users to buy video content in their app as long as the user has Prime and already has a CC on the account > “Apple has an established program for premium subscription video entertainment providers to offer a variety of customer benefits — including integration with the Apple TV app, AirPlay 2 support, tvOS apps, universal search, Siri support and, where applicable, single or zero sign-on,” Apple said in a statement given to The Verge. “On qualifying premium video entertainment apps such as Prime Video, Atlice One and Canal+, customers have the option to buy or rent movies and TV shows using the payment method tied to their existing video subscription.” https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-video-ios-in-app-purchases-iphone-ipad-apple-tv-change https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...
  - maccard 3y ago
    Your quote even says that it's not just prime. That's not a sweetheart deal for amazon, that's a carve out for an entire app category.
somenameforme 3y ago
The most interesting thing to me in this case is Epic refusing Google's $150 million 'offer', and instead relying on the courts. Epic could have accepted that offer with zero risk, and been all the better off for it, with zero risk. Of course everybody else would be left behind. But by going all the way, and refusing the pay off, they instead make a better world for everybody.
- lnxg33k1 3y ago
  Except the kids they keep exploiting for micro transactions, just lets keep it in mind that we’re talking about a business here, not some sort of good will charity
  - aerhardt 3y ago
    What did this case have to do with any of that?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - bubblethink 3y ago
      The case is about who gets what fraction of the microtransactions - Google or Epic (after accounting for the game dev's share).
      - aerhardt 3y ago
        I get that but what does that have to do with whether devs use microtransactions or not in their games? The kids will be subjected to them whether Epic or Google takes the lion’s share.
        lnxg33k1 3y ago
        I am probably from a different time, before the advent of blogs, where journalists were not half-carpet/half-tongue creatures just reading a script and asking CEOs "what is your favourite playable character?", but this article is just a scandal, there is no question that upsets the CEO, I would bet everything that I have, that if 30 years ago a CEO would be in front of some journalist saying "We want to make the world better", the journalist would have pointed out the ways the CEO's own company makes the world worser
prakhar897 3y ago
deja vu. I forgot their names, but there were two social media platform in 2000s, one offered no moderation and other offered some. The one with some moderation was found guilty of not being able to manage hate speech. Meanwhile the one with no moderation was found not guilty.
- aw1621107 3y ago
  I think you're thinking of CompuServe and Prodigy, respectively. The lawsuits against them were Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc. and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. Those two lawsuits were the motivation for the passage of Section 230. I think you have a minor detail wrong - Prodigy was found liable for defamation posted by clients, not hate speech - but the broad strokes are right. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
  - oblio 3y ago
    LOL, it's THAT Stratton Oakmont :-)) It's that sleazy company from the Wolf of Wall Street. How did they ever win a trial?
    - aw1621107 3y ago
      > How did they ever win a trial? In this particular case, the court ruled that Prodigy was the publisher of its users' content because of its efforts to exercise editorial control, which made it liable for what its users said.
- dannyw 3y ago
  A cloakroom that inspects every coat for explosives and claims so could be sued for negligence, but a cloakroom that doesn’t is less likely.
kbos87 3y ago
I’m all for the shady dealings and real power structures that drive the app stores to be exposed, so I applaud this ruling and that Epic saw this through. The product person in me does wonder what the experience of using an App Store is going to be like in another few years if we continue down this path. Am I going to be forced out to some slow and clunky checkout experience in my browser every time an app wants money from me? Are the days of being able to manage most of my digital subscriptions from a single screen in the settings of my phone over? While this ruling was only against Google (and the recent outcome against Apple was different) I don’t know that I love the picture this paints for me as a consumer. I don’t buy the argument that this is going to result in lower prices for me - probably just a worse experience. I’m sure that Google (and Apple, should a similar fate eventually come their way) will fight this every step of the way, and I can imagine there’s a lot they could do to nudge users to opt for the better experience of using their native payments infrastructure. I don’t know to what extent courts are willing or able to micromanage some of those details but it will be interesting to see it all play out.
- rezonant 3y ago
  Well, as a consumer, instead of having to switch your entire phone if you don't like the way apps are billed, you'll now be able to switch apps if you don't like how that specific app handles billing. Some things like Netflix and Amazon were already this way, even on Apple devices. As a product person myself, I would hope that the net result is that we would be allowed to offer both: that we could have a fast friction free purchase via iOS/GPlay and pay the toll, but present the option to pay us directly if the user wants to support us more, or offer lower prices when the transaction is via a provider that takes 3% instead of 30%. I find that to be much more likely. Friction is a real thing in subscription services, and that isn't changing just because the OS vendors might not be able to force apps to use the platform IAP system anymore.
  - maccard 3y ago
    > you'll now be able to switch apps if you don't like how that specific app handles billing. I think you mean "you'll now have to use the developers preferred app for billing".
tobiasbischoff 3y ago
Everytime the kids buy some useless cosmetics in fortnite I'm telling my self I'm financing Tims crusade against big tech here. FTW!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
tibbydudeza 3y ago
Epic is owned by the Chinese TenCent - considering one of the things US used against Huawei which made their phones useless outside the domestic market was Google Play services and App Store. I smell something here - think Tim was encouraged to go on this crusade.
- tibbydudeza 3y ago
  [flagged]
DueDilligence 3y ago
[dead]

111 points by saikatsg 3y ago

if epic wants to gain market share and actually be competitive with steam they are not going to win users over with just free games. the steam client has so many nice features that work fairly well most of the time while epic to the best of my knowledge (havent checked recently) still doesnt have a shopping cart despite users very vocally asking for it for a long time. epic needs to put more money into their software not exclusives

Log_out_ 3y ago

Don t be evil to don't get caught in a decade..

dang 3y ago

Related ongoing thread re https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-why-epic-did-better-against-google-than-apple-in-court.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/12/tim-sweeney-why-epic-did-bet...: Tim Sweeney on why Epic did better against Google than Apple in court - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38621557 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38621557 That discussion is rather poor in quality and this article looks more substantive, so maybe we can try a reset.

ngcc_hk 3y ago

Seems mainly Google has treated people differently like Spotify and got caught for playing games. Apple play only 1 game and as in the article all internally, harder to catch. Still it is a surprise as both are so similar. And if it failed you would think it should be Apple. Strange world. Even stranger if you dig in seems “logically”. Just crazy.

mcfedr 3y ago
No one found inside documents showing apple was playing games, but I struggle to believe there is none of that going on.
- broken_clock 3y ago
  There's a reason they changed Google's internal chat system to delete all messages after max 30 days. They don't want discovery happening again.
- rezonant 3y ago
  But they did play games, check the other subthreads. They were willing to bend over backwards for Netflix including giving them a lower cut.
  - mcfedr 3y ago
    And yet that judge didn't find a problem, which is stunning really, when, at least as far as I can see, the case that apple is monopolising the app store is just so obvious
esskay 3y ago
Apple's always taken the "if you want to play in our court, you play by our rules" approach to this kind of thing so wouldn't be at all surprised if there are zero back door deals going on there. They don't need to do that as no major app provider is going to want to be the one who's not on their app store. If Spotify for example left iOS devices all it would do is drive up Apple Music subscriptions. Very, very few people would switch operating systems for a single app. The average joe doesn't even think about app availability when picking a phone. At most I'd say theres likely some grey area about managing 3rd party subscriptions that arent being done via the app store.
- rtpg 3y ago
  It’s documented that Apple offers deals to companies to keep on using the App Store, or at least stick to its payments (Netflix in particular refused a sweetheart deal). If Spotify and Netflix were not on iOS I’m pretty sure lots of people would go look for an android. Not everyone, but a percentage above 0 (and probably above 2 or 3 percent I bet)
  - aurareturn 3y ago
    Is there evidence that suggests there are companies out there today that have different deals on the iOS App Store than the standard?
    - mcfedr 3y ago
      It's in the app store rules, media companies have a special deal, that no one else gets.
  - JimDabell 3y ago
    > It’s documented that Apple offers deals to companies to keep on using the App Store Is it? I know that it has happened in the past, but in 2020, Tim Cook testified to Congress that they treat everybody equally. Is there any evidence showing that they still offer special deals today?
- dannyw 3y ago
rezonant 3y ago
Apple has explored deals with large app makers like Netflix as well (https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/5/22421734/apple-epic-netflix-in-app-purchase-removal-emails https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/5/22421734/apple-epic-netfli...). They even offered 15% to Netflix (https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-project-liberty-app-store-schiller-sweeney-cook-jobs https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236/epic-v-apple-emails-proj...) Certain parts of App Store policy are the result of this sort of thing. For example there is a carve out for media services-- unlike the rest of the app ecosystem, it is OK for subscriber only media services to have an app that requires login to use it. This was a result of Netflix refusing to use IAP. If you didn't know, it is otherwise not allowed to have a login only experience. You can't even require users to sign up for an account before a user purchases an IAP product or subscription, let alone require a signup before the app is used. While this is a pro consumer move, it does mean headaches for any user that purchases a subscription without attaching an email address and then expects the app's customer support to be able to identify their subscription. It also confuses users because they'll say they're emailing on the same email as their Apple account, but that doesn't help because a subscription purchase doesn't come with the user's email.
- mcfedr 3y ago
  Is it pro consumer? Those exact reasons you describe are why apps want you to make an account. Doing customer service for people in this situation is a nightmare
  - rezonant 3y ago
    Well that's what they claim. And to be fair, since managing that subscription is entirely in the user's hands in the App Store UI/UX, it sort of makes sense- the user shouldn't have to receive spam to buy a random subscription. But I do fall more on the side of your opinion after spending 5 years managing these sorts of systems and working with the support team.
    - mcfedr 3y ago
      As a developer, It gives apple all the power, I don't own the relationship between me and my customers. And the same as a customer, you have this third party butting in, and getting in the way of the experience.
julianozen 3y ago
Apple also rewrote the rules to allow Amazon Prime users to buy video content in their app as long as the user has Prime and already has a CC on the account > “Apple has an established program for premium subscription video entertainment providers to offer a variety of customer benefits — including integration with the Apple TV app, AirPlay 2 support, tvOS apps, universal search, Siri support and, where applicable, single or zero sign-on,” Apple said in a statement given to The Verge. “On qualifying premium video entertainment apps such as Prime Video, Atlice One and Canal+, customers have the option to buy or rent movies and TV shows using the payment method tied to their existing video subscription.” https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-video-ios-in-app-purchases-iphone-ipad-apple-tv-change https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/21203294/amazon-prime-vide...
- maccard 3y ago
  Your quote even says that it's not just prime. That's not a sweetheart deal for amazon, that's a carve out for an entire app category.

somenameforme 3y ago

The most interesting thing to me in this case is Epic refusing Google's $150 million 'offer', and instead relying on the courts. Epic could have accepted that offer with zero risk, and been all the better off for it, with zero risk. Of course everybody else would be left behind. But by going all the way, and refusing the pay off, they instead make a better world for everybody.

lnxg33k1 3y ago
Except the kids they keep exploiting for micro transactions, just lets keep it in mind that we’re talking about a business here, not some sort of good will charity
- aerhardt 3y ago
  What did this case have to do with any of that?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bubblethink 3y ago
    The case is about who gets what fraction of the microtransactions - Google or Epic (after accounting for the game dev's share).
    - aerhardt 3y ago
      I get that but what does that have to do with whether devs use microtransactions or not in their games? The kids will be subjected to them whether Epic or Google takes the lion’s share.
      - lnxg33k1 3y ago
        I am probably from a different time, before the advent of blogs, where journalists were not half-carpet/half-tongue creatures just reading a script and asking CEOs "what is your favourite playable character?", but this article is just a scandal, there is no question that upsets the CEO, I would bet everything that I have, that if 30 years ago a CEO would be in front of some journalist saying "We want to make the world better", the journalist would have pointed out the ways the CEO's own company makes the world worser

prakhar897 3y ago

deja vu. I forgot their names, but there were two social media platform in 2000s, one offered no moderation and other offered some. The one with some moderation was found guilty of not being able to manage hate speech. Meanwhile the one with no moderation was found not guilty.

aw1621107 3y ago
I think you're thinking of CompuServe and Prodigy, respectively. The lawsuits against them were Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc. and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. Those two lawsuits were the motivation for the passage of Section 230. I think you have a minor detail wrong - Prodigy was found liable for defamation posted by clients, not hate speech - but the broad strokes are right. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....
- oblio 3y ago
  LOL, it's THAT Stratton Oakmont :-)) It's that sleazy company from the Wolf of Wall Street. How did they ever win a trial?
  - aw1621107 3y ago
    > How did they ever win a trial? In this particular case, the court ruled that Prodigy was the publisher of its users' content because of its efforts to exercise editorial control, which made it liable for what its users said.
dannyw 3y ago
A cloakroom that inspects every coat for explosives and claims so could be sued for negligence, but a cloakroom that doesn’t is less likely.

kbos87 3y ago

I’m all for the shady dealings and real power structures that drive the app stores to be exposed, so I applaud this ruling and that Epic saw this through. The product person in me does wonder what the experience of using an App Store is going to be like in another few years if we continue down this path. Am I going to be forced out to some slow and clunky checkout experience in my browser every time an app wants money from me? Are the days of being able to manage most of my digital subscriptions from a single screen in the settings of my phone over? While this ruling was only against Google (and the recent outcome against Apple was different) I don’t know that I love the picture this paints for me as a consumer. I don’t buy the argument that this is going to result in lower prices for me - probably just a worse experience. I’m sure that Google (and Apple, should a similar fate eventually come their way) will fight this every step of the way, and I can imagine there’s a lot they could do to nudge users to opt for the better experience of using their native payments infrastructure. I don’t know to what extent courts are willing or able to micromanage some of those details but it will be interesting to see it all play out.

rezonant 3y ago
Well, as a consumer, instead of having to switch your entire phone if you don't like the way apps are billed, you'll now be able to switch apps if you don't like how that specific app handles billing. Some things like Netflix and Amazon were already this way, even on Apple devices. As a product person myself, I would hope that the net result is that we would be allowed to offer both: that we could have a fast friction free purchase via iOS/GPlay and pay the toll, but present the option to pay us directly if the user wants to support us more, or offer lower prices when the transaction is via a provider that takes 3% instead of 30%. I find that to be much more likely. Friction is a real thing in subscription services, and that isn't changing just because the OS vendors might not be able to force apps to use the platform IAP system anymore.
- maccard 3y ago
  > you'll now be able to switch apps if you don't like how that specific app handles billing. I think you mean "you'll now have to use the developers preferred app for billing".

tobiasbischoff 3y ago

Everytime the kids buy some useless cosmetics in fortnite I'm telling my self I'm financing Tims crusade against big tech here. FTW!

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

tibbydudeza 3y ago

Epic is owned by the Chinese TenCent - considering one of the things US used against Huawei which made their phones useless outside the domestic market was Google Play services and App Store. I smell something here - think Tim was encouraged to go on this crusade.

tibbydudeza 3y ago
[flagged]

DueDilligence 3y ago

[dead]