Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by ericmay | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ericmay

> Epic demands Apple do thing = bad for Apple (good for Epic) no way

Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic)

> Apple demand Facebook do thing = Good for Apple (bad for FB) yes way

Apple demands Facebook do a thing = Good for Apple, good for customers (bad for Facebook)

As a customer in these equations, I'm siding with Apple.

> That's the very definition of "competition" something Apple has avoided for over a decade at this point

Why do I have to use Epic's game store for Fortnite? Why can't I create my own skins with paint and sell them for whatever I want?

View on HN

How is Epic fighting to reduce Apple's cut of app store proceeds (30%!) bad for customers? At worst it's customer-neutral, at best it could reduce prices.

if you dislike uPlay and Origin, you should probably side with Apple on this.

I dislike uPlay and Origin and that's why I'm avoiding them (I still have some games on them but something has to be veeery interesting for me to buy it there - I'm even willing to pay more to get same thing on Steam).

Why are we all talking about creating more stores? Shouldn't we opt into creating systems API for stores? That way you could choose store application and have products from all repositories (stores) available in there.

On most Linuxes you add repository and it doesn't matter if you use official package manager, graphical one, or some unofficial bash script. You are able to install same software.

>if you dislike uPlay and Origin, you should probably side with Apple on this.

Can you provide some reasoning behind that. What should I like, so I can dislike uPlay in the first place?

Most people seem to be on board with Steam being their preferred distributor. Any alternatives are met with harsh vitriol- especially ones that are for distributing a a single companies property specifically. Such as EAs origin and Ubisoft’s uPlay (now called Ubisoft Connect).

This is common in the gaming community. Full disclosure: I used to work in the studio that developed and maintained uplay.

One of the games I worked on was an epic store exclusive (or, wouldn’t launch on steam) and it was met with harsh criticism for that. Many players outright said that they wouldn’t buy the game if it wasn’t on steam.

Judging by PC sales, they held true to their word.

I have steam and I absolutely do not need a single provider/distributor (in fact I also have GOG and uPlay, and in no shape steam would be held in any higher esteem). I don't quite see any reason to dislike/resent any other company's way of releasing their products.

Back, years ago the distribution way were tons of 3.5" diskettes, or better yet - transportable hard disk with a jumper switch to slave mode. A lot has changed since, however subscribing to the model that one company has to govern my entertainment model is beyond silly.

>Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic)

not bad for all customers. I would like to side-load third party apps on my Iphone. Remember when app store banned a hn reader app because it showed Covid-related submissions[1]

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24410652

Idk about you but I’ve been sideloading apps for years on my iPhone. There’s an entire subreddit for it if you’re really that interested.

The ability to purchase a game on iPhone then use it on an Android next because I decided to change phones is invaluable for customers.

This is something I'm pretty sure Epic would provide with their own app store.

> Epic demands Apple do a thing = bad for Apple, bad for customers (good for Epic)

How is allowing developers to use alternate payment platforms "bad for customers"? Or, if not on the phone, at least to allow them to add funds to their account from the browser/another platform and use it in their iOS app?

So Apple allows Epic to put their store on iOS, but of course has to allow anyone to put their Store on iOS since otherwise it wouldn't be competitive. What about when Facebook makes Facebook its own marketplace, and the apps it distributes bypass the IDFA and track users without the popup, and of course don't have a privacy nutrition label? What about the hundreds of other $adtech companies bootstrapping their privacy-invasive, scam, and malicious apps (think 'your phone has a virus, call apple support' scams), is that not bad for the consumer?

Surely we can just apply the Windows argument of "well they should get antivirus software and stop browsing shady sites" and go about our day having improved the landscape for the tech-literate, while having increased the risk other people take on by using their phone if they don't know the first thing about ensuring the apps they download are safe or privacy-preserving. That's why people buy iPhone - you literally do not have to worry about malicious App Store apps.

> How is allowing developers to use alternate payment platforms "bad for customers"?

Because those "alternate payment platforms" don't prioritise consumer protection.

Deliveroo did an update their software that wiped out my login settings. They didn't support apple login, so I lost access to my account. They won't recover my email because of a special character in it, and so they continued to charge me for their "plus" service every month, and avoided any emails I tried to send asking to stop (asking me to "log in" to change my payment settings!).

Requiring apps use Apple's channel would have protected me from that experience.

How being locked in apple's ecosystem good for the customers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com