Tim Sweeney on Apple and Google - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/911658041/fortnite-maker-tim-sweeney-on-apple-and-google-these-monopolies-need-to-be-stopp <comment><USER2> 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.

<comment><USER3> 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.

<comment><USER4> It's the "best case scenario" for developers and Epic, but not for me as a customer. I vastly prefer the iPhone model where I can go to a single place to download all the apps that I need with a single payment method. I don't have to go to a specific url in the browser, download an executable, install a separate store for each game I want, and then finally install the game from that separate store. I don't know who would call this as a superior user experience.

You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200%, whereas in reality there hasn't remotely been such a thing since the inception of the App Store.

<comment><USER5> > You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the > app prices by 200%

No, we got free to play with endless micro transactions instead. I would have preferred the price bump.

<comment><USER6> Well, that was because developers demanded it. Apple initially didn't allow in-app payments for free apps.

<comment><USER7> No, developers demanded time-limited trials for paid apps, which we had for many years before the App Store.

But Apple _never_ delivered on that. Instead, Apple pushed "subscriptions", which is just another name for rental.

<comment><USER8> Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Google...

Subscription models produce lots of recurring revenue, so companies absolutely adore that model when they can get away with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Microsoft is apparently not one of the monopolies he wants stopped, because he is incredibly hostile towards Linux and Linux support for games. I can't stand this dude and his ramblings.

<comment><USER10> Hey there, I work in the Linux gaming space. Epic and Tim Sweeney are not hostile towards Linux. The worst you can say is they're indifferent (and can you blame them, given the size of that market?), but even that is not true. Epic's game engine supports Linux. Could they do more to support Linux gaming? Sure. But that's not the same as being "incredibly hostile."

<comment><USER11> No Epic Store in Linux. Repeatedly stated they've no plans to.

Meanwhile, Steam is doubling down with Proton. Since Proton, I don't have a Windows partition around anymore, it just works for an enormous number of titles.

<comment><USER12> Ignoring Linux != Hostile to Linux

Just because they don't want to build for and support a relatively tiny platform does not mean that they're hostile toward that platform. They support it in other ways via their game engine. Steam, on the other hand, has a vested interest in supporting Linux due to SteamOS, which they hope to pursue again in the future.

Just because Valve has a lot of goodwill in supporting Linux, even though Proton hasn't really affected Linux's market share in gaming, does not mean everyone else is actively hostile toward it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think a lot of people have short memories. When Apple launched the iPhone computer security was a disaster, the security of the AppStore was a massive benefit and the fact that we don't have massive botnets of mobile phones is in no small part down to the massive effort that was put into security. But they seem to have solved this problem so well that people have forgotten it was even a problem to begin with.

<comment><USER14> This line of argument is incorrect: It's not the AppStore that makes secure apps possible: It's the mandatory sandbox that apps run inside that actually makes the system secure. It's fairly easy to push malicious code to the AppStore but bypassing the sandbox restrictions is what keeps bad apps at bay.

<comment><USER15> Yes, this is one of my biggest pet peeves and largest disconnects when reading these threads. I dont understand how people can accept apples privacy and protecting the consumer argument when that has nothing to do with the app store. That is iOS itself and its permission model.

Do people really think app store approvers are doing malware analysis on apps and analyzing network traffic to approve them?

<comment><USER16> Conversation on this website is full of people who can't see a mixed bag and acknowledge the bad parts are bad.

People who know better tend to have the self control not to engage. I often get baited into engaging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Here's my "old-timer" take on the 30%:

I used to develop games and apps for MS PocketPC. Our users could install apps straight from their PC to the PocketPC.

But guess how apps were sold: through portals. These portals also took around 30% (Handango and PocketGear were the biggest ones back then).

We were also selling straight from our website, where we could have had 0% cost. But guess what: We wanted to reach top 10 on Handango, and the best way to do that was send our customers through Handango. Once in the top 10 (front page), it would multiply our sales. So even on our own site we choose to 'lose' 30%.

Just take a look at Steam: it's PC games! You can sell all those things straight to the consumer. But developers still choose to give 30% (or how much is it now?) for the exposure.

Conclusion: there will always be some party taking around 30%. Why? Because it's well worth the 30%

<comment><USER18> >Just take a look at Steam: it's PC games! You can sell all those things straight to the consumer. But developers still choose to give 30% (or how much is it now?) for the exposure.

What's your opinion on the following:

* pay-for-play "acceptable ads" in ABP

* having to get a EV code signing certificate ($300+/yr) to bypass windows smartscreen warnings, which are enabled by default

Are they acceptable? Are they a net good for consumers? They're all examples of optional programs that clearly provide value to the buyers (otherwise they wouldn't be buying it), in exchange for a payment to the gatekeepers. This is basically the same role as steam (or the portals). However, I have a feeling that most hn readers would not have a positive opinion of either of those programs.

<comment><USER19> > having to get a EV code signing certificate ($300+/yr) to bypass windows > smartscreen warnings, which are enabled by default

Windows was a malware disaster before measures like this were added to the OS, so I would argue this (and other warnings preventing people from randomly clicking and installing things) _are_ a net good for the consumer.

You also technically don't need an _EV_ cert, you can get a regular code signing cert (it will just take longer to build your reputation).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > _Since then, Sweeney, an iconoclastic executive who owns enormous farms and > dabbles in fast cars_

And overworks his employees to exhaustion, while stomping on their unionizing...

<comment><USER21> I think Epic has miscalculated the optics on this. There is no underdog in this story. It's just two enormous companies, run by very wealthy men, who put corporate profits and stock options above employee welfare, squabbling over how much of the pie they get to eat, when neither one can finish their first slice. I want them both to lose.

<comment><USER22> Epic miscalculated because they weren't ever expecting a real legal battle.

They wanted Fortnite to get removed from the App Store in hopes that their rabid fan base of adolescent Fortnite gamers would create insane amounts of bad PR for Apple.

But It never reached critical mass and Apple stood their ground.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think:

1\. Multiple App Stores would be good for free speech, and for avoidance of USA cultural and legal hegemony.

2\. How can this be done without loss of security for typical users? We don't want phones to become botnets with microphones and cameras — imagine the opportunities for automatic criminal blackmail, theft planning, target acquisition, or 2FA interception. This is bad for the societies we live in even if _we here on HN_ don't personally install bad apps or bad stores.

3\. It does feel like Sweeney is arguing in bad faith.

4\. The the money is being raised as an issue implies these markets are now red-water rather than blue-water.

<comment><USER24> > _How can this be done without loss of security for typical users?_

It cannot. Typical users are not capable of 'vetting' app stores for their security capabilities.

<comment><USER23> It doesn't have to be directly end-users — could it be like the HTTPS chain of trust, only with Apple and Google as the roots of certification?

<comment><USER24> What incentive does Google or Apple have to associate their name with someone else's security judgment calls?

<comment><USER23> Oh, none whatsoever. This would have to be forced upon them against their will.

I just hope it's done by governments who actually care about end users, not by those acting as though feudal aristocracy is the current economic standard and want a cut of Big Tech's trillions.

<comment><USER24> I take it we've moved past the era of "governments shouldn't control the Internet", then.

<comment><USER23> Governments have always controlled it (SSL encryption 'export' limitations, for example); what we've moved past is the idea that those governments which control it are uniquely those which sit in Washington DC.

<comment><USER24> I wasn't talking about ITAR controls, but that's an easier path to explain to others. Good call, I'll use it, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Mr. Sweeney is welcome to make his own mobile operating system and charge whatever rate he wants.

He's personally worth $5.3 billion.

Surely that's enough to take Android Open Source Project and make his own version.

It's easy to burn down a store that you think charges too much. It's harder to make a new store that people will like. Maybe take the high road, Mr. Sweeney.

<comment><USER26> And you are welcome to build your own underwater fibre optic cables and network infrastructure if you want net neutrality. ISPs should be allowed to block any website for any reason or no reason whatsoever, including asking website owners for a cut of their revenue and block them if they refuse. /s

<comment><USER25> Android is literally open source, and any rooted phone can get a new operating system. Can you name a lower barrier to entry in any industry?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Apple's defense that they are not a monopolist in any traditional sense is correct as far as it goes.

But a novel definition of monopoly may be warranted. As smartphones become more and more a part of the fundamental infrastructure of society, and remain relatively expensive and slow to replace, it's not crazy to say that iPhone users are a market in itself and that market should be protected from monopoly. In the same way that a company in the 1800s might not have been a national or regional monopoly, but very much was a monopoly in their own company town, or how car manufacturers in the 20th Century were forced to allow competition in repair services.

I think ultimately, right now, my personal sense is that iPhones don't quite rise to the level of their own market that needs to be opened up, but it's close.

<comment><USER28> > "As smartphones become more and more a part of the fundamental > infrastructure of society"

This perspective underpins a lot of the pushback against Apple & Google but I just don't understand it.

Any cell phone, and especially a smartphone, is not integral to modern society. Random usage by consumers is recreational. Businesses have a million ways to replace things they ask employees to rely on smartphones for. In fact not all uses of smartphones are productivity increasing, and it could easily be argued that we need better ways to just switch them off, whether at work or at home, to get things done.

An iPhone is like a video game console. Whether you use for seemingly "important" things like PagerDuty or day trading or checking your child's location or hailing a car ride for a home-bound elder or sick person ... the smartphone is purely extra consumer gadgetry to do it and it could be accomplished many other ways.

Given that smartphones are just an optional, convenient luxury item, I don't see how any argument about them being critical to modern society can possibly be used to claim Apple must be forced to operate its app distribution channel a certain way or cannot set its own monetization policies.

<comment><USER29> 17% of people in the US use their smartphone as their only portal to the internet [1]. Is your argument that as long as they can go use a computer at a library that their smartphone is a luxury item? Access to the internet (or someone to access it for you) is basically a prerequisite for existing in modern society and phones are how people choose to do it most of the time.

This like saying "hey, if you don't like buying from standard oil, just get a horse!" when 1) you might already have a car, 2) you can't afford a horse on top of that, and 3) society has restructured itself such that a horse is not even viable in your day-to-day life.

[1] [https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/06/17/pew-smartphone- only...](https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/06/17/pew-smartphone-only- internet-use/)

<comment><USER30> It is an incredible lack of imagination to think we are at the end of history on mobile device OSes and thus they should become utilities.

Oil is a natural resource. This is software that didn't exist 12 years ago.

<comment><USER29> We aren't really talking about OSes though, we are talking about software distribution. No one is trying to force Apple to let other phone manufacturers use iOS or force them to open source it.

Is advertising and hosting software so novel that it doesn't deserve any scrutiny?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The podcast "Acquired" recently did an episode on Epic

[https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/epic- games](https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/epic-games) (Season 7, Episode 3, September 1, 2020)

It helped me a lot with positioning Epic and Sweeney, with his current actions, into my mental knowledge base, in the context of Doom and what was happening in the 90s and thereafter in the gaming industry. It also touches the current topic. It's worth listening to.

<comment><USER32> Thank you for introducing me to this podcast. Truly a valuable one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Yes, it can be stopped. All Tim Sweeney is to do is build another mobile hardware/software platform and set the rules for app distribution however he likes. That is the way to beat a monopoly.

<comment><USER34> The closer you are to the root of the tree, the harder it is to "build an alternative". It's the same for the road system, power distribution system, mobile platforms(Android, Apple), etc. I can't afford as a customer to buy a device just to play Fortnite, nor should I.

<comment><USER35> You can leverage existing alternatives, which they already do to some extent. Epic has invested massively in Blender, for example.

It's interesting that they've gone the 'pick a fight' route, when 8 years ago when Valve had similar concerns about Windows 8 they did as GP suggested and rolled their own Linux distro and made a bid for the living room space. That particular offensive failed, but Valve's continued investment in the Linux space now means that now, 8 years later, most AAA games without Anti-cheat or some kinds of DRM can be played on Linux seamlessly.

If Epic wanted to do likewise, they could invest in Librem 5 or Pinephone and make alternatives more viable.

<comment><USER36> That's interesting because indeed Librem 5, Pinephone, etc. could be indeed a unique opportunity for Epic (and Valve) to have their own mobile stores under their own rules.

Sure, currently it is insignificant, but so is Linux Desktop, yet Valve invests in Wine/Photon/Wayland/etc. and on the long run it might pay off when they'll have their own consoles.

I don't really understand Tim S. , on one hand he hates Apple monopoly, on the other hand he also hates Linux which is the only viable alternative, yet he still supports open source a lot (e.g epic mega grant)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > "Everybody doesn't have a great incentive to challenge Apple and Google's > 30% because they want to be the next bastard to charge 3̶0̶ 12%,"

There.

</comment><comment><USER38> Well, until we can play Forknife on Steam I don't see why he has any better position than the brands he mentions.

</comment><comment><USER39> I don't think attacks on Epic's sort of 'suitability' in fighting this dragon are really warranted. Like godzilla vs. king kong, I think the only entities with the financial strength and influence to tangle with apple/google is going to be a bit of a monster in their own right.

My feelings about this do tend to vacillate. My opinion right now is sort of circumstantial, in that I don't think it's even tongue in cheek to call 30% the apple/google tax.

apple defends itself with the work it puts into maintaining app store quality. But imo enforced app quality and the store experience is something you sell to customers, not developers.

So apple talks about how there's so many free apps that never give apple a nickel. I can understand differentiated pricing for different customers, but framing app developers as app store customers is where I feel apple and google run afoul. So it's like, why is it acceptable that mega-apps like fortnite are basically levied to support the app store, that apple turns around and presents to the customer and says "look how nice we made this"?

I don't know, it feels like the anti "developers, developers, developers". They don't have to make any concession to promote developers to use their platform, because there practically isn't much of a choice, between the two they're nearly the only game in town.

</comment><comment><USER40> Crazy idea: if you want a free as in speech App Store then why isn't the request for a free as in speech mobile OS?

The claim is there isn't a company backing it - presumably from lack of market demand for it. There have been attempts but they've not gained steam. Even Google is now moving away from Linux as the core of android.

I generally agree that we need some countervailing pressure against the monopolies of today. But I can't help to suspect there's an argument to be made that turns the argument on its head: in a free market it is valid to tell someone asking for a product to produce their own desired good. If it's a popular idea the implementation has a chance at being popular.

The counter to this would probably include lack of hardware to really target. Apples not letting anyone side load an entirely different OS on its phones, for instance.

Maybe that's an angle to counter these monopolies without needing to go so far as to dissect them into smaller companies? Simply pass a law saying hardware and software should always be self contained goods - you can bundle them but have to offer them separately too.

Ninja edit- I think in that universe with self contained goods that hardware companies would have to make source code for drivers OSS (why should they care where it's ran?) or enough information to make writing drivers possible.

<comment><USER41> I think its a bit of a chicken/egg problem here. If there is no apps/appstore the OS will be a flop, but if there is no free OS there will probably not be a free app-ecosystem.

Used to have a Nokia N9, awesome phone, great OS, but there weren't any apps to speak of which I think is a large part of why MeeGo died.

Honestly the one way I see out of this is if web-apps largely replace native apps, which means that a new OS only needs to support a standards compliant web-browser.

That or get the existing actors to agree on and support an open 'app- container' format ...

<comment><USER30> You've hit it.

There's a reason the web once was a threat to Microsoft's monopoly: it led to rich experiences they couldn't control.

The web is so popular, Apple couldn't block it. The trick to attacking them anticompetitively is to enhance the browser to take advantage of modern hardware capabilities and then go after the iOS browser restrictions as anticompetitive.

Google Stadia is an example of this arguably. But with things coming up like WASM I could see the browser being a local experience for games too.

<comment><USER42> There is nothing stopping the Browser from providing AAA experiences, today, other than... Most likely, only a 'good' game engine.

JavaScript + WebGL are very capable, right now, and for the past ~5 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Meanwhile you get a fortnite installer on every xperia that you cannot and may not remove...

He is probably right, not sure, but he only got on this high horse after Apple and Google told him to get f*cked when he wanted a special deal. So maybe he should sit this one out and let the relevant regulators handle it? He is just in it to cry in the media if you ask me

</comment><comment><USER44> In the global economy, monopolies become a tougher situation. In some ways I'd rather not split Apple or Google if it were to mean a non-US company takes their place, particularly a Chinese one. I understand Epic Games is partially owned by Tencent, which if I wore a tinfoil hat, may concern me in regards to their motives here.

<comment><USER45> The thing is: the world isn't the US and China.

What if it was an European or Indian company?

<comment><USER44> Well if I have to pick between my country being the top player versus another country, I'd still always pick my country (US). Though an EU or Indian company would be less concerning than Chinese.

<comment><USER45> Don't take me wrong, that's precisely the point - admitting and accepting your bias is the way to go, and that's fine.

It's just sad that the EU stance seems increasingly naive, the "lead by example" stance doesn't seem to work at all, and we're steam rolled between US and China.

Why isn't the EU stopping monopolies from acting in EU territory if it's in the EU best interest? Why not stop predatory takeovers? It's like we're just bystanders watching US and China... just sad.

Thank you for your honesty

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> So I'm of two minds here.

On one mind the app stores do provide a mechanism for security, that is of great value to end users. On the other hand, the amount they collect is way too large.

I'm wondering if there is a middle path. If one wants to use the app store to make your apps discoverable, you pay the higher fee, but if you just use the app store for distribution (and hence don't disrupt the end user security model) you can pay a smaller fee.

so how would users install apps without being able to discover it on the store? via the desktop (and not mobile, if we want to be strict) web. i.e. epic can give users a url that they can use to connect to google' web market (which already allow you to install apps to your device, and apple can do the same).

This would be the only way to install these apps (though updates would proceed as normal). if one searches for the app in the marketplace, it wont come up. And as I said, perhaps even on mobile the direct link to app wont work (though of multiple minds on this as well).

For app developers that need the app store to drive interest and demand, the 30% cut google/apple take is then reasonable. For app developers that can drive their own demand, they would pay a much smaller cut (perhaps 5-10%, with a decent chunk of that being the normal credit card processing fees that they would have anyways).

just a thought

</comment><comment><USER47> Epic has monopoly on v-bucks, they need to be stopped.

</comment><comment><USER48> > Sweeney founded Epic Games in his parents' basement in the suburbs of > Washington, D.C., in the early 1990s and grew the business into a $17 > billion gaming empire.

Well that's one way to look at it. What made him really rich was selling out to Tencent, who just so happens to also have a mobile app store that they would love to get onto your phone.

</comment><comment><USER49> A lot of the time i see people/youtubers mention that they like the benefits of the App store that would be gone if anything changes.

But why is this invalidated by allowing allowing the user to install software from other sources, allow a the user to install a browser that is not a skin on top of safari, allow non apple game streaming services on the platform, allow the use of images/text that mentions or shows competing software company logos/names, allow apps to show price differences in payment processing or allow established payment methods like PayPal to be used on the platform.

If would still allow the same user to only use apple pay or the apple version of their loved service of choice but also gives users that don't alternatives.

</comment><comment><USER30> It is an incredible lack of imagination that people actually think this is the end of history with regards to mobile device operating systems, and we should just declare Android and iOS And their ecosystems public utilities that should be regulated by the government.

Because that really is the only recourse here to give people what they want.

Markets aren't created by god, they're created by customers. If you want to force the creation of an App Store market, one that customers aren't actually asking for, it will need to be government-mandated.

Maybe there will be a weak sauce version of this where the review process isn't regulated but the commission rates are regulated. We aren't going back to the PC model where a thousand app stores bloom. No government will force that - there's too much risk for malware and spyware as it is. At best it will be government-sanctioned stores with a government-sanctioned review process.

Windows once had 95% market share (still does!) and this hasn't happened, even though Microsoft still gets a cut of almost every PC sale.

Be careful what you wish for. Folks here really haven't studied history of antitrust beyond scanning Wikipedia.

There is a ton potential for new devices and platforms in VR, AR, and other experiences. The current state of affairs is not permanent. Most historical antitrust actions had very limited positive effects on consumers. The Standard Oil breakup, for example, is often cited. But it's breakup didn't really fix anything. Its children became bigger than the parent within a few years! Same with the AT&T breakup. It led to oligopoly. The only real telecom competition has been foreign entrants like T-Mobile. Microsoft's consent decree had almost no impact on its monopoly status and revenue steam. What mattered was the market changing, to the point we didn't care about the Windows monopoly anymore. There were other platforms that mattered in iOS, Android.

Valve has a near monopoly for PC game app stores and is poised to compete with Facebook and Apple for the next generation of VR/AR. Epic wants in on that. And likely there will be others.

<comment><USER50> > No government will force that - there's too much risk for malware and > spyware as it is.

Since when does any government anywhere on this planet care about "risk for malware and spyware" on operating systems? If they did, they'd turn up the heat on software developers in terms of responsibility for blatant security violations and security-related software bugs. The fact that no government does any of that tells us that they don't care about secure software. Some governments - I'm not calling names now - may even have active interest in insecure software due to their law enforcement and intelligence arms depending on security flaws for their work.

<comment><USER30> In the US alone, there have been have been several congressional hearings and FTC reports on malware and spyware over the past 20+ years. Microsoft was under significant political and commercial pressure in the 2000s to clean this up, and they answered the call.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Apple has every right to decide about their platform. What everyone else needs to do, including Sweeney, is stop developing for that platform and choose open/free platforms. Please go have a chat with rms.

<comment><USER52> Exactly my thoughts. It's their platform, their well-written rules, and Epic always knew it from the beginning. They intentionally made a move against a legal agreement, didn't take a step back despite the warnings from Apple/Google, and now paying a price. Don't want to be devil's advocate here but Apple/Google did the right thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Since this war is about making money from controlling access to the users, I don't feel like siding with either Apple or Epic on this. Letting the sheep decide by which wolf they will be eaten isn't that great of a choice.

From my own personal perspective, I would like to be able to permanently install an app that I developed myself, on my own Mac, on the iOS devices that I own without having to go through the app store or Apple's review process. But I'm not holding my breath that the outcome of this fight will deliver even that.

<comment><USER30> You can already install your own software on your own iOS device without review. You can even install it on 3rd party devices (up to 100) without review!

<comment><USER53> Not _permanently_. You have to re-install every week.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> IBM was investigated for antitrust violations. After many years, they entered into a consent decree which required them to document all of their APIs. And not just that - they were not allowed to have any hidden interfaces that might place IBM application developers at an advantage over non-IBM application developers.

As long as you coded to the published API, you were good to go.

</comment><comment><USER55> "These monopolies need to be stopped," says man who wants to create his own monopoly.

</comment><comment><USER56> Doesn't matter if you like or dislike Fortnite and the Epic Store, Tim Sweeney here is correct.

Doesn't matter if people like it or not, but freedom of choice must be given to users and developers alike. Choice should not be an option, but a basic right.

The people defending Apple and it's walled garden of life remind me of Socrates and his "Allegory of the cave" ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave) ). This becomes a philosophical dilemma unless you believe freedom and truth should be absolute.

<comment><USER57> What about the freedom to choose a highly curated platform because you want that and are prepared to pay a premium for it?

<comment><USER58> What about it? You, personally, making that choice shouldn't force everyone else to pay 30% eternally to Apple.

<comment><USER59> You don't have to pay 30% to Apple. Jail break your phone is you want or just buy one of the 1000s of other phones for. Sale

<comment><USER58> > You don't have to pay 30% to Apple. Jail break your phone is you want or > just buy one of the 1000s of other phones for. Sale

That's a completely unreasonable sales strategy for a company to take, telling their customers to jailbreak their phones or to purchase a different phone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60>
        Apples not letting anyone side
        load an entirely different OS
        on its phones

I tend to think that this practice has only downsides for society.

</comment><comment><USER61> If he loses this fight, he should bankroll a Linux Phone and an iOS/android- app-to-Linux phone cross compiler.

</comment><comment><USER62> Where the money cone from. Who help those small merchant that pay only $99 and some portion to get into such large platform.

Still remember the cost of Getting into windows developer.

To be honest they are not small player. If they fight for lower percentage for small player may be ... but if rich one do not pay

</comment><comment><USER63> As a user of npm I'd really like to see some effort to create a framework for trust in open(ish) repositories. Something that includes signing, reputation (beyond "popularity"), trust network (people that vouch for your packages), automated verification to check for obfuscation, etc.

I mention npm because it's always in the news, and because it's a much smaller and simpler problem that a whole App Store.

If we could fix something like npm the solution could perhaps be generalized or built on to open trustworthy repos for all kinds of content. At that point we would have a very strong working argument against privately-run monopolistic app stores. Until then I prefer Apple as a benevolent dictator to mad-max style libertarianism. I need to use Adobe software for professional reasons, but I'd rather not have to deal with an Adobe app store... or an EA app store... or an Ubisoft app store... or apps stores from a variety of shitty companies with bad practices.

</comment><comment><USER64> If Epic allowed users to create their own outfits and weapons and sell them in fortnite using the users choice of credit card processing service they'd have a lot more legs to stand on.

</comment><comment><USER65> I understand these companies are all different and obviously different in size. But I still get a good feeling of the pot calling the kettle black here.

</comment><comment><USER66> So the NPR is now a mouthpiece of Epic, without any critical comment to any of their ridiculous claims?

</comment><comment><USER67> Doesn't Epic have a pretty big monopoly in the game industry?

<comment><USER35> Not a monopoly, but they have a captive audience with one of the biggest gaming franchises of the current time.

Many of their current practices with the Epic Store could be potentially seen as being anti-competitive, but they are currently being given the benefit of the doubt because they are nowhere near as big as Steam.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Two only choices of mobile OS, thats concerning for sure.

</comment><comment><USER69> I think it's super unfair that I am not allowed to set up a lemonade stand inside of Walmart for free. Monopolistic, even.

<comment><USER70> Would this change at all if Walmart was the only store allowed to operate in an area corresponding to about half the US population?

<comment><USER71> Would it change at all if that half of the population chose to live there, knowing Walmart was the only store allowed to operate?

Would it change even further if people moved there BECAUSE Walmart was the only store that was allowed to operate?

And since someone will ask "why would you want that?". The analogy won't completely work, but I'll go with it. When my son wants to buy a bike, they go off and bike a bike. I can be sure that they bought it at Walmart, and that Walmart has done some work to make sure the bike is safe for my son.

If I don't have that, then maybe he buys a bike at "Joe's bike shop". Maybe that bike was made poorly in China. I don't know that the bike he bought was safe.

I mean, [https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite- fo...](https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-for-android- came-with-an-epic-security-risk/). And, what do you know, Sweeney was mad at Google for finding it.

<comment><USER70> It's definitely a valid point. I've made the comment before that one of the problems of a more open App platform is that Facebook would replicate their malicious app advertising business on iOS and millions of people would have worse experiences with their phone because of it. It's ridiculous the stuff they're willing to push ads for on Android and Google are willing to host on their store, and it's no loss to iOS that suchs apps aren't available.

But a lemonade stand in a Walmart wouldn't necessarily harm consumers, and lots of things Apple blocks or requires a cut of wouldn't either if things were changed.

<comment><USER71> I apologize in advance for stretching the analogy so far here. But going back to my example, my son now goes into Walmart for a lemonade. The Lemonade stand is half the price, so he goes there. How do I know the lemonade isn't poisoned? Made with peanuts and not labeled as such? etc.. The argument would be that he doesn't have to go there, but that's easier said than done. I go to Walmart because I know that they verify their products.

Going back to an iPhone, the answer is usually "you don't have to use any other app stores". But what about if I _do_? What if I have to use the new Coronavirus test that requires an app? And the only way to get the app is to install Abbott's app store? Are you guaranteed that they aren't also consuming all your health information?

My view would be different if Android didn't exist, or if iPhone had a much higher market share. But for now, I'm happy to pay extra to be in the walled garden, because I trust the king of the castle to try to protect me (as opposed to figuring out who to trust out on the street).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm surprised to find myself siding with Apple / Google / etc on this. They did the work to build and maintain a distribution platform. They should be able to define its terms of use and costs. If you don't like it, distribute differently. If everyone uses those companies' devices, it's a market endorsement that the world wants the standardization and managed ecosystem of each platform - that it's a thing of value.

I don't see how there's any way you can tell Apple how Apple has to run infrastructure to support a distribution channel, but it cannot determine the prices or policies for someone using it to distribute an app.

<comment><USER72> > They should be able to define its terms of use and costs.

As long as it doesn't conflict with public interests. For this purpose, antitrust laws are designed to tackle this particular type of situations.

> the world wants the standardization and managed ecosystem of each platform

This maybe true, and such standards might also be too important to be controlled by just one or two companies.

<comment><USER30> It is incredible that people actually think this is the end of history with regards to mobile device operating systems, and we should just declare Android and iOS And their ecosystems public utilities.

Windows once had 95% market share and that didn't even happen.</comment></comment></comment>


The Day Mandela Was Arrested, With A Little Help From the CIA - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsweek.com/day-mandela-was-arrested-little-help-cia-223935 <comment><USER3> Shocked by how misinformed people are about Mandela/Apartheid, or by the amount of trolling going on here.

Thousands of white people have not died in SA thanks to Mandela. Mandela was not a 'terrorist'. Apartheid was BAD, and still affects the country significantly today. Here's some context for you. This all applied pre 1994/2:

I am a non white South African. The only reason I got a good education was because with the release of Nelson Mandela, my parents were one of few to study at a previously white only university, and qualify for positions previously reserved for whites only. They went on to run companies that they COULD NOT have run during Apartheid, have offices in places they could not have had before, have clients they could not have before etc. I live in a neighbourhood my parents could not have lived in prior to 1994, and study at a university my parents were not allowed to. These were white only areas only, because they are good.

My father was a lawyer during Apartheid. Black people were only allowed to represent black people. Almost all of the people he defended in court were put to death, in many cases before their trials were even heard by courts! Post apartheid, the death penalty was dropped.

My family had family friends that were white. They were never allowed to mix. My aunt wanted to marry a white (American) man but was forbidden to. They got married illegally. She was not entitled to live in the property he owned, as black people could not legally own property. She came close to being arrested many times.

Post apartheid my aunt and her white husband were married. She was allowed to legally own the property after he died.

My birth certificate does not have my parents names on it, due to Apartheid. Families were not formally recognised. I need to get an amended birth certificate to prove who my parents are, and I can now do this post apartheid.

My parents were also forcefully removed from their legally owned properties that were taken from them during Apartheid. Their property was seized by the government and never returned. My parents could barely even travel out of South Africa as flying over/travelling other African countries were restricted. They were even not allowed to enter many countries abroad.

And I'm not even 'Black'. My ethnicity is Indian. I am an Indian South Africa (of which there are millions). Everyone who wasn't white was counted as 'Black'. This accounts for over 85% of South Africa's population.

It is well known in SA that the US government actively supported Apartheid, and many people have a poor opinion of the US because of this.

If it wasn't for Nelson Mandela, I probably wouldn't even be able to post this. My family, and millions others, now live lives they simply could not have lived before.

Please explain to me how this is the work of a terrorist, or how in any way the work of the armed wing of the ANC was not justified by the Apartheid regimes massacre of innocent children and women , and torture of prisoners ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soweto_uprising](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soweto_uprising), [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre), [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Biko](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Biko)) and their numerous policies and their effects as explained above.

<comment><USER4> Mandela was a terrorist. You're just having cognitive dissonance because you agree with him (as all right-thinking people should have.)

To the extent that "terrorist" has any meaning, it is when a less powerful actor attempts to advance an agenda through creating an unmanageable situation for a more powerful institution by causing an increased sense of risk within individuals who are part of the support structure of that institution, thereby making it too expensive for the institution to continue preventing that agenda from being advanced.

Where conventional war wins by killing enough people on the other side that they can't stop you from doing what you want, instead terrorism makes people so expensive (in lost government support from a targeted public, increased salaries and heightened security, and/or lost inflows of money from targeted clients and customers) that allowing the terrorist agenda to advance turns out to be cheaper for the institution being attacked than continuing to fight.

That's what the ANC did.

<comment><USER3> That's a bit condescending. Terrorism doesn't have an accepted definition, and that definitely isn't my definition of terrorism, nor many others. Perhaps people living in America are more inclined to your definition.

I believe that terrorism is defined by the desire to cause mass fear in the general populace by intentionally targeting innocent people, to send across some political message in whichever guise. 9/11 was a terrorist attack.

The Spear of the Nation targeted infrastructure of the Apartheid regime, and the policies of equality upheld by the ANC and Nelson Mandela were widely supported by both white and non-white people in South Africa. I do not think these actions were aimed at provoking mass fear or lobbying an ideal not commonly accepted in South Africa.

This period is often referred to as a revolution, and successful revolutionaries are not historically known as 'terrorists'. In the Anglo-Boer war a similar tactic was employed by the Boers to great effect, but I have never heard of anyone referring to their actions during this war as acts of terrorism. They fought against an act of war initiated by the British, the same way that the ANC fought against acts of violence by the ruling regime, except the ANC were severely under resourced.

Again, the spear of the nation may have done this. This doesn't make Nelson Mandela a terrorist. If he armed a bomb, killed someone, held someone hostage for international attention, I would be far more inclined to accept your definition, as with others.

Given that even the Iron Lady apologised for calling Mandela a terrorist, I'd say the commonly accepted belief is that he is and was not a terrorist.

<comment><USER4> >Terrorism doesn't have an accepted definition,

Then it's going to be very difficult to make an argument that Mandela was not a terrorist.

>In the Anglo-Boer war a similar tactic was employed by the Boers to great effect, but I have never heard of anyone referring to their actions during this war as acts of terrorism.

The first hit I get for "Boer terrorism" is: [http://www.angloboerwar.com/books/78-stevens-the-complete- hi...](http://www.angloboerwar.com/books/78-stevens-the-complete-history-of- the-war/1714-stevens-chapter-xl-the-boer-terrorism)

( [https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=Boer+terrorism](https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=Boer+terrorism) )

Edit:

Sorry about going on about this, but I think that saying people are not terrorists because we agree with them is closely related to saying that people are terrorists because we don't agree with them. If "terrorism" has a meaning, the question of whether Mandela was a terrorist should be answered based on that meaning. If what we really mean to say is that we think Mandela was a great man who improved the lives of millions, we can just say that instead of arguing or insulting each other over semantics.

<comment><USER3> The connotations associated with terrorism are simply too strong to associate with Mandela. People will take great offence at this, no matter what pedantic definition you want to use for it. Regardless, your definition still doesn't account for the fact that Nelson Mandela did not personally do any of these things, or intentionally target innocents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Coverage of Mandela is a testament to the prevailing powers' ability to rewrite history. Millions of people think he was put in jail for protesting apartheid or something else noble. He was actually a terrorist leader - <USER2> group killed thousands of innocents in bombings and other attacks. The "activism" he's credited with while in prison was mostly arranging more killings.

Read about a practice his group created while he was in prison: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing)

<comment><USER6> This is the same bull __*t that is thrown at Castro, Che Guevara, and many others. You can 't make a revolution without guns, when the other side has all the power and lots of guns as well. Almost all independence wars (and I say almost, because there's this nice dude Gandhi, but I'm not sure it was an actual war) were fought with weapons, not with flowers and nice thoughts. If you're from the US you should know better, considering that your Constitution clearly states (paraphrasing) that you have a right to bear arms, in case the government tries to take away your freedoms.

<comment><USER7> > This is the same bull*t that is thrown at Castro, Che Guevara, and many > others.

Bullshit? Should we infer that you think Castro's Cuba was a smashing success and has totally justified all the bad things he and his followers did?

<comment><USER8> Care to elaborate on "all of the bad things"? If there's anything to take away from this discussion on Mandela, it's that there are a lot of misunderstandings about what actually happened, especially if you are primarily informed by American media.

<comment><USER9> "all of the bad things" seem to continue:

 _Cuba remains the only country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of political dissent. The government of Raúl Castro continues to enforce political conformity using short-term detentions, beatings, public acts of repudiation, travel restrictions, and forced exile. Although the Cuban government released dozens of political prisoners on the condition that they leave the country, the government continues to sentence dissidents in closed, summary trials. The government has also relied increasingly upon arbitrary arrests and short-term detentions to restrict the basic rights of its critics, including the right to assemble and move freely._

[http://www.hrw.org/americas/cuba](http://www.hrw.org/americas/cuba)

Another source for info, if you don't like HRW: [http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/cuba](http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/cuba)

<comment><USER6> How about this quote to reply to your post, and we remain on topic as well?

"Freedom is meaningless if people cannot put food in their stomachs, if they can have no shelter, if illiteracy and disease continue to dog them." \- Nelson Mandela

I encourage you to read about how illiterate people were before Castro, and after Castro. Also if there was hunger, if people could afford to go to a doctor, and how unequal their society was.

<comment><USER9> I don't want to get drawn into a false dichotomy. The pre-Castro period was no paradise, I'm fully aware.

<comment><USER6> There's no point in critizicing Castro unless you also acknowledge everything he changed for good, and how the United States in the name of freedom and democracy wants to undo all that. Once you put everything at the same level, then you can start analyzing what's actually best for them.

<comment><USER9> >There's no point in critizicing Castro unless you also acknowledge everything he changed for good, and how the United States in the name of freedom and democracy wants to undo all that. Once you put everything at the same level, then you can start analyzing what's actually best for them.

I've never made a statement about what is "best for them". That is up to them, or at least it should be. They currently have no opportunity to decide what is best for themselves, and apparently you think this is a great deal, and we shouldn't complain about anyone living under authoritarian regimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I only found out today how Nelson Mandella place in Glasgow city centre got its name.

To piss off SA, the street their embassy was on was renamed while he was still being held.

There's more the story: [http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- scotland-22976781](http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22976781)

<comment><USER11> This is the same reason that there is a Bobby Sands Street in downtown Tehran.

The UK embassy responded by moving their main entrance to a side door on a different street so they wouldn't be forced to put Bobby Sands on their letterhead, official documents, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would like to point out that the article, despite it's leading title, states that there's little evidence to suggest the agent was working for the CIA at the time. He owned a security company and was hired by a South African government agency.

Title really should be: "The Day Mandela Was Arrested, With A Little Help From A Hired Private Security Contractor Who Happened To Have Worked For The CIA In The Past"

<comment><USER13> Maybe the CIA should not have worked with those guys in the first place ?

That's one part of capitalism I hate, paying fat checks, and knowing it will never backfire to you. When you're a government agency, when you hire somebody, there's espionage/politics involved, don't pretend the CIA is pinky pony. It's strategic moves from start to end.

I've seen worse headlines.

<comment><USER14> This has nothing to do with capitalism and more to do with anything, colonialism and the Cold War. It was politics as usual, help allies to keep them.

While it is easy to sit back and judge the past we have to realize that some actions were seen as prudent at the time. The nation Mandela came up in is far different from what it is today but so is the world. This by no means excuses actions of the past, but at the time who would have ever figured the transformation that took place in him at the time.

<comment><USER15> With this mindset, is it ever possible to judge anything?

"At the time, it made sense to help racists (who happened to be our allies) imprison and possibly hang a black agitator. We now know it was wrong, but back then who knew?" Um, ok. So _when_ is it right to denounce those who helped racist regimes?

<comment><USER16> I agree with your general point, but at the time U.S. was locked in an existential struggle with the Soviet Union and essentially was taking all sorts of actions around the world against many parties sympathetic to communist causes. Not saying it's an excuse, but it does provide some context

<comment><USER17> Sorry, this line is getting very very old.

It's extremely tiresome to watch actions being justified because the "big bad" communists were out there. And what is this about an existential struggle?

The only real struggle between the two nations was who would dominate the rest of the world. I don't consider this existential. China is doing just fine without wanting to take over the rest of the world.

It's great revisionist history going on right now with Nelson Mandela's death. If you don't know the real history, you would think the States was right there beside Mandela fighting for freedom.

<comment><USER16> makes me think you didn't live in the Soviet Union. Trust me, it was a very bad place

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> best historical overview on Mandela for those of us who have only heard the word 'apartheid' but didn't know what it refered to (video): [http://on.msnbc.com/1cpfpAr](http://on.msnbc.com/1cpfpAr)

</comment><comment><USER19> Also to get a more accurate reflection, tune in to Radio 702 (Wont be much now since its 11pm) but you could possibly catch some clips from people who actually knew him.

[http://www.ourmadiba.com/reflect.html](http://www.ourmadiba.com/reflect.html)

[http://www.702.co.za/index_site.asp](http://www.702.co.za/index_site.asp)

</comment><comment><USER20> Vapid articles like this are up voted on HN on the mistaken idea that this somehow is bringing America down a notch. Inaccuracies of this story aside, people that want America to fail would be much better served by actually building something useful themselves.

</comment><comment><USER21> F*ck apartheid, but for all I know Mandela pretty much deserved to go to jail.

Big disgrace if the CIA actively sponsored this regime, but the allegations in the article are just from one source not directly related to the affairs. All the "Who knows" and "My guess" doesn't make the case any stronger.

<comment><USER22> Thought experiment:

Some other civilization (let's say the Arabs) comes to America and puts us in a system analogous to apartheid, where the groups are whites on bottom and arabs on top.

In that hypothetical, would your opinions be different?

<comment><USER23> Of course they would. But only then.

<comment><USER24> So you basically lack empathy.

<comment><USER23> Huh? I've got plenty to spare. I was referring to the parent.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Jstle: a terse Javascript language for RDF graphs - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/dnewcome/jstle

<comment><USER2> Hey, can you post more examples on GitHub of how jstle's syntax compares to RDF XML and RDF JSON?

<comment><AUTHOR> I added RDF/XML and RDF JSON equivalent representations of the most complex example given in the readme. I'll hopefully add some more examples soon.</comment></comment>