Tim Sweeney Quotes

Google's competitors fail to demonstrate that Google's actions stifle competition rather than reflect pro-consumer innovations.

I think the touchstone is to give consumers a full, fair choice without the power of a monopoly operating system pushing them in a direction that free competition might or might not achieve.

If people use Chrome, we make less money on our service and that's fine by us because that is fair competition. I wouldn't put Google on a pedestal for competition, but they aren't telling users not to use OpenDNS.

We see ourselves as first helping to open up markets to competition.

SpaceX has the potential of saving the U.S. government $1 billion a year. We are opposed to creating an entrenched monopoly with no realistic means for anyone to compete.

I thought Microsoft did a lot of things that were good and right building parts of the browser into the operating system. Then I thought it out and came up with reasons why it was a monopoly.

Even Apple, notorious for keeping a tight grip on its products, allows fierce competitors like Google, Amazon, Spotify, and Microsoft to offer their apps on its phones and tablets.

In Europe, we would congratulate anyone who is successful. But congratulations stop if we find that you start to misuse a dominant position.

Ultimately, I don't think even a five-company platform oligopoly is good for consumer tech. By its very nature, it handicaps independent companies with new ideas. But it will end one day. I just don't know when.

Amazon doesn't want to give Apple a cut of its media sales, so Apple won't let Amazon sell products in its apps.

You won't get sued for anticompetitive behavior.

Well, capitalism is going to grow and grow. The nature of it is that the guy who has the most poker chips on the table has more leverage than everyone else. He can eventually outbluff everyone else and outraise everyone else at the table. That's what has happened and it needs to be corrected.

I really think the app store is kind of the killer app for Apple and for Google.

Amazon drove Borders out of business, and the vast majority of Borders employees are not qualified to work at Amazon. That's an actual, full-on problem. But should Amazon have been prevented from doing that? In my view, no.

We're excited by the success of WhatsApp on top of Android. Amazon brings services like Kindle on top of Android. It's a competitive world and a lot more complex than people realize. When you run a platform on scale, you have to make sure it's truly open. That way, not only do you do well, so do others.

When you love competition, you don't want the market to consolidate.

Microsoft is engaging in unlawful predatory practices that go well beyond the scope of fair competition.

What's awesome about the Internet is how it breaks up monopolistic markets where middlemen unfairly gobble up outsized fees, leaving us little choice but to keep paying them.

I think it would be absolutely reckless and irresponsible for anyone to try and break up Microsoft.

We don't have a monopoly. We have market share. There's a difference.

When regulations restricting competition are relaxed, nobody's market share is protected. If telephone companies can offer video programming, cable revenue will surely drop.

They will come to learn in the end, at their own expense, that it is better to endure competition for rich customers than to be invested with monopoly over impoverished customers.

The holder of a monopoly is a sinner and offender.

The best way for you to keep Government out of your business is to promote competition.

There are always giants out there trying to strangle the innovator and steal his innovation.