I don't see the hypocrisy here.
After all Epic is also profiting from them.
Or it is only bad when the size of the pie isn't as big as one wishes for?
The primary key of the issue here is the loss of something that actually existed. The iOS App Store has never been open. You can dislike the lack of openness but there has never been an event that removed the openness, as it has never existed. The same goes for Epic's games. The console exclusive Gears of War 3 never had a PC version released and then subsequently taken away and buried ATARI style. It has always been console exclusive.
Tim sees Microsoft's actions as a force that will reduce the openness of the Windows platform.
If he is such a knight of openess, then Epic should only have targeted open platforms.
Yet they happily took the money those bad closed platforms brought them.
It is not a matter of consoles always being closed, rather a duality of principles when money speaks.
My only issue is about a person that has a company which earned lots of money from closed platforms, arguing about the openness of another platform.
I don't know him, nor have any reason attack him other than stating that his actions don't follow his words.
This is a classical case of loss aversion. [1] Tim would be at least equally mad if Microsoft decided to redirect all its efforts from win32 to cow milking. Would you then claim that Tim is a hypocrite for having drunk milk instead of actively boycotting the dairy industry?
Yes, you could make the argument that extremely black & white attitude is necessary, and that if you like some open system then thus follows that you need to fight against every closed system. Some people like Richard Stallman do this. However most people, like Tim, belive that a more gray world can exist, and tend to fight when visible threats manifest and otherwise spend their time on other things.
Except that, at this point, there's no evidence that it's being threatened.
Microsoft currently makes almost all its revenues from traditional Win32 programs (including Office) and practically nothing from UWP apps.
Same is true for Adobe, IBM, and practically every other major software publisher.
The transition of users from computers to closed devices like tablets and phones means now most people are only consumers and can't create anything on their devices. Except for selfies, that is.
All PC platforms should be actively protected from this closure.
If you think only a GPL OS deserves to keep that openness then you are ignoring the 98% of computers that don't run Linux, for IMO silly ideological reasons.
[1] The primary open property in question is the ability to build, distribute & run apps on Windows without even notifying Microsoft. The opposite of a walled garden.
Sweeney is alleging that Microsoft' current tactics are intended to stop Windows being an open platform, which, if true, will be very jarring for a lot of users and developers.
Windows has never been open source software. That's a discussion for another time.