Support NeoGAF

[ToadMan]

LOLwut?

That's not how their financial results work..

“Gaming revenue increased $189 million or 2% [YoY], driven by an increase in Xbox content and services, offset in part by a decrease in Xbox hardware. Xbox content and services revenue increased $943 million or 11% on a strong prior year comparable, driven by growth in Minecraft, third-party titles, and subscriptions, accelerated by higher engagement during stay-at-home guidelines. Xbox hardware revenue declined 31%, primarily due to a decrease in volume and price of consoles sold.”

 

[IntentionalPun]

“Gaming revenue increased $189 million or 2% [YoY], driven by an increase in Xbox content and services, offset in part by a decrease in Xbox hardware. Xbox content and services revenue increased $943 million or 11% on a strong prior year comparable, driven by growth in Minecraft, third-party titles, and subscriptions, accelerated by higher engagement during stay-at-home guidelines. Xbox hardware revenue declined 31%, primarily due to a decrease in volume and price of consoles sold.”

Thank you for quoting how it actually works.

Now explain what that has to do with your post lol

 

[InDaGulag]

“Gaming revenue increased $189 million or 2% [YoY], driven by an increase in Xbox content and services, offset in part by a decrease in Xbox hardware. Xbox content and services revenue increased $943 million or 11% on a strong prior year comparable, driven by growth in Minecraft, third-party titles, and subscriptions, accelerated by higher engagement during stay-at-home guidelines. Xbox hardware revenue declined 31%, primarily due to a decrease in volume and price of consoles sold.”

That just means hardware revenue declined by -31%, not that hardware made a net loss of -31%.

 

[GhostOfTsu]

You really don't understand? IPad and IPhone are general computing devices which are supposed to replace personal computers. It's Apple words not mine. Even this year they were advertising new iPad as "Your next computer". Consoles are not general computing devices. They have one role only. To play video games. You seriously don't see a difference?

This again? The lawyers and the judge namedropped Sony, Nintendo and Xbox in the hearing and now again in this document. Legally, THEY ARE THE SAME so drop this already. You guys are all repeating whatever Tim Sweeney said at the beginning of the case. He was wrong and so are you. How many times we have to explain?

 

[diffusionx]

No, that’s not the point. Console makers don’t make any profit by selling the hardware itself usually, they only make money by selling subscriptions or licensing fees.
It’s not like iPhone, where apple makes tons of money by selling the iPhone itself.

That’s not true though. It might be, at launch, but anyone who thinks Sony isn’t making a very nice sum of money on PS4s today, after 7 years of war with optimization and cost cutting, and MS on One, isn’t paying attention.

 

[JohannCK]

10 app store principles to promote choice, fairness and innovation - Microsoft On the Issues

Today, we are adopting 10 principles – building on the ideas and work of the Coalition for App Fairness (CAF) – to promote choice, ensure fairness and promote innovation on Windows 10, our most popular platform, and our own Microsoft Store

blogs.microsoft.com

For software developers, app stores have become a critical gateway to some of the world’s most popular digital platforms. We and others have raised questions and, at times, expressed concerns about app stores on other digital platforms. However, we recognize that we should practice what we preach. So, today, we are adopting 10 principles – building on the ideas and work of the Coalition for App Fairness (CAF) – to promote choice, ensure fairness and promote innovation on Windows 10, our most popular platform, and our own Microsoft Store on Windows 10:

(...)

We also operate a store on the Xbox console. It’s reasonable to ask why we are not also applying these principles to that Xbox store today. Game consoles are specialized devices optimized for a particular use. Though well-loved by their fans, they are vastly outnumbered in the marketplace by PCs and phones. And the business model for game consoles is very different to the ecosystem around PCs or phones. Console makers such as Microsoft invest significantly in developing dedicated console hardware but sell them below cost or at very low margins to create a market that game developers and publishers can benefit from. Given these fundamental differences in the significance of the platform and the business model, we have more work to do to establish the right set of principles for game consoles.

 

[theHFIC]

Has Epic given a timeline for when they are going to be releasing the SDK and necessary API’s for 3rd party skin stores on their social media platform Fortnite?

Once they do that then maybe I’ll pay attention to their claim. I prefer my mobile devices behind a walled garden. Keep that open garbage on computers.

 

[Soodanim]

I understand that this thread is a hidden championship in ignorance, but gog galaxy officially supports EPIC store, among others.

I don’t play any of Epic’s or a lot of the others’ games, so I’m openly ignorant to this. Does this mean you can play Epic’s games without having Epic store installed and/or running?

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

I don’t play any of Epic’s or a lot of the others’ games, so I’m openly ignorant to this. Does this mean you can play Epic’s games without having Epic store installed and/or running?

Well... technically, yes. At least some games. But that's mostly because the EGS DRM layer is as inadequate as the rest of the client.

But AFAIK for the most part it's the same thing as with buying EA, Ubisoft, or Bethesda games on Steam. You buy the game in one client, and have to deal with the other client/launcher to play it. So Epic is literally using Galaxy as ad space for EGS. At least it probably means some good money went CDProjekt's way to develop GOG some more.

 

[PaintTinJr]

This is a case about a "completely non-essential game". I think that's where the parallels come from. We'll see how it turns out.

To general software devs, I can see your point. From a game dev point of view, I can't see them getting a win like this on mobile and not wanting the same in the console space (to them there is no difference between Sony's 100m users and Apple's.

But the major difference is how users are transitioned between devices. Apple are able to dial it in - and make a profit on the generic, general purpose hardware - because of users not wanting to change their everyday general purpose tools, like alarm clock, email tool, browser, video chat app, etc, and not because they might have to rebuy a handful of cheap apps on the next device.

By contrast, consoles are entertainment devices, and business-wise entertainment(picking winners in a capitalist market) is considered high risk, high reward - look at all the acquired studios in the console market that have disappear for business reasons. Console manufacturers transition users under a high-risk situation, hardware innovation is a huge risk - even wiimotes, wiiu tablet, joycons - and then the synergy of software to hardware, all while needing to raise the bar, and hope people find these risky developments to be the elusive description of 'fun' - tell their friends so you might ultimately make a good profit on the investment.

IMHO Epic are doing a great job to make the argument so that when regulation kicks-in, the regulations only tweak the console market, but fix the other monopolies. I suspect 15years from now the point will become moot for consoles, as general purpose hardware capability is likely to outstrip software production capability, that will make closed custom console unnecessary.

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

By contrast, consoles are entertainment devices, and business-wise entertainment(picking winners in a capitalist market) is considered high risk, high reward - look at all the acquired studios in the console market that have disappear for business reasons. Console manufacturers transition users under a high-risk situation, hardware innovation is a huge risk - even wiimotes, wiiu tablet, joycons - and then the synergy of software to hardware, all while needing to raise the bar, and hope people find these risky developments to be the elusive description of 'fun' - tell their friends so you might ultimately make a good profit on the investment.

You did basically describe the smartphone cycle, except it goes with "productivity and convenience" rather than "fun". Hardware innovation is just as big a risk in smartphones, and software innovation is just as important for success. How many people ditched iPhones and other new flagship phones over the 3.5mm jack? How many moved to iOS for access to some exclusive app or feature? The Note 7 spontaneously evolving into an incendiary grenade was as bad as the RROD in terms of hardware faults, and probably caused at least some people to look to Apple's offerings for, optimistically assumed, higher level of quality control. The risk/reward situation there is the same, and hardware/software synergy is much more prominent for Apple devices than any others.

There is just no hard distinction to be made, there. Many people treat phones and tablets as exclusively entertainment devices, with optional communication abilities. And with keyboards and mice for consoles, using a suite like Google Docs or Sheets for productivity is easy. Indeed, few would buy a console for productivity - but a lot more buy portable electronics for entertainment. The similarities in both usage and market arrangement cannot be discounted.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

I'm thinking more and more that Epic will win and it will benefit Microsoft greatly.

If all console manufacturers have to allow all software on their hardware, gamepass will be on the PS5 and switch and there's nothing neither Sony or Nintendo can do about it.

 

[Brofist]

Wait so it's Apple's fault that they don't choose to partake in a flawed business practice of giving hardware away at razor thin margins or even losses and have basically found a business model where they can have their cake and eat it too?

A walled garden is a walled garden. If Apple's goes down they all will. There's not going to be any general purpose device distinction, once it's open it's open.

I don't think this will happen, at least not in this case.

 

[PaintTinJr]

You did basically describe the smartphone cycle, except it goes with "productivity and convenience" rather than "fun". Hardware innovation is just as big a risk in smartphones, and software innovation is just as important for success. How many people ditched iPhones and other new flagship phones over the 3.5mm jack? How many moved to iOS for access to some exclusive app or feature? The Note 7 spontaneously evolving into an incendiary grenade was as bad as the RROD in terms of hardware faults, and probably caused at least some people to look to Apple's offerings for, optimistically assumed, higher level of quality control. The risk/reward situation there is the same, and hardware/software synergy is much more prominent for Apple devices than any others.

There is just no hard distinction to be made, there. Many people treat phones and tablets as exclusively entertainment devices, with optional communication abilities. And with keyboards and mice for consoles, using a suite like Google Docs or Sheets for productivity is easy. Indeed, few would buy a console for productivity - but a lot more buy portable electronics for entertainment. The similarities in both usage and market arrangement cannot be discounted.

Your "many people" is a drop in the ocean of the majority user. Most people that use apple devices are locked-in and will remain locked-in for general purpose computing reasons, and those that aren't are a floating niche user. Apple's rise matches the level of lock-in IMHO.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

I am pretty sure Tencent and China are standing behind Epic's back and that's the reason why Tim Sweeney acting so self-important, claiming that he is doing the greater good.

Basically Epic claims that Apple Store is a monopoly of Apple. By that logic, Fortnite is the monopoly of Epic. So, Epic, can f*ck off.

 

[reksveks]

Guys here playing 2D Chess.

EU targets Big Tech with ‘hit list’, EM countries call for ambitious debt relief, EU countries on Brexit progress

Silicon Valley giants such as Facebook and Apple are among those in the EU’s crosshairs

www.ft.com

 

[BlackTron]

Don't like the way Apple does it? Get an Android. Don't like the way consoles do it? Get a PC.

If the 30% cut is too much, feel free to find a different platform to distribute your software. If you want the platform with the biggest audience for your software, and they happen to charge 30%, then it's for a reason.

Everything has a price. I'd be pretty pissed if I went through all the work to develop a giant user base and someone wanted access to that base for free.

I'm saying this as someone who hates Apple products and would never buy one. But my personal feelings on their product have no bearing on this issue.

 

[wipeout364]

When has Apple ever lost a case of importance lol

Apple loses e-book antitrust appeal

The federal appeals court ruling is another setback in the company's attempt to justify its e-book sales practices

www.computerworld.com

Supreme Court says Apple will have to face App Store monopoly lawsuit

The case is still at an “early stage”

www.theverge.com

 

[Brofist]

Don't like the way Apple does it? Get an Android. Don't like the way consoles do it? Get a PC.

If the 30% cut is too much, feel free to find a different platform to distribute your software. If you want the platform with the biggest audience for your software, and they happen to charge 30%, then it's for a reason.

Everything has a price. I'd be pretty pissed if I went through all the work to develop a giant user base and someone wanted access to that base for free.

I'm saying this as someone who hates Apple products and would never buy one. But my personal feelings on their product have no bearing on this issue.

This last line can't be stated enough, there are many people whose judgements are clouded by hate for "corporation X"

 

[llien]

Epic itself can't make up its mind what it wants.

It would help if you guys would listen to actual argument, instead of arguing with stramen.

There are higher level principles, which laws are just reflections of.
One of such principles is about interests of the customers.

Wait so it's Apple's fault that they don't choose to partake in a flawed business practice

Amazing stuff.
11/10

Fuck Epic and fuck socialism lmao.

Was changing rules to tackle The Standard Oil Company some sort of socialist move, oh enlightened one?

Allowing other marketplaces on consoles would not be damaging at all.

It would be exploding existing business model.
Which, as margins/revenue/income shows, are not bad for the consumers at all.

Remember, Epic is just fighting this battle for their Chinese overlords Tencent.

That's why Japanese developers openly side with EPIC I guess.
I mean, these people are crazy, why wouldn't you hand over 30% of your revenue and all imaginable rights to get access to about 50% of US mobile market (and about 12% of global), right.

Apple doesn’t prevent users from signing up to services (like Netflix or Spotify) through other means than an Apple device.

Apple has banned Stadia and Microsoft's streaming app, my friend.
As for Spotify, Apple is poised to lose that battle at least in EU.

walled gardens have existed for 4 decades

Slavery existed for thousands of years. Come and beat that.

When has Apple ever lost a case of importance lol

Yeah, right, right? I mean, you surely know a number of "cases of importance" they won, right?
Like losing (and getting fined for) antitrust moves in book market, where amazon controls 90%.

 

[reinking]

Slavery existed for thousands of years. Come and beat that

Way to quote something out of context.

I don't have to beat anything since it was the judge that said that. Epic has to get around that argument and so far they are failing.

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

Apple has banned Stadia and Microsoft's streaming app, my friend.
As for Spotify, Apple is poised to lose that battle at least in EU.

They rather definitely haven't. They imposed stipulations on their deployment, but they did not ban them outright.

Slavery existed for thousands of years. Come and beat that.

Slavery being where people are forced to work for no recompensation (among many other worse things, but let's focus on that one).
So making it so Apple is forced give up the fruits of their work - i.e. the whole of their platform and the benefits it provides - for no recompensation is okay because...?

I mean, these people are crazy, why wouldn't you hand over 30% of your revenue and all imaginable rights to get access to about 50% of US mobile market (and about 12% of global), right.

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing. Because it sounds about right, to me. It's the industry standard rate, it's enough value to ask money for, and it's the exact same model that every single intrinsic-value business operates on. People get charged money for admittance into scenic or historically important areas, for sightseeing, on foot, just because there is some intrinsic value in the place that you don't get anywhere else. People get charged money to put up advertising banners on highly visible buildings, for no other reason than that there's intrinsic value in it. Does the guy that owns the Burj Khalifa have a monopoly on advertising things on the Burj Khalifa because there's only the one Burj Khalifa in the world and it's highly desirable space?

 

[reksveks]

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing. Because it sounds about right, to me. It's the industry standard rate, it's enough value to ask money for, and it's the exact same model that every single intrinsic-value business operates on. People get charged money for admittance into scenic or historically important areas, for sightseeing, on foot, just because there is some intrinsic value in the place that you don't get anywhere else. People get charged money to put up advertising banners on highly visible buildings, for no other reason than that there's intrinsic value in it. Does the guy that owns the Burj Khalifa have a monopoly on advertising things on the Burj Khalifa because there's only the one Burj Khalifa in the world and it's highly desirable space?

Imo, Apple won't be caught out on the % value but by the following two:
- inappropriately advantaging their own services by using dark patterns to make their service the default provider.
- forcing an undue burden on other service providers which it doesn't apply to themselves.

They might have two options under a stricter regulatory body.
- Split out the services or at least have a ballot options.
- Allow 3rd party app stores.

Smart move would be to go for the first one.

 

[Ozrimandias]

I want to Apple to lose this thing, because it's apple, but a can't see other outcome that Epic losing.

 

[John2290]

Could well be by design. Maybe streaming was threatening the steam model that Epic put so much money into so the lawyers got creative. I can't see how they wouldn't consult on this and see what direction it would head in.

 

[llien]

I don't have to beat anything since it was the judge that said that.

"Something is taking place for a long time, so it looks like it is fine" is a flawed argument. Thank you.

They rather definitely haven't. They imposed stipulations on their deployment, but they did not ban them outright.

I want to welcome you, stranger, in our universe:
(and, oh boy, that marketing spin-spin on the internet is mind boggling)

Apple will allow xCloud and Stadia on the App Store, with big restrictions

Apple today revealed that, after stubbornly refusing to allow cloud gaming apps like Google Stadia and Microsoft’s xCloud onto the App Store, it’s now revising those policies to allow them entry — though the policies are still very restrict

thenextweb.com

Don't blame Apple though, it's a pure formality, it's just those streaming apps "violate" something somethign. Not because Apple sucks, and did that out of malice, it's just, those something something are very restrictive for some reason.

Slavery being where people are forced to work for no recompensation (among many other worse things, but let's focus on that one).

you-point.gif
Seriously, dude, it was about "but... walled gardens are 40 years old' argument.

Because it sounds about right, to me.

Well, good for you. And that totally not greedy/filthy company called Apple, I guess.
I find "Apple could do on it's platform whatever the fuck it wants" rather shortsighted.

 

[reinking]

Something is taking place for a long time, so it looks like it is fine" is a flawed argument. Thank you

Tell it to the Judge that said it? You midsquoted me and still making an argument to me about something the Judge said. You seem to be the type that wants to get the last word. Go ahead and reply to this and have it.

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

Well, good for you. And that totally not greedy/filthy company called Apple, I guess.
I find "Apple could do on it's platform whatever the fuck it wants" rather shortsighted.

Not enabling others to be entitled to use another platform's benefits for free is not really shortsighted though.
Steam is doing right by itself by disallowing promotion of games that aren't (yet) sold on Steam via store pages. Any physical brand store, and even generic goods stores, are perfectly in their right to boot you off the premises for trying to profit off of their customer stream without cutting them in. "I built this thing, I own it, and I decide who gets to use it" is perfectly normal, to reduce the matter to its basic root. Apple have built up a platform. Nobody is entitled to use it for free just because they've become successful with it.

Again, the owner of Burj Khalifa has ownership of the surface of Burj Khalifa. If someone wants to make money off of that surface by placing ads, they have only one person they can ask. And no matter how expensive it is, the alternative is that you don't use it. It's as simple as that.

 

[llien]

has ownership

Would you mind to stop strawman-ing?
The question is "does it harm customers?".
And the answer is obvious to me, let's see if EPIC can convince the judge. (although I wouldn't hold my breath given her comments)

 

[Barakov]

I want Apple to win this. As bad as Apple is, I'm fine with their walled garden being separate from the rest of the game industry. Also if Apple loses this then you can bet Epic{and by extension Tencent) and other companies will try this type of thing with the big three. I see this being disastrous for consoles.

 

[CuNi]

Would you mind to stop strawman-ing?
The question is "does it harm customers?".
And the answer is obvious to me, let's see if EPIC can convince the judge. (although I wouldn't hold my breath given her comments)

No it's not about "does it harm customers?".
It's about "Who owns the thing he created himself" and that is obviously the creator.
It is like that everywhere around the world.
You buy a house, you own it, you make the rules who can come in etc.
You buy a car, you decide who gets to drive it or how you paint it.
It is as easy as this. You made it, you own it, you make the rules for how it is used.
Don't like it? Make your own. And yes, I mean it. If Epic is so unhappy about what Apple does, than Epic is free to go, invest in R&D, make a EPICphone, make a App-Store that is open to every dev with lower cuts and call it a day.

 

[llien]

No it's not about "does it harm customers?".
It's about "Who owns the thing he created himself" and that is obviously the creator.

No, that's not what drives legislation, like, at all.
It is how it is often driven de facto (due to lobbying, e.g. copyright on Elvis records and Germany) though, but that's beside the point.

You buy a house, you own it, you make the rules who can come in etc.

Try to make "no Asian could enter this house" rule pretty please.

It is as easy as this. You made it, you own it, you make the rules for how it is used.

It is not how it works with larger players, it is totally not the principles this world is built on.
Take inventions, for instance.
The only reason that patents are temporary is, eventually, to make it better overall.
Not having any exclusive monopoly on invention, would de-incentify investments into developing new stuff, on the other hand, granting unlimited patent would harm development too.

is free to go,

Leave the dead horse please, it' snot funny at this point.

 

[CuNi]

Try to make "no Asian could enter this house" rule pretty please.

I can. If I rent the house and a Asian is standing in front of my door asking to come in, all I have to say is "No.".
If they do come in, it's called trespassing and I can sue them.
Not even the Police is allowed to enter my house or apartment without a warrant so I have no clue what you're talking about.

It is not how it works with larger players, it is totally not the principles this world is built on.
Take inventions, for instance.
The only reason that patents are temporary is, eventually, to make it better overall.
Not having any exclusive monopoly on invention, would de-incentify investments into developing new stuff, on the other hand, granting unlimited patent would harm development too.

That's also wrong.
Patents don't run infinitely not to "drive invention" but because it is deemed that after as long as 20 years, the patent is probably outdated and has served its exclusivity purpose.
The persons who owned the patent already had 20 years to build upon it and be the only ones to drive innovation in the field they patented and by now have probably newer patents on all the technology that came out of their original patent so you can release the hold on old tech as they have new patents for the new tech.

Imagine you patent a new way to build computer chips that is better and more efficient than others.
Now you have up to 20 years exclusivity on this technology if you chose not to license it. In those 20 years you build upon it, refine it and patent all the technology that comes after it as well.
After 20 years, the old base patent runs out so all your competitors can use it for free, but you are already the leading producer and have several magnitudes of better processes patented that they cannot use.
You are still a monopoly if you don't fuck it up.

Leave the dead horse please, it' snot funny at this point.

It's not meant to be funny. This is business and this is how it goes no matter if you like it or not.

 

[ToadMan]

That just means hardware revenue declined by -31%, not that hardware made a net loss of -31%.

I never said it made a net loss

I said the reduced hardware revenue cost about 800m of the gains made by increased software revenue.

 

[ToadMan]

Thank you for quoting how it actually works.

Now explain what that has to do with your post lol

I’m not an English teacher so I can’t help you attain better comprehension skills.

 

[reksveks]

I can. If I rent the house and a Asian is standing in front of my door asking to come in, all I have to say is "No.".
If they do come in, it's called trespassing and I can sue them.
Not even the Police is allowed to enter my house or apartment without a warrant so I have no clue what you're talking about.



That's also wrong.
Patents don't run infinitely not to "drive invention" but because it is deemed that after as long as 20 years, the patent is probably outdated and has served its exclusivity purpose.
The persons who owned the patent already had 20 years to build upon it and be the only ones to drive innovation in the field they patented and by now have probably newer patents on all the technology that came out of their original patent so you can release the hold on old tech as they have new patents for the new tech.

Imagine you patent a new way to build computer chips that is better and more efficient than others.
Now you have up to 20 years exclusivity on this technology if you chose not to license it. In those 20 years you build upon it, refine it and patent all the technology that comes after it as well.
After 20 years, the old base patent runs out so all your competitors can use it for free, but you are already the leading producer and have several magnitudes of better processes patented that they cannot use.
You are still a monopoly if you don't fuck it up.

It's not meant to be funny. This is business and this is how it goes no matter if you like it or not.

Thoughts on frand terms?

 

[CuNi]

Thoughts on frand terms?

I admit that my stance may have come off as anti-innovation etc. but actually I am all in for open standards, sharing of patents etc.
I just wanted to point out that it's not mandatory to share your knowledge.

Edit:
A perfect example of "who invented it makes the rules" would be the W3C. It is agreed upon that they make the rules for acceptance of technologies into the internet-standard.
They have made it a rule that technologies that want to become a internet standard and are patentet must be made available by the patent holder for free or the parts of it for free that are needed to implement said standard.

 

[reksveks]

I admit that my stance may have come off as anti-innovation etc. but actually I am all in for open standards, sharing of patents etc.
I just wanted to point out that it's not mandatory to share your knowledge.

It's not in all case but it's still mandatory in some cases for a reasonable price to the patent holder.

 

[CuNi]

It's not in all case but it's still mandatory in some cases for a reasonable price to the patent holder.

That's the first I hear of a mandatory patent sharing.
Do you have examples of such regulations by any chance?

 

[reksveks]

That's the first I hear of a mandatory patent sharing.
Do you have examples of such regulations by any chance?

I have only come across it in court cases drama between qualcomm and apple and there was a Microsoft one I think with an android oem but it's typically related to standards like 5g, lte. I think Qualcommn have a bunch of license that they have to give under frand terms.

 

[llien]

I can. If I rent the house and a Asian is standing in front of my door asking to come in, all I have to say is "No.".

That's not the same thing and you are well aware of it.
The "it's my property, so I can do whatever the fuck I want" is a moot point.

Patents don't run infinitely not to "drive invention" but because it is deemed that after as long as 20 years, the patent is probably outdated and has served its exclusivity purpose.

Good job rewriting history, very lovely and inventive.

You are still a monopoly if you don't fuck it up.

Sounds as if it was good thing.
Amazing stuff.

This is business and this is how it goes

No, this is about "why we have laws and what higher principles are they based on" and not you drooling about monopolist income of some business.

 

[CobraAB]

I agree. They have had lawyers prepared for a case like this for years.

Apple for sure has the bully money.

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Apple for sure has the bully money.

Apple isn't being a bully just because they are huge. They created this product over the last decade and nobody is forced to use it as a developer.

If you disagree and have a iPhone sell it and buy an android which also takes 30%

 

[KungFucius]

Well let’s analyze that.

Those console exist at their current Price points because they make money from sales.

...


Probably double the price of the consoles, probably increase the software prices too, and kiss goodbye to the custom hardware - they’ll be mid spec PC boxes.

That is not how it works. The market controls what price they can sell the consoles for, not how much money they can make off of it now or down the road. The companies might try for a higher price, but in the end price sensitive consumers would opt out. Or they might put out cheaper hardware at a higher cost. At some point, it may make more sense for the platform owners to exit the market.

By the same argument the 30% fee would influence the price of the games because devs want more money. I don't see that happening do you? There could be a more equitable distribution here that is better for everyone. If markets were really free and there was competition, it would find that point rather than having it defined by the platform owner.

 

[llien]

and nobody is forced to use

Exactly what needs to happen for this dead argument to stop appearing on every bloody page in this thread?

 

[brian0057]

Exactly what needs to happen for this dead argument to stop appearing on every bloody page in this thread?

Unless Apple literally has a gun to your head, making you pay for their service and abide by their rules, they aren't forcing you to do business with them.

The neat thing about business is that it's a voluntary endeavor. EA and Activision may be cunts but they need my willingness to engage with them in order to sell their overpriced crap.

Calling an argument "dead" is not an argument.

 

[llien]

they aren't forcing

Yeah, somebody forced people to buy gas from The Standard Oil Company I guess, why else would they be pwned so hard by the state.
A totally valid argument to make in 2020.

 

[Demigod Mac]

Epic has been astonishingly sloppy in this legal crusade. Won't be at all surprised if this stunt completely backfires on them.

 

[Hardensoul]

If anyone's interested, Hoeg Law does a good job going over the court documents on Epic Vs Apple. His videos can get long. So I, myself can't finish most of them. Just posting here as relevant information.

 

[Griffon]

All platforms should be open.

Edit: tho... since jailbreaking is legal, things are bit shakey here. In the end I don't think apple will be obligated to do anything to facilitate sideloading.