I can see wanting Apple to lose, but I can't imagine wanting Epic to win. That was such an ugly parasitic business model: let others take the risks to build platforms, let others operate the platforms, get the courts to mandate equal treatment for Epic to swoop in after the risks pay off.
I'd have to sympathy for the phone platforms, but it would have destroyed the console market overnight. No way consoles work if every penny of customer lifetime value has to be in the up-front sale price.
It's been working out fine for the Steam Deck. Sure, you can install Windows and/or any other storefront, but you won't have the console-like experience that Valve's own software provides.
It's trivially easy to install pirated games on the Deck, without any cracking or modification of the system. You never have to make a single Steam purchase after buying the Deck, but Valve's betting that you will. And they're right, that's enough. Most people don't go redoing or even tweaking the software stack on their hardware, they just stick with what comes out of the box.
I mean... working fine, in that the only people who buy them are pretty techy.
It's not so easy to get Win 10 working right, it requires a fair bit of effort, and the experience sucks.
I'm not so sure Steam would be super happy if Epic started distributing a new frontend and store through their marketplace. I'm quite sure they wouldn't let them.
Steam sells games which require third-party launchers to work. For example: Red Dead Redemption 2 requires the Rockstar Launcher to work (many a negative steam review regarding this), and this launcher allows you to buy other Rockstar games (The GTA franchise, LA Noire and more).
So yeah, Steam definitely allows distribution of storefronts.
They distribute games from both EA and Ubisoft that force you to use both companies launchers, that also just so happen to come with there own stores attached.
The steam deck is a way different value proposition compared to consoles though, console manufacturers take a loss for initial consoles sold until they can bring costs.
Whereas the steam deck has likely been sold as a profit from day one.
You’ve made a fair point and that’s a reasonable opinion, but do you think it should be outright illegal for console makers to use a business model of consoles at cost, profits made on a share of game sales?
They can make them at-cost and then charge whatever they want on their store. They just also have to allow me to choose different stores, or install another OS on my console if the OEM goes against my wishes. If you don't think I deserve that right as the lawful proprietor of said hardware, then we may be at an impasse. It seems like perfectly fair game to me.
> Whose job would it be to maintain all of the compatibility layers for the custom hardware that consoles generally contain?.
The community's? I don't think anyone expects the vendor to officially support anything other than the OS it ships with. We just want the option to use our own software on the hardware we purchased.
> Who pays for all the work to allow you to do whatever you want on your device?.
Surely it's more work to go the extra mile to restrict access?
The Steam Deck probably doesn't have much wider margins than a Switch or a Playstation. It might be sold at a profit, but the base $400 model is a pretty ridiculous deal already. Gabe Newell was upfront about the pricing process being painful for the hardware. He he also said that piracy is a services problem though, and the Steam Deck proves that in spades - if the default experience is superior, why bother with the competitors? You don't need to lock out the user to make that point.
If anything, the iPhone is the odd one out for having hardware margins that don't suck.
Apple has made billions (upwards of $300m in pure profit) from Fortnite. If you care about Epic's shitty qualities in that aspect (the case you're linking), surely you also care about Apple profiting off that exploitation as well?
Have you read the details of the judgment? Most of the dark patterns Epic used aren't possible on iOS. In fact, the reason they hate Apple's walled garden so much is because they add too much friction to the dark patterns they want to use, notably authentication for subsequent in-app purchases, so I don't know what exploitation profiting you're referring to. Apple protects consumers from shitty companies like Epic abusing consumers (in this case, children) and for that I thank them.
You can offer safe payment authorization APIs that protect families without also forcing developers to pay you 27% on every microtransaction. One might even call that good OS design, rather than a subtly hostile pattern of funneling users through a contractually-obligated money siphon they have no control over.
Doesn't hurt consumers, doesn't matter to government. Simple as. Apple is allowed to make money off the platform they built. Developers knew the terms before they started developing for it - the terms haven't changed since their inception and match other similar platforms - but each one knows they get more value out of Apple than vice versa. I have no sympathy for them anymore after I have been deleting more and more apps because of dark patterns. Nearly all of my phone use is on either stock apps or apps that are completely unaffected by App Store commissions like Uber, DoorDash, etc so I know who provides me the greater value and it's not companies like Epic.
I already send much more than 25% of my annual expenses for the privilege of using the US's platform. I don't even use most of the features but I can't seem to opt out of paying this commission. What gives?
Opting out would mean you would be barred from making use of any public roads. Or having 24/7 access to emergency services. I don't see how either being subject to that or the enforcement of it would be feasible in any measure.
Are you making my app searchable and downloadable on 1B devices? Because hell yeah I’ll take that deal. I paid Apple 30% on about $1M of revenue that would have been less than $10k without them. You think I feel abused?
End of the day you're still at the mercy of apple's algorithms and policies. If one day apple decides your app isn't worth it and the purchases and downloads slow to a crawl, you'll be taking note that the tax you're paying isn't worth it anymore. You'll search around but realize all the platforms do the same thing and regret it.
Competition for small business like yours is a good thing and you should be earning more compared to the big platforms because you bring in the customers, end of story.
And without Rockefeller Steel, who knows what would have happened in World War I? It doesn't mean we should tolerate their monopoly though. When people do bad things, we punish them. It doesn't matter how much goodness they've done, that's the rule of law. Apple is abusing market position.
If you're fine with Apple using you, that's okay. You can still pay them 30% going forward, but Apple will eventually have to give up total control of payment processing. It's up to you to decide if it's worth the trouble then.
Serfs felt that life was great under their lord, they were protected from barbarians. They were given access to a whole city, and could sell their grain here! Their lord was mighty generous, giving them access to such an impressive market. And he built it all on his own!
Well, until the lord decided to come down, take their harvest and claim their lands. Also the lord built the house on the blood and tears of actual, working people. At least serfs could rebel and take down the lord were their lives threatened, but Apple can just ban your account and you'd have HN commenters claiming "iT's ThEiR pLaYgRouNd tHeY bUilT iT".
Having a userbase is not work. Apple deserves to be paid for their hardware, for their software. But for having users and giving you the privilege of letting you show them things ? That is, quite frankly, pathetic.
> Apple protects consumers from shitty companies like Epic abusing consumers (in this case, children) and for that I thank them.
Last time I checked the App Store was filled to the brink with worthless pay to win and gambling (sorry I meant surprise mechanics) garbage. Doesn't seem very protective of the children to me. And an opt-in authentification system for microtransactions doesn't make it okay either.
It’s not opt-in, it’s the default. What people do with their money is none of your business. The reason Epic got fined was because people whose credit cards were saved and charged didn’t consent to the purchases and Epic refused to refund even when their virtual currency wasn’t used, or they locked out the accounts entirely when the transactions were charged back.
I meant Screen Time which lets you disable in-app purchases for children, not authentification which just requires you to enter your password for validation against accidental purchases. That was a mistake from my part.
> What people do with their money is none of your business.
Sure it isn't but what exactly is it that makes the App Store especially protective of users then in comparison to the competition? Play Store also gives the same controls and the same premise of guarding users from malware - which does still slip through, don't get me wrong, but so does it on the App Store - without having to block sideloading. Apple is fine with psychological mechanics designed to get particularly children to dump money into a game over and over as long as the developers paid their cut to them - which as you mentioned is fine in the context of individual responsibility, but it really does not scream "protective" to me. At that point why not give me freedom to install apps from wherever I'd like?
> The reason Epic got fined was because people whose credit cards were saved and charged didn’t consent to the purchases and Epic refused to refund even when their virtual currency wasn’t used, or they locked out the accounts entirely when the transactions were charged back.
Yes and never have I defended that. I am very glad they got zapped for that. I am simply against the idea that any corporation is a trustworthy guardian angel which only has the customers' best interests in mind. Any of the tech giants are more than happy to employ anti-competitive and customer-unfriendly tactics in the name of profit and siding with either one because of favoritism or holding a grudge against the one instead of on a rational case-by-case basis is just silly.
"Most" is doing exceptional heavy lifting here, since the verdict (about lootboxes) were absolutely possible on iOS. In fact, there are still plenty of games on iOS that support such lootboxes. This is literally why they created Apple Arcade, by the way.
So cut the BS, admit you're a hardcore fan of Apple it's really that simple. You don't care about privacy or exploitation. When Apple exploits kids it's fine in your eyes.
No, they're not, and I just showed you why. Epic is a scummy company that employs dark patterns to extract as much money as possible from easily manipulated consumers and Apple kneecaps those strategies on iOS by having control. If Epic got their way, this is what you would have to deal with on iOS too.
Apple allows many bad billing practices as long as they get a 30% cut. Not as many, but many.
If Apple wanted to, they could block bad practices and either allow external processors or charge a pure payment processing fee. Their current actions seem to be more concerned about the fees than the customers.
Again, it doesn't matter if Epic is scummy. In the issue they were litigating for, I want them to win, because I want app stores to not be a monopoly on platforms. That's it. I don't care what else Epic does, I'm not going to say "oh if an evil person agrees with me, that means I must change my opinion".
You still don’t get it. There are thousands like Epic. They’ve shown (the FTC’s opinion, not just mine) that they will stoop low to make an extra buck and the only thing stopping them on iOS are Apple’s rules. You wanting app stores to not be monopolies means billions of people will be directly subject to unethical companies like Epic. As a consumer, I say fuck that.
