| |
| ▲ | simondotau 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’d be cheering on Epic Games if they were going after Sony and Nintendo with equal fervour. Personally, I don’t see why any developer should be allowed free rein on anyone else’s platform when it comes to the selling of games and virtual hats. Personally I think Apple should have two pricing tiers: one for interactive entertainment, and one for everything else. For interactive entertainment, a flat 30% on everything. For everything else, Apple lowers their margin to cover transaction costs only (in the realm of 5-10%). | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I don’t see why any developer should be allowed free rein on anyone else’s platform Is it a "platform" the way a console is or is it a public marketplace? I'd think the distinction comes down to size relative to the rest of the market. If I run a private club that caters to a only a few people I'm not impacting anyone else. Whereas if I run a giant chain of so called "private clubs" that in reality 50% of the town purchases their groceries from then perhaps some scrutiny by the regulator is in order. | | |
| ▲ | simondotau 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | You quoted a sentence fragment that, when read in isolation, conveys a position I emphatically reject. To answer your question directly: I contend that when it comes to operating a marketplace for interactive entertainment, an iPhone is no different from a Nintendo Switch, and if you want to impose rules, they must be imposed equally. For all other apps, I think Epic made some valid points. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The quote was not intended to frame your position in any particular manner. Simply to provide context so it was clear what I was responding to. I take two issues with your response. First and foremost, the point I raised was specifically about the size of an operation relative to the overall market. You haven't addressed that. You say you see no difference but don't explain why. It seems obvious to me that larger players will require different regulations than smaller players due to having different effects on the market. Second, Apple doesn't operate a marketplace for games. They operate a general purpose market that includes apps for anything and everything. Compare a 1000 sq ft mom and pop game shop to a 400k sq ft big box retailer that sells groceries, liquor, clothing, home goods, yard tools, just about everything except for literal building materials. It wouldn't be reasonable to treat them the same way. | | |
| ▲ | simondotau 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > It seems obvious to me that larger players will require different regulations than smaller players I agree with this in principle, but I don't think that principle applies here. Apple is not a uniquely large vendor of games. There are multiple ecosystems operating at similar orders of magnitude in games sales, at around $10B or more. Against that backdrop, portraying the App Store as some singular 400-pound gorilla with respect to games is not accurate. > Second, Apple doesn't operate a marketplace for games. They operate a general purpose market That distinction cuts the other way. A general-purpose market does not escape product-specific regulation; it applies it selectively. A store that sells liquor must comply with liquor laws when selling liquor, but selling liquor does not prohibit it from selling candy to children. It is normal and reasonable to attach rules to the product being sold, not to the fact that the venue also sells other things. Perhaps if Apple were willing to exclude games from the App Store and move them to a newly created Game Store, it would be easier to imagine how they could be made subject to different rules. But I don't think that should be necessary for the government to impose different rules on different product categories. To be clear, another acceptable outcome IMO is for the Epic Games argument to prevail with respect to all major gaming platforms. If they believe Apple deserves 0% of Fortnite revenues on iOS, then Sony deserves 0% of Fortnite revenues on Playstation. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It seems to me that you're cherry picking a product category while I am taking "mobile app market" as a whole. I did not suggest that Apple could escape laws that apply to a given product category. Quite the opposite - that I think it is reasonable for a behemoth to be subject to _additional_ regulations that cut across _all_ product categories. That was the point of my analogy. In physical retail big box stores are subject to additional regulations that mom and pop shops are not. The fact that Walmart happens to sell games and happens not to be the largest retailer of those is not going to get them out of being treated as the giant that they are. I don't think it matters that in any given product category Apple isn't the largest. The issue is that they are one half of what is effectively a mobile app store duopoly in most of the western world. That fact carries serious implications for developers and consumers alike. Developers in particular, regardless of product category, are effectively forced to do business with Apple. On that basis I believe that either the app stores of both Apple and Google should be subject to _extremely_ stringent regulations or alternatively that the platforms should be forcibly opened up by law (ie no more locked down devices). | | |
| ▲ | simondotau 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree with stringent regulations with respect to apps other than interactive entertainment. I disagree about interactive entertainment because I don't think that moral arguments for marketplace regulation extends to video games. Especially when it comes to cross-platform games like Fortnite. Nobody is forced to make games for iOS. Epic Games were certainly not forced to do business with Apple any more than Bungie or Naughty Dog weren't. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Is this distinction you're drawing based on a categorical difference such as entertainment or art? Or is it related to the size of the vendor relative to some metric? Given that the service operator gates access to the customers and that most customers are unlikely to switch just to do business with a particular vendor, then shouldn't policy be determined solely by the size of the service operator? Why should the type of good or size of the vendor enter into it? In the west Apple is approximately half of mobile. That's massive. Saying a vendor isn't forced to do business with them is like saying that a vendor isn't forced to sell their products competitively. All things being equal if you publish software for mobile then you will be selling through Apple regardless of the terms they might impose. Your remark about Bungie and Naughty Dog seems to me like saying that the local city doesn't need to tax a chain restaurant at the same rate as an independent one because it has storefronts in other cities with more favorable terms. The idea being that if they don't like the city's terms they can just close that storefront; it won't kill them due to their size and reach. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | troupo 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's what Apple already doing: applying arbitrary categories and charging arbitrary amounts of money because "transaction costs and platform or something". 1. Where the hell is the notion of "using the platform for free" even coming from (it's coming from Apple of course). I didn't know that iPhones are free, or that dev fees are waived for everyone. 2. Why the hell can't I use a different payment processor tham Apple and tell people about it? Then I'm neither using Apple's platform "for free" nor paying Apple's transaction fees. | | |
| ▲ | simondotau 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | For interactive entertainment, I see no moral obligation for Apple to adopt any particular policy unless all major digital game store operators (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Valve etc) are subject to the same requirements. For all other apps, I agree that alternative payment processing should be permitted for one-off transactions. And I can agree for subscriptions as well, provided the developer can meet a high standard for simple, frictionless cancellations. | | |
| ▲ | troupo 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > no moral obligation for Apple to adopt any particular policy unless all major digital game store operators (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Valve etc) are subject to the same requirements. Why? iPhones are not gaming consoles. | | |
| ▲ | simondotau 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Liquor stores are not candy stores, yet they are allowed to sell candy to minors while being prohibited from selling liquor. The principle is straightforward: regulation should follow the product, not the venue. | | |
| ▲ | troupo 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | All pained analogies are both pained and invalid. iOS is not a liquor store, and allowing people to use other payment processors or even other stores on the platform is not selling liquor to minors. Note how your analogies immediately fall apart for other platforms like, for example, Apple's own MacOS. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
