7 ms·

> We're seeing this right now with Epic's Tim Sweeney suing Apple for its mandatory cut on all digital goods. I hope Epic wins this case against Apple. It's am

> We're seeing this right now with Epic's Tim Sweeney suing Apple for its mandatory cut on all digital goods. I hope Epic wins this case against Apple. It's amazing how everyone who brings that up avoids this question: Does Epic allow anyone to create and and sell content for Fortnite, without giving Epic any money? Do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo allow other stores on their consoles?

esperent 6y ago
> Do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo allow other stores on their consoles? Good idea, let's make that a requirement too. The law could be something like "if you sell a general purpose computing device, you're not allowed to mandate software vendor lockin". That would open up so many possibilities, it would be great for the people who own consoles.
- noduerme 6y ago
  Isn't that roughly what Google has done with Android? They can choose what they want to curate in their own app store, but they don't lock users in based on hardware or use of Android OS. (Someone should take them to court over their prioritization of AMP pages, but that's a different story).
- Razengan 6y ago
  What about > Does Epic allow players to buy Fortnite content from outside of Fortnite, without giving Epic any money?
  - d3nj4l 6y ago
    This is a disingenuous comparison. Epic does not sell content not made by Epic in Fortnite, while Apple sells content not made by Apple in the App Store. This is like saying a branded clothing store in a mall has to sell things that aren't of its brand if it wants to complain about the mall throttling its sales.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      Ah, so you're saying the key difference is that Apple has allowed the sale of third party content in their product. Do you agree then, that: 1. If Apple didn't allow the sale of third party content, they would be in the same position as Epic and therefore there would be no problem? 2. If Epic allowed the sale of third party content, they should not be allowed to control what type of content is sold, nor should they be allowed to collect a percentage of each sale?
      - lukeramsden 6y ago
        > 2. If Epic allowed the sale of third party content, they should not be allowed to control what type of content is sold, nor should they be allowed to collect a percentage of each sale? I don't think anyone has a problem with platforms charging _a_ percentage of each sale, just that Apple's is too high (and in the case of their dispute with Spotify, that it allows them to unfairly compete in their own marketplace)
        nodamage 6y ago
        Except Epic wants to force Apple to allow third-party payments so they can entirely avoid the Apple fee.
        Razengan 6y ago
        > just that Apple's is too high How much do Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo/Steam charge?
      - d3nj4l 6y ago
        If Apple did not allow the sale of third party content, there wouldn't be "a cut". It's all in house products made by Apple.
- dleslie 6y ago
  Video game consoles are not general computing devices. Their controlled and curated walled gardens are part of the consumer appeal, and the absence of those would make consoles no different than PCs. If consumers wanted that they'd be buying PCs only.
  - tass 6y ago
    They can continue to use the PlayStation store, continue to have exclusive games, and need not see any difference except by choice. What is the downside?
    - dleslie 6y ago
      The hardware prices increase due to the loss of license fee revenue.
      - loup-vaillant 6y ago
        Console vendors aren't allowed to sell hardware at a loss. The price increase would be mild… and a truer reflection of the costs of owning a console (less hidden costs from the walled garden aspects).
        dleslie 6y ago
        Sony took a loss on PS4 sales: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/09/20/sony-to-take-a-loss-on-playstation-4-sales/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/09/20/sony-to-tak... This is normal. The price increase would not have been mild - at the time this was written, it was the cost of a full game. When most only own a handful of games that's a significant difference.
        loup-vaillant 6y ago
        I stand corrected, thanks. Tells us something about the real price of that console, though. People don't see the price of the walled garden, since (i) it's always been this way, and (ii) it looks like the garden is providing flowers (in the form of a store). Such hidden (or externalised) costs are a bit of a lie. I'd rather be aware of the true price of what I'm buying.
- corysama 6y ago
  It would be the end of consoles. The economics of the Xbox/PlayStation/NintendoWhatever presume vendor lock-in.
  - ericflo 6y ago
    Not really, the economics are just better for the platform with vendor lock-in. They'd still recoup their costs via their store, which they can gift powerful advantages like making it default, having it be more integrated in various ways, etc. It would likely end up as a power-law distribution of store usage with the platform owner on top, so platforms would still make their profits. Having an option for another store wouldn't be the end of anything, and would improve consumer agency significantly.
    - johncolanduoni 6y ago
      The lethal threat to fully unlocked consoles with no contractual limits ruled out by law isn't other stores or even piracy. It's people realizing that if they're selling the hardware at a loss, it'll likely be the most cost efficient GPU compute you can buy. This isn't supposition, it happened with the PS3: https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20984028/playstation-supercomputer-ps3-umass-dartmouth-astrophysics-25th-anniversary https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20984028/playstation-supe...
      - StavrosK 6y ago
        They wouldn't be selling the hardware at a loss.
      - valvar 6y ago
        There are jailbreaks for the PS4, and it seems more likely than not that there will also be jailbreaks for the PS5. The barriers for actors who want to exploit console compute power are not significant. But they are significant for regular consumers.
        johncolanduoni 6y ago
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
Would we accept if the $1000 computer we buy forces us to use only their OS, can install software from their own store only, will receive only 3-5 years of software updates? Why should we give a smartphone manufacturer(who ever it may be) such overwhelming ownership over their hardware when the computer manufacturers don't get it?

esperent 6y ago

> Do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo allow other stores on their consoles? Good idea, let's make that a requirement too. The law could be something like "if you sell a general purpose computing device, you're not allowed to mandate software vendor lockin". That would open up so many possibilities, it would be great for the people who own consoles.

noduerme 6y ago
Isn't that roughly what Google has done with Android? They can choose what they want to curate in their own app store, but they don't lock users in based on hardware or use of Android OS. (Someone should take them to court over their prioritization of AMP pages, but that's a different story).
Razengan 6y ago
What about > Does Epic allow players to buy Fortnite content from outside of Fortnite, without giving Epic any money?
- d3nj4l 6y ago
  This is a disingenuous comparison. Epic does not sell content not made by Epic in Fortnite, while Apple sells content not made by Apple in the App Store. This is like saying a branded clothing store in a mall has to sell things that aren't of its brand if it wants to complain about the mall throttling its sales.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Ah, so you're saying the key difference is that Apple has allowed the sale of third party content in their product. Do you agree then, that: 1. If Apple didn't allow the sale of third party content, they would be in the same position as Epic and therefore there would be no problem? 2. If Epic allowed the sale of third party content, they should not be allowed to control what type of content is sold, nor should they be allowed to collect a percentage of each sale?
    - lukeramsden 6y ago
      > 2. If Epic allowed the sale of third party content, they should not be allowed to control what type of content is sold, nor should they be allowed to collect a percentage of each sale? I don't think anyone has a problem with platforms charging _a_ percentage of each sale, just that Apple's is too high (and in the case of their dispute with Spotify, that it allows them to unfairly compete in their own marketplace)
      - nodamage 6y ago
        Except Epic wants to force Apple to allow third-party payments so they can entirely avoid the Apple fee.
      - Razengan 6y ago
        > just that Apple's is too high How much do Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo/Steam charge?
    - d3nj4l 6y ago
      If Apple did not allow the sale of third party content, there wouldn't be "a cut". It's all in house products made by Apple.
dleslie 6y ago
Video game consoles are not general computing devices. Their controlled and curated walled gardens are part of the consumer appeal, and the absence of those would make consoles no different than PCs. If consumers wanted that they'd be buying PCs only.
- tass 6y ago
  They can continue to use the PlayStation store, continue to have exclusive games, and need not see any difference except by choice. What is the downside?
  - dleslie 6y ago
    The hardware prices increase due to the loss of license fee revenue.
    - loup-vaillant 6y ago
      Console vendors aren't allowed to sell hardware at a loss. The price increase would be mild… and a truer reflection of the costs of owning a console (less hidden costs from the walled garden aspects).
      - dleslie 6y ago
        Sony took a loss on PS4 sales: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/09/20/sony-to-take-a-loss-on-playstation-4-sales/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/09/20/sony-to-tak... This is normal. The price increase would not have been mild - at the time this was written, it was the cost of a full game. When most only own a handful of games that's a significant difference.
        loup-vaillant 6y ago
        I stand corrected, thanks. Tells us something about the real price of that console, though. People don't see the price of the walled garden, since (i) it's always been this way, and (ii) it looks like the garden is providing flowers (in the form of a store). Such hidden (or externalised) costs are a bit of a lie. I'd rather be aware of the true price of what I'm buying.
corysama 6y ago
It would be the end of consoles. The economics of the Xbox/PlayStation/NintendoWhatever presume vendor lock-in.
- ericflo 6y ago
  Not really, the economics are just better for the platform with vendor lock-in. They'd still recoup their costs via their store, which they can gift powerful advantages like making it default, having it be more integrated in various ways, etc. It would likely end up as a power-law distribution of store usage with the platform owner on top, so platforms would still make their profits. Having an option for another store wouldn't be the end of anything, and would improve consumer agency significantly.
  - johncolanduoni 6y ago
    The lethal threat to fully unlocked consoles with no contractual limits ruled out by law isn't other stores or even piracy. It's people realizing that if they're selling the hardware at a loss, it'll likely be the most cost efficient GPU compute you can buy. This isn't supposition, it happened with the PS3: https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20984028/playstation-supercomputer-ps3-umass-dartmouth-astrophysics-25th-anniversary https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20984028/playstation-supe...
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      They wouldn't be selling the hardware at a loss.
    - valvar 6y ago
      There are jailbreaks for the PS4, and it seems more likely than not that there will also be jailbreaks for the PS5. The barriers for actors who want to exploit console compute power are not significant. But they are significant for regular consumers.
      - johncolanduoni 6y ago

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

Would we accept if the $1000 computer we buy forces us to use only their OS, can install software from their own store only, will receive only 3-5 years of software updates? Why should we give a smartphone manufacturer(who ever it may be) such overwhelming ownership over their hardware when the computer manufacturers don't get it?