6 ms·

It's not parasitic of Valve, though. Valve created the storefront and platform that has all of those customers baked into it. EA is not just paying 30% for the

It's not parasitic of Valve, though. Valve created the storefront and platform that has all of those customers baked into it. EA is not just paying 30% for the privilege of selling their game, they're paying for the customer base that they haven't had to work to establish on that platform.

zwily 6y ago
s/Valve/Apple/g
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  Yes. Exactly.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  Well, the difference is that with Steam EA gets the choice whether they like the "extra marketing" for that price or not. If a customer wants to buy something from EA outside of Steam, EA is permitted to sell it to them without ripping up their Steam distribution channel - which is not the case for Epic/Apple.
  - dkonofalski 6y ago
    Yes it is. Epic is allowed to sell to every other person that's not an iOS user without ripping up their iOS distribution channel too. They chose not to do that, though, and then shot themselves in the foot on top of it to try and stick it to Apple.
    - dwaite 6y ago
      Epic could sell to accounts in every other channel without having to pay a cut. In-app purchasing is just too convenient - and as a result, too lucrative.
      - dkonofalski 6y ago
        Uhhh... yes. They could but they don't want to. They want to sell to people on iOS. I wonder why that is?
simion314 6y ago
I will disagree, you can see the entitlement of users that demand the game,movie or payment system must be exactly his preferred one. Though for Valve you can compete with them (but people hate it but I think they don't hate the actual competition but the shitty implementation of the stores and the fact this game launcher most of the time must be run in background ) BUT with Apple you can't compete, they have up to 50% market share in some countries and if you are a business half of your existing customers(that you earned fairly and were not gifted by Apple to you) will ask for an iOS app and now you either give a bad experience to your customer or you pay the tax. About the argument that Apple,Valve gives you access to many users, sure that should be price correctly, developers could pay for getting promoted on the first page of the store, but Apple,Google should not get a cut for promoting my app if the user installed it starting from my own website.
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  >BUT with Apple you can't compete, they have up to 50% market share in some countries That statement isn't true no matter how you slice it. Apple's largest competitor is Google so the idea that you can't compete with Apple is nonsense. And what countries does Apple have a 50% market share in?
  - simion314 6y ago
    US, mobile market , ask Apple fanbous about app sales and they will proudly tell you how Apple stores has more sales. Ask same guys about monopoly and they will then count the entire world, count all computers and dumb-phones and pretend Apple is the little guy. I fucking can't compete with Apple, say I am a bank/store/club and my customers(not Apple ones) want a mobile app, how can I give the 50% of my customer my app without having to pay Apple , if I try to sell something or put a link to a page of mine for buying subscriptions or stuff Apple will demand a cut(I know they were forced to be less greedy lately).
    - dkonofalski 6y ago
      1. Sales != market share but that's not relevant. Even a >50% share isn't a monopoly if there are multiple other competitors in the remaining 50%. And I don't think anyone is misrepresenting Apple's position. The word "Monopoly" has a meaning. Apple does not fit that meaning. 2. You can't give your customers an app without paying Apple if your customers are demanding it work for Apple products. That doesn't mean you can't compete. You can still only sell to Android users and other phone users but you have to do so with the understanding of what that means. You're still competing. That's like saying you can't compete with Windows when you only release your app for Linux. That's your choice. You're still competing against Windows.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Valve is not parasitic because its pimint out it's customers? That a stange argument if I ever heard one. I could accept this if valve store didn't take 20 seconds to load on an 8-core machine.
notthemessiah 6y ago
It is parasitic, but I think in the bigger scheme of things, Valve is a lesser evil than Epic, which is in itself a lesser evil than Apple. Valve is investing in its own capital as well as the infrastructure for the PC gaming industry at large (Vulkan and driver improvements), whereas Epic has no endgame but to gain market share using bottomless VC pockets. Apple, while a company with some merits, utilizes vertical integration that is overall harmful for user freedom, especially when it comes to the right-to-repair, and is only using its revenue to further remove themselves from the large tech ecosystem and build up the walls of its gated community with their own unique hardware/software.
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  You and I must have different definitions of parasitic. Apple is providing services to developers and, in exchange is receiving payment for that. Developers shouldn't be able to take advantage of the benefits of the platform without paying for it. Everything else you said is irrelevant.
  - simion314 6y ago
    Apple provides a hardware thing, users pay for the objects, Developers should pay for the IDEs or compilers if they want to use Apple tools and the user should have the freedom to decide what to put on his piece of hardware, But sure, if I put my app on the store I should pay for hosting it, for the updates and reviews, I should pay if I want it to be promoted on the store but I should not be forced to say pay Apple a tax for shit like soem subscriptions or books I sell from my app, I should pay Apple for the store services they offer. Also Sony and Microsoft should not be immune either IMO
    - dkonofalski 6y ago
      >I should not be forced to say pay Apple a tax for shit like soem subscriptions or books I sell from my app If you're selling them from within the app, you're making use of Apple's payment and subscription infrastructure and the customer base of iOS. Those things are not free.

zwily 6y ago

s/Valve/Apple/g

dkonofalski 6y ago
Yes. Exactly.
PeterisP 6y ago
Well, the difference is that with Steam EA gets the choice whether they like the "extra marketing" for that price or not. If a customer wants to buy something from EA outside of Steam, EA is permitted to sell it to them without ripping up their Steam distribution channel - which is not the case for Epic/Apple.
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  Yes it is. Epic is allowed to sell to every other person that's not an iOS user without ripping up their iOS distribution channel too. They chose not to do that, though, and then shot themselves in the foot on top of it to try and stick it to Apple.
  - dwaite 6y ago
    Epic could sell to accounts in every other channel without having to pay a cut. In-app purchasing is just too convenient - and as a result, too lucrative.
    - dkonofalski 6y ago
      Uhhh... yes. They could but they don't want to. They want to sell to people on iOS. I wonder why that is?

simion314 6y ago

I will disagree, you can see the entitlement of users that demand the game,movie or payment system must be exactly his preferred one. Though for Valve you can compete with them (but people hate it but I think they don't hate the actual competition but the shitty implementation of the stores and the fact this game launcher most of the time must be run in background ) BUT with Apple you can't compete, they have up to 50% market share in some countries and if you are a business half of your existing customers(that you earned fairly and were not gifted by Apple to you) will ask for an iOS app and now you either give a bad experience to your customer or you pay the tax. About the argument that Apple,Valve gives you access to many users, sure that should be price correctly, developers could pay for getting promoted on the first page of the store, but Apple,Google should not get a cut for promoting my app if the user installed it starting from my own website.

dkonofalski 6y ago
>BUT with Apple you can't compete, they have up to 50% market share in some countries That statement isn't true no matter how you slice it. Apple's largest competitor is Google so the idea that you can't compete with Apple is nonsense. And what countries does Apple have a 50% market share in?
- simion314 6y ago
  US, mobile market , ask Apple fanbous about app sales and they will proudly tell you how Apple stores has more sales. Ask same guys about monopoly and they will then count the entire world, count all computers and dumb-phones and pretend Apple is the little guy. I fucking can't compete with Apple, say I am a bank/store/club and my customers(not Apple ones) want a mobile app, how can I give the 50% of my customer my app without having to pay Apple , if I try to sell something or put a link to a page of mine for buying subscriptions or stuff Apple will demand a cut(I know they were forced to be less greedy lately).
  - dkonofalski 6y ago
    1. Sales != market share but that's not relevant. Even a >50% share isn't a monopoly if there are multiple other competitors in the remaining 50%. And I don't think anyone is misrepresenting Apple's position. The word "Monopoly" has a meaning. Apple does not fit that meaning. 2. You can't give your customers an app without paying Apple if your customers are demanding it work for Apple products. That doesn't mean you can't compete. You can still only sell to Android users and other phone users but you have to do so with the understanding of what that means. You're still competing. That's like saying you can't compete with Windows when you only release your app for Linux. That's your choice. You're still competing against Windows.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

Valve is not parasitic because its pimint out it's customers? That a stange argument if I ever heard one. I could accept this if valve store didn't take 20 seconds to load on an 8-core machine.

notthemessiah 6y ago

It is parasitic, but I think in the bigger scheme of things, Valve is a lesser evil than Epic, which is in itself a lesser evil than Apple. Valve is investing in its own capital as well as the infrastructure for the PC gaming industry at large (Vulkan and driver improvements), whereas Epic has no endgame but to gain market share using bottomless VC pockets. Apple, while a company with some merits, utilizes vertical integration that is overall harmful for user freedom, especially when it comes to the right-to-repair, and is only using its revenue to further remove themselves from the large tech ecosystem and build up the walls of its gated community with their own unique hardware/software.

dkonofalski 6y ago
You and I must have different definitions of parasitic. Apple is providing services to developers and, in exchange is receiving payment for that. Developers shouldn't be able to take advantage of the benefits of the platform without paying for it. Everything else you said is irrelevant.
- simion314 6y ago
  Apple provides a hardware thing, users pay for the objects, Developers should pay for the IDEs or compilers if they want to use Apple tools and the user should have the freedom to decide what to put on his piece of hardware, But sure, if I put my app on the store I should pay for hosting it, for the updates and reviews, I should pay if I want it to be promoted on the store but I should not be forced to say pay Apple a tax for shit like soem subscriptions or books I sell from my app, I should pay Apple for the store services they offer. Also Sony and Microsoft should not be immune either IMO
  - dkonofalski 6y ago
    >I should not be forced to say pay Apple a tax for shit like soem subscriptions or books I sell from my app If you're selling them from within the app, you're making use of Apple's payment and subscription infrastructure and the customer base of iOS. Those things are not free.