5 ms·

I doubt it. If you read the case they're making against Apple they actually do say why the iPhone and consoles are different. Their reasoning is that consoles a

by ziml77 6y ago

I doubt it. If you read the case they're making against Apple they actually do say why the iPhone and consoles are different. Their reasoning is that consoles are sold at a loss and the manufacturer needs to take those fees to support that sales model. If Epic tried to take on Microsoft or Sony, their own assertion in the Apple case would be used against them.

AlexandrB 6y ago
To me, this is a really weird argument. Why is Sony's business model Epic's problem? They're still taking a 30% cut. If Apple started selling phones at a loss would they now be in the clear in Epic's mind? Is there a minimum "loss" required? Like is losing $0.01 per iPhone enough to make taking a 30% ok? Finally, what about Nintendo? They famously usually sell consoles at break-even or a small profit. Why isn't Epic suing them?
- SmallDeadGuy 6y ago
  By selling consoles at a loss, more people can afford to buy them bringing in a larger audience. And even the people who could afford a more expensive console will simply have more money for games.
  - gillesjacobs 6y ago
    Audience capture is indeed the answer, and is probably why Epic doesn't mind.
  - zwily 6y ago
    But there are way more iPhones out there than consoles.
- GuB-42 6y ago
  I think we just got the simple version and that in reality, there are hundreds of pages detailing as many points of contracts, agreements and precedents. But generally, publishing to consoles is a more involved process for both parties, and game consoles are not expected to be open platforms. So I guess the business model of console manufacturers is more tightly tied to publishing contracts.
  - spijdar 6y ago
    I think GP's point is, why are game consoles not expected to be open platforms, but the iPhone is? And who isn't to say Apple's business model isn't greatly tied to their closed platform? At least as far as public sentiment goes, the only difference seems to just be precedent. Game consoles have always been locked down, strongly DRM controlled machines, while PDAs/smartphones have ... existed in a strange grey area. For whatever reason, people think they should have rights to their phone, but not as much for the game console. Guessing it's because you can "just buy a PC" with greater performance and flexibility in essentially the same use domain as a console, but doesn't that apply to iPhones as well? "Just buy an android"?
    - ksec 6y ago
      >why are game consoles not expected to be open platforms, but the iPhone is? Modern Society does not require a console to function. Most would agree our Smartphone has become the central to many things in our modern society including but not limited to business from all industries. >"Just buy an android"? Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet. It has a substantial market that puts their Anti- Competitiveness in question.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - michaelbrave 6y ago
    I think that as game consoles become more multi purpose devices (as Xbox has been championing for a while now) that they will end up in a similar position as the app store.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    > But generally, publishing to consoles is a more involved process for both parties, and game consoles are not expected to be open platforms. So I guess the business model of console manufacturers is more tightly tied to publishing contracts. Maybe they're just asking for iOS publishing to become more involved and complex, tied to contracts. I still don't see the difference between an iPhone and a Playstation. They both have CPUs and RAM, they both have a locked down operating system (neither are general purpose computers), they both run third party software vetted by the device manufacturer, they both charge a percentage fee to publish on that platform.
- masklinn 6y ago
  Because epic is lying their asses off, they want to extract more money from Apple but don’t want to antagonise Sony and MS.
- argonaut 6y ago
  Because the legal system is not some mechanistic program that computes decisions over cases. The legal system is (for better or worse) based on human judges that look at the entire context and make judgments of what is reasonable or not. Given that this is an antitrust case, the business model is absolutely part of the context.
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    Selling something at below cost to gain market share is a classic anti-competitive tactic. This aspect of Sony's business model vs. Apple's seems like it would be very unflattering for Sony if they had more market share. It's lucky that Sony still has strong competition in the form of Microsoft and Nintendo[1]. My personal take is that by saying "Sony is different though" Epic is trying to provide a fig leaf for a platform owner that could cause them real financial harm if they got on their bad side. Edit: [1] Isn't it interesting thought that the 3 console platforms don't compete on what percent cut they take from software published on their platforms. All 3 are 30%.
DHPersonal 6y ago
I disagree. I think they’d be overjoyed if they could have free distribution on all platforms and that this case would set a precedent in Epic’s favor to pursue a similar outcome with the other platforms.
cochne 6y ago
I think as soon as you start looking at this as a spectrum question and not a binary question, this argument falls apart. Lets say console charges 30% to increase profit from -a% to +b% Lets say Apple charges 30% to increase profit from +x% to +y% The argument boils down to "One should be allowed to charge if it makes something unprofitable profitable. Therefore consoles should be allowed to charge but Apple should not." But wouldn't this argument imply it is also wrong for consoles to charge in excess of what makes their profit greater than 0%? Or is there some fixed small amount of profit for which this is ok, say 5%, and Apple's profit from phones alone already exceeds this small number?
- pydry 6y ago
  Extreme sustained profit margins are usually a signal that something fishy is going on.
  - tlholaday 6y ago
    > … profit margins … … are completely dependent on what expenses are attributed to the revenue by the cost accountant. Is producing WWDC an App Store cost?
    - pydry 6y ago
      It's certainly accounted as a cost by Apple when it calculates its 37.8% gross profit margin.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    A lot of brands have extreme profit margins on what they sell, but this is not considered illegal. Hell, a lot of brands are just reselling the same cheap goods as everyone else and charging more simply for having their name on it, but this is considered a perfectly valid business model.
    - pydry 6y ago
      >reselling the same cheap goods as everyone else and charging more simply for having their name on it I've always seen this as slightly shady even if it is considered a valid business model. It's often unclear if consumers are fooled about the true quality of goods, whether they are Veblen goods. If it's a Veblen good or if they genuinely do value the brand name alone then I guess it's fine but it's not too exactly ethical to fool consumers about the quality of your products or what the brand actually represents (which is what consumers always say they value about brands - not the name itself). I'm likewise not very sympathetic to the idea that these brands deserve government protection from knock offs. If consumers genuinely aren't bothered about whether their Nike shirt is "real" why does the government need to be?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by ziml77 6y ago

AlexandrB 6y ago

To me, this is a really weird argument. Why is Sony's business model Epic's problem? They're still taking a 30% cut. If Apple started selling phones at a loss would they now be in the clear in Epic's mind? Is there a minimum "loss" required? Like is losing $0.01 per iPhone enough to make taking a 30% ok? Finally, what about Nintendo? They famously usually sell consoles at break-even or a small profit. Why isn't Epic suing them?

SmallDeadGuy 6y ago
By selling consoles at a loss, more people can afford to buy them bringing in a larger audience. And even the people who could afford a more expensive console will simply have more money for games.
- gillesjacobs 6y ago
  Audience capture is indeed the answer, and is probably why Epic doesn't mind.
- zwily 6y ago
  But there are way more iPhones out there than consoles.
GuB-42 6y ago
I think we just got the simple version and that in reality, there are hundreds of pages detailing as many points of contracts, agreements and precedents. But generally, publishing to consoles is a more involved process for both parties, and game consoles are not expected to be open platforms. So I guess the business model of console manufacturers is more tightly tied to publishing contracts.
- spijdar 6y ago
  I think GP's point is, why are game consoles not expected to be open platforms, but the iPhone is? And who isn't to say Apple's business model isn't greatly tied to their closed platform? At least as far as public sentiment goes, the only difference seems to just be precedent. Game consoles have always been locked down, strongly DRM controlled machines, while PDAs/smartphones have ... existed in a strange grey area. For whatever reason, people think they should have rights to their phone, but not as much for the game console. Guessing it's because you can "just buy a PC" with greater performance and flexibility in essentially the same use domain as a console, but doesn't that apply to iPhones as well? "Just buy an android"?
  - ksec 6y ago
    >why are game consoles not expected to be open platforms, but the iPhone is? Modern Society does not require a console to function. Most would agree our Smartphone has become the central to many things in our modern society including but not limited to business from all industries. >"Just buy an android"? Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet. It has a substantial market that puts their Anti- Competitiveness in question.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelbrave 6y ago
  I think that as game consoles become more multi purpose devices (as Xbox has been championing for a while now) that they will end up in a similar position as the app store.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  > But generally, publishing to consoles is a more involved process for both parties, and game consoles are not expected to be open platforms. So I guess the business model of console manufacturers is more tightly tied to publishing contracts. Maybe they're just asking for iOS publishing to become more involved and complex, tied to contracts. I still don't see the difference between an iPhone and a Playstation. They both have CPUs and RAM, they both have a locked down operating system (neither are general purpose computers), they both run third party software vetted by the device manufacturer, they both charge a percentage fee to publish on that platform.
masklinn 6y ago
Because epic is lying their asses off, they want to extract more money from Apple but don’t want to antagonise Sony and MS.
argonaut 6y ago
Because the legal system is not some mechanistic program that computes decisions over cases. The legal system is (for better or worse) based on human judges that look at the entire context and make judgments of what is reasonable or not. Given that this is an antitrust case, the business model is absolutely part of the context.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  Selling something at below cost to gain market share is a classic anti-competitive tactic. This aspect of Sony's business model vs. Apple's seems like it would be very unflattering for Sony if they had more market share. It's lucky that Sony still has strong competition in the form of Microsoft and Nintendo[1]. My personal take is that by saying "Sony is different though" Epic is trying to provide a fig leaf for a platform owner that could cause them real financial harm if they got on their bad side. Edit: [1] Isn't it interesting thought that the 3 console platforms don't compete on what percent cut they take from software published on their platforms. All 3 are 30%.

DHPersonal 6y ago

I disagree. I think they’d be overjoyed if they could have free distribution on all platforms and that this case would set a precedent in Epic’s favor to pursue a similar outcome with the other platforms.

cochne 6y ago

I think as soon as you start looking at this as a spectrum question and not a binary question, this argument falls apart. Lets say console charges 30% to increase profit from -a% to +b% Lets say Apple charges 30% to increase profit from +x% to +y% The argument boils down to "One should be allowed to charge if it makes something unprofitable profitable. Therefore consoles should be allowed to charge but Apple should not." But wouldn't this argument imply it is also wrong for consoles to charge in excess of what makes their profit greater than 0%? Or is there some fixed small amount of profit for which this is ok, say 5%, and Apple's profit from phones alone already exceeds this small number?

pydry 6y ago
Extreme sustained profit margins are usually a signal that something fishy is going on.
- tlholaday 6y ago
  > … profit margins … … are completely dependent on what expenses are attributed to the revenue by the cost accountant. Is producing WWDC an App Store cost?
  - pydry 6y ago
    It's certainly accounted as a cost by Apple when it calculates its 37.8% gross profit margin.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  A lot of brands have extreme profit margins on what they sell, but this is not considered illegal. Hell, a lot of brands are just reselling the same cheap goods as everyone else and charging more simply for having their name on it, but this is considered a perfectly valid business model.
  - pydry 6y ago
    >reselling the same cheap goods as everyone else and charging more simply for having their name on it I've always seen this as slightly shady even if it is considered a valid business model. It's often unclear if consumers are fooled about the true quality of goods, whether they are Veblen goods. If it's a Veblen good or if they genuinely do value the brand name alone then I guess it's fine but it's not too exactly ethical to fool consumers about the quality of your products or what the brand actually represents (which is what consumers always say they value about brands - not the name itself). I'm likewise not very sympathetic to the idea that these brands deserve government protection from knock offs. If consumers genuinely aren't bothered about whether their Nike shirt is "real" why does the government need to be?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]