3 ms·

This scenario you speak of is on the center stage where everyone can realize it and see it: game consoles. The console itself used to buy the manufacturer a gam

This scenario you speak of is on the center stage where everyone can realize it and see it: game consoles. The console itself used to buy the manufacturer a gaming platform to collect license fees. Now that being a gaming platform means reaching people on mobile, the console makers are _desperately_ trying to reach mobile without giving up gaming revenue share to phone makers. This has led cloud platforms like AWS and GCP to build cloud-based game delivery systems (Luna and Stadia, respectively). The issue is the mobile PWAs that are built to connect to these cloud platforms are clunky and have special ways to install / add to mobile home screen. To stream using proper native apps, these platforms need to separate each game into a separate App Store game entry. Kind of bullshit. In my opinion, this is the most interesting area where the power struggler will play out because it’s not the little guy with no power getting bent over here. These are companies like Sony and Microsoft. Just watching on the sideline with my popcorn. It is sort of complicated. I understand why Microsoft and Sony would fight for gaming revenue as the playing field moves to a more “all screens everywhere” platform. At the same time I think: what have these middle men actually done in the past couple of game console cycles to warrant a platform they deserve to defend? They have basically been living off the innovation of x86 and GPUs made by others and packaging it in a power hungry box that plugs into a TV made by someone else. They are living off network effects not innovations. From a hardware standpoint, Apple has earned the right to pull in more of the profits in my view. They innovated across the entire stack to build lower power draw, high graphic intensity, custom silicon, deeper integration etc.

torginus 4y ago
But on the PC, Steam exists, and they don't have this clamped down DRM jail that other systems have. They also don't build the box, they don't give you the technical advancements that owning the whole stack enables. Yet Steam takes the same 30% cut. So far others with money, like Epic have been unable to break Steam's stranglehold, even though they take a much lesser pay cut of the earnings. Every dev ever who has posted about game sales says that non-Steam merchants are a rounding error in terms of revenue. In practice, the PC being an open platform has only allowed giants like EA and Epic's Fortine to get around having to pay the 30% to Valve. I feel like this situation would be similar with Facebook and Apple - if they manage to break Apple's monopoly, still nobody would use a 3rd party app store, save for people forced by giants like Facebook.
- verall 4y ago
  Ah but Minecraft was sold and purchased outside of Steam when it was still a tiny indie game, long before it was popular. On an iphone it would not have been allowed. And steam provides services that are IMO great, which is why I keep using it for things that I can use it for. So it seems like Apple could keep up a similar margin and most of their customers, while still allowing the choice for users. It's still a massive improvement.
- enos_feedler 4y ago
  Well I suppose this is a testament to the idea that 30% cut is warranted commission fee for marketing/distribution. Being that aggregator has a lot of value that you can extract from content creators.
- musicale 4y ago
  > I feel like this situation would be similar with Facebook and Apple - if they manage to break Apple's monopoly, still nobody would use a 3rd party app store, save for people forced by giants like Facebook. The Amazon app store exists for Android. And yet Google Play still commands high platform fees. As you note, Facebook is probably big enough to force people to use their 3rd party app store (and thereby avoid Apple's privacy regulations, which interfere with Facebook's business model.)

torginus 4y ago

But on the PC, Steam exists, and they don't have this clamped down DRM jail that other systems have. They also don't build the box, they don't give you the technical advancements that owning the whole stack enables. Yet Steam takes the same 30% cut. So far others with money, like Epic have been unable to break Steam's stranglehold, even though they take a much lesser pay cut of the earnings. Every dev ever who has posted about game sales says that non-Steam merchants are a rounding error in terms of revenue. In practice, the PC being an open platform has only allowed giants like EA and Epic's Fortine to get around having to pay the 30% to Valve. I feel like this situation would be similar with Facebook and Apple - if they manage to break Apple's monopoly, still nobody would use a 3rd party app store, save for people forced by giants like Facebook.

verall 4y ago
Ah but Minecraft was sold and purchased outside of Steam when it was still a tiny indie game, long before it was popular. On an iphone it would not have been allowed. And steam provides services that are IMO great, which is why I keep using it for things that I can use it for. So it seems like Apple could keep up a similar margin and most of their customers, while still allowing the choice for users. It's still a massive improvement.
enos_feedler 4y ago
Well I suppose this is a testament to the idea that 30% cut is warranted commission fee for marketing/distribution. Being that aggregator has a lot of value that you can extract from content creators.
musicale 4y ago
> I feel like this situation would be similar with Facebook and Apple - if they manage to break Apple's monopoly, still nobody would use a 3rd party app store, save for people forced by giants like Facebook. The Amazon app store exists for Android. And yet Google Play still commands high platform fees. As you note, Facebook is probably big enough to force people to use their 3rd party app store (and thereby avoid Apple's privacy regulations, which interfere with Facebook's business model.)