4 ms·

Switch has 30% with a 5% rebate to consumers. Steam has a regressive 20%/25%/30% tiered commission structure. There are sweetheart deals we have no knowledge

Switch has 30% with a 5% rebate to consumers. Steam has a regressive 20%/25%/30% tiered commission structure. There are sweetheart deals we have no knowledge of, like Apple's deal with Amazon to get Prime Video onto their devices.

caramelcustard 4y ago
And AFAIK Apple charges 15% if you earn less than a million in your net revenue, yet noone mentions that. Which, by the way, could be considered a sweetheart deal of its own, just like Steams tiered system. As for the Switch it's still 30% and to the developer it doesn't matter whether there's 5 percent going to the customer or not.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  The incidence of fees is born by the consumer so it should matter.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Apple only made that change after incredible pushback from their community, and it still doesn't address the real problem: Apple could be charging 2% and they would still have a monopoly on app distribution that deserves to be broken up. Steam isn't comparable, since it charges that 30% fee and competes against other distributors. Despite that, developers continue to choose Steam over alternative platforms like Itch.io or EGS. Likewise, Apple is free to charge whatever they want for their app store, they just need to compete with other service providers to ensure they're providing a fair deal.
  - caramelcustard 4y ago
    More like "after Tim Sweeney suddenly became obsessed with Apple and started demanding things". "...they would still have a monopoly on app distribution..." on the platform that they've created, supported and maintained over the years, in the market that already has alternatives. "Steam isn't comparable..." ah, so Steam charging the same percentage is a whole different thing...i see. "...competes against other distributors." on the Windows, Linux and MacOS operating systems, operating on a platform that is not exclusive to any manufacturer in partucular. "...they just need to compete with other service providers to ensure they're providing a fair deal." They already do compete, look up alternative iOS stores.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - Bud 4y ago
    Someone needs a tutorial on what "monopoly" means. Controlling app distribution solely within your own platform is not a monopoly. You might wish it were. You might not like it; you might want it changed. But that doesn't magically mean you can call it a monopoly. It's not a monopoly.
    - lenkite 4y ago
      If you open a market in the city, prevent any others from opening a market in the city, force all sellers to pay 10-30% to you, force all product makers to comply to your dictates about what can be sold or get kicked out then it's an effective and abusive monopoly. Thankfully the EU in their wisdom has decided that Apple has abused their dominant position and we don't need to agree with your definition.
      - caramelcustard 4y ago
        Except iOS devices aren't "markets in the city". It's a good thing that you decided to pick that as an example for this comparison (even though it's a bad example) as you have (on accident, i presume) contradicted yourself in a spectacular way. See, the aformentioned market is in...well, "the city" and chances are that that market is regulated by the city council/county laws/the laws of the country the market is in. The city provides infrastructure for the market as well as customers, perhaps some advertising...you get the idea. Hm, it seems that in that relationship, while AppStore is sure a market, the city that the market belongs to is...Apple? Whoops. I hope that the wise EU is also going to decide that European car manufacturers and their infotainment systems are "abusing" their dominant position in their respective markets of manufacturer and model specific systems! Or that non-European companies should be able to provide "alternative software" to multi-billion euro manufacturing lines of European mega-manufacturers with the same disregard for any potential consequences, just to avoid any sort of "anti-consumer" behaviour. I sure hope so!!!(couldn't care less)
      - Bud 4y ago
        Except Apple hasn't prevented others from opening a market. You're aware of Android, right? It's not "my definition". It's THE definition.

caramelcustard 4y ago

And AFAIK Apple charges 15% if you earn less than a million in your net revenue, yet noone mentions that. Which, by the way, could be considered a sweetheart deal of its own, just like Steams tiered system. As for the Switch it's still 30% and to the developer it doesn't matter whether there's 5 percent going to the customer or not.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago
The incidence of fees is born by the consumer so it should matter.
smoldesu 4y ago
Apple only made that change after incredible pushback from their community, and it still doesn't address the real problem: Apple could be charging 2% and they would still have a monopoly on app distribution that deserves to be broken up. Steam isn't comparable, since it charges that 30% fee and competes against other distributors. Despite that, developers continue to choose Steam over alternative platforms like Itch.io or EGS. Likewise, Apple is free to charge whatever they want for their app store, they just need to compete with other service providers to ensure they're providing a fair deal.
- caramelcustard 4y ago
  More like "after Tim Sweeney suddenly became obsessed with Apple and started demanding things". "...they would still have a monopoly on app distribution..." on the platform that they've created, supported and maintained over the years, in the market that already has alternatives. "Steam isn't comparable..." ah, so Steam charging the same percentage is a whole different thing...i see. "...competes against other distributors." on the Windows, Linux and MacOS operating systems, operating on a platform that is not exclusive to any manufacturer in partucular. "...they just need to compete with other service providers to ensure they're providing a fair deal." They already do compete, look up alternative iOS stores.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Bud 4y ago
  Someone needs a tutorial on what "monopoly" means. Controlling app distribution solely within your own platform is not a monopoly. You might wish it were. You might not like it; you might want it changed. But that doesn't magically mean you can call it a monopoly. It's not a monopoly.
  - lenkite 4y ago
    If you open a market in the city, prevent any others from opening a market in the city, force all sellers to pay 10-30% to you, force all product makers to comply to your dictates about what can be sold or get kicked out then it's an effective and abusive monopoly. Thankfully the EU in their wisdom has decided that Apple has abused their dominant position and we don't need to agree with your definition.
    - caramelcustard 4y ago
      Except iOS devices aren't "markets in the city". It's a good thing that you decided to pick that as an example for this comparison (even though it's a bad example) as you have (on accident, i presume) contradicted yourself in a spectacular way. See, the aformentioned market is in...well, "the city" and chances are that that market is regulated by the city council/county laws/the laws of the country the market is in. The city provides infrastructure for the market as well as customers, perhaps some advertising...you get the idea. Hm, it seems that in that relationship, while AppStore is sure a market, the city that the market belongs to is...Apple? Whoops. I hope that the wise EU is also going to decide that European car manufacturers and their infotainment systems are "abusing" their dominant position in their respective markets of manufacturer and model specific systems! Or that non-European companies should be able to provide "alternative software" to multi-billion euro manufacturing lines of European mega-manufacturers with the same disregard for any potential consequences, just to avoid any sort of "anti-consumer" behaviour. I sure hope so!!!(couldn't care less)
    - Bud 4y ago
      Except Apple hasn't prevented others from opening a market. You're aware of Android, right? It's not "my definition". It's THE definition.