6 ms·

I can see wanting Apple to lose, but I can't imagine wanting Epic to win. That was such an ugly parasitic business model: let others take the risks to build pla

I can see wanting Apple to lose, but I can't imagine wanting Epic to win. That was such an ugly parasitic business model: let others take the risks to build platforms, let others operate the platforms, get the courts to mandate equal treatment for Epic to swoop in after the risks pay off. I'd have to sympathy for the phone platforms, but it would have destroyed the console market overnight. No way consoles work if every penny of customer lifetime value has to be in the up-front sale price.

stavros 4y ago
What if consoles make money from games without turning games into rent-to-play with no resale value? Platforms are hostile to the consumer and can't die quickly enough for me, that's why I wanted Epic to win.
- pb7 4y ago
  You are complaining about companies mistreating consumers and you wanted Epic to win? They're as shitty as they come. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-million-ftc-settlement-alleges-fortnite-owner-epic-games-used-digital-dark-patterns-charge https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-milli... Apple has provided the world 1000x more value than Epic ever will. Justice prevailed.
  - waboremo 4y ago
    Apple has made billions (upwards of $300m in pure profit) from Fortnite. If you care about Epic's shitty qualities in that aspect (the case you're linking), surely you also care about Apple profiting off that exploitation as well?
    - pb7 4y ago
      Have you read the details of the judgment? Most of the dark patterns Epic used aren't possible on iOS. In fact, the reason they hate Apple's walled garden so much is because they add too much friction to the dark patterns they want to use, notably authentication for subsequent in-app purchases, so I don't know what exploitation profiting you're referring to. Apple protects consumers from shitty companies like Epic abusing consumers (in this case, children) and for that I thank them.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        You can offer safe payment authorization APIs that protect families without also forcing developers to pay you 27% on every microtransaction. One might even call that good OS design, rather than a subtly hostile pattern of funneling users through a contractually-obligated money siphon they have no control over.
        pb7 4y ago
        Doesn't hurt consumers, doesn't matter to government. Simple as. Apple is allowed to make money off the platform they built. Developers knew the terms before they started developing for it - the terms haven't changed since their inception and match other similar platforms - but each one knows they get more value out of Apple than vice versa. I have no sympathy for them anymore after I have been deleting more and more apps because of dark patterns. Nearly all of my phone use is on either stock apps or apps that are completely unaffected by App Store commissions like Uber, DoorDash, etc so I know who provides me the greater value and it's not companies like Epic.
        thfuran 4y ago
        Alrighty then, kindly send me money amounting to 25% of your annual expenses. I'm told such fees are harmless.
        pb7 4y ago
        What have you done for me? I already send much more than 25% of my annual expenses for the privilege of using the US's platform. I don't even use most of the features but I can't seem to opt out of paying this commission. What gives?
        _piif 4y ago
        Opting out would mean you would be barred from making use of any public roads. Or having 24/7 access to emergency services. I don't see how either being subject to that or the enforcement of it would be feasible in any measure.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    You're not supposed to cheer on companies by picking favorites like with sports team. Epic is on the right side of that particular issue.
    - pb7 4y ago
      No, they're not, and I just showed you why. Epic is a scummy company that employs dark patterns to extract as much money as possible from easily manipulated consumers and Apple kneecaps those strategies on iOS by having control. If Epic got their way, this is what you would have to deal with on iOS too.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        Apple allows many bad billing practices as long as they get a 30% cut. Not as many, but many. If Apple wanted to, they could block bad practices and either allow external processors or charge a pure payment processing fee. Their current actions seem to be more concerned about the fees than the customers.
      - stavros 4y ago
        Again, it doesn't matter if Epic is scummy. In the issue they were litigating for, I want them to win, because I want app stores to not be a monopoly on platforms. That's it. I don't care what else Epic does, I'm not going to say "oh if an evil person agrees with me, that means I must change my opinion".
        pb7 4y ago
        You still don’t get it. There are thousands like Epic. They’ve shown (the FTC’s opinion, not just mine) that they will stoop low to make an extra buck and the only thing stopping them on iOS are Apple’s rules. You wanting app stores to not be monopolies means billions of people will be directly subject to unethical companies like Epic. As a consumer, I say fuck that.
        stavros 4y ago
jdiff 4y ago
It's been working out fine for the Steam Deck. Sure, you can install Windows and/or any other storefront, but you won't have the console-like experience that Valve's own software provides. It's trivially easy to install pirated games on the Deck, without any cracking or modification of the system. You never have to make a single Steam purchase after buying the Deck, but Valve's betting that you will. And they're right, that's enough. Most people don't go redoing or even tweaking the software stack on their hardware, they just stick with what comes out of the box.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  The steam deck is a way different value proposition compared to consoles though, console manufacturers take a loss for initial consoles sold until they can bring costs. Whereas the steam deck has likely been sold as a profit from day one.
  - 8note 4y ago
    This is why the steam deck is a good example? The console doesn't have to be sold at a loss in order to sell games. It would be better overall for competition for the games to be decoupled from the console. Same as with phone apps
    - brookst 4y ago
      You’ve made a fair point and that’s a reasonable opinion, but do you think it should be outright illegal for console makers to use a business model of consoles at cost, profits made on a share of game sales? Because that was Epic’s end game.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        They can make them at-cost and then charge whatever they want on their store. They just also have to allow me to choose different stores, or install another OS on my console if the OEM goes against my wishes. If you don't think I deserve that right as the lawful proprietor of said hardware, then we may be at an impasse. It seems like perfectly fair game to me.

stavros 4y ago

What if consoles make money from games without turning games into rent-to-play with no resale value? Platforms are hostile to the consumer and can't die quickly enough for me, that's why I wanted Epic to win.

pb7 4y ago
You are complaining about companies mistreating consumers and you wanted Epic to win? They're as shitty as they come. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-million-ftc-settlement-alleges-fortnite-owner-epic-games-used-digital-dark-patterns-charge https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-milli... Apple has provided the world 1000x more value than Epic ever will. Justice prevailed.
- waboremo 4y ago
  Apple has made billions (upwards of $300m in pure profit) from Fortnite. If you care about Epic's shitty qualities in that aspect (the case you're linking), surely you also care about Apple profiting off that exploitation as well?
  - pb7 4y ago
    Have you read the details of the judgment? Most of the dark patterns Epic used aren't possible on iOS. In fact, the reason they hate Apple's walled garden so much is because they add too much friction to the dark patterns they want to use, notably authentication for subsequent in-app purchases, so I don't know what exploitation profiting you're referring to. Apple protects consumers from shitty companies like Epic abusing consumers (in this case, children) and for that I thank them.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      You can offer safe payment authorization APIs that protect families without also forcing developers to pay you 27% on every microtransaction. One might even call that good OS design, rather than a subtly hostile pattern of funneling users through a contractually-obligated money siphon they have no control over.
      - pb7 4y ago
        Doesn't hurt consumers, doesn't matter to government. Simple as. Apple is allowed to make money off the platform they built. Developers knew the terms before they started developing for it - the terms haven't changed since their inception and match other similar platforms - but each one knows they get more value out of Apple than vice versa. I have no sympathy for them anymore after I have been deleting more and more apps because of dark patterns. Nearly all of my phone use is on either stock apps or apps that are completely unaffected by App Store commissions like Uber, DoorDash, etc so I know who provides me the greater value and it's not companies like Epic.
        thfuran 4y ago
        Alrighty then, kindly send me money amounting to 25% of your annual expenses. I'm told such fees are harmless.
        pb7 4y ago
        What have you done for me? I already send much more than 25% of my annual expenses for the privilege of using the US's platform. I don't even use most of the features but I can't seem to opt out of paying this commission. What gives?
        _piif 4y ago
        Opting out would mean you would be barred from making use of any public roads. Or having 24/7 access to emergency services. I don't see how either being subject to that or the enforcement of it would be feasible in any measure.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  You're not supposed to cheer on companies by picking favorites like with sports team. Epic is on the right side of that particular issue.
  - pb7 4y ago
    No, they're not, and I just showed you why. Epic is a scummy company that employs dark patterns to extract as much money as possible from easily manipulated consumers and Apple kneecaps those strategies on iOS by having control. If Epic got their way, this is what you would have to deal with on iOS too.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      Apple allows many bad billing practices as long as they get a 30% cut. Not as many, but many. If Apple wanted to, they could block bad practices and either allow external processors or charge a pure payment processing fee. Their current actions seem to be more concerned about the fees than the customers.
    - stavros 4y ago
      Again, it doesn't matter if Epic is scummy. In the issue they were litigating for, I want them to win, because I want app stores to not be a monopoly on platforms. That's it. I don't care what else Epic does, I'm not going to say "oh if an evil person agrees with me, that means I must change my opinion".
      - pb7 4y ago
        You still don’t get it. There are thousands like Epic. They’ve shown (the FTC’s opinion, not just mine) that they will stoop low to make an extra buck and the only thing stopping them on iOS are Apple’s rules. You wanting app stores to not be monopolies means billions of people will be directly subject to unethical companies like Epic. As a consumer, I say fuck that.
        stavros 4y ago

jdiff 4y ago

It's been working out fine for the Steam Deck. Sure, you can install Windows and/or any other storefront, but you won't have the console-like experience that Valve's own software provides. It's trivially easy to install pirated games on the Deck, without any cracking or modification of the system. You never have to make a single Steam purchase after buying the Deck, but Valve's betting that you will. And they're right, that's enough. Most people don't go redoing or even tweaking the software stack on their hardware, they just stick with what comes out of the box.

_kbh_ 4y ago
The steam deck is a way different value proposition compared to consoles though, console manufacturers take a loss for initial consoles sold until they can bring costs. Whereas the steam deck has likely been sold as a profit from day one.
- 8note 4y ago
  This is why the steam deck is a good example? The console doesn't have to be sold at a loss in order to sell games. It would be better overall for competition for the games to be decoupled from the console. Same as with phone apps
  - brookst 4y ago
    You’ve made a fair point and that’s a reasonable opinion, but do you think it should be outright illegal for console makers to use a business model of consoles at cost, profits made on a share of game sales? Because that was Epic’s end game.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      They can make them at-cost and then charge whatever they want on their store. They just also have to allow me to choose different stores, or install another OS on my console if the OEM goes against my wishes. If you don't think I deserve that right as the lawful proprietor of said hardware, then we may be at an impasse. It seems like perfectly fair game to me.