3 ms·

I don’t think it’s that curious. Epic’s argument is that the App Store is fully closed and uses that forced exclusivity to take an unfair share of things, while

I don’t think it’s that curious. Epic’s argument is that the App Store is fully closed and uses that forced exclusivity to take an unfair share of things, while also controlling things like discoverability. Epic’s platforms are 60% cheaper than Valve and Apple, allows for in app purchases that don’t leverage epic and thus give them no money, and from the sound of it is much more creator friendly than something like the ridiculous economics of Roblox (not familiar with it though)

brookst 3y ago
It’s a great business model. Let someone else take the risks and sell the hardware, then use regulators to open the complementary goods to be undercut. Assuming they eventually win against Apple, they will make a fortune when they take on the console market with the precedent.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  The ideal state is healthy competition where consumers can choose to interact with the platform they want, and platforms need to reduce their cuts of revenue to be competitive. Platforms leveraging their market position to keep shares of revenue at 30% is insane.
  - brookst 3y ago
    How is it insane? I shipped an app and made some decent money. How much did Apple / Google do for me? Well, without the app stores and hardware sales I estimate I would have made $0. There is value in building and maintaining an ecosystem. I get they nobody likes paying a middleman, but there is value there.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      It is insane because you are willfully accepting an environment where a company forbids competition against itself using its market position in a different market (hardware). It’s great that they provide this service to you. But if they had competition it would be way cheaper and better
      - brookst 3y ago
        Sure, but by that logic we should do away with patents and copyrights. As a consumer, once someone has invested the energy and money to produce something, it’s better for me if someone else can clone it and sell it cheaper. But that’s not good long term. If there’s no reward for success, there’s no incentive to risk failure.
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        This statement is stupidly unqualified. Yes, we should reward investments and inventions. No, that broad sentiment does not suffice to support Apple getting to tax all software at 30% by virtues of their hardware market control And forbidding competition against themselves.
    - jzl 3y ago
      Because the ecosystem value cuts both ways. The thriving ecosystem is what causes people to buy so many apple products in the first place, and keep coming back to them. Apple's sales benefit hugely from the app market. App makers aren't simply leaches, which is basically what your (and many others') argument amounts to.

brookst 3y ago

It’s a great business model. Let someone else take the risks and sell the hardware, then use regulators to open the complementary goods to be undercut. Assuming they eventually win against Apple, they will make a fortune when they take on the console market with the precedent.

jncfhnb 3y ago
The ideal state is healthy competition where consumers can choose to interact with the platform they want, and platforms need to reduce their cuts of revenue to be competitive. Platforms leveraging their market position to keep shares of revenue at 30% is insane.
- brookst 3y ago
  How is it insane? I shipped an app and made some decent money. How much did Apple / Google do for me? Well, without the app stores and hardware sales I estimate I would have made $0. There is value in building and maintaining an ecosystem. I get they nobody likes paying a middleman, but there is value there.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    It is insane because you are willfully accepting an environment where a company forbids competition against itself using its market position in a different market (hardware). It’s great that they provide this service to you. But if they had competition it would be way cheaper and better
    - brookst 3y ago
      Sure, but by that logic we should do away with patents and copyrights. As a consumer, once someone has invested the energy and money to produce something, it’s better for me if someone else can clone it and sell it cheaper. But that’s not good long term. If there’s no reward for success, there’s no incentive to risk failure.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        This statement is stupidly unqualified. Yes, we should reward investments and inventions. No, that broad sentiment does not suffice to support Apple getting to tax all software at 30% by virtues of their hardware market control And forbidding competition against themselves.
  - jzl 3y ago
    Because the ecosystem value cuts both ways. The thriving ecosystem is what causes people to buy so many apple products in the first place, and keep coming back to them. Apple's sales benefit hugely from the app market. App makers aren't simply leaches, which is basically what your (and many others') argument amounts to.