4 ms·

Why would that make any difference, unless we want the government to punish success? And if ~140 million Switch consoles sold doesn’t constitute “success”, wher

Why would that make any difference, unless we want the government to punish success? And if ~140 million Switch consoles sold doesn’t constitute “success”, where is that line?

infotainment 3y ago
In order to get to a monopoly position, quite a bit of success is generally required. Given that, anti-monopoly laws are by their very nature, punishing “success”. That kind of “success” for an individual company doesn’t necessarily lead to the best outcomes for the customer.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  This category of law is broadly referred to as competition law, because that's what it's concerned with. If you had five "competitors" but they all conspire to divide up the market between them so they don't have to compete with each other, this is problematic in the same way as a monopoly. But that's exactly what the game consoles do. Alice has a PlayStation, Bob has an Xbox, Carol has a Switch. If you want to sell your game to Alice, Bob and Carol you can't just strike an agreement with one of the console makers because that only allows you to reach a third of the market. You can't play Sony and Microsoft against each other to get the lowest fees because you need both of them rather than being able to choose the one offering the best deal. The best argument for why game consoles aren't like phones is that a non-trivial number of people have multiple game consoles, whereas hardly anyone carries two phones in their pocket. But even then, there are a large number of people who only have one console -- large enough that game developers still can't ignore them -- and few people who have all of them. Likewise, there are companies other than console makers who might like to make a game store, or make one that services all types of devices. Those companies are locked out of the market, even though their presence would be likely to drive down margins. So competition law should be concerned with this, because it's limiting competition.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > there are a large number of people who only have one console Iphone or Android, yeah. Basically nobody only have a Playstation or a Nintendo.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      There are definitely people who only have one console. Consoles cost money. Some people aren't rich.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        Phones are game consoles, people who only have one game console today have a phone.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Phones are power-constrained devices with small screens. Consoles consume >100 watts under load with correspondingly higher performance and are connected to televisions. These are not the same market. They don't play the same games. Arguably gaming PCs (i.e. fast PCs with a suitable GPU) are in the same market, but this hasn't really added a competitor because Xbox and gaming PCs are both Microsoft, and most people don't have gaming PCs either.
        Jensson 3y ago
        > Consoles consume >100 watts under load with correspondingly higher performance and are connected to televisions Not handheld consoles. And you can connect phones to large screens if you want. > They don't play the same games. Genshin impact and fortninte? They could play the same kind of games, they have weaker hardware so graphics wont be there true but they are still devices people play all kinds of games on. > These are not the same market Why not? Wasn't the original argument that these things are the same and therefore should be regulated the same? How do you differentiate "gaming console" from other computers? People will only buy gaming consoles as long as they are better for gaming than phones are, since people already have smartphones. That means that game consoles always face heavy competition from phones and need to stay ahead of them to sell anything at all.
Jensson 3y ago
We want governments to prevent dominant players from cornering the market. Android has billions of active devices, the Switch is a tiny system in comparison so it isn't a dominant player. Or are you trying to say that consoles are a separate category of devices and shouldn't be compared to number of phones? Then why are you even arguing here, they are separate! So either these consoles are too tiny to be dominant players and therefore doesn't need to be regulated like dominant players, or they are a separate category and shouldn't be regulated with the same laws as phones.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > Android has billions of active devices, the Switch is a tiny system in comparison so it isn't a dominant player. But it is in console gaming. Even if you include Xbox and PS5, the Switch's market share of consoles is far higher than Apple's of smartphones. And of course, Switch absolutely dominates if we're specifically talking about the handheld game console market. So what I'm asking is: How is Apple a monopoly in a market where they don't dominate and there's lots of choice, while Nintendo is not in a market where there are 3 vendors that matter, and they completely dominate the handheld segment?
  - Jensson 3y ago
    How do you define "console gaming" that doesn't include smart phones? That was the whole point of this sub thread, arguing that consoles are just another general computing device. If you say they are different in a significant way then why would they have the same regulations?
notnullorvoid 3y ago
It's not a punishment of "success", it's a restriction on monopolistic control of everyday devices which at this point are a basic utility. Game consoles are not ubiquitous devices, and certainly aren't a basic utility of modern day living.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  If you had to classify the iPhone as either a console or a general-purpose computer, I think the answer is obvious. (For good reason: A relatively safe app store is a feature, not a bug, for average users.) Apple doesn't have monopolistic control over anything. The smartphone marketplace is full of competition, so consumers have lots of choices in every segment.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    > If you had to classify the iPhone as either a console or a general-purpose computer, I think the answer is obvious. Sure, it's obviously a computer. > Apple doesn't have monopolistic control over anything. The smartphone marketplace is full of competition, so consumers have lots of choices in every segment. How do you figure? If you want a phone, you're getting Android or iOS. In practice it is at best a duopoly.
    - notnullorvoid 3y ago
      Yup it's a duopoly when it comes to marketplaces, and there's a strong argument to be made that Apple is a monopoly on the phone market as a whole. In many countries iPhones account for 50% or more of the phone market. Where as no company making Android devices controls 50% of the phone market, at least not in the west.
Rapzid 3y ago
It's punishing success like cutting the grass or trimming the bushes is punishing success.

Why would that make any difference, unless we want the government to punish success? And if ~140 million Switch consoles sold doesn’t constitute “success”, where is that line?

infotainment 3y ago

In order to get to a monopoly position, quite a bit of success is generally required. Given that, anti-monopoly laws are by their very nature, punishing “success”. That kind of “success” for an individual company doesn’t necessarily lead to the best outcomes for the customer.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
This category of law is broadly referred to as competition law, because that's what it's concerned with. If you had five "competitors" but they all conspire to divide up the market between them so they don't have to compete with each other, this is problematic in the same way as a monopoly. But that's exactly what the game consoles do. Alice has a PlayStation, Bob has an Xbox, Carol has a Switch. If you want to sell your game to Alice, Bob and Carol you can't just strike an agreement with one of the console makers because that only allows you to reach a third of the market. You can't play Sony and Microsoft against each other to get the lowest fees because you need both of them rather than being able to choose the one offering the best deal. The best argument for why game consoles aren't like phones is that a non-trivial number of people have multiple game consoles, whereas hardly anyone carries two phones in their pocket. But even then, there are a large number of people who only have one console -- large enough that game developers still can't ignore them -- and few people who have all of them. Likewise, there are companies other than console makers who might like to make a game store, or make one that services all types of devices. Those companies are locked out of the market, even though their presence would be likely to drive down margins. So competition law should be concerned with this, because it's limiting competition.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > there are a large number of people who only have one console Iphone or Android, yeah. Basically nobody only have a Playstation or a Nintendo.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    There are definitely people who only have one console. Consoles cost money. Some people aren't rich.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      Phones are game consoles, people who only have one game console today have a phone.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Phones are power-constrained devices with small screens. Consoles consume >100 watts under load with correspondingly higher performance and are connected to televisions. These are not the same market. They don't play the same games. Arguably gaming PCs (i.e. fast PCs with a suitable GPU) are in the same market, but this hasn't really added a competitor because Xbox and gaming PCs are both Microsoft, and most people don't have gaming PCs either.
        Jensson 3y ago
        > Consoles consume >100 watts under load with correspondingly higher performance and are connected to televisions Not handheld consoles. And you can connect phones to large screens if you want. > They don't play the same games. Genshin impact and fortninte? They could play the same kind of games, they have weaker hardware so graphics wont be there true but they are still devices people play all kinds of games on. > These are not the same market Why not? Wasn't the original argument that these things are the same and therefore should be regulated the same? How do you differentiate "gaming console" from other computers? People will only buy gaming consoles as long as they are better for gaming than phones are, since people already have smartphones. That means that game consoles always face heavy competition from phones and need to stay ahead of them to sell anything at all.

Jensson 3y ago

We want governments to prevent dominant players from cornering the market. Android has billions of active devices, the Switch is a tiny system in comparison so it isn't a dominant player. Or are you trying to say that consoles are a separate category of devices and shouldn't be compared to number of phones? Then why are you even arguing here, they are separate! So either these consoles are too tiny to be dominant players and therefore doesn't need to be regulated like dominant players, or they are a separate category and shouldn't be regulated with the same laws as phones.

CharlesW 3y ago
> Android has billions of active devices, the Switch is a tiny system in comparison so it isn't a dominant player. But it is in console gaming. Even if you include Xbox and PS5, the Switch's market share of consoles is far higher than Apple's of smartphones. And of course, Switch absolutely dominates if we're specifically talking about the handheld game console market. So what I'm asking is: How is Apple a monopoly in a market where they don't dominate and there's lots of choice, while Nintendo is not in a market where there are 3 vendors that matter, and they completely dominate the handheld segment?
- Jensson 3y ago
  How do you define "console gaming" that doesn't include smart phones? That was the whole point of this sub thread, arguing that consoles are just another general computing device. If you say they are different in a significant way then why would they have the same regulations?

notnullorvoid 3y ago

It's not a punishment of "success", it's a restriction on monopolistic control of everyday devices which at this point are a basic utility. Game consoles are not ubiquitous devices, and certainly aren't a basic utility of modern day living.

CharlesW 3y ago
If you had to classify the iPhone as either a console or a general-purpose computer, I think the answer is obvious. (For good reason: A relatively safe app store is a feature, not a bug, for average users.) Apple doesn't have monopolistic control over anything. The smartphone marketplace is full of competition, so consumers have lots of choices in every segment.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > If you had to classify the iPhone as either a console or a general-purpose computer, I think the answer is obvious. Sure, it's obviously a computer. > Apple doesn't have monopolistic control over anything. The smartphone marketplace is full of competition, so consumers have lots of choices in every segment. How do you figure? If you want a phone, you're getting Android or iOS. In practice it is at best a duopoly.
  - notnullorvoid 3y ago
    Yup it's a duopoly when it comes to marketplaces, and there's a strong argument to be made that Apple is a monopoly on the phone market as a whole. In many countries iPhones account for 50% or more of the phone market. Where as no company making Android devices controls 50% of the phone market, at least not in the west.

Rapzid 3y ago

It's punishing success like cutting the grass or trimming the bushes is punishing success.