8 ms·

The comparison Apple made in the court case was not primarily to Steam or Google, it was to the consoles. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all take a 30% cut of al

The comparison Apple made in the court case was not primarily to Steam or Google, it was to the consoles. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all take a 30% cut of all of Epic's transactions across their respective platforms. Apple argued, and persuaded the judge, that Epic's targeting of Apple specifically for it's 30% share was unreasonable given that Epic was happily paying the fee to all the other platforms: > Indeed, for example, Epic Games has agreed to such a rate on all Fortnite transactions via the Microsoft (Xbox) Store, the PlayStation Store, the Nintendo eShop, and Google Play. Epic Games has also agreed to extra payments for certain platform holders above and beyond the standard 30% commission rate. For example, for all Fortnite transactions via the PlayStation Store, Epic Games agreed to make additional payments to Sony above this commission rate based on the amount of time that PlayStation users play Fortnite cross-platform. The judge forced Apple to allow transactions to take place off of the platform, but she explicitly noted that Apple would still be entitled to a commission on said sales. Apple sees their App Store arrangement as similar to Upwork, Rover, or any number of other marketplaces, which all have policies preventing users from meeting through the system but transacting outside of it. From their perspective, if they hooked you up with the sale, then they're entitled to a commission. If you think you can do better without their sales, you're welcome to pull out of their marketplace, and if they find that you're abusing their marketplace they'll hasten you to the door. That is, as far as the judge was concerned, perfectly legal, and I'm having a hard time not seeing it as a reasonable position to take. [0] https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2 https://casetext.com/case/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-2

rpmisms 3y ago
This is a fair point, but I would note that physical distribution exists for the consoles, which necessitates an alternative marketplace — the used market.
- lolinder 3y ago
  The judge's comments were about the electronic stores of each platform. The distribution costs are only different for physically purchased games, Apple has to distribute just as many devices per customer as Nintendo does.
bitvoid 3y ago
I get the argument, but it falls flat for me. Consoles are basically appliances with a primarily singular purpose: video games. Smart phones, in my opinion, are general purpose computers that should be treated differently. Games are a small subset of what people use smart phones for.
- lolinder 3y ago
  I agree that smart phones should be general purpose computers, but that's why I use Android. iPhones are explicitly designed to not be general purpose computers, and that's part of the appeal for a lot of people.
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    The only criteria that should be a controlling factor for whether something is a "general purpose computer" or not, or rather, which amount of control end-users should have over it, is the device's raw computing power. Anything else is prone to abuse and is anti-consumer.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      If that law were old enough, it'd probably cover most modern toasters.
      - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        Good.
        thfuran 3y ago
        A toaster is obviously not a general purpose computing device. It's a device for making toast. A law regarding computing devices that treats it the same as a desktop PC probably won't handle either ideally.
    - lolinder 3y ago
tapoxi 3y ago
It's important to mention that consoles are typically sold at-cost or at a loss, so the markup is required to maintain the business model. This is not true of iPhones.
- narism 3y ago
  The most popular console of this generation, the Nintendo Switch, has always been sold at a profit.
  - tapoxi 3y ago
    About $40 per unit in profit, compared to about $600 per unit for the iPhone. I'd probably feel differently if Apple clearly had to make it's margins through software.
    - deafpolygon 3y ago
      Most premium luxury brands are sold at a higher margin because that's how they make their money- by appearing premium.
      - voltaireodactyl 3y ago
        I believe the previous poster’s point was that it is that very luxury brand margin that incentivizes Apple to protect customer data rather than sell it. The privacy is part of the luxury brand, and the luxury branding pays for the privacy.
Brian_K_White 3y ago
Poor abused broker argument is invalid while Apple prevents side loading. Yes consoles prevent side loading too, and it's exactly as wrong there too, though, I would also say there is an argument that a phone is in a different class of necessity than a game console, and could easily be argued to require different rules and consumer/society protections. A phone not only is a central and practically required part of general life today, companies like Apple and Google go further and perform many many actions to insinuate and embed and integrate and entangle their phone and their attached ecosystem into as many aspects of the users life as possible. They are not neutral, and the resulting user entrapment is not of their users own choice and creation, even though there are no guns to any heads. Apple and Google are absolutely equivalent to Phillip Morris when it comes to the users voluntarily consuming a product that is bad for them. Point of all that is, phones are not game consoles, and not only would that be true naturally just because of how one is a necessary tool for conducting life, while the other is not, the valid culpability of the phone maker is even more compounded when you factor their own actions to amplify the users dependence on them. They actively seek it and do many different things to get it and strengthen it, from advertising to policy to tech functionality. You can't do that, and still be innocent of responsibility for it's effects. The only valid thing I see is the argument that if Epic agree to the same deal from MS and Sony, meaning all the same significant factors not just the cost, then it will require some non-trivial argument to claim that Apple has harmed them.
- Andrex 3y ago
  Game consoles should be considered appliances, phones as general purpose computing devices.
  - gruez 3y ago
    Is "general purpose computing devices" a relevant factor with current legislation? Is this yet another area where people want activist judges when it suits their agenda?
    - PawgerZ 3y ago
      It is in right-to-repair legislations going on right now. "general purpose computing devices" and "gaming consoles" are two legally distinct classes of electronics.

rpmisms 3y ago

This is a fair point, but I would note that physical distribution exists for the consoles, which necessitates an alternative marketplace — the used market.

lolinder 3y ago
The judge's comments were about the electronic stores of each platform. The distribution costs are only different for physically purchased games, Apple has to distribute just as many devices per customer as Nintendo does.

bitvoid 3y ago

I get the argument, but it falls flat for me. Consoles are basically appliances with a primarily singular purpose: video games. Smart phones, in my opinion, are general purpose computers that should be treated differently. Games are a small subset of what people use smart phones for.

lolinder 3y ago
I agree that smart phones should be general purpose computers, but that's why I use Android. iPhones are explicitly designed to not be general purpose computers, and that's part of the appeal for a lot of people.
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  The only criteria that should be a controlling factor for whether something is a "general purpose computer" or not, or rather, which amount of control end-users should have over it, is the device's raw computing power. Anything else is prone to abuse and is anti-consumer.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    If that law were old enough, it'd probably cover most modern toasters.
    - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
      Good.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        A toaster is obviously not a general purpose computing device. It's a device for making toast. A law regarding computing devices that treats it the same as a desktop PC probably won't handle either ideally.
  - lolinder 3y ago

tapoxi 3y ago

It's important to mention that consoles are typically sold at-cost or at a loss, so the markup is required to maintain the business model. This is not true of iPhones.

narism 3y ago
The most popular console of this generation, the Nintendo Switch, has always been sold at a profit.
- tapoxi 3y ago
  About $40 per unit in profit, compared to about $600 per unit for the iPhone. I'd probably feel differently if Apple clearly had to make it's margins through software.
  - deafpolygon 3y ago
    Most premium luxury brands are sold at a higher margin because that's how they make their money- by appearing premium.
    - voltaireodactyl 3y ago
      I believe the previous poster’s point was that it is that very luxury brand margin that incentivizes Apple to protect customer data rather than sell it. The privacy is part of the luxury brand, and the luxury branding pays for the privacy.

Brian_K_White 3y ago

Poor abused broker argument is invalid while Apple prevents side loading. Yes consoles prevent side loading too, and it's exactly as wrong there too, though, I would also say there is an argument that a phone is in a different class of necessity than a game console, and could easily be argued to require different rules and consumer/society protections. A phone not only is a central and practically required part of general life today, companies like Apple and Google go further and perform many many actions to insinuate and embed and integrate and entangle their phone and their attached ecosystem into as many aspects of the users life as possible. They are not neutral, and the resulting user entrapment is not of their users own choice and creation, even though there are no guns to any heads. Apple and Google are absolutely equivalent to Phillip Morris when it comes to the users voluntarily consuming a product that is bad for them. Point of all that is, phones are not game consoles, and not only would that be true naturally just because of how one is a necessary tool for conducting life, while the other is not, the valid culpability of the phone maker is even more compounded when you factor their own actions to amplify the users dependence on them. They actively seek it and do many different things to get it and strengthen it, from advertising to policy to tech functionality. You can't do that, and still be innocent of responsibility for it's effects. The only valid thing I see is the argument that if Epic agree to the same deal from MS and Sony, meaning all the same significant factors not just the cost, then it will require some non-trivial argument to claim that Apple has harmed them.

Andrex 3y ago
Game consoles should be considered appliances, phones as general purpose computing devices.
- gruez 3y ago
  Is "general purpose computing devices" a relevant factor with current legislation? Is this yet another area where people want activist judges when it suits their agenda?
  - PawgerZ 3y ago
    It is in right-to-repair legislations going on right now. "general purpose computing devices" and "gaming consoles" are two legally distinct classes of electronics.