4 ms·

> I think it's harder to argue that Sony shouldn't be allowed to take a cut of game sales on the PS5 I agree, it's hard to argue that. Sony created a narrow-pu

> I think it's harder to argue that Sony shouldn't be allowed to take a cut of game sales on the PS5 I agree, it's hard to argue that. Sony created a narrow-purpose platform (gaming + media) and is taking a cut for offering 3rd party games there. It's not a general purpose computer designed to be your main communication device and your key to connect you to any type of service or appliance in your world. Sony didn't sell best-in-class TVs, then used their dominating position to demand revenue-share from broadcasters, then integrated a gaming console for the same price to crush console competitors, then created a custom plug and partnered with building companies that their plug shall be in all living rooms, then launched a watch which would only work if you also have their TVs, then started a bank and mandated that all products promoted on any TV channel must only be payable via their payment service,... ...and then when a commission started setting boundaries on its grip over the market, started complaining how the commission is preventing competition, how only Sony can ensure a secure living room and safe TV-experience, and started weaponizing its customers (with the custom sockets, watches and wallets all on Sony) against their own elected regulatory body...

tpmoney 2y ago
Apple didn't develop a "general purpose computer" either, they developed a cell phone. They entered into an established product market, with a product that was even more locked down than the current competition (remember, Palm Treos and Blackberrys?). Even "dumb" phones had apps and games (though if you think Apple's fees are ridiculous, you should look up the cost of developing a bejeweled clone for your old sony ericson, "Qalcom BREW" would be a contemporary starting point). Within this market, 3 different competitors (Palm, Microsoft and Google) also threw their hat into the ring, with far more open platforms. Palm and Microsoft eventually gave up, and Google is the majority player with the fully open platform. Yet Apple is somehow so dominant that we're crafting entirely new rules around them doing the same thing they and many other highly integrated hardware/software manufacturer has done for ages. Why?
- mthoms 2y ago
  Because like it or not, it has become a general purpose computer. For millions it’s their primary (for some: only) gateway to banking, payments, education, government services, personal relations, keeping in touch with family, navigation, healthcare and emergency services. Up next: digital ID and (possibly) online voting. Those things are all pretty important for a society, right? In a sense, they are society. Accordingly, a couple powerful entities controlling all those things ought to expect oversight from said society. It’s not hard to understand. So no, Apple is not doing “the same thing” as other device manufacturers have “done for ages”. Not even close. They are a victim of their own success in a way, but their shareholders have been rewarded handsomely. They’re hardly a victim like you’re proposing.
  - tpmoney 2y ago
    It feels to me like the problem here is the government and large institutions only providing access via a single manufacturers single platform, rather than the existence of the platform. That is to say, if education, government services, health care, emergency services, ID and voting are all only accessible via having an iPhone, the solution to that is to mandate that those things be accessible via other options too, not to mandate opening up the iPhone ecosystem. Aside from the fact that the government needs no new laws to actually make its services available on open platforms, there's also the "single point of failure" problem, and the "government services only available to people with $400+ electronic toys with expensive monthly subscription services" problem. Regulating banking vs phone app store markets might be more of a toss up, but it seems like again the "single point of failure" problem should argue much more strongly in favor of forcing banks to not limit access to iPhones, rather than forcing iPhones to change to be something the iPhone consumers don't actually want.
    - rickdeckard 2y ago
      No, the problem is that a critical mass of a market is dependant on a single operator of that market, and that operator is not providing equal access to it but considers itself the owner AND a privileged player there which everyone has to pay to compete with. The audience of iPhone users are that market. - "You have something to sell on my market? Sure, here are the fees, the rules and I take a cut of all your sales" --> "My data shows that people like what you're selling on my market, so I studied all details, decided to build it myself, provide it for less/free and compete with you. Thanks for doing the risky work of proving that potential." "Feel free to stay if you like, your continued success will continue to educate/fund my competing product. If you leave, you have to end business with all customers, as I took measures that they are ONLY able to visit MY market"
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  > Apple didn't develop a "general purpose computer" either, they developed a cell phone. Yeah, like Sony did in the analogy above. They became best-in-class in TV and then started to dictate the rules for reaching every living room with their TV in, made trillions of dollars and then used that position to take control of other industries.

tpmoney 2y ago

Apple didn't develop a "general purpose computer" either, they developed a cell phone. They entered into an established product market, with a product that was even more locked down than the current competition (remember, Palm Treos and Blackberrys?). Even "dumb" phones had apps and games (though if you think Apple's fees are ridiculous, you should look up the cost of developing a bejeweled clone for your old sony ericson, "Qalcom BREW" would be a contemporary starting point). Within this market, 3 different competitors (Palm, Microsoft and Google) also threw their hat into the ring, with far more open platforms. Palm and Microsoft eventually gave up, and Google is the majority player with the fully open platform. Yet Apple is somehow so dominant that we're crafting entirely new rules around them doing the same thing they and many other highly integrated hardware/software manufacturer has done for ages. Why?

mthoms 2y ago
Because like it or not, it has become a general purpose computer. For millions it’s their primary (for some: only) gateway to banking, payments, education, government services, personal relations, keeping in touch with family, navigation, healthcare and emergency services. Up next: digital ID and (possibly) online voting. Those things are all pretty important for a society, right? In a sense, they are society. Accordingly, a couple powerful entities controlling all those things ought to expect oversight from said society. It’s not hard to understand. So no, Apple is not doing “the same thing” as other device manufacturers have “done for ages”. Not even close. They are a victim of their own success in a way, but their shareholders have been rewarded handsomely. They’re hardly a victim like you’re proposing.
- tpmoney 2y ago
  It feels to me like the problem here is the government and large institutions only providing access via a single manufacturers single platform, rather than the existence of the platform. That is to say, if education, government services, health care, emergency services, ID and voting are all only accessible via having an iPhone, the solution to that is to mandate that those things be accessible via other options too, not to mandate opening up the iPhone ecosystem. Aside from the fact that the government needs no new laws to actually make its services available on open platforms, there's also the "single point of failure" problem, and the "government services only available to people with $400+ electronic toys with expensive monthly subscription services" problem. Regulating banking vs phone app store markets might be more of a toss up, but it seems like again the "single point of failure" problem should argue much more strongly in favor of forcing banks to not limit access to iPhones, rather than forcing iPhones to change to be something the iPhone consumers don't actually want.
  - rickdeckard 2y ago
    No, the problem is that a critical mass of a market is dependant on a single operator of that market, and that operator is not providing equal access to it but considers itself the owner AND a privileged player there which everyone has to pay to compete with. The audience of iPhone users are that market. - "You have something to sell on my market? Sure, here are the fees, the rules and I take a cut of all your sales" --> "My data shows that people like what you're selling on my market, so I studied all details, decided to build it myself, provide it for less/free and compete with you. Thanks for doing the risky work of proving that potential." "Feel free to stay if you like, your continued success will continue to educate/fund my competing product. If you leave, you have to end business with all customers, as I took measures that they are ONLY able to visit MY market"
rickdeckard 2y ago
> Apple didn't develop a "general purpose computer" either, they developed a cell phone. Yeah, like Sony did in the analogy above. They became best-in-class in TV and then started to dictate the rules for reaching every living room with their TV in, made trillions of dollars and then used that position to take control of other industries.