4 ms·

This is a confusing take. The iOS ecosystem has a much stronger claim to "might as well be a games console" specifically because it was so vertically integrate

This is a confusing take. The iOS ecosystem has a much stronger claim to "might as well be a games console" specifically because it was so vertically integrated, which is why their business model looked essentially identical to one from the launch of the App Store. Yet the market evolved and it's clear that "might as well be a game console" is no longer an adequate defense for these leading smartphone platform owners. While there are differences between Google/Android/PlayStore and Apple/iOS/AppStore when it comes to platform control and accessibility, and therefore a case to be made that they could be treated differently, this difference seems to point in the entirely opposite direction what you seem to be arguing.

gumby 2y ago
> Yet the market evolved and it's clear that "might as well be a game console" is no longer an adequate defense for these leading smartphone platform owners. Could you explain why this is the case (what evolution makes it different from the game console case)? My understanding is that the percentage take is about the same in consoles and phones.
- swatcoder 2y ago
  In a practical sense, the difference is one being asserted by influential regulatory bodies and courts. You might cheer them on or roll your eyes at them, but their influence makes it so regardless. As for their justification, I think it's rooted in the scale and scope of these devices. Over the last 15 years, smartphones and tablets have shaped the world, ended up in almost every pocket, and become a prerequisite for access to increasingly many parts of one's life and career. Game consoles, in comparison, remain a luxury with far smaller relevance to what governments are tasked to take interest in.
sublinear 2y ago
> they could be treated differently Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Epic should take this case up with all the phone manufacturers that would rather just put the Play Store on their phones. If Epic didn't want their games to be locked into the Play Store that's on them. Most apps allow the user to login and access their data from any alternative platform. Google doesn't prevent this. Why can't they just update their games to allow this? They're correct that users should be free to play their games from anywhere. So... how is Google preventing them from implementing this? Their failure to compete is nobody else's fault. I'm still just not getting what Epic is complaining about.
- ffsm8 2y ago
  Google made backroom deals, which made the OEM approach non viable, unless you expected them to also become an OEM. But if they did, Google wouldn't have allowed the play store on their device, which would've ended with the MS phone situation all over again. The backroom deal is the issue with this case

gumby 2y ago

> Yet the market evolved and it's clear that "might as well be a game console" is no longer an adequate defense for these leading smartphone platform owners. Could you explain why this is the case (what evolution makes it different from the game console case)? My understanding is that the percentage take is about the same in consoles and phones.

swatcoder 2y ago
In a practical sense, the difference is one being asserted by influential regulatory bodies and courts. You might cheer them on or roll your eyes at them, but their influence makes it so regardless. As for their justification, I think it's rooted in the scale and scope of these devices. Over the last 15 years, smartphones and tablets have shaped the world, ended up in almost every pocket, and become a prerequisite for access to increasingly many parts of one's life and career. Game consoles, in comparison, remain a luxury with far smaller relevance to what governments are tasked to take interest in.

sublinear 2y ago

> they could be treated differently Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. Epic should take this case up with all the phone manufacturers that would rather just put the Play Store on their phones. If Epic didn't want their games to be locked into the Play Store that's on them. Most apps allow the user to login and access their data from any alternative platform. Google doesn't prevent this. Why can't they just update their games to allow this? They're correct that users should be free to play their games from anywhere. So... how is Google preventing them from implementing this? Their failure to compete is nobody else's fault. I'm still just not getting what Epic is complaining about.

ffsm8 2y ago
Google made backroom deals, which made the OEM approach non viable, unless you expected them to also become an OEM. But if they did, Google wouldn't have allowed the play store on their device, which would've ended with the MS phone situation all over again. The backroom deal is the issue with this case