5 ms·

Steam also takes 30% despite all platforms it operates on being entirely open. So it doesn’t seem to be that unreasonable

justinclift 2y ago
Steam reportedly puts in a bunch of effort to earn it though. Whereas Apple's relationship seems more predatory/antagonistic (at best).
- dagmx 2y ago
  You think Steam puts in more effort than providing graphics APIs, system frameworks for everything from networking to controller handling, UI libraries, educational sessions and security critical updates? Like, one may argue that the 30% isn’t valid (and it’s 15% for the majority of devs) but to say Steam does more is absurd. I’m curious if people who hold this opinion have actually been involved in the process of releasing apps on either platform. And to be clear, I know valve does contribute to gaming on Linux but that’s single digit market share, so is definitely a far cry from the 30%.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
    I mean, Steam did release the Steam Deck, so yes it provides everything you described. I'm not sure why we are focusing on the 30%, the problem is that facebook, a very rich company, get charged 0.
    - ffgjgf1 2y ago
      Steam Deck is mostly standard Linux (although most stuff Valve does is gets merged into the kernel/free packages etc. so it’s hard to disentangle the these, but not exactly comparable to building a platform almost from scratch) > the problem is that facebook, a very rich company, get charged 0. Just like every other company using the same business model (i.e. ads instead of IAP)?
      - justinclift 2y ago
        > building a platform almost from scratch) Are you meaning iOS there? Of so, please remember they pulled significant amounts of code from Open Source Software in order to lighten their development load. :)
        dagmx 2y ago
        But they also contribute significantly to that same open source so how do you balance that out? Again, I’m not saying they’re above criticism but I am saying this feels like a very one sided presentation of facts.
        justinclift 2y ago
        > ... how do you balance that out? Not sure what you're asking? "Significantly" doesn't seem to be correct. At least, not for the (GPL licensed?) stuff that's been stuck on ancient versions for many years. Though they have (from my rough memory) made some contributions back to FreeBSD where it seemed to make sense. All that aside, the point is that they didn't build their platform "almost from scratch". They assembled a lot of pre-existing pieces (many OSS), then built on top of that. It's a common way of doing things.
        dagmx 2y ago
        What I’m suggesting more than asking is, when you say that open source has lifted their development burden, it makes it sound like it’s a unidirectional taking. And sure, some might be freeloading. But they also do contribute quite a bit to open source. https://opensource.apple.com/ https://opensource.apple.com/ I know your response was more to correct the “developed from scratch” but I still think it’s important to note that it’s not unidirectional. Even in the development of their own platforms, you can find old Usenet discussions of how they were feeding things back. I think they could have gone their own route but Unix compatibility was important. The history of Next, Apple, and the open source community is very intertwined and unfortunately cannot be reduced so easily.
    - dagmx 2y ago
      Literally the last section of my comment addressed that. It’s a single digit market share. How does that play into windows/mac sales then? And what about the decade+ of sales before the SteamDeck? And in that case, no, Valve didn’t provide all of that. They provided some of it, but AMD did the graphics driver, arch did the OS. Valve still offer less for the 30%. I’m not trying to diminish the effort they put in, but just pointing out the totality of what each store offers behind it is very different. To your last point, that’s not really relevant to my point. I’m just pushing back on the other person about whether Apple or valve offer more for the 30%. You’re interjecting a completely different argument.
  - actualwitch 2y ago
    > valve does contribute to gaming on Linux They only do it because they are painfully aware their rent-seeking behavior is entirely at whims of ms/apple and they want to have some moat.
    - ffgjgf1 2y ago
      What do you mean by “only”? You can really expect companies to behave irrationally. Pretty much every company funding Linux development do it because they expect this to benefit them somehow.
      - actualwitch 2y ago
        "I think Windows 8 is a catastrophe for everyone in the PC space. I think we’ll lose some of the top-tier PC/OEMs, who will exit the market. I think margins will be destroyed for a bunch of people. If that’s true, then it will be good to have alternatives to hedge against that eventuality." - Gabe Newell https://www.neowin.net/news/valve-co-founder-windows-8-is-a-catastrophe/ https://www.neowin.net/news/valve-co-founder-windows-8-is-a-... Take a wild guess when they started pushing steam on linux, and which version of windows introduced a store.
        dagmx 2y ago
        Yeah, the existence of SteamOS, Steam Machines and eventually Proton were a hedge against Microsoft’s perceived shift into locked down distribution . I think a lot of folk have a hard time reconciling that there may have been non-altruistic intentions behind something that is enjoyed today. Similarly, Steam itself was a hedge against physical distribution to cut out the middleman. It wasn’t originally envisioned as a store for anyone but Valve. But here we are today, and both have positive side effects that actually have outlived the original design.
  - sitkack 2y ago
    Those APIs are paid for by the owner of the phone. Charging developers (and the consumer) 30% to allow someone to distribute an app is utterly ridiculous. Framing it like Apple built these things and you are only paying 30% is in deep sycophant territory.
    - dagmx 2y ago
      1. You assume they’re paid for by the owner of the phone. That’s not necessarily reflective of a companies income stream. Microsoft also charge for commercial access to their SDKs for example, and every company has different business models. 2. Then what does steam offer for 30% that isn’t just distribution? The majority of steam games do not use Valves tooling for matchmaking or their engine. 3. Can you go without name calling? Or are you that childish that it’s the only way you can feel like you have the upper hand in a conversation? 4. I’m not defending a 30% cut and already mentioned that. I’m saying that saying steam offers more for the 30% is absurd.
      - justinclift 2y ago
        > Or are you that childish :( > Microsoft also charge for commercial access to their SDKs ... Is that a new thing, or just for specific products? Asking because I've previously used some of their Azure SDK stuff before and that didn't seem to have a charge for SDK access.
        dagmx 2y ago
        Microsoft have charged for non-individual use for longer than they’ve had the free version. I should have perhaps used commercial non-individual use rather than just commercial. https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/d/visual-studio-enterprise-subscription/dg7gmgf0dst4 https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/d/visual-studio-enterprise-s... Meanwhile Xcode is free and has been since the Project Builder days on Next. I’m not personally saying one is better value or not. Just that the companies have put different values on different parts of their developer flow for many decades now, and one can’t simply say that the money comes from a single source.
  - ffgjgf1 2y ago
    > You think Steam puts in more effort than providing graphics APIs, system frameworks for everything from networking to controller handling, UI libraries, educational sessions and security critical updates? Sure. But this has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. They charge 30% because they can and because developers have no other options. Anyway consumers paying for HW/OS are the ones that are funding the development of those tools/apis etc. Apple, MS, etc. provided all of that stuff for free (or a nominal fee) for decades because they always needed software developers more than the other way around. Any platform without third party apps would be mostly worthless. Apple is in an interesting spot because when they released the app store initially 30% was a very good deal compared to how much it cost to publish apps on other phones.
    - dagmx 2y ago
      Without an insight into how a company pays for its RnD internally, one cannot conclusively say that the consumers are the ones who pay for the HW/OS. I’ll also reiterate that the majority of devs pay 15% now on the App Store. Not 30%. And then this gets into every other market choice as well if we’re saying all the stuff is paid for up front by the consumer. What does Steam offer for its 30%? The majority of games on steam don’t use any steam services unlike apps on the AppStore. Valve doesn’t do educational sessions for developers or provide support for system issues. So is Steam not a terrible deal at double the cost? But then we get to consoles, where the consumer not only pays for the device but also pays a subscription for online play. If we say that Sony/Microsoft are funded up front by the consumer and then recurring for online fees, then what the value to developers for the 30% (in addition to devkit costs)? I’m not defending apples cut here. That’s a subjective argument that goes nowhere, but I am saying: if we say Apple’s cut is unfair, why are we okay with the others that are arguably more? And why do people defend the other marketplaces ?
      - ffgjgf1 2y ago
        > I’ll also reiterate that the majority of devs pay 15% now on the App Store. Not 30%. Probably not relative to total revenue. But it doesn’t really change much. To be fair I don’t have a problem at all with 15% or even 30% but with the fact that Apple is running a lite extortion racket by not allowing any competition. > how a company pays for its RnD internally, one cannot conclusively say that the consumers are the ones who pay for the HW/OS I don’t think the exact nuances of internal accounting (even if they do it this way instead of just putting all revenue into a single “pot”) really changes anything. It’s pretty clear (based on all evidence from the last 30+ years) that platforms can generate significantly higher revenue by maximizing the amount of third party software and by giving away development tools/etc. for free or significantly below cost than by trying to extract as much money as feasible possible from 3rd part developers (and it wasn’t a huge concern anyway since all major desktop platforms have always been mostly open) > why are we okay with the others that are arguably more? And why do people defend the other marketplaces ? IMHO mainly because Apple has a very large market share and is effectively a monopoly in certain ways. If you want to develop a mobile app/game you can’t not make it available on iOS. It’s just not an option. This gives Apple a huge amount of pricing power and effectively allows them to exploit developers and consumers by generating a surplus they don’t have to work for. It a scale of course but no other company is quite in the same position. Steam can lose most of their customers if they stop providing value. Even Google is in a much weaker position (consequently they don’t have such strict controls on iAPs) since phone makers can (and have) make their own app stores, side loading etc. I think consoles are closers but they are purely an entertainment product with a lot of alternatives and substitutes. Overall I personally believe consumer surplus should most dwarf everything else to an extent. Therefore I don’t see any reason why can’t we apply “arbitrary” rules/standards to corporations based on their size and influence on the market.
- vasco 2y ago
  Effort has nothing to do with it. There's two things that matter, supply and demand.
surgical_fire 2y ago
There is competition in that space though. A PC game developer can self distribute, can use alternative storefronts (e.g.: GoG, Epic), etc.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  Exactly, but paying 30% stills seems like a very good deal for most developers.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    As shown in Roblox case, it obviously is not. Especially as Apple also wants to take a cut from in-app sales.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ffgjgf1 2y ago
      Well it is for most developers on Steam. Small/medium developers of course benefit much more from the increased reach/discoverability and PC games have a very different business model than mobile ones of course. But even for iAP, yes 30% is very step but as a consumer I’m significantly more likely to spend money on an app published by a non-major company if I can use Apple as an intermediary (refunds, subscription management, no cc hassle etc.) I don’t think I’m unique in that way so there is some values we’ll just never know what % it’s actually worth until Apple stop restricting third part stores. Large companies with a “sticky” user-base of course gain absolutely nothing from it. Not that I’m trying to defend Apple, on the whole they hardly offer anything useful in return for the 30% to the developers at least because they don’t need to. The App Store as an app/platform is a complete pile of worthless garbage compared to Steam..
      - 2y ago

justinclift 2y ago

Steam reportedly puts in a bunch of effort to earn it though. Whereas Apple's relationship seems more predatory/antagonistic (at best).

dagmx 2y ago
You think Steam puts in more effort than providing graphics APIs, system frameworks for everything from networking to controller handling, UI libraries, educational sessions and security critical updates? Like, one may argue that the 30% isn’t valid (and it’s 15% for the majority of devs) but to say Steam does more is absurd. I’m curious if people who hold this opinion have actually been involved in the process of releasing apps on either platform. And to be clear, I know valve does contribute to gaming on Linux but that’s single digit market share, so is definitely a far cry from the 30%.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
  I mean, Steam did release the Steam Deck, so yes it provides everything you described. I'm not sure why we are focusing on the 30%, the problem is that facebook, a very rich company, get charged 0.
  - ffgjgf1 2y ago
    Steam Deck is mostly standard Linux (although most stuff Valve does is gets merged into the kernel/free packages etc. so it’s hard to disentangle the these, but not exactly comparable to building a platform almost from scratch) > the problem is that facebook, a very rich company, get charged 0. Just like every other company using the same business model (i.e. ads instead of IAP)?
    - justinclift 2y ago
      > building a platform almost from scratch) Are you meaning iOS there? Of so, please remember they pulled significant amounts of code from Open Source Software in order to lighten their development load. :)
      - dagmx 2y ago
        But they also contribute significantly to that same open source so how do you balance that out? Again, I’m not saying they’re above criticism but I am saying this feels like a very one sided presentation of facts.
        justinclift 2y ago
        > ... how do you balance that out? Not sure what you're asking? "Significantly" doesn't seem to be correct. At least, not for the (GPL licensed?) stuff that's been stuck on ancient versions for many years. Though they have (from my rough memory) made some contributions back to FreeBSD where it seemed to make sense. All that aside, the point is that they didn't build their platform "almost from scratch". They assembled a lot of pre-existing pieces (many OSS), then built on top of that. It's a common way of doing things.
        dagmx 2y ago
        What I’m suggesting more than asking is, when you say that open source has lifted their development burden, it makes it sound like it’s a unidirectional taking. And sure, some might be freeloading. But they also do contribute quite a bit to open source. https://opensource.apple.com/ https://opensource.apple.com/ I know your response was more to correct the “developed from scratch” but I still think it’s important to note that it’s not unidirectional. Even in the development of their own platforms, you can find old Usenet discussions of how they were feeding things back. I think they could have gone their own route but Unix compatibility was important. The history of Next, Apple, and the open source community is very intertwined and unfortunately cannot be reduced so easily.
  - dagmx 2y ago
    Literally the last section of my comment addressed that. It’s a single digit market share. How does that play into windows/mac sales then? And what about the decade+ of sales before the SteamDeck? And in that case, no, Valve didn’t provide all of that. They provided some of it, but AMD did the graphics driver, arch did the OS. Valve still offer less for the 30%. I’m not trying to diminish the effort they put in, but just pointing out the totality of what each store offers behind it is very different. To your last point, that’s not really relevant to my point. I’m just pushing back on the other person about whether Apple or valve offer more for the 30%. You’re interjecting a completely different argument.
- actualwitch 2y ago
  > valve does contribute to gaming on Linux They only do it because they are painfully aware their rent-seeking behavior is entirely at whims of ms/apple and they want to have some moat.
  - ffgjgf1 2y ago
    What do you mean by “only”? You can really expect companies to behave irrationally. Pretty much every company funding Linux development do it because they expect this to benefit them somehow.
    - actualwitch 2y ago
      "I think Windows 8 is a catastrophe for everyone in the PC space. I think we’ll lose some of the top-tier PC/OEMs, who will exit the market. I think margins will be destroyed for a bunch of people. If that’s true, then it will be good to have alternatives to hedge against that eventuality." - Gabe Newell https://www.neowin.net/news/valve-co-founder-windows-8-is-a-catastrophe/ https://www.neowin.net/news/valve-co-founder-windows-8-is-a-... Take a wild guess when they started pushing steam on linux, and which version of windows introduced a store.
      - dagmx 2y ago
        Yeah, the existence of SteamOS, Steam Machines and eventually Proton were a hedge against Microsoft’s perceived shift into locked down distribution . I think a lot of folk have a hard time reconciling that there may have been non-altruistic intentions behind something that is enjoyed today. Similarly, Steam itself was a hedge against physical distribution to cut out the middleman. It wasn’t originally envisioned as a store for anyone but Valve. But here we are today, and both have positive side effects that actually have outlived the original design.
- sitkack 2y ago
  Those APIs are paid for by the owner of the phone. Charging developers (and the consumer) 30% to allow someone to distribute an app is utterly ridiculous. Framing it like Apple built these things and you are only paying 30% is in deep sycophant territory.
  - dagmx 2y ago
    1. You assume they’re paid for by the owner of the phone. That’s not necessarily reflective of a companies income stream. Microsoft also charge for commercial access to their SDKs for example, and every company has different business models. 2. Then what does steam offer for 30% that isn’t just distribution? The majority of steam games do not use Valves tooling for matchmaking or their engine. 3. Can you go without name calling? Or are you that childish that it’s the only way you can feel like you have the upper hand in a conversation? 4. I’m not defending a 30% cut and already mentioned that. I’m saying that saying steam offers more for the 30% is absurd.
    - justinclift 2y ago
      > Or are you that childish :( > Microsoft also charge for commercial access to their SDKs ... Is that a new thing, or just for specific products? Asking because I've previously used some of their Azure SDK stuff before and that didn't seem to have a charge for SDK access.
      - dagmx 2y ago
        Microsoft have charged for non-individual use for longer than they’ve had the free version. I should have perhaps used commercial non-individual use rather than just commercial. https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/d/visual-studio-enterprise-subscription/dg7gmgf0dst4 https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/d/visual-studio-enterprise-s... Meanwhile Xcode is free and has been since the Project Builder days on Next. I’m not personally saying one is better value or not. Just that the companies have put different values on different parts of their developer flow for many decades now, and one can’t simply say that the money comes from a single source.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  > You think Steam puts in more effort than providing graphics APIs, system frameworks for everything from networking to controller handling, UI libraries, educational sessions and security critical updates? Sure. But this has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. They charge 30% because they can and because developers have no other options. Anyway consumers paying for HW/OS are the ones that are funding the development of those tools/apis etc. Apple, MS, etc. provided all of that stuff for free (or a nominal fee) for decades because they always needed software developers more than the other way around. Any platform without third party apps would be mostly worthless. Apple is in an interesting spot because when they released the app store initially 30% was a very good deal compared to how much it cost to publish apps on other phones.
  - dagmx 2y ago
    Without an insight into how a company pays for its RnD internally, one cannot conclusively say that the consumers are the ones who pay for the HW/OS. I’ll also reiterate that the majority of devs pay 15% now on the App Store. Not 30%. And then this gets into every other market choice as well if we’re saying all the stuff is paid for up front by the consumer. What does Steam offer for its 30%? The majority of games on steam don’t use any steam services unlike apps on the AppStore. Valve doesn’t do educational sessions for developers or provide support for system issues. So is Steam not a terrible deal at double the cost? But then we get to consoles, where the consumer not only pays for the device but also pays a subscription for online play. If we say that Sony/Microsoft are funded up front by the consumer and then recurring for online fees, then what the value to developers for the 30% (in addition to devkit costs)? I’m not defending apples cut here. That’s a subjective argument that goes nowhere, but I am saying: if we say Apple’s cut is unfair, why are we okay with the others that are arguably more? And why do people defend the other marketplaces ?
    - ffgjgf1 2y ago
      > I’ll also reiterate that the majority of devs pay 15% now on the App Store. Not 30%. Probably not relative to total revenue. But it doesn’t really change much. To be fair I don’t have a problem at all with 15% or even 30% but with the fact that Apple is running a lite extortion racket by not allowing any competition. > how a company pays for its RnD internally, one cannot conclusively say that the consumers are the ones who pay for the HW/OS I don’t think the exact nuances of internal accounting (even if they do it this way instead of just putting all revenue into a single “pot”) really changes anything. It’s pretty clear (based on all evidence from the last 30+ years) that platforms can generate significantly higher revenue by maximizing the amount of third party software and by giving away development tools/etc. for free or significantly below cost than by trying to extract as much money as feasible possible from 3rd part developers (and it wasn’t a huge concern anyway since all major desktop platforms have always been mostly open) > why are we okay with the others that are arguably more? And why do people defend the other marketplaces ? IMHO mainly because Apple has a very large market share and is effectively a monopoly in certain ways. If you want to develop a mobile app/game you can’t not make it available on iOS. It’s just not an option. This gives Apple a huge amount of pricing power and effectively allows them to exploit developers and consumers by generating a surplus they don’t have to work for. It a scale of course but no other company is quite in the same position. Steam can lose most of their customers if they stop providing value. Even Google is in a much weaker position (consequently they don’t have such strict controls on iAPs) since phone makers can (and have) make their own app stores, side loading etc. I think consoles are closers but they are purely an entertainment product with a lot of alternatives and substitutes. Overall I personally believe consumer surplus should most dwarf everything else to an extent. Therefore I don’t see any reason why can’t we apply “arbitrary” rules/standards to corporations based on their size and influence on the market.
vasco 2y ago
Effort has nothing to do with it. There's two things that matter, supply and demand.

surgical_fire 2y ago

There is competition in that space though. A PC game developer can self distribute, can use alternative storefronts (e.g.: GoG, Epic), etc.

ffgjgf1 2y ago
Exactly, but paying 30% stills seems like a very good deal for most developers.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  As shown in Roblox case, it obviously is not. Especially as Apple also wants to take a cut from in-app sales.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ffgjgf1 2y ago
    Well it is for most developers on Steam. Small/medium developers of course benefit much more from the increased reach/discoverability and PC games have a very different business model than mobile ones of course. But even for iAP, yes 30% is very step but as a consumer I’m significantly more likely to spend money on an app published by a non-major company if I can use Apple as an intermediary (refunds, subscription management, no cc hassle etc.) I don’t think I’m unique in that way so there is some values we’ll just never know what % it’s actually worth until Apple stop restricting third part stores. Large companies with a “sticky” user-base of course gain absolutely nothing from it. Not that I’m trying to defend Apple, on the whole they hardly offer anything useful in return for the 30% to the developers at least because they don’t need to. The App Store as an app/platform is a complete pile of worthless garbage compared to Steam..
    - 2y ago