4 ms·

Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo subsidize the development and cost of their dedicated gaming system from the 30% cut of the store sales. It's very different on the mob

Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo subsidize the development and cost of their dedicated gaming system from the 30% cut of the store sales. It's very different on the mobile side: Apple sells iOS devices at full cost. With Android, it gets even more mucky as Samsung, the hardware vendor, gets 0% of the sales on their handset (unless the user, for some reason, uses the Samsung store), and Google gets the full 30% for only their software work. So the fact that Google gets 30% is wild.

nottorp 2y ago
> Google gets the full 30% for only their software work Not that I trust Google (my personal phones are Apple) but how do you think a phone with all software made by Samsung will work? Every time I lay my hands on one of their phones (and I have one on my desk for Android development) something annoys me. They somehow think they know how to do UI/UX but they still haven't learned after all these years of "customizing" Android. So yes, Google deserves some money. Not 30% but some.
aikinai 2y ago
So if you sell your hardware at a profit, you forfeit your right to profit off the platform post-sale? Nintendo never sells hardware at a loss either, by the way. And your Samsung comment doesn’t make sense. Samsung gets the operating system for free and then sells hardware for whatever profit they can get for it. Plus all of the post-sale platform services profit they can manage, just like Google and Apple. What is wild?
- wolpoli 2y ago
  I never meant to imply that once a company sell the hardware for profit, they forfeit the rights to profit off the platform. It's really about market power. The two dominant mobile leaders have enough market power to increase their take to 50%, for example, arguing that's how much traditional retailers take, if not for the risk of attracting government interventions. The intention is to point out that simple arguments of 'Xbox is charging 30%, so it is fine that the mobile platforms do the same thing' failed to take into account of the nuances of the situation. Isn't it weird that these platforms are all charging 30% even through all these platforms have different business models, with different cost structure and provide different values? I hadn't even talked about how Microsoft has been getting no money off sales on Steam when it is their platform, because they hadn't (yet?) lock down the platform. Finally, Nintendo did sell the Wii U at a loss. [0] [0]: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/nintendo-still-selling-wii-u-at-a-loss https://www.gamesindustry.biz/nintendo-still-selling-wii-u-a...

nottorp 2y ago

> Google gets the full 30% for only their software work Not that I trust Google (my personal phones are Apple) but how do you think a phone with all software made by Samsung will work? Every time I lay my hands on one of their phones (and I have one on my desk for Android development) something annoys me. They somehow think they know how to do UI/UX but they still haven't learned after all these years of "customizing" Android. So yes, Google deserves some money. Not 30% but some.

aikinai 2y ago

So if you sell your hardware at a profit, you forfeit your right to profit off the platform post-sale? Nintendo never sells hardware at a loss either, by the way. And your Samsung comment doesn’t make sense. Samsung gets the operating system for free and then sells hardware for whatever profit they can get for it. Plus all of the post-sale platform services profit they can manage, just like Google and Apple. What is wild?

wolpoli 2y ago
I never meant to imply that once a company sell the hardware for profit, they forfeit the rights to profit off the platform. It's really about market power. The two dominant mobile leaders have enough market power to increase their take to 50%, for example, arguing that's how much traditional retailers take, if not for the risk of attracting government interventions. The intention is to point out that simple arguments of 'Xbox is charging 30%, so it is fine that the mobile platforms do the same thing' failed to take into account of the nuances of the situation. Isn't it weird that these platforms are all charging 30% even through all these platforms have different business models, with different cost structure and provide different values? I hadn't even talked about how Microsoft has been getting no money off sales on Steam when it is their platform, because they hadn't (yet?) lock down the platform. Finally, Nintendo did sell the Wii U at a loss. [0] [0]: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/nintendo-still-selling-wii-u-at-a-loss https://www.gamesindustry.biz/nintendo-still-selling-wii-u-a...