5 ms·
> For one thing, the degree of monopolization simply doesn’t exist. Gaming is a market. There are many gaming platforms that are extremely popular. Xbox, PS, Ni
by hnlmorg 11mo ago
> For one thing, the degree of monopolization simply doesn’t exist. Gaming is a market. There are many gaming platforms that are extremely popular. Xbox, PS, Nintendo, Steam, and then just open
Except there isn’t multiple stores on Xbox or PlayStation or Switch. Which is directly comparable to the iOS lock ins that Epic was fighting against.
> But more importantly, gaming isn’t an essential part of life, which is basically what smartphones, dominated entirely by iOS/Android, have become at this point.
True but also irrelevant. Monopoly laws don’t make those distinctions.
> And finally, maybe this is just me, but I think the idea that general purpose computing is the same as playing video games just strikes me as wrong.
Again, monopoly laws don’t make any distinction here. However to answer your direct point, some consoles are marketed as more general purpose devices for taxation reasons. All consoles support YouTube, most have other streaming services from Netflix to Spotify. They all come with a fully capable web browser. Even their hardware has been generic for the last few generations of consoles. So they are general purpose devices in all metrics aside from the variety of apps available. And you could argue the reason for this is literally because of their “App Store” lock ins. So your argument here is evidence against the point you’re trying to make.
> General purpose computing, which is what phones are, are basic infrastructure for modern life.
That’s not the definition of a “general purpose computing device” and I reject the idea that iOS and Android are equivalent to water, roads and electricity.
I do agree that smartphones are a MASSIVELY useful asset, but you don’t actually need a smartphone for modern life. Plenty of older people still manage just fine without iOS nor Android. They’ll use a laptop or PC to access the same services via a web browser.
Furthermore, the companies who are fighting iOS lock ins are not critical services. Epic, for example, is a gaming company. They don’t provide health or banking services. You can’t do your taxes in Fortnight. You don’t book your car in for a service via an app built in Unreal Engine. Epic build games not essential infrastructure.
- musicale 11mo agoThis analysis is correct. Epic's business incentive has always been lowering platform fees paid to Apple and Google for Fortnite compared to what they are paying Nintendo and Sony for Fortnite.
- bigyabai 11mo agoThere's nothing criminal or arguably even morally wrong about that. Nintendo and Sony do not make 10% of the hardware margins that Apple does. They are not analogous businesses.
- musicale 11mo agoYou don't seem to be disagreeing. I assume by hardware margins you are thinking of component and manufacturing cost. However, the largest cost that has to be amortized over the life of a hardware product is R&D cost, which is huge. Even by the component and manufacturing cost metric, the Switch has always been profitable, though DRAM and flash storage costs are putting pressure on hardware margins at the moment. Still R&D is the largest cost that each company faces.
- hnlmorg 11mo ago> There's nothing criminal or arguably even morally wrong about that. Morality is irrelevant and criminality is for the legal system to decide, not you. > Nintendo and Sony do not make 10% of the hardware margins that Apple does. Which, again, is completely irrelevant. > They are not analogous businesses. Only because you’ve decided they’re not. And your arguments have zero citations to any legal precedence. Yet we do have legal precedence of lock ins on other platforms and their related app stores. So the problem we have is the legal precedence actually works against Nintendo et al and now it’s up to the courts to decide if those prior judgements are relevant to Nintendo and its ilk too. Thus far all you and your likeminded peers have proven is that you have a personal opinion. But you’ve provided precisely zero legal evidence to back up your opinions. So why should we trust your opinion any more than the highly public legal precedence that was reached between Epic and Apple? “but they’re different” isn’t a compelling legal argument for why they’re different. Regardless of how much you might wish it were.