Comment by simondotau

Comment by simondotau 3 days ago

I’d be cheering on Epic Games if they were going after Sony and Nintendo with equal fervour. Personally, I don’t see why any developer should be allowed free rein on anyone else’s platform when it comes to the selling of games and virtual hats.

Personally I think Apple should have two pricing tiers: one for interactive entertainment, and one for everything else. For interactive entertainment, a flat 30% on everything. For everything else, Apple lowers their margin to cover transaction costs only (in the realm of 5-10%).

troupo 3 days ago

That's what Apple already doing: applying arbitrary categories and charging arbitrary amounts of money because "transaction costs and platform or something".

1. Where the hell is the notion of "using the platform for free" even coming from (it's coming from Apple of course). I didn't know that iPhones are free, or that dev fees are waived for everyone.

2. Why the hell can't I use a different payment processor tham Apple and tell people about it? Then I'm neither using Apple's platform "for free" nor paying Apple's transaction fees.

Reply View 5 replies

simondotau 3 days ago

For interactive entertainment, I see no moral obligation for Apple to adopt any particular policy unless all major digital game store operators (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Valve etc) are subject to the same requirements.
For all other apps, I agree that alternative payment processing should be permitted for one-off transactions. And I can agree for subscriptions as well, provided the developer can meet a high standard for simple, frictionless cancellations.

Reply View | 4 replies
- troupo 3 days ago
  
  > no moral obligation for Apple to adopt any particular policy unless all major digital game store operators (Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Valve etc) are subject to the same requirements.
  Why? iPhones are not gaming consoles.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  musicale 2 days ago
  
  By game count and revenue, the App Store is very much a game store.
  You may not think of the iPhone as a walled-garden gaming handheld with smartphone features, but that's basically what it is from a business perspective, and games are in fact the majority of apps on the system.
  Epic (a game company) sued Apple to get it to charge lower platform fees than other game stores.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  simondotau 3 days ago
  
  Liquor stores are not candy stores, yet they are allowed to sell candy to minors while being prohibited from selling liquor. The principle is straightforward: regulation should follow the product, not the venue.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  troupo 3 days ago
  
  All pained analogies are both pained and invalid.
  iOS is not a liquor store, and allowing people to use other payment processors or even other stores on the platform is not selling liquor to minors.
  Note how your analogies immediately fall apart for other platforms like, for example, Apple's own MacOS.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

fc417fc802 3 days ago

> I don’t see why any developer should be allowed free rein on anyone else’s platform

Is it a "platform" the way a console is or is it a public marketplace? I'd think the distinction comes down to size relative to the rest of the market. If I run a private club that caters to a only a few people I'm not impacting anyone else. Whereas if I run a giant chain of so called "private clubs" that in reality 50% of the town purchases their groceries from then perhaps some scrutiny by the regulator is in order.

Reply View 7 replies

simondotau 3 days ago

You quoted a sentence fragment that, when read in isolation, conveys a position I emphatically reject.
To answer your question directly: I contend that when it comes to operating a marketplace for interactive entertainment, an iPhone is no different from a Nintendo Switch, and if you want to impose rules, they must be imposed equally. For all other apps, I think Epic made some valid points.

Reply View | 6 replies
- fc417fc802 3 days ago
  
  The quote was not intended to frame your position in any particular manner. Simply to provide context so it was clear what I was responding to.
  I take two issues with your response.
  First and foremost, the point I raised was specifically about the size of an operation relative to the overall market. You haven't addressed that. You say you see no difference but don't explain why. It seems obvious to me that larger players will require different regulations than smaller players due to having different effects on the market.
  Second, Apple doesn't operate a marketplace for games. They operate a general purpose market that includes apps for anything and everything. Compare a 1000 sq ft mom and pop game shop to a 400k sq ft big box retailer that sells groceries, liquor, clothing, home goods, yard tools, just about everything except for literal building materials. It wouldn't be reasonable to treat them the same way.
  
  Reply View | 5 replies
  
  simondotau 3 days ago
  
  > It seems obvious to me that larger players will require different regulations than smaller players
  I agree with this in principle, but I don't think that principle applies here. Apple is not a uniquely large vendor of games. There are multiple ecosystems operating at similar orders of magnitude in games sales, at around $10B or more. Against that backdrop, portraying the App Store as some singular 400-pound gorilla with respect to games is not accurate.
  > Second, Apple doesn't operate a marketplace for games. They operate a general purpose market
  That distinction cuts the other way. A general-purpose market does not escape product-specific regulation; it applies it selectively. A store that sells liquor must comply with liquor laws when selling liquor, but selling liquor does not prohibit it from selling candy to children. It is normal and reasonable to attach rules to the product being sold, not to the fact that the venue also sells other things.
  Perhaps if Apple were willing to exclude games from the App Store and move them to a newly created Game Store, it would be easier to imagine how they could be made subject to different rules. But I don't think that should be necessary for the government to impose different rules on different product categories.
  To be clear, another acceptable outcome IMO is for the Epic Games argument to prevail with respect to all major gaming platforms. If they believe Apple deserves 0% of Fortnite revenues on iOS, then Sony deserves 0% of Fortnite revenues on Playstation.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  musicale 2 days ago
  
  > Apple doesn't operate a marketplace for games
  Since games also account for 70% or more of revenue, the App Store is more accurately described as a game store that also sells non-game apps, rather than a general store that also sells games.
  The Game Store part of the app store could certainly stand on its own and operate with similar terms to Nintendo's eShop, Sony's PSN store, or Google Play.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

musicale 3 days ago

Many people on HN seem to think that it's perfectly OK for Nintendo or Sony to charge a 30% platform fee for Fortnite but somehow not OK for Apple (or Google) to charge a 30% platform fee for Fortnite.

Epic wants to force Apple to lower its platform fees so that it can pay lower fees to Apple for Fortnite (technically IAP since Fortnite is "free to play") than what it pays to Sony and Nintendo (or Google for that matter) for Fortnite.

Reply View 0 replies

DANmode 3 days ago

I hope my comments don’t come off as “cheering” for any of these parties...

Reply View 0 replies