Hacker News Reader

Comment by GeekyBear | Hacker News Reader

Next up: Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony's game consoles?

And that would be a good thing. Why would anyone argue to have less control over the hardware they purchased?

Because there was the very real threat of piracy and poor quality control destroying the console industry. The crash of 1983 and the Dreamcast are the industry poster boys of why open consoles are a bad thing™.

As the only buyer of goods sold to me, and the only seller of goods sold by me, I suppose I'm running a monopsony and then some. May as well add me to the list.

On a serious note: would a judgement in this case have immediate impact on other companies, or would it set a precedent? Also, what are the proposed damages? How is Apple supposed to repair the situation?

Honestly, this feels entirely arbitrary (Apple is far from the only one that leverages their position as digital goods market makers). I'm not saying conspiracy or anything, but I wonder if this is related to the POTUS's vendetta against AAPL.

It's not arbitrary, the appstore is a de-facto monopsony, the ordinary user doesn't install apps from anywhere.

Most Android phones come with an alternate appstore installed (e.g. Samsung come with their own one as well as google play) and you can easily install others.

To install alternates on the iPhone you have to root it.

That applies to game consoles too, since the 1980s.

In the 80s, the game console makers did not operate the store where you were buying games. Even, you could buy second-hand games without Atari or Nintendo receiving any part of the fee!

Even back in the 80s, the console makers “controlled distribution”. Nintendo forced third parties to use their manufacturing facilities and they all force third parties to distribute their haves with a license key.

Console makers have always forced third parties to pay a fee to distribute their games.

Yes, and for distribution, that's fine.

The ruling is less about Apple forcing consumers to buy only through the AppStore, and more about only allowing sellers to sell through the AppStore.

If I make a PS4 game, or a Nintendo Switch game, I can sell it on the PSN store and/or Nintendo e-Shop, sure, but I can also produce a physical copy that I can obtain outside of the store, and that is definitely not the case for Apple software developers.

Apple software developers MUST go through the AppStore and they MUST pay that fee, no matter what.

It is that specific lack of competition; the lack of other places to sell your iOS applications, that the USSC judged against, by my reading.

What’s the practical difference? The console makers still control physical distribution by forcing third parties to obtain a key, they have to approve all software that goes on their console, and they get a cut of each game sold.

Today, almost all games have an online component - that only work on console controlled networks.

> If I make a PS4 game, or a Nintendo Switch game, I can sell it on the PSN store and/or Nintendo e-Shop, sure, but I can also produce a physical copy that I can obtain outside of the store, and that is definitely not the case for Apple software developers.

> Apple software developers MUST go through the AppStore and they MUST pay that fee, no matter what.

I think you also need to pay a fee to publish any PS4 or Switch game that would run on untampered consoles.

> As the only buyer of goods sold to me

Eh, it doesn't work like that, if I spent a lot of time coding an iOS app, but Apple rejects it, that's my investment gone. Of course I can learn Android development, but I still spent a lot of time learning about iOS without any benefit.

Meanwhile, someone sold you a burger, if you didn't buy it, it doesn't mean someone else couldn't buy it...

I think that is a different to business model. Game consoles are sold at break even or loss leader. That is why EPIC wasn't against the 30% cut from Games on Consoles.

Although it is likely Apple has started to "subsidise" some of its iPhone margin in 2019 with its Services Revenue. And likely continue to do so in 2020 and onwards.

Business model is different but the situation from the consumer and developper point of view is the same.

There was a good interview in the vergecast with a lawyer preparing the case against Apple. The answer to “is it a different case for console ?” was more in the vain of “let’s do this case first”.

While their consoles still support physical media they aren't monopsonies. A monopsony is a single buyer. As a game developer you have the choice to sell on the xbox store or get physical discs printed and sell them either through a retailer e.g. amazon, or directly from your own site if you wanted.

If/when they produce a generation of consoles that don't support physical media things will probably start to get a lot more questionable

You must have Microsoft's approval and pay them a cut before your software will work on their console, physical disk or not.

Exactly as is the case with iOS, Nintendo, or PlayStation.

But in the case of Microsoft, Nintendo and PlayStation those aren't (necessarily) the only costs of selling. If I choose to, I might decide to exclusively distribute through Amazon, who will take their own cut of the sale price (or cost price depending on the arrangement). Or I might decide to distribute through Walmart as well at a different cost to me. In all cases I have to pay Microsoft(or Nintendo or Sony) but I get to decide, overall that I make more money selling it on Amazon and paying them than selling it myself.

What this boils down to is, what my options are when selling my game. On Xbox, Nintendo Switch and PlayStation I have choice over how I sell my game and can choose different avenues that have different pros and cons (More sales with Amazon, but less profit per copy sold vs. More profit per copy, but less sales when sold direct). With iOS you don't have that choice, hence they are a single buyer.

Yup.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com