Hacker News Reader

Comment by guru4consulting | Hacker News Reader

There is a huge difference between having access to a single channel and 2+ channels. It promotes competition among the channels. What if Apple takes 30% of your phone bills, because it just can. What if Apple and Microsoft starts restricting the applications that you install in their OS and then start charging 30% of all programs that you install in their OS?

View on HN

Wait, there’s competition between retail channels? Great, I’m looking forward to getting the next major AAA game for a discount at Target due to this so-called competition with Wallmart.

Just kidding. It’ll be $59.99 at both stores. There is, practically speaking, no competition in the retail space either.

But Walmart does offer a discount, Walmart sells most new Nintendo Switch games for $49.99 rather than $59.99.

That's a function of it being a Switch game, not a Walmart discount. They'll be the same price at Target.

Nintendo Switch titles tend to cap at $50, not $60.

Where are you getting that from? Nearly every "large" switch title has a price of $60. Including ones that are years old.

https://www.nintendo.com/games/game-guide/?pv=true#filter/:q...

Fair enough - I personally recall seeing a lot of titles at the $49.99 price point, but the Nintendo store itself is infinitely more accurate.

It doesn't change the underlying point, however.

No, it doesn't because if you purchase thru Walmart.com they are offering some titles "below" the retail price by Nintendo and Target.

So what you're saying is you want EA to be able to have its own store on iPhone where Apple collects 30% on the backend anyway? Because that's what Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft do now. I don't see "I should be able to purchase iPhone apps at Target" as a compelling argument, much less relevant to the case at hand.

Between the creator and consumer, choices should be available and not restricted to any specific platform. The creator (or the distributor willingly chosen by the creator) can fix whatever the price and should be able to distribute it via multiple channels. And the channels can charge whatever percentage they want, as far as consumer has access to alternate channels. Apple/Microsoft/Google should either allow alternative channels to be available if consumers wish.. or else, they should agree the app stores to be treated like utilities (utilities are heavily regulated with pricing, profit margins, etc). FAANG are already too powerful and why do you want hand over more power to them? Imagine, Microsoft allowing only Edge browser and not allowing any other browser in Windows OS.. and then start charging 30% for all payments done via the browser. That's what happening in app stores. Soon, Oculus will do the same thing in VR world..

> Between the creator and consumer, choices should be available and not restricted to any specific platform.

So don't, then. Apple doesn't force developers to make iPhone exclusive content. And consumers are not forced to use only one device. This whole issue is merely developers complaining that they want cheaper access to the most lucrative markets. It has nothing to do with consumers.

will you make same argument if Microsoft makes Windows OS a walled garden with Edge as the only browser? will it be justified that there are Linux alternatives and no one is forcing users to use Windows?

Your reasoning is valid if Apple happens to be not so big player or if Apple has many alternatives. Between iPhone and Android, do consumers have any other choice? Between Windows and Mac, do consumers have any other choice?

I don't really care that Chrome is the only browser on a Chromebook, no.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com