Hacker News Reader

Comment by maratc | Hacker News Reader

Someone can spin it as "A gaming platform that takes 50% platform fee complains about app platforms taking 25% platform fee".

View on HN

That complains is from a Twitter user which seems unrelated to Roblox. He quote the IPO documents... which I don't think is a document usually used to complains about fees ;).

Roblox is free too, so you need to pay for the platform somewhere, which means it has to be part of the microtransactions. I expect to pay for Android and iOS while I buy the device, not during the subsequent multiple microtransactions, thus that platform fee is double dipping.

That twitter user seems to be OP, I'm just pointing out that maybe their ire is mistargeted.

What one pays for Android/iOS gets them a device with calendar, email client, camera, web browser and not much else. Since one can extend that functionality later by installing more apps — including these that did not even exist at the time of buying the device — the double-dipping is double-edged. The buyer can get more functionality, and the platform creator can get more money.

> I expect to pay for Android and iOS while I buy the device

I think when you buy an Android phone you aren't paying for the OS (based on a quick search it seems that Google doesn't get a cut of Samsung phone sales and doesn't charge OEMs any licensing fees).

Though you may be paying the device manufacturer for their (probably terrible) re-skinning of the stock Android UI (Samsung and Xiaomi come to mind as examples that make a pretty different-looking/feeling skin on their devices).

Android is technically "open source and free", but all the profit from the Play Store goes directly to Google (i.e. The 30% from app store purchases completely skips OEMs like Samsung and funnels entirely to Google).

Hence, why they're willing to offer the OS for free and why they push so hard for it. They make far more money from app purchases.

They make _far_ more money from mining all the data your device sends them about you. The secret sauce for Android is the proprietary Google Play Services package that contains all the APIs that make the device usable (and enables the snooping). The base open source Android OS is limited in functionality.

Right: the comment I replied to was saying that they don't think the 30% cut is fair since the user paid for the OS. I was just pointing out that doesn't seem to check out since they didn't actually pay for the OS (if it's Android and not Google hardware).

They might reasonably say they'd rather pay for the OS upfront instead though.

That's the power of monopolizing a distribution channel

One can say that it's the power of creating a distribution channel where none has existed before.

It's not possible to create an alternative store for iOS or Roblox.

Theoretically, one could spend the requisite money and years to develop a competing device and software, like Apple and Google did to RIM, Microsoft, and Nokia.

How do I develop a new store inside Roblox?

You could develop a new game, like Roblox. You could also develop a new mobile operating system, like iOS. Both are quite hard.

Developing a game that competes with Roblox isn't close to the same magnitude of effort as developing a new mobile device and OS. The bigger the capital investment required to compete with someone, the lower the possible competition, and therefore it is more applicable to accuse them of anti-competitive practices. Economic effects are not scale-free.

How hard it is to do is not the determining factor. The question is whether the compan(ies) already in the space have created illegal roadblocks to your success.

I’d say creating a new mobile device is more easily possible today than at any time in the past, and in fact can be done on a relatively modest budget. [1]

Take for example Purism, maker of the line of Librem devices, which has raised a few million dollars over the years and has about $1 million in revenue.

[1] - https://medium.com/os-alternative/2020-will-be-the-year-of-a...

That argument did not work for Microsoft in the 90's whhen they dominated windows.

Do you know why that argument didn’t work for Microsoft?

It’s not because they dominated Windows. They owned Windows, they could do what they wanted on Windows, but for something very specific. In fact, it was a key element of the case that the government had to prove before they could proceed with proposing a remedy.

That's not the thing that got Microsoft into trouble.

>Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Software, RealNetworks, Linux, and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....

It's the taking actions to crush threats to that monopoly part of the equation that got Microsoft into trouble.

You need both things. You need a monopoly in a market, and you need to be using your monopoly position to crush your competition.

The big difference there is someone can create a Roblox competitor if they want. No one can create an iOS App Store competitor.

No one sad a Roblox competitor. A Roblox store competitor. That seems the same situation as the ios app store.

You should try setting up a market stall inside your local Walmart and see how well that works out for you

I agree with you I was just stating their argument.

I've heard that the scripting capabilities are pretty solid in Roblox, are you not able to create your own currency?

Most Roblox games also have their own in game currency that you can earn or buy with Robux within the game. But you cannot buy/sell that currency for real world money.

Are there any technical measures preventing the creation of a market for those alternative currencies, or is it just a TOS thing?

I'm guessing it's partially a TOS thing, partially a lack of mechanism for transferring currencies between players, but also a lack of demand. Few games are popular enough in themselves to have a big enough market to make it profitable to run a competing alternate currency market.

With Robux you can buy 100 Robux for real money and then spend 20 Robux in one game, 15 in another, 40 for a skin you can use in all games and save the rest for use in some future game that you haven't discovered yet. This flexibility makes Robux much more 'desirable' than any single in game currency.

Roblox provides way, way more value than the App Store does, and they don't have hardware to sell to make a profit on.

By "value" one usually means that thing which is objectively measured in US dollars.

> Roblox provides way, way more value than the App Store does, and they don't have hardware to sell to make a profit on.

I'm not sure how you are measuring that value or what you are comparing it to.

Before the App Store, iPhone developers were stuck with web apps and jailbreaking (both of which still exist of course.)

Suppose iOS supported sideloading and multiple app stores? Would anything change?

Well, Android supports sideloading and multiple app stores, but Google can still command comparable royalties to Apple's.

In all three cases - Roblox, iOS, Android - the platform developer is providing a great deal of value (by creating the platform) and is trying to monetize it via commissions. Arguably iOS and Android provide much more value than Roblox since those platforms aren't restricted to running Roblox games.

This isn't a new model; Nintendo makes money on hardware sales (the Switch is basically customized tablet/phone hardware with some nice controllers) but still acts as a platform licensor and takes commissions for eShop sales.

It's probably not a coincidence either that most of the apps in the App Store are games.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com