Hacker News Reader

The evidence of collusion between Apple and Google coming out of the Epic case is amazing to me. I'd always thought it was a sort of unspoken "game theoretic" type of collusion (which I'm sure it is in part), but it looks like they've had very explicit communication about it:

https://mobile.twitter.com/jowens510/status/1428417681351348...

> After another meeting between Apple and Google senior executives, notes showed that the execs agreed: "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."

Just incredible.

>I'd always thought it was a sort of unspoken "game theoretic" type of collusion (which I'm sure it is in part), but it looks like they've had very explicit communication about it:

Why would you even think that after the whole salary fixing scandal? There's no enforcement of antitrust law and no incentive not to collude freely and egregiously.

Had Eric Schmidt, Steve Jobs, George Lucas, Paul Otellini, and everyone else directly involved in the wage fixing scandal, spent a year in federal prison per violation, the situation might have been different.

Is fixing wages illegal, like price fixing?

If it's not it should be. You can't push free markets for everyone else then controlled markets for yourself (I mean you can, but it's hypocrisy). I'm tired of the double standards businesses and the capital ownership class have.

"If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class."

-Final Fantasy Tactics

if the fine is the cost of the externality divided by the odds of getting caught, then the incentives are still aligned

It violates federal antitrust law.

Do we have law and order?

Fair point!

Incredible that they would allow something like that to be recorded in writing! Apparently they are not even afraid of antitrust laws, judging by that.

This reminds a scene from the TV show, the wire when one of the main criminal character hosts a meeting with other gang leaders and a member of his gang is recording minutes, the main character says "Are you taking notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?".

Apparently none of the intelligent executives at Apple/Google figured this out.

While it makes an awesome headline for a tabloid or HackerNews, it's not necessarily imporant. See comments on Reddit that provide some thoughts on that:

https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/p970st/after_another...

Obviously, I don't claim these two comments are correct. I do claim, however, that people are better served by not quoting random statements from a lawsuit without understanding either the context or the applicable law. Especially when only one side in the lawsuit is quoted from.

Those Redditors don’t know what they’re talking about. Documented evidence of two competing companies agreeing to “operate as one” is absolutely damning in an antitrust trial. There’s almost no context that could be given to make that statement not damning unless it turns out this was some sort of antitrust training seminar put on by the legal department and it was given as an example of what not to say when you’re giving the opportunity to collude with the competition.

By "damning", do you mean that the quote alone is obviously sufficient to materially tip the scales in favor of the government should the antitrust lawsuit occur?

If so, what is your best guess as to why the executives (who surely know that) might have chosen to use those words?

> "Our vision is that we work as if we are one company."

Personal feeling after the whole salary fixing case and now this, Google should be forced to move it's head quarters and it's top management to some place like Waco Texas.

The Eighth Amendment forbids “cruel and unusual” punishment.

These people use the Internet and cell phones.

> The difference is that the console market has real competitions which gives more leverages to developers.

I see the exact same duopoly as in Apple-Google world. There's Sony and Microsoft(with no independent app stores). Nintendo isn't in the same market as the other two.

> I see the exact same duopoly as in Apple-Google world. There's Sony and Microsoft(with no independent app stores). Nintendo isn't in the same market as the other two.

Nintendo might be a running joke amongst hardcore gamers but ironically they're the most successful console manufacturer out there.

The Switch is going from strength to strength and I'd estimate it will outsell the Playstation 4 before Nintendo retire it (it's been outselling the PS4 since 2019 already but that's to be expected given the expectation of the PS5). And from the same trial that bought us this submission we've seen Microsoft admit that they've never made a profit on the Xbox. Let's also not forget that games on the Switch are typically more expensive than the same game on other platforms. And that's without even touching the topic of Nintendo's 1st party games -- they make an absolute killing on their IP. Animal Crossing, for example, was seen by many as the unofficial game of the 2020 lockdown.

I predict Nintendo's market position will only get stronger too. With many Xbox fans giving up on buying new consoles because they're basically just PCs at this point. So switching to PCs that can be upgraded over time and still have access to Xbox content. Plus the struggles Sony have had just shipping their latest consoles and many gamers there saying they might just stick with the PS4. Yet Nintendo have calved out their own corner of the market that sits between the ultra competitive hardcore market and casual gamers who want more than crappy mobile apps. And it's a segment that's increasing in size too.

It'll be interesting to see how Valves offering does. I can't see it competing with the Switch directly but it might take more market share away from Sony and Microsoft given Valves new portable offers the capability of desktop gaming on the move.

So anyway, back to your point. You might scoff but actually Nintendo are in a far more stable and successful position than Sony and Microsoft (with regards to consoles).

> Nintendo might be a running joke amongst hardcore gamers but ironically they're the most successful console manufacturer out there.

I don't think sales numbers are the parent comment's point. Rather, that "Xbox or Playstation" is a common enough question to imply there is direct competition (and there are lots of shared titles), whereas the Nintendo consoles exist more or less in a vacuum.

It's still more nuanced than that. As I've mentioned in my post, Microsoft have been pushing hard the PC side of Xbox. So it's really more Playstation, Xbox and/or PC. Then if you introduce the PC you have Steam and all the other stores too.

Also don't write the Switch off for serious gamers either. Most gamers I know who have an Xbox or PS also have a Switch. Why is this important? Because if someone has £50 to spend on a game, they cannot spend that same £50 on both the PS/Xbox and the Switch stores. So even if the Switch occupies a slightly different market, it's still taking money that might have gone to Sony or Microsoft.

It definitely seems like a lot of people have Xbox and switch or Playstation and switch whereas only the most dedicated gamers have both an Xbox and a Playstation.

> So anyway, back to your point. You might scoff but actually Nintendo are in a far more stable and successful position than Sony and Microsoft (with regards to consoles).

I'm not saying its unsuccessful, just that people who play Detroit or Gears aren't going to buy Switch just because PS5/Xbox is out of stock.

You'd be surprised. If the other consoles are out of stock then those gamers might already have a PC or an earlier console (eg PS4). So they might instead buy a Switch despite it not having Detroit nor Gears knowing they already have a platform that does play those games.

A fair number of gamers are disinterested with the latest generation because they don't see the envelope being pushed enough (eg for many, the previous generation largely looked "good enough") but Nintendo offering something totally new (portable plus their own exclusives) offers something more for their money.

Maybe in a couple of years time if/when AAA titles stop offering releases on the PS4 we might see more people pining for a PS5. But a lot of the muted reactions are precisely because there isn't an urgency to upgrade.

Now you could argue that even if they don't replace their PS4 with a PS5, they're still spending money with Sony. But if these gamers also have a Switch -- which many will do -- then their gaming budget is now divided between Nintendo and Sony. Eg if they have £50 next week to buy a new game, they can't spend it in full on both the Playstation and the Switch. Even if they only spend half that on the Switch, it's still a 50% drop for Sony.

So Nintendo might target a slightly different market but they're still affecting Sony and Microsoft's games sales.

You’re missing the point entirely. Microsoft monopolizes all Xbox stores. Sony monopolizes all Playstation stores. Nintendo monopolizes all Switch stores.

But I can buy the same game on all three major consoles. Plus PC. Plus Steam, GOG, Humble, Epic (where I can get it free), or even pirate it with little trouble (if I didn't have qualms with the ethics).

None of these stores do my email, dating, finance, math, fitness, banking, web. They're not fitting the computer role like laptops and smartphones.

Games are toys and have lots of healthy competition. Smartphones are monopolistic dictatorships.

Famgopolies are secretly colluding to take over everything and tax it. To make computing encumbered, unfree, unrepairable, and shackled in surveillance.

Who gives a damn about video game toys when the most important devices in our lives are turning into Big Brother meets Stalin?

90's Bill Gates wishes he was this evil.

Google and Apple need to be split up.

>But I can buy the same game on all three major consoles. Plus PC. Plus Steam, GOG, Humble, Epic (where I can get it free), or even pirate it with little trouble (if I didn't have qualms with the ethics).

You're still missing the point. There is no way to buy a game for Xbox without going through Microsoft's official channels and giving them their huge cut. There is no way to buy a game for Playstation without going through Sony's official channels and giving them their huge cut. There is no way to buy a game for Switch without going through Nintendo's official channels and giving them their huge cut.

Being able to buy the same game on different consoles is immaterial. The stores themselves are the monopoly.

>None of these stores do my email, dating, finance, math, fitness, banking, web. They're not fitting the computer role like laptops and smartphones.

What difference does this make? If they did these things, would it suddenly matter that the only way to get software onto this platform was to give 30% of revenue to the console manufacturer?

You're not getting it either. Consoles are subsidized toys. And there are half a dozen choices on the market, not to mention legacy systems.

Phones are life. You can't do without them. There are two choices, both locked down hard.

PCs went from free and open to Google + Apple duopoly. And the rules are draconian.

Maybe 1995-2005 was an era before your time (given that your username is Zoomer), but modern computing is worse than it used to be. You have no idea what you missed out on, and you're speaking about a status quo that is a definitive downgrade.

Steve Jobs put us in shackles and neck braces. But they're pretty and convenient, so we accept them.

You’re free to get a flip phone from 10+ brands, therefore Apple and Google don’t have any monopoly power over the phone market. Just get a different phone!

The argument of Sony and Microsoft not allowing 3rd party stores on their consoles is an open and shut case. There's no discussion needed there. Everyone already acknowledges that's the case. So the conversion moved on to a more interesting topic: whether Sony and Microsoft have a duopoly. The GP claimed they did and I was making the point that they don't.

The confusion here is you're reading my comment thinking we're discussing a different topic. So it's not me who missed the point :)

I consider myself a hardcore gamer, but I'm still buying an OLED Switch later this year.

If anything 'hardcore' gamers are more likely to buy a switch since they'll be deeply invested in certain franchises, vs a causal gamers who would be on IPhone

There's a massive difference between gamers who don't have 200 hours a month to invest in the latest AAA title and people who are just as happy playing Candy Crush. This is the genius of the Switch: it's accessible enough that casual gamers are happy to take a punt, while still having enough content on there to satisfy some of the more hardcore gamers too. But don't mistake it as a device aimed specifically for hardcore gamers, if anything it's more of a joke to many of them due to older generation titles (like Skyrim) getting re-released and often with worse graphics yet sold for £50 while the same game is available on other platforms for <£10. This mocking gets said time and time again by some serious gamers.

Define hardcore

If I’ve been playing Smash Bros since the 90s and I need to play the latest one , I’m buying a Switch. I consider myself hardcore, I probably play( or make ) games at least 30 hours a week

Of course I have a PC as well. I’m personally looking forward to Metroid and Advance Wars later this year.

My point wasn't that no hardcore gamers own a Switch. It's that hardcore gamers isn't the Switch's target demographic nor it's biggest audience. But you're looking at things too black and white in thinking that logically means I'm saying it's not something anything hardcore gamers would like; which isn't the case.

Like with any product that sells millions, there will be people that fall outside of the target demographic. That doesn't mean there isn't a target demographic or that the company are targeting the wrong group. It just means that either the person is an edge case or the product is versatile enough to be enjoyed by more than just the target audience. In the Switch's case, it's the latter.

In fact that's the point I've been making all along about the genius of the device. Nintendo have not only built a console that captures the imagination of a largely forgotten market, but they've done so in a way that has appeal beyond that market too.

But to be clear, this wasn't an accident on Nintendo's part. They've always marketed their machines as family systems (ie accessible gaming to be shared). That's why their 3rd generation console was called the Famicom in Japan (short for Family Computer). It's why the NES was styled the way it was (a grey box like a VCR so it looked at home in the families TV cabinet rather than looking like a kids toy). It's why the N64 was the first console to have 4 ports built in (ie without needing additional hardware). Why the Wii went down the gimmicky route when everyone else was making consoles for older kids and adults. And why Nintendo's IP is almost always cute and cartoony.

I don't think that is correct unless you have a very narrow "market" in mind. Both Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and PC vendors sell gaming hardware. And both Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and Steam own stores that sell video games. Sure, Nintendo's hardware and software has some distinguishing features. But, they still all compete for gamers attention and money.

As a case in point, it's clear that Nintendo themselves think they are competing with Microsoft, Sony, and the PC space. They pay tons of money to game developers in order for their games to not show up on Xbox, PS, and PC. That would make no sense unless there was some actual competition. I could mention Hades and Monter Hunter Rise as two recent examples where Nintendo paid money to devs in exchange for exclusivity.

Unless I’m missing something, these stores are NOT in direct competition because they all monopolize their respective platforms.

Don't Ubisoft and Epic have their own game stores inside of the playstation store?

And given how hard Sony and Microsoft compete to pursuade games to be released exclusively on either platform isn't it a bit of different dynamic?

> Ubisoft and Epic have their own game stores inside of the playstation store?

No. Sony PlayStation is almost identical to the Apple App Store in that there’s only 1 way to get your software working on retail units.

In fact it’s a lot worse in many ways, you need two specific types of hardware to even develop software- Sony is quite old school and draconian when it comes to testing, validation and communication.

At Ubisoft we had entire teams of compliance testers for Sony/Microsoft- and if you ever tried to get content outside of their stores (ie; loading after the game launches) they are quite aggressive about pulling the game down.

I buy my Sony PlayStation games on physical media in six brick and mortar stores owned by three different brands in Belgrade, Serbia. There are also a few online retailers who will send you the disc and you pay the delivery guy with cash. Sometimes I find a game at half the price at one store as compared to the others. I bought PS4 game three years ago in Oslo, Norway, and two years ago in Nicosia, Cyprus, both in different retail stores.

I wouldn't say visiting any of thousands of reatil stores around the world, or ordering online from any of thousands of online retailers count as "only 1 way".

Despite multiple retail outlets, there's still only 1 way for developers to get their game on the platform.

Want to release only on physical media for PS or XBox? Have to go through platform cert anyway.

All copies of those games were produced and sold by Sony.

It doesn’t really matter who resells them, unless it’s a used copy then Sony has been paid — and it doesn’t mean that I as a publisher have an alternative “store” on the PlayStation or that I can print my own disks, which is what the parent stated.

How many ISPs provide transit for the bits from Apple’s app store? Sony has a bottleneck upstream of your retail purchase that’s analogous to Apple’s App Store bottleneck.

The only thing I see that’s slightly different in your example above is the ability to resell the game once you’re done with it.

No. You could then say "how many NIC manufacturers" or "how many UTP cable manufacturers" etc., as though all of them got their cut from Apple's app store (although one could reasonably argue it is true).

If it is the same, why doesn't Apple allow third party stores even to re-sell apps from app store, competing on price and convenience? As this is what Sony does.

I'm by no means fan of Sony, but these are two completely different situations.

Sony doesn’t care what happens to physical copies of the game once it’s sold, hence: resale is not competition.

There’s no alternative to PlayStation getting their cut.

And it doesn’t matter anyway because brick and mortar resales are going away, PS5 has a “digital only” version of the console, and Xbox had the same thing last gen.

> And given how hard Sony and Microsoft compete to pursuade games to be released exclusively on either platform isn't it a bit of different dynamic?

It is different. Both Sony and MS buy studios that end up producing exclusives.

Google and similar get 30% of all sales. Many companies will lose money in games and apps published in the store meanwhile Google profits. It seems an unsustainable model.

Why are you comparing consoles to phone app stores when the more clear comparison is console app stores to phone app stores? As far as I know, every console manufacturer monopolizes all sales to their platform, which is no different than Apple or Google’s app stores.

Microsoft tried and failed to make a third alternative and force competition, spending billions to make it happen. As they found out, app makers don’t want to build for yet another platform. It doesn’t matter whether you make an awesome mobile OS, you’ll never get the app makers to support you enough to convince the users, and without the users you cannot convince the app makers.

Meanwhile, in desktop land, there are real alternatives because almost everything you’d want to do runs in the browser well enough (for regular home users at least). But on mobile the browsers are locked down, so the web is not a credible mobile app strategy. Linkedin and facebook oroginally tried a mobile web strategy and discovered that mobile browsers aren’t good enough. The lack of real competition, especially on iOS keeps mobile browsers underpowered for apps and maintains the strong gatekeeping function of mobile app stores.

For me a possible solution is to force platform owners to allow real browser competition on their platforms (again: especially iOS) and hope that is enough to kickstart a browser arms race like we enjoyed on the desktop a decade ago, with the end result being that mobile web apps become a real alternative and we weed out much of the bad behavior by apple and google because they have a genuine competition for the native platform.

> Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have been paying subsidies of millions dollar to renowned studios

That's old news =] — now they just purchase all of the studios and "let them do their thing". Probably for significantly less % at the dev end, but, I digress.

Force?

Force is the correct term for a government mandating a solution. Whether by introducing new anti-monopoly regulations, or even just enforcement of existing anti-monopoly regulations.