This is pretty funny because Xbox has the same store restrictions (impossible to install from another source, all games approved by them, takes a revenue percentage) Apple does.
Apple does not allow for this model.
EDIT: Apparently during the Xbox 360 days, that was ~20%. Couldn't find any newer numbers.
Microsoft receives a fee from developers that participate in their licensing program, which is generally a royalty on each sale ranging from 1% to 30% depending on the negotiating leverage of the publisher.
Developers are not required to participate in that program to sell games/software for the xBox, and some don't, but MS doesn't guarantee that any unlicensed software will work with the current version of the system or any (software) updates to the system.
The same is true of Sony as well.
They may not be required to take part in the standard distribution licensing program, but instead have the option of participating in ID@XBOX, where the games still have to be certified by MS to be allowed on the platform. This program also seems to be exclusive to digital distribution and smaller indie studios.
In the end MS is still always in a position to take revenue cuts for access to their platform, and mostly exercises it.
It's how consoles are sold at a loss, but make it up through game sales.
They also prevent other digital retailers from selling on the XBox which is very relevant for in game purchases.
The whole thing is slippery mass of corporate worms trying to fuck each other over for market control and the only losers are the end users. I want nothing to do with any of them any more.
Microsoft takes 30% of IAP.
Whether it's bought in a store or not is irrelevant.
It's no different to the iPhone at all. It's just less controversial because people think of their phone like a mini computer but always expected consoles to be closed.
iOS devices (especially iPads) are marketed as general purpose computers and as such should be compared with Windows and Linux where software authors can:
- Distribute their app without approval of the platform owner.
- Can freely communicate about pricing and availability of their software.
Apple forbids even talking about lower prices or other platforms, essentially forcing us developers to mislead and misinform customers of their platforms. It's deeply against the principles of a free market competition.
I don't know where the "especially iPads" comes from - they are the only ones that could come even close to not being called a watch or a phone. What else apart from iPads are you talking about?
Nothing about this situation is unique to Apple.
Do you actually think they would tolerate this sort of behaviour ? Because they absolutely do not.
This censorship of in-software messaging is something Apple has normalized and is new at this scale.
In which case no distribution channel today, Apple or otherwise, allows you to use your product to advertise to buy the product cheaper elsewhere.
And using the term censorship is ridiculous. It's simply the rules of using the channel. And every channel has their own unique rules.
This is nothing but defensive "don't sue us next" posturing by Microsoft. Consoles are just as general purpose as a phone. The only difference is the software veneer running on top.
It doesn't matter that you got your Microsoft-store approved copy of Gears of War from Gamestop instead of the Microsoft app store. MS still gets their cut, and that application still had to be approved by them.
The core similarity to iOS and Apple's app store is: Third party applications cannot run on the Xbox without Microsoft review, approval, and fee. It doesn't matter that it's a physical copy or not. You, an independent developer, can't just create an Xbox game and get it running without MS approval, no matter whether you wanted to sell it on the app store or as a physical copy.
I would put Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo in the same bucket of "makes hardware that can run software, but only software they approve." Whether this is something we as a society should allow, I won't comment on, but I will say that Epic should either have a grievance with all of them or none of them. Microsoft and Epic are strange bedfellows and I can't see this headline as anything other than a nervous preemption on Microsoft's part.
Can I sell my iPhone apps?
So yes you can sell your iPhone apps the same way you sell your PS4 games i.e. by selling your entire account.
But in both cases this is against the terms and conditions and so it's likely this account will be terminated.
"If you want to play on another PS4 that isn't your primary console, you can download any game you've bought on the PS Store as long as you sign into PSN. Only you'll be able to start the games you've downloaded, and you can only be logged into two consoles at any one time: your primary PS4 and one other secondary one (like a friend's). The good news is there's no limit on the number of systems you can download your games to. You have to be logged in in order to play, but from the sounds of things this means you can share digital games with as many mates as you like, though only one of these secondary consoles will be able to play a title at any given time and you'll have to tell them your password so they can log in.
As has been mentioned before, the situation with discs remains the same as ever. Sony has reiterated that, "You can share disc games with your friends and play used disc games on your PS4 system just like you can on a PlayStation 3 system. You do not have to connect to the Internet or pay any usage fees to play used games."
So if PS5 ships with a browser again does it magically shift to being a computer ?
The point is that folks expect to use their smartphones for a vast array of tasks, and they are _expected_ to use their smartphones for these tasks (by family, employers, friends, merchants, etc.) This is a social problem much more than a technical one, as I see it.
So by your definition it isn't a computer then ?
Without my phone I could not use my bank's or GitHub's account
A locked console is not much of a problem like a locked smartphone
Even a locked computer is less problematic
Apple sold 2.2 billion iPhones in ~10 years
Sony only sold 440 million consoles in ~30 years
One could argue that any console pre-CD days were specialized computing devices that required additional circuitry to run (cartridges.) But in my mind, any console that downloads contents of a storage medium to RAM and executes it is general purpose. You could make Spreadsheets for the Xbox or PlayStation or Switch, if you so chose.
In a way, I really do think the term "general purpose computer" should denote a standard for hardware that anyone can write software for. Both Microsoft and Apple are rather notorious for trying to kill this. https://www.pcworld.com/article/248342/windows_8_secure_boot...
The question of "where to draw the line" is an interesting one. People don't complain about it with consoles because you can just buy the game disks anywhere (including some list of retailers, and used from ebay/craigslist/wherever). Even though making a game for a console requires licensing and specific developer tools that - like iOS, access can be granted and revoked.
With iOS, Apple sells the idea that the iPad is a computer pretty hard. Yet it's not. It's an Apple Terminal. Just like the iPhone is.
It's not like 80s and 90s consoles which were much more limited and more clearly streamlined to just play games (limited or no internal memory, limited input device support, though some of them supported keyboards and could even be hooked up to modems). The lock down on gaming consoles today is mostly artificial.
Tell that to the billions of people without one.
And interestingly with us in Australia being under a mandatory COVID-19 stay at home order I have not used my phone in over a week. I can do everything it does on my laptop just fine e.g. messaging, banking etc.
Food, shelter etc are necessities. Phone is just a nice to have.
Or develop iOS apps with it?
Or test them?
For many people being able to do it makes the difference between a salary and not being able to pay the rent
As much as "a nice have" it looks, and I agree it somewhat is, that's not the full story.
And there are online services that provide real-world phones if you do need to test it. Or I can just use Testflight and have beta test users do it.
With Apple phones that's not possible
If you develop Apple apps you need Apple HW, another hidden tax to be paid to be part of the ecosystem
I think a company shouldn't be allowed to sell billions of devices that people rely on for daily activities, but that owners cannot control
Even if life can go on without smartphones
Life can also go on without refrigerators or washing machines, but if you buy one vendors don't lock customers in
> with your __non__ Apple pc?
Epic doesn't make Epic HW that only runs Epic software or the software you can buy on Epic store, chosen by Epic that also takes 30% on any sell