Finally, what about Nintendo? They famously usually sell consoles at break-even or a small profit. Why isn't Epic suing them?
But generally, publishing to consoles is a more involved process for both parties, and game consoles are not expected to be open platforms. So I guess the business model of console manufacturers is more tightly tied to publishing contracts.
At least as far as public sentiment goes, the only difference seems to just be precedent. Game consoles have always been locked down, strongly DRM controlled machines, while PDAs/smartphones have ... existed in a strange grey area. For whatever reason, people think they should have rights to their phone, but not as much for the game console.
Guessing it's because you can "just buy a PC" with greater performance and flexibility in essentially the same use domain as a console, but doesn't that apply to iPhones as well? "Just buy an android"?
Modern Society does not require a console to function. Most would agree our Smartphone has become the central to many things in our modern society including but not limited to business from all industries.
>"Just buy an android"?
Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet. It has a substantial market that puts their Anti- Competitiveness in question.
Maybe they're just asking for iOS publishing to become more involved and complex, tied to contracts. I still don't see the difference between an iPhone and a Playstation. They both have CPUs and RAM, they both have a locked down operating system (neither are general purpose computers), they both run third party software vetted by the device manufacturer, they both charge a percentage fee to publish on that platform.
Is that really true for the iPad though? I know they are weirdly trying to convince people it's not a computer using their ads, but everyone laugh at theses ads too because that's absurd. It's definitely general purpose.
Contrast that with computers where there is no authority figure exercising editorial control. Those are, by definition, general purpose.
My personal take is that by saying "Sony is different though" Epic is trying to provide a fig leaf for a platform owner that could cause them real financial harm if they got on their bad side.
Edit: [1] Isn't it interesting thought that the 3 console platforms don't compete on what percent cut they take from software published on their platforms. All 3 are 30%.
Lets say console charges 30% to increase profit from -a% to +b%
Lets say Apple charges 30% to increase profit from +x% to +y%
The argument boils down to "One should be allowed to charge if it makes something unprofitable profitable. Therefore consoles should be allowed to charge but Apple should not."
But wouldn't this argument imply it is also wrong for consoles to charge in excess of what makes their profit greater than 0%? Or is there some fixed small amount of profit for which this is ok, say 5%, and Apple's profit from phones alone already exceeds this small number?
… are completely dependent on what expenses are attributed to the revenue by the cost accountant. Is producing WWDC an App Store cost?
I've always seen this as slightly shady even if it is considered a valid business model.
It's often unclear if consumers are fooled about the true quality of goods, whether they are Veblen goods.
If it's a Veblen good or if they genuinely do value the brand name alone then I guess it's fine but it's not too exactly ethical to fool consumers about the quality of your products or what the brand actually represents (which is what consumers always say they value about brands - not the name itself).
I'm likewise not very sympathetic to the idea that these brands deserve government protection from knock offs. If consumers genuinely aren't bothered about whether their Nike shirt is "real" why does the government need to be?
Extreme Gross profits margin is entirely what enables marketing and funding for luxury brands.
It's not absolute PROOF though, because maybe you can charge high profit margins because you make really good stuff and people and are willing to pay more.
But in general, in normal competitive markets, if you have a high markup people will tend to seek\buy cheaper alternatives.
> But in general, in normal competitive markets, if you have a high markup people will tend to seek\buy cheaper alternatives.
That is in fact what happens. Apple rarely dominates in market share, and they do not have dominant phone market share. I can’t recall a time where they ever did have dominant phone market share.