I don’t quite understand why they happily subscribe to this model with Xbox PlayStation and Nintendo, but are adamant about getting their way with Google and Apple.
Just because they have general computing hardware doesn't mean they are general purpose computers.
What if they market it one way this month and a different way next month?
I wonder, would a Chromebook be considered a general purpose computer for the purposes of this argument? Should the rules change for the Xbox if Microsoft ever mentions that the Xbox is a great platform for browsing the web on a TV? You can plug a keyboard and mouse into it and Google Docs (among others) works perfectly.
Apple has been heading in this direction with iOS, iPadOs and lately with MacOs too. I think their main reason though is to be able to force users to upgrade/trash otherwise perfectly fine devices using software. Computers are fast enough for most users already but then there is no reason to upgrade.
Definitely not. Hence why I said:
> In reality they're all equally bad.
People who own a computer should have full control over their devices, full stop. I don't care if it's Apple, Google, Nintendo, whomever. They shouldn't have any say in what a computer can and can't do after they sold it.
If you want to make an argument for requiring Apple (et al) to provide straightforward mechanisms for rejecting the supplied software and installing alternative operating systems (e.g. Asahi Linux) then I'll support it to the ends of the earth. I'd be your most vocal supporter. I'd be delighted if this was a legal requirement of all computer hardware, from mainframes to microwaves.
If you want to make an argument for software developers (operating system or otherwise) to be legally required to make their software do anything their customers demands it do (or what another billion dollar corporation like Epic Games demands) then I think that's utterly mad. What would be the self-limiting principle other than to only apply it to exceptionally successful products, with the threshold of success defined by lobbyists of competitors/opponents?
You can't swap the batteries between two iPhones that you purchased directly from Apple. It's probably true of other components too, but I am certain about the batteries.
> If you want to make an argument for software developers (operating system or otherwise) to be legally required to make their software do anything their customers demands it do (or what another billion dollar corporation like Epic Games demands) then I think that's utterly mad.
I think they should be legally required to not impose restrictions on what the user does with the software that is on the hardware that is sold to them. That means: Free Software all the way down. Obviously Apple shouldn't be legally obligated to do what people want them to do with their software. What I am saying is that it should be illegal for Apple to stop others from doing what others want with their software.
You absolutely can. Whether the software likes it is another matter. If you don't want to be under the thumb of an operating system, don't use it.
> What I am saying is that it should be illegal for Apple to stop others from doing what others want with their software.
And that's where I simply disagree. I am an immense fan of the GPL (version 2 especially) and I recognise that the GPL license requires intellectual property rights in order to work. You want copyleft worth a damn? You need copyright. And that means you get copyright. Apple has intellectual property rights over their software and that doesn't give anyone else the right to "do whatever they want" with it.
If you want to cancel all intellectual property rights with respect to software, that's an interesting argument to make. But cancelling it under a few rare circumstances when some software irritates you seems like the height of absurdity.
How do you do that without replacing the hardware?
> You want copyleft worth a damn?
I don't. I want a world without copyright, and I recognize that means taking copyleft with it.
> If you want to cancel all intellectual property rights with respect to software
My desire is more radical: I wish for a world without intellectual propery. Yes, that includes patents, trademarks, and creative copyright. Of course they all have different implications, but I really believe the world with be a better place without all of them. They each mainly serve to better their "owners" (almost exclusively not the creators) rather than better humanity.
As I said earlier—
If you want to make an argument for requiring Apple (et al) to provide straightforward mechanisms for rejecting the supplied software and installing alternative operating systems (e.g. Asahi Linux) then I'll support it to the ends of the earth. I'd be your most vocal supporter. I'd be delighted if this was a legal requirement of all computer hardware, from mainframes to microwaves.
> I wish for a world without intellectual propery.
Cool, but appreciate that this places you in an extreme minority position, and one which destroys your own argument. Without copyright, you don't get to assert any implied rights which normally come from "buying" software. Without copyright, you received nothing of value from Apple except the hardware. If Apple don't own the software that's on YOUR device, they cannot be held responsible for what it does.
They have increasingly become that, and I’m not arguing that the limitations are good, but the limitations of the app store have always been core to the marketing of these devices.
The Mac product lines are the only “general purpose” devices.
iPads are most definitely marketed as devices suitable to take the place of conventional computers.
The underlying implication being: “You don’t need a computer”, and “our ecosystem is so good that the new generation won’t even know what a computer is”.
As a tech and Linux nerd since the early 2000s, I can understand why other tech savvy people could interpret this as “this is no different than a computer”, but I don’t think this is the right framing, and I don’t think we’re the intended audience.
Their claim has always been that this ecosystem makes general purpose computers unnecessary for a wide array of use cases, because “there’s an app for that”.
From the perspective of a layperson, I think the message is: “Computers are for tech people (and/or outdated). This is for the rest of us”.
The term “general purpose” means something very different to the HN crowd than it does for the majority of Apple customers.
I want to reiterate that I’m not endorsing their position, just trying to point out that their marketing has been consistent in trying to differentiate the i*OS products. The difference between “you don’t need a computer” and “this is a general purpose computer” is subtle but important I think.
I also don’t think it’s a good direction for tech in general, even though I value some of the benefits of the locked down ecosystem. I do most of my productive work on a Linux system and think it’s critically important to continue having this option.
I’m just not trying to use an iPad for this purpose.
From the EU point of view it may be simply one of scale. If any of those held the amount of market power Apple does, I suspect the EU would designate them Gatekeepers and we would be off to the races.
From the games publisher point of view, the console manufacturer is actually adding significant value and taking a fair (or not so fair) margin in exchage. Apple detracts value, contributes nothing and then charges a huge margin for it. I can see why Epic views it differently.
I don't get this. What does a game console manufacturer do that Apple does not? Both provide hardware, system-level APIs, dev systems, developer support, customers. In the old days, game manufacturers didn't even provide a sales channel.
And when you say Apple provides nothing, my above list is pretty solid. In the old days, developer margins were way slimmer, with physical stores taking a 50% cut on top of the console licensing fees and physical manufacturing.
Take it to the other extreme: what does a PC manufacturer do that Apple does not? Why not let Windows close down and take 30% on any program installed on Windows? Or go along with its old plans to enforce only signed Windows Store apps to be installed on Windows 12?
It's ultimately just history and culture. We consider general purpose computing to be open and specialized computing to be closed. Apple wants to keep claiming it's just a phone when in reality it's basically a PC. They even unified their hardware so that Mac and IOS run on the same architecture; hardware and software wise there isn't much a mac can do that an iPhone can't do.
I mean, why not? They did so in the past (Windows 10 S).
I think it turned out to be a terrible business move on Microsoft's part that didn't pan out, but why would it be regulated against now?
probably because they don't want to bring up old wounds regarding antitrust. 10 S was trying to go around it by more or less making a mobile device with some desktop functionality. Worked out about as well as Windows 10 mobile.
>but why would it be regulated against now?
well, IOS is being regulated against now, so there's your reason.
So like Apple releasing the iPhone, increasing graphics performance by double-digit percentages consistently year after year?
> They participate in marketing, branding, etc. There's a genuine holistic value exchange that happens.
You would need to give me examples for non-AAA games of console makers providing exceptional value here. My understanding is that this is primarily the role of the publisher, not the console maker.
Apple does showcase _certain_ apps on stage at keynotes, during commercials, with prime placement on the App Store, promoting special events, and so on. This is the level of promotion that I'm used to with game consoles as well.
> Apple's value exchange is almost negative. They invest nothing in gaming as an industry, charge a premium for the hardware and then add burdensome restrictions on how the software is delivered.
What is Playstation's big investment into gaming as an industry, if not for the hardware and the platform creating an ecosystem for games the same way iPhone/iOS have?
Microsoft created DirectX the same way Apple created and promoted Metal. Could you elaborate on the differences?
> And then they try to take the same cut that authentic gaming ecosystem players have as their whole revenue source.
Yes, could you elaborate on what additional work console makers have done here to justify their cut that Apple hasn't?
Other than cultivating a base of iOS users spending 7x more than Android users on apps[1]. That sounds like significant value to me and not dissimilar to what the console manufacturers pitch to developers.
Those iOS users certainly aren't spending 7x more on AppleTV and iTunes albums. It's because of third-parties that Apple can convince users to spend money in the first place.
> That sounds like significant value to me and not dissimilar to what the console manufacturers pitch to developers.
If console manufacturers had the hardware margins Apple did, they wouldn't be console manufacturers anymore.
The problem is assuming that either party is the one providing all the value. Of course the app developers are providing value, but so is Apple.
> If console manufacturers had the hardware margins Apple did, they wouldn't be console manufacturers anymore.
Margins are irrelevant in this discussion.
> On another note they managed to create a luxurious market although the other platform also allows 3rd party apps.
Many proven monopolies seemingly "improve" their user experience to get users to defend it. Famously, Bell Telephones had imposed a severely-limiting monopoly on phone hardware, but made long-distance calling free as a consolation to users. Bell's new "luxurious market" didn't excuse their prior market abuses, though.
> it’s undeniable that 3rd party devs bring something on the table, but so does Apple
I'm trying to say the opposite. If Apple was providing first-class support to any of their hardware-products, then they wouldn't need to impose anticompetitive limitations on third-parties. What Apple brings to the table is deliberately gimped to manipulate software margins and reduce user choice as a consequence. Third party devs are the only ones bringing things to the table; Apple is charging them for the privilege.
Again - if you want to test this, ask around and see how many people would buy an iPhone with just first-party content. Nobody would, and the clear and eminent reason is that Apple does not provide a superior experience by removing user choice.
That point is quite moot. If there were only first party content on the phone today, there would still be a browser. Also, this content is not specific to the Apple platforms, you can access all of them from Android too, so it’s not the kind of content that would make an iPhone particularly interesting.
> Many proven monopolies seemingly "improve" their user experience to get users to defend it. Famously, Bell Telephones had imposed a severely-limiting monopoly on phone hardware, but made long-distance calling free as a consolation to users. Bell's new "luxurious market" didn't excuse their prior market abuses, though.
I don’t see how Apple is a monopoly with less than 30% of market share in the EU, so this comparison is not apt. Even the DMA talks about gatekeepers not monopolies. I’m of the opinion that kind of dynamics do not apply here - especially because you can switch platforms and go to the other side quite easily nowadays.
> I'm trying to say the opposite. If Apple was providing first-class support to any of their hardware products, then they wouldn't need to impose anticompetitive limitations on third-parties. What Apple brings to the table is deliberately gimped to manipulate software margins and reduce user choice as a consequence. Third party devs are the only ones bringing things to the table; Apple is charging them for the privilege.
It’s the hardware and the conscious decisions that were made along the way by Apple that partly played a role in creating this lucrative market and it doesn’t seem very out of place to me for a business to charge for a market that they partly enabled. I don’t see what’s wrong here. Third parties still come and try to make a buck, so it also seems to be working for them. The third party creates apps to make money, which in turn makes the platform more attractive and hence increases the amount of customers. Apple continues investing in the hardware and software stack that takes advantage of even better technologies and capabilities each year, enabling people to come up with even better apps and experiences. They also consciously make it a closed platform, the opposite of the other platform that has much more market share, to give a choice to customers who prefer this kind of product. Two sides in this relationship feed each other, one wouldn’t be better off without the other.
> Again, if you want to test this, ask around and see how many people would buy an iPhone with just first-party content. Nobody would, and the clear and eminent reason is that Apple does not provide a superior experience by removing user choice.
Again, you’re assuming things are in a vacuum. If only Apple had first party apps and all the other platforms still exist as they are today - sure, there would be much less people buying iPhones, although I believe some still would. But that’s not a fair comparison: if we assumed all other platforms also had only first party apps and nothing else, then I’m sure people would still buy iPhones in droves. But this is still not a very apt comparison, and the reason is the App Store and third party aspect is part of the product, and it has been for a long time. It’s not a separate entity, it’s a core part of the value proposition of an iPhone for the consumer. It’s akin to asking “how many people would buy a car if cars didn’t have engines” so trying to draw conclusions from assuming they didn’t exist shifts the discussion to be something else. The question is how much this relationship between Apple and third parties feed each other - and to me it doesn’t seem like only one side is doing all the work without getting something from the other side in return.
Also, let’s not forget, the sides who are fighting here are both greedy companies and they try to improve their bottom lines at the end of the day. It’s not like Epic is fighting this just for the common good, also it’s not like Apple is obligated to do charity work for free.
And nothing to browse on. Not sure anyone would want an iPhone like that.
> I don’t see how Apple is a monopoly with less than 30% of market share in the EU, so this comparison is not apt.
It's been said hundreds of times on this site, but I'll repeat it for posterity. You do not need total control over a market to be charged with monopoly abuse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabash,_St._Louis_%26_Pacific_...
> I don’t see what’s wrong here.
[...]
> They also consciously make it a closed platform
Are you starting to see what's wrong here? Apple is the regulator of their own internal market, and they haven't made their closed platform a competitive ecosystem. They are directly responsible for ensuring that third-parties are offered fair terms to compete on, and they do not: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/image/conten...
> and to me it doesn’t seem like only one side is doing all the work without getting something from the other side in return.
"All the work" in this case, meaning creating an anticompetitive platform where they gimp their competitors? Again, looping back around to Ma Bell - you cannot excuse an exploitative system with it's benefits. Apple must first remediate the issues with their internal market if they intend to keep shipping iPhones in Europe. I don't see what's wrong here.
> the sides who are fighting here are both greedy companies
Which stage of grief is bartering, again?
You don't need to desperately appeal to us by comparing Epic and Apple. We know they're both greedy opportunists, but this time Epic is right. Apple is operating on a double-standard that will tear their company apart if they fight it.
> also it’s not like Apple is obligated to do charity work for free.
Here's an incomplete list of times Apple did charity work to support the whims of another market regulator:
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/1/22361762/iphone-russia-sta...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-to-...
https://support.apple.com/en-us/111754
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indias-govt-demanded-app...
https://www.reuters.com/legal/brazil-court-fines-apple-order...
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-pay-c144-mln-settle...
I smell crocodile tears, Tim Cook.
> No marketing, no investment, no PR
How is Apple Arcade not at least marketing and PR for gaming?
lmao, in what world? Apple used to bring Epic games on stage during it presentations.
The difference between a gaming console and a phone is that your phone is in your pocket and the console isn't. Both provide libraries and tools for development, both provide support, both provide distribution channel, both provide free marketing, both provide and cultivate user base.
The main difference is: console makers have publishing divisions (that btw put even worse restrictions sometimes) and as of very recently started buying every developer they can afford.
I'm not arguing about that. I'm saying that "carrying about each other" is a stretch.
That seems to be the full extent of their collaboration. No specific deals, no specific adjustments, just having them at PR events and nothing more.
The weirdest thing to me is they couldn't even come up with a deal with Microsoft and the Xbox streaming app when historically MS saved Apple's bacon at the most crucial time.
Meanwhile, mobile OS's have been around for 15+ years and seem to be there for the long run. Playing the long game makes sense.
----
Emotionally speaking: Tim Sweeny is a game dev at heart and probably respects dedicated console gaming (despite coming to notoriety via PC gaming). They sell consoles at a loss to make gaming more accessible which is many devs' goals at the end of the day. IOS and Android are closer to a PC than a dedicated console, so closing down those environments make no sense. Android inherently isn't closed but Google was strong arming 3rd parties behind the scnes (which Epic won in court over). Apple... well, many people reading this probably know that history.
SOME consoles are sold at close to margins or even a loss at launch, making up for it later.
Other companies like Nintendo have gone many generations selling at a profit at launch.
So should Nintendo not be allowed to make the same revenue cut that other console makers get?
The longest lasting console would in fact be the switch with 8 years behind it. And given how Sony is already making plans for the PS6, I don't think that will change soon. the epic/apple lawsuits took over 4 years, so any resolution would come mid-way into the lifetime of a console. Is 4 years of burning a bridge worth potentially 4 relevant years of having an epic store on the Switch? Probably not.
If Apple had run it more like MS or Sony, the only way to get on the platform would be for developers to spend millions of dollars making their case that they deserve to be on the platform. This is obviously very limiting.
Strictly my opinion, but I also believe that where Sony sends engineers to help developers that struggle (case in point, Helldivers 2 mass influx of gamers after it became a social media darling causing the servers to bog down), Apple would be more likely to use their massive data from iPhones to launch a direct competitor to any app that became a big hit rather than help them out (case in point, Spotify Vs. Apple Music and the other apps Apple tried to buy, and when denied, cloned).
Mobile app store approval is really a joke by comparison. Its easier to argue that mobile app approval's main purpose is to provide market control.
That said, its just about what is easier to argue in court and where to start. Epic would probably ask opt to put the store on consoles if they were given the chance.
I never said how I felt about how the rules should be applied, I was just making a distinction between the two industries.
Stop em all from charging a percentage. All of em. Every industry.