[ooobit2]

We're seeing this right now with Epic's Tim Sweeney suing Apple for its mandatory cut on all digital goods. Yet a large number of people, people who claim to be pro-99%, anti-technocracy, anti-corporatism, are shilling the rhetoric that "it's Apple's platform" and "Epic knew what the terms were."

Well, yes, but that's exactly what SV activists and social activists are claiming has to stop. It's absurd that these same people are willing to defend the iPhone/iOS/Apple Services pipeline of proprietary anticompetitive dependencies.

I hope Epic wins this case against Apple. It's a precedent that needs to be set for limiting anticompetitive business and manufactured monopolies. Nothing Apple has in its portfolio is absent a perfect substitute in the very same market Apple is selling their products. But Apple has used proprietary inputs as a gatekeeper for their revenue. No one should have to buy a $49 dongle to plug an HDMI cable into their iPhone when every Android/Windows/Linux-based device has built-in support within the device. And if someone tries to push a "Lightning" to HDMI cable, Apple detects and deliberately locks off device content.

Too many big, beloved logos are built on anti-free market tactics, both by lobbying policy and private act. The sheer volume of this that Steve Jobs did in his lifetime made it hard for me to feel anything when he died. I genuinely felt relieved that this tyrant in technology, a man whose every product idea was just enough of a change of someone else's existing work product, slapped with intentional proprietary inputs to limit competition within the Apple eco-system, was finally gone. And then Tim Cook sashay'd on in.

[Razengan]

> We're seeing this right now with Epic's Tim Sweeney suing Apple for its mandatory cut on all digital goods. I hope Epic wins this case against Apple.

It's amazing how everyone who brings that up avoids this question:

Does Epic allow anyone to create and and sell content for Fortnite, without giving Epic any money?

Do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo allow other stores on their consoles?

[esperent]

> Do Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo allow other stores on their consoles?

Good idea, let's make that a requirement too. The law could be something like "if you sell a general purpose computing device, you're not allowed to mandate software vendor lockin". That would open up so many possibilities, it would be great for the people who own consoles.

[dleslie]

Video game consoles are not general computing devices. Their controlled and curated walled gardens are part of the consumer appeal, and the absence of those would make consoles no different than PCs. If consumers wanted that they'd be buying PCs only.

[loup-vaillant]

Video game console are general computing devices. Their input & output tends to be limited (no keyboard nor mouse, at least by default), but they still run arbitrary programs (namely, any game).

One major, technical differences from PCs, is the uniformity of the hardware. This is becoming less true, but consoles traditionally have fixed hardware. No "works on my machine" problems on consoles. This also guarantees stable performance characteristics, that developers can optimise for. (This is less true now that consoles are resembling PCs more and more internally).

This is even more visible on older consoles: take an N64 (PS2), plug in a cartridge (insert a CD), and voilà you have your game, completely separated from any other program. Perhaps one of those programs could be GNU/Linux, but the default would still to be running on the bare metal, without interference from other programs. Quite unlike the PC there.

Incidentally, I could see a new game console solve the Thirty Million Lines Problem. https://caseymuratori.com/blog_0031 Fixed, powerful hardware with a well defined interface could possibly trigger the OS competition that is so sorely lacking rights now: Windows, Linux, MacOS, IOS, Android, and if you pick a particular niche (Server, Mobile, Desktop), you'd rarely see more than 2 significant contenders.

[shawnz]

Can you still say it runs arbitrary games if you need a license to be able to run them?

For example, is my microwave a general purpose computing device just because I can upgrade the firmware, even if the firmware has to be signed by the manufacturer?

[loup-vaillant]

If the vendor requires a license to let you run software on a powerful multi-media (sound, image, input, network) device they sold you, then I can tell you they put restrictions on what would otherwise be a general purpose computer. In my opinion, such crippling should be illegal.

For instance: the iPhone. It would definitely be general purpose if you didn't have to go through the App Store™.

Your microwave oven is different: minimum input, minimum display, one main purpose (heat food). Properly constructed ones can easily be bug-free on the first try, no need for patches. The firmware may even be fused into a strictly read-only chip. Clearly single purpose.

Personally, I'd tentatively set the limit at programmability: if there's any way to reprogram a machine, the user should be able to do it without authorization from the vendor. (We could make exceptions, for instance break control software in cars: such software should probably be tested to death and vetted by regulation. Preventing users from rolling their own may be justified to avoid untimely deaths on the road. Though "preventing" here could mean "legally disallow" rather than "use DRM". Not sure which is best.)

[dleslie]

> but they still run arbitrary programs (namely, any game).

They run authorized programs, not arbitrary programs.

[tass]

They can continue to use the PlayStation store, continue to have exclusive games, and need not see any difference except by choice.

What is the downside?

[dleslie]

The hardware prices increase due to the loss of license fee revenue.

[loup-vaillant]

Console vendors aren't allowed to sell hardware at a loss. The price increase would be mild… and a truer reflection of the costs of owning a console (less hidden costs from the walled garden aspects).

[jiofih]

The same can be said of Macs and iOS devices.

[corysama]

It would be the end of consoles. The economics of the Xbox/PlayStation/NintendoWhatever presume vendor lock-in.

[ericflo]

Not really, the economics are just better for the platform with vendor lock-in. They'd still recoup their costs via their store, which they can gift powerful advantages like making it default, having it be more integrated in various ways, etc. It would likely end up as a power-law distribution of store usage with the platform owner on top, so platforms would still make their profits. Having an option for another store wouldn't be the end of anything, and would improve consumer agency significantly.

[johncolanduoni]

The lethal threat to fully unlocked consoles with no contractual limits ruled out by law isn't other stores or even piracy. It's people realizing that if they're selling the hardware at a loss, it'll likely be the most cost efficient GPU compute you can buy. This isn't supposition, it happened with the PS3: https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/3/20984028/playstation-supe...

[valvar]

There are jailbreaks for the PS4, and it seems more likely than not that there will also be jailbreaks for the PS5. The barriers for actors who want to exploit console compute power are not significant. But they are significant for regular consumers.

[StavrosK]

They wouldn't be selling the hardware at a loss.

[noduerme]

Isn't that roughly what Google has done with Android? They can choose what they want to curate in their own app store, but they don't lock users in based on hardware or use of Android OS. (Someone should take them to court over their prioritization of AMP pages, but that's a different story).

[Razengan]

What about > Does Epic allow players to buy Fortnite content from outside of Fortnite, without giving Epic any money?

[d3nj4l]

This is a disingenuous comparison. Epic does not sell content not made by Epic in Fortnite, while Apple sells content not made by Apple in the App Store. This is like saying a branded clothing store in a mall has to sell things that aren't of its brand if it wants to complain about the mall throttling its sales.

[nodamage]

Ah, so you're saying the key difference is that Apple has allowed the sale of third party content in their product. Do you agree then, that:

1. If Apple didn't allow the sale of third party content, they would be in the same position as Epic and therefore there would be no problem?

2. If Epic allowed the sale of third party content, they should not be allowed to control what type of content is sold, nor should they be allowed to collect a percentage of each sale?

[lukeramsden]

> 2. If Epic allowed the sale of third party content, they should not be allowed to control what type of content is sold, nor should they be allowed to collect a percentage of each sale?

I don't think anyone has a problem with platforms charging _a_ percentage of each sale, just that Apple's is too high (and in the case of their dispute with Spotify, that it allows them to unfairly compete in their own marketplace)

[d3nj4l]

If Apple did not allow the sale of third party content, there wouldn't be "a cut". It's all in house products made by Apple.

[Abishek_Muthian]

Would we accept if the $1000 computer we buy forces us to use only their OS, can install software from their own store only, will receive only 3-5 years of software updates?

Why should we give a smartphone manufacturer(who ever it may be) such overwhelming ownership over their hardware when the computer manufacturers don't get it?