[brookst]

I can see wanting Apple to lose, but I can't imagine wanting Epic to win. That was such an ugly parasitic business model: let others take the risks to build platforms, let others operate the platforms, get the courts to mandate equal treatment for Epic to swoop in after the risks pay off.

I'd have to sympathy for the phone platforms, but it would have destroyed the console market overnight. No way consoles work if every penny of customer lifetime value has to be in the up-front sale price.

[jdiff]

It's been working out fine for the Steam Deck. Sure, you can install Windows and/or any other storefront, but you won't have the console-like experience that Valve's own software provides.

It's trivially easy to install pirated games on the Deck, without any cracking or modification of the system. You never have to make a single Steam purchase after buying the Deck, but Valve's betting that you will. And they're right, that's enough. Most people don't go redoing or even tweaking the software stack on their hardware, they just stick with what comes out of the box.

[smachiz]

I mean... working fine, in that the only people who buy them are pretty techy.

It's not so easy to get Win 10 working right, it requires a fair bit of effort, and the experience sucks.

I'm not so sure Steam would be super happy if Epic started distributing a new frontend and store through their marketplace. I'm quite sure they wouldn't let them.

[tpxl]

Steam sells games which require third-party launchers to work. For example: Red Dead Redemption 2 requires the Rockstar Launcher to work (many a negative steam review regarding this), and this launcher allows you to buy other Rockstar games (The GTA franchise, LA Noire and more).

So yeah, Steam definitely allows distribution of storefronts.

[rezonant]

I would be extremely surprised if Valve attempted to block Epic from doing that.

[smachiz]

Really? They specifically don't allow distribution of anything but games, which would preclude a storefront, presumably.

[int_19h]

Steam has an entire top-level category in the store for software.

https://store.steampowered.com/software

[rstat1]

They distribute games from both EA and Ubisoft that force you to use both companies launchers, that also just so happen to come with there own stores attached.

[_kbh_]

The steam deck is a way different value proposition compared to consoles though, console manufacturers take a loss for initial consoles sold until they can bring costs.

Whereas the steam deck has likely been sold as a profit from day one.

[8note]

This is why the steam deck is a good example? The console doesn't have to be sold at a loss in order to sell games.

It would be better overall for competition for the games to be decoupled from the console. Same as with phone apps

[brookst]

You’ve made a fair point and that’s a reasonable opinion, but do you think it should be outright illegal for console makers to use a business model of consoles at cost, profits made on a share of game sales?

Because that was Epic’s end game.

[smoldesu]

They can make them at-cost and then charge whatever they want on their store. They just also have to allow me to choose different stores, or install another OS on my console if the OEM goes against my wishes. If you don't think I deserve that right as the lawful proprietor of said hardware, then we may be at an impasse. It seems like perfectly fair game to me.

[_kbh_]

> They just also have to allow me to choose different stores, or install another OS on my console if the OEM goes against my wishes

Whose job would it be to maintain all of the compatibility layers for the custom hardware that consoles generally contain?.

Who pays for all the work to allow you to do whatever you want on your device?.

[smoldesu]

The Steam Deck probably doesn't have much wider margins than a Switch or a Playstation. It might be sold at a profit, but the base $400 model is a pretty ridiculous deal already. Gabe Newell was upfront about the pricing process being painful for the hardware. He he also said that piracy is a services problem though, and the Steam Deck proves that in spades - if the default experience is superior, why bother with the competitors? You don't need to lock out the user to make that point.

If anything, the iPhone is the odd one out for having hardware margins that don't suck.

[zirgs]

Nintendo also doesn't sell their consoles at a loss.

[stavros]

What if consoles make money from games without turning games into rent-to-play with no resale value?

Platforms are hostile to the consumer and can't die quickly enough for me, that's why I wanted Epic to win.

[pb7]

You are complaining about companies mistreating consumers and you wanted Epic to win? They're as shitty as they come. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/12/245-milli...

Apple has provided the world 1000x more value than Epic ever will. Justice prevailed.

[waboremo]

Apple has made billions (upwards of $300m in pure profit) from Fortnite. If you care about Epic's shitty qualities in that aspect (the case you're linking), surely you also care about Apple profiting off that exploitation as well?

[pb7]

Have you read the details of the judgment? Most of the dark patterns Epic used aren't possible on iOS. In fact, the reason they hate Apple's walled garden so much is because they add too much friction to the dark patterns they want to use, notably authentication for subsequent in-app purchases, so I don't know what exploitation profiting you're referring to. Apple protects consumers from shitty companies like Epic abusing consumers (in this case, children) and for that I thank them.

[smoldesu]

You can offer safe payment authorization APIs that protect families without also forcing developers to pay you 27% on every microtransaction. One might even call that good OS design, rather than a subtly hostile pattern of funneling users through a contractually-obligated money siphon they have no control over.

[pb7]

Doesn't hurt consumers, doesn't matter to government. Simple as. Apple is allowed to make money off the platform they built. Developers knew the terms before they started developing for it - the terms haven't changed since their inception and match other similar platforms - but each one knows they get more value out of Apple than vice versa. I have no sympathy for them anymore after I have been deleting more and more apps because of dark patterns. Nearly all of my phone use is on either stock apps or apps that are completely unaffected by App Store commissions like Uber, DoorDash, etc so I know who provides me the greater value and it's not companies like Epic.

[brookst]

Are you really complaining that the luxury store is declining to accept a cut of drug dealers’ profits for letting them operate on the doorstep?

Epic can be as skeezy as they want. Apple can be as prudish as they want. I can imagine disliking both, but I just can’t grok cheering for skeeze.

[_piif]

> Apple protects consumers from shitty companies like Epic abusing consumers (in this case, children) and for that I thank them.

Last time I checked the App Store was filled to the brink with worthless pay to win and gambling (sorry I meant surprise mechanics) garbage. Doesn't seem very protective of the children to me. And an opt-in authentification system for microtransactions doesn't make it okay either.

[pb7]

It’s not opt-in, it’s the default. What people do with their money is none of your business. The reason Epic got fined was because people whose credit cards were saved and charged didn’t consent to the purchases and Epic refused to refund even when their virtual currency wasn’t used, or they locked out the accounts entirely when the transactions were charged back.

[waboremo]

"Most" is doing exceptional heavy lifting here, since the verdict (about lootboxes) were absolutely possible on iOS. In fact, there are still plenty of games on iOS that support such lootboxes. This is literally why they created Apple Arcade, by the way.

So cut the BS, admit you're a hardcore fan of Apple it's really that simple. You don't care about privacy or exploitation. When Apple exploits kids it's fine in your eyes.

[Dylan16807]

You're not supposed to cheer on companies by picking favorites like with sports team.

Epic is on the right side of that particular issue.

[pb7]

No, they're not, and I just showed you why. Epic is a scummy company that employs dark patterns to extract as much money as possible from easily manipulated consumers and Apple kneecaps those strategies on iOS by having control. If Epic got their way, this is what you would have to deal with on iOS too.

[Dylan16807]

Apple allows many bad billing practices as long as they get a 30% cut. Not as many, but many.

If Apple wanted to, they could block bad practices and either allow external processors or charge a pure payment processing fee. Their current actions seem to be more concerned about the fees than the customers.

[stavros]

Again, it doesn't matter if Epic is scummy. In the issue they were litigating for, I want them to win, because I want app stores to not be a monopoly on platforms. That's it. I don't care what else Epic does, I'm not going to say "oh if an evil person agrees with me, that means I must change my opinion".

[pb7]

You still don’t get it. There are thousands like Epic. They’ve shown (the FTC’s opinion, not just mine) that they will stoop low to make an extra buck and the only thing stopping them on iOS are Apple’s rules. You wanting app stores to not be monopolies means billions of people will be directly subject to unethical companies like Epic. As a consumer, I say fuck that.