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.
The arbitrary limitations on computers that are obviously general purpose is more clear than the arbitrary limitations on general purpose computers that are marketed as special purpose computers (gaming machines). In reality they're all equally bad.
Are you saying that the laws governing digital markets should vary based on a manufacturer's current marketing strategy?
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.
Yes the rules should change. Otherwise it will increasingly go other way and what used to be general use devices will be turned into limited use computers that users wont own.
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.
> Are you saying that the laws governing digital markets should vary based on a manufacturer's current marketing strategy?
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.
To be fair though, Apple doesn't "have a say" in what you do with your computer after it's sold to you. You can do whatever you want with your computer hardware. Where they DO have a say is in what their software does, software which you don't own. You're merely granted a license to use it. It sucks, but that's how intellectual property works in today's world.
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?
iOS/iPadOS devices have never been marketed as general purpose computers though.
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.
To me, that ad underscores the point somewhat. Apple is marketing these devices as something other than a computer. Something that makes a computer unnecessary.
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.
>the console manufacturer is actually adding significant value and taking a fair (or not so fair) margin in exchage.
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.
> What does a game console manufacturer do that Apple does not?
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.
> 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?
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?
>I mean, why not? They did so in the past (Windows 10 S).
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.
They create dedicated hardware designed to excel at gaming and then sell it at or near cost. In a very real sense they create the market that games producers sell into, and the business model is explicitly centered around those software sales. They participate in marketing, branding, etc. There's a genuine holistic value exchange that happens. 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. And then they try to take the same cut that authentic gaming ecosystem players have as their whole revenue source.
> They create dedicated hardware designed to excel at gaming and then sell it at or near cost. In a very real sense they create the market that games producers sell into, and the business model is explicitly centered around those software sales.
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?
Kind of... Windows itself actually has zero native support for Vulkan, it's all implemented through backdoor APIs exposed by the three major graphics drivers. In practice that works well enough in Win32, but it doesn't work at all in the UWP sandbox, so if UWP had succeeded in the way Microsoft wanted it to then Vulkan would be locked out. Luckily UWP was a complete flop.
Apple make a huge profit on the iPhone, they make back R&D costs and then some, just from hardware sale. The same cannot be said for the game console industry. Don't be disingenuous.
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.
Epic doesn't want those users. It is not asking for any placement in the app store. It just wants it's own users who have iPhones to be able to access its software which it will funnel to them through their own channel. Apple contributes nothing to cultivate the gaming market overall. No marketing, no investment, no PR, no subsidation of the hardware etc. Apple simply gets in the way, making it harder, adding restrictions, invading Epic's customers privacy and then to add insult to injury takes a huge slice of the profits.
> Other than cultivating a base of iOS users spending 7x more than Android users on apps[1].
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.
Right, but looked from the other angle, if Apple didn’t provide an easy enough experience for developing apps, less 3rd party developers would develop and they wouldn’t have access to a luxurious market. It’s a two way relationship, these things don’t exist in a vacuum.
Game developers and console makers tend to have a much cosier relationship because they actually care about each other. Console makers will engage in co-marketing deals or other things to entice and make good on their relationship.
> Game developers and console makers tend to have a much cosier relationship because they actually care about each other.
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.
The difference is that people buy a phone because you need a phone to function in the modern world and then play games on it because might as well. Whereas people buy a console specifically to play games. That means the gamedevs have more leverage in the latter scenario.
Well, duh. How different it is between publishing on PC? IMO, more useful synergy comes from developers have a good relationship with Nvidia/AMD than with publishers.
I'm not arguing about that. I'm saying that "carrying about each other" is a stretch.
Apple used to bring Epic games on stage during it presentations.
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.
Logistically speaking: By the time the dust settles on such lawsuits, the next generation is here while the companies can use whatever loopholes to stall out for another generation. Consoles are so ephemeral in the grand scheme of things, and lawsuits take so long, that it's not worth it.
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.
That's not really what I'm talking about. Nintendo doesn't have a "Nintendo OS" it updates for 40 years. It effectively makes a new OS each time. Any restrictions added to the Switch OS can be worked around with the Switch 2 OS.
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.
Apple provides a general purpose computing device. Their big mistake was offering an App Store that allows developers nearly every type of app for nearly every use case (except for the ones Apple doesn't like, but Apple can ignore them and not lose money).
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.
One difference is that most (all?) consoles are sold at a loss and they survive on profits from games. Apple would do perfectly fine with no income from games while Xbox and PlayStation would be DOA.
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).
Getting a console game published is just not the same as a mobile app. Say what you will about the specific value but the process is much more involved and exclusive for consoles. Everything published to a console is of much higher quality than the app stores despite the mobile approval process. In this way its much easier for the console platform owners to argue that they are providing clear value.
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'm wondering how you're thinking this distinction should apply in the real world. Would you say that if a game console is ever sold at a profit, the rules should change for that console platform?