[zmmmmm]

It's a good question.

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.

[morcheeba]

>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.

[johnnyanmac]

> 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.

[dwaite]

> 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?

[johnnyanmac]

>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.

[zmmmmm]

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.

[dwaite]

> 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?

[Rohansi]

Just wanted to point out that Metal is another source of lock in from Apple. Although DirectX is Windows-only you can still use Vulkan natively.

[jsheard]

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.

[fennecbutt]

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.

[matwood]

> contributes nothing

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.

[1] https://9to5mac.com/2023/09/06/iphone-users-spend-apps/

[zmmmmm]

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.

[password4321]

> Apple contributes nothing to cultivate the gaming market overall.

https://www.apple.com/apple-arcade/

[fennecbutt]

Lmao, that's an Ad for Apple. It has nothing to do with supporting the gaming industry itself.

[password4321]

Thank goodness then that the parent comment mentioned the gaming market rather than the gaming industry!

> No marketing, no investment, no PR

How is Apple Arcade not at least marketing and PR for gaming?

[dwaite]

and all Epic has to do is commit to honoring a contract (this time) to do that.

[smoldesu]

> 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.

[matwood]

Cool, so all the 3rd parties can move to Android and the affluent users will follow. Oh wait.

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.

[madeofpalk]

I mean, if all the third party app developers did stop developing for iOS, I would imagine a significant amount would move to Android.

[akaralar]

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.

[smoldesu]

If Apple didn't provide an easy experience for developing software, nobody would want to buy an iPhone. That's why the web browser portion was essential from the start - Apple needs third-parties in order to sell their hardware.