They're both just engaged in business.

I can believe that Apple is acting incredibly badly in this case without needing to fluff up Epic Games at all.

Apple and Samsung could sue each other and do business with each other because the stakes were lower and they were more codependent.

Companies aren't minds of their own directing their own actions. Tim cook or some other high level executive is deciding these actions. Stop abrogating the direction of the literal directors

This is what's wrong with the current overly capitalist system. Companies are totally allowed to have no conscience, and externalise whatever they please to consumers and the environment. And you could even argue they are 'forced' to do so by due diligence legislation.

If we let this continue there will be no world left to fix. We have to change the game. I'm not saying we should go full communism. Capitalism isn't bad but there needs to be a balance between business and society with actual accountability (rather than the current 'green' initiatives basically just being PR without any kind of enforcement). It can't be all about money.

I think for US culture it's hard to imagine doing this but here in Europe society has always had this balance, at least in most countries. Initiatives like RoHS, GDPR, DSA/DMA are often called anticompetitive but we are actually trying to improve things for the benefit of society, not just the shareholders.

If they could make just as much money (or more) without doing any of those other things, they absolutely would, and any company that wouldn't do the same would eventually be put out of business via competition, barring some kind of external intervention, say from the state.

If you want companies to grow a conscience, you're first going to have to figure out how to change their incentives, which means changing the environment in which they operate.

What do you base that on? Sure corporations take on a life of their own, but there's much more to most of them than purely making profits. They're made up of humans too, and usually it's some executive making a final call. There are many corporate agendas that have little to do with profit.

The meme that corporations are purely about profit needs to die, because it encourages that exact behavior by giving free reign to morally devoid executives, IMHO. Corporations can and should also be held to account legally and ethically for being good stewards of public interests in addition to profitability. In the end they're just tools for organization, and a rather effective one, but they're still run and accountable to humans and human values.

This, of course, doesn't work in consolidated markets, and so what is necessary is for consolidated markets to be deconsolidated.

I don't think companies are going to form a conscience any time soon.

We need to deal with the fact that they're best viewed as being inherently sociopathic and regulate them effectively.

Corporations are organizational models employed by humans in pursuit of human motivations. They are not entities unto themselves. Everything is humans, all the way down.

I'd also like a pony.

Conscience is fundamentally a trait that requires some kind of physical personhood - an actual self-identity with empathy attached to it. Corporations, being pure legal fiction, have neither.

This is why it is imperative to keep them as small and toothless as we possibly can as a society, even beyond issues with monopolies.

Sociopathy is all about driving the interests of the individual. Boards not being liable for the actions of companies allows those interests to always be aligned. Taking that away would require them to think about what's good for the business but also what's good for themselves and those things won't always align for all board members the way they do now.

There is a revolving door between government and corporate leadership.

There is no functional difference between corporate America and public service at this point in time.

One does not rule the other: they are one and the same.

Social media companies have entire teams run by Federal law enforcement.

Federal leadership draws its senior staff from companies like Google.

It is impossible to conduct business without thoroughly invasive involvement of multiple layers of government telling you what you can do, how you must do it, tracking your actions to ensure you comply, and levying obscene punishments if you don't.

For this "service" you are charged a level of tax that would make the Pharaohs green with envy.

Banning third-party payments was one thing, but then Apple banned publishers from TELLING people about the ability to pay through a Web site.

That is not just unnecessary from a business standpoint (since the vast majority of people opt for the most convenient thing); but it's so offensive that it invites crackdowns, implemented by ignorant politicians and legislative bodies... hurting Apple's bottom line.

Apple is tarnishing its image and earning it a place among the true offenders of "big tech," a place it mostly doesn't belong because it's not a gatekeeper to huge swaths of the Internet and commerce the way Google, Amazon, and Meta are.

Apple is a billion (nay trillion) dollar company with the best lawyers and accountants in the world. They clearly believe that the added uncertainty and negative perception that could be attached to their brand by allowing systems that can increase fraud and malfeasance is more harmful to their bottom line than maintaining their walled garden with all the accompanying "crackdowns".

I, for one, agree with them. I would much rather keep the existing system for both myself and my extended family members and people who rely on me as their tech person than allow these third-party vultures to further complicate and enshittify the system. In the current case, if my parents bought something on their phone, I know exactly where to go to see the purchase and can easily help them refund it or, if it's a subscription, cancel it. Corporations misleading people into using external payment systems and channels in order to make a quicker buck (and keep more of that buck) is easily a worse experience for everyone involved except the vultures.

Now you can continue to use Apple's payment system all you like, but if Apple continues to charge 30% when e.g. Stripe charges ~3%, you're going to pay the difference for the privilege.

And with any luck that would encourage Apple to match Stripe's fees, but either way, now the choice is yours instead of the extra fees being hidden and mandatory.

Apple don't get to deny access to their main competitor in this space just as a show of force. That is not fair, reasonable or non-discriminatory.

It sucks because I was hoping this fight was basically in the rear-view mirror now, but it’s hard to argue Apple has no grounds for calling Epic untrustworthy and not even maintaining an arms-length business relationship in one jurisdiction with them. Who’s to say Epic wouldn’t try something similar again? Apple can still set terms under the DMA, and Tim has been publicly campaigning that these terms violate the DMA which isn’t actually his call to make.

Also one other point:

> Apple don't get to deny access to their main competitor in this space

As of today, and yesterday, and going back to the dawn of the iPhone: Epic isn’t anything in “this space” let alone Apple’s main competitor. They have stated that they intend to compete, and want to compete with Apple in this space, but Epic’s iPhone app marketplace is vaporware. It hasn’t shipped, it doesn’t look like they’re going to be able to ship now, and in its entire history of being discussed, has earned Epic €0.00 to date.

This is funny to point out since they did it specifically to sue over it (you pretty much can't other wise).

So Apple has their draconian 30% cut or there's literally no other way to have an application run on iOS policy, you can't challenge it without breaking it so you can sue, and because you broke it to sue you are now permanently barred from every making another iOS app.

Yea that seems fine, no monopolistic behavior here, it's only 49% of the phone market so it's fine.

The goal wasn’t just to sue Apple, it was to shank Apple with one hand while filing suit with another and they had multiple opportunities to get their account unsuspended at the beginning of the lawsuit even while the case proceeded, before it was eventually terminated.

I think that gave them much stronger standing and claimed damages.

It's a weaker argument if they voluntarily removed themselves from the AppStore.

Apple could have trotted out some 'We typically work well with developers in Epic's situation, but they never approached us so there was nothing we could do' excuse.

By forcing Apple to take an action, it concretely showed that Apple does in fact remove access if companies tried to forward users to alternate payment methods.

This idea that Epic had to breach to sue is part of a well crafted PR campaign by Epic.

These are devices so essential to modern functioning that the regulators need to come and tell both Apple and Google that unlimited web installs are user rights.

Epic is right. Apple and Google are monopolies over an entire class of computing, and it's a 100% artificial racket.

This might be what you want but without new legislation, because the DMA ain’t saying what you want, regulators are not within their rights to impose this requirement.

The truth is the vast majority of users do not care about sideloading apks. Apple knows this. Google knows this.

However, it is important that it is allowed without any major hurdle (a warning dialog that you need to click OK on is not a major hurdle for me once you consider that many malicious actors will use this sideloading for nefarious purposes).

Google allows it and you are free to use it without major hurdles. Yes, most users don't care to, and that's fine.

You can't really say that since it isn't a common deployment strategy. If web installs of APKs were normal and had no road blocks, then the practice would be commonplace.

The users care about software. There is only one blessed path to get it.

People who did fight for civil rights were also punished with the force of law for their civil disobedience. The laws were unjust, but they still had consequences for those who lived under them, otherwise they wouldn’t have had to fight. Epic is also facing the consequences of their actions, but it’s only really important to them that they win. Everybody else invested in this fight (within the EU) will probably be able to get anything they want but Fortnite from some other app marketplace.

Epic wants better terms for everyone, not just their app.

They lost, but good news for all the not-Epics out there because there's other companies who stand to benefit from the recent Court and Commission-induced changes Apple made to their policies. It just won't be Epic specifically.

This notion that 30% is 'draconian' is curious since Steam -- on supposedly open PC -- costs devs more, and even 30% is wrong since it's not 30% below a certain revenue level or in the second year onwards, again in line or less than stores on other platforms.

If you don't like Apple's cut, you couldn't (effectively still can't because of the absurd 1 000 000 installs/updates rule) go to any other storefront.

Before you bring up Xbox or Playstation: those devices are not essential computing devices. You can't function in modern society without access to both a computer and a smartphone. That puts a special burden on the companies that effectively own the software stack on those devices.

Not that I see it happen, but lets paint a PC horror scenario:

- Microsoft starts demanding to motherboard and laptop manufacturers to include their Pluton security chip

- Secure Boot can no longer be disabled

- They restructures the Windows kernel in such a way that DirectX is much faster than Vulkan

- They only allow games on the Microsoft Store access to DirectX 12.3 and 13

- Hell, _anything_ not installed from the Microsoft Store has dark-pattern warning pop-ups that make it both too confusing and too scary for the layman to install things from outside the store

- Microsoft also starts to demand a €0.50 fee from any developer that gets more than a million installs - with some updates counting towards installs. _This includes free applications_.

Do you see the problem now? Apple is essentially doing all of these things.

Dude cmon this is not how the legal system works, you can't just pretend that there's such a thing as an "essential computing device" as if iPhones are a human right or some shit

An Xbox or PS5 is not needed to live a normal life (if you ask my girlfriend it's even the opposite :)

If I want to file my taxes (in Australia), I need an authentication app that's only available on iOS or Android. I can't use an Xbox or a Playstation. That's the difference.

Before you say desktop OSs are not the same thing, it is to the government. The difference between iOS and macOS is the same as Windows XP and Windows Vista legally, Google only got dinged as a monopoly in the Epic case because of preferential treatment, not because it was "essential" or that the smartphone market is any way distinct or unique enough for that. Microsoft got dinged because it was 95% of the personal computing market in general. Apple is not even close here.

It is fine to suggest abuse and sending warnings, but if you've even remotely looked at any of the legal cases the US government brought against tech companies in the past, you'd know how much of a joke it is when people talk like this.

* Doesn't have any rules about in game payments/utxns, if you want to use steam wallet for that they'll take 30%, if you want to process the payment yourself or direct users to a website they don't care at all

The last point is Apple's monopoly, along with no sideloading; because if I don't want to use Steam then I can use whatever else I want to.

But I agree, 30% even just on games purchases is too high, and we should reduce this profiteering across the board, Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. Good thing we can multi task, right?

Apple is perfectly entitled to ask for a 30% fee, as long as they allow for competition on equal footing (for clarity, this means they don't try to collect exorbitant rent from their competitors first). Let the free market sort it out.

You mean like CloudKit?

Apple SDKs exist and do things - including everything Steamworks does and quite a bit more.

If Apple decided to only allow apps distributed through them to use their SDKs or services, then would it would be fine because they'd be like Steam?

I don't recall ever playing for cloud storage on Steam, though.

Steam Cloud is truly a backup service. It's not fast even for tiny amounts of data. They'll even kick you over to an even slower lane if you store anything over 250 MB.

Meanwhile, you can do near real-time app synchronization over iCloud between devices.

But yeah, it'd be great if Apple bumped up the free tier size. That said, I've never actually had any problems storing app data on iCloud. Apple users seem to either pay for more storage or not backup to iCloud, so from a developer perspective, eh.

One of their main goals in bypassing IAP is to make these microtransactions non-refundable, so parents are screwed. They're the great satan.

I assume that one of the reasons Epic isn't as hated as EA is that "the TotalBiscuit audience" is too old to be in the target market for Fortnite.

I also don’t believe Epic is doing this for anything other than Epic’s self-interest. They have no duty to other developers, and this is a potentially new line of business for them, not a liberation of iPhone app developers.

EDIT: just realized I originally mixed up Origin and the Epic Games Store. My bad.

I guess we'll see in the light of the DMA. Apple didn't allow EA to compete before, but who knows now.

But this seems to be missing the point. Epic Games wants to put their store on mobile, they had android on the roadmap for years. They very much want to compete.

Second, wanting to compete and competing aren’t the same activity. They are not presently a competitor to the iPhone’s App Store. They may become a competitor in the future, pending presumably at least some discussions between Apple, the EC and Epic, and possibly a legal fight, but calling them an app marketplace competitor in the present-tense is not accurate nor justifiable.

The real and interesting question is whether they can do this before they prove Epic’s non-compliance with the new terms.

Also since the DMA bans arrangement that Epic breached before, there is no reason to suspect that the EU account will breach anything new now, I really doubt EU will let this slide.

Epic has been criticising Apple almost every single day.

>Epic’s egregious breach of its contractual obligations to Apple led courts to determine that Apple has the right to terminate ‘any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion.’ In light of Epic’s past and ongoing behavior, Apple chose to exercise that right.

emphasis mine.

No idea where this will actually go with the EU regulator, but US courts said it was okay for Apple to keep Epic's developer account suspended based on this.

They didn't ban every epic account back then, just the violating account. I am pretty sure most of epic games accounts are still there, just the fortnite account got banned.

Remember that the whole goal of the DMA is that actors like Apple and Google can't decide to block competiton on a whim, the exact thing they are doing right now.

In the case here, Epic doing a behavior to go around a store policy that EU specifically is considering bad may mean they cast aside the US rulings.

From there a lot of things can happen to negotiate a resolution, such as negotiating penalties for not following said contract.

I don't think Epic will be able to convince a court that there is no resolution when Apple has already said before and now what they would require for Epic to resume their business relationship with Apple.

The EU is a sovereign entity, enforcing its own laws in its own territory. A US court ruling can't compel the EU to allow Apple to violate EU laws when operating in the EU. How would that even work?

In a word: treaties. Usual disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer yada yada, but treaties are generally why one country's laws or legal proceedings might affect another country in some way. Think stuff like US copyright law being applied to Europe [1]. I don't actually know how or if anything would even apply in this specific scenario (not a lawyer and I think it's pretty unlikely that the US court ruling would affect the EU DMA here), but treaties are what you'd look at to find out.

[1] Technically those countries passed their own versions of the US law, but it's all hammered out in the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty.

b) Epic is not their main competitor in anything.

It is pretty hilarious how people think some US court judgement would have any relevance on EU anti-trust regulation.

The entity that Epic will be complaining to about this will not be a US court. It will be the EC. The EC will look at the text and the intent of the DMA: to permit competing app stores. They'll also note that Apple has (arbitarily and without any technical justification) made a developer account a requirement for launching a competing app store. And finally, they'll note that Apple is terminating the developer accounts of the company most vocal about intending to launch a competing app store.

It doesn't matter what text Apple has in their contract about how they're permitted to close developer accounts for any reason they want to. It doesn't matter that they have a courting ruling from some other country. Apple chose to gatekeep app store competition on membership in the developer program. To prevent this from being used as an end-run on the DMA, the EC just an't allow Apple to terminate the licenses on a flimsy pretext. And "Tim Sweeney tweeted mean things about us" is not going to work.

b) Epic's actions e.g. pushing hidden IAP features were a fundamental breach of the contract in all countries where it was signed including EU. It was never about Epic criticising Apple.

c) Apple takes the first move in terminating the contract. Then Epic sues. And then the EU legal system will settle the matter. That is the process.

a -> that is the clear implication of one of the above comments, ie. if it was a legsl use of the contract in the US that somehow will shield them from dma violation, but dma supersedes contracts

It sounds like you lost the thread, not GP

It’s kind of silly to think that other companies that actually compete with Epic would choose to publish via the Epic store, since they’d just be giving money to their competitor. Either they’ll build their own stores or they’ll continue business as usual, using the device manufacturer’s stores.

To your other point, while a US court judgement is unlikely to have direct relevance to EU regulation, it does help establish a pattern of behavior on Epic’s part.

It’s also important to note that the provisions for establishing an alternative app store are designed to protect the consumer. Repeated violations of contractual agreements is clear evidence of a company’s untrustworthiness, and it would be irresponsible for Apple to do anything other than exercise the termination clause as a result..

One reason we know this is that Epic Games Store on PC isn't Epic-only.

Another reason we know it is that Apple has (arbitrarily) forbidden app stores that aren't open to third parties. Even if Epic wanted to make it a first-party only store (why?), they couldn't.

You claim that Apple isn't a gaming company. It's true that Apple doesn't really develop or publish games. But the App Store is the world's largest games store, larger than e.g. any of the console games stores or Steam. Every estimate I can find is that significantly more than half the App Store revenue is from games.

Finally, you suggest that nobody would publish games on Epic's store. That might be true on iOS just due to the unreasonable terms Apple set for that (in particular the core platform fee), but it certainly won't be true due to competitors not wanting to give 12% to Epic rather than 30% to Apple. This fear hasn't stopped companies from publishing their games on the PC EGS.

Apple claim that all their requirements are there just to protect the consumers. They might be telling the truth, they might be lying and actually just want to make life as hard as possible for the competing app stores. It's hard for anyone on the outside to be sure which. But terminating the developer account of the most credible competitor on the day DMA enforcement starts is a pretty bad look, and makes it quite hard to believe Apple's story on why the requirements exist.

That's a circular argument. Apple is arguing (maybe wrongly) that Epic won't follow the rules. You can't refute that argument by saying "but the rules say they have to follow the rules".

They were making an argument about why Epic wasn't a competitor to Apple. That argument was based on the mistaken belief that Epic was looking to launch a store only for their only games.

In that context it's not a circular argument to point out that a first-party only store cannot be launched on iOS, so obviously that's not what Epic is intending to do.

On iOS apple has decreed that they deserve 30% of that action. And is now banning the developer of one of the most popular games (on any platform).

And Apple is basically a trillion dollar company. Tens of millions in lost revenue from Epic isn’t going to cause them to lose any sleep at night.

In a sense, yes. The term "sherlocked (by Apple)" exists because Apple routinely releases its own version of various apps

> 6. The gatekeeper shall not directly or indirectly prevent or restrict business users or end users from raising any issue of non-compliance with the relevant Union or national law by the gatekeeper with any relevant public authority, including national courts, related to any practice of the gatekeeper. This is without prejudice to the right of business users and gatekeepers to lay down in their agreements the terms of use of lawful complaints-handling mechanisms.

I am not 100% certain that would apply here, but if the DMA doesn't protect against these things then I am pretty sure that EU will plug that hole to ensure gatekeepers can't retaliate unfairly.

I can understand that Apple wants to safeguard their platform by requiring notarization, etc. But they are playing with fire here. One outcome of misbehaving could be that the EC will require full sideloading (Android-style), so that Apple cannot sabotage third party stores anymore, like they are doing now.

They've been throwing tantrums against every company they deal with. They want to charge fees on their store and platforms. They want their IAP. But they act offended when any other company wants to charge them to be on their stores.

From the linked article

> This judgment stated that “Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion.”

It should also be noted that this article specifically talks about Epic's Sweden AB account being banned. It doesn't affect the state of the US account (which may very well be banned anyway).

Other way around, "victory" implies the battle is over, Pyrrhic as a modifier implies a victory that inflicted such a devastating toll that it was tantamount to defeat.

I am absolutely sure Apple would love to cut Samsung off at the knees, but not if they do it to themselves at the same time. Samsung poses a much greater threat to Apple than all the third party app stores that could be dreamed up.

It’s a really interesting mutually assured destruction situation.

Epic and Apple, on the other hand, can both be fine without each other, so I wouldn’t expect them to work through the animosity

There's probably risks on both sides here, too: Playing hardball with EU regulators and courts could cost them a lot of money.

If your vision for your company only extends to the next quarterly earnings report, sure, it's "rational."

If you consider the fact that every other participant in the market dislikes this practice, that this dislike has finally risen to the level of government involvement, and that laws are about to be written taking it away from you, then clutching it to your chest is best understood as an emotional position.

It's rooted in a desire to not lose the past while attempting to deny that any other future could possibly exist. It's classic denial, on a trillion dollar corporate level.

Still, about 10% of the pushback they’ve been showing so far would have probably been plenty.

It's hard to read it as anything but emotional. It's pure display of power, Apple is willing to hurt iOS users to make a point to other developers.

I'd be a little emotional too.

Very different. Steve was taking Samsung to court partly ( or largely ) taking Android with it. But Tim wasn't a supporter of that, or at least behind the scene he was dealing with Samsung ( or Samsung Display, Samsung Foundry and Samsung Memory divisions directly ). So yes it was all it's just business in large because Tim was there to smooth things out. Or partly because Tim knew they cant do it without Samsung. Zero Chance at the time and they wasn't a trillion dollar company then.

I dont see any similarities here with Apple and Epic.

> Apple leadership faces some massive decisions in the coming weeks as the contradictions between their stated principles and the intended and actual consequences of their present policies are reckoned with: the app store monopoly, the digital goods payments monopoly, the tax, the suppression of true information about competing purchasing options, the blocking of competing web browser engines and outright destruction of web apps.

> It doesn’t have to be this way. Apple is a few bold and visionary decisions away from being the company they once were and that they still advertise themselves to be: beloved brand to consumers, partner to developers, and overlord to none. [1]

Damn, that's probably the least caustic tweet I've ever read on Twitter...

Ruthless.

[1] https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/176224372553353258...

(via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39617729, but we merged that thread hither)

> That Tim Sweeney tweet cited as an example doesn’t seem out of line to me. [...] Apple ought to stick to Epic’s deliberate breaking of the App Store rules with Fortnite back in 2020. It’s not even in dispute that they flagrantly broke the rules then. If Apple wants to make that a “lifetime” ban, they should just say so.

> Citing recent tweets, like Sweeney’s, that are simply critical — even scathingly critical (or to borrow Schiller’s term, “colorful”) — just makes it look like Apple’s policy is that if a developer criticizes the App Store’s rules, Apple will punish them for speaking out. I don’t think that’s Apple’s policy at all, but some people think it is, and this situation with Epic just reinforces that.

[1] https://daringfireball.net/2024/03/apple_epic_developer_acco...

It does present an interesting question on whether a Company can be forced to have a bad actor as a Customer, I guess this will be decided in the lawsuits to come.

Imagine if everyone wanting to publish a web app would have to be a customer of the respective browser vendors.

Everyone complains about Google and Mozilla and Safari and Edge. Luckily, that doesn’t prevent us from having our web apps running on those browsers.

Indeed. It all boils down to: if I buy a product from company A, then want to use that product to do business with company B, why does company A have anything to say about it? Am I not the owner of my device?

the problem with having consumers take action is that they are completely shortsighted and will take the path of least resistence - a path that the companies will have charted out to make this transition as smooth and painless _for the consumer_ as possible while retaining as much monopolistic power as possible.

There needs to be public institutions with the backing of the state to enforce property rights, including purchased devices.

Emphasis on more-or-less, though. You can use Chrome developer mode (which is NOT a paid option and doesn't require an account) to import extensions from files. You can't do that in iOS. That's Epic's point.

> AltStore then signs the application with your Apple ID so the app can run. You'll need to trust the developer certificate in your device settings, but when you do, any apps that you install through AltStore will work... for seven days. Apple has put several restrictions in place to make the process as difficult as possible, but the developer managed to work around those restrictions. As the clock nears closer to the end of the seven-day period, AltStore will refresh the signing key on the app so that you can get an extra seven days of usage. This can also run in the background.

> AltStore makes use of a feature Apple introduced that lets you install *up to three apps* for free using your Apple ID.

> However, AltStore relies on a computer on the same network running AltServer, so you'll need both iTunes and iCloud installed on that device. [...]

Is this seriously what you're talking about? Because after reading that I still don't believe you can install apps on iOS without Apples splash of iHoly Water TM.

[0] https://www.xda-developers.com/how-to-sideload-apps-iphone-a...

All the more reason to legislatively nuke it all as fast and as forcefully as possible before it entrenches.

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.

Just because they have general computing hardware doesn't mean they are general purpose computers.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Theres plenty of uproar and lawsuits around that one too.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/hp-sued-again-for-bl...

And those browser vendors, like Apple, also provide developer training, developer support services, early access to upcoming product versions, opportunities to provide input into future product designs and features, etc.

In other words, this is not a problem, much less the “core problem”. This is normal industry practice. In fact, on some platforms, there are royalty fees due for the SDK runtime components that are required to run the software a third party developer provides. Just look at mainframes — you might buy XYZ Accounting system from them, and have to pay an additional annual license payment for the cobol runtime it requires.

That fact, by the way, is what the half a Euro per ‘download’ technology fee is about. Part of the DMA requires separation of the “app store fee” from the fee for using iOS services.

It’s also important to note, when people talk about the 30% app store fee as being high — the app store is essentially the same thing as a retail store. Back in the days when you bought software in a physical store, rather than downloading it, the margin at the retail level ranged between 30% and 50%. E.g., we would pay the distributor $25 and sell it for $49.99. The distributor in turn would buy the software in bulk from the manufacturer, for somewhere around $20-$22.

Software developers get a lot bigger share of what the consumer pays in the current model. Some, however, are greedier than others, and leverage governments to their advantage. Epic Games doesn’t want any competition - they want to be the sole retailer of Fortnite on all platforms so that they can raise the price to whatever they want.

I agree. Let's deal with all the other extortion schemes while we're at it and make the free market actually free.

They can choose at any point to harm your business e.g. Apple restricting first party cookies.