Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 247 posts

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#131

Post by AndrewPGameDev »

pkaye wrote: post #117
bloomca wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it allowed to charge more in storefronts which take these cuts? Why nobody does that? What about Steam? Can a publisher sell a game for ~$45 in their store and $60 in Steam, or is it against some TOC?

For Steam, I believe the price parity requirement for Steam only applies to Steam Keys. Publishers can sell at a lower prices on other store front as long as it doesn't involve Steam infrastructure.

There were some comments talking about this yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45002977

I'll just reproduce FatalLogic's last comment here:

""" In the class action case[0], which was allowed to go forward by the court last year, it is claimed that Valve told someone:

"This includes communications from Valve that “‘the price on Steam [must be] competitive with where it’s being sold elsewhere’” and that Valve “‘wouldn’t be OK with selling games on Steam if they are available at better prices on other stores, even if they didn’t use Steam keys.’” Dkt. No. 343 ¶ 158, 160 (quoting emails produced at VALVE_ANT_0598921, 0605087). "

(This is a new case, not the 2021 suit, which was rejected by the court, then amended and refiled, later with an additional plaintiff added)

[0]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.29... """

So a US court of law has decided that it's at least possible that this isn't true.

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#132

Post by simianparrot »

bruce511 wrote: post #129
throwaway31131 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We probably do need some kind of regulation in this space because for better or worse, and I think it’s worse, it’s hard to be a participant in modern society without a smart phone. (In my mind it would be something more akin to the communications act of 1934, but for apps to mandate a certain amount of “interoperability” across operating systems, whatever that may mean, but I digress) on the other hand, it wasn’t al…

I would argue that there was more than a duopoly. We had Windows Phone, WebOS, blackberry, Palm etc. The market voted and we're left with 2. Equally, pretty much no iPhone user (outside of tech circles) cares about the App Store monopoly for iPhone. The policy is well known, and hasn't changed in 15 years. Indeed many (not all) tech folk who complain about the App Store still went out and bought an iPhone. The raw tr…

I only use my smartphone for the basics. I want the tightly controlled app store hence I buy iPhone. I don’t want apps to be able to roll third party subscription and payment options because they will inevitably abuse it at the cost of less savvy users.

Epic Games is a developer and publisher making billions off tricking children into paying for worthless virtual goods. Fuck ‘em if they can’t make a living with the 30% Apple cut.

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#133

Post by para_parolu »

bloomca wrote: post #114
matheusmoreira wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But people should also be able to get apps from whatever store they want. This the answer. The app store monopoly doesn't really matter, the real tyranny is needing Apple's cryptographic blessing to run software on our own computers. This should be literally illegal. Restore our computer freedom and their app store rent seeking becomes irrelevant.

It's not just about that. I am sure if the court would force them to allow sideloading, they'll make sure to never promote your app if you decide to offer both options to the users.

And that’s fair. Apple doesn’t have to provide services to businesses

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#134

Post by Hammershaft »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #75

I don’t care that developers have to pay 30%, it makes no difference to me. If that fee went away… it would just give them 30% more profit.

Grocery stores on average make ~1-4% profit on revenue. Hungary has a sales tax of 27%. Do you think that if Hungary eliminated the sales tax that Hungarian grocery stores would make 28-31% profits?

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#135

Post by c0balt »

echelon wrote: post #121
matheusmoreira wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But people should also be able to get apps from whatever store they want. This the answer. The app store monopoly doesn't really matter, the real tyranny is needing Apple's cryptographic blessing to run software on our own computers. This should be literally illegal. Restore our computer freedom and their app store rent seeking becomes irrelevant.

> > But people should also be able to get apps from whatever store they want. The web. Without scare walls or hidden "enable downloads" menu settings. And apps should no longer have to use first party payment rails, first party authentication/sign in rails, or be forced to jump through review or upgrade hoops.

> The web. Without scare walls or hidden "enable downloads" menu settings.

I'm not too sure about that, for non-technical users the warnings before installing an APK on Android are very likely a good thing. There's a lot of malware out there and, similar to running a downloaded Exe on Windows, you should at least explicitly confirm it's execution.

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#136

Post by andsoitis »

echelon wrote: post #109
bloomca wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it allowed to charge more in storefronts which take these cuts? Why nobody does that? What about Steam? Can a publisher sell a game for ~$45 in their store and $60 in Steam, or is it against some TOC?

Games are silly and inessential. And there are a dozen markets to choose from. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Steam, GOG, Epic, Ubisoft, Humble, Itch, direct download, retro games, ... Phones are essential. You can't get a job without one. It's impossible to stay connected or navigate without one. You can't even order food in a restaurant these days without your smartphone. Yet two companies control and tax the entirety…

> Mobile computing IS computing for most people. It's the only computer or internet portal they know. And two companies own it all. The passport to the modern world is owned and taxed by two trillion dollar companies.

Top smartphone brand global market share: Samsung (20%), Apple (17%), Xiaomi (14%), vivo (9%), OPPO (8%).

https://www.counterpointresearch.com/en/insights/global-smar...

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#137

Post by earthnail »

para_parolu wrote: post #133
bloomca wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about that. I am sure if the court would force them to allow sideloading, they'll make sure to never promote your app if you decide to offer both options to the users.

And that’s fair. Apple doesn’t have to provide services to businesses

Not until alternative stores become competitive. Realistically they have such a monopoly thar you end up in a chiclen and egg situation. Their monopoly is so large that noone wants to distribute via small alt stores, meaning alt stores never get large.

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#138

Post by maximus_01 »

JustExAWS wrote: post #104
maximus_01 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a limit to this sort of logic though. Don't get me wrong, I'm generally pro free markets. But: A) Apple's policies make some products completely unviable (anything with a gross margin less than 30%). Even for products at say 40% gross margin, Apple as a storefront is taking 75% of the gross margin pool (ie 30% to Apple, 10% to developer). This in my view is direct consumer harm. B) Apple acts egregiously and…

This hasn’t been true in months in the US because of the courts ruling. Right now, just looking at two apps, you can click on “Buy book” from the Kindle app and be redirected to Amazon’s website and download the Netflix app, click on “Get Started” and create an account.

Yep. But Apple are appealing that decision.

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#139

Post by somenameforme »

AndrewPGameDev wrote: post #131
pkaye wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Steam, I believe the price parity requirement for Steam only applies to Steam Keys. Publishers can sell at a lower prices on other store front as long as it doesn't involve Steam infrastructure.

There were some comments talking about this yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45002977 I'll just reproduce FatalLogic's last comment here: """ In the class action case[0], which was allowed to go forward by the court last year, it is claimed that Valve told someone: "This includes communications from Valve that “‘the price on Steam [must be] competitive with where it’s being sold elsewhere’” and that Va…

Very few people here are going to have a PACER account. Here's a link to the filing itself. [1] It'll be interesting to see where this goes and if it's deemed accurate, because it runs directly contrary to what Steam's stated policy is. This [2] appears to be part of the testimony from the case. It really doesn't look good for Valve as they effectively acknowledge pursuing price parity and implicitly doing something that sounds like a soft shadowban of games where the publishers don't agree.

Their lawyers sure frame it such a friendly and elegant way though: 'We want to make sure our customers are getting the best deal, and we wouldn't want to mislead them into making a poor decision [by promoting the game] if that's not the case.' Undoubtedly the best legal money can buy. I have immense respect for Gabe and I hope he steps in at some point because this sounds like the bean counters are starting to run amuck. Or course it's possible he's complicit to this, but I think he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt, for now.

[1] - https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/washington/...

[2] - https://trellis.law/doc/district/13397794/wolfire-games-llc-...

Re: Y Combinator files brief supporting Epic Games, says store fees stifle startups

#140

Post by dijit »

ensignavenger wrote: post #19
doctorpangloss wrote: post #14

I don’t know. You could just as well say, “A 3% merchant fee can easily be [… ruinous to a bunch of companies]”, and I’d be talking about Stripe, a Y Combinator company. In Europe they manage to cap interchange fees at 10x less, and there’s no less “payments innovation” or more “fraud” or whatever some nice red headed LISP brothers or some insightful patio furniture guy will say is eating into the 3% merchant fees. P…

If you think 3% is too much, there are plenty of other payment processors... the thing is, most of that 3% is not set by the processor (or kept by them) but is set by the card networks. It is the card networks that should be targeted by antitrust laws. If there anyone could make an App Store, then we would have a better idea of what the market rate for app stores should be.

> If you think 3% is too much, there are plenty of other payment processors...

The things is, there's really not.

There's two: Visa and Mastercard.

In the US there's also American Express and Discover (afaik), but those aren't accepted everywhere (to the point that it was a joke in Futurama).

But We’ve actually seen this happen in the United States before. The Durbin Amendment put a cap on debit card transactions of 21 cents plus 0.05% (although an additional 1¢ can be added to the cap if certain security requirements are met). After this Amendment was put into practice we saw two things:

1) Rewards earning debit cards were almost entirely phased out.

2) Prices did not drop as a result.

The reason the EU even capped payment processing fee's was because of this duopoly that was strangling the market. Quite poignant.

And it's 0.2% on debit cards. :)

Post reply on HN