401–410 of 593 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should you be able to directly install games to the PS5? Or have the ability to use a game store besides the PlayStation store? Honest question
Yes, and you can still buy physical disks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument is that it's industry standard. Microsoft and Sony also take 30% https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/05/07/playst...
"Industry standard", by itself, is meaningless. What if "industry standard" was 75%?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are alternate ways to get software on those platforms. There isn’t on Apple mobile devices.
There is indeed alternative ways to get software on Apple mobile devices. Why is this such a common belief? Edit: your point seems to be revolving around the access to physical disks for playstation/xbox, which is 1. Limited to devices that have a disk drive, 2. Limited to software that would similarly be sold on the sony/xbox stores, and 3. Still gives sony/microsoft a cut of the sale. Edit 2: No, I'm not talking ab…
This is disingenuous. Not only do you need a paid developer account, you are limited by the number apps you can sideload, you need to compile them yourself and sign them with your key, and they must be resigned and installed every 7 days. You also need to do all of that from a Mac.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When your app has revenues of $100M a month, let's see if you think Apple is providing you $30M worth of value. Sure, if you have 2 sales a month, I guess Apple is providing you $0.60 of revenue. That's not what this thread is about.
> When your app has revenues of $100M a month, let's see if you think Apple is providing you $30M worth of value. Lol they just told you they think it's reasonable! Why bother asking for someone’s opinion if we're just going to berate them for it? I think the Apple cut is justified because Apple provide the best platform. If someone can provide a better platform for a smaller cut people would move to it.
I agree. That's also why I think it's unfair/unethical/monopolistic that Apple won't allow anyone else to try.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Missing the point they the only way to install apps on an IPhone is the app store. If you had choice to freely download apps from the internet, this would not be a monopoly abuse issue. Then sure charge on the app store whatever you want, allow competing so stores that also offer reviewed software.
Correct if they did this virtually every really big player would opt out and offer a package on their website. See the MS and apple desktop store.
This isn't just blind fanboyism, either: PC gamers absolutely loathe Epic Games Store and the Microsoft Store, because they want their entire collection of software to live on Steam. Yes, a decade and change ago everyone hated Steam, but now it's the established way of doing things. The more developer-friendly, competitive option is to have 15 different launchers, one for each publisher, with their own payment systems, terms of service, and so on.
You can see this in the reactions Apple users have to the Epic lawsuit, versus their reaction to stories of Apple demanding their cut from developers that don't have it to give. They're way more sympathetic to companies that aren't trying to split their app libraries in half.
(EDIT: I should probably clarify that I, myself, don't think alternative iOS app stores would actually take off without major cross-subsidies from powerful industry players. Google Play has a stranglehold in markets where it's available, even though Android has no technical lock-out like iOS. EGS on Android is a joke and I would never install it. On the other, OTHER hand, though... Android in China, where Google Play is banned, is basically PC digital downloads, pre-Steam.)
The antitrust case against Apple is so overdue it's embarrassing. What I don't get is people who defend it. Imagine Microsoft taking 30% of every purchase you make online because you used their OS to get there. Then would the defenders admit it's an obvious abuse of a monopoly? What makes it different for Apple?
Microsoft takes 30% of xbox purchases. That's the argument. Apple doesn't take 30% of every purchase you make online. You're free to use a browser and purchase there where Apple doesn't take a cut. I'm not saying I agree with this, and I think 30% is about triple what's reasonable, but if we're going to rail against Apple here, we should include Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When your app has revenues of $100M a month, let's see if you think Apple is providing you $30M worth of value. Lol they just told you they think it's reasonable! Why bother asking for someone’s opinion if we're just going to berate them for it? I think the Apple cut is justified because Apple provide the best platform. If someone can provide a better platform for a smaller cut people would move to it.
> If someone can provide a better platform for a smaller cut people would move to it. I agree. That's also why I think it's unfair/unethical/monopolistic that Apple won't allow anyone else to try.
The antitrust case against Apple is so overdue it's embarrassing. What I don't get is people who defend it. Imagine Microsoft taking 30% of every purchase you make online because you used their OS to get there. Then would the defenders admit it's an obvious abuse of a monopoly? What makes it different for Apple?
brand and marketing power. Apple is the cool developer brand and devs with their sticker filled macbooks and consumers don't have a critical attitude when it comes to Apple. It's really funny. Imagine if every independent game developer who has ever built videogames for Windows had to pay a third of their revenue to Microsoft, and had to go through a store review to get their games approved. Would we ever had some of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and you can still buy physical disks.
I'd just like to check that you understand that when you buy a physical disk of a game sony/microsoft (for playstation/xbox respectively) still take a cut of the purchase.