What I don't get is why no one is going after the gaming consoles. Hell, imagine being able to play a ps5 game on your switch. Big tech is big tech, regardless of what device or platform it is.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Protests Call for Third-Party App Stores and Lower Platform Fees in Japan
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They give choice on the mac. Why should the iPhone and iPad be any different?
Fair and equitable business practices don’t create the richest company in the world.
No difference versus Apple. Example: 99% of Spotify's iOS subscribers are paying through the internet and not the App Store. Another example: Fortnite players could purchase V-Bucks for use in the iOS version of Fortnite online or in the form of gift cards from brick/mortar stores. App was free so the V-Bucks were how Epic made the $$.
Because consoles are sold at a loss, they are not general computing devices ie people don't NEED them.
And what % of revenue do Sony get to allow a game on their platform? There is no difference.
Poor, poor Apple. <== that is sarcasm
If they would choose their battles a little more carefully, they might be able to hold the would-be regulators at bay. But because they continue to fight tooth and nail again any loosening of their policies, they ensure that they will eventually lose the war, big time.
Even then, Apple will be fine.
Nintendo doesn't sell consoles at a loss. Sony only sells them at a loss for a short period of time. Microsoft refused to provide proof in court that the Xbox was really sold at a loss during the Epic/Apple court case.
Also, consoles obviously have the computing power to be a general computing device but Nintendo/Sony/MS don't allow them to be used that way.
Anti-competitive practices are only effective if you have the market power. An anti-competitive player with just 1% of their market is a bit of an oxymoron.
From a developer perspective it doesn’t matter. I still need to pay Sony and Microsoft a license fee.
The Switch can barely play some of the games made for Switch ?
Even if one side-loads Apple should get 30%. If one has a developer account and doesn’t publish regularly Apple should deactivate the Apple ID.
There are two dominant platforms, and you can't play any game on either, without it being licensed from those platforms, and the platform owner gets a 30% cut.
Apple hasn't been found to have violated anti-competitive practices in courts of law. You have legislators claiming that they're acting in an anti-competitive manner without any court rulings to back it up. Using caps is the way for legislators to get around the fact that Apple has not been found to be in legal violation.
As I've said before, legislators around the globe have never bothered to do an actual comparison of prices, quality, selection and customer satisfaction with apps for iOS versus Android versus Windows versus Mac. That should be an easy way to show lack of competition and it's not being done...because the legislators know it wouldn't provide a favorable comparison relative to their legislation.
No that’s Sumo garb. Very appropriate as Sumo wrestling is Japan’s national sport. ☝️?
At this point it's probably better if Apple announced sweeping changes now before they are imposed upon them. Better to own it. Will be interesting to see how they approach this at WDC, they certainly can't just ignore it.
I think Nintendo take a 30% cut of revenue too. In fact they might have started the whole thing as they controlled the cartridges for NES and SNES. I wonder if Japan has figured that this could be quite damaging to their games industry?
I find it amusing that this all can and has been applicable to Nintendo and Sony for decades - and that their behaviors are even more grossly anticompetitive and restrictive - yet there are a surprising number of cicadas that can be heard if that is brought up...
I can argue both sides of this all day, but the thing I can’t wrap my head around is the way these governments are targeting Apple but not Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo for not having 3rd party game stores on consoles, or auto makers for not allowing off brand infotainment systems etc.
I was thinking the same thing. Or how about Sony and their extremely restrictive Playstation Store? These governments are ridiculous for thinking that people do not see these double standards at play.
What other sources can you run that did not require a prohibitively expensive dev kit or that they did not get a cut from in some other manner? Because they do very much get a cut of physical copy sales, too. Oh, and before you go there: I am referring to legitimate means that do not put you at risk of bricking your system with no recourse.
Then you are unfamiliar how the politics of the matter work. Had Apple not defend its position even though how ridiculous it may be, it would have reaffirmed that it was in the wrong from the start and continued that position for a long time. The reduction in commission on earnings below a million revenue was basically them saying “I hear you and we can work together”. The issues not factored is that once inflation is factored in the reduction is of minor help. Nonetheless it makes Apple look like it’s not inflexible to these concerns and matters brought forth. Don’t be naive that Apple is unaware that things will change and does not have contingency plan. This is simply how the game is played, make as much profit while you can and once under the spotlight if things start to heat up and it looks like you are going to loose, then redirect to Plan B.
As a shareholder I am not concerned either way but surprised how vested people on this forum have gotten on either position.