Consoles are sold at cost as opposed to i-devices. Apple gets double margin from lemmings.
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 Says Epic Games 'Wants Us to Be Android, But We Don't Want to Be'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course it does. But the goal was to create a machine that was easy to set up and get online. It was largely successful and was instrumental in bringing Apple back from the brink. This was followed by the iPod a few years later, then of course iPhone.
Except when it isn't Apple... Right? Will you ignore or, at least, not oppose Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo's very very real monopolies of their systems -- if not actually defend and or affirm them, because "reasons"?
I'd be happy to hear that's not the case. That you'd likewise agree if Apple's "monopoly" is illegal, then so are the console maker's monopolies. But, typically, reasons given to dismiss the console makers monopolies by commenters or critics are: They operate a "smaller" market, use the "subsidy" model, consumers have a "choice" between download or retail, and when they choose retail - they have "agency" over where to buy their game (Target, Walmart, Amazon, Best Buy, etc) to get the best price.
So let me know, what's your reason to support the console makers monopoly of their systems.
Or, do you understand there is no underlying "agency"? And that regardless of whether your market is "small" or you provide a "benefit" to consumers -- if your actions are illegal then they're illegal.
Again, I want to thank you for your consistency. For me, it's been rare to see. It's actually a consistency that even Epic itself doesn't share. Epic follows similar logic to that of the above. They're providing a carve out to the console makers -- which hopefully you'll see really weakens their argument. And has rather exposed them as actually not "fighting the good fight" or "fighting for the developers or consumers best interest" as they so claim.
Apple is by no means faultless or an entirely pro-consumer business. You can absolutely have a difference of opinion, support judicial review of Apple's actions and business practices, and call out sleazy business practice where you see it. But Epic deserves very little support from consumers and it's propaganda campaign around "Free Fortnite" is just that - it's bogus vernier for their very self-serving biased lawsuit.
Right, so this is the angle that Epic should be taking. If they really want to fight the closed loop, walled garden, single brand market monopolies they should be including Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo.
They won't though.
Not because the console makers have more money, or better lawyers, or could retaliate (which the court / judge has the power to stop or reverse) but, because monopolies are actually fine. Which few people realize. And, believe it or not for the past 40 years the console makers monopolies have been under constant judicial review. If the "singular provider" or "one brand market" concept was illegal - the courts would have busted open the video game console monopolies decades ago. Which in turn wouldn't provide Apple the precedence to setup its own walled garden "monopoly" ecosystem.
There's a reason why the courts allow, even maintain, these monopolies. Believe it or not.
What "anti-trust" actually concerns itself about and what judicial courts actually look at when reviewing the allegations of a plaintiff -- is whether a company maintains or tries to acquire a monopoly through illegal behavior or "unreasonable methods". Just don't get too excited about the latter, as the FTC's own Guide to Antitrust states, "it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods." So if you're thinking Apple aggressive defense of it's App Store, its refusal to allow sideloading, or 3rd party payments, is an "unreasonable method" you'll likely be disappointed.
A better example of illegal behavior or "unreasonable methods" would be when Nintendo originally precluded developers from writing games from competing systems as a contractual requirement for the approval of their games for the NES. So, the courts struck that down and fined Nintendo. Actually, Nintendo really has had a very troubled history with abusing it single brand market monopoly. Yet, despite all the times that Nintendo has been sued for anti-competitive behavior, the courts only struck down and fined the illegal behavior, and ultimately left alone Nintendo and Sega's (and today, Sony and Microsoft's) complete autocracy / despotism of their respective systems.
Rather, the success of today's video game console systems are specifically because the hardware manufactures are allowed their monopolies.
Back in the late 70's, Atari - yea, think PONG arcade cabinets, sued former Atari employees that quit to make their own company and develop games for Atari's VCS (Video Computer System, 2600). The court disagreed and said that 3rd party game development was perfectly fine, and in fact, Activision (the company the employees made) owed nothing to Atari. Not only that, no 3rd party developer had to license the rights to develop for the VCS hardware. Which meant that 3rd party developers owed nothing, at all, to Atari. The courts reasoning was because the VCS allowed for arbitrary code execution. The VCS would run any code you wrote for it. So the court sided with the developers that once the VCS hardware was sold at retail - any one could write, distribute, and run code on it, because nothing prevented the VCS from running said code.
This lead to an influx of everyone wanting to develop and program their own games for the VCS. Which flooded it with very poor quality games and crashed the market, even for very high quality games, like those from Activision. Now, this is *very* over simplified - but it was Nintendo's introduction of the CIC (software) lockout chip let them prevent arbitrary code execution, force developers to license the CIC's use, and "tamed" the market. This software code lockout has been under judicial review since then, but never ruled illegal due to the benefits it provides. And as such, unfettered development access the like of which existed for Atari's 2600, 5200, and 7800 model VCS hardware is viewed as otherwise potentially extremely damaging and not in the consumers best interest. Cryptographic signing is just today's modern version of Nintendo's original CIC lockout chip.
That isn't to say that code lockout, device "tying", or ecosystem "lock-in" doesn't need further review, vis-a-vis, Epic's current lawsuit. Just don't get too excited that the US judicial system will side entirely or primarily with Epic arguments.
If you read the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or the judges Preliminary Injuction (PI) - the court finds Epic's device tying / eco system lock-in arguments more favorable compared to the code lockout ones. If Epic is going to find any win here then it would more likely be here then probably anywhere else in their lawsuit. That is not being able to set Spotify as say your default.
Just, again, tame your expectations. Because by and large, businesses are allowed leeway to encourage customers to remain. To make services and products "sticky."
AirPods for example, obviously function best in Apple's ecosystem. But, that lack of functionality outside of iOS isn't because it's intentionally crippled. Airpods otherwise use standard Bluetooth.
The lack of an ecosystem outside of Apple, instead I find as a fault in everyone else. Not that we need 5 different "eco-systems" between Apple, Microsoft, Google, OnePlus, or Motorola -- But, apple puts a lot of though into making the iOS platform approachable, usable, and friendly to people who stay inside of it.
What the current Epic case will bring and highlight, hopefully, is the cases where attention is needed.
What about Nintendo who, historically, has been profitable on hardware out of the door?
True, but by that time, it had become part of the branding. Steve even branded himself iCEO, in this case the i standing for interim.
But, by your logic... if you want someone to do things differently (because you don't like what they're doing) then you're entitled for them to behave differently? What about that other person (or company's) right to transact business or behave how they want? Oh, that's right. You don't care about anything but what you want.
Wow. I'm very disappointed that the world will be in your generation's hands someday.
So?
These companies choose to sell their consoles at a loss. It has nothing to do with Apple being able to sell hardware at a handsome margin.
Neither of this should have any bearing on how much they choose to collect from their app stores subsequently. Nor should it entitle one to charge a higher percentage cut than the other.
By your logic, is google then entitled to collect 30% from their App Store because so many android devices are sold at break even point?
Have you tried using a new console these days without internet? The experience is not very good. It seems like my Xbox Series X and PS5 download patches more often than they play games.
Only sold at a loss initially as an enticement issue against their competitors. Over time, costs come down and they make a profit on the consoles too. And, not all consoles sell at a loss. Nintendo doesn't sell at a loss. Besides, what does the price point have to do with anything? You don't pay less for floor mats on a Kia just because they have a lower markup than a BMW.
Apple straight up told people that only one SIM could be used for 5G and support for using both eohod
Come later.
AirPower doesn’t exist so not sure what you are taking about there.
And they never promised the OLD MagicKeyboard would be 100% compatible with the NEW iPads. You know what else doesn’t work with the new iPads? The ADB mouse from my Macintosh Performa. OH THE HORROR.
Literally none of your examples are Apple being misleading. In every case Apple was upfront and honest with what was and was not supported.
You need to stop, you are REALLY bad at this.
No, you don’t just want to see, you’ve stated quite clearly you hope Epic wins, which means you want Apple to be forced to change. You know what is frustrating and unreasonable? People who lie.
Apple never said dick about 2 sims not being 5G enabled at the keynote or on their site until it was discovered by commentators testing the first samples (plenty of bragging about 5G though through the whole keynote, and emphasis to two sims!) ; they did eventually say it would be a future update available in a “few” weeks! that turned out to be the best part of 8 months..
Ok, I meant MagSafe wireless charger, not AirPower (but I guess they misled on that also), but nobody’s existing 15W chargers worked with MagSafe charger, nothing mentioned other to say no charger included, implying that no need to because every one had one...they did, but not one compatible! Misleading environmental claim?
Correct, they never promised anything re the magic keyboard but still nevertheless introduced a new one, giving them plenty of opportunity to explain the issue with the original one...but no, again discovered in the field. Even now nothing on their site to advise users it’s not a proper fit (just says it’s compatible)
Apple are NEVER upfront (and honest, you have to be having a laugh), either that or you don’t know what either word means; Apple certainly don’t!
So are you saying you read certain things into Apples' marketing and they didn't fulfill your personal expectations? Not anything unusual as with the number of customers it's a guarantee 100% people won't be satisfied at the same time.
Whatever is criticized though, I'm glad Apple is Apple. IOS doesn't need to be an android clone.
"Epic wants us to be Android, but we don't want to be,"
I think this is the single most succinct summary of this whole process I have seen anybody make. I don't want Apple to be Android, if I wanted that ecosystem I would buy into it. I am willing to sacrifice some open-ness and compatibility for a more secure system. It is a very similar reason I buy into the Apple ecosystem on other devices.
Now don't get me wrong, I am thrilled Android exists, specifically because it gives people who want that type of wild west ecosystem an outlet. Those of us that prefer the curation of the walled garden have that. Everybody has a platform that works for them.
If Epic succeeds at what they want, I won't have access to a phone platform I would want to use anymore. It would be as bad as if Google decided to lock down their app market. It is the antithesis of everything the two platforms stand for respectively.
I think this is the single most succinct summary of this whole process I have seen anybody make. I don't want Apple to be Android, if I wanted that ecosystem I would buy into it. I am willing to sacrifice some open-ness and compatibility for a more secure system. It is a very similar reason I buy into the Apple ecosystem on other devices.
Now don't get me wrong, I am thrilled Android exists, specifically because it gives people who want that type of wild west ecosystem an outlet. Those of us that prefer the curation of the walled garden have that. Everybody has a platform that works for them.
If Epic succeeds at what they want, I won't have access to a phone platform I would want to use anymore. It would be as bad as if Google decided to lock down their app market. It is the antithesis of everything the two platforms stand for respectively.
That’s not what the MS rep said on day 3. She was asked specifically if they have ever made profit on the XBox and the answer was “no”. The question was even reframed as something like “surely over time, the prices have come down and you’ve made a profit?” again, “no”.
A Nokia 3210 would work in this case. So no, you're premise is flawed and wrong. Look up the hardware, look up the software. It's a computer in your pocket. If you really are that afraid that you can't make a phone call, you should probably look into a sturdier phone though. All the data your referring to is most likely backed up in the cloud which, surprise surprise, also just computers! If you use your phone as a single source of data you are in a very vulnerable situation and I will as an IT professional recommend you find another source of protecting your data other than your pocket computer designed by Tim Apple.
If you cannot distinguish between "not being assisted" and "actively being blocked" by Apple, then our conversation will go nowhere. I've worked in the field long enough to assure you that the latter is what happens and Steve and Tim never liked it.
Judging from the tone of your replies to others, it doesn't seem like you like to discuss any points when getting rebutted.
I take 'active blocking' as in Apple take action every time you tries to do sometime. That Apple puts in security measure to protect iOS from being compromised doesn't mean that Apple is working actively to stop you from jail breaking. I don't see Apple releasing iOS update weekly. Do you?
I would think Apple would have far better issues to attend to than to actively stop anyone from jail-breaking iOS.
Haha sorry I do have to respond now, but only to say: this is embarrassing.
Haha honestly what are you talking about? Do you think I’m going to read that and be upset because of what you think about me or “my generation”? I’m glad you’re disappointed. Be disappointed. Anybody who feels a sense of moral obligation to defend a tech company on wether or not someone who buys their product is being fair to them should be let down more often. Your passion about this issue is baffling to me. Everyone has to have their cause I guess, and yours is making sure Apple is treated fairly. 😂
I don’t think that was the point at all. You admitted you didn’t care about the law or the details of the case. You only cared how it affected you personally. That is what the other poster was complaining about. What happened to caring about the law or fairness? Others may have raised points about the law, but your post indicated you literally didn’t care about that at all… hence why the other poster mentioned that type of attitude as being quite harmful to the future of our country.
You said:
Right. Because that’s what that means. Not caring about what happens in a legal case between Apple and some developer means I don’t care about any law or fairness right? Probably means I’d be totally fine with all kinds of things. Theft, murder, where does it end?? If we don’t move away from this greed of wanting to see our phone work differently and start caring about the interests of the most profitable company in the world, what next??? And you’ve properly identified that I’m the representative for my generation, so once I’m personally in charge, the future of the country is shot.
I mean, honestly, look at the conclusions you’re jumping to. Are we not seeing the massive leaps in logic here?