They are certainly entitled to compare themselves to console makers. Release schedule is not a relevant factor.
Release Achilles is not a relevant factor. Industry standards are the relevant factors, or 30%
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.
Epic Games Submits Fortnite to U.S. App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Phones might sell in huge volumes compared to game consoles but how many phone users spend a lot on apps?
Also, many apps are under $10.
Try finding console games that are that price for a new release...
Hence console makers getting 30% on less sales at significantly higher average prices are doing very well.
AI Overview of gaming market:
Global Market Size:
The video game market is estimated to be worth almost $455 billion globally, with the mobile gaming market alone generating $98.7 billion.
- Growth:
The video game market is expected to continue growing at a significant rate in the coming years.
- Engagement:
Gaming has a larger and more engaged audience than movies.
- Impact:
The video game industry has a broader impact on the entertainment landscape, inspiring movie and TV adaptations, and even influencing the way people experience storytelling.
The difference is
Why don’t you compare
For example Sony PlayStation 5 from 2020
With Apple from 2020 and then compare both companies if you want to do numbers
And let’s see the difference
sigh...
hardware and number of units is way different to software sales.
you know that.
consoles (except Nintendo) subsidize hardware because they know the money is in software.
phones dont do that.
why pick 2020?
pick ANY year. consoles make huge money from software sales. more than movies. well more than phone software.
what is really heartening is that for a tech forum with readers who have financial skin in the game, we see so little "break the walled garden, pull the payments, load any bit of software you like" arguments.
it's just a vocal few.
and given how many app devs read this site, that speaks volumes.
it's just a vocal few.
and given how many app devs read this site, that speaks volumes.
all console makers subsidize hardware
It’s took Sony over 3 years to finally make a profit on the hardware.
Not when you compare
Sony’s business model
Against
Apple’s business model
From 2020 to now
Then put total sale together
Nintendo DONT.
Sales of hardware or software? Seriously you need to define your arguments less vaguely...
Microsoft don’t
Nintendo since end of 2018 when switch was
Released 152.12 million units
It’s just got it’s replacement in 2025
Compared with 1,106 million units in that time
Do you really want to compare profits between both companies on hardware first?
Then we will tackle digital sales
if I bought a switch console in 2018
Then how long would I have to wait to purchase the switch 2 console
Where as since 2018 Apple released the XS and now the current model is 16 series
Upon reviewing an order of 9 Switch 2 consoles, they concluded that Nintendo's profit margin per unit in the U.S. is “virtually zero.” Selling hardware at a loss or minimal profit at launch is not uncommon in the gaming industry
Again, there is no rational reason number of units sold or release cycles should have any bearing on commissions.
There’s nothing wrong with that. Similarities in both businesses. Units sold or release cycles have no correlation to commissions.
Heartening or disheartening?
It stands to reason that at this point, iOS and Android users are more or less self selecting. People like myself use iPhones and iPads because we don’t hate closed ecosystems. If anything, we actively seek them out because we feel that the benefits far outweigh the costs.
Because it’s being disingenuous to suggest otherwise
In regards to this console makers
But it’s also incorrect to equate commissions to units sold and/or release cycles.
Not if you are comparing yourself to the console makers
To then justify the commission & say it’s the exact same
It isn't. It is "A" way though, and as someone else mentioned. Maybe the EU should take note and do the same.
But in China they heavily promote their own products over foreign ones. Not to mention they make good products domestically. Since they can basically steal any IP they want from any competitor products.
That's not Googles problem, it is Microsofts. They didn't compete early enough. Even though Windows CE existed. It wasn't good enough compared to iOS or Android. Metro didn't catch on with consumers, and developers wasn't going to waste time on it since not enough people are buying it. Consumers made their choice, and it was iOS and Android. Even when Microsoft bought Nokia. It should have helped, but it didn't. Maybe they should have bought Blackberry, and stuck with the enterprise market? Don't know if it would have worked out differently. Maybe not charging for Exchange (ActiveSync) also hurt them.
However, by the same token. Linux is a free OS. And it's not the popular desktop operating system. Neither is macOS. While the OS is free, it only runs on Mac hardware. So giving something away doesn't mean it's going to "win" out over everything else.
I guess you don't count M series chips as innovation? I'm sure Google would argue Gemini is pretty innovative.
If youyourre just talking about the OS. They both are far cries from when this all started.
Everything is like that. Till there is another breakthrough in some area that leads down more rapid innovation. Like I said before the M series chips was one of those breakthroughs. And while the consensus is that Siri is seriously lacking any innovation in some time. The hardware will enable better functionality when they figure it out.
Not something Apple or Google has any control over. Someone else needs to setup. Or China needs to start playing ball and take the spyware out of their devices.
There is no guarantee of any profits being made. For anyone. Only expectations based on future publicly unknown products and past performances. And, expected business climate. Nothing is guaranteed, it's just best guess estimates.
It’s not innovation to add a camera button on the side of an iPhone and call it innovation when Sony had it 10 years ago
It’s things like that not chips
Oh you could give djphat2000 mobile away for free but why would anyone use it when android has the market share there already for developers to take advantage of their apps without wasting investment
That is why google gives it away for free
To solidify their position because of their
3.5 billion users.
It’s not about Microsoft missing the boat
It’s the fact that the only competition that iOS & android has anywhere in the world is in china yet according to most the only reason for that is because china encourages their own products over foreign.
Yet a competitor will emerge in the west?
Allegedly there is spyware in huawei devices
Just like TikTok just like WOMD
Yeah you do when any company you have people that say we are under attack by government’s & legislation
So yeah you are right in regards to a company like Nintendo who produced the WiiU & virtually nobody bought it
It’s okay to compare to similar business models. Even by doing so, hardware sales and commissions are independent.
Chips is part of the innovation. Which drives what the OS can do, and how the cameras can work, and how all software written for it can perform and operate. The button itself isn't an innovation.
Linux has been free for a long time, and it's still not the popular OS for desktop use. There is plenty of development for Linux. Yet still not the most popular of OS's for desktop . That still belongs to Microsoft Windows. And correct me if I am wrong but they still charge for it. By your reasoning, Linux would cease to exist if Microsoft just gave away the OS.
It is not necessarily the price of something. It's what it does, how it works, and if it is worth the investment, etc.
IT IS. They already admitted to that. And Balmer famously stated the iPhone was going no where. THEY BLEW IT.
There was competition. Two companies survived, the rest more or less failed in that space. Or adapted to using Android, and or a derivative of it. You need to understand that point. Without that, the context of what you're saying is incomplete. And leads one to think either or both had something to do with being the only 2 in the west.
China could have their devices/OS available to the world "IF" they played ball. They want to spy. The rest of the world doesn't want spy's in every room. We would happily accept their lower price, high quality devices otherwise.
Yes, and people make money off of it. And the government would very much like Tik-Tok to divest itself from China and become a US owned company.
Out of all of Apple's products. You can identify which ones were not successful. Or ones that faded away after being successful. Because none of us or Apple or any company can predict what will or will not "work". You can't be assured of any profit. All you can do is put out enough products that you do well enough to make a profit. So you can try again on something new, and of course. Improve upon existing successful products.
The complaining over how much Apple charges to operate on the AppStore. 30% etc. Has NO IDEA what it costs Apple to run the store. How much of that 30% is saving a startup developer so they can distribute something for free. Or how much of it goes into OTHER areas of Apple's business. When they have shareholders meetings and release their financials. You see exactly what was made where. Losses and gains quarter to quarter year to year. When you see the big number go UP. Many assume, well "Apple is making its fat greedy profits once again". While not looking to see where that money came from. Some areas are shrinking, some areas are growing. Mac Pro sales I'm sure are NOT growing. But, it maybe made up for by Portables or from combinations of speakers/watches/AppStore sales etc.
They could be making more money overseas and less in the US or vice versa. It's how we can even get a Vision Pro. Taking a shot at making something revolutionary that COULD very well FAIL. But, they are funded by other area well enough to take the chance on it. Like they took a chance on making a car. They may very well have failed, but it was funded by areas they made profits in. And who knows. Maybe one day they will come back to it with new eyes and ideas and have the ability to try again if they are still profitable enough to fund such a project.
well to be fair it's a shame they have so large profits, and we can se the result of the lack of investment in development and innovation to stay ahead. I don't know what the app store costs to run, but i do know the iPhone gets more and more expensive for every cycle, the store gets filled with more and more crap...
But as a cherry on top apple seems to make the app-store worse at the same time as well, so i do wonder where all that RnD in services actually goes towards.. hopefully not pennie pinching.
heartening in that there are so few. given the depth of industry knowledge and experience this is where you would expect the most complaints. and there are few...Heartening or disheartening?
It stands to reason that at this point, iOS and Android users are more or less self selecting. People like myself use iPhones and iPads because we don’t hate closed ecosystems. If anything, we actively seek them out because we feel that the benefits far outweigh the costs.
like you, i seek out a closed environment because it largely just works. got tired of fiddling old Windows PCs for people who installed malware from email links or software they downloaded and didnt realise...
iOS is a good compromise between letting you add and extend function without most of the risk...
Last edited: