-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Apple is being sued for its App Store walled garden; ruling could have severe implications for gaming consoles
- Thread starter Deleted member 249
- Start date
The Supreme Court ruling applies to only one thing: Can the plaintiffs make a monopoly suit against Apple by claiming Apple is the primary seller of apps on their App Store? They have ruled that yes, even though developers set their own prices, Apple is the gatekeeper, so if you want to complain that app prices are too high because of Apple, you can.
The case hasn't happened yet, the SCOTUS haven't ruled on the case or Apple's chances, or really anything else. The thread is basically discussing what would happen if the case is litigated AND if Apple's new defense loses AND if they then lose appeals (also possibly all the way up to the Supreme Court).
This video (already posted on the thread) has some in-depth details, if you want it:
I really hope Apple wins just for the security concerns, I currently have a Note 9 but am planning on going back to iPhone mostly for the security of the platform and I could see this drastically lessening it.
just for that they'll increase it to 40% and no one will leave
That's nothing like the same thing. And does absolutely nothing to address the point I'm making anyway!
Valve doesn't charge for a fictive online play service either. Also, these consoles aren't given away for free. They paid their own R&D with these sales, don't worry.
Online play charges are a drop in the ocean compared to money from software sales.
Consoles aren't given away for free, but they are sold at very tight margins. R&D and support costs cannot be anywhere near covered by the hardware profits.
Valve on the other hand can and often do sell their hardware with very decent margins. I'd be shocked if the BOM for the $999 Valve Index exceeds $500 - $600 range.
Wouldn't the existence of Android almost ensure that Apple won't lose this lawsuit? If you don't want to be stuck with the App Store, then switch platforms; the competing platform is your alternative storefront. While I prefer Android to iOS, I can't deny that the app experience is generally better on iOS, and I think a big part of that is Apple's quality control. With Android, you get more freedom, but it's definitely at the cost of quality.
Also, if people have a problem with the cuts that the keepers of these "walled gardens" take, then maybe they should consider creating their own massive, reliable cloud distribution platform that clearly couldn't take much money to maintain. (sarcasm)
Also, if people have a problem with the cuts that the keepers of these "walled gardens" take, then maybe they should consider creating their own massive, reliable cloud distribution platform that clearly couldn't take much money to maintain. (sarcasm)
Many of them would be happy to have their own app store, just look at how many game launchers there are on PC, and Fortnite on Android. The problem is that the phone does not allow you to install apps any other way.
Yeah I get all that but none of it answers my question about whether or not the distinction between phones and consoles has any precedent from the lower courts or if it's just wild speculation. The post I was quoting was acting like "commodity devices" is a legal term that would shield consoles from this ruling.
I still remember some developers early on defending this by saying it would be unfair to brick and mortar retailers if digital games were cheaper. Eventually it just became accepted that they were the same price despite no manufacturing or distribution costs.
not necessarily, it would mean anyone can release games on your ps4/xbo/switch without needing the platform holder's approval or giving them a cut. but it's easy to see why MS/sony/nintendo won't have as much incentive to spend money making quality first party games if that was the case.
but, this case has pretty much nothing to do with consoles and relating the both is quite a stretch on OP's part.
If anything Sony and MS would hurt way way more if they didnt get the 30% from third party sales.
IRC Nintendo makes like 80%+ of their revenue on first party anyway, which would not be affected by this at all.
Of course since they also make money from the physical sales (close to 20%).
Trying to justify their cut with physical hardware which they often sell at a profit doesn't make any sense. Sure, it has a RD cost to make that platform. But it's irrelevant to what they provide to developpers for using their store. And on top of that: They make money from these hardware sales. Which also includes accessories in which they make a hefty profits from.
IANAL, but...That specifically doesn't come up, as far as I can see? So wild speculation, particularly assuming a smartphone App Store should be under more rigor than a game console. Both of which function - for the extent of the lawsuit - in exactly the same way.
Anyone assuming these companies would have to "unlock" their platforms is taking 5 or six wild speculations in a row. It's an interesting thought exercise (how would the gaming industry work?) but realistically a lot of dominoes would have to combust.
With the sales of videogames, right?
Outside of Nintendo, they went in making little to no profit on the actual hardware.
Having grow up with computers, it's crazy talk to hear that "not being able to do whatever you want with your hardware" is good. Imagine you had to drive your car only in certain roads, or buy fuel only from a certain place, or only listen to proprietary CDs that only work in your car. We're fortunate enough that Windows never got these restrictions because it wasn't possible to have centralized digital distribution in the 90s.
You will find shit apps everywhere, both on iOS and Android. Let's not pretend that there's some magic in iOS, the thing has had its fair share of critical bugs and problems.
Perhaps the problem with Apple pales compared to the Play Services, which are actually forced on 90% of smartphone users, because Google would go mafia style on companies if they don't comply with their terms.
You will find shit apps everywhere, both on iOS and Android. Let's not pretend that there's some magic in iOS, the thing has had its fair share of critical bugs and problems.
Perhaps the problem with Apple pales compared to the Play Services, which are actually forced on 90% of smartphone users, because Google would go mafia style on companies if they don't comply with their terms.
Last edited: