I still have some trouble around the idea that hardcore consumers will want a bundle that has maybe 2-5 games they would have bought otherwise + 95 more they dont really care about.
Aren't consumers just going to buy what they want anyway? Plus the Sony world just has so many more games worth playing
If you look at the games shown for the next gen, it's MS is not far away. They have acquired some serious studios and reviving Fable, Halo Infinite hopefully lands, Hellblade 2 looks truly next gen and there's Obsidian, The Initiative and rumoured unannounced "AAAA" game
That's the model Microsoft are going for with Game Pass, just pay us a fixed monthly fee and play any of the hundreds of games we have available on Android/PC/XBox.
Not really. The alternative before Netflix was more expensive cable/satellite tv. Netflix was both better and cheaper.
As a gamer I probably only spend ~£150 a year on a few really good big games and the odd cheap sale game. And I prefer not to spend so much because it feels wasteful, moreso than Netflix for reasons I can't figure.
Paying £15-20 a month is more money for something I feel I should be spending less on.
This is right of nose and defines exactly why MSFT pivoted to the Game Pass strategy - there were no console-moving titles (besides Sea of Thieves, that game rocks)
What we could see now is these games coming to Game Pass early, or even getting Xbox exclusive content. Theres a low chance they dont drop on other platforms (Skyrim on your Windows phone?) but still a big chip for MSFT to have on hand.
From a strategy perspective this is an absolutely massive win for Xbox. Their entire strategy [1] for the next generation of consoles is breadth vs depth, essentially saying they cant beat Sony in exclusives so they'll offer way more value for a lower price.
What this acquisition means is that the gap between potential Xbox exclusives/Day 1 releases and what Sony has is much smaller. Realistically there is a very low chance that any of the IP from this purchase becomes Xbox-exclusive, but even an early launch on Xbox shifts momentum massively.
Of all the non-FAANG gaming companies Riot is the one that most closely operates like a tech giant to me (with the exception of maybe Epic Games)
They have an incredibly robust M&A division, have mastered land + expand with their esports, are putting down roots in pretty much every major gaming category, and have modern monetization practices down to a tee.
Excluding the clearly egregious cultural issues, I would be fairly confident in betting on Riot in the long term
>I would be fairly confident in betting on Riot in the long term
Tencent already did that more than 10 years ago. I wonder how they pick who to invest into, because it seems that in the gaming space they have their hand in almost everything successful. And how come others aren't doing the same?
Commented this in the other thread on this subject, but think it's still relevant here.
Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and other major companies will smell blood in the water when it comes taking down a competitor.
Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.
Apple is truly doing themselves a disservice here, if Epic wins this battle Apple will undoubtedly be painted as the bad guy, and other major companies will smell blood in the water when it comes taking down a competitor.
Case in point; Tinder, Microsoft, Facebook, Spotify have all openly backed Epic and started to call attention to features that are impacted by this 30% fee. Status quo isn't going to cut it, and it would be in Apple's best interest to make a small concession to look like they're not so evil.
I'm actually happy Apple didn't make a small concession.
I can't quite have the resources to sue Apple by myself as a small user being prevented from using the device I have paid for the way I see fit. I'm very glad that EPIC is doing it on my behalf. I'm also kind of glad that Apple didn't simply cut a backroom deal with EPIC, but is instead going the full-monty on this.
I share a different view on this. I want Apple to have as much control over as they can to keep my device safe. Obviously, this is an unpopular opinion on HN - part of me wants it super hackable and open source (my hacker self), but my average joe self wants is as tied down, closed doors as possible to avoid sniffing off my personal data, usage patterns, cookies, and a whole bunch of "soft metrics" about my device to finger print me and then auction it off in a giant data auctioning event - an evil corporation buys my data in 3 milliseconds and off it goes.
Apple acts on my behalf as a security officer - they have no interest in selling me ads - they already got their revenue hunger satiated from the high price of my device and all the internal Apple services I pay for (Apple music, TV, icloud, etc).
I love Apple and I love that they are willing to stand up for riffraff that's trying to invade my personal space (consider iPhone literally as the entire life's worth of information vault) by masquerading as a crusader of light and openness.
I don't want Apple to open up their devices. Average Joes around the world outside of HN crowd will have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
I also think that 30% share is too low. Apple should be charging way more for exclusive access to their App store. It's their turf.
Why is this good? Because dev will go back to using browser apps to provide services and the browser itself is a nice sandbox to keep the riffraff out.
And only high quality apps will make it through the App store.
> Apple acts on my behalf as a security officer - they have no interest in selling me ads - they already got their revenue hunger satiated from the high price of my device and all the internal Apple services I pay for (Apple music, TV, icloud, etc).
They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand. They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it. They've already done a long list of "abuses" that have nothing to do with your device security (or battery life, etc).
Honestly I do think Apple has done a great job of device security and I think they could do a lot more with their OS. I don't see why I need an app store to prevent apps from sniffing off my personal data, usage patterns, cookies, etc -- the OS could protect those from me if that's what Apple wants to do.
> Apple should be charging way more for exclusive access to their App store. It's their turf.
I think something is likely anti-competitive when there is absolutely no market pressure on pricing.
> They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand. They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it. They've already done a long list of "abuses" that have nothing to do with your device security (or battery life, etc).
I can concede if there is a clearcut evidence and a source you can provide that proves it with absolute certainty. I don't think its that clear.
Also, the motivation doesn't make any sense. Why would Apple want to trade PR/brand damage for what constitutes pennies so to say for a small app? Do you think that internally Apple's executives were like "Let's copy this app, ban the developer, sustain the PR damage because it is worth making that juicy $80K from sales. Surely, our shareholders would like that!"
Lot of anger with Apple is unsubstantiated and completely emotional. There are a whole clan of people that love/hate Apple since the dawn of the company.
I just don't see why Apple would this. Usually, they buy the whole company (e.g. Shazam).
No. I think Hanlon's razor applies; Apple has a policy against duplicating features, they add more features, existing apps that have these features are now in violation of that policy. It's Kafkaesque, not premeditated.
Hackernews has a regular postings (a few a year) from app developers who's long standing apps are suddenly rejected after a minor update with no recourse and they're appealing to us for help. This isn't rare, it's a regular occurrence. And those are just the ones we know about.
It's users and the developers who are losing out. You never know if Apple's going to destroy your business or nuke your favorite application and it doesn't hurt Apple at all. I doubt they even notice.
> They disallow cloud gaming because it they can't collect fees from it or control it.
They disallow cloud gaming for the same reason they disallow non-generic screen mirroring. Because people would use it to circumvent the App Store policies. I’m sure it nets them some cash to do this but I’m sure they would be happy to take 30% of the cloud gaming subscription revenue and allow it. Can you imagine if Facebook didn’t want to follow App Store rules and just streamed the app?
> They remove apps that compete with their own apps even if those apps existed before hand
This is just f.lux. I don’t see Apple banning notes apps in droves. And f.lux ran into the issue of Apple adding the feature and then suddenly f.lux running afoul of “you can’t sell OS functionality” which is a good rule in general. Android is rampant with apps that charge for push notifications.
> Can you imagine if Facebook didn’t want to follow App Store rules and just streamed the app?
You mean like www.facebook.com?
I fail to see why game streaming is any different than Netflix. You can't compromise the security of a device if nothing is running on the device. So this is only about Apple maintaining control.
> This is just f.lux.
Apple banned every screen-time and parental control app just before they released their own. Google Voice was banned. Apple has removed Podcasting applications for "duplicating functionality of iTunes".
> Android is rampant with apps that charge for push notifications.
I have all Android devices and my wife has all Apple devices (and I had all Apple devices in the past). There is almost no significant difference between the experiences -- the most popular apps on the store between the platforms is generally the same apps from the same companies.
Those examples you picked are misleading at best. The Google Voice ban was a weird carrier dispute, parental control apps were banned because they used MDM, and the podcast apps were removed in China because the gov’t made them.
No, I'm not talking about China w/ regards to podcast apps.
And yes parental control apps were banned because they used MDM... Which they used for years and yet all were banned mere months before Apple released their own parental controls. The reason is acceptable the timing is extremely suspicious.
For Google voice, Apple themselves said they banned it because it duplicated functionality and was "confusing". Now it's quite likely the carriers pressured them to ban the app which, in my opinion, is even worse!
You are relying on a benevolent dictator.
If Apple decided to sell you out you are fucked.
BTW if you are such a security fan would it be good if Apple watches which websites you visit in your browser?
Wouldn't it be even better if only websites are allowed which are hosted on Apple servers on Apples own internet?
Definitely - it is better than keeping tabs on thousands of small predators (apps) that want to milk your data at every instant possible.
Apple's entire business model for decades is about selling hardware and services, not advertisement. And they're doubling down on it.
The alternatives are "open source" masquerators like Ubuntu who had a boatload of Amazon spyware in it.
This is an age old argument about Apple. Last couple of months for Apple has been rough in terms of PR, but I can point you to many many threads about how Apple cares about their users and despite of the "dictator" status, they're a safe bet relative to what other options we have available. It is fashionable during this time to hate on Apple. See @dang's warning at the top of the thread - I've kind of lost hope in HN since it has become too emotional and less objective day by day.
BTW if Apple wins, developers are fucked. Apples gatekeeping will become the norm.
Developers would be resigned to the role of supplicant, who have to beg to sell their apps in the App Stores.
Just as is already happening in supermarkets and the automotive industry.
The farmers and suppliers are squeezed out and the big corporations make even more money.
It's ironic that once Apple sold Macs with the spin to prevent a 1984 like computer scenario.
Now they are big brother who watches over us to keep us secure.
It"s am incapacitation of its customers.
Please don't compare a tractor/car with the phone. Phone is a unique all-in-one system that has personal biometrics, facial recognition data, accelerometer data of my walking gait, what my sleep patterns are, emotional state, browsing habits, GPS location, home/work trips, messaging data, how often I call my doctor, network access, bluetooth access - I could go on for a few more paragraphs.
Does a tractor even come close to that level of personal information?
I agree with you and the right to repair movement. It bothers me that comes like John Deere are milking innocent farmers with equipment lockdown. It's the same with industrial robot manufacturers like Fanuc and Kuka. I once had to call Fanuc to add 128 additional registers on the controller for $10k! This is pretty rampant in B2B world and now penetrating the customer space - think about all the subscription services today! You don't own anything.
Phone is a different beast all together.
When it comes to developers, I value my device more than the developer ecosystem. For me, the phone is where I store personal data:
- Contacts
- Photos
- Notes
- Messages / SMS
- Health and Fitness
Everything else is secondary to me. So, I could give less of a damn about developers and their ecosystem than the security of the device. If I want to access external service, I use Safari or download an App.
I absolutely do not want Apps to have more control of my device. I am thankful that Apple is the gatekeeper.
I hope people see this - no one outside of HN gives a shit about Developers and I agree with them.
That's like saying I don't care about farmers I get my food from the supermarket.
What do you think who developed the programs to store your personal data?
Apple took over functions from third party apps because clever developers programmed them.
Your entire argument relies on a dichotomy between having a locked down walled garden which gives you privacy, and allowing any apps which takes all privacy away. Are you sure that's actually true? Because for example with PCs it's inverted, Linux is 110% more privacy sensitive than Windows. Openness also means you can protect yourself.
Android has an option allowing the users to install apps from any source. (You could install whole third-party app-stores this way.) Do you know of anyone who uses it?
However, it's always there, so, if my favourite Android app gets deleted from the store, I could still install it.
If your favourite iOS app gets deleted by Apple, what choices do you have?
Apple is about selling an image.
And Apple is caring as long the money flows. Don't get fooled, it's always about money. Apple sells products with a high margin that's why they can do without advertisement at the moment.
That can change every moment.
Remember how Steve Jobs laughed at using a stylus for tablets, what do we have now?
New management, new rules.
It's crucial to recognize that for most of Apple's existence, they sold only their own products. Reselling third-party products was a nonexistent or minimal part of Apple's business. That changed with the iTunes Music Store, and it took off from there.
I like Apple's first-party products. I want to buy into that ecosystem. But I never wanted to buy into the ecosystem where Apple is a reseller. I don't want Apple to become Amazon.
No one is forcing you to unlock your phone or install a third party app store. You can have the same relationship with Apple that you do now even if other people can unlock their devices and run their own software.
Also, iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits, because iOS exploits are so abundant in comparison to Android exploits.
>I don't want Apple to open up their devices. Average Joes around the world outside of HN crowd will have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Well, they have Fortnite to gain...
But seriously, I've lost count of the number of apps I've enjoyed on Androids that were either unavailable or stunted on iOS. Recommending even basic apps like Google Photos to family comes with a long list of caveats like, "oh yeah, it uploads your photos automatically... as long as you open the app manually to do it". It's icing on the cake that they're also taking such a hard stance against game streaming right now, which is IMO going to be a huge market going forward that a lot of people are going to miss out on (or maybe not, since most of the game streaming market is poorer people...).
I guess the argument of dumbed-down phones for the sake of security/privacy is a reasonable one, but why wouldn't people just buy, like, actual dumb phones? Having a premium phone that you don't actually own just seems like an oxymoron to me. I don't "hack" my own phone and I'm certainly no tinkerer, but being able to actually use the apps my friends use and changing the settings I want to change makes my day to day life a little better every time I do have to use my phone.
Opening up what my friends and family can do with their phones seems like it'd have a lot to gain and very little to lose.
> Why is this good? Because dev will go back to using browser apps to provide services and the browser itself is a nice sandbox to keep the riffraff out.
Just so you know, a lot of us would like to develop our software as browser apps, but Apple has deliberately and intentionally limited the capabilities of browser on iOS devices to ensure that developers continue to develop native apps.
Microsoft takes 30% on Xbox plus its much more expensive to develop and publish on that platform overall.
Neither Tinder nor Spotify will transfer any savings to the end users.
Spotify has been ramping their sub costs considerably my sub went up by like 150% in the UK over the past 3-4 years.
Tinder employs discriminatory pricing by charging certain genders, age groups and sexual orientations more for their premium services.
How Tinder hasn’t been sued to oblivion I’m still not sure it seems to violate even US anti discrimination laws, I guess were lucky that they don’t employ differential pricing based on race yet.
If you’re claiming that Spotify would get all the benefit of a break in the fee, you’re implicitly claiming that it bears all the economic burden of the fee (ie. it doesn’t pass on the fee to users). Spotify currently charges $13 to sign up in iOS and $10 to sign up on the web. This is strong evidence that Spotify is currently passing through the fee to users. It seems much more likely that Spotify would give iOS users a price break if the fee was cut. Music streaming is a competitive market, so they don’t have much choice if everyone gets the same break.
Especially when Apple Music is $10 per month, Spotify needs to more or less match that price. The problem is if Apple takes 30% and Spotify pays out 70% (old info, maybe this has changed) to labels, Spotify is left with $0. It drops to 15% after the first year, but that's still not good compared to the 3% major credit card processors charge.
Regulators won’t see it like that because you didn’t factor in opportunity cost.
If Apple takes one of Spotify’s customers then not only do they lose out on the 30% but they’ve just taken on the burden of providing the actual service to the customer. So Apple not only has to make a profit but make more profit than the 30% would have gotten them. And music streaming is a competitive business.
Do you never think how Kroger brand products don’t run into the same issue?
To clarify, these companies are certainly not absolved of doing the same exact thing, but the current news isn't about them, it's about Apple, and they're going to make good use of that
> Microsoft takes 30% on Xbox plus its much more expensive to develop and publish on that platform overall.
And yet Epic has beef with Apple. So Microsoft must managed their relationship better than Apple has done to make Epic satisfied enough to not pull a stunt like they have with Apple.
I would like the developer to have the choice of what percent Apple gets (e.g. slider from 10% -> 30%) and that also determines the level of support (and discoverability on the App store?) that Apple gives. Would that type of system work?
Sure, if only Apple would itemize the support costs, developers could see how much support each position on the slider will earn us. Surely this won’t reveal that it’s almost pure profit.
There are lots of questions around compensation equality (i.e. the big companies get richer, the poor get charged more) but something besides the blanket 30% rule based on some metric sounds feasible to me
Really? That's so strange. I swear I thought I could buy XBox games from other stores like Amazon, Target, and Walmart if Microsoft were to kick them out of their store. I can even buy used games on CraigsList.
> There are no fees to apply to ID@Xbox, to submit a game to certification, publish, or update your games. There is a very modest one-time cost associated with development for the Universal Windows Platform.
With severe limitations, you have to use all of the Xbox Live features including having multiplayer.
You still need to pay for ESRB ratings and other things.
The SDKs that are available for this program are also heavily limited it’s basically only for UWP compatible apps, and while they didn’t put it yet it looks like there will be further limitations down the line including ensuring full cross platform compatibility including with IOS and Android.
So yes if you build a game using their more limited SDK and implement all Xbox Live features they won’t take a fee other than dev account fees.
And we aren’t talking about indie devs we’re talking about fucking Epic Games.
Around the time that program was introduced, Microsoft was promising to eventually level the two. I am certain DirectX is fully supported. Not sure about access to all memory though.
So your “source” is a HN post with no citation? You can simply compare prices on the NYT’s website and compare them to the iOS app price to find out that this isn’t true either.
That's a big IF. You will find it damn-near-impossible to have any legal standing when you willfully violate the terms of service with a provider as openly as Epic did.
Apple is fully in the right here, and as a consumer I'm glad Apple isn't messing around with their software security. What Epic did was down right sneaky, and they are (rightfully) being punished for it.
Epic started this mess, the law and legal judgements have made it very clear how they could have avoided this, and they didn't. Your feelings, personal device choices do not change facts.
Contracts are not laws, if you breech a contract then one of the possible outcomes is that you will end up in court arguing whether the contract is valid. That is what happened in this case. The law would be especially toothless if you had to obey a contract in order to dispute its validity.
This topic has been brought up a lot in these conversations and I’ve missed the substance. Which laws do we suspect Apple may have broken with their App Store contracts?
You can read Epic's court filing but the tl;dr is that Epic alleges that the terms of the contract restrict Epic and other parties from competing with Apple, that Apple uses their market power in one area to get an unfair advantage in other areas (such as payment processing), and they cite the Sherman act as the primary legal basis of their claim that those terms are illegal.
This case is likely to last for years so it is very much too soon to be predicting who will win.
The court told Epic how to get in compliance with Apple, they refused, Apple in their terms clearly states they have the right to terminate their account. That's the facts of the case, it doesn't matter what anyone feels.
The difference would be that the same iPhone has access to Taylor Swift through Spotify, Apple Music, Play Music (does that even exist anymore?) and so on.
Put the app store on the same level of competition and level the playing field of Spotify vs Apple Music in regards to the 30% subscription fee.
You must have a wildly different experience with YouTube Music then me. This forced migration was the final tipping point to push me to Spotify. YouTube Music's UX is _horrendous_ compared to Google Play Music, and the pre-canned radio stations are almost completely missing.
There are multiple streaming services, but most people won't pay for multiple services, so there is a lock in effect. And Spotify has a higher market share in music streaming than Apple has in cell phones.
Switching my $10/month payment from Spotify to iTunes is negligible compared to replacing a $700+ smartphone (which is likely on a payment plan). And in the latter case I lose access to every single app I have paid for over a decade.
From the Substack-related interviews/content I've consumed, it seems like the company is more concerned with tools/support [0] [1] for its creators, before it worries about consumer growth.
The idea is that once you have an excess of supply (writers), who are all bringing in their own readers, it's easier to connect the dots for readers to other publications. Whereas if your reader demand outweighs supply, people will not see any value from sticking around.
As a writer on the platform[2] itself, I think the general tools/support for the non-Top 20 creators leaves a ton to be desired, so would love to see them step it up in a number of ways if they're really trying to get behind the average writer.
I've been writing about the world of gaming via Substack for the last year or so (https://pausebutton.substack.com/) for somewhat sizable audience, and this is a particularly accurate breakdown.
Links/Round-ups = retention. They make sure your brand stays top of mind for folks, but very rarely are they the thing that makes new subscribers come in. The tradeoff is that this is way more time-efficient that writing your own long-form.
New Long-form Content = Growth. The long-form stuff takes us 10x the time to write, but is consistently responsible for the increase in audience size. If you're going full-time, this is the place to invest. Particularly because Substack is so bad at reader Discovery, you need to invest in getting people onto your publication in your own way (original content), because Substack only really helps the biggest creators drive traffic.
It's why the I think the idea of bundling is going to be so big with newsletters, akin to how traditional newspapers started through a bunch of independent writers coming together. Eventually producing new long-form stuff wont be able to drive sustained growth and there's a cap on how much content a single person can put out.
https://www.matthewball.vc/all/onnintendo