←back to thread

432 points nobody9999 | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
pjmlp ◴[] No.46245838[source]
While having Epic Store, Fortnite "mini store", and being perfectly fine with Nintendo, Sony and XBox.
replies(3): >>46246652 #>>46247075 #>>46248079 #
josephg ◴[] No.46248079[source]
Well yeah! A Nintendo switch or PlayStation is technically similar to an iPhone. But you can’t make the same monopolistic dealing argument there as you can on phones.

Why? Because a console is bought as a gaming device. And because you can reasonably have multiple consoles and there’s healthy competition between them.

In comparison, people buy a phone to have a phone. Then the App Store lock-in is tacked on the side. iPhone and Android compete on who has the best cameras. But once you’ve bought your phone, you’re trapped in the manufacturer’s App Store, who can charge monopolistic pricing. And normal people don’t buy multiple phones for different app stores.

The App Store monopoly is like if your electricity company somehow made it so you could only buy an Xbox. Games on steam and PlayStation aren’t compatible with the electricity in your house. And your friend down the street could only use a PlayStation. Not for any technical reason, but simply because locking you in to a single console manufacturer means they can make you pay way more for games. And you’ll pay it, because you don’t have a choice and can’t shop around.

The problem comes about because phones and app stores are glued together. They use a captive market created by one part of the business to trap consumers and developers elsewhere. If Google and Apple had to compete on app stores - like how Nintendo, PlayStation and Microsoft have to compete - then there’s no way Apple could get away with charging their extortionate 28% for App Store sales. If chrome charged a 28% commission on all purchases I made through the browser, everyone would switch to Firefox. Apps on my phone should be more like that.

replies(5): >>46248236 #>>46248384 #>>46249544 #>>46249668 #>>46249812 #
1. mbg721 ◴[] No.46248236[source]
I bought a console as a gaming device, but now my family mostly use it for YouTube and other streaming video. Similarly, relatively little of my phone time is used on phone calls. I think the distinction is mostly just locked in by history.
replies(1): >>46249120 #
2. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.46249120[source]
If you wanted a dedicated streaming device, the competition is much cheaper.

But sure, nothing on a technical lecdl stops you from using a console as a general computer. It's just that that's not what the overwhelming use is as of now. Use cases play a large factor in rulings like this.

replies(1): >>46260922 #
3. josephg ◴[] No.46260922[source]
Well, its not just "games vs phones". The question is whether or not the company's actions unfairly stifle competition. Nintendo / sony / etc would argue there's lots of competition, because you can just buy their competitor's product if you think they provide a better service. The argument is weaker for apple because its much harder for regular people to "just" swap their phone between ios / android over differences in the app stores.

Consoles compete on games. Phones compete on specs, and then they happen to have an app store on the side. Thats a difference.