It sounds like this is a good argument, until you learn that Minecraft and Roblox are allowed around Apple's rule, because they aren't "games". But fortnite is of course, a "game".
I read the article, but it didn’t make clear what the relevance of game vs app was. It’s not like Apple makes games use in-app purchases but exempts apps (or vice-versa). Can you explain what the significance of Roblox being classified as an “app” is in this context?
It's more how Apple treats Roblox vs. Xcloud or Google Stadia. Roblox is basically a bunch of different games made by different developers (they just happen to all use the same engine) in one app that aren't reviewed by Apple which is in contradiction to their guidelines for game services which requires all games to be listed separately in the App Store. Epic is pointing out how they don't treat every app the same.
That just seems like another instance of the same problem to me. Either a 30% cut is fair or it isn’t.
These people should all choose which one, I don’t care which. Just don’t tell me that Apple’s 30% cut is unethical while some other guy’s 30% cut is okay.
> How exactly is the $300-ish Nintendo Switch a different thing altogether than a $300-ish iPad or iPod Touch
To start with, the Switch has superior first-party games, real physical buttons, real physical media, and less f2p garbage in its app store. It also lacks a decent web browser, email client, music player, Discord, and many other useful apps.
Another difference is that there is a DMCA exception for jailbreaking tablets and smartphones, but there is no such exception for handheld game consoles.
Which is nonsensical, because the hardware is nearly identical, and games are far and away the largest category of apps for tablets and smartphones.
So Gruber is right: they're nearly identical hardware, both used as handheld gaming/streaming devices, and it is wildly inconsistent to say that it is OK for Nintendo to have a closed eShop but not OK for Apple to have a closed App Store.
the problem is that smart devices are much more important for the economy and business (and users) than gaming devices (like the switch). So it is in the public interest that those oligopolies (Android/IOS) have a business model that is fair to all stakeholders.
14 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 42.5 ms ] threadWorth reading the whole article, but you could’ve just googled this before accusing the poster.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/7/22425774/epic-apple-roblox...
Well, Amazon or Wechat for eg. There’s lots of exceptions carved out for various scenarios that benefit Apple.
Anyways, here’s a detailed explanation of the Roblox case, once again found via googling:
https://pausebutton.substack.com/p/why-is-roblox-allowed-on-...
These people should all choose which one, I don’t care which. Just don’t tell me that Apple’s 30% cut is unethical while some other guy’s 30% cut is okay.
It has buttons.
To start with, the Switch has superior first-party games, real physical buttons, real physical media, and less f2p garbage in its app store. It also lacks a decent web browser, email client, music player, Discord, and many other useful apps.
Another difference is that there is a DMCA exception for jailbreaking tablets and smartphones, but there is no such exception for handheld game consoles.
Which is nonsensical, because the hardware is nearly identical, and games are far and away the largest category of apps for tablets and smartphones.
So Gruber is right: they're nearly identical hardware, both used as handheld gaming/streaming devices, and it is wildly inconsistent to say that it is OK for Nintendo to have a closed eShop but not OK for Apple to have a closed App Store.