Valve Has To Provide Some Steam Sales Data To Apple, Judge Says (arstechnica.com) 100
A US magistrate judge has ordered Valve to provide sales data to Apple in response to a subpoena issued amid Apple's continuing legal fight with Epic Games. From a report: In addition to some aggregate sales data for the entirety of Steam, Valve will only have to provide specific, per-title pricing and sales data for "436 specific apps that are available on both Steam and the Epic Games Store," according to the order. That's a significant decrease from the 30,000+ titles Apple for which Apple originally requested data. In resisting the subpoena, Valve argued that its Steam sales data was irrelevant to questions about the purely mobile app marketplaces at issue in the case. Refocusing the request only on games available on both Steam and the Epic Games Store makes it more directly relevant to the questions of mobile competition in the case, Judge Thomas Hixson writes in his order.
"Recall that in these related cases, [Epic] allege that Apple's 30% commission on sales through its App Store is anti-competitive and that allowing iOS apps to be sold through other stores would force Apple to reduce its commission to a more competitive level," Hixson writes in the order. "By focusing... on 436 specific games that are sold in both Steam and Epic's store, Apple seeks to take discovery into whether the availability of other stores does in fact affect commissions in the way [Epic] allege." The California judge overseeing Apple's attempts to drag Valve into an ongoing beef with Epic Games admitted that Apple "salted the Earth with subpoenas, so don't worry, it's not just you."
"Recall that in these related cases, [Epic] allege that Apple's 30% commission on sales through its App Store is anti-competitive and that allowing iOS apps to be sold through other stores would force Apple to reduce its commission to a more competitive level," Hixson writes in the order. "By focusing... on 436 specific games that are sold in both Steam and Epic's store, Apple seeks to take discovery into whether the availability of other stores does in fact affect commissions in the way [Epic] allege." The California judge overseeing Apple's attempts to drag Valve into an ongoing beef with Epic Games admitted that Apple "salted the Earth with subpoenas, so don't worry, it's not just you."
YouTube should demand Apple data (Score:4, Interesting)
I bet YouTube would love to know all the Apple streaming or even podcast data. I can't wait for the next court case to lead to such tangential discovery bullshit.
(eating popcorn, watching tech giants eat one another)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really, I just want Apple to open up their platform.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure what your comment has to do with mine, but I'll bite. These platforms are all closed in varying degrees. If you try to escape the purchasing model and profit sharing of Google, they'll toss out your app too. I think it's a hopeless dream to want Apple to open up their platform when nobody else really has either.
Re:YouTube should demand Apple data (Score:5, Insightful)
Your response is completely disingenuous.
Google lets users sideload apps, Apple doesn't.
In fact Google has always been friendly to third party app stores.
Your comment is bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Google lets users sideload apps, Apple doesn't.
This is true to a degree, at least with AOSP and Google's own products. Although you can't market your app on their store if you are side loading them (obviously). I was speaking primarily of these platforms in the sense of the market place, not platforms in the sense of an operating system running on a device. Sorry for the confusion there.
People have figured out how to load on Apple devices unofficially. But Apple goes out of their way to squash them.
In fact Google has always been friendly to third party app stores.
This is definitely not the case. It's been a constant b
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if Apple opens up their app store. It seems reasonable for people to want a curated collection of Apps.
I want Apple to open up their devices. If they open up their source code more, that would be great too.
Re: (Score:2)
Although you can't market your app on their store if you are side loading them (obviously).
That's not quite right, there are apps which do both. For example the NetGuard firewall offers the ability to block ads, which is against the Google ToS. So the version on Play doesn't have ad blocking, but the version on F-Droid and Github does.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're only offering them as side loading then obviously you're not offering them in the market. If you're doing both, then you're conforming to the market place's requirements.
I said "obviously" because I was making a logically redundant statement, not because I was presenting some insightful argument open to debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Google lets users sideload apps, Apple doesn't.
Google has to, not because it wants to but because it wouldn't be able to bundle it's store and locked OS to a 3rd party company otherwise.
Apple is a closed ecosystem completely and wholly owned by one company.
There's a big difference. This isn't a defence of the practice, just don't pretend Google are doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not matter why. What matters is what.
If google locked down their platform I would look for alternatives. But they haven't. In fact they have become MORE friendly to third party app stores over time.
Re: (Score:2)
No they haven't. Their third party app store and app policy has remained completely unchanged since Android's release. If anything one could argue the 3rd party install warning they introduced in Android 4 was a step back.
But anyway my point is the same. The reason you're getting a non-locked down platform is because they legally can't. If they could, what would you move to as a matter of interest? Personally I think you're making an empty threat given the complete lack of any serious competitor in this spa
Re: (Score:2)
"If they could, what would you move to as a matter of interest? Personally I think you're making an empty threat given the complete lack of any serious competitor in this space."
I don't care how serious it is. If I have to I'll buy modules and carry whatever monstrosity I can cobble together that runs OSS. I have carried janky crap before. I am running Lineage on Moto X4 without gapps now.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything one could argue the 3rd party install warning they introduced in Android 4 was a step back.
I disagree entirely. There should absolutely be a big fat scary warning for side loading apps whose signatures cannot be verified.
Over a million people have side-loaded Android exploit software I have written over the years.
It's a damn good thing i'm a whitehat.
However, they should allow the users to easily install new trusted certificates.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I disagree as well. I said "one could argue" not that I was making that argument or in any way agreed with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I probably misread your comment as, "I bet you would love to know all the Apple streaming or even podcast data"
Re: (Score:2)
> such tangential discovery bullshit
Epic claims that if they had their own store and could bypass Apple's commissions the consumer would see lower prices.
Epic opened a store to bypass Valve's identical commissions. Did the price go down?
If that's not cogent to Apple's case, I'm not sure what is.
Re: (Score:3)
> such tangential discovery bullshit
Epic claims that if they had their own store and could bypass Apple's commissions the consumer would see lower prices.
Epic opened a store to bypass Valve's identical commissions. Did the price go down?
If that's not cogent to Apple's case, I'm not sure what is.
For Epic, this is pure BS. Prices would not go down. The marginal price for providing the items people purchase is 0, and the price is set at what gives the most revenue. This is a pure "Epic wants all of the cash, not just 70%".
For many other things this could be true - e.g. media companies, Spotify, companies providing a service at a set price across platforms and having to add Apple's 30% etc - but for Epic? Nah. Apple demanding a 30% cut for competing services (Spotify, Dropbox etc) is problematic, bu
Re: (Score:2)
In which case they would only need to see games which were previously on Steam and yanked to go on Epic along with, possibly, the average price a game went down by x period of time after its release date.
Re: (Score:2)
Competition has not forced Valve to lower their prices, because Epic is a fucking stray fart in the hallway in Bellevue.
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to find a judge that would hand me billions of dollars of market data because I sued someone unrelated.
What's next, full contact info on all their clients?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If their lawyers just show that data to Apple, the courts will disbar them immediately.
The lawyers will have to take that data, get the relevant evidence for it, file that evidence with the court probably in a sealed manner, and only the *relevant* outcome (i.e. "Steam charge 10% more" or whatever) will be revealed in court. If the raw data gets out, to Apple or anyone else, that's incredibly serious in legal circles. Sometimes you'll even have, say, a Valve lawyer present to supervise their analysis and
Re: Really? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It's cute that you think it would matter. If Apl let that data out, they could easily pay those who lost their jobs their entire life salary twice over without breaking a sweat
It's quote that you think a company could be above the law. If Apple paid anyone, the money would be immediately confiscated, and whoever authorised the payment would find themselves in jail.
Re: Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
> It's *quaint that you think a company could be above the law. If Apple paid anyone, the money would be immediately confiscated, and whoever *authorized the payment would find themselves in jail.
I've seen car sales data from a case handed over to competition after a settlement and nobody bats an eye. The corruption in the US isn't 2nd world level, but it's there and happens all day every day. Surely, the US government has worse penalties for treason and espionage, yet that still occurs regularly (and publicly) enough that it gets into the news cycle. Don't fool yourself into thinking that the kind of money involved is on par with someone's remaining lifetime earnings. Apple has proven a bit more sophisticated than "handover of 50k" in most of their business dealings over time. How about an Apple contractor hands the keys to a factory in China or an island villa or gets someone appointed to a political post in Santa Clara. Do you seriously think the US court is going to do anything about that? The naivety is as shocking as the court's decision.
There is far above a 1% chance that the data gets into Apple's hands and nothing comes of it legally. Other than the precedent, this info isn't super valuable.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen car sales data from a case handed over to competition after a settlement and nobody bats an eye.
Citation?
Re: Really? (Score:2)
No, it was for the 1982 Caprice Classic.
Re: (Score:2)
I do love that some mass of fucking morons decided to moderate something insightful that really boils down to this: An extraordinary claim with precisely no corroborating evidence, and an argument based upon said uncorroborated extraordinary claim.
Human stupidity never ceases to amaze me.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quote that you think a company could be above the law. If Apple paid anyone, the money would be immediately confiscated, and whoever authorised the payment would find themselves in jail.
You lost all credibility there, companies prove themselves "above the law" everyday...
Re: (Score:2)
Companies play fast and loose all the time.
They do not generally run afoul of Federal racketeering and corruption laws.
If a company pulled some shit like that, they'd be taken down like a mafia don.
There'd be 100 agents storming Cupertino and and any executive they found would be thrown in a van.
Re: Really? (Score:2)
I would refuse to take Apple's dirty money.
Re: (Score:1)
A friend of mine is a "professional discipline lawyer" (i.e. a lawyer who prosecutes other lawyers who have tried doing stuff like this).
Trust me, even a lifetime pay-off of a near-retired lawyer won't do a damn thing - the consequences are unbelievably serious for the lawyer, any company they represent, anyone offering - quite literally - a bribe to do this, anyone who co-operated or authorised, and any money used or suspected of such use.
It's not just a case of buying your way out of that by playing golf
Re: (Score:2)
Sure Apple could technically do it, but the Feds could also legally raid their headquarters and book everyone with a C in front of their 3-letter title, and let them and the courts sort it out.
I.e., Apple isn't going to do that. They're a publicly traded company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the raw data gets out, to Apple or anyone else, that's incredibly serious in legal circles.
Is that incredibly serious like a prosecutor leaking Trump's tax returns?
I hope Valve appeals (Score:4, Insightful)
This is ridiculous. Apple has been throwing their weight around for years and crap like this just proves it. The Apple 30% tax is criminal IMHO. Every transaction through IOS includes this 30% tax. Of course, they're going to fight tooth and nail to keep their monopoly and they don't give a damn about who gets hurt or caught in the crossfire.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
This is ridiculous. Apple has been throwing their weight around for years and crap like this just proves it. The Apple 30% tax is criminal IMHO.
You do know Steam is a walled garden right? Steam was a direct attack on game ownership in 2004. We lost dedicated servers and level editors in the AAA gaming space as every game was backended (aka reprogrammed client server to deny game ownership).
GTK Radiant level editor for quake engine games.
http://icculus.org/gtkradiant/ [icculus.org]
The last 23 or so years has been the entire software industry stealing games by backending them, after Ultima online released in 1997 that changed the entire software industry with ga
Re: (Score:2)
You do know Steam is a walled garden right? Steam was a direct attack on game ownership in 2004. We lost dedicated servers and level editors in the AAA gaming space as every game was backended (aka reprogrammed client server to deny game ownership).
I remember when Steam first came out and all the outrage about this. I boycotted them for a couple of years in the beginning. But losing dedicated servers and LAN modes was probably going to happen anyway, Steam or not. Computers audiences have broadened from the very technically-inclined people that played computer games in the 1990s. I may be out of the target age group, but I haven't heard of anyone I know having a physical 'bring your own desktop' LAN party in over a decade. When my kids go to othe
Re: (Score:2)
Steam is why I started actually paying money for games.
I have no illusions about what they are of course, but they have done a good job.
I do find it silly to blame them for AAA title maker horseshit though.
Valve does, and always has offered dedicated servers for its titles, and if you check out the "Tools" tab, you'll see that quite a few of the games you own do as well.
Digital distribution was always going to happen, and AAA title makers were j
Re: (Score:3)
> The Apple 30% tax is criminal IMHO
It's exactly the same that Valve was charging at the time, which is the point.
Re: (Score:2)
30% is too much now, yes. But it wasn't always, and it isn't always. Console makers charge similar amounts because the cost of putting out a console is incredibly high. Many years, console makers sell the console hardware at a loss, and make it up in volume of games sold.
Apple wasn't always the biggest and richest company in the world. When they launched the app store, they were comparatively small. 30% was a reasonable cut to develop the API and host the apps. It's what Google charged (charges?) too.
I agre
Re: (Score:3)
>The Apple 30% tax is criminal IMHO.
Please. It's industry standard.
Apple: 30% cut (15% for small businesses, 15% for subscriptions after a year)
Google: 30% cut (15% for subscriptions after a year)
Samsung Galaxy Store: 30%
Microsoft Store: 30%
Amazon app store: 30% (20% on video streaming services)
Xbox Store: 30%
Playstation Store: 30%
Nintendo: 30%
Steam: 20% - 30% depending on annual sales
Sauce: https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/22/apple-digs-in-heels-over-its-app-store-commission-structure-with-release-of-new-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AMEX - around 3.5%.
Microsoft XBox for AAA games - around 12%
Steam - 5%/10%, you can sell keys through third-parties
30% cut is nowhere near "industry standard".
Re: (Score:2)
VISA? AMEX?
I think you missed Chase bank and American Airlines.
Microsoft XBox for AAA games - around 12%
This may or may not be true (I look forward to the citation)
But regardless, their going rate for games is listed (by them) as 70/30.
Steam - 5%/10%, you can sell keys through third-parties
Erm, what? You only get those deals with steam if your game pulls in more than 10 million dollars.
Seriously, I'm on your side of the argument... but come the fuck on. You do us no favors by saying dumb shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has been throwing their weight around for years and crap like this just proves it.
It proves the opposite. Apple does not have a monopoly on the app store concept and everyone including Apple's competitors take the same cut. You may not feel it's worthwhile having instant access to a market of 1.5 billion people. But many people are more than happy to pay 30% for that.
You want to really have your mind blown, go find out how much it costs to have your product on the shelf in a supermarket.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not have to use the Google app store and can bypass it, however, I agree that the 30% fees are too high. The one benefit I'll give Google is that they tend to be much better at supporting standards, i.e. USB-C vs Lightning. Some years ago my father designed a very well-known product and had to figure out why all headphones worked except Apple's. He found out that Apple required a 30V pulse to be sent to activate the headphones (and then there's the fact that Apple decided to have their own TRRS standar
Re: (Score:2)
I do not have to use the Google app store and can bypass it, however, I agree that the 30% fees are too high.
This is exclusively due to Google not being able to lock down Android to use the store as monopoly rules prevent forcing that on third parties.
and then there's the fact that Apple decided to have their own TRRS standard
Google's adoption of standards has been by necessity to spurr adoption of Android across hardware vendors. This is good, but it's worth nothing that there is no such thing as a TRRS "standard" in any classical sense of the world, because in reality there's a standard that covers precisely every possible combination of implementation. To make TRRS compatible with ster
What business is this of Apple's? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What business is this of Apple's? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ignore me, that's wrong. Wish I could delete (Score:3)
I wish I could delete that post.
The theory is comparing sales data vs another app store.
Re: (Score:3)
Valve is not suing apple. Its Epic. Valve is 3rd party.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the court said so.
But also because it's evidence in a trial. You can get evidence from unrelated third-parties. I mean, that's pretty much what a witness is... whether or not they want to co-operate.
Valve are being asked for data, as a major industry player, that will provide a baseline for whether other industry players are being unfair and anti-competitive.
This is all pretty bog-standard. The only reason it's up for debate, even, is that Apple just went ape-shit asking for FAR TOO MUCH informat
Re: (Score:3)
They really should be subpoenaing data from Google, who does operate a mobile app store, and does actually have competition from other mobile app stores for the Android platform.
Re: (Score:3)
The judge said they're salting the earth with subpoenas, so I think we can be pretty sure they also did ask for Google's data.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine with how public these ordeals have been, I'd be amazed that that suit hadn't been publicly disclosed by either party...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Epic opened an online store specifically to avoid paying Valve their 30% commissions.
This is *precisely* what they want to do with iOS as well.
And to force Apple to let them, they have to prove that Apple's terms are a violation of anti-trust law. And that is only true if the *consumer* is harmed, typically through higher pricing.
So Epic is claiming that if the court forces Apple to allow side-loads, prices will fall, and thus Apple is breaking anti-trust law and has to be compelled to open the platform.
So
what about apples rules of same pricing and can't (Score:2)
what about apples rules of same pricing and can't say that apple takes an 30% cut?
Facebook was not able to say that apple takes an 30% cut
wordpress almost got banned.
But they let MS have office 365 admin tools on IOS and they don't take 30% of your office 365 sub fees
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What business is this of Apple's? (Score:3)
What's funny is that while Valve should be off the table given that it's decidedly not a monopoly given its market situatuon, Apple should be able to demand Sony, MS's, and Nintendo's gaming sales data as unlike Valve they are directly comparable to Apple's situation with iOS. Indeed, were I any of them I would be very, very worried about Epic winning this lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
> Apple should be able to demand Sony, MS's, and Nintendo's gaming sales data as unlike Valve they are directly comparable to Apple's situation with iOS
Do any of those platforms have 3rd party side-loading online stores, and when those stores opened it led to lower consumer prices?
That is the basis for Epic's claims.
If those stores do not exist, then it's not directly comparable is it?
If they do, they should be more worried about being compelled by Epic than Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the reasoning.
Re: (Score:3)
Valve operates a third-party, competitive digital store for PC games. Apple operates a first-party, exclusive monopoly digital store for mobile phones. Except for the "digital store" part, what puts them in the same relevant industry? Valve seems more relevant to Apple's practices than any other digitally delivered good, and less relevant than many. The only obvious reason to go after them is to ensure Apple gets their sales data for future (anti-)competitive purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Going a bit beyond that and into the realms of discussion - personally I think Steam data to Apple would be commercially utterly useless as they're not going to compete similarly. I think Google Play store would have been a more direct comparison myself, although it could be argued that Fortnight was pulled from Mac platforms as well so Apple does have a foot in a similar camp to Steam.
Re: (Score:2)
You only gave the very surface version of the logic. If you think there is nothing behind that facade, please say so. If there is more similarity than "they both sell lots of licenses for digitally delivered software", please elaborate.
Fortnite is not in Steam's store for basically the same reason it is not on Apple's store for Macs: Epic did not want to pay the commissions involved. This is where the other differences -- third-party and competitive versus first-party and monopolist -- are particularly r
Re: (Score:3)
Because Epic claimed that competing app stores cause the world to be a better place. Reasonable point - competition usually makes things better.
Apple's getting the sales data from games that appear both on Steam and Epic Games Store. We know Steam takes around 30% and Epic takes a lower cut. If Epic's argument is correct, we should see a dramatic drop in game sales on Steam because everyone flocked to the Epic Games Store, until Steam did something to better co
Re: (Score:2)
This is "discovery". Someone is suing them for unfair business practices, and Apple is simply saying "All the other big online stores do this too, we're not singling you out, everyone gets the same deal. Here I will provide you with an example of another big player in the market that gives their partners the same deal."
I'm sure Valve isn't thrilled to be dragged into this, but they're probably the best choice when looking for another online digital store to compare Apple's policies with.
There's two questi
Re: (Score:2)
And why are they entitled to Valves sales data?
They're not and they won't be. That's not how the courts work. Apple doesn't get this data. A bunch of lawyers analyse it under a sealed condition.
Apple's *legal counsel* gets to see it, not Apple. (Score:5, Informative)
Apple's legal counsel gets to see this data, NOT Apple itself, and the data is under a protection order by the judge.
A third-party subpoena is a fairly common thing in business litigation; the court balances the power of that kind of discovery by strictly limiting who gets to have eyes on it (lawyers, not clients) and stacking up both enormous liability and penalties, both civil and criminal, for leaking or sharing that information beyond the legal counsel.
This is a pretty humdrum decision by the courts, it's just exciting to nerds because of the brand names involved.
Re:Apple's *legal counsel* gets to see it, not App (Score:4, Insightful)
You're a very funny person.
Re: Apple's *legal counsel* gets to see it, not Ap (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Apple's *legal counsel* gets to see it, not Ap (Score:4, Insightful)
So... in the end, the lawyer won, provided Samsung paid the lawyer more than the millions in fines.
Re: (Score:3)
But the question is: is the sales data for those titles worth those millions of $? You can likely get decent approximation of this data from open sources and honestly Apple doesn't even compete against Steam directly.
Re: (Score:3)
The lawyers were fined $2M on a case with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line. It's almost certain that the lawyers made significantly more than $2M from Samsung on the case. The law firm in question is Quinn Emanuel, and they have annual revenue of over $1B. Despite the protestations of the parent, it appears legal journals interpreted these fines as a slap on the wrist.
Worth noting here: Apple also asked to see Samsung's sales data in the Epic case... because... why not?
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying that in other cases, the threat of punishment was not enough to keep the data confidential?
Maybe it's just me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's legal counsel gets to see this data, NOT Apple itself
You're a very funny person.
You're a very ignorant person. You feel this standard practice is somehow strange and unique, but that just emphasizes how little you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't trust the courts to keep confidential information between plaintiffs sealed? I stand corrected. You're not ignorant. You're an outright crazy conspiracy nutbag.
Re:Apple's *legal counsel* gets to see it, not App (Score:4, Insightful)
Do Apple also have to pay (reasonable) costs for Valve's provision of this data?
Otherwise this could be a farcical way for a cash rich serial litigator to hurt a competitor - by suing a third party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a pretty humdrum decision by the courts, it's just exciting to nerds because of the brand names involved.
Except the judge gave them access to data from 2017-> meanwhile, the EGS (Epic Game Store) didn't even launch [fully] until DEC 2018. Why do they, even the lawyers, get rewarded with data that is IRRELEVANT to the time period for which this would be an issue?
Re: (Score:3)
Except the judge gave them access to data from 2017-> meanwhile, the EGS (Epic Game Store) didn't even launch [fully] until DEC 2018. Why do they, even the lawyers, get rewarded with data that is IRRELEVANT to the time period for which this would be an issue?
So that you have a baseline of what Steam's market looked like prior to the entry of EGS. Epic's argument is that EGS had an impact beneficial to consumers. How can you establish that if you can't show a 'before' state?
Why is it relevant? (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether or not Apple charges more or less than Steam, why is it relevant? If Epic doesn't like Apple, they can sell through other stores to other devices, or just make their own phone and charge themselves 0% royalty on their own store. Apple is a private business, not a constitutional right, a benefit paid with taxpayers money, or receive some special monopoly rights from the government (like cable TV companies for example). They should be free to say "$100 per download" to each developer if they want to - as long as they state this ahead of time, not some sneaky tactic to get the developer to invest time and money then hike the price, all is fair and on the level. AFAIK, Apple's fees are no secret - if you, as a developer think it's too high, don't write apps for Apple. It's not like Apple owns even a quarter of the smart phone market.
Re: (Score:2)
If Epic doesn't like Apple, they can sell through other stores to other devices, or just make their own phone and charge themselves 0% royalty on their own store.
Because they shouldn’t have to get into the hardware business to sell software that is why
Re: (Score:2)
I call BS. Should Epic allow any company to create mods to their games, as you say, because companies shouldn't have to create their own games if they just want to put their own product in a game? I want to start an in-game-billboard company, should government force Epic to put by billboards in all their games, so I don't have to get into making my own games to sell advertisements in the game? And they can only charge me as much as the cheapest deal I negotiated with any gaming company, right? Of course not
Apple versus Capitalism (Score:3)
Apple seeks to take discovery into whether the availability of other stores does in fact affect commissions
Isn't that one of the fundamental principles of free market capitalism? Are Apple suggesting that modern economic theory is wrong and that competition does not improve choices and value for society?
Re: (Score:2)
I think their argument is that while their own platform is locked into the App Store, their platform itself is in competition with other platforms (Google, Valve, others tend to take about 30% in most circumstances).
So they are claiming that 30% is not opportunistic gouging, but just the general level that is required to deliver a service of competitive quality. That Epic taking a smaller cut has not threatened Valve, and the only way for that to be the case is that Epic isn't delivering the quality needed
Re: (Score:2)
Does Apple Just Not want Build a Web Scrapper? (Score:2)
Steam releases a shit ton of data about their titles, they have a public facing API. In particular, it would be pretty weird of them to hide pricing data, which half a dozen others sites track anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is more likely interested in the distribution of that cost between a game dev and the platform. When you buy GTA5 at $30 does Valve get $5 and Rockstar $25, or is it $10 to Valve and $20 to Rockstar?
I can see why Valve would not want this information out, especially if it's revealed that they're playing favorites with big publishers at the expense of the smaller devs.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that while this might technically be a secret, it is also a well known fact that Valve takes 30% across the board.
Re: (Score:2)
Who Gets Access to the Data (Score:2)
Also, does Apple have to pay Valve any money for all of the time and resources it will take to procure this data?
Huge Advantages For Digital Stores (Score:3)
In a digital store, it's the producer of the product that sets the final retail price of the product. However, the store is guaranteed a consistent profit margin and the producer of the product will certainly factor that in when setting the price.
Of course this is not news and it's very obvious but I'd never thought about just how much of an advantage this provides to digital stores over physical retail stores. And that doesn't even begin to mention the many other huge advantages such as not having to worry about inventory overhead, allocations and distribution, etc. I certainly don't envy any physical retailers these days.