Neither Sony nor Meta have third-party PC exclusives paid for by Valve or any platform. My issue is very specific to Epic because their anti-consumer third-party exclusives affect me directly. It’s simply my frustration with Epic’s business practices. Beyond that, I don’t care what Epic does with their products on any platform—I just want them to stop the third-party exclusives on PC. Fortnite failing on mobile is one way to lessen their ability to secure these exclusives.

Strictly speaking any exclusivity is unequivocally anti-consumer and always has been.

Kxmode wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 19:57:

Prez wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 19:09:
A bunch of impossibly rich corporate goons complaining that other impossibly rich corporate goons are corporating better than they are. Care if you want I guess.

Part of the reason I care is because I want Epic to stop using anti-consumer third-party exclusives. Most of their ability to fund these exclusives comes from Fortnite, and having Fortnite on mobile devices represents a significant portion of their revenue. By hoping Epic fails in the mobile app space, it limits its ability to fund these exclusivity deals. If Epic dropped the exclusivity program tomorrow, I wouldn’t care what they were doing or which games they had on any platform. But right now, their third-party exclusives on PC limit my ability to choose where to buy my games. Beyond that, Apple, Google, and Epic are all just a bunch of impossibly wealthy corporate goons.

Do you condone Sony doing exclusives on games? I assume not as it is anti-consumer. I don't mean the ones where they helped developed via resources of course. I agree with you overall even though the impact to me personally is much less because the exclusives seem to not last but not always (such as my Sony example).

jdreyer wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 21:11:

Kxmode wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 16:35:

Beamer's comment about "people being reluctant to leave their OS" is nonsense. If something is fundamentally better, people will switch. It happens all the time (not just with computer things).

Switching phone ecosystems is not the same as going to Target instead of Walmart. People often have hundreds or thousands of dollars invested. The effect is called "customer lock-in" and is often illegal and can run afoul of antitrust legislation. When there are only two players in an industry, the temptation to create exit barriers is quite high, and there doesn't even need to be explicit collusion to be antitrust. This is in fact the case with the current mobile phone industry, which is why the DoJ keeps bringing cases and regulation against them.

Epic is unwilling to invest the time, effort, and resources to create an alternative platform that could rival Apple's and Google's ecosystems. Instead, they're trying to force changes to existing platforms to benefit themselves. Their claims of helping developers and consumers is more a convenient narrative to gain support. Ultimately, it's about maximizing their own profits without bearing the cost and risks of building something new from scratch. It's a shortcut strategy to benefit from platforms they didn't create.*

This is a ridiculous and irrational statement. "If you don't want to fly on Boeing aircraft, make your own aircraft!" If a monopolistic company is abusing its market position, the solution for people using that market isn't to start their own billion dollar company. It's for the government to step in and regulate: Either put controls on the one or two or three companies to lessen the monopolistic impacts, or break them up to create more entrants in the market to foster competition naturally.

As someone who works for a monopoly, we can't sneeze without government say-so. It's truly shocking what the likes of Google and Apple get away with.

Yup. The barriers to entry for a new OS have entirely surpassed any company's capability, unless there's a new breakthrough. Why does KXMode think Meta is investing so much into new methods of interaction via AR and VR? They know they lost the cellphone race 15 years ago, but they can win new technology that may replace cellphones.

Speaking of Meta, why haven't we had a new social media platform in about a decade? Again, it's impossible to push out Meta, Tiktok, and to a lesser degree, Snap. Even with Musk trying to kill Twitter nothing has replaced it. Anything that tries to do something new gets forgotten because they're ghost towns, ripped off because Meta has the engineering power to incorporated any successful new idea within a handful of months, or just acquired.

At this point in the world, most of the successful industries are so dominated by 2-4 powerful companies that disruption is impossible. There's a reason why so many of the successful companies to appear since 2010 haven't been challengers to existing powerhouses but disrupting fragmented industries and becoming the 800lbs gorilla an individual with even 10 taxis can't compete against.

But hey, I think I've seen kx complain about AMD and Intel. Why hasn't he just made his own processor and sold it in to dozens of OEMs?

Prez wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 21:40:
I don't take issue with the contention that Epic is a terrible company that does shitty things. My problem is basically: pick a company. Any company that is publicly traded and/or has a multi-billion dollar net worth. If you look deep enough, they are just as bad if not worse. You don't have to look all that deeply in most cases. PLEASE don't tell me that Valve is a better corporate monstrosity than Epic. Please don't tell me that Sony is a better corporate monstrosity than Microsoft. And please don't tell me that Embracer Group is a better corporate monstrosity than Activision. And don't tell me Google is worse than Apple. They might be different from each other, and some might have a longer list of egregious behavior, but all have proven where their priorities lie and what they are willing to do if allowed to get away with it. They are ALL grossly anti-consumer.

To sum this up:

A sack of shit is still a sack of shit, no matter what type of shit is in it or the color of the burlap.

I don't take issue with the contention that Epic is a terrible company that does shitty things. My problem is basically: pick a company. Any company that is publicly traded and/or has a multi-billion dollar net worth. If you look deep enough, they are just as bad if not worse. You don't have to look all that deeply in most cases. PLEASE don't tell me that Valve is a better corporate monstrosity than Epic. Please don't tell me that Sony is a better corporate monstrosity than Microsoft. And please don't tell me that Embracer Group is a better corporate monstrosity than Activision. And don't tell me Google is worse than Apple. They might be different from each other, and some might have a longer list of egregious behavior, but all have proven where their priorities lie and what they are willing to do if allowed to get away with it. They are ALL grossly anti-consumer.

Kxmode wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 19:57:
Part of the reason I care is because I want Epic to stop using anti-consumer third-party exclusives. Most of their ability to fund these exclusives comes from Fortnite, and having Fortnite on mobile devices represents a significant portion of their revenue. By hoping Epic fails in the mobile app space, it limits its ability to fund these exclusivity deals. If Epic dropped the exclusivity program tomorrow, I wouldn’t care what they were doing or which games they had on any platform. But right now, their third-party exclusives on PC limit my ability to choose where to buy my games. Beyond that, Apple, Google, and Epic are all just a bunch of impossibly wealthy corporate goons.

You've got it all wrong KX. Third party exclusives are pro-consumer. Epic is engaging in the economic practice of differentiation in an attempt to foster competition in the market against a dominant player. This will eventually create a more robust market with more competition, better innovation, and lower prices.

The practice is common across many industries. Walmart and Target get exclusive Lego sets, books, CDs, toys, and tons of other items for example. But you're not complaining about or boycotting those stores, are you?

Kxmode wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 16:35:

Beamer's comment about "people being reluctant to leave their OS" is nonsense. If something is fundamentally better, people will switch. It happens all the time (not just with computer things).

Switching phone ecosystems is not the same as going to Target instead of Walmart. People often have hundreds or thousands of dollars invested. The effect is called "customer lock-in" and is often illegal and can run afoul of antitrust legislation. When there are only two players in an industry, the temptation to create exit barriers is quite high, and there doesn't even need to be explicit collusion to be antitrust. This is in fact the case with the current mobile phone industry, which is why the DoJ keeps bringing cases and regulation against them.

Epic is unwilling to invest the time, effort, and resources to create an alternative platform that could rival Apple's and Google's ecosystems. Instead, they're trying to force changes to existing platforms to benefit themselves. Their claims of helping developers and consumers is more a convenient narrative to gain support. Ultimately, it's about maximizing their own profits without bearing the cost and risks of building something new from scratch. It's a shortcut strategy to benefit from platforms they didn't create.*

This is a ridiculous and irrational statement. "If you don't want to fly on Boeing aircraft, make your own aircraft!" If a monopolistic company is abusing its market position, the solution for people using that market isn't to start their own billion dollar company. It's for the government to step in and regulate: Either put controls on the one or two or three companies to lessen the monopolistic impacts, or break them up to create more entrants in the market to foster competition naturally.

As someone who works for a monopoly, we can't sneeze without government say-so. It's truly shocking what the likes of Google and Apple get away with.

Kxmode wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 19:57:

Prez wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 19:09:
A bunch of impossibly rich corporate goons complaining that other impossibly rich corporate goons are corporating better than they are. Care if you want I guess.

Part of the reason I care is because I want Epic to stop using anti-consumer third-party exclusives. Most of their ability to fund these exclusives comes from Fortnite, and having Fortnite on mobile devices represents a significant portion of their revenue. By hoping Epic fails in the mobile app space, it limits its ability to fund these exclusivity deals. If Epic dropped the exclusivity program tomorrow, I wouldn’t care what they were doing or which games they had on any platform. But right now, their third-party exclusives on PC limit my ability to choose where to buy my games. Beyond that, Apple, Google, and Epic are all just a bunch of impossibly wealthy corporate goons.

You're so angry at them being anti consumer that you cheer monopolies, which are anticonsumer.

Unlike a lot of the hatred here, like against Ubisoft whose games none of us are really going to buy, I get yours somewhat, as at least Epic impacts you slightly, but man, let it go. Life is better when you don't obsessively hate.

Prez wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 19:09:
A bunch of impossibly rich corporate goons complaining that other impossibly rich corporate goons are corporating better than they are. Care if you want I guess.

Part of the reason I care is because I want Epic to stop using anti-consumer third-party exclusives. Most of their ability to fund these exclusives comes from Fortnite, and having Fortnite on mobile devices represents a significant portion of their revenue. By hoping Epic fails in the mobile app space, it limits its ability to fund these exclusivity deals. If Epic dropped the exclusivity program tomorrow, I wouldn’t care what they were doing or which games they had on any platform. But right now, their third-party exclusives on PC limit my ability to choose where to buy my games. Beyond that, Apple, Google, and Epic are all just a bunch of impossibly wealthy corporate goons.

A bunch of impossibly rich corporate goons complaining that other impossibly rich corporate goons are corporating better than they are. Care if you want I guess.

Bodolza wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 15:52:

Primalchrome wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 15:22:
...there are also hardware manufacturer stores as well as 3rd party methods of loading software. Amazon did it with the Fire....and if any zaibatsu can do it with a phone, it will be them. (which doesn't really solve the problem of megacorps controlling the market through shared monopolies)

That's the point of the lawsuit. Samsung's new feature will block all other 3rd party methods that previously worked.

Actually it just forces the security on by default.....which the user can change at any time. Other manufacturers have done something similar in the past. I don't like it....but watching my Aunt fall for every **THE EARTH IS ENDING** post on Facebook makes me understand its utility. As long as it is a readily accessible toggle....I don't see it as a major issue beyond it being a slippery slope. Samsung disabled bootloader access many years ago in their phones....

Primalchrome wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 15:22:

Beamer wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 13:50:
What the market has shown is that people are reluctant to leave their OS. They have a history of apps that they bought a decade ago, and they have muscle memory for how things work. Beyond this, no app developer will shift away from the larger install base, which is why Apple frequently gets games and software Android doesn't in the US.

Just want to say that the market really shows that people often go to newer/better/cheaper if they are going to change ecosystems. (though I agree with you that Apple and Google have invested huge sums into ecosystem lock-in) Microsoft, RIM, Nokia, and Samsung had their opportunities and failed because they had objectively poor products that were not designed for a discerning consumer market. Android is for the most part "open" and whereas there is an official Google Store...there are also hardware manufacturer stores as well as 3rd party methods of loading software. Amazon did it with the Fire....and if any zaibatsu can do it with a phone, it will be them. (which doesn't really solve the problem of megacorps controlling the market through shared monopolies)

Do you actually think it's realistic that anyone could displace Apple or Android in mobile? Seriously? I know you hate Tim Epic with all your heart, but so you think that's a realistic and feasible demand? If so, why hasn't anyone else managed it? Or even tried in the past 8 years or so?

I want to say yes it will cycle in another 10 years or so....but... We're still using Windows and Macs... Amiga couldn't compete. BeOS couldn't compete. Linux doesn't *want* to compete. And all of those were better competitors at one time.

There was also the Blackberry hardware/software platform that Apple, and later Android, destroyed by coming out with better phones and OSs. I remember the reactions—"Apple phone? You mean the Mac people? Is Steve Jobs making a cell phone? That's just nonsense! I'll never part from my Blackberry." And, well, the rest is history.

Beamer's comment about "people being reluctant to leave their OS" is nonsense. If something is fundamentally better, people will switch. It happens all the time (not just with computer things).

Epic is unwilling to invest the time, effort, and resources to create an alternative platform that could rival Apple's and Google's ecosystems. Instead, they're trying to force changes to existing platforms to benefit themselves. Their claims of helping developers and consumers is more a convenient narrative to gain support. Ultimately, it's about maximizing their own profits without bearing the cost and risks of building something new from scratch. It's a shortcut strategy to benefit from platforms they didn't create.*

* This last paragraph is a personal interpretation based on observing how Epic has operated historically. I don’t know for certain if they’ve been unwilling to create a phone OS to compete with Apple and Google. However, based on their actions towards Valve and my experience as a PC gamer consumer, it seems that Epic’s M.O. is focused on taking the fastest shortcuts to success.

This comment was edited on Sep 30, 2024, 19:42.

Primalchrome wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 15:22:
...there are also hardware manufacturer stores as well as 3rd party methods of loading software. Amazon did it with the Fire....and if any zaibatsu can do it with a phone, it will be them. (which doesn't really solve the problem of megacorps controlling the market through shared monopolies)

That's the point of the lawsuit. Samsung's new feature will block all other 3rd party methods that previously worked.

I can't wait for the court to rule in their favor, force Samsung/Google to turn that off, then have every plebe wondering why their data is getting stolen, while using shady USB connections and installing .APKs from random sources.

Or we could assume that Epic's favorite song is A Boy Named Sue or maybe Runaround Sue.

Beamer wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 13:50:
What the market has shown is that people are reluctant to leave their OS. They have a history of apps that they bought a decade ago, and they have muscle memory for how things work. Beyond this, no app developer will shift away from the larger install base, which is why Apple frequently gets games and software Android doesn't in the US.

Just want to say that the market really shows that people often go to newer/better/cheaper if they are going to change ecosystems. (though I agree with you that Apple and Google have invested huge sums into ecosystem lock-in) Microsoft, RIM, Nokia, and Samsung had their opportunities and failed because they had objectively poor products that were not designed for a discerning consumer market. Android is for the most part "open" and whereas there is an official Google Store...there are also hardware manufacturer stores as well as 3rd party methods of loading software. Amazon did it with the Fire....and if any zaibatsu can do it with a phone, it will be them. (which doesn't really solve the problem of megacorps controlling the market through shared monopolies)

Do you actually think it's realistic that anyone could displace Apple or Android in mobile? Seriously? I know you hate Tim Epic with all your heart, but so you think that's a realistic and feasible demand? If so, why hasn't anyone else managed it? Or even tried in the past 8 years or so?

I want to say yes it will cycle in another 10 years or so....but... We're still using Windows and Macs... Amiga couldn't compete. BeOS couldn't compete. Linux doesn't *want* to compete. And all of those were better competitors at one time.

jdreyer wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 14:22:

Kxmode wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 13:39:
Or, they could create their own competing phone OS that’s better than iOS and Android, with a more flexible platform for sellers, and actively court phone makers to switch over. But that would require money and effort—just like how they don’t try to compete with Valve by offering a store with better features, but instead rely on anti-consumer third-party exclusives to force PC gamers to buy from them. It's cheaper.

Or we could get antitrust action on this un-American anticompetitive duopoly and have a more market-drive competitive industry.

Or, we could wait for actual facts to come out and then see what is really happening. I don't care for any of the three companies involved in this suit. I also find it equally likely that either Google and Samsung are acting as Epuic claims, or that Epic wants the courts to do for them what Epic refuses to do for itself, because Epic has more than a bit of history with this type of activity. In any case, I'm not picking sides.

Kxmode wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 13:39:
Or, they could create their own competing phone OS that’s better than iOS and Android, with a more flexible platform for sellers, and actively court phone makers to switch over. But that would require money and effort—just like how they don’t try to compete with Valve by offering a store with better features, but instead rely on anti-consumer third-party exclusives to force PC gamers to buy from them. It's cheaper.

Or we could get antitrust action on this un-American anticompetitive duopoly and have a more market-drive competitive industry.

Kxmode wrote on Sep 30, 2024, 13:39:
Or, they could create their own competing phone OS that’s better than iOS and Android, with a more flexible platform for sellers, and actively court phone makers to switch over. But that would require money and effort—just like how they don’t try to compete with Valve by offering a store with better features, but instead rely on anti-consumer third-party exclusives to force PC gamers to buy from them. It's cheaper.

Kxmode, do you really think it's at all possible to do what you just said?

Microsoft failed at it, and that was before things were as set in stone as it is now. Samsung failed at it.

What the market has shown is that people are reluctant to leave their OS. They have a history of apps that they bought a decade ago, and they have muscle memory for how things work. Beyond this, no app developer will shift away from the larger install base, which is why Apple frequently gets games and software Android doesn't in the US.

Do you actually think it's realistic that anyone could displace Apple or Android in mobile? Seriously? I know you hate Tim Epic with all your heart, but so you think that's a realistic and feasible demand? If so, why hasn't anyone else managed it? Or even tried in the past 8 years or so?