this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
84 points (94.7% liked)

Games

19572 readers
467 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO
84
Epic's Tim Sweeney declares "the long national nightmare of the Apple tax is ended" as appeals court officially denies Apple's emergency motion (www.gamesradar.com)
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/games
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea 4 points 1 day ago

Whether they made it clear isn't really the issue, the issue is two-fold:

  • is it anti-competitive? If so, it's an anti-trust issue
  • what does the user get in return? For a contract to be valid, it needs to benefit both parties

I answered the first below, so I'll focus on the second here.

It doesn't hurt anyone

Not having options always hurts competition, and that hurts the consumer.

For me, it comes down to the idea of ownership. Do you really own your device if you can't install what you want on it? Do you really own your app if you can't pick the payment processors you want to support?

I get the value in being able to lock your device down and block payment processors you don't trust, but that should be up to the user or the IT dept at your org. To truly own your device you need to be able to make those choices.

Here's what I think is reasonable:

  • Apple requires apps to include Apple Pay (or whatever) as a payment processor if they release through the App Store
  • devices ship "locked down" by default, with the option to allow third party app stores if the user chooses; this should be presented as an option on first boot or if the options there changes
  • Apple should not be able to force app devs to use a particular payment processor for in-app purchases, though Apple can deny an app for not charging enough at purchase time

To me, that sounds competitive, respects the idea of ownership, and still gives Apple the high likelihood of continuing to make money hand over fist because most people won't change the default.