Its popularity is due to other factors, not some privileged position it occupies. Unlike Google’s or Apple’s app stores which absolutely have a privileged position on their respective platforms.
This four year old article puts Steam game sales revenue at 13% of the total PC gaming sales revenue (and 18% of digital sales revenue):
https://www.pcgamesn.com/steam-revenue-2017
Couldn't find any newer stats, but surely it hasn't grown from 13% to 90% in just four years?
Where's all the rest of the money supposedly going through?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/01/14/epic-games...
"Exclusives have been critical in gaining momentum in the presence of a competitor that began 2019 with more than 90% market share"
Does steam block or make it hard for people to download the same programs via other means? looks more like a premium platform rather than a gatekeeper.
This does not exist for iOS because there's no other stores on the platform, and you cannot "just" switch to another the Play Store.
Steam does not come pre-installed on nearly every device unlike Apple's and Googles offering. Future Steam Deck not withstanding, but that will be miniscule player.
They don't prevent any other store from operating. So I don't see how they are comparable to anything Google or Apple does. Windows Store might qualify if they forced themselves on Windows in same way. But certainly Steam is entirely different.
Unlike the Google Play Store which gets special access to APIs that other app stores cannot use.
However, I think that a better move is to force HW platforms (maybe starting at a certain magnitude) to let the users use any software market they desire. This way Apple and Google can continue forcing the apps on their own markets to use their payment systems and "keep the users safe", while the other markets can do whatever they like
Selling hardware and software separately ensures that the hardware can be repurposed with independently sourced software. That gives control to the user and reduces e-waste.
This should include 'firmware'. The benefit for the manufacturer is that they can charge for software updates. But the consumer can choose to get the update from elsewhere.
*edit
Would that mean letting e.g. Sony PS5 devices allow homebrew markets to be used legally on their consoles? That would be awesome for the consumers.
I didn't mean firmware. This sounds like an interesting discussion for another day...
They have their own Google equivalents, like Naver, that have comparable(and sometimes better because optimized to SK) services and don't have that much of an incentive to keep Google "happy".
I know of Naver maps https://m.map.naver.com
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naver_Corporation#Products_a...
Ahnlab: Symantec/Norton
Hancom: Microsoft Office
Snow: Snapchat
Melon: Spotify
Cyworld: Myspace
Afreeka: Twitch
Toss: Venmo
NCSoft: Blizzard
Coupang: Amazon
Carrot: Ebay
Daum: Google/Medium
It also allows the South Korean government to require an app market operator to "prevent damage to users and protect the rights and interests of users", probe app market operators, and mediate disputes regarding payment, cancellations or refunds in the app market.
I dont know a single person outside of the SV bubble who is buying 'mah free market!' argument so prevalent here.
Most of the arguments I've seen here, that you are probably classifying under this aspersion, are probably some variant on:
- This doesn't look illegal under current (US) laws
- New laws to restrict this are hard to write constitutionally (in the US)
- If this happens a lot of the good parts of the ecosystem get thrown out also (arguments through security, fraud)
Whereas an awful lot of the other side looks like "This is unfair so must be illegal!" (30% arguments, very narrow definitions of the word "monopoly" that favour the arguer). Very few seem to actually argue that anything Apple/Google have done are illegal under current laws. I don't think the segment you are attacking for pure "It is free market therefore good" ideology exists.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if/when other countries, who aren't tied by the same conditions, start restricting this stuff.
Funnily enough, South Korea is a country essentially full of monopolies almost as large as the state.
No one i know outside of SV bubble has even thought about this issue at all. Most immediately say "isn't it good that apple protects people?" and gives it no more thought.
As much as businesses would love it, i think attacking apple is still a hard political sell.
That pattern is clear and only those incompetent or weak were unable to resist big corporations.
Regardless, good if it makes meaningful change.
It makes little sense that US or Chinese laws or customs should be applied world-wide.
Countries should exercise their own rights and not cede them to corporations who are voracious for profit and occasionally dabble in cultural imperialism and quite frequently detract vast amounts of personal data from citizens to the benefit of the companies.
The EU is requiring this, though it EU wide, Russia, and China when it allows them to operate at all.
Coca-cola needs to follow local laws, so why should Facebook or Google etc. be exempt?
"Following the Korean War, the Spatial Data Industry Promotion Act and the Promotion of Military Bases and Installations Act were put in place to bar the export of map data outside the country. This is presumably to prevent sensitive information from falling into the wrong hands, especially given the hostility from north of the DMZ. Inevitably, however, the national security measure also has the effect of limiting foreign companies’ presence in online mapping and navigation.
Google stores its maps on foreign servers and therefore has not been allowed access to South Korea’s map data. In 2016, South Korean officials offered to hand their country’s map data over to Google under the condition that the tech company reduce map resolutions for important landmarks like military outposts and government offices. Google turned down the offer. So, streets and buildings remain low-resolution online and on the app.
These restrictions apply to Apple Maps as well. Its mapping services are even more rudimentary."
We learned that we had to use Naver map :-)
I would look for the ones that are ready to launch "the next Apple Store" which will compete directly with Apple and become #2 in market share of apps revenue in a few years. Those ones will be much more profitable to trade on.
Let that be a message to any country that tries to mess with the money. The country will riot to get their phones working again.
FYI, the US senate also prepared a bipartisan bill (Open Markets Act) to enforce big techs to allow third party payment system and app stores, which is a stronger measure (but within a reasonable level) than the proposed S.K. bill. Given the bipartisan nature of the bill this has a decent chance to pass with a slight modification.
