5 ms·

> By any measure, having to hand over half a billion dollars is just an insane cut of revenue to have to give two companies that had absolutely nothing to do wi

> By any measure, having to hand over half a billion dollars is just an insane cut of revenue to have to give two companies that had absolutely nothing to do with conceiving, designing or developing such a successful game. Uh, you know Epic makes a 12% cut of all games sold in their store, right?

cochne 6y ago
I think the distinguishing factor here is you can distribute your game to any computer without the epic game store. Imagine if the epic game store was the only way to distribute it :)
- georgespencer 6y ago
  Parent said that it was unfair for Apple to make money from a game that they had no hand in creating: > By any measure, having to hand over half a billion dollars is just an insane cut of revenue to have to give two companies that had absolutely nothing to do with conceiving, designing or developing such a successful game.
  - user5994461 6y ago
    Actually this makes me realize, I don't think that statement is true. Epic Games probably got help from Apple to port their game and their engine to iOS. I somehow doubt they did all the work with zero assistance from Apple, it's a whole game engine deeply tied and optimized to the system. They'd probably work with Apple just like they work with Sony/Microsoft on consoles.
- DivisionSol 6y ago
  I think this argument is on shaky ground when Epic Game Store can only be installed on Windows. Rocket League lost MacOS/Linux support when absorbed into the Epic Game Store. Imagine if Windows was the only way to distribute games. Further, if you want to target mobile devices, you can distribute on Android.
  - georgespencer 6y ago
    It's funny that even on a platform where it's possible to distribute software for free by other means, like Windows, Epic charges 12% to do it on their store.
turndown 6y ago
All companies are hypocrits, but I will say that the difference here is that there are other options if you want to publish your game - as I'm sure you know. If Apple offered other avenues for publishing apps then I think there would be no leg to stand on i.r.t their fees. Of course, this also glosses over the fact that Apple controls the platform and thus has to be judged differently.
- georgespencer 6y ago
  > If Apple offered other avenues for publishing apps then I think there would be no leg to stand on i.r.t their fees People are making it seem as if Epic is an underdog with no options here. They make hundreds of millions of dollars from distributing Fortnite on the app store -- and it's a free download. Apple doesn't make a cent from helping to market and distribute this game (and I'd imagine 90% of users are free only). Epic has the following choices: 1. Don't offer IAP at all 2. Offer microtransactions via web browser 3. Accept Apple taking the 30% cut of current pricing 4. Increase their pricing to accommodate Apple's cut 5. Withdraw the app
  - turndown 6y ago
    Of course, there is a sixth option, in which they sue Apple for their behavior ;). Regardless, Epic is the underdog here, because they are at the beck and call of Apple no matter how you view the situation: Apple controls everything. Also, I disagree that a person/company that runs a platform is entitled to being able to run the only native app store simply because. Want to know why Apple has set up the App Store in the way that they have? Because it is most beneficial to them that way. This doesn't mean that we have to tolerate it so.
    - georgespencer 6y ago
      > Apple controls everything Epic can walk away and deprive Apple of hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. Epic can increase their prices. Epic can accept the margins. > I disagree that a person/company that runs a platform is entitled to being able to run the only native app store simply because It's not "simply because". It's demonstrably a superior experience for consumers. > Want to know why Apple has set up the App Store in the way that they have? Because it's most beneficial to them that way. I'm a former Apple employee and I can tell you that this is true insofar as it's beneficial to Apple to not have shitty apps, viruses, and malware on iPhone.
wccrawford 6y ago
Not all games. If you make the game with Unreal Engine, it's free. UE4 itself is free until you make $1mil lifetime per game, and then 5% after that, IIRC. But unlike Google and Apple's store, there are plenty of other stores on Windows, and making your own store is really easy. It can literally just be a website with downloads.
- georgespencer 6y ago
  OP's point is that it's unfair for Apple to take a cut when they didn't have anything to do with creating the game. My point is that Epic does the same thing. Apple created the app store. The iPhone brand is built on security, reliability, and ease of use. I can completely understand why Apple strongly resists people trying to disrupt that. It's not in Apple's interests because it'll diminish the appeal of their devices, and it's not in consumer interests either.
  - wccrawford 6y ago
    Apple is providing a service that distributes the game and does some marketing for it. If you want to use that service, it's fair that Apple gets some cut, and I'm okay with them setting how large that cut is. What is not fair is that they are the only service allowed on Apple devices. They place themselves in a situation where they can set the cut without any negotiation allowed. I find Google's situation more fair (because it's at least possible to load apps/games with other stores or no store at all), but they still actively work against third-party stores by degrading the experience that the user has with those stores compared to Play's store.
    - georgespencer 6y ago
      > If you want to use that service, it's fair that Apple gets some cut, and I'm OK with them setting how large that cut is So you draw a distinction between the fairness of Apple making money from your use of their marketplace and the fairness of Apple making money from your use of their device? I don't see it. Apple made the app store and you think it's fair that if you want to use it you should pay. Apple makes the iPhone but it should not be the case that if you want to use it you should pay? What if alternative app stores on iPhone had to pay a 30% cut of all revenue to Apple? > What is not fair is that they are the only service allowed Are you at risk of conflating 'equal' and 'fair'? It's definitely not equal, but it doesn't seem unfair to me. It seems fair that Apple should be able to build a platform they would want to use and ensure that it is safe, secure, and held to the standards they like. There is a good analogy here around sovereignty of nations. One common legal argument for war is that a nation has violated its own sovereignty somehow -- usually by attacking another or hurting its own population. Apple the Nation has a high tax rate for corporations and individuals who live there. It is non-negotiable and there is no way around it. But citizens can come and go freely, and if they are unhappy living in Apple land they can move to a different country. What is it that makes Apple's behaviour unfair?
Aissen 6y ago
You know 12% is much smaller than 30%, right?

cochne 6y ago

I think the distinguishing factor here is you can distribute your game to any computer without the epic game store. Imagine if the epic game store was the only way to distribute it :)

georgespencer 6y ago
Parent said that it was unfair for Apple to make money from a game that they had no hand in creating: > By any measure, having to hand over half a billion dollars is just an insane cut of revenue to have to give two companies that had absolutely nothing to do with conceiving, designing or developing such a successful game.
- user5994461 6y ago
  Actually this makes me realize, I don't think that statement is true. Epic Games probably got help from Apple to port their game and their engine to iOS. I somehow doubt they did all the work with zero assistance from Apple, it's a whole game engine deeply tied and optimized to the system. They'd probably work with Apple just like they work with Sony/Microsoft on consoles.
DivisionSol 6y ago
I think this argument is on shaky ground when Epic Game Store can only be installed on Windows. Rocket League lost MacOS/Linux support when absorbed into the Epic Game Store. Imagine if Windows was the only way to distribute games. Further, if you want to target mobile devices, you can distribute on Android.
- georgespencer 6y ago
  It's funny that even on a platform where it's possible to distribute software for free by other means, like Windows, Epic charges 12% to do it on their store.

turndown 6y ago

All companies are hypocrits, but I will say that the difference here is that there are other options if you want to publish your game - as I'm sure you know. If Apple offered other avenues for publishing apps then I think there would be no leg to stand on i.r.t their fees. Of course, this also glosses over the fact that Apple controls the platform and thus has to be judged differently.

georgespencer 6y ago
> If Apple offered other avenues for publishing apps then I think there would be no leg to stand on i.r.t their fees People are making it seem as if Epic is an underdog with no options here. They make hundreds of millions of dollars from distributing Fortnite on the app store -- and it's a free download. Apple doesn't make a cent from helping to market and distribute this game (and I'd imagine 90% of users are free only). Epic has the following choices: 1. Don't offer IAP at all 2. Offer microtransactions via web browser 3. Accept Apple taking the 30% cut of current pricing 4. Increase their pricing to accommodate Apple's cut 5. Withdraw the app
- turndown 6y ago
  Of course, there is a sixth option, in which they sue Apple for their behavior ;). Regardless, Epic is the underdog here, because they are at the beck and call of Apple no matter how you view the situation: Apple controls everything. Also, I disagree that a person/company that runs a platform is entitled to being able to run the only native app store simply because. Want to know why Apple has set up the App Store in the way that they have? Because it is most beneficial to them that way. This doesn't mean that we have to tolerate it so.
  - georgespencer 6y ago
    > Apple controls everything Epic can walk away and deprive Apple of hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. Epic can increase their prices. Epic can accept the margins. > I disagree that a person/company that runs a platform is entitled to being able to run the only native app store simply because It's not "simply because". It's demonstrably a superior experience for consumers. > Want to know why Apple has set up the App Store in the way that they have? Because it's most beneficial to them that way. I'm a former Apple employee and I can tell you that this is true insofar as it's beneficial to Apple to not have shitty apps, viruses, and malware on iPhone.

wccrawford 6y ago

Not all games. If you make the game with Unreal Engine, it's free. UE4 itself is free until you make $1mil lifetime per game, and then 5% after that, IIRC. But unlike Google and Apple's store, there are plenty of other stores on Windows, and making your own store is really easy. It can literally just be a website with downloads.

georgespencer 6y ago
OP's point is that it's unfair for Apple to take a cut when they didn't have anything to do with creating the game. My point is that Epic does the same thing. Apple created the app store. The iPhone brand is built on security, reliability, and ease of use. I can completely understand why Apple strongly resists people trying to disrupt that. It's not in Apple's interests because it'll diminish the appeal of their devices, and it's not in consumer interests either.
- wccrawford 6y ago
  Apple is providing a service that distributes the game and does some marketing for it. If you want to use that service, it's fair that Apple gets some cut, and I'm okay with them setting how large that cut is. What is not fair is that they are the only service allowed on Apple devices. They place themselves in a situation where they can set the cut without any negotiation allowed. I find Google's situation more fair (because it's at least possible to load apps/games with other stores or no store at all), but they still actively work against third-party stores by degrading the experience that the user has with those stores compared to Play's store.
  - georgespencer 6y ago
    > If you want to use that service, it's fair that Apple gets some cut, and I'm OK with them setting how large that cut is So you draw a distinction between the fairness of Apple making money from your use of their marketplace and the fairness of Apple making money from your use of their device? I don't see it. Apple made the app store and you think it's fair that if you want to use it you should pay. Apple makes the iPhone but it should not be the case that if you want to use it you should pay? What if alternative app stores on iPhone had to pay a 30% cut of all revenue to Apple? > What is not fair is that they are the only service allowed Are you at risk of conflating 'equal' and 'fair'? It's definitely not equal, but it doesn't seem unfair to me. It seems fair that Apple should be able to build a platform they would want to use and ensure that it is safe, secure, and held to the standards they like. There is a good analogy here around sovereignty of nations. One common legal argument for war is that a nation has violated its own sovereignty somehow -- usually by attacking another or hurting its own population. Apple the Nation has a high tax rate for corporations and individuals who live there. It is non-negotiable and there is no way around it. But citizens can come and go freely, and if they are unhappy living in Apple land they can move to a different country. What is it that makes Apple's behaviour unfair?

Aissen 6y ago

You know 12% is much smaller than 30%, right?