26 ms·

"...absolutely nothing to do with conceiving, designing or developing such a successful game." But it has everything to do with distributing the game. Also it

"...absolutely nothing to do with conceiving, designing or developing such a successful game." But it has everything to do with distributing the game. Also it has a lot to do with outsourcing the maintenance of the mobile platforms — designing hardware, OS releases, etc. Epic did not design their own hardware, their own silicon, build entire global supply chains, design UX, etc. Apple and Google did. Do they not deserve a cut? I'm not here arguing the percentage of the revenue, just that that some percentage is clearly warranted here. Their relationship with Apple and Google is clearly a partnership, meaning it has to benefit both sides. Same way it works with consoles.

harry8 6y ago
A unit fee for each distribuion of a couple of cents is warranted here and NO MORE than that. And it should be a flat fee for each unit be it 1 unit of a billion unit. Possibly with volume discounts if there were any variation in that pricing. Apple and Google are claiming the right to tax the success of others as though they were nation states and had been granted that right by popular mandate. A percentage? Of revenue? From companies that refuse to pay a percentage of profit in acutal tax to governments who actually do have that mandate to impose the tax. Evil is what evil does. Call it out.
- threeseed 6y ago
  This vitriol is pretty hilarious. Do you actually understand how business works ? If you sell a product through ANY distribution channel whether it be online, brick/mortar store, influencers etc you need to pay a fee. It's been this way for centuries.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    > If you sell a product through ANY distribution channel ... you need to pay a fee. This is literally what OP is arguing for...
wvenable 6y ago
> But it has everything to do with distributing the game. Because they're the only option. I mean there's no reason why Epic couldn't host the app on their server that people could download. It's not without precedent. But it's just not allowed for mobile. > designing hardware, OS releases, etc. Epic did not design their own hardware, their own silicon, build entire global supply chains, design UX, etc. Apple and Google did. Do they not deserve a cut? Seriously? You think Epic should have to pay for the hardware that we consumers buy for thousands of dollars? Apple has some of the highest hardware margins in the world. They don't need software developers to pay for the hardware that we've already paid too much for. These aren't consoles sold for a loss.
- threeseed 6y ago
  > You think Epic should have to pay for the hardware that we consumers buy for thousands of dollars? Apple has some of the highest hardware margins in the world Sure. If they want to complain about the cost of using someone else's hardware. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft etc do it.
- interpol_p 6y ago
  > Because they're the only option. I mean there's no reason why Epic couldn't host the app on their server that people could download. It's not without precedent. But it's just not allowed for mobile. Didn't they move to the Google Play Store (from their own download manager) specifically because sideloading was too hard and scary for customers that it was having an impact on Fortnite installs? Having the option wouldn't be enough for Epic even if it were available on iOS, because it wasn't enough for them on Android
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Especially when the very thing that Google warns about actually happened...with Fortnite. https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-for-android-came-with-an-epic-security-risk/ https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo...
  - wvenable 6y ago
Panini_Jones 6y ago
> Epic did not design their own hardware, their own silicon, build entire global supply chains, design UX, etc. Apple and Google did. Do they not deserve a cut? Where did the $1k I spent on my phone go?
- Ductapemaster 6y ago
  Fair point. From the way I see it, Apple is not a traditional hardware company, persay. It’s not like buying a PC from Dell. Dell sells hardware, and just that. The difference is Apple sells a user experience. Sure, you have to purcahase a physical thing to access that experience, but that is the nature of what you have purchased when you buy an iPhone. I think this boils down to a mismatched set of perspectives on the business Apple has created. Apple breaks the typical “buy hardware from X, install software from Y” flow and instead turned their iPhones into a portal into their own user experience universe. They did this because it provides a fundamentally unique experience when compared to other platforms. It’s a differentiating factor for them. Again, I would argue that Apple doesn’t want to be a hardware company. They want to be an experience company. In order to do that, they have to develop and sell cutting-edge hardware to you and me. Don’t get me wrong, not trying to say this is good or bad — just observing a sublety that I think gets missed when passionately arguing about hardware ownership and the rights that come with it.
- yazaddaruvala 6y ago
  $1k is what I'm willing to pay for that hardware knowing it is "locked down". I prefer the convenience of the "walled garden". If you or any customer feels like the hardware's capabilities (i.e. no side-loading) was miss-advertised, I would highly urge them to return the hardware to Apple, sell it, or at the least not re-buy an iPhone next time.
  - Panini_Jones 6y ago
    I'm responding to the argument that the service fees pay for the hardware. No, my $1k paid for the hardware.
    - 6y ago
_qulr 6y ago
Apple's expensive hardware pays for itself, and for the operating system. That's the way it's always been, since 1976. Third party software helps sell Apple's hardware, so in that sense it's always been mutually beneficial, while each side remained independent financially. The App Store in 2008 was an unfortunate change in this relationship, making it too one-sided. Google didn't even invent Android, they purchased it. (Of course Apple purchased NeXTSTEP too.) And Google is not even the biggest Android hardware manufacturer. The bizarre thing is that most apps on both iOS and Android are free, so they pay very little for the so-called "maintenance", even if these apps are hugely popular. This is very different from a game console, where every game earns money directly. Fortnite is hugely popular, but for some reason struggling little indie paid apps are forced to subsidize the platform for immensely popular free apps?
- _qulr 6y ago
  Apple actually bragged in their response to Spotify that 84% of the apps on the App Store were free. Imagine a game console where 84% of the games were free. We can't compare these platforms to consoles.
  - ggggtez 6y ago
    Ahem... PC.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      I don't understand this reply.
      - justanotheranon 6y ago
        why has it become normalized to accept iPhones and Android as locked down computers where we are all rental peasants whove sworn fealty to our Feif Lords? the computing culture from the PC era (1990's-2006) has been utterly destroyed. a computer used to be a thing you owned and which you therefore controlled like any physical property. install any software you want. you own it, so you dont have to keep plugging quarters into it like an arcade game. but not the phone. even though a cheap phone is a supercomputer compared to a high end gaming PC from 20 years ago. everything Richard Stallman predicted 40 years ago about the worst case scenario outcome of propietary software has come true. the computing revolution was originally about empowering the user. information wants to be FREE. slowly we lost that, and now everything is about how much money can our corporate overlords squeeze out of us. I FIGHT FOR THE USER
cma 6y ago
Should your monitor and hard drive companies take a cut of every software purchase you make? Nvidia?
- Ductapemaster 6y ago
  I see where you are going here, but neither of those items (nor any independent of a comptuer) provides the same utility as an iPhone.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - cma 6y ago
    Should your laptop with 4g modem take a 30% cut?
blurredstrokes 6y ago
That's a profoundly nonsensical argument. Read what you wrote again perhaps?

harry8 6y ago

A unit fee for each distribuion of a couple of cents is warranted here and NO MORE than that. And it should be a flat fee for each unit be it 1 unit of a billion unit. Possibly with volume discounts if there were any variation in that pricing. Apple and Google are claiming the right to tax the success of others as though they were nation states and had been granted that right by popular mandate. A percentage? Of revenue? From companies that refuse to pay a percentage of profit in acutal tax to governments who actually do have that mandate to impose the tax. Evil is what evil does. Call it out.

threeseed 6y ago
This vitriol is pretty hilarious. Do you actually understand how business works ? If you sell a product through ANY distribution channel whether it be online, brick/mortar store, influencers etc you need to pay a fee. It's been this way for centuries.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  > If you sell a product through ANY distribution channel ... you need to pay a fee. This is literally what OP is arguing for...

wvenable 6y ago

> But it has everything to do with distributing the game. Because they're the only option. I mean there's no reason why Epic couldn't host the app on their server that people could download. It's not without precedent. But it's just not allowed for mobile. > designing hardware, OS releases, etc. Epic did not design their own hardware, their own silicon, build entire global supply chains, design UX, etc. Apple and Google did. Do they not deserve a cut? Seriously? You think Epic should have to pay for the hardware that we consumers buy for thousands of dollars? Apple has some of the highest hardware margins in the world. They don't need software developers to pay for the hardware that we've already paid too much for. These aren't consoles sold for a loss.

threeseed 6y ago
> You think Epic should have to pay for the hardware that we consumers buy for thousands of dollars? Apple has some of the highest hardware margins in the world Sure. If they want to complain about the cost of using someone else's hardware. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft etc do it.
interpol_p 6y ago
> Because they're the only option. I mean there's no reason why Epic couldn't host the app on their server that people could download. It's not without precedent. But it's just not allowed for mobile. Didn't they move to the Google Play Store (from their own download manager) specifically because sideloading was too hard and scary for customers that it was having an impact on Fortnite installs? Having the option wouldn't be enough for Epic even if it were available on iOS, because it wasn't enough for them on Android
- scarface74 6y ago
  Especially when the very thing that Google warns about actually happened...with Fortnite. https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-for-android-came-with-an-epic-security-risk/ https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo...
- wvenable 6y ago

Panini_Jones 6y ago

> Epic did not design their own hardware, their own silicon, build entire global supply chains, design UX, etc. Apple and Google did. Do they not deserve a cut? Where did the $1k I spent on my phone go?

Ductapemaster 6y ago
Fair point. From the way I see it, Apple is not a traditional hardware company, persay. It’s not like buying a PC from Dell. Dell sells hardware, and just that. The difference is Apple sells a user experience. Sure, you have to purcahase a physical thing to access that experience, but that is the nature of what you have purchased when you buy an iPhone. I think this boils down to a mismatched set of perspectives on the business Apple has created. Apple breaks the typical “buy hardware from X, install software from Y” flow and instead turned their iPhones into a portal into their own user experience universe. They did this because it provides a fundamentally unique experience when compared to other platforms. It’s a differentiating factor for them. Again, I would argue that Apple doesn’t want to be a hardware company. They want to be an experience company. In order to do that, they have to develop and sell cutting-edge hardware to you and me. Don’t get me wrong, not trying to say this is good or bad — just observing a sublety that I think gets missed when passionately arguing about hardware ownership and the rights that come with it.
yazaddaruvala 6y ago
$1k is what I'm willing to pay for that hardware knowing it is "locked down". I prefer the convenience of the "walled garden". If you or any customer feels like the hardware's capabilities (i.e. no side-loading) was miss-advertised, I would highly urge them to return the hardware to Apple, sell it, or at the least not re-buy an iPhone next time.
- Panini_Jones 6y ago
  I'm responding to the argument that the service fees pay for the hardware. No, my $1k paid for the hardware.
  - 6y ago

_qulr 6y ago

Apple's expensive hardware pays for itself, and for the operating system. That's the way it's always been, since 1976. Third party software helps sell Apple's hardware, so in that sense it's always been mutually beneficial, while each side remained independent financially. The App Store in 2008 was an unfortunate change in this relationship, making it too one-sided. Google didn't even invent Android, they purchased it. (Of course Apple purchased NeXTSTEP too.) And Google is not even the biggest Android hardware manufacturer. The bizarre thing is that most apps on both iOS and Android are free, so they pay very little for the so-called "maintenance", even if these apps are hugely popular. This is very different from a game console, where every game earns money directly. Fortnite is hugely popular, but for some reason struggling little indie paid apps are forced to subsidize the platform for immensely popular free apps?

_qulr 6y ago
Apple actually bragged in their response to Spotify that 84% of the apps on the App Store were free. Imagine a game console where 84% of the games were free. We can't compare these platforms to consoles.
- ggggtez 6y ago
  Ahem... PC.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    I don't understand this reply.
    - justanotheranon 6y ago
      why has it become normalized to accept iPhones and Android as locked down computers where we are all rental peasants whove sworn fealty to our Feif Lords? the computing culture from the PC era (1990's-2006) has been utterly destroyed. a computer used to be a thing you owned and which you therefore controlled like any physical property. install any software you want. you own it, so you dont have to keep plugging quarters into it like an arcade game. but not the phone. even though a cheap phone is a supercomputer compared to a high end gaming PC from 20 years ago. everything Richard Stallman predicted 40 years ago about the worst case scenario outcome of propietary software has come true. the computing revolution was originally about empowering the user. information wants to be FREE. slowly we lost that, and now everything is about how much money can our corporate overlords squeeze out of us. I FIGHT FOR THE USER

cma 6y ago

Should your monitor and hard drive companies take a cut of every software purchase you make? Nvidia?

Ductapemaster 6y ago
I see where you are going here, but neither of those items (nor any independent of a comptuer) provides the same utility as an iPhone.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cma 6y ago
  Should your laptop with 4g modem take a 30% cut?

blurredstrokes 6y ago

That's a profoundly nonsensical argument. Read what you wrote again perhaps?