6 ms·

This headline makes it sound like there has been a change of heart, but Tim Sweeney has been a vocal critic of walled gardens like the App Store and the Microso

This headline makes it sound like there has been a change of heart, but Tim Sweeney has been a vocal critic of walled gardens like the App Store and the Microsoft Store, well before Fortnite was a success. The "special deal" here wouldn't have been some sort of fee waiver, it would've been to let Epic open their own store on iOS. In other words, having Apple give up its monopoly on iOS app publishing, just what the current lawsuit intends to achieve. Obviously, they weren't going to get that, but it's worth asking for it before starting a billion dollar lawsuit.

pjmlp 6y ago
Apparently he doesn't have any issues with the walled gardens from game consoles.
- jimbobimbo 6y ago
  Do consoles take a cut for subscriptions made from consoles?
  - jmccaf 6y ago
    For new game purchases anyways, consoles collect platform royalties. $7 out of $60 game purchase (12%), according to 10-year old https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/...
    - jimbobimbo 6y ago
      What about IAPs and requirement to subscribe for services only from consoles?
      - gridlockd 6y ago
        It doesn't matter. Obviously, Epic would like to pay 0% royalties on everything and be able to publish unlicensed games on consoles. The problem is that Atari already failed in court against Nintendo back in the eighties, so the chances of winning that suit appear slim.
- doytch 6y ago
  Or walled gardens that his parent company maintains.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Which would those be?
    - caycep 6y ago
      Epic's own game store. They aren't doing this out of the goodness of their heart
      - kevingadd 6y ago
        Epic has been very consistent about wanting the % cut lowered industry wide. It's silly to try and depict the Epic Games Store as malicious: Like it or not, developers keep more of their revenue on that store due to the 12% cut, and if other storefront operators don't like that they can lower their cut. When you choose a storefront as a developer you're choosing who to pay off in exchange for access to their platform and customers, it's that simple. "out of the goodness of their heart" is also a silly way to characterize this positively or negatively: They want a chance to compete with Apple by offering lower costs in exchange for not offering the same feature set as Apple, just like how the EGS on Windows does not offer the same feature set as Steam. They believe developers will pick them due to the lower cut, but that's something the market would decide. Right now the market can't decide, because Apple has decided to prohibit competition. Incidentally Epic made a public promise that if Apple lowered the cut, Apple Pay users would get the same Fortnite discount that people paying directly get.
      - paulryanrogers 6y ago
        How is their game store a walled garden? It can be installed alongside others on the same hardware. Even their exclusivity agreements are time limited.
        pjmlp 6y ago
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  If they are trying to set a precedent in the courts, it makes sense to go after the most winnable case, and then try to use that ruling to win others. So it would not be Android, where alternative app stores and side loading are permitted, and not the consoles, where the manufacturers will argue they are not providing a general-purpose device. iPhone and even more so iPads are the ideal targets for lawsuits that aim to set precedents.
  - microtherion 6y ago
    But didn't Epic also pull a similar move on the Google Play store simultaneously?
    - smnrchrds 6y ago
      Yes. I guess they may be trying to show that Apple and Google have a duopoly in the mobile app market. If they win the Apple case, I am sure they will sue Google next, and that would be a much easier lawsuit to win.
      - ac29 6y ago
        They already did sue Google: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fortnite-lawsuit-antitrust-app-play-store-apple-removal https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fort...
  - MayeulC 6y ago
    Side note: alternative stores are a pain: installing the F-droid privileged extension for automatic updates requires root access, for instance. Why couldn't that be a setting, like device administrators? I feel Google is doing the bare minimum to avoid antitrust rulings, which they probably do.
    - g_p 6y ago
      Google views sideloading as their inconvenient but necessary antitrust escape valve, in my view. They don't want people using it, they want it as something to point at and say "not guilty". Interesting however is the wording of an old version of the Android Market (old name before Play Store came about) developer agreement - the title of 4.5 is labelled "Non-Competition". I think that title (which has unsurprisingly disappeared from more recent versions) says it all. Sideloading was Google's attempt to avoid an antitrust battle in the early days of Android, as they could say "we are new, anyone can make a store". The trouble is the licensing agreements with OEMs contain all sorts of restrictions, some of which have probably become public over time. Perhaps more will emerge through the epic games lawsuit, as it seems they're going after the restrictions on OEMs. There's many of those they can request through disclosure if they don't have them already! Ref: https://web.archive.org/web/20150107232223/https://play.google.com/intl/ALL_uk/about/developer-distribution-agreement/archive.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150107232223/https://play.goog...
- gridlockd 6y ago
  I don't know about that, Epic is historically a PC-centric developer. However, the legal question of having a monopoly on publishing for a game console has been settled ages ago, and the platform owners won.
  - gpm 6y ago
    > However, the legal question of having a monopoly on publishing for a game console has been settled ages ago, and the platform owners won. I don't believe it has, and I don't believe they do. The only lawsuit of this nature that I'm aware of is Atari v. Nintendo [1]. All that lawsuit established was that - It isn't fair use to violate copyright law in the process of bypassing mechanisms used to maintain the monopoly - While it might be copyright misuse to create those mechanisms establishing a monopoly in the first place (undecided), the court isn't going to grant you a win when you got in the position you did by lying to the government to steal code. Notably (as far as I can tell) it established nothing whatsoever about antitrust law, which is what is at issue in this case and presumably what would be at issue in a similar case related to consoles. Is there another case you are thinking of? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_....
    - ac29 6y ago
      Sega v Accolade also seems relevant here, and held that reverse engineering to create unlicensed Sega Genesis games was fair use and thus permissible (though in a later settlement, Accolade did become a licensed developer).
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      Antitrust violations were part of the suit brought against Nintendo, but the court basically ignored those in the ruling. Here's a legal analysis that predates the ruling: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/489/ https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/489/ It outlines the requirements for a successful antitrust case, particularly that simply having a monopoly is not enough.
- monadic2 6y ago
  Didn't epic get a sweet deal to open cross platform play for fortnite? That platform isn't walled if you have enough money.
- moogly 6y ago
  He explained his view on this back in 2018: "There’s a rationale for this on console where there's enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers. But on open platforms, 30 per cent is disproportionate to the cost of the services these stores perform, such as payment processing, download bandwidth, and customer service."[1] Low margins on hardware definitely does not apply to Apple (they famously have much higher margins on their devices than their competition), and the (paid) App Store exposure doesn't really match "marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers" either. Not saying he's completely right, but I can see his reasoning and I don't think he's a hypocrite in this case. [1]: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-07-31-30-percent-store-tax-is-a-high-cost-says-sweeney-as-fortnite-skips-google-play https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-07-31-30-percent...
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Tim apparently lacks experience with margins on J2ME, Symbian, Brew, Blackberry, Windows CE/Pocket PC.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      Perhaps that's because he's concerned about mobile platforms where one can actually make money.
scarface74 6y ago
Can I go into any retailer and open my own store?

pjmlp 6y ago

Apparently he doesn't have any issues with the walled gardens from game consoles.

jimbobimbo 6y ago
Do consoles take a cut for subscriptions made from consoles?
- jmccaf 6y ago
  For new game purchases anyways, consoles collect platform royalties. $7 out of $60 game purchase (12%), according to 10-year old https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/...
  - jimbobimbo 6y ago
    What about IAPs and requirement to subscribe for services only from consoles?
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      It doesn't matter. Obviously, Epic would like to pay 0% royalties on everything and be able to publish unlicensed games on consoles. The problem is that Atari already failed in court against Nintendo back in the eighties, so the chances of winning that suit appear slim.
doytch 6y ago
Or walled gardens that his parent company maintains.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Which would those be?
  - caycep 6y ago
    Epic's own game store. They aren't doing this out of the goodness of their heart
    - kevingadd 6y ago
      Epic has been very consistent about wanting the % cut lowered industry wide. It's silly to try and depict the Epic Games Store as malicious: Like it or not, developers keep more of their revenue on that store due to the 12% cut, and if other storefront operators don't like that they can lower their cut. When you choose a storefront as a developer you're choosing who to pay off in exchange for access to their platform and customers, it's that simple. "out of the goodness of their heart" is also a silly way to characterize this positively or negatively: They want a chance to compete with Apple by offering lower costs in exchange for not offering the same feature set as Apple, just like how the EGS on Windows does not offer the same feature set as Steam. They believe developers will pick them due to the lower cut, but that's something the market would decide. Right now the market can't decide, because Apple has decided to prohibit competition. Incidentally Epic made a public promise that if Apple lowered the cut, Apple Pay users would get the same Fortnite discount that people paying directly get.
    - paulryanrogers 6y ago
      How is their game store a walled garden? It can be installed alongside others on the same hardware. Even their exclusivity agreements are time limited.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
smnrchrds 6y ago
If they are trying to set a precedent in the courts, it makes sense to go after the most winnable case, and then try to use that ruling to win others. So it would not be Android, where alternative app stores and side loading are permitted, and not the consoles, where the manufacturers will argue they are not providing a general-purpose device. iPhone and even more so iPads are the ideal targets for lawsuits that aim to set precedents.
- microtherion 6y ago
  But didn't Epic also pull a similar move on the Google Play store simultaneously?
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    Yes. I guess they may be trying to show that Apple and Google have a duopoly in the mobile app market. If they win the Apple case, I am sure they will sue Google next, and that would be a much easier lawsuit to win.
    - ac29 6y ago
      They already did sue Google: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fortnite-lawsuit-antitrust-app-play-store-apple-removal https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fort...
- MayeulC 6y ago
  Side note: alternative stores are a pain: installing the F-droid privileged extension for automatic updates requires root access, for instance. Why couldn't that be a setting, like device administrators? I feel Google is doing the bare minimum to avoid antitrust rulings, which they probably do.
  - g_p 6y ago
    Google views sideloading as their inconvenient but necessary antitrust escape valve, in my view. They don't want people using it, they want it as something to point at and say "not guilty". Interesting however is the wording of an old version of the Android Market (old name before Play Store came about) developer agreement - the title of 4.5 is labelled "Non-Competition". I think that title (which has unsurprisingly disappeared from more recent versions) says it all. Sideloading was Google's attempt to avoid an antitrust battle in the early days of Android, as they could say "we are new, anyone can make a store". The trouble is the licensing agreements with OEMs contain all sorts of restrictions, some of which have probably become public over time. Perhaps more will emerge through the epic games lawsuit, as it seems they're going after the restrictions on OEMs. There's many of those they can request through disclosure if they don't have them already! Ref: https://web.archive.org/web/20150107232223/https://play.google.com/intl/ALL_uk/about/developer-distribution-agreement/archive.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150107232223/https://play.goog...
gridlockd 6y ago
I don't know about that, Epic is historically a PC-centric developer. However, the legal question of having a monopoly on publishing for a game console has been settled ages ago, and the platform owners won.
- gpm 6y ago
  > However, the legal question of having a monopoly on publishing for a game console has been settled ages ago, and the platform owners won. I don't believe it has, and I don't believe they do. The only lawsuit of this nature that I'm aware of is Atari v. Nintendo [1]. All that lawsuit established was that - It isn't fair use to violate copyright law in the process of bypassing mechanisms used to maintain the monopoly - While it might be copyright misuse to create those mechanisms establishing a monopoly in the first place (undecided), the court isn't going to grant you a win when you got in the position you did by lying to the government to steal code. Notably (as far as I can tell) it established nothing whatsoever about antitrust law, which is what is at issue in this case and presumably what would be at issue in a similar case related to consoles. Is there another case you are thinking of? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_....
  - ac29 6y ago
    Sega v Accolade also seems relevant here, and held that reverse engineering to create unlicensed Sega Genesis games was fair use and thus permissible (though in a later settlement, Accolade did become a licensed developer).
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    Antitrust violations were part of the suit brought against Nintendo, but the court basically ignored those in the ruling. Here's a legal analysis that predates the ruling: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/489/ https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/489/ It outlines the requirements for a successful antitrust case, particularly that simply having a monopoly is not enough.
monadic2 6y ago
Didn't epic get a sweet deal to open cross platform play for fortnite? That platform isn't walled if you have enough money.
moogly 6y ago
He explained his view on this back in 2018: "There’s a rationale for this on console where there's enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers. But on open platforms, 30 per cent is disproportionate to the cost of the services these stores perform, such as payment processing, download bandwidth, and customer service."[1] Low margins on hardware definitely does not apply to Apple (they famously have much higher margins on their devices than their competition), and the (paid) App Store exposure doesn't really match "marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers" either. Not saying he's completely right, but I can see his reasoning and I don't think he's a hypocrite in this case. [1]: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-07-31-30-percent-store-tax-is-a-high-cost-says-sweeney-as-fortnite-skips-google-play https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-07-31-30-percent...
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Tim apparently lacks experience with margins on J2ME, Symbian, Brew, Blackberry, Windows CE/Pocket PC.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Perhaps that's because he's concerned about mobile platforms where one can actually make money.

scarface74 6y ago

Can I go into any retailer and open my own store?