4 ms·

Change My Mind - I currently agree with Apple's strategy with blocking Unreal Engine. Why is it that a big company (like Epic) thinks it's no longer subject to

Change My Mind - I currently agree with Apple's strategy with blocking Unreal Engine. Why is it that a big company (like Epic) thinks it's no longer subject to the Apple Tax while us small guys thrive with the platform for which we wouldn't have the audience/opportuity without Apple. Are we all subject to the same cycle if we "make it", we'll buck against the 30% cut and bite the hand that fed us. This is bad business, it's going to create a stronger reaction by Apple that will only hurt the smaller guys. Plus is Epic doing anything to help us smaller developers in the mean time besides wasting money in a court system? Are they creating a fund for us help bridge us to a different system if their appeal fails? So please let me know your opinion, and if I'm wrong, please let me know why.

wvenable 6y ago
> We wouldn't have the audience/opportuity without Apple Is that worth 30% till the end of time? Your argument is like crabs in a bucket -- one crab tries to get a better deal and you pull him down because you have to pay. Lets say, somehow, Epic manages to get that fee lowered to something more reasonable for everyone. Would you not be happy with that?
- parasubvert 6y ago
  This is the crux of the matter: is it anticompetitive to setup an ecosystem where you always get a cut? Generally, historically, no, this is not anticompetitive, especially given there is another ecosystem with far more market share (but maybe not profitability because more people spend money on iOS apps). Inserting yourself to take a cut for a service or a key component is good business practice, and built the empires that every student in business school or in tech entrepreneurship is taught to emulate. So long as the wealth pie grows, it isn’t rent seeking to keep taking your cut. What amazes me is that people think iOS and Apple (and even Android and Google) are near-permanent fixtures that should be regulated as utilities, rather than a temporary incumbent that will eventually be disrupted as the world changes. Microsoft’s reign of dictating terms to ISVs a lasted around 20 years. They’re still incredibly profitable and still take a cut of almost every PC sale (or XBox game / movie / tv show sale). They don’t have the clout they used to because the tech changed. At some point, new things will come, such as AR/VR, and we may see companies such as Valve and Oculus/Facebook become the new tech ecosystem dictators. The winner takes all dynamics of platforms seem to make this inevitable. Why enshrine Apple and Google as utilities now, when they’ll be less relevant in 10 years?
  - wvenable 6y ago
    What's more scary is not that a single company or group of companies will be a permanent fixture but rather that this model of computing will be permanent! If you would have told me 20 years ago that the creator of an operating system would take a 30% cut of every piece of software sold, I would have thought you crazy. If you would have told me Apple or Microsoft would dictate to me what software I could run, I would have considered that a massive invasion of freedom. But today this model is considered totally normal and encouraged. We aren't seeing other companies competing with this model on price or freedom -- we see companies wanting to enforce their own control and get their own 30% cut. Microsoft has tried it. Google is doing it. Oculus does it. Apple will certainly bring it MacOS. As software developers and users, is that really what we want?
    - parasubvert 6y ago
      As software users, we definitely have voted with our wallets to say that properly executed vertical integration (As Apple has done), and the end to end UX control that comes with it, are highly desirable. The iPhone is arguably (and surprisingly) the most successful non-food/drug product line in human history by unit sales, revenue, or profits. The 30% cut and ecosystem control are likely a feature, not a bug. The user experience and security of the horizontally open market PC was pretty bad until Microsoft was forced to invest. As ISVs, clearly there are major downsides to this state of affairs. But I’m not sure I wish for the days where Microsoft reigned and would just put you out of business on a whim. I don’t think Microsoft’s antitrust consent decree had as much of an impact as some think, it was more about entrepreneurship and new tech (largely the iPhone! But also Amazon, Facebook, and Google) that reduced their clout. I don’t think Apple will bring this control to MacOS; you can’t put genies back into bottles.
      - wvenable 6y ago
        > The 30% cut and ecosystem control are likely a feature, not a bug. The only feature I can see for this is making Apple a multi-trillion dollar company. Apple is profiting massively off of our labor and yes, we have been so far happy to give that to them, but perhaps now is the time to revisit that relationship. With Apple abusing their control to deny access to cloud gaming maybe this success is a Faustian deal. > I don’t think Apple will bring this control to MacOS I think it will be a function of going to Apple silicon.
gizmo 6y ago
Is it better if Apple is accountable to nobody, or is it better if Apple is held accountable by a few businesses that can afford excellent lawyers? Besides, the issue here isn't that Epic doesn't think the Apple rules don't apply to them. They want to raise attention to how unfair the rules are, in the hope of getting Apple to change their stance either voluntary or through the court system. I think too much money is at play here for Apple to make any voluntary concessions here, but even if Apple wins (likely outcome) a track record of being sued for unfair business practices will hopefully benefit everybody in Apple's ecosystem in the long term.

wvenable 6y ago

> We wouldn't have the audience/opportuity without Apple Is that worth 30% till the end of time? Your argument is like crabs in a bucket -- one crab tries to get a better deal and you pull him down because you have to pay. Lets say, somehow, Epic manages to get that fee lowered to something more reasonable for everyone. Would you not be happy with that?

parasubvert 6y ago
This is the crux of the matter: is it anticompetitive to setup an ecosystem where you always get a cut? Generally, historically, no, this is not anticompetitive, especially given there is another ecosystem with far more market share (but maybe not profitability because more people spend money on iOS apps). Inserting yourself to take a cut for a service or a key component is good business practice, and built the empires that every student in business school or in tech entrepreneurship is taught to emulate. So long as the wealth pie grows, it isn’t rent seeking to keep taking your cut. What amazes me is that people think iOS and Apple (and even Android and Google) are near-permanent fixtures that should be regulated as utilities, rather than a temporary incumbent that will eventually be disrupted as the world changes. Microsoft’s reign of dictating terms to ISVs a lasted around 20 years. They’re still incredibly profitable and still take a cut of almost every PC sale (or XBox game / movie / tv show sale). They don’t have the clout they used to because the tech changed. At some point, new things will come, such as AR/VR, and we may see companies such as Valve and Oculus/Facebook become the new tech ecosystem dictators. The winner takes all dynamics of platforms seem to make this inevitable. Why enshrine Apple and Google as utilities now, when they’ll be less relevant in 10 years?
- wvenable 6y ago
  What's more scary is not that a single company or group of companies will be a permanent fixture but rather that this model of computing will be permanent! If you would have told me 20 years ago that the creator of an operating system would take a 30% cut of every piece of software sold, I would have thought you crazy. If you would have told me Apple or Microsoft would dictate to me what software I could run, I would have considered that a massive invasion of freedom. But today this model is considered totally normal and encouraged. We aren't seeing other companies competing with this model on price or freedom -- we see companies wanting to enforce their own control and get their own 30% cut. Microsoft has tried it. Google is doing it. Oculus does it. Apple will certainly bring it MacOS. As software developers and users, is that really what we want?
  - parasubvert 6y ago
    As software users, we definitely have voted with our wallets to say that properly executed vertical integration (As Apple has done), and the end to end UX control that comes with it, are highly desirable. The iPhone is arguably (and surprisingly) the most successful non-food/drug product line in human history by unit sales, revenue, or profits. The 30% cut and ecosystem control are likely a feature, not a bug. The user experience and security of the horizontally open market PC was pretty bad until Microsoft was forced to invest. As ISVs, clearly there are major downsides to this state of affairs. But I’m not sure I wish for the days where Microsoft reigned and would just put you out of business on a whim. I don’t think Microsoft’s antitrust consent decree had as much of an impact as some think, it was more about entrepreneurship and new tech (largely the iPhone! But also Amazon, Facebook, and Google) that reduced their clout. I don’t think Apple will bring this control to MacOS; you can’t put genies back into bottles.
    - wvenable 6y ago
      > The 30% cut and ecosystem control are likely a feature, not a bug. The only feature I can see for this is making Apple a multi-trillion dollar company. Apple is profiting massively off of our labor and yes, we have been so far happy to give that to them, but perhaps now is the time to revisit that relationship. With Apple abusing their control to deny access to cloud gaming maybe this success is a Faustian deal. > I don’t think Apple will bring this control to MacOS I think it will be a function of going to Apple silicon.

gizmo 6y ago

Is it better if Apple is accountable to nobody, or is it better if Apple is held accountable by a few businesses that can afford excellent lawyers? Besides, the issue here isn't that Epic doesn't think the Apple rules don't apply to them. They want to raise attention to how unfair the rules are, in the hope of getting Apple to change their stance either voluntary or through the court system. I think too much money is at play here for Apple to make any voluntary concessions here, but even if Apple wins (likely outcome) a track record of being sued for unfair business practices will hopefully benefit everybody in Apple's ecosystem in the long term.