4 ms·

I take a cynical view here: the only reason Epic is doing this is to make more money. They want that last 30%. i.e. this is a PR stunt and nothing more. You ca

I take a cynical view here: the only reason Epic is doing this is to make more money. They want that last 30%. i.e. this is a PR stunt and nothing more. You can feel various ways, but personally, my reaction is "This is the hill you want to die on? You won't win this. No judge will ever order Apple to let you participate in their app store in violation of their ToS. And if they do, it'll take years of litigation." Still... Kudos to them for this ambitious plan. It takes guts to intentionally kill off your iOS revenue stream. I wonder what percentage of revenue fortnite iOS generated. Perhaps iOS simply wasn't too lucrative. But if it was lucrative, then this took guts. Remember that struggles for money and power are often dressed up as struggles for morals and righteousness. You start to see that pattern everywhere. The other side of this is, Apple needs to play this carefully. It has the potential to quickly spiral out of control. For example, banning all games built on Unreal Engine would ignite a real fury, and would make http://paulgraham.com/apple.html http://paulgraham.com/apple.html true – 11 years later. Removing notarization for Fortnite on MacOS is another overstep, but it doesn't seem like it will cause Apple to lose the war.

jagged-chisel 6y ago
I'm curious: how much revenue are they making off others' games written on Unreal and appearing on iOS? This isn't some coy "oh, well Epic takes a cut, too!" because IIRC their cut is reasonable. But I do think one could consider Unreal licensing for iOS games part of their iOS revenue. Edit: also recall that Apple can't currently prevent others using Unreal to make games for iOS: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/judge-issues-restraining-order-protecting-unreal-engine-development-on-ios/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/judge-issues-restrain...
chrisco255 6y ago
Really? Microsoft was ruled a monopoly over similar issues with browsers. All the big tech monopolies should be shifting uncomfortably in their seats right now. They are rapidly losing support from the pro-business conservatives who are normally against this sort of regulation on account of being deplatformed, shadow banned, and railroaded. Who's left to stand up for big tech? Is that the new Democrat platform? I don't think being pro-monopoly is going to rally the progressives.
- olliej 6y ago
  Microsoft used its dominant power in one arena to take control of another. Apple doesn’t have a dominant position in smartphone land, and their fees are inline with other hardware and software marketplaces.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Of course it does. It has an extremely secure duopoly with Google and it's even stronger when you look at US market in isolation. You don't have to own 100% of a market to be broken up or regulated for anticompetitive practices.
    - olliej 6y ago
      I just want to verify that you also consider Sony, Nintendo, and MS to be monopolies as well?
      - romanoderoma 6y ago
        Nintendo was born in 1889 and starting from 1960 it sells game consoles In those 60 years have sold 750 million consoles (mostly Gameboys) Apple sold 2.2 billion devices in 13 years (only counting mobile devices) and have become the company with the largest capitalization in human history I think their power is not comparable, they don't even play in the same league
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    I see two arguments usually pop up when talking about Apple being a monopolyst 1 - you can buy androids 2 - MS had a dominant position, Apple does not But 1 - Android is not a replacement for Apple and it doesn't come for free (extracting data from an Apple device is harder for the user than it is for a malicious actor, all the money spent on the Apple platform go out of the window) 2 -if Apple has no power, how is it possible that it killed Flash and stopped the adoption of PWAs? If Apple is different from MS why the only browser available on iOS is Safari which is also the main vector for vulnerabilities on Apple mobile devices? (according to security analysts) So Apple has a de facto monopoly, one that is costly to escape from and it's using it to push its own browser volunterly crippling a web standard (PWAs) that would make apps and their store less relevant. If that's a crime or violates antitrust laws I don't know, but that it is true I'm sure.
paconbork 6y ago
A for-profit company isn't going to spend millions and millions on something that doesn't benefit them. Something can make a company money and be generally good for others as well. If they get some good PR while making money and making things better, then more power to them
CPLX 6y ago
The only reason Apple is doing this is to make more money too. You'll find that's a common thread in the motivations of all parties in nearly every business dispute. The question is which point of view is a better match for desired policy outcomes.
augustt 6y ago
Morality and wanting money aren't mutually exclusive - see also: minimum wage.
- olliej 6y ago
  Doesn’t epic sell loot boxes and virtual money in a bunch of their games? Despite those being well understood to be functionally gambling and exploitative?
mewse 6y ago
“That last 30%” is kind of a funny phrase. If you were saying “That last 5%” I would probably agree with your take. But 30% is a massive chunk of the profit of every company in that whole market. 30% isn’t “that last”; it’s a substantial chunk of the money generated by the product you’ve spent years making, and I have trouble mustering your apparent disdain for anybody that would by so gauche as to expend energy trying to recover it.
- michannne 6y ago
  Yeah, I understand that platforms like Steam also take huge chunks, even Amazon, for hosting, providing visibility and other such features. Still, 1/3 of my revenue is ALOT of money
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    Steam takes their cut for being the most convenient way to buy games, which drives sales, and developers are happy to be there. Apple take their cut because nobody has a choice, other than not to buy Apple devices. First is a honest partnership, second is extortion.
    - NeutronStar 6y ago
      Also you don't need to be on Steam to be able to install the game. You also don't need to be only on Steam to be on Steam.
baddox 6y ago
As far as I can tell, Apple was never going to ban games built on Unreal Engine. Epic made it sound very dramatic, but it seems like that was nothing more than Apple terminating Epic's developer account (for ongoing deliberate violation of rules in the Fortnite app) which happens to also be the account they use to publish the Unreal Engine on MacOS. In other words, Epic wouldn't be able to publish signed updated versions of the engine on MacOS, at least without creating a different developer account. Unless I'm missing something here, there was never a real threat that all games using Unreal Engine would be banned.
- hinkley 6y ago
  I never really thought about what the culture must be like an Epic games until this whole passion play started. Either they are very, very good at cultivating a public image that speaks directly to the Fortnight demographic, or this is who they are now. Games are great because they can twist physics and omit other bits of reality like politics or sociology. But if you take on Apple like you're trying to win a video game, buddy that's going to be a really expensive lesson.
bmarquez 6y ago
> this is a PR stunt and nothing more Apple has banned Microsoft xCloud, NVIDIA GeForce NOW, and Google Stadia from existing on iOS (from the article). Epic may not be doing this out of the kindness of their hearts, but they do have the clout to push back against these restrictions. I view Apple's restrictions on gaming as a PR stunt...especially when streaming videos and music get a pass.
baddox 6y ago
> the only reason Epic is doing this is to make more money. They want that last 30%. It's actually a little sillier even than that. Epic in fact want to have their own app store (the Epic Games Store) on iOS, and thus exercise the precise sort of profitable market power over software developers that they claim to oppose Apple doing. They're pretty explicit about this in their statements.
- metiscus 6y ago
  In opening a path for them they allow others to have freedom too. You won't often find people or companies fighting major fights based purely on altruism alone. We shouldn't discount the broader value of this fight.
tomcam 6y ago
Agree with the cynicism, but while IANAL I believe they are on strong legal grounds. The issue is not the iOS store monopoly directly. Antitrust laws don't forbid monopolies. It's how they affect the competitive environment. The issue, as I see it, is that Apple prevents them from using other payment systems and other app stores. The practice of tying one line of business (the app store, with its review process/curation/distribution/support) to an unrelated line of business (payment processing or appearing on other app stores) is looked dimly on by antitrust courts. Real lawyers, feel free to correct me on this :O
AshamedCaptain 6y ago
Epic's most likely goal here is to use their muscle to get a discount in both the Apple & Google distribution fees. Quite sure they will settle something like this out of court and noone will be the wiser. To paint this with a Securing Lasting Freedoms for All headline is a farce of the most disgusting variety.
- hinkley 6y ago
  My inner cynic thinks this is an attempt to paint themselves as outcasts and use it to convince their audience to jump through hoops to give them even more money. But if nothing else, I now understand why Kindle is so 'stupid' as to not have a way for me to buy a book without bouncing out to amazon.com and clicking half a dozen buttons. They don't have a choice. As we were discussing recently with Amazon comingling, the whole notion of retail is that you take on some of the liability of the product, logistics and inventory management risks, in exchange for a big slice of the profits. I'm curious if there's any way that a large vendor on the Apple or Google app stores could make it more of a partnership, split more of the risks and the rewards. I'm just not sure how you'd swing that. If the app store is down, that's all on Apple or Google. If the Steam portal in the App Store is down, that is going to reflect on Apple/Google more than it does on Valve, or Paradox games. You can't split curation, billing is iffy. Advertising, maybe, but how much does Apple really do/provide? I've said before that I think Apple should lower their margins on the App Store, but I'm not sure how you would make that fly politically. The margins on their other units are at least that high, and all companies end up paying lip service to their least profitable division even if it's important. Put $30m into new materials science for the Apple Watch 9 case, or put $25m into a facelift for the App Store? Decisions, decisions...
gamesunder 6y ago
I am even more cynical. What they want is way bigger than the Fortnite 30%. They want to be the primary alternative checkout for in-app purchases. This is just the Trojan Horse that, if they win, opens that gate.
bllguo 6y ago
> the only reason Epic is doing this is to make more money. i don't understand the insistence on mentioning this. Why should anyone care? The only meaningful question is whether it is beneficial or not (for you/for devs/for society/etc.) if Epic gets their way. Your demand for noble motivations is not only unrealistic, it doesn't affect the merits of the arguments

jagged-chisel 6y ago

I'm curious: how much revenue are they making off others' games written on Unreal and appearing on iOS? This isn't some coy "oh, well Epic takes a cut, too!" because IIRC their cut is reasonable. But I do think one could consider Unreal licensing for iOS games part of their iOS revenue. Edit: also recall that Apple can't currently prevent others using Unreal to make games for iOS: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/judge-issues-restraining-order-protecting-unreal-engine-development-on-ios/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/judge-issues-restrain...

chrisco255 6y ago

Really? Microsoft was ruled a monopoly over similar issues with browsers. All the big tech monopolies should be shifting uncomfortably in their seats right now. They are rapidly losing support from the pro-business conservatives who are normally against this sort of regulation on account of being deplatformed, shadow banned, and railroaded. Who's left to stand up for big tech? Is that the new Democrat platform? I don't think being pro-monopoly is going to rally the progressives.

olliej 6y ago
Microsoft used its dominant power in one arena to take control of another. Apple doesn’t have a dominant position in smartphone land, and their fees are inline with other hardware and software marketplaces.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Of course it does. It has an extremely secure duopoly with Google and it's even stronger when you look at US market in isolation. You don't have to own 100% of a market to be broken up or regulated for anticompetitive practices.
  - olliej 6y ago
    I just want to verify that you also consider Sony, Nintendo, and MS to be monopolies as well?
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      Nintendo was born in 1889 and starting from 1960 it sells game consoles In those 60 years have sold 750 million consoles (mostly Gameboys) Apple sold 2.2 billion devices in 13 years (only counting mobile devices) and have become the company with the largest capitalization in human history I think their power is not comparable, they don't even play in the same league
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  I see two arguments usually pop up when talking about Apple being a monopolyst 1 - you can buy androids 2 - MS had a dominant position, Apple does not But 1 - Android is not a replacement for Apple and it doesn't come for free (extracting data from an Apple device is harder for the user than it is for a malicious actor, all the money spent on the Apple platform go out of the window) 2 -if Apple has no power, how is it possible that it killed Flash and stopped the adoption of PWAs? If Apple is different from MS why the only browser available on iOS is Safari which is also the main vector for vulnerabilities on Apple mobile devices? (according to security analysts) So Apple has a de facto monopoly, one that is costly to escape from and it's using it to push its own browser volunterly crippling a web standard (PWAs) that would make apps and their store less relevant. If that's a crime or violates antitrust laws I don't know, but that it is true I'm sure.

paconbork 6y ago

A for-profit company isn't going to spend millions and millions on something that doesn't benefit them. Something can make a company money and be generally good for others as well. If they get some good PR while making money and making things better, then more power to them

CPLX 6y ago

The only reason Apple is doing this is to make more money too. You'll find that's a common thread in the motivations of all parties in nearly every business dispute. The question is which point of view is a better match for desired policy outcomes.

augustt 6y ago

Morality and wanting money aren't mutually exclusive - see also: minimum wage.

olliej 6y ago
Doesn’t epic sell loot boxes and virtual money in a bunch of their games? Despite those being well understood to be functionally gambling and exploitative?

mewse 6y ago

“That last 30%” is kind of a funny phrase. If you were saying “That last 5%” I would probably agree with your take. But 30% is a massive chunk of the profit of every company in that whole market. 30% isn’t “that last”; it’s a substantial chunk of the money generated by the product you’ve spent years making, and I have trouble mustering your apparent disdain for anybody that would by so gauche as to expend energy trying to recover it.

michannne 6y ago
Yeah, I understand that platforms like Steam also take huge chunks, even Amazon, for hosting, providing visibility and other such features. Still, 1/3 of my revenue is ALOT of money
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Steam takes their cut for being the most convenient way to buy games, which drives sales, and developers are happy to be there. Apple take their cut because nobody has a choice, other than not to buy Apple devices. First is a honest partnership, second is extortion.
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    Also you don't need to be on Steam to be able to install the game. You also don't need to be only on Steam to be on Steam.

baddox 6y ago

As far as I can tell, Apple was never going to ban games built on Unreal Engine. Epic made it sound very dramatic, but it seems like that was nothing more than Apple terminating Epic's developer account (for ongoing deliberate violation of rules in the Fortnite app) which happens to also be the account they use to publish the Unreal Engine on MacOS. In other words, Epic wouldn't be able to publish signed updated versions of the engine on MacOS, at least without creating a different developer account. Unless I'm missing something here, there was never a real threat that all games using Unreal Engine would be banned.

hinkley 6y ago
I never really thought about what the culture must be like an Epic games until this whole passion play started. Either they are very, very good at cultivating a public image that speaks directly to the Fortnight demographic, or this is who they are now. Games are great because they can twist physics and omit other bits of reality like politics or sociology. But if you take on Apple like you're trying to win a video game, buddy that's going to be a really expensive lesson.

bmarquez 6y ago

> this is a PR stunt and nothing more Apple has banned Microsoft xCloud, NVIDIA GeForce NOW, and Google Stadia from existing on iOS (from the article). Epic may not be doing this out of the kindness of their hearts, but they do have the clout to push back against these restrictions. I view Apple's restrictions on gaming as a PR stunt...especially when streaming videos and music get a pass.

baddox 6y ago

> the only reason Epic is doing this is to make more money. They want that last 30%. It's actually a little sillier even than that. Epic in fact want to have their own app store (the Epic Games Store) on iOS, and thus exercise the precise sort of profitable market power over software developers that they claim to oppose Apple doing. They're pretty explicit about this in their statements.

metiscus 6y ago
In opening a path for them they allow others to have freedom too. You won't often find people or companies fighting major fights based purely on altruism alone. We shouldn't discount the broader value of this fight.

tomcam 6y ago

Agree with the cynicism, but while IANAL I believe they are on strong legal grounds. The issue is not the iOS store monopoly directly. Antitrust laws don't forbid monopolies. It's how they affect the competitive environment. The issue, as I see it, is that Apple prevents them from using other payment systems and other app stores. The practice of tying one line of business (the app store, with its review process/curation/distribution/support) to an unrelated line of business (payment processing or appearing on other app stores) is looked dimly on by antitrust courts. Real lawyers, feel free to correct me on this :O

AshamedCaptain 6y ago

Epic's most likely goal here is to use their muscle to get a discount in both the Apple & Google distribution fees. Quite sure they will settle something like this out of court and noone will be the wiser. To paint this with a Securing Lasting Freedoms for All headline is a farce of the most disgusting variety.

hinkley 6y ago
My inner cynic thinks this is an attempt to paint themselves as outcasts and use it to convince their audience to jump through hoops to give them even more money. But if nothing else, I now understand why Kindle is so 'stupid' as to not have a way for me to buy a book without bouncing out to amazon.com and clicking half a dozen buttons. They don't have a choice. As we were discussing recently with Amazon comingling, the whole notion of retail is that you take on some of the liability of the product, logistics and inventory management risks, in exchange for a big slice of the profits. I'm curious if there's any way that a large vendor on the Apple or Google app stores could make it more of a partnership, split more of the risks and the rewards. I'm just not sure how you'd swing that. If the app store is down, that's all on Apple or Google. If the Steam portal in the App Store is down, that is going to reflect on Apple/Google more than it does on Valve, or Paradox games. You can't split curation, billing is iffy. Advertising, maybe, but how much does Apple really do/provide? I've said before that I think Apple should lower their margins on the App Store, but I'm not sure how you would make that fly politically. The margins on their other units are at least that high, and all companies end up paying lip service to their least profitable division even if it's important. Put $30m into new materials science for the Apple Watch 9 case, or put $25m into a facelift for the App Store? Decisions, decisions...

gamesunder 6y ago

I am even more cynical. What they want is way bigger than the Fortnite 30%. They want to be the primary alternative checkout for in-app purchases. This is just the Trojan Horse that, if they win, opens that gate.

bllguo 6y ago

> the only reason Epic is doing this is to make more money. i don't understand the insistence on mentioning this. Why should anyone care? The only meaningful question is whether it is beneficial or not (for you/for devs/for society/etc.) if Epic gets their way. Your demand for noble motivations is not only unrealistic, it doesn't affect the merits of the arguments