4 ms·

Solidly? Not really. Still believe the Epic and Apple fight is all about Tim Sweeney being a greedy business man. Zero proof this 15% reduction has anything to

Solidly? Not really. Still believe the Epic and Apple fight is all about Tim Sweeney being a greedy business man. Zero proof this 15% reduction has anything to do with pressure from that legal battle. Apple has made rev share changes in the past unprovoked (like 15% for sustained subs). How long do you think this change was in the works for? If this change was a response that’s great. But I would bet in that case Apple did it to take wind out of Epic’s sails around standing up for little devs. Apple just showed they cared about them in a single change. Will Epic back away now? Fat chance.

friedman23 6y ago
Maybe Tim Sweeney is greedy but 30% cut on revenue is exorbitant.
ROARosen 6y ago
> Apple just showed they cared about them in a single change. Apple just showed they care about their image. If they really cared about small devs, they can allow third-party app stores or platforms like Epic's, which would really help developers by bringing down processing costs.
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  I agree that the concept of a store within a store should exist for Epic and for users. I think “processing costs” is not really the issue. Apple’s revenue sharing business agreements just happen to be collected at processing time. They could easily invoice later. The core issue is: how much should Epic pay to have their own store on the iPhone?
- zepto 6y ago
  If bringing down processing costs is the issue, Apple just did that. Allowing multiple stores would increase costs doe small developers, because of the overhead of dealing with many stores and many sets of rules. Any cost saving would disappear into one or two levels of middlemen, otherwise known as publishing companies.
whywhywhywhy 6y ago
>is all about Tim Sweeney being a greedy business man Tim Sweeney provides one of the most advanced game engine technologies in the world completely for free for all revenue under 1 million. After 1 million you pay 5% on revenue over that, if your game makes $1,200,000 you pay Tim Sweeney $10,000. If you make 2 games and both games equally make 600K you pay Sweeney nothing. It's definitely a business but not sure "greedy" describes this.
- carlosdp 6y ago
  The Unreal development fund also regularly funds competitor open source game engines, like Godot Engine. Tim Sweeney is definitely not someone I'd describe as "greedy."
  - enos_feedler 6y ago
    Great. So if I kill someone on my walk to the public pool to save a drowning child I am not a murderer.
    - bigbubba 6y ago
      Have you chosen the most heinous crime you can think of for this goofy analogy, in hopes the immorality of murder would tarnish Tim Sweeney by association?
      - enos_feedler 6y ago
        Maybe subconsciously. I wish I could give my brain credit for it.
      - birdyrooster 6y ago
        Probably just reduction ad absurdum. But I think about this every time I make one whether this rhetoric and is doing as you say. At the very least it has the smell of bias, which could make the listener believe you were trying to slander.
- 6y ago
danShumway 6y ago
> Tim Sweeney being a greedy business man. Not really relevant to what we're talking about. > Apple has made rev share changes in the past unprovoked (like 15% for sustained subs) That wasn't an unprovoked change, it was an olive branch to companies like Amazon that were pressuring Apple for more attractive terms. > But I would bet in that case Apple did it to take wind out of Epic’s sails around standing up for little devs. Right, that's what I said. Apple is facing pressure from Epic, it's getting bad PR in press releases from other large companies like Microsoft, indie devs are starting to get mad, and legislators are starting to float ideas about antitrust. Apple is in a position where they need a positive PR push about their app store policies; they need to be able to hit back at the negative press and claim that they're offering more attractive terms than the competition. They're in that position because the negative pressure is working; it's forcing them to respond. > Zero proof this 15% reduction has anything to do with pressure from that legal battle. Short of email leaks or Apple publicly admitting that they're doing this to take public pressure off of their store policies, what would convince you that these changes are related to the current legal battle(s) they're facing? My take is that we've seen this happen multiple times with multiple companies. Steam went through the same process with Epic: they got slammed by publishers for doing very little work in courting them, and as a result, they changed some of their terms to be more attractive to large studios. Microsoft originally ported IE to Macs to help try and rein in suspicions that they were trying to turn the web into a Windows only platform. Apple's recent review process overhauls are minor concessions to try and get people to stop talking about the negative experiences that publishers like Basecamp have had with opaque rules and rejections. At some point, when you look at the broader industry, you start to see patterns, and those patterns are that broad, uniform negative press and lawsuits are often (but not always) effective tools when it comes to forcing companies to at least make small concessions on their policies. I think it's very reasonable to look at this change as an indication that Apple is scared of antitrust and thinks that it is possible that further antitrust efforts might succeed.

friedman23 6y ago

Maybe Tim Sweeney is greedy but 30% cut on revenue is exorbitant.

ROARosen 6y ago

> Apple just showed they cared about them in a single change. Apple just showed they care about their image. If they really cared about small devs, they can allow third-party app stores or platforms like Epic's, which would really help developers by bringing down processing costs.

enos_feedler 6y ago
I agree that the concept of a store within a store should exist for Epic and for users. I think “processing costs” is not really the issue. Apple’s revenue sharing business agreements just happen to be collected at processing time. They could easily invoice later. The core issue is: how much should Epic pay to have their own store on the iPhone?
zepto 6y ago
If bringing down processing costs is the issue, Apple just did that. Allowing multiple stores would increase costs doe small developers, because of the overhead of dealing with many stores and many sets of rules. Any cost saving would disappear into one or two levels of middlemen, otherwise known as publishing companies.

whywhywhywhy 6y ago

>is all about Tim Sweeney being a greedy business man Tim Sweeney provides one of the most advanced game engine technologies in the world completely for free for all revenue under 1 million. After 1 million you pay 5% on revenue over that, if your game makes $1,200,000 you pay Tim Sweeney $10,000. If you make 2 games and both games equally make 600K you pay Sweeney nothing. It's definitely a business but not sure "greedy" describes this.

carlosdp 6y ago
The Unreal development fund also regularly funds competitor open source game engines, like Godot Engine. Tim Sweeney is definitely not someone I'd describe as "greedy."
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  Great. So if I kill someone on my walk to the public pool to save a drowning child I am not a murderer.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    Have you chosen the most heinous crime you can think of for this goofy analogy, in hopes the immorality of murder would tarnish Tim Sweeney by association?
    - enos_feedler 6y ago
      Maybe subconsciously. I wish I could give my brain credit for it.
    - birdyrooster 6y ago
      Probably just reduction ad absurdum. But I think about this every time I make one whether this rhetoric and is doing as you say. At the very least it has the smell of bias, which could make the listener believe you were trying to slander.
6y ago

danShumway 6y ago

> Tim Sweeney being a greedy business man. Not really relevant to what we're talking about. > Apple has made rev share changes in the past unprovoked (like 15% for sustained subs) That wasn't an unprovoked change, it was an olive branch to companies like Amazon that were pressuring Apple for more attractive terms. > But I would bet in that case Apple did it to take wind out of Epic’s sails around standing up for little devs. Right, that's what I said. Apple is facing pressure from Epic, it's getting bad PR in press releases from other large companies like Microsoft, indie devs are starting to get mad, and legislators are starting to float ideas about antitrust. Apple is in a position where they need a positive PR push about their app store policies; they need to be able to hit back at the negative press and claim that they're offering more attractive terms than the competition. They're in that position because the negative pressure is working; it's forcing them to respond. > Zero proof this 15% reduction has anything to do with pressure from that legal battle. Short of email leaks or Apple publicly admitting that they're doing this to take public pressure off of their store policies, what would convince you that these changes are related to the current legal battle(s) they're facing? My take is that we've seen this happen multiple times with multiple companies. Steam went through the same process with Epic: they got slammed by publishers for doing very little work in courting them, and as a result, they changed some of their terms to be more attractive to large studios. Microsoft originally ported IE to Macs to help try and rein in suspicions that they were trying to turn the web into a Windows only platform. Apple's recent review process overhauls are minor concessions to try and get people to stop talking about the negative experiences that publishers like Basecamp have had with opaque rules and rejections. At some point, when you look at the broader industry, you start to see patterns, and those patterns are that broad, uniform negative press and lawsuits are often (but not always) effective tools when it comes to forcing companies to at least make small concessions on their policies. I think it's very reasonable to look at this change as an indication that Apple is scared of antitrust and thinks that it is possible that further antitrust efforts might succeed.