6 ms·
Epic Games CEO Likens Apple's Core Tech Fee to Unity's Disastrous Runtime Fee
- acedTrex 3y agoApple and Unity have slightly different financial moats
- zyang 3y agoDoesn't Unreal charge a "core technology fee"?
- belltaco 3y agoEpic/Unreal doesn't also own 50% of the PC hardware market making tens of billions at high margins where only Unreal made Games are allowed and other game engines are banned.
- TylerE 3y agoThey're probably over 50% of AAA games. Freakin' everything is Unreal Engine these days.
- huhtenberg 3y agoBecause it's really good, not because it's the only option.
- matwood 3y agoWait, did Android suddenly disappear?
- adventured 3y agoI'm guessing they mean the app store on the iPhone, that being the only option. The iPhone itself has been consistently superior to its competition across its history (although obviously not always best at everything). And I say that as an Android fan.
- belltaco 3y agoI meant the PC hardware market, edited it.
- matwood 3y agoIn the EU, iOS sits ~33% marketshare, ~60% in the US, and ~28% worldwide.
- matwood 3y agoDifferent but yes: Under the standard EULA, Unreal Engine is free to use for learning, and for developing internal projects; it also enables you to distribute many commercial projects without paying any fees to Epic Games, including custom projects delivered to clients, linear content (such as films and television shows) and any product that earns no revenue or whose revenue falls below the royalty threshold. A 5% royalty is due only if you are distributing an off-the-shelf product that incorporates Unreal Engine code (such as a game) and the lifetime gross revenue from that product exceeds $1 million USD; in this case, the first $1 million remains royalty-exempt. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/license https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/license
- sdflhasjd 3y agoYes, but you choose to use Unreal because it's actually good. Meanwhile Apple gives you no choice.
- kemayo 3y agoYou do have the choice to not target an Apple platform. There's lots of apps that're exclusive to Android out there. I don't like this fee model, but let's not pretend Android doesn't exist.
- pmelendez 3y agoI think the context of iOS is safely implied here. To say you have the option of going Android is as relevant as giving the option of doing a mobile app; Sure it is an option but out of the context of the discussion.
- sdflhasjd 3y agoThe choice is in the technology you use when you build an application for a user. You don't get a choice what platform you build your apps for, you already have your customers, and they already have their phones. If you're a business for which the technology provided by Apple is not a key part of the product, then you're being forced to pay for technology you're trying your hardest not to use but are obligated to by policy. If I build a Flutter app for checking bus times, what am I paying Apple for? I'm already deliberately avoiding their badly documented frameworks. Apple don't own the buses, they don't own the internet, they should not be claiming ownership of the users phones.
- ben_w 3y agoAnd web apps. Even as an iOS dev myself, I can see there's a lot of apps out there that should've been websites.
- TylerE 3y agoThis comparison makes no sense. Unreal is a game engine. Apple is a platform. Are you expecting Apple to open an Android app store or something?
- kevingadd 3y agoThey charge royalties, not a per-install fee. If your app is free you wouldn't owe anything, unlike Apple's new system.
- TylerE 3y agoYou do not owe royalties to Apple unless your app is either A: non-free or B: on another store.
- kevingadd 3y agoThe install fee applies to free applications.
- TylerE 3y agoNo it doesn't. Not unless you opt into the new agreement, which a free app would have zero reason to do so, as the whole reason would be to pay reduced commission, which is irrelevant.
- pritambaral 3y ago> ... the whole reason would be to pay reduced commission Citation needed. I use F-Droid not because I want the devs of the apps I install from there to be free of the Google Play Tax. I use it so I can be free of Google Play.
- TylerE 3y agoWhat does that have to do with the iOS ecosystem?
- johnnyanmac 3y agoAn app that wants to be free fro the Google play ecosystem can do so without paying Google. An app that wants to be free from the App Store needs to pay Apple, or set up a company as a non-profit. You see the parallels and why "I-Droid" won't be a sustainable store?
- nickthegreek 3y agoUnity was not going to allow its users to use the old terms. Apple developers have the choice to stick with the current system.
- misnome 3y agoUnity also relicensed retrospectively! Which is also not happening here! Epic had their day in court to prove their claims, and lost, so everything they say sounds like sour grapes.
- jayceedenton 3y agoHow is that relevant? The point of this entire exercise is to allow developers and consumers to leave the Apple app store if they like. A free choice. If people must stick with it because the alternative will lead to total financial ruin, then there is still no choice.
- nickthegreek 3y agoIt's directly relevant to the tweet that mockingly said this scheme worked out so well for Unity. If Unity would have allowed developers to choose to stay on the old terms or migrate to the new terms, it might have ended differently for them. I am not passing judgement on either company, just on the idea that Apple will fail because Unity failed.
- nerdjon 3y agoEspecially when the tweet is a severe stretch of the truth or a straight up lie. > Did... did Apple just introduce the equivalent of Unity's runtime install fee... but for all iOS app developers in the EU?! That answer to that question is without a doubt, "No" unlike what Tim is trying to say.
- DueDilligence 3y ago[dead]
- jasode 3y agoA key difference is that Apple is making the new install fee "optional" in the sense that you can stay with existing Developer TOS (no install fee) -- or -- switch to the newer EU TOS (with install fees)[0]. Unity didn't have the "keep existing license with no changes" option so the outrage level is going to be different for Apple. Unity did eventually relent after a week and reversed their install fees decision. Apple doesn't have to do a Unity-style policy reversal because they already have the existing TOS that don't have the fees. That said, there's no doubt that Apple carefully crafted the financial terms of the new EU developer TOS to make it economically unattractive. [0] [...] Also today, Apple is sharing new business terms available for developers’ apps in the European Union. Developers can choose to adopt these new business terms, or stay on Apple’s existing terms. [...] -- excerpt from https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/01/apple-announces-changes-to-ios-safari-and-the-app-store-in-the-european-union/#:~:text=Apple%20is%20sharing%20new%20business%20terms%20available%20for%20developers%E2%80%99%20apps%20in%20the%20European%20Union.%20Developers%20can%20choose%20to%20adopt%20these%20new%20business%20terms,%20or%20stay%20on%20Apple%E2%80%99s%20existing%20terms https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/01/apple-announces-chang....
- nostrademons 3y agoIs it actually a key difference? The whole point of the DMA is that the EU wants to encourage competition on platform marketplaces, so that the platform owner does not have a say in which apps can go on the platform. Here, Apple is saying that "As the platform owner, if you choose not to adopt our app store with the existing terms, we will levy very large fees on you for the simple use of our platform." It's doing exactly what the DMA was created to prevent it from doing. The DMA has very broad anti-circumvention provisions (i.e. "If you comply with the letter but not the spirit of this law, expect to see us in court anyway"), so I'm expecting a protracted legal battle between Apple and EU authorities. Plus this smells an awful lot like leveraging a monopoly, and Apple is appealing the whole law itself anyway, so this is gonna keep the lawyers busy for years.
- jasode 3y ago>Is it actually a key difference? Because another commenter[0] also wondered the same thing, I will answer "Yes" and "No" because it depends on what type of discussion is happening. - If it's a "big picture" discussion about freedom from Apple's App Store and avoiding their commissions, then the answer is "no difference" because the overall desirable outcome that developers wanted didn't happen. - If it's a specific discussion about Tim Sweeney & Ashley Gullen's tweet equating the Unity "disastrous" fees with Apple's new optional EU TOS, then the answer is "yes there is a key difference" In response to TS & AS tweet, Unity's new fee rollout was a public relations disaster because (1) it was retroactive (2) had no option to stay with existing license to avoid the fee. Developers felt "betrayed" by the change and Unity eventually backtracked the changes. Apple will not suffer the same embarrassment that Unity did because devs can just continue "business as usual" by staying with Apple's old TOS (even while EU and Apple continue to fight it out in courts.) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39147211 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39147211
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dkarras 3y agohe is just trying to be inflammatory because he didn't get what he wanted. with unity, you had no alternative. CTF only applies if you want to not use Apple's own AppStore.
- Yujf 3y agoYes which is even more absurd. You get billed for saving apple money!
- dkarras 3y agoyes I get the protest, but it is an ideological one. you create a device, and all the dev tools around it, should a government be able to force you to give it away and support people using it for free? they obviously can't (and shouldn't). EU can plug all the holes it wants, in the end Apple can say "hey we are selling the dev kit for $500k, only good for this major version of the OS" and that will be the end of that. Apple is trying to do the "no upfront cost, low barrier to entry" thing here - they have to get something for it to make it worth their while, but if forced it would come to that and no one can argue that they should not be able to sell their tools.
- dwallin 3y ago> You create a device, and all the dev tools around it, should a government be able to force you to give it away and support people using it for free? This is an overly broad straw man argument because no one is trying to force Apple to give away iPhones. And yes, the government should be able to force you make major concessions, especially if your device becomes integral to the daily lives of half the citizens of said government. Apple is selling these devices at a significant profit to end users. The primary purpose of the app store for Apple is to provide value to those consumers, so they continue to buy iPhones. Even if the EU decided tomorrow to confiscate all profits Apple makes from the app store in perpetuity Apple would continue to offer the App Store.
- dkarras 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- alphabettsy 3y agoEpic games, the company where you can only purchase some titles through them and don’t really own what you’ve bought? That Epic games?
- daeros 3y agoI agree with Tim Sweeney, but I will note that It's awkward to do so because Epic charges to be in their App store too, so he's being a bit hypocritical. But I'd have the tech world know that logically speaking, appeals to hypocrisy only speaks to the men's character. They do nothing to refute the argument the hypocrite is making. It's not as simple as So and so is a hypocrite and therefore their argument is invalid. If that were the case then every time someone who smokes told you it's a filthy habit don't copy me, you would take up smoking concluding there was vitamin C in it, and it must be good for you.
- Astraco 3y agoNo, it's not hypocritical. You don't need the Epic Store to install or distribute your game on Windows.
- barelysapient 3y agoRight, you buy a windows device with that calculation in mind. Apples always has had fees and probably always will as long as they control the os.
- jorgec 3y ago[dead]