Good. The sooner a big well-funded company hits this duopoly wall, the better. They will have the resources to fight this, and the outcome will hopefully be positive for all other developers.
Apple and Google are gatekeepers to all mobile devices (practically), but the value they add as gatekeepers is questionable. Certainly there is some value in their delivery (and much lesser so, their security) service; but their fees are not market set (since they are effectively monopolies by device type). If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably.
Android has a plethora of app stores, there have always been tons of them. Some phones have shipped with three or more, one from Google, one from the phone manufacturer and one from the network. Then you could add another one from Amazon, etc, etc.
Google Play Store won out on Android simply because the multitude of stores was a nightmare for customers. They don’t want multiple stores, they want one store on this phone, that will also be on their next phone. Any ‘monopoly’ wasn’t seized by Google, it was pushed eagerly on them by customers craving consolidation and simplicity.
Same for me, I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust. The same goes for my Switch too, I’m quite happy for Nintendo to run the store for it. If I don’t like how they run it, I’ll get a PS 5 or XBOX. That’s where the competition is. I have plenty of choices thanks.
The really tragic part about this comment is the idea that what was needed was a "big, well funded company" to hit the duopoly.
The law exists that the strongest might not always get their way. Literally anyone hitting it /should/ have the same claims, rights, laws, and the same process as the very rich and strong when up against these enormous "legal persons". It's an ideal and we won't achieve perfection in trying to get there and there are tradeoffs with other ideals.
But let's never lose sight of the ideal of equality before the law and the strongest should not always get their way.
It's just so important. Without it, we end up with people as the enemy of the state with its monopoly on violent enforcement, then on to revolution and all that horror.
I think it's an ideal that is slightly more important than the desire and profit of google and apple claiming the right to tax success and profit as though they were nation-states and the welfare of other big, well-funded profitable companies that don't like that. Regulatory capture is a disaster and an even bigger one that it first appears, be you leftist, rightist, collectivist, rugged individualist or, more hopefully, someone not so easy to label who thinks about individual issues and wants an outcome approximating what you think is best for everyone. We're all united against corruption, I have no doubt, we only disagree on whether particular cases are or are not that. The unity opposed to corruption is a thing that gets lost quite often as the division are imposed on us.
Although I agree with you that is good that a big company did hit both walls at the same time, and that might benefit developers in the long term, It doesn't seem fair to compare Google's behavior and Apple's.
In the Android world, you still have an option. The option isn't good, you might end up limited, the user have to enable a scary checkbox, but you have an option. If Epic wants, they can create a micro store for android. The same thing they do with PCs today.
But you can't do it with an apple device. You have no option, no workaround. That's the monopoly that needs to be destroyed.
Even if both companies behaviors are detrimental for developers, Apple is way, way worst.
That all said: Sadly, this is not about freedom but about money. My bet is that Apply will lose the restrictions for Epic and they will drop the case.
> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably
Maybe for the more expensive apps, but not for the $0.99 apps that consumers love. For those, 2-5% doesn't come anywhere near covering the credit card processing costs.
Another interesting thing this could do is get some momentum behind alternative app stores on Android. They exist but they're not popular. But suppose some of the big names who are tired of Google's fees go together, choose one and put all their apps there instead. That could be enough to get people to start using it. At which point, if it was charging e.g. 5% instead of 30%, many other apps would move there too.
It could be the best thing to happen in this space for a while.
“ Apple and Google are gatekeepers to all mobile devices (practically), but the value they add as gatekeepers is questionable”
If you own an app and remove it from all App Stores, you’ll quickly see what value they add. It’s the millions of users who are able to download your product.
> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably.
Now that's an interesting (though highly impractical) idea!
Imagine both app stores on every phone, providing the exact same service. There's probably no room for price fixing here, because Apple's market share is far smaller than Android's, so Apple would have a significant incentive to reduce the fees (and snatch some of Google's customers.
Now add two or three other "app store providers", and things get interesting.
2-5%? Where did you pull that number from? Credit card fees alone are 2-3%, and besides payment processing Apple/Google obviously has other costs (at the least distribution).
Let’s not forget, you can frame this as a “cost” to developers, but it can just as easily be framed as a convenience fee to consumers, I as a consumer am happy to pay it.
It’s astonishing how the most people here look at this whole situation just from the perspective of a developer and mostly tune out the implications for society and consumers. Case in point: You discount the value of security compared to delivery which is ridiculous. Apple does a much better job at the former and look at the societal outcomes. The value generated by a relatively safe computing platform is ENORMOUS. Even a developer should be able to acknowledge as much.
I agree that fees seem somewhat high but we might be underestimating the cost it takes to check all the apps. One reasonable change of law could be a requirement for cost and revenue transparency for app stores and if we are hell bent on lowering prices maybe even a stipulation that margins must remain reasonable or even that stores must be run by a separate nonprofit with its own goals and guidelines.
However, all of this seems to be more in the realm of congress and law making rather than the courts. I don’t think that there are many good legal grounds for epic here. Everyone is paying... they can’t really claim damages in a competitive market sense as they are not worse of than any competitor.
1. What's the evidence to support a view that Apple and Google would charge 2-5%? Steam charges 30%. Epic takes 12%. Origin/EA takes 30%. Amazon takes an average 13% but it scales up to 25%.
2. Nobody gives a shit if this is better for developers, do they? Epic could charge +30% on IAP and use the Apple IAP system which is orders of magnitude better than anything else in the market. Developers set the pricing, and Apple handles security, authentication, refunds, etc. Consumers know it's a consistent experience across the platform.
3. The only benefit anyone seems to be able to come up with here is "choice" and a misguided belief that prices would come down as if by magic. Video game publishers took up to 60% of video game sales in physical stores, but the ARP of a video game has risen since 2008 and the advent of Steam and other online stores.
4. Seems like Apple has built a successful hardware/software play at least partially based on the fact that consumers don't have to do bullshit things like entering credit card details into some third party payment gateway to buy things, or deal with different refund policies from different folks. Consumers have flocked to the platform and now its success is being used as the basis of an attempt to strip it of its competitive advantage.
5. Same thing happened in the UK with sports coverage. The English Premier League was only broadcast on Sky until a few years ago. £29.99 a month got you all the live televised top flight soccer. Now to watch all of the televised soccer in the UK you need Sky Sports, Amazon Prime Video, and BT Sport. And Sky Sports prices have not decreased in real terms. (Oh, and BT's tech infrastructure is hot garbage.) I don't know anyone who loves the experience of having three different services to deal with and paying more money. Nobody is bleating about "choice" now.
6. I object to this on exactly the same terms as I object to Spotify's bitching that IAP margins -- which have been the same since before Spotify launched -- are too thin. They operate a business where they pay sixty cents of every dollar they make to rights holders for fuck's sake. Why are they bitching at Apple telling them that if they want to do a monthly subscription and net £9.99, they need to charge £14.28? Why can Spotify try to tell Apple that the HomePod -- a fucking speaker -- should let Spotify onto the device natively (when you can already connect via Bluetooth)?
7. Nearly every online store has serious arbitrary limitations placed on it by the operator of the store. Many of these are to do with the user experience, but many of them are a means of paying the bills for something they fund (hosting, marketing, app review team, developers working on APIs). It helps them sell phones, but it's intertwined with the user experience.
8. Gruber's point stands: if you think it's OK for Microsoft to prevent Sony from selling a PlayStation game streaming service on the Xbox Store, I don't see why you have an issue with this. It's not the same as Netflix: it's more like an app store within an app store.
Gatekeeping is never about adding value; it's about removing or keeping out [whatever is the opposite of value]. A subtle difference but one to keep in mind.
Dumb question but if there is no collusion between the companies in a duopoly, is it still illegal in the US? Or does it have to be a monopoly to be illegal?
> If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably.
You can only get nothing for 2-5% because that barely meets the payment processing fees (of course, a large company can negotiate a lower rate). If you’re saying 2-5% plus payment processing fees, then that might be possible depending on the solution and what’s provided to users and developers.
I don't think Epic Games is doing this to get the rates for the whole market down. They're just looking to get their tax cut reduced and increase profits. Once its down, they won't even look at indie developers and smaller firms.
The real reason Epic Games did this... Money - they were forced to hand over more than $500 Million dollars to Apple and Google in the past 12 months alone. That's $1.3 Million dollars per day.
Epic gave Apple over $360 Million dollars in the last twelve months just to list the game in it's app store, and over $150 Million to Google to do the same. By any measure, having to hand over half a billion dollars is just an insane cut of revenue to have to give two companies that had absolutely nothing to do with conceiving, designing or developing such a successful game.
"...absolutely nothing to do with conceiving, designing or developing such a successful game."
But it has everything to do with distributing the game. Also it has a lot to do with outsourcing the maintenance of the mobile platforms — designing hardware, OS releases, etc. Epic did not design their own hardware, their own silicon, build entire global supply chains, design UX, etc. Apple and Google did. Do they not deserve a cut?
I'm not here arguing the percentage of the revenue, just that that some percentage is clearly warranted here. Their relationship with Apple and Google is clearly a partnership, meaning it has to benefit both sides. Same way it works with consoles.
> By any measure, having to hand over half a billion dollars is just an insane cut of revenue to have to give two companies that had absolutely nothing to do with conceiving, designing or developing such a successful game.
Uh, you know Epic makes a 12% cut of all games sold in their store, right?
They develop the platform, including the API's, the toolkits, X-Code, updates, and the stores themselves (bandwidth billing etc). I wouldn't say they do nothing. Putting a value on that is harder, but you at least have to look at what they provide holistically. Its not just the app store.
I've always wanted to see a breakdown of Apple's value just based on the apps. For instance, Apple gets 30% of all money Tinder brings in. Tinder has to spend a lot of money on engineers and hosting the app - but Apple has close to no cost for this. If MTCH is worth 30B dollars based on apps that will indefinitely pay Apple 30% - how much extra market cap can you assign to Apple based solely on this? It must be at least 10 billion. Same must go for Fornite and dozens of other apps that gross huge numbers.
(I know Tinder is on other phones and the percentage could change - but you get the idea).
A lot of people are giving Epic a hard time for this, but I think it takes quite a bit of gusto to disrupt such an insane moneymaker in order to rally its userbase against these anti-competitive practices.
This is also bad, but Google still allows Android users to install Epic's game store (which does continue to list Fortnite), so I think it's a bit more defensible than Apple's ban in which it's now just impossible to install the game at all. Removing from the Play Store on Android isn't equivalent to removing from the App Store on iOS; you can install apps from outside of the Play Store on Android, but you can't install apps from outside of the App Store on iOS (at least, not without jailbreaking).
It's important to remember that Epic games isn't a champion of freedom here.
After Epic store launched on the PC in 2018, Epic used their platform's growing popularity to bait and/or strong arm (it's unclear to me) indie developers into exclusivity contracts on Epic's game store. This action caused a massive uproar in the gaming community because with those exclusivity deals, Epic made developers break existing preorders.
This isn't about freedom or choice or walled gardens. It's about cutting off a slightly bigger slice of a billion dollar pie.
Good for Epic to open this new battle front against Apple (and it seems Google).
As I wrote in the Apple thread: I think Epic are the ideal entity to do this since - so long as Apple or Google won't actively erase apps from people devices - they already have large install base and it's unlikely to grow much more.
Those who managed to install the latest update are already able to use epic "apple/google tax"less payment system so that protects their revenue for a while.
If either of those para-monopolies start erasing apps from people's phone's that would only add to the narrative that Epic, Spotify, EU et al. are already pushing: these two entities have built a global extractive platform that keeps partners and consumers hostage by their fees.
It may not just be for a lawsuit. They may provide fuel for a change of law, as Congress bumbles through an attempt at anti-trust enforcement, maybe they can become a test case for lawmakers looking for loss of competition and consumer choice. (Although existing lobbying dollars from Google, Apple, Facebook, & company may be effective in holding back representatives. Money in hand, in election season no less.)
Epic Games can show just how much the on-going appstore tax prevent new business models from taking hold. They shown an incredible ability to entice people to separate from their money, even convinced Disney?! to partner for branded content.
Alongside Epic Games licensing of the Unreal Engine at-or-below cost (12% [1]), I believe Sweeney's commitment to growing a "Metaverse" market at the expense of Epic's short-term profit.
This comes alongside EPIC(.org)'s comparisons about American vs Chinese & emerging markets competitiveness, linked today [2].
Isn't Congress on summer vacation and then they'll all be fighting for reelection anyway? I hardly doubt anything will get passed until next year if it's not important enough to get a bipartisan vote.
The Google statement really feels like they're subtweeting Apple:
> The open Android ecosystem lets developers distribute apps through multiple app stores. For game developers who choose to use the Play Store, we have consistent policies that are fair to developers and keep the store safe for users. While Fortnite remains available on Android, we can no longer make it available on Play because it violates our policies. However, we welcome the opportunity to continue our discussions with Epic and bring Fortnite back to Google Play.
I won't stop telling this: mobile platforms need not only third party app stores, but third party push notifications services too. Both iOS and Android love to kill apps in the background. This behavior, sans push notifications, cripples a lot of types of applications (chiefly, all messengers).
If there ever would be some legal pressure on Apple& Google to open up their platforms, it is important to make this point known to legislators.
Applications have to be paused to save battery, or killed to save memory. You can lookup the Android doc since the first version 10+ years ago, it explains very well the lifecycle of apps. Mobile devices would be unusable if it were not for that.
I really don't see how Epic has a leg to stand on here, not on a platform which allows sideloading. The Apple case is complicated, but this seems like a straightforward violation of an entirely voluntary contract.
Not commenting on whether Fortnite should or shouldn't have been removed from either app store, but wanted to point out one HUGE difference between Android and iOS here:
Removing Fortnite from the iOS store wholly removes the ability for people to download and play Fortnite on iOS devices, unless they're jailbroken.
Removing Fortnite from Google Play does no such thing. It's still readily available to download and play from other app stores and/or Epic directly. No need to jailbreak or root.
This is a huge difference in paradigms that'll probably go overlooked with headlines of "Apple and Google remove Fortnite from app stores".
I think this is why Epic is so ready to "take on Apple" (see: their Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite ad). This'll be a legal battle that's exciting to see, especially in the current/brewing anti-big-tech political climate.
Confirmed by The Verge, who got a statement from Google:
> The open Android ecosystem lets developers distribute apps through multiple app stores. For game developers who choose to use the Play Store, we have consistent policies that are fair to developers and keep the store safe for users. While Fortnite remains available on Android, we can no longer make it available on Play because it violates our policies. However, we welcome the opportunity to continue our discussions with Epic and bring Fortnite back to Google Play.
It's fascinating that Google is deciding to form a unified front with Apple instead of playing the "good guy" and taking an opportunity to paint their competitor in a bad light. It really betrays just how important that 30% fee must be to them. The plot just keeps thickening.
If anyone likes to follow app store case law, Oyez has the verbal arguments for Apple v Pepper that follow with text captions: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204
As I see it this improves their chances of winning the suit. By having Google act in the same manner they have a stronger case that the market is a duopoly that restricts customer's freedom.
Remember that courts tend to be very lenient towards business practices, so it takes egregious behavior to convince them to step in. This bolster's Epic's position.
the 1984 ad is a little strange TBH. Apple was saying IBM wants to control the future of all information in this country, so come join us instead. Epic is saying, we want more money so standby while we go to court. Where is the epic smart phone alternative which is going to save us from the apple monopoly?
It will be better for all developers if the gatekeepers lower their rates, but epic really doesn't strike me as a white knight here.
It's a fair enough point.
However, I think that the truth is that intrinsically you can't find a player with enough resources and weight to throw around and force the issue, who isn't also a self-interested money-hungry corporate bully when the occasion suits them.
The app store is a two way street. For most developers, apple can hide behind "no one's forcing you to be on our app store". And they are right, apple doesn't have a monopoly, but they have a lot of users, and what they really have is a lot of users who spend money on their platform. They have the customers you want.
But there is the flip side, which is that apple needs apps to be in the store, and sometimes needs specific ones. For most companies, apple doesn't need your app. The only parties that stand a chance at making waves are those who do control apps apple can't do without, e.g. "what do you mean I can't get Fortnite on my iPhone?"
No one in the situation is gonna be perfect, because at the end of the day, this is a fight for who provides what value and should get what money. It's sort of a Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla situation.
I'm confused, the other story on this is "Apple kicked Fortnite off the app store". Did Google coincidentally do the same thing? Did Epic actually pull their game in both places?
Epic pushed a server-side update which gave users on both iOS and Android access to discounted prices that sidestepped the usual 30% cut to Apple or Google. This was a violation of terms of service on both platforms, so Fortnite was removed from both the App Store and the Play Store. Epic already knew this would happen, which is why they prepared their PR and legal teams accordingly.
One reason for the duopoly is that it cost more to have your app on more platforms. Its a disaster that for example government apps like id only works on the latest ios or android. There are also Sailfish, FirefoxOS, bunch of feature phone OS, and likely a lot I dont know of. The duopoly is self inflicted by the software industry.
[+] [-] blunte|5 years ago|reply
Apple and Google are gatekeepers to all mobile devices (practically), but the value they add as gatekeepers is questionable. Certainly there is some value in their delivery (and much lesser so, their security) service; but their fees are not market set (since they are effectively monopolies by device type). If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably.
[+] [-] simonh|5 years ago|reply
Google Play Store won out on Android simply because the multitude of stores was a nightmare for customers. They don’t want multiple stores, they want one store on this phone, that will also be on their next phone. Any ‘monopoly’ wasn’t seized by Google, it was pushed eagerly on them by customers craving consolidation and simplicity.
Same for me, I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust. The same goes for my Switch too, I’m quite happy for Nintendo to run the store for it. If I don’t like how they run it, I’ll get a PS 5 or XBOX. That’s where the competition is. I have plenty of choices thanks.
[+] [-] harry8|5 years ago|reply
The law exists that the strongest might not always get their way. Literally anyone hitting it /should/ have the same claims, rights, laws, and the same process as the very rich and strong when up against these enormous "legal persons". It's an ideal and we won't achieve perfection in trying to get there and there are tradeoffs with other ideals.
But let's never lose sight of the ideal of equality before the law and the strongest should not always get their way.
It's just so important. Without it, we end up with people as the enemy of the state with its monopoly on violent enforcement, then on to revolution and all that horror. I think it's an ideal that is slightly more important than the desire and profit of google and apple claiming the right to tax success and profit as though they were nation-states and the welfare of other big, well-funded profitable companies that don't like that. Regulatory capture is a disaster and an even bigger one that it first appears, be you leftist, rightist, collectivist, rugged individualist or, more hopefully, someone not so easy to label who thinks about individual issues and wants an outcome approximating what you think is best for everyone. We're all united against corruption, I have no doubt, we only disagree on whether particular cases are or are not that. The unity opposed to corruption is a thing that gets lost quite often as the division are imposed on us.
[+] [-] danilocesar|5 years ago|reply
In the Android world, you still have an option. The option isn't good, you might end up limited, the user have to enable a scary checkbox, but you have an option. If Epic wants, they can create a micro store for android. The same thing they do with PCs today.
But you can't do it with an apple device. You have no option, no workaround. That's the monopoly that needs to be destroyed.
Even if both companies behaviors are detrimental for developers, Apple is way, way worst.
That all said: Sadly, this is not about freedom but about money. My bet is that Apply will lose the restrictions for Epic and they will drop the case.
[+] [-] tzs|5 years ago|reply
Maybe for the more expensive apps, but not for the $0.99 apps that consumers love. For those, 2-5% doesn't come anywhere near covering the credit card processing costs.
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|5 years ago|reply
It could be the best thing to happen in this space for a while.
[+] [-] AznHisoka|5 years ago|reply
If you own an app and remove it from all App Stores, you’ll quickly see what value they add. It’s the millions of users who are able to download your product.
[+] [-] ckastner|5 years ago|reply
Now that's an interesting (though highly impractical) idea!
Imagine both app stores on every phone, providing the exact same service. There's probably no room for price fixing here, because Apple's market share is far smaller than Android's, so Apple would have a significant incentive to reduce the fees (and snatch some of Google's customers.
Now add two or three other "app store providers", and things get interesting.
[+] [-] hellisothers|5 years ago|reply
Let’s not forget, you can frame this as a “cost” to developers, but it can just as easily be framed as a convenience fee to consumers, I as a consumer am happy to pay it.
[+] [-] ace_of_spades|5 years ago|reply
I agree that fees seem somewhat high but we might be underestimating the cost it takes to check all the apps. One reasonable change of law could be a requirement for cost and revenue transparency for app stores and if we are hell bent on lowering prices maybe even a stipulation that margins must remain reasonable or even that stores must be run by a separate nonprofit with its own goals and guidelines.
However, all of this seems to be more in the realm of congress and law making rather than the courts. I don’t think that there are many good legal grounds for epic here. Everyone is paying... they can’t really claim damages in a competitive market sense as they are not worse of than any competitor.
[+] [-] zemo|5 years ago|reply
probably not. Visa takes a bigger cut than 2% when you buy a hamburger.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] georgespencer|5 years ago|reply
2. Nobody gives a shit if this is better for developers, do they? Epic could charge +30% on IAP and use the Apple IAP system which is orders of magnitude better than anything else in the market. Developers set the pricing, and Apple handles security, authentication, refunds, etc. Consumers know it's a consistent experience across the platform.
3. The only benefit anyone seems to be able to come up with here is "choice" and a misguided belief that prices would come down as if by magic. Video game publishers took up to 60% of video game sales in physical stores, but the ARP of a video game has risen since 2008 and the advent of Steam and other online stores.
4. Seems like Apple has built a successful hardware/software play at least partially based on the fact that consumers don't have to do bullshit things like entering credit card details into some third party payment gateway to buy things, or deal with different refund policies from different folks. Consumers have flocked to the platform and now its success is being used as the basis of an attempt to strip it of its competitive advantage.
5. Same thing happened in the UK with sports coverage. The English Premier League was only broadcast on Sky until a few years ago. £29.99 a month got you all the live televised top flight soccer. Now to watch all of the televised soccer in the UK you need Sky Sports, Amazon Prime Video, and BT Sport. And Sky Sports prices have not decreased in real terms. (Oh, and BT's tech infrastructure is hot garbage.) I don't know anyone who loves the experience of having three different services to deal with and paying more money. Nobody is bleating about "choice" now.
6. I object to this on exactly the same terms as I object to Spotify's bitching that IAP margins -- which have been the same since before Spotify launched -- are too thin. They operate a business where they pay sixty cents of every dollar they make to rights holders for fuck's sake. Why are they bitching at Apple telling them that if they want to do a monthly subscription and net £9.99, they need to charge £14.28? Why can Spotify try to tell Apple that the HomePod -- a fucking speaker -- should let Spotify onto the device natively (when you can already connect via Bluetooth)?
7. Nearly every online store has serious arbitrary limitations placed on it by the operator of the store. Many of these are to do with the user experience, but many of them are a means of paying the bills for something they fund (hosting, marketing, app review team, developers working on APIs). It helps them sell phones, but it's intertwined with the user experience.
8. Gruber's point stands: if you think it's OK for Microsoft to prevent Sony from selling a PlayStation game streaming service on the Xbox Store, I don't see why you have an issue with this. It's not the same as Netflix: it's more like an app store within an app store.
[+] [-] rdiddly|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hangonhn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AnonHP|5 years ago|reply
You can only get nothing for 2-5% because that barely meets the payment processing fees (of course, a large company can negotiate a lower rate). If you’re saying 2-5% plus payment processing fees, then that might be possible depending on the solution and what’s provided to users and developers.
[+] [-] jassinpain|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anupamchugh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zepto|5 years ago|reply
If the rate mattered, Google would have lowered it to compete with Apple for developers.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] FriendlyNormie|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bigtones|5 years ago|reply
Epic gave Apple over $360 Million dollars in the last twelve months just to list the game in it's app store, and over $150 Million to Google to do the same. By any measure, having to hand over half a billion dollars is just an insane cut of revenue to have to give two companies that had absolutely nothing to do with conceiving, designing or developing such a successful game.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/technology/apple-fortnite...
[+] [-] Ductapemaster|5 years ago|reply
But it has everything to do with distributing the game. Also it has a lot to do with outsourcing the maintenance of the mobile platforms — designing hardware, OS releases, etc. Epic did not design their own hardware, their own silicon, build entire global supply chains, design UX, etc. Apple and Google did. Do they not deserve a cut?
I'm not here arguing the percentage of the revenue, just that that some percentage is clearly warranted here. Their relationship with Apple and Google is clearly a partnership, meaning it has to benefit both sides. Same way it works with consoles.
[+] [-] georgespencer|5 years ago|reply
Uh, you know Epic makes a 12% cut of all games sold in their store, right?
[+] [-] redm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] handmodel|5 years ago|reply
(I know Tinder is on other phones and the percentage could change - but you get the idea).
[+] [-] soulofmischief|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reissbaker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivanstojic|5 years ago|reply
After Epic store launched on the PC in 2018, Epic used their platform's growing popularity to bait and/or strong arm (it's unclear to me) indie developers into exclusivity contracts on Epic's game store. This action caused a massive uproar in the gaming community because with those exclusivity deals, Epic made developers break existing preorders.
This isn't about freedom or choice or walled gardens. It's about cutting off a slightly bigger slice of a billion dollar pie.
[+] [-] 627467|5 years ago|reply
As I wrote in the Apple thread: I think Epic are the ideal entity to do this since - so long as Apple or Google won't actively erase apps from people devices - they already have large install base and it's unlikely to grow much more.
Those who managed to install the latest update are already able to use epic "apple/google tax"less payment system so that protects their revenue for a while.
If either of those para-monopolies start erasing apps from people's phone's that would only add to the narrative that Epic, Spotify, EU et al. are already pushing: these two entities have built a global extractive platform that keeps partners and consumers hostage by their fees.
[+] [-] mcint|5 years ago|reply
Epic Games can show just how much the on-going appstore tax prevent new business models from taking hold. They shown an incredible ability to entice people to separate from their money, even convinced Disney?! to partner for branded content.
Alongside Epic Games licensing of the Unreal Engine at-or-below cost (12% [1]), I believe Sweeney's commitment to growing a "Metaverse" market at the expense of Epic's short-term profit.
This comes alongside EPIC(.org)'s comparisons about American vs Chinese & emerging markets competitiveness, linked today [2].
[1]: https://www.matthewball.vc/all/themetaverse [2]: https://epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/EPIC-19-09-11-NSC...
[+] [-] mschuster91|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsgoetz|5 years ago|reply
> The open Android ecosystem lets developers distribute apps through multiple app stores. For game developers who choose to use the Play Store, we have consistent policies that are fair to developers and keep the store safe for users. While Fortnite remains available on Android, we can no longer make it available on Play because it violates our policies. However, we welcome the opportunity to continue our discussions with Epic and bring Fortnite back to Google Play.
[+] [-] jay_kyburz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Andrew_nenakhov|5 years ago|reply
If there ever would be some legal pressure on Apple& Google to open up their platforms, it is important to make this point known to legislators.
[+] [-] user5994461|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TillE|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drusepth|5 years ago|reply
Removing Fortnite from the iOS store wholly removes the ability for people to download and play Fortnite on iOS devices, unless they're jailbroken.
Removing Fortnite from Google Play does no such thing. It's still readily available to download and play from other app stores and/or Epic directly. No need to jailbreak or root.
This is a huge difference in paradigms that'll probably go overlooked with headlines of "Apple and Google remove Fortnite from app stores".
I think this is why Epic is so ready to "take on Apple" (see: their Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite ad). This'll be a legal battle that's exciting to see, especially in the current/brewing anti-big-tech political climate.
[+] [-] leereeves|5 years ago|reply
> The open Android ecosystem lets developers distribute apps through multiple app stores. For game developers who choose to use the Play Store, we have consistent policies that are fair to developers and keep the store safe for users. While Fortnite remains available on Android, we can no longer make it available on Play because it violates our policies. However, we welcome the opportunity to continue our discussions with Epic and bring Fortnite back to Google Play.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368079/fortnite-epic-an...
[+] [-] brundolf|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tony|5 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper
[+] [-] jandrese|5 years ago|reply
Remember that courts tend to be very lenient towards business practices, so it takes egregious behavior to convince them to step in. This bolster's Epic's position.
[+] [-] jonplackett|5 years ago|reply
They didn't make this in the time it took Apple to reject it. It's all pre-planned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6B4glqJFz0&feature=emb_rel_...
[+] [-] rangewookie|5 years ago|reply
It will be better for all developers if the gatekeepers lower their rates, but epic really doesn't strike me as a white knight here.
[+] [-] gimmeThaBeet|5 years ago|reply
The app store is a two way street. For most developers, apple can hide behind "no one's forcing you to be on our app store". And they are right, apple doesn't have a monopoly, but they have a lot of users, and what they really have is a lot of users who spend money on their platform. They have the customers you want.
But there is the flip side, which is that apple needs apps to be in the store, and sometimes needs specific ones. For most companies, apple doesn't need your app. The only parties that stand a chance at making waves are those who do control apps apple can't do without, e.g. "what do you mean I can't get Fortnite on my iPhone?"
No one in the situation is gonna be perfect, because at the end of the day, this is a fight for who provides what value and should get what money. It's sort of a Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla situation.
[+] [-] kmonsen|5 years ago|reply
They are of course really hard to make ...
[+] [-] mulmen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3PS|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] z3t4|5 years ago|reply