Apple Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account

[cgs1xx]

Last night, Epic sent out emails to Fortnite players blaming the unavailability of the new season on Apple and claming that Apple is "blocking Fortnite" in order to prevent Epic Games from "passing on the savings from direct payments to players."

Translation: Epic is refusing to take a cut on their profit and wants Apple to take a cut instead!

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Agree, easy for us, but pain in the ass for the rest...

It really isn’t difficult. It only become difficult when it doesn’t work, but then again one should think hard as to why that is and perhaps if one doesn’t understand than it’s best to stick with the proper store.

For EPIC considering they give their app away for free, why not open the code repository. Let people install their version of their app, and then let them enter their credit card details directly into an app installed that way.

They have the choice to do that. In fact they tried that on Android with a precompiled version and people didn’t like that in sufficient numbers.

They want their cake and eat it. And yes, to me one of the advantages of using an iOS device as my daily device is that I don’t have to tinker with it. That I can just rely on it working. That my payment details are secure and consolidated and not with lots of different vendors of whom many haven’t got a clue around privacy and information security. EPIC trying to turn iOS into something it isn’t, but for which there is already an alternative available, is not useful at all in my opinion.

But they made their choice, they clearly didn’t want 70% of a lot, and preferred to have 100% of nothing. Most peculiar in my opinion.

 

[deevey]

The grass isn't super green on the Android front either but it is possible someone could make a storefront on Android, including Epic themselves. It's just currently a hassle. Google also produces apps in their store. At most, Android could be forced to make it easier to make a competing store.

Epic, if they wanted could put the R&D into creating their own App Store and developing their own hardware for gaming. They obviously do have the resources they just don't want the hassle.

Instead they want to use another persons hardware, and another persons "Mall". They want to sell their own apps through their own shop located within that mall and not pay any rent.

Android is Open Source - An OS designed to work across multiple devices, many manufacturers and as a result Many phone companies DO have their own app stores separate to Google Play, e.g. Samsung, who now have a deal with Epic for Fortnight.

Apple on the other hand is combination of software and hardware you can only get add-ons from authorised dealers. You are well aware of that when you buy one of their devices. Developers are well aware of the rules prior to signing up. And Many of us customers buy those devices for precisely that reason.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Android is a Multiplatform Open Source operating system designed to work with a multitude of hardware.

iOS is a single platform Closed Source Operating system designed to work with a single manufacturers hardware.

Other developers don't have Epic's resources. Losing iOS revenue would be suicide for them, and why risk it when Epic is fighting this battle for you. Apple's has no reason to rush. The status quo benefits Apple and even a win for Apple comes with no additional advantage. Losing the right means lost revenue for Apple. Only Epic loses more money in a prolonged fight.

Also, I think Apple should lose this right. Apple's position of hardware, OS, and store front owner puts all iOS developers at risk of facing Apple as a competitor with a built in advantage on their own platform. Apple has built the walled garden so high that I believe they have created a zone that gives them an unfair competitive advantage and developers have no recourse but to accept their polices and while paying Apple 30% that can be used to develop products that could compete with their own.



Epic, if they wanted could put the R&D into creating their own App Store and developing their own hardware for gaming. They obviously do have the resources they just don't want the hassle.

Instead they want to use another persons hardware, and another persons "Mall". They want to sell their own apps through their own shop located within that store and not pay any rent.

Android is Open Source - An OS designed to work across multiple devices, many manufacturers and as a result Many phone companies DO have their own app stores separate to Google Play, e.g. Samsung, who now have a deal with Epic for Fortnight.

Apple on the other hand is combination of software and hardware you can only get add-ons from authorised dealers. You are well aware of that when you buy one of their devices. Developers are well aware of the rules prior to signing up. And Many of us customer buy those devices for precisely that reason.

Indeed and not even on Android are all stores available on all devices. Heck my TCL kitchen TV is severely limited in what it has available and what can go on it. Or try having a current Huawei device with Google services.

No of this is as straight forward and simple as many make it out to be. To me many different stores is not a benefit as to me it causes fragmentation, the need for multiple accounts, increased attack vector on my personal and financial details and a right royal pain to restore my device to a good known working state when replacing it. I fully appreciate that others like that, so it’s great that there is choice. But forcing others to be the same isn’t the same as providing more choice. It is actually, in a perverted manner, lessening the choice.

 

[Piggie]

Because it is completely different? You can buy console games everywhere, you don't have to use the XBOX/PS whatever shop. You can even buy the game physically (and resell it) or digitally. So that's a very bad analogy.

I agree, plus you forgot to mention the consoles are often sold for the price it takes to make them or even less so they take a loss on hardware and recoup money on software sales.
That is a valid model that many understand and it seems resonable.

If a top end iPhone cost Apple $450 to actually make the hardware and they sold it at $450 or even take a small loss and sold it for $400 then made their money/profits from the App Store, then I would take a wild guess and say we'd not be having this argument now as we'd understand the need to make profit and enjoy the cheap hardware.

But Apple wants it's cake AND eat it. A MASSIVE mark up on the hardware cost, and a MASSIVE chunk of developer money from the app store.

Imagine if Microsoft / Sony sold their new consoles for $2000 (which is what Apple would sell the device for if it was from Apple) AND wanted the same prices for the games, THEN we'd equally be as angry at them.
But they don't so we are not.

We all understand a business needs to make money to develop new products, but we also can see when you are being greedy and want a BIG CHUNK of profit at every point.

So yeah Apple.
Why not sell your phones at cost price, and make your billions from the App store software.
Or sell your phones for a lot (which you do) and lower the amount taken from the devs on the app store.

Apple needs to realise it's nothing without the developers.
We all say the devs owe Apple everything as without Apple and the app store they'd have no customers.
But equally if all the devs walked away from Apple, Apple would simply collapse.

 

[bn-7bc]

Nobody wins here. But before someone starts justifying that 30% entry... just remember what Apple's corporate tax rate is due to some creative accounting.

Theat is due to the tax regs beeing overly compkex en full off loopholes, but that is an other cattle of fush, which imho us more suited fir a separate duscussion, because that will probably touch on funding fir politivcal camoaind, an lobyingbas well, yea I can see that debate derailing this thread reail quick. On the other hand, if appke is in fact doung something ilegal to make yhe numbers look better I can think of a few agencies (IRS, SEC,FBI) that would lovebto hear ftommanyone with any kind of docs sheding at least som light on the matter

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I agree, plus you forgot to mention the consoles are often sold for the price it takes to make them or even less so they take a loss on hardware and recoup money on software sales.
That is a valid model that many understand and it seems resonable.

If a top end iPhone cost Apple $450 to actually make the hardware and they sold it at $450 or even take a small loss and sold it for $400 then made their money/profits from the App Store, then I would take a wild guess and say we'd not be having this argument now as we'd understand the need to make profit and enjoy the cheap hardware.

But Apple wants it's cake AND eat it. A MASSIVE mark up on the hardware cost, and a MASSIVE chunk of developer money from the app store.

Imagine if Microsoft / Sony sold their new consoles for $2000 (which is what Apple would sell the device for if it was from Apple) AND wanted the same prices for the games, THEN we'd equally be as angry at them.
But they don't so we are not.

We all understand a business needs to make money to develop new products, but we also can see when you are being greedy and want a BIG CHUNK of profit at every point.

So yeah Apple.
Why not sell your phones at cost price, and make your billions from the App store software.
Or sell your phones for a lot (which you do) and lower the amount taken from the devs on the app store.

Apple needs to realise it's nothing without the developers.
We all say the devs owe Apple everything as without Apple and the app store they'd have no customers.
But equally if all the devs walked away from Apple, Apple would simply collapse.

Who are you and based on what to decide that it is greed.

if someone can introduce me and make available their custom I’m more than happy to pay them for that. When they provide additional services I’m also happy to pay for that.

I would rather have 70% of a lot than 100% of “nothing”. Ultimately it is a business decision. If a market place doesn’t give me sufficient custom to pay the access fees, or transaction fees for it, fine then it would be wise to take the business elsewhere.

 

[threesixty360]

Just like Google? Google had to pay €1.49 billion cause they promoted their own services on top of other competing services in their search engine. And this was just the fine of EU and only because Google changed its mind it wasn‘t higher.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_1770

Now compare this to Apple competing with Apple Books against Kindle one their own platform and you get the idea ...

nah not like google. There are some services like Face ID api that need to secure. Plus lots of api’s that apple have hidden that Apple end up policing (those are some of the checks they do on each app).

This is not what Epic wants.

2)A competing Epic Games Store app available through the iOS App Store and through direct installation that has equal access to underlying operating system features for software installation and update as the iOS App Store itself has, including the ability to install and update software as seamlessly as the iOS App Store experience

I know what Epic want. But Apple will argue they cant have it because security of the platform, your phone etc.. is tied into only they having access to some parts of the system / api. It is the reason why installing a jailbroken phone is seen as a vunerablity (both on iphone or sideloading apps on android).

Apple will say that there whole brand image, the reason they sell their product is because of security and ease of use of their products relative to the competition. This is only achieved through control of what is on their platforms. And the evidence is pretty persuasive. Android has numerous security issues compared to iOS. Even the mac platform has far less problems that Windows and hasn't even had a virus as far as I am aware.

I think it will take an idiot of a judge or someone "on the pay" to look at what Apple have achieved and see it has nothing to do with their platform control.

So Epic will have to make do with whatever api's/system controls can be given away without compromise. Its one of the reason why safari and the webplatforms on iOS (and on other systems) do not have full system access.

the biggest issue of all of this is that the swiss cheese ridden security mess that is Windows has given every one in the world a false standard of what an OS should allow or how an OS performs. Because it was a monopoly it makes everyone think it was right. it wasnt. It has created whole industries of virus software sellers and malware stuff. It was so bad. And so was Android which was developed with hardly any security or OS optimization concerns.

So now we want all systems to run on the same principals as these "failed" OS's.
Its a tragedy really.

 

[AndiG]

Anyone of you who still doesn‘t understand what this is all about should take 5 minutes and read the story of Hey!
https://hey.com/apple/
https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/...jection-ios-app-store-dhh-gangsters-antitrust

And to anyone repeating „this is the store of Apple they can do whatever they wanna do“:
These rules have been in place since 2010. If you don’t like it, leave.” Does that persuade you?
That’s always the answer of monopolists: “if you don’t like it, leave.”

https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/...e-hey-email-fees-policies-antitrust-wwdc-2020

 

[Abazigal]

I agree, plus you forgot to mention the consoles are often sold for the price it takes to make them or even less so they take a loss on hardware and recoup money on software sales.
That is a valid model that many understand and it seems resonable.

If a top end iPhone cost Apple $450 to actually make the hardware and they sold it at $450 or even take a small loss and sold it for $400 then made their money/profits from the App Store, then I would take a wild guess and say we'd not be having this argument now as we'd understand the need to make profit and enjoy the cheap hardware.

But Apple wants it's cake AND eat it. A MASSIVE mark up on the hardware cost, and a MASSIVE chunk of developer money from the app store.

Imagine if Microsoft / Sony sold their new consoles for $2000 (which is what Apple would sell the device for if it was from Apple) AND wanted the same prices for the games, THEN we'd equally be as angry at them.
But they don't so we are not.

We all understand a business needs to make money to develop new products, but we also can see when you are being greedy and want a BIG CHUNK of profit at every point.

So yeah Apple.
Why not sell your phones at cost price, and make your billions from the App store software.
Or sell your phones for a lot (which you do) and lower the amount taken from the devs on the app store.

Apple needs to realise it's nothing without the developers.
We all say the devs owe Apple everything as without Apple and the app store they'd have no customers.
But equally if all the devs walked away from Apple, Apple would simply collapse.

From the perspective of the developer, why does it matter whether the underlying hardware is sold at a loss, break-even point or profit? The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, 30% of their earnings still goes to the parent company.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the (admittedly) obscene amount of cash that Apple is generating. There is a simply reason why their products are the most profitable in their respective product categories. Apple is a design company focused on selling tools capable of fostering superior experiences, while services exist to increase the value found with Apple hardware. At the end of the day, Apple’s ability to grab monopoly-like share of industry profits isn’t a result of it actually being a monopoly but rather, a byproduct of Apple following a design-led product strategy that ultimately marginalises entire industries.

You reap what you sow. Apple put in the hard work of building up its ecosystem from scratch early on since the iPod days, when no one else could be bothered to, and their initial investment has been paying dividends ever since.

 

[derekamoss]

So why is this fundamentally different than the game console market?
Why aren’t developers crying that Tesla won’t give them access to the center console?

The idea that developers have a right to choose their own business model and impose it on apple is crazy.

I’m so tired of everyone comparing this to game consoles because it’s not at all. Yes, Microsoft and Sony take 30% when you buy a game digitally from the store but unlike Apple, you can also buy it physically from any place that sells physical discs. People and developers have an option. DLC and In App Purchases and subscriptions might get 30% when bought on store or in game but you can also buy those same things at gamestop and they give you a redemption code, or buy a physical card with a redemption card from Walmart, bestbuy etc.

Here is an even crazier thing. On Xbox and PlayStation for example if I decided to download the Netflix App and didn’t have a subscription already, Netflix can allow you too, 1. Subscribe in app, 2. Post in app instructions on how to go online and subscribe and 3. Even have a QR code scanner on your phone that sends you to that website.

Apple is just being greedy and worse showing favoritism to certain companies.

Netflix can be on the App Store but Project xCloud can not when both are technically “Reader Apps” that are just streaming content.

Look everyone’s beating on Epic for breaking the rules but you also have to understand, revolutions only start when someone CROSSES a line and someone eventually would/have to do it.

 

[wbeasley]

why is an app store collecting 30% WORSE than a retail outlet wanting 50%?

both are commercial entities.
both provide a space to purchase software.

why are we not up in arms over companies keeping 50% of the developers purchase price?

 

[Phone Junky]

why is an app store collecting 30% WORSE than a retail outlet wanting 50%?

both are commercial entities.
both provide a space to purchase software.

why are we not up in arms over companies keeping 50% of the developers purchase price?

Because those are not the "big rich evil Empire of Apple". It seems when the App Store was started and Apple wasn't worth $2T, this business model was fine. Now that their value is what it is, all of a sudden, this business model is completely unacceptable and "extortionate".

 

[gnipgnop]

I’m so tired of everyone comparing this to game consoles because it’s not at all. Yes, Microsoft and Sony take 30% when you buy a game digitally from the store but unlike Apple, you can also buy it physically from any place that sells physical discs. People and developers have an option.

What's the cut for developers/publishers for a physical copy of a new game release? Around 45%. What's the cut for developers/publishers for a digital copy of a new game release? 70%. What does the consumer pay for a physical copy of a new release? Same price as the digital copy...typically $59.99 for the standard version of the console game.

See the problem there? The consumer isn't getting a price break from the choice of format OR from the level of cut for the publisher/developer. Epic knows this. Epic also knows that prices for mobile games are usually much cheaper than on consoles.

 

[gnipgnop]

Netflix can be on the App Store but Project xCloud can not when both are technically “Reader Apps” that are just streaming content.

xCloud is not a reader app due to the fact that it's streaming apps, not simple files like music or video. The App Store requires apps to be submitted for review, which also means they need to be programmed to run on iOS/iPadOS. None of the xCloud games are ports to iOS/iPadOS.

 

[D4vidrim]

With Apple, you can't sell the software without going through them, you can't change retailers, you can't change app stores, you can't use any other way to reach the customer except through them. There's no negotiating at the table, so every developer loses 30% of their revenue to Apple in return for access to these customers. The Apple developer tools for most are just ways to convert the app to work on ios, so bigger companies like Epic could absorb this revenue loss, but smaller John Doe's in a basement are stuck losing the same amount. 30% makes a difference when you sell millions a year vs $50k/yr on an app.

You say there's no other way to sell Fortnite just because you look at the iPhone market instead of looking to the phone market. That's your problem. And that is the main point: if the judge will look at the iPhone market as you do, sure there is a monopoly, but if he will look at the phone market he won't see a monopoly. Which one is the right one? Time will tell.
I believe (and Epic confirms) that there is no monopoly, cause I can still play Fortnite on other phones.
I want iPhones because they are a closed platform, not despite what they are. Take that into your mind...

Going back to your statement. You think the 30% cut is a problem for small developers, while it is the exact opposite. Keeping a flat rate for small and big developers means big developers "pay" for small developers, if there was no IAPs system in place with a 30% cut you would have only paid apps? No, you would have only free apps, cause everyone would sell their apps for free, then they would ask for money through IAPs (because there wouldn't be a fee to Apple). What does it mean? It simply means Apple should raise the annual subscription for developers, hurting not big developers but the small ones.
The 30% cut is something bothering big companies because they could do everything without Apple, it doesn't hurt small developers who would pay more to have everything Apple offers to them if they did everything by themselves.

So, your statement is to help small developers, but the consequences of your ideas just create higher barriers to entry the market for small developers: you are not helping them, you are helping big companies like Epic. Nothing more.

 

[Picard J.L.]

From the perspective of the developer, why does it matter whether the underlying hardware is sold at a loss, break-even point or profit? The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, 30% of their earnings still goes to the parent company.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the (admittedly) obscene amount of cash that Apple is generating. There is a simply reason why their products are the most profitable in their respective product categories. Apple is a design company focused on selling tools capable of fostering superior experiences, while services exist to increase the value found with Apple hardware. At the end of the day, Apple’s ability to grab monopoly-like share of industry profits isn’t a result of it actually being a monopoly but rather, a byproduct of Apple following a design-led product strategy that ultimately marginalises entire industries.

You reap what you sow. Apple put in the hard work of building up its ecosystem from scratch early on since the iPod days, when no one else could be bothered to, and their initial investment has been paying dividends ever since.

Apple is playing the long game and it’s paying off.

 

[Abazigal]

You say there's no other way to sell Fortnite just because you look at the iPhone market instead of looking to the phone market. That's your problem. And that is the main point: if the judge will look at the iPhone market as you do, sure there is a monopoly, but if he will look at the phone market he won't see a monopoly. Which one is the right one? Time will tell.
I believe (and Epic confirms) that there is no monopoly, cause I can still play Fortnite on other phones.
I want iPhones because they are a closed platform not despite what they are. Take that into your mind...

Going back to your statement. You think the 30% cut is a problem for small developers, while it is the exact opposite. Keeping a flat rate for small and big developers means big developers "pay" for small developers, if there was no IAPs system in place with a 30% cut you would have only paid apps? No, you would have only free apps, cause everyone would sell their apps for free, the they would ask for money through IAPs (because there wouldn't be a fee to Apple). What does it mean? It simply mean Apple should raise the annual subscription for developers, hurting not big developers but the small ones.
The 30% cut is something bothering big companies because they could do everything without Apple, it doesn't hurt small developers who would pay more to have everything Apple offers to them if they did everything by themselves.

So, your statement is to help small developers, but the consequences of your ideas just create higher barriers to entry the market for small developers: you are not helping them, you are helping big companies like Epic. Nothing more.

Bravo. Someone gets it.

 

[Righty McRighterson]

Hopefully this is the incident that compels US and/or EU lawmakers to loosen the monopolies that exist in iOS and Android - to the clear benefit of every single user of both platforms.

 

[psingh01]

Let's say his app costs $10. He's not happy with getting $7, he wants $8.5! You really think customers who gladly payed $10 would think $12 is outlandish? And it's not about raising the price, it's about setting a price based on what you want to earn from the beginning. Basic economics.

Just repeating that phrase doesn’t make it so.

In the world of apps asking for anything other than “free“ will kill demand. That is why so many are free or bottom of the barrel in pricing and use ads or try to slip in microtransactions. So the idea of $7-10 pricing is already not realistic for the vast majority of apps.

You don’t go to a dollar store looking for luxury goods and that is basically what the appstore has been. The customer is already conditioned into looking for certain price range and rarely makes exceptions. They see your asking price and will simply move on. Even Apple only charges $5/mo for 100s of games on the arcade service. They know customers don’t want to pay much (and I doubt this service is that popular tbh even at these prices).

 

[gnipgnop]

Anyone of you who still doesn‘t understand what this is all about should take 5 minutes and read the story of Hey!

That issue was already resolved. The main issue with Hey!'s app was that it wasn't functional on installation. Once Hey! instituted a free initial trial period that made it usable after the download, it was allowed on the App Store.

 

[TiggrToo]

Hopefully this is the incident that compels US and/or EU lawmakers to loosen the monopolies that exist in iOS and Android - to the clear benefit of every single user of both platforms.

What monopolies?

This is triply so for Google as there are multiple app stores available on the platform.

So, ignoring Apple for a moment, what App Store monopoly you believe exists on the Google platform?

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Hopefully this is the incident that compels US and/or EU lawmakers to loosen the monopolies that exist in iOS and Android - to the clear benefit of every single user of both platforms.

LOL And when did government interference ever deliver something like it. If they do then it will be to the detriment of all involved.

 

[gnipgnop]

Even Apple only charges $5/mo for 100s of games on the arcade service. They know customers don’t want to pay much (and I doubt this service is that popular tbh even at these prices).

What a lot of people don't understand about Apple Arcade is that part of the strategy is to get users more accustomed to playing games on bigger screens, like their desktop/laptop or TV. That's the reason every game on Arcade has to be playable on all of Apple's hardware. Bigger screens are associated with higher priced games, i.e., PCs and consoles. It's actually something that could help drive consumers to have a different view of pricing. Customers will see more value from gaming apps that aren't just playable on a phone or tablet. IMO, it will help sell more premium priced games outside of Arcade if it becomes more common for games being sold to support Mac and ATV as well.

 

[deevey]

You/Anyone could do this on a profit/value basis.

If you bring me $100 a month I'll want 30% to make it worth my while.
If you bring me $1000 a month, I'll want 15% to make it worth my while.
If you bring me $10,000 a month, I'll just want 10% a month.
And if you bring me $100,000 a month I'll only ask you for $5%.

You're encouraged to make your product better, or make better products so you sell more, and the more you sell the more of your money you get to keep.
I'm really happy you are selling more as I get lots more money thanks to your product, and I'm willing to let you keep more as I'm making way more myself due to your success.
We're both happy and we both benefit from increased sales.

Can't see what's so wrong with this and I'm sure it's how much of the real physical world actually works.

Apple's current policy of.
You bring me $100 a month or $100,000 a month and I still get 30% regardless feels wrong & unfair.
I suspect most of us here would be willing to take less % if the amount of money we are getting rose up dramatically.

In retail it works the other way around, the manufacturer (developer) would make LESS per item the more they sold (lower wholesale price based on volume) and the margins for the store that sells that item get bigger as a result.

I'll take 100 units @ $10 and sell them for $20
I'll take 1000 units @ $8 and sell them for $20
I'll take 10,000 units @ $5 and sell them for $20