Apple's Filings in Epic Games Case Argue It Has Reduced Industry Commissions, While Third-Party App Stores Would Compromise Privacy and Security

[555gallardo]

Can't wait for the inevitable Epic Bankruptcy

This is one of the most uninformed arguments I ever heard. Epic’s Unreal Engine is being used by majority of industry, from gaming companies to movie and other industries. Despite the company being dumb by taking a shot at Apple, they are extremely far from bankruptcy.

It’s as if you predicted Apple’s bankruptcy simply because the iPod touch doesn’t sell well.

 

[GizmoDVD]

"Interesting" that Sony seems to be funding Epic these days, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. 1

Sony pumps $200M into Epic ahead of legal fight with Apple | AppleInsider

Epic Games on Tuesday announced the completion of a $1 billion funding round as it tangles with Apple over App Store rules and regulations.

appleinsider.com

Not really. They use the UE as do many other studios. Sony is not just a gaming unit.

 

[ksec]

I like this story saying how Epic planned the attack on Apple and Google. While not the same word used when Apple sued Qualcomm and planned 5 years in advance.

By that logic no company could ever go bust. You invest by spending profits or borrowing, not spending more than you have.

I guess you haven't been paying attention to how VC and Silicon Valley works in the past 20 years.

 

[ksec]

This is one of the most uninformed arguments I ever heard. Epic’s Unreal Engine is being used by majority of industry, from gaming companies to movie and other industries. Despite the company being dumb by taking a shot at Apple, they are extremely far from bankruptcy.

It’s as if you predicted Apple’s bankruptcy simply because the iPod touch doesn’t sell well.

I think we need some sort of currency in the world of Internet for intellectual. Seriously trying to get any informed discussion on any subject ( to just Apple ) is unbelievably difficult.

 

[hans1972]

As I said earlier, macOS has access to the same data pool, over the iCloud, this includes your GPS location provided by iOS to Apps and Find My. Securing iOS by locking-in Apps to the AppStore, while keeping macOS wide open like it currently is, is just like locking the front door of your house, but leaving the backdoor entrance unsecured, which invalidate their security and privacy FUD. The not End2End encrypted iCloud backups they store on iCloud invalidates it even more.

You have to remember that most iPhone users don't have a Mac.

There is no doubt that Macs have worse security and privacy than iPhones, in general.

But the probability of an attack on a Mac is much less due to its low number of users, being a minority platform and how users use a Mac.

Most malware and attacks are targeting Windows, Android and iPhones and thus those systems needs more security and privacy. You can't evaluate security and privacy in isolation and not take into account the world these devices operate in.

 

[elvisimprsntr]

"Interesting" that Sony seems to be funding Epic these days, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. 1

Sony pumps $200M into Epic ahead of legal fight with Apple | AppleInsider

Epic Games on Tuesday announced the completion of a $1 billion funding round as it tangles with Apple over App Store rules and regulations.

appleinsider.com

Sony Interactive and many of it's subsidiary game developers rely on Epic's Unreal Engine.

 

[Glideslope]

watching this is like seeing two children fight over who got more ice cream.

Not really. More like Epic being the Ice Cream and Apple being the Microwave.

 

[gnipgnop]

The fact that Apple reduced the fees to 15% in some way is proof enough that the 30% are highly debatable -even more so for IAPs which are purely a financial transaction.

Apple: 30% and 15% commission rates. Both include Apple handling financial transactions.
Epic: 25% and 12% commission rates. The higher rate includes Epic handling financial transactions, the lower does not.

 

[bobbie424242]

Your favorite trillion dollar company is under attack. If there's a reason to be outraged today, that's it.

 

[bobbie424242]

The change from 30% to 15% for only apps making less than 1 million $ is a clever PR move for Apple as it incurs very minimal revenue loss. Reason being that the vast majority of the Apple fee revenue (95%) is generated from these mega-apps generating well over 1 million / year, thus not eligible to the 30%. Which in my opinion is arbitrary and unfair, but that's what happens with the Apple store exec mafia determined to extort developers and ready to die over this if needs be.

 

[gnipgnop]

The change from 30% to 15% for only apps making less than 1 million $ is a clever PR move for Apple as it incurs very minimal revenue loss.

Epic already had two tiers: 25% rate for handling transactions, 12% for not. Apple handles transactions for both of their rates.

 

[hans1972]

God forbid apple have to lower the walls around the garden a little bit. No one would force people to take advantage of other app stores or payment methods. That's the beauty of choice! You're welcome to continue to live the so-called "privacy" bubble that dear old Tim has created.

We are fearing the fragmented world of streaming video services where you have to subscribe to all services to get all of the content.

So the problem arises when a developer choose not to have their apps on the App Store but in another store. Then we have to choose between downloading and registering with another store or not get the app at all.

Today we don't have to make that choice. We get the app and can stay in one store.

We also fear that the control and quality of some of these stores will be terrible.

Look at Android. Probably close to a 1000 stores exist or have existed for that platform. We don't that to happen at all in the iOS ecosystem.

 

[ss2cire]

They could simply make iOS just like macOS, the security and privacy excuse is utter non-sense, it would not compromise the iOS security in any way. Just let the “device owners” decide, they own the devices. They could by default allow only signed Apps, then optionally allow side loading, and add an additional option to also allow the installation of unsigned Apps, simply with a gentle competition friendly disclaimer.

It’s a pure strategic decision Apple made here, and part of their carefully crafted methods of interlocking customers over multiple business areas into their eco system.

I just hope that the court has enough technical skills to recognize this Apple FUD.

the problem with all that is the minute some one gets malware apple will be blamed and the brand diminished.

the masses are stupid. Then will come the inevitable lawsuits that blame apple ...

mind you, I don’t want to be so cynical, but it is what it is ...

 

[Rogifan]

As annoying as Epic is, you gotta admit they did push Apple to lower the fees to 15%.

Doesn’t lowering the fee to 15% just prove that the 30% is arbitrary? Or even unnecessary to running the App Store? Of course we know the 30% isn’t really about what it costs to run the App Store. It’s a fee Apple charges because the company believes it deserves a cut of other people’s business. I’d be curious to know how many profitable apps in the App Store are profitable because of things Apple has done to promote them. I can’t remember the last app I downloaded because of App Store promotion. And I would imagine some of the large companies paying the 30% aren’t using Apple at all for customer acquisition. It’s probably the developers paying Apple the least that utilize Apple services the most. When Tim Cook makes the argument about IAP and security someone should ask him about the non-digital transactions that happen in apps. Those don’t utilize Apple’s IAP. Or what about the apps that are allowed to be ‘reader’ apps. For those apps you sign up or pay for things via Safari. If signing up for Spotify in Safari using Spotify’s payment system is secure why wouldn’t it be secure in their app? This isn’t really about security it’s about all the money Apple makes from IAP.

 

[bobenhaus]

Apple reduced industry commissions as a preemptive measure in anticipation of Court proceedings.

kinda like hiding their tracks huh ?

 

[fncd]

We are fearing the fragmented world of streaming video services where you have to subscribe to all services to get all of the content.

So the problem arises when a developer choose not to have their apps on the App Store but in another store. Then we have to choose between downloading and registering with another store or not get the app at all.

Today we don't have to make that choice. We get the app and can stay in one store.

We also fear that the control and quality of some of these stores will be terrible.

Look at Android. Probably close to a 1000 stores exist or have existed for that platform. We don't that to happen at all in the iOS ecosystem.

You don't have to get all of the content, you choose to. Tim will tell you that there are "millions of apps" on the App store, so if you're afraid to leave the garden, you can find an alternative. But for those that wish to see what life is actually like when they are given choices and not being told what to do like toddlers, they would be able to. If you don't wish to participate, you don't have to. It won't affect you in any way, shape, or form. Period.

This "quality control" and "privacy" and "security" is nothing more than a scare tactic to keep you in the fold. The world exists just fine outside of apple's protection - and dare I even say apple has their own issues they need to worry about before throwing stones.

I don't know who it "We" is that doesn't want more choice, possibly lower prices, etc. . . but I'm going to assume you're just speaking for the majority of MacRumors members. Everyone I know whether they're making 30k a year or 200k are more than happy to go to Target instead of Best Buy if something is cheaper or not available at one of the other storefronts.

Again, this isn't about forcing you or anyone else to leave the garden of eden you've been falsely lead to believe exists, it's about giving people the opportunity to do so. And apple damn well knows it'll hurt their profits or they wouldn't be pushing back so hard.

This is a company that doesn't give a damn about you, me, or anyone else. The only thing they are worried about is profit. The days of apple caring about the customer left long, long ago.

 

[Dan Holmstock]

You don't have to get all of the content, you choose to. Tim will tell you that there are "millions of apps" on the App store, so if you're afraid to leave the garden, you can find an alternative. But for those that wish to see what life is actually like when they are given choices and not being told what to do like toddlers, they would be able to. If you don't wish to participate, you don't have to. It won't affect you in any way, shape, or form. Period.

This "quality control" and "privacy" and "security" is nothing more than a scare tactic to keep you in the fold. The world exists just fine outside of apple's protection - and dare I even say apple has their own issues they need to worry about before throwing stones.

I don't know who it "We" is that doesn't want more choice, possibly lower prices, etc. . . but I'm going to assume you're just speaking for the majority of MacRumors members. Everyone I know whether they're making 30k a year or 200k are more than happy to go to Target instead of Best Buy if something is cheaper or not available at one of the other storefronts.

Again, this isn't about forcing you or anyone else to leave the garden of eden you've been falsely lead to believe exists, it's about giving people the opportunity to do so. And apple damn well knows it'll hurt their profits or they wouldn't be pushing back so hard.

This is a company that doesn't give a damn about you, me, or anyone else. The only thing they are worried about is profit. The days of apple caring about the customer left long, long ago.

Careful you are speaking logic, its not fashionable to speak in a world that demands BENIFTS and SOCIALISTIC CARE. People now a days love being told what they can can cant do. They lost the ability to think for themselves. If Apple tells them its BAD - then its BAD. Forget that simple super SIMPLE reason is that they DO NOT HAVE TO INSTALL ANOTHER STORE; then their device will still be safe as it always was. But for other consumers who want more choice and understand the risk of buying something from Saks 5th ave vs Walmart will make that choice.

 

[gregmancuso]

Most users don't carry their Macs around with them everywhere they go, constantly connected to the network, with a built-in GPS chip.

You could potentially learn quite a bit about someone based on what is on their Mac and their usage. But I'd wager that would pale in comparison to the amount of data you could collect from a smartphone. Smartphones are also much more likely to be misplaced or stolen. There are quite a few security risks that are either don't exist, or are greatly diminished compared to a desktop or even a laptop.

Another thing to consider - it is not just that phone are always with us. The types of apps and use cases of Mac apps vs mobile apps are completely different. Yes, both have some productivity apps - I would be dead from a business standpoint without Teams and Office on my phone. But many, many apps on phones are small gametes for other simple utilities. There are millions of them and most are all based on the same template code. People load these things left and right. Allowing absolutely no oversight of these will lead to more questionable apps being loaded on phones without regard to personal or data privacy. The race to free for mobile apps has just opened the door to the constant repackaging of these applets and for questionable developers to find other avenues to monetize.

And, to say that sideloading is OK for some and for those who don't want it can just not enable - there is a logical fallacy there. If I find some random applet that was either not available or not submitted to the App Store and I load it - that app may rummage through my data which has privacy and security implications for all of my contacts too.

 

[pacalis]

Again, this isn't about forcing you or anyone else to leave the garden of eden you've been falsely lead to believe exists, it's about giving people the opportunity to do so. And apple damn well knows it'll hurt their profits or they wouldn't be pushing back so hard.

This is a company that doesn't give a damn about you, me, or anyone else. The only thing they are worried about is profit. The days of apple caring about the customer left long, long ago.

I would frame this all quite differently. Capitalism works when organizations product and services to deliver value to markets, whether by adding value or reducing costs relative to others. Apple focusing on privacy and security is something that is of value to customers in an age where Apple's competitors have different business models that undermine customers privacy and security. They charge more for this and I willingly pay it. In this sense, Apple cares about the customer in that their business model and sources of competitive advantage align with some very important customer values.

Many companies do not have the same alignment with the customer. EPICs financial success around Fortnite is one big collection of tricks. Customers don't pay for the software. Addicted primary school children collect a fake currency to engage in fake dress-up. For all those kids who were playing on their ipads and macbooks, EPIC totally F*&!*# them over as they try to leverage into a new, even more opaque, business model.

I suppose you're saying that Apple is also one big trick. That I'm being led to believe that I value privacy and control in an ecosystem. But, I tell you, its my ability to manage all my family devices seamlessly, with different levels of user sophistication, that made me switch into apple from the android ecosystem. Yes, I know there are substitutes in the Android ecosystem, but frankly that has been a nightmare to manage when not everyone is interested, or capable, of spending time managing their phone environments.

 

[bobenhaus]

Looks like other companies believe in the fight against Apple. Sony just invested 200 million in Epic games. Very interesting.

 

[bobbie424242]

Epic already had two tiers: 25% rate for handling transactions, 12% for not. Apple handles transactions for both of their rates.

Where have you seen this supposed 25% rate ? I cannot find any info on it.

From the EGS FAQ:

What’s the catch? Is this 88% revenue share a special introductory rate?​

There is no catch; the 88% share to the developer is the permanent rate. Epic’s 12% share covers the operating costs of the store and makes us a profit.

 

[fncd]

...I suppose you're saying that Apple is also one big trick. That I'm being led to believe that I value privacy and control in an ecosystem...

I'm not telling you what you believe in any way. I'm saying that apple is providing this false narrative that only they can provide you that privacy and security. Every App store has its share of bad actors, there is no doubt. But that shouldn't prevent the customer from making that choice on their own.

I've used both iOS and Android from the beginning, and never have I run into any issues whether from the App Store, Cydia (back in the iPhone 3G days), Google Play, Samsung, etc. Not once. Does that mean that the risk doesn't exist? No. But I could also get hit by a bus when crossing the street and that doesn't stop me from going to the bakery.

 

[WiseAJ]

Looks like other companies believe in the fight against Apple. Sony just invested 200 million in Epic games. Very interesting.

Or just paying Epic off to leave them alone. It's very obvious in how Epic defends Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo use of the same exact model that they are going after Apple/Google for. Very hypocritical. If the judge somehow rules against Apple someone needs to go after the Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo "monopolies" using this case as precedence.

 

[fncd]

Or just paying Epic off to leave them alone. It's very obvious in how Epic defends Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo use of the same exact model that they are going after Apple/Google for. Very hypocritical. If the judge somehow rules against Apple someone needs to go after the Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo "monopolies" using this case as precedence.

You don't think this is a bit of a false equivalency? For example:

If I want to buy a game digitally for the Xbox ON the Xbox or the PS ON the PS, yes, I have to buy it from the MS / Sony Store(s). However, other places (amazon, best buy, etc) can and do sell digital codes, where they can control the price. And they also sell physical media in which again, they control the price.

If best buy is running a promo on Cyberpunk but Amazon isn't, I have the choice to buy from best buy and save money. I'm not stuck buying my apps / games from one and only one store. There are choices. With apple you get. . . well. . .apple.

 

[WiseAJ]

This is one of the most uninformed arguments I ever heard. Epic’s Unreal Engine is being used by majority of industry, from gaming companies to movie and other industries. Despite the company being dumb by taking a shot at Apple, they are extremely far from bankruptcy.

It’s as if you predicted Apple’s bankruptcy simply because the iPod touch doesn’t sell well.

EGS is losing money by the boat loads and is only supported by Fortnite and that peaked and is starting the downward trend. EGS can't be supported by Fortnite forever which is why Epic is trying to force there way into Apple's profits.

They want to be able to operate there own storefront and payment system on iOS so they can get the developer's paying them instead of Apple. They don't really actually care about the small developer.

Won't be today. Won't be tomorrow. But if Epic keeps operating like they have been, bankruptcy is the inevitable conclusion at some point no matter how "popular" unreal engine is right now.