Epic: Fortnite Offline Worldwide 'Until Apple Unblocks It'

[Stuwil]

Do the math and you will see that the 15%/30% cut of revenue is commensurate with what a company would have to build to replece the services provided by the App Store. Did it occur to you that there are thousands of developers who offer free apps with in-app purchases and are happy to give Apple a 15% or 30% cut of revenue in exchange for all they get? Why should a model that works well for the vast majority of developers be changed because a scumbag company and CEO is willing to destroy a system that works for many to avoid paying fair compensation for services rendered.

Incorrect not once did Tim Sweeney say that apple wasn’t entitled to a commission on digital sales regarding IAP because epic take a commission on sales made

Just because a company wants better terms against another then why are people taking it personally

 

[heretiq]

It's not. Apple's services and competitors' pricing are indicative of the contrary.

We could argue - but definitely not put an exact price tag - about the value visibility and promotion for smaller developers on Apple's App Store. But large developers just don't require it. At all.

Kindle, Netflix, Spotify don't require App Store services at all. They'd all be fine if their app store listing was revoked tomorrow. If only they could offer their apps for download from their own web site, and have customers install them just like on macOS.


30% for merely processing in-app payment transactions is not fair compensation.
That's why no big large streaming service has been doing it. Nor Amazon with their Kindle app.

It does not cost 30% to process a payment transaction in an app (at large scale). It costs 3% or less.
A bit more when you factor in the VAT/sales admin & reporting and customer service.

Neither is 30% of revenue a fair share for mere payment transaction processing when someone else provides a music streaming service - and that someone else licenses all the music and provides all the infrastructure.

I agree that the big companies may be able to do without App Store services and they have the wherewithall to build their own -- so why didn't they build their own infrastructure? Answer: because it was cheaper/better/safer for them to use Apple's infrastructure than roll their own.

The comment about 30% just for in-app payment processing is misguided. Here’s what developers get for a 15/30% cut of revenue:

• world-class development frameworks that unlock sophisticated app capabilities,
• professional development tools, documentation, sample code and dev support,
• access to and use of a secure, global distribution infrastructure,
• easy access to a marketplace with hundreds of millions of buyers,
• frictionless payment processing and billing lifecycle capabilities,
• expertise to build and maintain the above,
• minimized capital investment,
• risk avoidance.

People caliming that Apple should just change their pricing, go to a downloads-based model, etc. have no clue about what Apple provides to developers or what it would cost developers to do it themselves.

 

[AppliedMicro]

sowhy didn't they build their own infrastructure? Answer: because it was cheaper for them to use Apple's infrastructure than roll their own.

No, they did build their own infrastructure. The big "reader app" developers don't pay commissions on transactions to Apple.
Why don't they build their own smartphone platform? Cause no one wants separate smartphones from Spotify, Netflix or Epic.

People caliming that Apple should just change their pricing, go to a downloads-based model, etc. have no clue about what Apple provides to developers

I could have provided those 8 bullet points without being fed them by you - or looking it up (like in your previous comment from days ago ).

I'm not saying that Apple's services - at their current pricing - are good value for no developer.
But they clearly aren't for large, high-profile ones - that account for the biggest part of transactions.

Here’s what developers get for a 15/30% cut of revenue:

...and many developers even get it for free.
Including multi-billion dollar companies.

The comment about 30% just for in-app payment processing is misguided

It's not for high-profile developers operating at large scale.
Spotify or Epic don't require anything from Apple - particularly not once their app is installed on a consumer's device.
They can do everything they require from then on at a fraction of Apple's cost.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

And conversely where lenders like epic who made millions of dollar be without the iOS App Store. Chicken and egg?

Well of all the developers. Epic would largely be at the same place irrespective of the iOS AppStore.

The unreal engine they built their wealth from was successful on computers and consoles

 

[Abazigal]

What the heck is he talking about? Fortnite was removed from the App Store after Tim Sweeney’s stunt in 2020 and there shouldn’t be anybody running the current version of Fortnite on their iPhones or ipads, barring a few devices in the EU who are accessing it via third party app stores.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Do the math and you will see that the 15%/30% cut of revenue is commensurate with what a company would have to build to replece the services provided by the App Store. Did it occur to you that there are thousands of developers who offer free apps with in-app purchases and are happy to give Apple a 15% or 30% cut of revenue in exchange for all they get?

Here’s some of what developers get for a 15/30% cut of revenue:

• world-class development frameworks that unlock sophisticated app capabilities,
• professional development tools, documentation, sample code and dev support,
• access to and use of a secure, global distribution infrastructure,
• easy access to a marketplace with hundreds of millions of buyers,
• frictionless payment processing and billing lifecycle capabilities,
• expertise to build and maintain the above,
• minimized capital investment,
• risk avoidance

The vast majority of iOS and Mac developers are incapable of and/or cannot afford to replace these enablers, and would not exist or will cease to exist without them. Many of those who are capable of doing this themselves would be hard pressed to do this for 15/30% of revenue.

Why should a model that works well for the vast majority of developers be changed because a scumbag company and CEO is willing to destroy a system that works for many to avoid paying fair compensation for services rendered?

It’s the issue of using other more capable solutions that Apple prevents on baseless grounds that benefits Apple solely.

I agree that the big companies may be able to do without App Store services and they have the wherewithall to build their own -- so why didn't they build their own infrastructure? Answer: because it was cheaper/better/safer for them to use Apple's infrastructure than roll their own.

The comment about 30% just for in-app payment processing is misguided. Here’s what developers get for a 15/30% cut of revenue:

They did. On iOS you’re required to use the infrastructure Apple developed. And it’s a steel of bad value.

• world-class development frameworks that unlock sophisticated app capabilities,
• professional development tools, documentation, sample code and dev support,

Exist alternative solutions. But you can’t use it because rules.

• access to and use of a secure, global distribution infrastructure,
• easy access to a marketplace with hundreds of millions of buyers,
• frictionless payment processing and billing lifecycle capabilities,

They can’t use ApplePay something with 0.3% fee with better infrastructure and consumer support.

• expertise to build and maintain the above,
• minimized capital investment,
• risk avoidance.

Something competitive platforms are providing but better like steam.

People caliming that Apple should just change their pricing, go to a downloads-based model, etc. have no clue about what Apple provides to developers or what it would cost developers to do it themselves.

Because Apple doesn’t provide enough value compared with the rest in the industry. Valve is the GOAT of this

 

[heretiq]

I could have provided those 8 bullet points without being fed them by you - or looking it up (like in your previous comment from days ago ).

By the way, none of those 8-points were looked up -- they were all top of mind and pasting them in this thread was simply more convenient than writing them from scratch. In any case, if you knew all of that, then why did you claim Apple's 30% fee was just for in-app purchases? There's a word for that and I'm sure I don't have to tell you what it is. 😉

And, show me a "high profile developer" operating at Apple's billions of units scale and you've supported your assertion. You can't. Everyone else's costs are significantly higher than Apple's. Do the math.

 

[I7guy]

Well of all the developers. Epic would largely be at the same place irrespective of the iOS AppStore.

The unreal engine they built their wealth from was successful on computers and consoles

So the $700M that epic made in the iOS App Store is irrelevant? Interesting.

 

[krull1015]

Apple is a trillion dollar company and clearly the bully in this situation. Consumer desire will never be the priority, unfortunately money (profits) trump all.

 

[krull1015]

Nah. Apple should get their greedy fingers outta users hardware that THEY paid for. If people wanna play Fortnite on their iPhone and Epic wants to provide that why should Apple be involved.

Agree, but it will never happen without government regulations. It would result in a loss of revenue for Apple and more importantly loss of control over their so called “walled garden”, or as I see it “consumer imprisonment”.

 

[I7guy]

Apple is a trillion dollar company and clearly the bully in this situation. Consumer desire will never be the priority, unfortunately money (profits) trump all.

For a company that doesn’t place consumer desire first, they sure are doing well.

And then there is this: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...lds-most-valuable-brand.2457185/post-33907905

 

[AppliedMicro]

In-App purchases for a FREE game is the only way Epic would pay Apple more than the $100/yr developer fee

So? It’s up to Apple to charge a reasonable amount for their service.

In any case, if you knew all of that, then why did you claim Apple's 30% fee was just for in-app purchases?

That’s what the price is.

The developer tools, support, content delivery etc. etc. (the bullet points you named) are priced at $99 for the developer subscription.

What more do you get for 30%?
Nothing. Except the IAP facility.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So the $700M that epic made in the iOS App Store is irrelevant? Interesting.

Considering they made 16 billion 2018-2020 in the same time frame. Yes i would say the 700 million they made is practically irrelevant to them.

For a company that doesn’t place consumer desire first, they sure are doing well.

And then there is this: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...lds-most-valuable-brand.2457185/post-33907905

Well… doing well=/=placing consumers first.
The company DuPont did incredibly well with profitability and created a new demand with with PTFE or as it’s more known as Teflon, despite intentionally holding the knowledge how their chemicals where killing people and destroying the environment with their waste products being dumped and allowed to poison their consumers and workers. A profit motive doesn’t mean you care what’s best or good for consumers.

 

[I7guy]

Considering they made 16 billion 2018-2020 in the same time frame. Yes i would say the 700 million they made is practically irrelevant to them.
View attachment 2511551

Well… doing well=/=placing consumers first.
The company DuPont did incredibly well with profitability and created a new demand with with PTFE or as it’s more known as Teflon, despite intentionally holding the knowledge how their chemicals where killing people and destroying the environment with their waste products being dumped and allowed to poison their consumers and workers. A profit motive doesn’t mean you care what’s best or good for consumers.

You are playing fast and loose with other people’s money with this commentary. And it’s a false equivalency to talk about Apple and pfte in the same sentence. Because one company showed blatant disregard it doesn’t mean all companies don’t.

 

[delsoul]

Imagine trying to bully another company into forcing them to let you at their consumers. Sweeney the Swindler needs to just give it up already. Epic just looks pathetic and childish at this point.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You are playing fast and loose with other people’s money with this commentary. And it’s a false equivalency to talk about Apple and pfte in the same sentence. Because one company showed blatant disregard it doesn’t mean all companies don’t.

I agree, and I’m not equating the two. But Apple being the most valuable company doesn’t translate into them doing what’s best for the consumer.

This is an unsubstantiated statement. We have seen from multiple court documents that Apple have done what’s best for them and how to manipulate the user or heavily incentivize them to act in specific ways.

And other times they have believed something is in the consumers best interest ( CSAM Detection) but later changed their minds about it for either being convinced it’s not in their interest or not worth the economic cost to chase.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Imagine trying to bully another company into forcing them to let you at their consumers. Sweeney the Swindler needs to just give it up already. Epic just looks pathetic and childish at this point.

Well unfortunately I do believe Epic have a point on this.

Apple CEO Tim Cook testified at trial that Apple repeatedly offered Epic the option to return to the App Store with a compliant version of Fortnite. (Tr. 3918:18-3919:6.) Mr. Cook recognized that "it would be to the benefit of the users to have [Fortnite] back on the [App S]tore". (Id. at 3919:15-19.)​

​

And this part

Apple also expressly and repeatedly told both this Court and Epic that it would welcome Fortnite back to the App Store if Epic complied with all of Apple's Guidelines. (See, e.g., Tr. 3918:4-3919:6, 3919:15-19.) That is exactly what Epic did. The only thing that has changed since Apple made those representations is that Apple has been required to change the Guidelines.​

link to the document page 7 and page 3.

So unless Apple lied in court they are likely required to let them in as a consequence of those statements. But if they lied… well that’s probably worse

 

[tenthousandthings]

~

Well unfortunately I do believe Epic have a point on this.

Apple CEO Tim Cook testified at trial that Apple repeatedly offered Epic the option to return to the App Store with a compliant version of Fortnite. (Tr. 3918:18-3919:6.) Mr. Cook recognized that "it would be to the benefit of the users to have [Fortnite] back on the [App S]tore". (Id. at 3919:15-19.)​

​

And this part

Apple also expressly and repeatedly told both this Court and Epic that it would welcome Fortnite back to the App Store if Epic complied with all of Apple's Guidelines. (See, e.g., Tr. 3918:4-3919:6, 3919:15-19.) That is exactly what Epic did. The only thing that has changed since Apple made those representations is that Apple has been required to change the Guidelines.​

link to the document page 7 and page 3

I think Apple’s stance on that is probably “not until our appeal is heard.”

Epic’s problem at the moment is they have proven themselves an unreliable partner. Apple has no guarantee, based on Epic’s past behavior, that Epic would comply if Apple wins its appeal and the guidelines change again.

This is in stark contrast to others, like Patreon and Spotify, who have already taken advantage of the current changes to the guidelines. Apple can rely on those partners to comply with any future change in the guidelines. Unlike Epic, Apple can rely on them to not submit an app they know to be non-compliant.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

~

I think Apple’s stance on that is probably “not until our appeal is heard.”

Epic’s problem there is they have proven themselves an unreliable partner. Apple has no guarantee, based on Epic’s past behavior, that Epic would comply if Apple wins its appeal and the guidelines change again.

This is in stark contrast to others, like Patreon and Spotify, who have already taken advantage of the current changes to the guidelines. Apple can rely on those partners to comply with any future change in the guidelines. Unlike Epic, Apple can rely on them to not submit an app they know to be non-compliant.

Sure, and you have a good point. But if Apple in court under oath hav stated they would have no problem letting Epic back in the store if they follow the guidelines.

And also stated it’s in consumer’s benefit to be back in the store…

Then on what grounds can they refuse to accept them in the store? It’s in their right, but have stated the opposite.

They can say Epic is unreliable, but saying they were welcome if they follow the guidelines also contradicts this.

 

[heretiq]

So? It’s up to Apple to charge a reasonable amount for their service.


That’s what the price is.

The developer tools, support, content delivery etc. etc. (the bullet points you named) are priced at $99 for the developer subscription.

What more do you get for 30%?
Nothing. Except the IAP facility.

Do you really believe usage-based infrastructure and recurring operational costs can sustainably be recovered on a de minimus flat annual fee basis? They can’t. That’s why infrastructure costs such as ISP costs are usage based and monthly recurring. A % of revenue tracks with costs and provides best case cost recovery and cost management for both provider and developer. Apple and every other capital and OpEx intensive business would go bankrupt if they managed their business the way you think they should.

 

[I7guy]

I agree, and I’m not equating the two. But Apple being the most valuable company doesn’t translate into them doing what’s best for the consumer.

Doing what’s best for the consumer is a lofty subjective goal. People will have different interpretations of that. I posit the current App Store setup is the best possible for the consumer. Others feel differently. Hence my comment about this being a lofty subjective goal.

This is an unsubstantiated statement. We have seen from multiple court documents that Apple have done what’s best for them and how to manipulate the user or heavily incentivize them to act in specific ways.

No we haven’t that’s plain false. The consumer isn’t being manipulated in any way.

And other times they have believed something is in the consumers best interest ( CSAM Detection) but later changed their minds about it for either being convinced it’s not in their interest or not worth the economic cost to chase.

Csam is a bad, bad example. That was never about consumers.

 

[Arsenikdote]

Developers take risks by being on your platform because if they don’t believe that people will user or purchase their app then they won’t make one for said platform

Agreed.

Not sure exactly how you are relating that to a platform charging for their service though.

Another note is that the risk is FAR greater for the platform. The developer can sit back and evaluate the risk/reward scenario and when the "best" time to enter the platform would be. However, for platforms, there is no such position.

 

[I7guy]

Developers take risks by being on your platform because if they don’t believe that people will user or purchase their app then they won’t make one for said platform

The risk is far less for the dev. If you are starting a business the size of epic, ramping up could be costly. If you are starting a sole proprietorship it can be done a shoestring budget.

Either way the platform owner has a fixed cost to bear for internet, space, electric, equipment, software, hvac. More risk for the platform owner. The dev by all accounts has to have a good business plan.

 

[Arsenikdote]

👉 They should go on and update their pricing to reflect the real value and service.

But giving away their service for (basically) free to obtain duopoly market share and power and then cry when government regulation sets in?

No, thanks.
It’s up to Apple to charge a reasonable amount for their service.

Are you or have you ever been developer? If yes, prior to the world of mobile apps? As a previous developer there is NO WAY I want that. Do you not understand the barrier to entry that it could pose if Apple went of costs to have apps in the store instead of a revenue sharing model? Most developers don't make millions let alone billions. All of the "outcry" comes from the mega companies who don't want to pay Apple.

Even the most successful app on the App Store I was involved with made multiple millions per year and we were totally ok with Apple taking its 30%. Would it be great if the % was lower, of course. However, our ability to get started existed because of the way their ecosystem works. The cost of development is lower compared to other systems because of the frameworks Apple continues to build and provide.

Also, while the most pessimistic viewpoint is that Apple, far before anyone in the history of software, ever knew that platforms like this could exist and way before they even knew their new phone device would get traction in the market, somehow twisted their mustache and said...."Yes, we will become a duopoly with a company who hasn't released a device yet"....hmmm....maybe not? Maybe Occam's razor applies here and they saw it as a way for Apple to attract developers and also a way for developers to easily enter the platform and make money? Maybe go back and read interviews with developers who have said that 30% is WAY cheaper than what you used to pay distributors to get your software into the hands of customers. You say the amount isn't reasonable but compared to what? If you compare to what it was before, it is nearly half off!!

Could Apple pivot the way they charge? Sure. If they do pivot away from a percentage of sales, then they would just make up for it another way. The fact is they took the risk of building the entire ecosystem and now are able to reap the reward. The mage companies like Spotify, Netflix, etc... are the ones complaining, not the developers who make up the bulk of the apps in the App Store.

 

[I7guy]

[…]

What more do you get for 30%?
Nothing. Except the IAP facility.

And access to apples billions of curated customers. Whether you agree or not it is what it is.

Didn’t think it needed to be said a dev license has to be purchased.