Not even close. iOS was a loss they were willing to make. XBox and PS4 have Epic by the balls 24/7. They try anything like this and the Unreal Engine suddenly is de-certified and Epic's real customers, Engine Licensees, will take over. Because these guys are paying millions for the engine.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Epic Games Aiming to Recruit 'Coalition of Apple Critics' to Fight App Store Policies
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Starbucks is at Target and Barnes and Nobles because they made agreements with them. Starbucks doesn't just pay rent, they have to give a percentage of their earnings, they have to accept the employees hired by the store for the cafe. Same at a mall. Just because you have the money for a store at a mall doesn't mean that you have the right to be there. The mall has full control of your operations.
But if you are playing a numbers game then Android devices exceed the iOS devices!
The question is why did Epic do this to Apple and Google and not XBox and PS4 stores where they pay the same fees.
Pretty sure it's all about publicity. Can't help but think Sweeny looked at the mobile numbers and made the call to do this feeling that a loss now would force Apple to cave.
Not sure if he was truly expecting Google and Apple both to yank the app.
And, whenI say Sweeny, I can't help but think that 40% Tencent hand was pulling the strings.
I don't think it actually matters if Android or iOS has more devices. It is that there are so few players, so regulators care more. I don't really know much of anything about how the fee structures work for Android, XBox, or Playstation, but I know for the devices I own (and I happen to have at least one of each), I don't have to buy my games through the stores. Does Sony still get a cut of a game that I buy on a disc? To be honest, I also don't buy many games for any systems any more.
I know for Android, I've purchased the occasional app from the Amazon Android store, because it was on sale or there was some promotion. I also don't know if all in-app purchases need to be purchased through the official store(s).
EDIT: I see that Google does require in-app purchases from apps bought from within the app store to be made through the Play Store program, with the 30% fee. I also see that Google dropped Fortnite from their store, and Epic has sued. Epic says that apps purchased from outside the Playstore are disadvantaged in some way, so they don't see that as a fully viable approach.
The fee structure is the same on iOS/Android/Playstation/Switch/Xbox. It's still 30% to Sony whether you buy a physical PS4 game in a brick and mortar store or if you buy it on the Playstation Network.
How does offering the same rate to everyone at 30% lock out competition? That the rate is the same for everyone should encourage competition.
Also remember that Apple doesn't have to let anyone install software on their products. Obviously there are advantages to their business to do so, so then how to be more fair than to charge the same for everyone?
It prevents anyone from competing with Apple.
Originally, cmaier said that Apple provides a lot of services in exchange for their 30% cut. Fine—but what if an app maker doesn't want any of those services? Why can't developers sell apps on their own websites, with their own payment processing, like they can on macOS?
Or, what if you're Spotify, and your competitor is Apple Music, who has the same costs you do (in terms of paying record labels) but doesn't have to pay an additional 30% cut of every subscription in order to be profitable?
This is where I fundamentally disagree. Apple should be forced to let any user install whatever software they want on devices they own.
Last edited:
It's true, without Fortnite in the App Store I'm forced to play Apple's battle royale game instead. Using their monopoly to block the competitor to their game in the App Store was an insidious move because now I have no choice but to play Apple's game instead of Epic's.
That’s for games they have on their store.
Fortnite is their intellectual property. All of it goes to Epic.
It literally doesn't prevent competition. Developers can sell apps on their own websites. Apple doesn't have a monopoly. If their fees are too high, customers can play fortnite on loads of other platforms and devices.
{Edit: and by the success of Fortnite on iOs their 30% cut doesn't seem to be a problem with consumers}
Sure, and let's force Samsung to make their tv's support Fortnite. And they're not allowed to charge for this. And then Roku also has to support Fortnite and they're not allowed to charge for this. And Youtube also has to support Fortnite, as a cloud service, and they are not allowed to charge for this. And Comcast and so on...
For your amusement
Epic’s Battle With Apple and Google Actually Dates Back to Pac-Man - Bloomberg -8/19/20
"A 30% fee from the age of cartridges is at the heart of its fight with the giant gatekeepers of mobile gaming."
Epic Games Inc. is out to prove it’s worthy of its name. It’s in a massive fight with Apple Inc. and Google over the 30% cut that both companies take from game revenues on their platforms. Epic contends that the fee is both outdated and unfair. The revenue split has its roots in 1980s Japan and the era of chunky cartridges and primitive consoles. Now it’s being questioned by game makers such as Epic across the global developer community.
The so-called platform “tax” dictates the distribution of vast sums of money. Epic’s own Fortniteis estimated to generate in excess of $1 billion annuallyfrom in-game cosmetics and extras. The company’s protest against the giants escalated when it gave Fortnite users the option to buy the add-ons directly—which would cut Apple and Alphabet Inc.-run Google out of the transaction. That prompted Fortnite’s removal from both the iPhone’s App Store and the Android Play Store.
But what was the 30% supposed to pay for in the first place? It was the Nintendo Entertainment System that first introduced the platform fee in the early 1980s. It began when Namco Ltd., the creator of Pac-Man and a major provider of arcade games at the time, wanted to expand its distribution via Nintendo’s nascent console—called the Famicom when it was released in 1983 in Japan. Namco got together with another game maker, Hudson Soft Co.(creator of Bomberman), to persuade Nintendo Co. to open its platform to outside software makers, according to Hisakazu Hirabayashi, an independent industry consultant.
Both were eager to be on Nintendo’s popular console, but Hudson couldn’t make its own cartridges, according to Hirabayashi. And so Namco proposed paying Nintendo a 10% licensing fee to be able to be on the console while Hudson paid an additional 20% for Nintendo to make its game cartridges. Nintendo agreed—and that two-component fee, licensing and manufacturing, became the basis of today’s 30% “tax.”
Epic’s Battle With Apple and Google Actually Dates Back to Pac-Man - Bloomberg -8/19/20
"A 30% fee from the age of cartridges is at the heart of its fight with the giant gatekeepers of mobile gaming."
Epic Games Inc. is out to prove it’s worthy of its name. It’s in a massive fight with Apple Inc. and Google over the 30% cut that both companies take from game revenues on their platforms. Epic contends that the fee is both outdated and unfair. The revenue split has its roots in 1980s Japan and the era of chunky cartridges and primitive consoles. Now it’s being questioned by game makers such as Epic across the global developer community.
The so-called platform “tax” dictates the distribution of vast sums of money. Epic’s own Fortniteis estimated to generate in excess of $1 billion annuallyfrom in-game cosmetics and extras. The company’s protest against the giants escalated when it gave Fortnite users the option to buy the add-ons directly—which would cut Apple and Alphabet Inc.-run Google out of the transaction. That prompted Fortnite’s removal from both the iPhone’s App Store and the Android Play Store.
But what was the 30% supposed to pay for in the first place? It was the Nintendo Entertainment System that first introduced the platform fee in the early 1980s. It began when Namco Ltd., the creator of Pac-Man and a major provider of arcade games at the time, wanted to expand its distribution via Nintendo’s nascent console—called the Famicom when it was released in 1983 in Japan. Namco got together with another game maker, Hudson Soft Co.(creator of Bomberman), to persuade Nintendo Co. to open its platform to outside software makers, according to Hisakazu Hirabayashi, an independent industry consultant.
Both were eager to be on Nintendo’s popular console, but Hudson couldn’t make its own cartridges, according to Hirabayashi. And so Namco proposed paying Nintendo a 10% licensing fee to be able to be on the console while Hudson paid an additional 20% for Nintendo to make its game cartridges. Nintendo agreed—and that two-component fee, licensing and manufacturing, became the basis of today’s 30% “tax.”
Yeah, but no one will be able to install them on the iPhone. (Unless they use a stolen enterprise cert or something, which is very very much against Apple's TOS.)
Actually, I do think Samsung should let end users install software on their TVs. Any computer I own, I should be able to control the software. That doesn't mean Samsung needs to develop a pleasant installation process, much less an app store, but there should be a way for end users to unlock the bootloader or something.
And if Samsung did that, the gates would be wide open. Epic could sell a dongle for people to plug into Samsung TVs which automatically performs the steps to install Fortnite. It would be Epic's responsibility to figure out how it works; what's important is that Samsung isn't putting technological blocks in place.
Have fun getting your cars manufacturer to comply with that thought.
Should we sue Tesla because they don't allow carplay?
PS - who do you call when you side load some random app on your TV and then it no longer works?
They tell you to perform a factory reset. Or say your warranty is void if the bootloader is unlocked.
With the exception of game consoles, up until the iPhone launched just about every computer you could buy was user-modifiable. It's not always easy—there are a lot of inherent reasons why it's difficult to install a program on your microwave—but if you don't mind removing the chip and doing some soldering, nothing the manufactuer has done will prevent you from installing Linux. Contrast this to an iPhone, where Apple explicitly puts security systems in place to stop you from installing your own software—that's why phones need to be "Jailbroken".
With Tesla's tiny marketshare you'd have a very hard time building a legal case. But, maybe! Not because Tesla doesn't support carplay, per se, but because there's no way for anyone else to add carplay support to a Tesla. Tesla has locked down the car's computer system such that no one else can touch it.
And I do think that's wrong. I'm not much of a car person, but there's actually a huge history and culture of people making custom modifications to their cars. Anyone can open a car's hood and make changes or repairs—manufactuers don't install special locks to prevent unauthorized access. If future cars are controlled by a computer that only the car's manufacturer has access to, all of that will go away.
Last edited:
As someone else said in an other thread, just because Epic is not a universal hero, doesn't make Apple the good guy.
I hate Epic for many reasons, I do think that IAPs are ********, but can occasionally still enjoy games featuring IAPs. I am glad that apart form tricking kids into a new skin, they take their power to fight something else I see is unfair.
I know many people boast about how privacy is the #1 at Apple, yet when the leaks about actual humans listening to Google Home/Amazon Echo came, it turned out Apple did that too, yet had/has an arguably worse service AND selfproclaiming themselves as privacy kings.
There some good things these companies do, but it has to be spun in a way to generate attention / $. We don't know where this will stop, maybe an iPad with fortnite installed will be as valuable as the flappy bird phones back in the day.
And? If Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony could make more money on consoles I’m sure they would. Apple was able to do so. Why should they be punished for that?
Apple should probably give developers a choice, or actually their customers a choice. But let's ask one question: If it wasn't for Apple's requirement, would Epic's price be the same as Apple's?
This fight is so shortsighted, and using kids as human shields is lame. But anyway... I've said enough. Epic is being an ass. They think they are David against Goliath. Yeah, no. David didn't take down the world.
I disagree. The choice for developers and customers already exists, because apple has competitors.
Not every company in an industry needs to provide customers with choices of all possible business models. The customer can choose business models by choosing the company.
In the end for the customer it is beneficial if the money goes to the ones actually adding productive work in some lead, whether more money goes to Epic or customers pays less doesn't matter, as long as Apple gets less I understand running and App Store and payment processing is not trivial, but 30% cut for that is what is outrageous. And no, none of that money goes into subsidizing iPad/iPhone hardware, like how Xbox. PlayStation does it.
No need to feel sorry for Epic, but one have to realize this is a battle in a longer war. If Apple doesn't change their stance, its users will suffer and receive worse experience for gaming. Funny how the performance/efficiency of iOS platform is almost only visible with games.
While perhaps technically correct, I think that ship has sailed in the 80s. Since at least the NES, no console manufacturer has been able to return any sustainable profit on any console. This is in no small part due to the fact that consoles are single purpose devices, with a single value proposition. History has shown that every time console was positioned in any other way, that strategy was met with low sales, which shows that they are perceived as such.
Smartphones and PCs on the other hand are not restricted to a single purpose and are accordingly perceived differently, and up until iOS, the idea that those devices could be platforms for a substantial after-sale revenue stream simply did not exist.
Hence we are talking about separate markets.
Apple was lucky (until now), but comparing consoles to general purpose computers is simply comparing apples and oranges.
If you give more money to entitled management, they will take it for themselves. Look at the Pentagon: When more money is ladled on the MIC, we don't get better weapons and programs, we get more expensive weapons and programs.
30% of $9.95 must be one hell of a lot of money, large enough to risk your company on. He's playing chicken with all of the employees of his company, and all of the people that have purchased their products. Driving into a bridge abutment might make a statement, but at a huge cost. Maybe they have overplayed their hand. It depends how activist the judge(s) might be.