Epic Games vs. Apple: Timeline of Events Surrounding Fortnite's Removal From App Store

[involuntarheely]

Sure but there is nothing really stopping Apple from pricing their services to whatever they want.

well yes but in competitive markets if you set the price to whatever you want you go out of business unless the price "makes sense"
the whole point of non-competitive markets (which Epic argues is the case with Apple) is that price making is not governed by the usual supply/demand mechanism.

if you can only get a service from company X, company X has the power to set the price to whatever they want. if your business depends on that, you may go out of business if company X independently chooses to just unilaterally change the conditions. I'm not saying this is what's going on with Epic (I'm pretty sure they'll stay in business regardless of Apple's decisions) but the analogy stands regardless.

 

[JKAussieSkater]

June 16
Sweeney quote tweets The Washington Post's story: "Here Apple speaks of a level playing field. To me, this means: All iOS developers are free to process payments directly, all users are free to install software from any source. In this endeavor, Epic won't seek nor accept a special deal just for ourselves."

So right from the beginning they’ve made it clear: “We want this policy changed for EVERY developer, we won’t even accept an offer if Apple cuts us a special deal.”

Yet the top “liked” posts in these forums about Epic Games are ANTI-epic games and pro-Apple, with many people saying “Epic Games are greedy they just want to keep all the profits and more to themselves…”

I feel like the absurd Apple Fanboy posts and reckless unquestioned unwavering support for the capitalist walled garden of Eden Apple has created is a testimony to the intelligence of those readers. Or lack there of I should say.

It’s so plainly obvious: a win for Apple today is a loss for all developers, and consumers, in the future. Really, please, take a moment to think about the long-term outcomes of the following scenarios:

1) Apple win and their monopoly of controlling mobile device software is considered lawful and permissible, and can force customers to use their own Apple payment systems with their 15%-30% claim to all purchases.

2) Apple lose and their monopoly of controlling mobile device software is considered unlawful. Apple must allow their device users to choose where and how they download their software. Apple must allow their device users to choose how they pay developers.

The intelligence test is simple: Choose (1) if you hate democracy and want your freedoms restricted. Choose (2) if you want a fair competitive future where you can democratically vote with your money and make your own choices.

 

[pacalis]

So right from the beginning they’ve made it clear: “We want this policy changed for EVERY developer, we won’t even accept an offer if Apple cuts us a special deal.”

Yet the top “liked” posts in these forums about Epic Games are ANTI-epic games and pro-Apple, with many people saying “Epic Games are greedy they just want to keep all the profits and more to themselves…”

I feel like the absurd Apple Fanboy posts and reckless unquestioned unwavering support for the capitalist walled garden of Eden Apple has created is a testimony to the intelligence of those readers. Or lack there of I should say.

It’s so plainly obvious: a win for Apple today is a loss for all developers, and consumers, in the future. Really, please, take a moment to think about the long-term outcomes of the following scenarios:

1) Apple win and their monopoly of controlling mobile device software is considered lawful and permissible, and can force customers to use their own Apple payment systems with their 15%-30% claim to all purchases.

2) Apple lose and their monopoly of controlling mobile device software is considered unlawful. Apple must allow their device users to choose where and how they download their software. Apple must allow their device users to choose how they pay developers.

The intelligence test is simple: Choose (1) if you hate democracy and want your freedoms restricted. Choose (2) if you want a fair competitive future where you can democratically vote with your money and make your own choices.

The app store and the payment system are the same thing, it's not a monopoly on payment systems.

Just because Walmart has a till, doesn't mean that walmart tills have a monopoly on walmart goods.

Put another way, you can't take the margin out of walmart and say that a $10 t-shirt is really just $7 to the manufacturer and $3 to walmart's payment system.

It's absurd to compare this to freedom and democracy.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

with many people saying “Epic Games are greedy they just want to keep all the profits and more to themselves…”

Which, of course, is true. Anyone who believes that Epic Games is NOT in business to make money doesn’t understand how corporations work.

The intelligence test is simple: Choose (1) if you hate democracy and want your freedoms restricted. Choose (2) if you want a fair competitive future where you can democratically vote with your money and make your own choices.

Or three, Apple is forced to sell fewer iPhones in the US to the point that they no longer have market control and Android phones and other competitors are able to flourish.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

As a freelance IT'er. If an agency offered me a job but said "we're taking 30% of your day rate" - I'd tell them where to go.
That is extortionate.

How about if an agency offered you a job saying they’d give you access to customers guaranteed want what you produce, all YOU have to do is just make it available. You’d net $10 million in six weeks on $13 million in sales. Good deal?

 

[TrevorR90]

How about if an agency offered you a job saying they’d give you access to customers guaranteed want what you produce, all YOU have to do is just make it available. You’d net $10 million in six weeks on $13 million in sales. Good deal?

That's a valid counter argument but the fact remains that 30% is a lot for Apple to take for doing nothing but make it available on the app store.

Additionally, I can see developers spending less on marketing costs and get close to or similar sales as they do on the app store BUT with Apples walled garden approach, they can't even do that. Essentially, they are forced to use the app store.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

That's a valid counter argument but the fact remains that 30% is a lot for Apple to take for doing nothing but make it available on the app store.

Additionally, I can see developers spending less on marketing costs and get close to or similar sales as they do on the app store BUT with Apples walled garden approach, they can't even do that. Essentially, they are forced to use the app store.

In the example I provided, ALL the agency is saying they’re doing is making the work available to folks... the total of whom would be willing to spend $13 million for it. Now, the agency MAY be doing additional work on the back end and they’ve worked that out to be like 10% effort and they want 20% cushion OR they’re doing 40% effort, but the cash flow is beneficial so they’re only asking for 30%... but that’s not even important. For whatever reason, they’re coming to you with a deal that says out of $13 million that comes through their hands, they’d take $3 million off the top and pass the rest to you.

It comes down to... do you want to sign the contract that nets $10 million or not? Could a person POTENTIALLY do better than that $10 million? Maybe. But they can absolutely positively do worse with little to no effort.

 

[Andropov]

It’s so plainly obvious: a win for Apple today is a loss for all developers, and consumers, in the future.

A reduction of the 30% cut may be a win for everyone (but Apple), but enabling apps from anywhere may bring a lot of unwanted side effects with it. It is wrong to assume the situation would stay mostly the same but with "freedom" to chose your store to sell.

App quality could go down by a lot. As of now, most Apps make good use of iOS/iPadOS features because Apple enforces it. For example: since iOS 12 (or something like that) all new iPad apps submitted to the AppStore must work with variable screen sizes.

All new AppStore apps must work on IPv6 networks, be 64-bit only, support rounded device corners, be compiled using the latest SDK... alternate stores won't have to. That might not be a problem for the big apps but could bring a lot of garbage to the bottom line.

 

[christo747]

You would like them to be able to do that but you realize that they can't, right?

They just did.

 

[rafark]

They take 12%, where as their rival Steam also takes 30% which seems to be mostly industry standard. Again if more eyes are on your store (Steam, App Store, Google Play) then you're going to get the most sales there.

It’s still insane. 30% commission + 30-40% taxes, that leaves you with only around 40-30% of what a user is charged.

 

[grundoon]

It’s still insane. 30% commission + 30-40% taxes, that leaves you with only around 40-30% of what a user is charged.

Maybe I missed something upstream here, but I have no idea where this "30-40% taxes" comes from.

At least here in the US the corporate tax rate is currently 21% – that's 21% on NET profit. So if you have zero expenses, zero salaries paid out, your max tax rate is 21% of 70% = 14.7% of the purchase price. Of course, if you're running your business properly you minimize that to close to nothing. You deduct every expense you can and pay the essentially the entire rest out in salary.

Let's say you're wildly successful and the only employee and are paying yourself $600K a year. Or maybe you skipped the whole corporate bit and are a sole proprietor netting $600K. Well, congratulations! – either way you're in the highest tax bracket and are paying 30.4% in personal federal income tax plus whatever your state rate is. California would be the highest rate, bumping your total taxes all the way to 43.5%...

43.5% of 70% = 30.45% of the purchase price, just edging into the range you state. BUT, you'd be paying that on ANY paycheck of that size... it has nothing to do with the App Store at all. And good luck at finding that other job handing you a $600K salary.

 

[CthuluLemon]

The app store and the payment system are the same thing, it's not a monopoly on payment systems.

Just because Walmart has a till, doesn't mean that walmart tills have a monopoly on walmart goods.

Put another way, you can't take the margin out of walmart and say that a $10 t-shirt is really just $7 to the manufacturer and $3 to walmart's payment system.

It's absurd to compare this to freedom and democracy.

This ignores how Walmart operates. They negotiate prices with their vendors, they don’t say you sell the product for what you want and we get a 30% cut. Walmart also doesn’t tell companies that sell products in their stores that they can’t have a special promotion with Best Buy. Yeah, they try and score their own discounts for promotions, but they seem to understand it would be a risky move to flex like Apple does. Long story short, you’re entire comparison is flawed.

Even if there were similarities, it’s not like Walmart is a well-regarded company. I’d rather go after them for shady practices too then use them to let Apple slide. But then again, I’m a consumer advocate, not an Apple advocate.

 

[amartinez1660]

Can we get app developers to be held accountable for making an app work before we support giving them more? Good Reader 5 is a great example of an app that sells fixes instead of honoring the idea of just getting the app to work.

Very good point.
At least we can be refunded no questions asked (sometimes sadly in the detriment of the dev when people just abuse it), but I don’t know how such a warranty system would look like.

 

[4jasontv]

So right from the beginning they’ve made it clear: “We want this policy changed for EVERY developer, we won’t even accept an offer if Apple cuts us a special deal.”

Yet the top “liked” posts in these forums about Epic Games are ANTI-epic games and pro-Apple, with many people saying “Epic Games are greedy they just want to keep all the profits and more to themselves…”

I feel like the absurd Apple Fanboy posts and reckless unquestioned unwavering support for the capitalist walled garden of Eden Apple has created is a testimony to the intelligence of those readers. Or lack there of I should say.

It’s so plainly obvious: a win for Apple today is a loss for all developers, and consumers, in the future. Really, please, take a moment to think about the long-term outcomes of the following scenarios:

1) Apple win and their monopoly of controlling mobile device software is considered lawful and permissible, and can force customers to use their own Apple payment systems with their 15%-30% claim to all purchases.

2) Apple lose and their monopoly of controlling mobile device software is considered unlawful. Apple must allow their device users to choose where and how they download their software. Apple must allow their device users to choose how they pay developers.

The intelligence test is simple: Choose (1) if you hate democracy and want your freedoms restricted. Choose (2) if you want a fair competitive future where you can democratically vote with your money and make your own choices.

This is ridiculous. None of this has anything to do with democracy. Democracy has no place is this discussion. I don't care if 90% of people want viruses on the app store. That's a bad idea.

 

[pasamio]

Fair enough on the MS history. But several points with regards to your comments:
1) Apple is also limiting Epic and Spotify's access to the market because of their control of the app store and the hardware. I've gotten popups when opening up the app store to tell me about apple arcade. There's no way Epic can have this level of access.

I don't believe there is a law against a company promoting their own products on their own hardware on their own store. Epic could obviously build their own hardware, their own operating system and they already have the store in which they already promote their own products as well.

2) The EU is in the picture here too, just as they were in the MS case. They may be more willing to rule against these dominant American companies.

Generally they are, they're not ostensibly native companies and making adverse rulings against US countries is a good way to get money out of these countries to the EU. It's an interesting form of wealth transfer.

3) Developers have been arguing that the terms of their contract with Apple has been too vague and apple changes the rules to its favor. Essentially the only firm rule is that Apple must approve you. Everything else on what you can and cannot do has been full of inconsistencies and holes, including in-app purchases and streaming content specifically.

A for profit company at times making decisions that is in their own interests that might make themselves more money? Perish the thought. Apple for sure have been incongruent at times in the application of their terms and for those developers who were genuinely caught off guard I have empathy for because that's not a fun place. Epic in this case is not one of those because their actions and intent demonstrate wilful and knowing intent to violate the contract. Apple is, and has always been, the final arbiter in what goes for their App Store. This should not be news and their capriciousness is well documented.

4) Consoles have a different business model and are a different type of device. Tim Sweeney of Epic has commented on his point himself.

The suit published by Epic attempts to define Apple's iOS App Store as a monopoly because it is the only place and Apple uses it's monopoly over said ecosystem to limit competition. This is in fact no different to how consoles work and I'll re-iterate that you could replace out Apple with any of those companies, their consoles and their stores. Tim doesn't want to give the consoles pause to take the same actions that Apple has because he knows that's truly going to hurt.

5) Epic is hoping they can start a revolt of developers. And it seems like the voices are getting louder, regardless of how the court will decide. Both Microsoft and Facebook are now in this camp. It is difficult for me to imagine how Apple can sustain this much longer and pacify these developers even if they do win the court battle. These companies will continue to create bad press for Apple and try to poke holes in its rules.

Epic should absolutely revolt and leave the platform. It should work to group those like minded developers who can't abide by the terms to leave the platform as well. I suspect Apple won't be too worried because each app that leaves opens up a new opportunity for another app to take it's place. Fortnite's press will be forgotten in a week and when the new iPhone is launched there will likely be scant a mention of it, the press has such a short attention span.

I'll re-iterate that I feel Apple will easily dodge this lawsuit as it doesn't have a monopoly of the smartphone market. Microsoft's Windows product had 90% of the desktop operating system market and threatened OEM's to not sell to them making their product uncompetitive in the x86 desktop computer market. The ultimate piece they settled on was access to private APIs on the desktop with that 90% marketshare which is far from comparative to Apple's less than majority share. Google's actions I think make a much better comparison point as they attempted to limit access to Google's services on Android which similarly would make those devices less competitive or require significant investment in developing alternative likely inferior services.

Ultimately Apple is much more worried that Trump will ban WeChat. If you want something to trigger better support for side loading or alternative app stores then a WeChat ban is much more likely to do that.

 

[ds2000]

How about if an agency offered you a job saying they’d give you access to customers guaranteed want what you produce, all YOU have to do is just make it available. You’d net $10 million in six weeks on $13 million in sales. Good deal?

At those numbers yes, but in my world its $200k vs $260k - I'd tell them to jog on.

 

[dannys1]

It’s still insane. 30% commission + 30-40% taxes, that leaves you with only around 40-30% of what a user is charged.

Ermmm - where on earth are you getting 30-40% taxes from? That isn't corporation tax in any country and you think Epic is paying full corporation tax? They'll be exploiting every loop hole in the box (like Apple) and avoiding millions.

Apple made 15 billion from the AppStore in 2019. Epic made 1.8billion from ONE game alone, Fortnite. I don't think they need to make another 10% for their vbucks...especially when they don't care about paying that to the console market which makes up 70% of their income.

This isn't some argument about fees being too high for them, anyone would happily pay 30% fee to make 1.8 billion profit on a product you don't even need to ship anything physical for and they happily do on consoles. It's Tencent and Epic trying to get it so they can run their own App store on Apple (and Google) devices to make even more money. They can already open the Epic store on Android if they want, but no chance on iOS and I don't think they should be allowed to do so either.

 

[ScreenSavers]

I don’t play games on my devices, and I see it as a total waste of time, but I’ve seen this issue come up with other apps over the years as well. I hope the developer’s account gets terminated. I think it serves them right.

They agreed, when signing up for a developer account, to give Apple 30% of earnings, whether its in app purchases or not. I’d guess that a developer of that size has made millions of dollars that they never would’ve seen if not for Apple platforms, and now they start this nonsense?

 

[JKAussieSkater]

A reduction of the 30% cut may be a win for everyone (but Apple), but enabling apps from anywhere may bring a lot of unwanted side effects with it. It is wrong to assume the situation would stay mostly the same but with "freedom" to chose your store to sell.

I see what you're saying, but nobody expects the situation to stay mostly the same. I think the expectation is that iOS will not be disadvantaged compared to Android, which already allows the practice of 3rd party apps & marketplaces.

App quality could go down by a lot. As of now, most Apps make good use of iOS/iPadOS features because Apple enforces it. For example: since iOS 12 (or something like that) all new iPad apps submitted to the AppStore must work with variable screen sizes.

All new AppStore apps must work on IPv6 networks, be 64-bit only, support rounded device corners, be compiled using the latest SDK... alternate stores won't have to. That might not be a problem for the big apps but could bring a lot of garbage to the bottom line.

That could happen. But let's just take a glance at macOS Catalina: it forces 64bit apps, but still allows 3rd party apps to be installed. Apple could still maintain a threshold of "quality apps". Also, allowing "garbage apps" doesn't reduce the existing quality of the "high quality" apps. Therefore, I suspect the experience for many people won't shift too much.

 

[JKAussieSkater]

This is ridiculous. None of this has anything to do with democracy. Democracy has no place is this discussion.

This has everything to do with democracy. Customers want options to pay developers or 3rd parties directly, especially if it means a discount is involved.

Right now, nobody is allowed to be informed that they're able to pay through other avenues from their iPhone. Furthermore, nobody can choose how to pay on an iPhone; from a capitalist perspective, the ability to vote on supply and demand with one's money is intentionally thwarted.

That's anti-informative.
That's fascism.
That's anti-democratic.

And in the supposedly "democratic country" of the USA, Apple sure needs to align democratic principles when they have a monopoly on a market.

I don't care if 90% of people want viruses on the app store. That's a bad idea.

That is not the logical consequence of this debate.

But speaking of viruses, if Apple does open its walled garden to 3rd party developers, iOS will finally be able to receive anti-virus software to protect your devices with.

Right now, your device is at the mercy of Apple—and only Apple's—protection.

And iOS viruses exist. And they have existed on the App Store before. And they probably already exist in the App Store now.

So if you think viruses are a bad idea, then opening up iOS to 3rd party apps will lead to stronger software protection for iOS.

 

[4jasontv]

This has everything to do with democracy. Customers want options to pay developers or 3rd parties directly, especially if it means a discount is involved.

Right now, nobody is allowed to be informed that they're able to pay through other avenues from their iPhone. Furthermore, nobody can choose how to pay on an iPhone; from a capitalist perspective, the ability to vote on supply and demand with one's money is intentionally thwarted.

That's anti-informative.
That's fascism.
That's anti-democratic.

And in the supposedly "democratic country" of the USA, Apple sure needs to align democratic principles when they have a monopoly on a market.



That is not the logical consequence of this debate.

But speaking of viruses, if Apple does open its walled garden to 3rd party developers, iOS will finally be able to receive anti-virus software to protect your devices with.

Right now, your device is at the mercy of Apple—and only Apple's—protection.

And iOS viruses exist. And they have existed on the App Store before. And they probably already exist in the App Store now.

So if you think viruses are a bad idea, then opening up iOS to 3rd party apps will lead to stronger software protection for iOS.

Democracy is about having a vote in how you are represented. Neither customers nor developers have a right to representation with Apple. Any communication a company has is a privilege. Apple could easily just say no. And close your case - if you pursue it they have every right to deactivate your equipment. They won't because people don't understand their relationship and would complain, but not doing something doesn't mean they don't have a right to do it.

As far as capitalism goes you can either buy apps or not buy them. But you have no right to apps nor any right to sell them.

It's not democracy. It's respecting other people's property. You want to have a discussion about ownership of digital goods? Fine. App developers should provide the source code for all their apps to customers who buy their apps. This would prevent greedy developers from trying to force people to pay for a new version of an app that supports a new device aspect ratio.

Finally - the USA is a representative democracy. Not all opinions influence policy. Some ideas are bad and should be ignored.

Who are we going to trust to protect us from iOS viruses if not the one company who has the most to lose from their presence? McAfee? Avast? Microsoft? Google? Software made in the USA or Russia or China? There are more fake antivirus apps for Window's than there are real ones... and of the ones that actually are trying to protect users the best ones come bundled in the OS.

 

[pasamio]

This has everything to do with democracy. Customers want options to pay developers or 3rd parties directly, especially if it means a discount is involved.

There has been an increase in advocacy that has lead to the belief that customers have a vote but companies are not democracies, if anything they are very close to dictatorships in how they function day to day. However there is a way you can get a vote to influence Apple's direction and that's through buying Apple shares. Once you have enough stock you can raise resolutions at the AGM that the rest of the shareholders can vote on it to decide if what you think is in the best interests of Apple aligns with what they think is in the best interests of Apple.

 

[the8thark]

So right from the beginning they’ve made it clear: “We want this policy changed for EVERY developer, we won’t even accept an offer if Apple cuts us a special deal.”

Yet the top “liked” posts in these forums about Epic Games are ANTI-epic games and pro-Apple, with many people saying “Epic Games are greedy they just want to keep all the profits and more to themselves…”

I feel like the absurd Apple Fanboy posts and reckless unquestioned unwavering support for the capitalist walled garden of Eden Apple has created is a testimony to the intelligence of those readers. Or lack there of I should say.

It’s so plainly obvious: a win for Apple today is a loss for all developers, and consumers, in the future. Really, please, take a moment to think about the long-term outcomes of the following scenarios:

1) Apple win and their monopoly of controlling mobile device software is considered lawful and permissible, and can force customers to use their own Apple payment systems with their 15%-30% claim to all purchases.

2) Apple lose and their monopoly of controlling mobile device software is considered unlawful. Apple must allow their device users to choose where and how they download their software. Apple must allow their device users to choose how they pay developers.

The intelligence test is simple: Choose (1) if you hate democracy and want your freedoms restricted. Choose (2) if you want a fair competitive future where you can democratically vote with your money and make your own choices.

If it was so plainly obvious, why did you get it so obviously wrong?

Epic want their own store on the iOS platform. To bypass the 30% cut. Epic are just using the "for all developers" to make it sound like they care for all developers which is clearly not the case.

Secondly the 30% is a fair deal considering what you are getting. Not having to develop your own app approval, payment and app ecosystems is a huge deal. Also the iOS SDK which comes with tons of gaming related APIs is huge. Also you don't have to develop your own programing language. Just use Swift via Xcode.
It costs more to physically put your game on a store shelf liek Gamestop.

Thirdly the Apple monopoly you speak of does not exist. Epic is free to make their own hardware platform to put their Epic store on.

Your "so called" push for freedom is in reality, wanting the rules changed because you don't like them. If you are on someone elses platform you have to follow their rules. They put in the billions of R&D money to develop the platform, not the game developer. You making use of that platform is not a free service.
It's no different to having to follow the rules of your landlord and pay them rent for living there. If you break the rules, you'll get evicted.

If Epic win, it will actually be worse for the developers. In the case of the Google play store, if the 30% was removed there's zero reason for the google play store to exist. That's bad for the small developers as they need the already established store to put their games on. They don't have the means to create/fund their own online store, payment services etc etc.

If Epic win, the iOS store would change also. Would it disappear? Less likely as Apple do need it. Apple could restrict it to their own apps only if the law makes charging anything illegal, not just 30% illegal.

If you want game developers live to be much easier you will hope Apple/Google win this.

 

[the8thark]

So if you think viruses are a bad idea, then opening up iOS to 3rd party apps will lead to stronger software protection for iOS.

That didn't happen at all on Android devices. It's up to the user to take care with what they download.
Android devices can be pretty stable though, only if the user knows what they are doing.

iOS being opened up will NOT lead to stronger protectino for iOS because no one knows iOS better than Apple. APple have the insider knowledge and the billions of dollars to get out the updates faster than any 3rd party can.

The difference is Apple is protecting the users who don't know how to protect themselves, which is a large percentage of the iOS customerbase.

 

[the8thark]

Customers want options to pay developers or 3rd parties directly, especially if it means a discount is involved.

No they don't. The customer wants apps that just work. For a fair price.
The average user doesn't care about or even know that Apple and almost everyone else on the digital side get a 30% cut. As long as the developer get's paid, and the app works properly, the customer is happy.

As a comparison you don't get the choice when you buy, say some bananas from Walmart, to choose that Walmsrt doesn't get their cut and all the money go directly to the farmer who grew the bananas. If you demanded that from Walmart, then Walmart would kindly ask you to leave their store.

The middleman always get a cut. In Apple's case they are actually doing a lot for the developers above and beyond just being a middleman for the software.