Microsoft Supports Epic Games, Says Apple Blocking Access to Unreal Engine Would Harm Game Creators

[rp100]

Has anyone actually quantified what a “fair” rate would be? Not a guess of 15% because it just so happens to be half of 30%, but a legit commission (while considering services, support, and customer care)?

30% “feels” too high - compared to what? Is Apple offering an inferior service to developers/creators and customers relative to competitors? Are we suggesting that we should limit Apple’s ability to earn a profit? If so, what is fair? How do you define “fair”? As a feeling or a hunch that is determined by mass media? Who is being harmed? Customers? Developers? How do you define harm? If Apple is suddenly not allowed to make 30% commission then do we need to write legislation restricting profit? For everyone? What is fair? Maybe the real problem is tax law? If you go down this rabbit hole to restrict trade then there is no coming back. And the more you restrict trade then the more you disincentivize productivity and innovation. Why be amazing if I’m legally obligated to share my fruits with everyone?

Consider: Apple regularly makes appeals to their values - if throwing down with Epic causes Apple to lose users because of perceived value violations, then so be it. Instead of trying to condemn Apple as some kind of tyrant, Epic needs to be making creative and collaborative agreements with Android-based partners where they CAN put competing game installers and create their own store. Then, once Epic establishes a user-base aligned with THEIR values and pumping money into THEIR game store, Epic can work with Android phone manufacturers to release phones with the Epic game store preinstalled. That is simply one scenario - Epic has a CEO whose day job is to make these types of moves. What on earth is he doing?

In my eyes Epic is acting like an immature victim and appealing to the emotions of people who haven‘t the foggiest idea of what it means to operate a business at a certain profit level. Could you imagine Elon Musk whimpering like a baby before a judge because Ford or Chevy or (better yet) Lockheed Martin and Boeing are industry tyrants with perceived monopolistic positions? Elon didn’t sit around hoping for the tides to change - he got out there, with a vision, with ideals and goals, and made it happen. Right now, Epic has neither a vision nor ideals. They certainly aren’t displaying any ethics or “purpose”. Epic is a victim of its own success, selling $5 skins and $10 animations of people grabbing their crotch. The next big “thing” is right around the corner and I’m skeptical that Epic is prepared for it.

It would amuse me greatly to see Epic take down Apple at their own game instead of playing a high-stakes game of chicken using their Unreal Engine customers as collateral damage. Apple‘s mantra is to Think Different. Epic‘s noble purpose? I’m not really sure, and because of that I tend to doubt their motives and interests.

 

[Realityck]

You see this argument about this case and think back to the time of when the Macintosh was introduced and Apple Computer was considered the Rebels. You know that old 1984 commercial is very apt for this moment. That's what most people miss is Apple being bold, coming out with new products and ways to attract more customers. Now Apple and its store are like the mainframe people it seems, so set in their way of doing things, my how things change.

 

[AndiG]

Has anyone actually quantified what a “fair” rate would be? Not a guess of 15% because it just so happens to be half of 30%, but a legit commission (while considering services, support, and customer care)?

At the moment the main point is that 30% is extremely unfair when Apple charges Amazon only 15%
https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/30/...app-store-special-treatment-fee-subscriptions

Is it fair that since April Amazon Prime can bypass Apples IAP but others are not allowed?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/2...e-video-ios-app-store-cut-exempt-program-deal

Is it fair Amazon gets a special deal but others don‘t? Isn‘t exactly this kind of behavior discriminatory?

Is it fair Apple blocks content and apps they want to compete with or don‘t like (Like game streaming services)?


So in my opinion Apple doesn‘t behave fair but anti competitive and discriminatory. Anti trust commissions and courts will tell.

 

[2499723]

Epic is like a petulant teenager that couldn’t get the keys to dad’s car, so is now attempting to burn the family house down. Problem is that it’s made of brick and is valued at $2tn. Good luck.

Apple doesn’t need defending, particularly by the consumers it sucks dry on a daily basis (including me), but Epic is simply despicable.

 

[davidjytang]

Epic games isn’t some white knight trying to save consumers. They simply want to gain market share with their store and have tried multiple strategies to do that. What should be regulated is the gambling aspect that has generated billions of dollars off of children.

Substitute Epic with Apple and your statement is surprisingly still spot on.

 

[Solomani]

So because of Epic's willingness to violate the TOS, and Apple's unfair TOS, the smaller guys using the Unreal Engine get to suffer. I'm conflicted. I support Apple enforcing their TOS that Epic agreed and signed, but I don't agree with the actual TOS either. If Apple allowed users to install apps through outside sources like they do with macOS, this wouldn't be an issue. Before people complain about security issues, why does macOS seem to be doing fine? If Apple doesn't want to adjust their TOS, let Epic host their own apps on their own infrastructure and let users download and install them that way.

I'd support the idea of Apple (officially) allowing and enabling iOS devices to sideload apps. Just as long as Apple, and those customers, both agree that sideloading outside the App Store offers them ZERO protection typically attributed to the walled garden of the App Store. So if they get malware, trojans, COVID-21 or syphilis while sideloading apps, the Courts must agree that Apple is never held liable, and the customers are SOL.

Let's do it!

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Hence the problem.

Hence its success for consumers and developers 👌

 

[cyb3rdud3]

How is 30% for all games fair compared to $1000/year+ in developer costs? You do realize that Epic alone is paying hundreds of millions of dollars a quarter right? If Apple offered them to pay $1000/year+ instead, they'll take it in a heartbeat. And you do realize that companies like Uber are not paying anything even though they're also offering in-app payment and making billions right?

Moreover, in another thread, I've analyzed the costs of providing the cloud services that Apple provides. And it is minuscule compared to the revenue they're generating. (For comparison, see entire platforms supported by ads only.) I'm willing to bet the $99 that Apple already charges is sufficient to cover all of these costs.

It doesn’t matter how much they pay. As it is percentage based and if they are paying hundreds of millions a quarter, then they likely make more than billion a quarter themselves.

I can’t go to the tax man and say hey I’m paying more than my neighbour in absolute terms, can I get a discount please?

 

[cyb3rdud3]

The Fortnite dispute has nothing to do with the Unreal Engine. I doubt Epic anticipated that Apple would revoke their developer membership, but that move has really played nicely into Epic's hands. This is classic monopolist bullying behavior on Apple's part and it looks very very bad from the outside.

I don't like the idea of a single App Store (on any platform). Even more worrisome is the thought that some corporation can turn off access to the software I use, and maybe rely upon for my living, whenever they see fit. No one should have this kind of control over any platform. It's scary to think where this could lead.

Third party developers who use the Unreal Engine have absolutely nothing to do with Epic's Fortnite drama. Nothing. Zip. Zero. And Apple is going to punish them in order to punish Epic. No one should be cheering this kind of behavior. It's shocking that Apple would behave this way.

??? How do you come to that conclusion? Violation of the terms can lead to this. It’s all there in black and white. And this was an intentional violation, ahead of a legal test.

The mature thing EPIC should do is to no violate the rules first, still go to legal action to then get their dispute sorted. EPIC chose to go down this road. Courts don’t like publicity seeker like them, especially not when whining about the consequence of their own choices.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I'd support the idea of Apple (officially) allowing and enabling iOS devices to sideload apps. Just as long as Apple, and those customers, both agree that sideloading outside the App Store offers them ZERO protection typically attributed to the walled garden of the App Store. So if they get malware, trojans, COVID-21 or syphilis while sideloading apps, the Courts must agree that Apple is never held liable, and the customers are SOL.

Let's do it!

But then the reputations damage will already be done. All the headlines will still be about viruses on Apple iOS etc.

It will be the beginning of the end. For users who like to tinker like that and have full freedom get a Huawei phone and do what you want with it. The choice is there.

 

[Mr.Blacky]

Is this still about the 30% cut? 🤔

 

[Realityck]

I'd support the idea of Apple (officially) allowing and enabling iOS devices to sideload apps. Just as long as Apple, and those customers, both agree that sideloading outside the App Store offers them ZERO protection typically attributed to the walled garden of the App Store. So if they get malware, trojans, COVID-21 or syphilis while sideloading apps, the Courts must agree that Apple is never held liable, and the customers are SOL.
Let's do it!

But then the reputations damage will already be done. All the headlines will still be about viruses on Apple iOS etc.

Ok guys there really isn't any malware except worms for iPhones or iPads right? So we know the Apple Store is being used to screen software. How secure is iOS/iPadOS if sideloading is outside the App Store from an approved Apple vendor? This goes to the heart of one argument against EPIC. Is the store the only malware defense?

 

[cyb3rdud3]

There is no reason to threaten to terminate their developer account now that Fortnite is gone.

It’s not gone though. It’s still out there running on peoples devices until either EPIC updates it, or as a last resort Apple pulls the kill switch. EPIC has plenty of chances to play in accordance with the rules but are knowingly self destructing.

The mature way to deal with this is to change the rules first. That is all that Apple is asking. EPIC can choose to stop this from happening but they seem to be like a toddler with a tantrum and can’t think straight and objectively.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Ok guys there really isn't any malware except worms for iPhones or iPads right? So we know the Apple Store is being used to screen software. How secure is iOS/iPadOS if sideloading is outside the App Store from an approved Apple vendor? This goes to the heart of one argument against EPIC. Is the store the only malware defense?

Security is never a single defence. It’s like an onion and made up of many layers 👌

And it’s not just about security it is also about standards and integration that you can expect with iOS applications.

From integration with password managers, to payment cards in the wallet. But even simple things like cross platform clipboard and many others.

That would all be undone and untrusted in one go and provide for a very inconsistent experience. May as well get Android if you want those levels of inconsistency.

 

[Martinpa]

Has anyone actually quantified what a “fair” rate would be? Not a guess of 15% because it just so happens to be half of 30%, but a legit commission (while considering services, support, and customer care)?

30% “feels” too high - compared to what? Is Apple offering an inferior service to developers/creators and customers relative to competitors? Are we suggesting that we should limit Apple’s ability to earn a profit? If so, what is fair? How do you define “fair”? As a feeling or a hunch that is determined by mass media? Who is being harmed? Customers? Developers? How do you define harm? If Apple is suddenly not allowed to make 30% commission then do we need to write legislation restricting profit? For everyone? What is fair? Maybe the real problem is tax law? If you go down this rabbit hole to restrict trade then there is no coming back. And the more you restrict trade then the more you disincentivize productivity and innovation. Why be amazing if I’m legally obligated to share my fruits with everyone?

Consider: Apple regularly makes appeals to their values - if throwing down with Epic causes Apple to lose users because of perceived value violations, then so be it. Instead of trying to condemn Apple as some kind of tyrant, Epic needs to be making creative and collaborative agreements with Android-based partners where they CAN put competing game installers and create their own store. Then, once Epic establishes a user-base aligned with THEIR values and pumping money into THEIR game store, Epic can work with Android phone manufacturers to release phones with the Epic game store preinstalled. That is simply one scenario - Epic has a CEO whose day job is to make these types of moves. What on earth is he doing?

In my eyes Epic is acting like an immature victim and appealing to the emotions of people who haven‘t the foggiest idea of what it means to operate a business at a certain profit level. Could you imagine Elon Musk whimpering like a baby before a judge because Ford or Chevy or (better yet) Lockheed Martin and Boeing are industry tyrants with perceived monopolistic positions? Elon didn’t sit around hoping for the tides to change - he got out there, with a vision, with ideals and goals, and made it happen. Right now, Epic has neither a vision nor ideals. They certainly aren’t displaying any ethics or “purpose”. Epic is a victim of its own success, selling $5 skins and $10 animations of people grabbing their crotch. The next big “thing” is right around the corner and I’m skeptical that Epic is prepared for it.

It would amuse me greatly to see Epic take down Apple at their own game instead of playing a high-stakes game of chicken using their Unreal Engine customers as collateral damage. Apple‘s mantra is to Think Different. Epic‘s noble purpose? I’m not really sure, and because of that I tend to doubt their motives and interests.

I asked a similar question before, didn't get much of an answer... And "Amazon made a deal so everyone should get Amazon's reduced rate" is not valid as a reasoning for what is fair. Amazon and Apple made a deal, because Amazon had leverage (Amazon Prime Video, it seems) and used that leverage to negotiate. Apple valued what they had as leverage against what Amazon wanted in return and found it was favourable to them. That's how deals, and business, are made.

Any company that thinks they have enough leverage can try the same, or a group of companies can band together and try. Epic made demands, but didn't offer anything in return. They could've said they would pull Fortnite out of the store if they didn't get a negotiated rate, but they didn't (probably not a bad idea, mind you, it would've made them look bad to pull it out). They should've negotiated when Fortnite wasn't yet on the App Store, it was already all the rage, they had some negotiating power... but they probably didn't think long term, were greedy, and just wanted the quick cash that the App Store customer base would provide on top of the money they were already making.

But, eh, what do I know. I'm sure all the business and law majors in here with a deep understanding of the case will say that Apple bad and Epic victim.

 

[aaronhead14]

So because of Epic's willingness to violate the TOS, and Apple's unfair TOS, the smaller guys using the Unreal Engine get to suffer. I'm conflicted. I support Apple enforcing their TOS that Epic agreed and signed, but I don't agree with the actual TOS either. If Apple allowed users to install apps through outside sources like they do with macOS, this wouldn't be an issue. Before people complain about security issues, why does macOS seem to be doing fine? If Apple doesn't want to adjust their TOS, let Epic host their own apps on their own infrastructure and let users download and install them that way.

^^^ This guy gets it!

 

[SpringKid]

I'd support the idea of Apple (officially) allowing and enabling iOS devices to sideload apps. Just as long as Apple, and those customers, both agree that sideloading outside the App Store offers them ZERO protection typically attributed to the walled garden of the App Store. So if they get malware, trojans, COVID-21 or syphilis while sideloading apps, the Courts must agree that Apple is never held liable, and the customers are SOL.

Let's do it!

But don't you see that malware on Apple's platform would hurt the whole idea of their platform, regardless of this suggested setup?

 

[cupcakes2000]

All the haters have been saying the iPad is just a toy, and just a big phone, are now harping on that the iPad is a computer and so is the iPhone 🤣🤣 can’t make it up.

 

[mateytate]

Do we really need post on every company that supports epic and wants more money themselves.

Not all... but it’s probably worth mentioning when it’s one of the largest companies in the world.

 

[mateytate]

As an analogy... This is like if I built a Bricks and mortar store and then idiot Sweeney / Epic walked in and demanded to be allowed to set up a stall to sell their fortnite rubbish and not pay any rent or services.

That analogy would work if essentially two corporations owned and operated every single brick and mortar store and farmers market in the world and dictated terms to all their suppliers about how much their cut would be knowing there was literally no where else they can sell their goods. Would that be good for the suppliers / consumer?

I’m an Apple fan boy, love there products and have since the first iPod, but the way people here defend a $2TN company like they can do no wrong and are only taking their fair share makes me smile.

 

[AndyMacAndMic]

You miss the point. Windows 10S has the same limitations as iOS.

If you upgrade to Windows 10 then it's not Windows 10S.

Semantics. MS gives you a choice to upgrade for free from Windows 10S to Windows 10, hence you have a choice. Where can i upgrade from iOS to an iOS with less limitations?? Exactly... nowhere. The name Windows 10 or Windows 10s is irrelevant here. It is about choice.

 

[SvenSvenson]

Better fix: government mandates that each platform should allow for alternative app stores. Problem solved!

If I create a platform capable of running software, why should the government dictate that I open it up for anyone to install anything they like on it?

 

[peter34]

Substitute Epic with Apple and your statement is surprisingly still spot on.

or with any other big company

 

[The_Gream]

Better fix: government mandates that each platform should allow for alternative app stores. Problem solved!

I didn't read the wall of text yet - but just like how the EU put in the whole lets all use a single connector for our phones or have a dongle. . . If they had locked in a single connector back in the orginal work, we wouldn't have gotten USB-C connector type or any other innovative upgrade. Government mandates generally don't work out for anyone, specially the consumer - increases in cost which leads to increases in price etc.

 

[The_Gream]

So, I have a question - On my iPhone I open up my PS app and I go to the store and I look at games that are sale. I add a game to my cart. I view my cart and I make a purchase. Now I am wondering, how Sony has snuck in a payment system into their app (from what I can tell it does not use the IAP). Is the PS app a web browser? or is something else going on?