I agree with much of what you said but when what I said stands - they approached it civilly (even if I agree if the claim wasn’t realistic and was likely a precursor to the stunt they’ve now pulled).
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.
Ridley Scott Comments on Epic Games' Parody of His '1984' Ad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Videos games have also gone through a legalised ratings process. Games have age ratings just like movies.
That’s true but the example you gave would easily kill off innovation from new players in the App Store. I’m more OK with the idea of Apple taking a percentage of my profits than paying up front without know if a) my app will make money and b) if Apple will even approve it.
I see your point, though.
Unless I'm mistaken, I thought Epic was suing for the ability to use their own payment processing for IAP? Devs could still opt to use Apple's payment processing for the 30% fee if they wanted to, but this would allow businesses that already have their own system in place to use that instead of being forced to use Apple's for a cut and no real benefit.
have not seen the epic parody
but like mr scott's work on original 1984 commercial and blackhawk down (though reading mark bowden's book was much better)
but like mr scott's work on original 1984 commercial and blackhawk down (though reading mark bowden's book was much better)
Their argument in court is not about expense at all. They're claiming that IAP is an illegal tie-in, which is kind of an odd approach considering IAP exist on pretty much any gaming platform you choose.
How much would it cost you to:
• Buy/rent and maintain a web server and all relate network equipment?
• Constantly develop and maintain an AppStore website that updates daily?
• Have enough server and network infrastructure to handle high amounts of traffic?
• Pay for enough bandwidth to support your operation?
• Have enough redundancy (location, computer equipment, power generators and internet service) to avoid gaps in service?
• Promote your own App Store among hundreds of available App Stores?
• Negotiate with phone vendors so your App Store could be easily accessible by the user just by tapping on an icon?
• Have enough personnel to handle all the work listed above + key employees to cover 3 shifts 24/7 in some specific departments?
• Pay for attorney fees, business licenses, insurance policies?
• Maintain Support personnel (Human Resources, cleaning, security, etc.)?
• Maintain the facilities where all this work will be handled?
...and the list goes on...
So, when you think about, Apple is able to charge only 30% because of the amount of Developers that joined the AppStore. And yes, they are entitled to profit from all this hard work.
Apple usually fights pretty hard and when they know they are right, they don’t give up.
The problem for Epic is that they have to convince the court that the App Store itself represents a product. That's the only way they can try and claim IAP is an illegal tie-in. They're saying the App Store is the product they want and that Apple is illegally forcing them to use a product they don't want (IAP) to get it. I'm not sure how that one is really going to work. How do you legally claim a store is a product?
How is Epic accusing Apple of being a Monopoly when Apple does not control the mobile gaming market?
It's pretty clearly a service and tie-in can definitely be between products or services.
Well, Facebook is in the midst of its own fights with Apple, so I wouldn't go so far as to say they're getting special treatment either. In fact, unlike the stunt that Epic pulled, I'm definitely against Apple's position when it comes to the Facebook app wanting to monetize videos to support small businesses. If Facebook has agreed to waive its normal fees, then Apple should really be willing to do the same.
In fact, Apple is very much on the wrong side of the line when it comes to apps like ClassPath that are trying to simply allow small businesses to monetize with video content in the current climate. These apps previously paid no fees as they were selling physical services (e.g. fitness class bookings), but as soon as they pivoted to online video lessons instead, Apple wants its 30% cut.
However, neither Facebook nor Netflix have tried to blatantly break Apple's rules by sneaking an update in under their noses. Not only would Fortnite still be on the App Store if Epic hadn't done this, but Apple has repeatedly said it would be happy to welcome them back if they removed their in-app purchasing system and fall back into line. I would fully expect Apple to do the same to Facebook or Netflix if they tried to pull a similar stunt, but they're not nearly insane enough to try that.
Instead, what actually happened is that Facebook tried to add a note about Apple's 30% cut, and naturally Apple refused that update, but it didn't kick Facebook off the App Store because it was open about what it was trying to do, and followed the process. This is exactly what Apple would have done if Epic had honestly and openly submitted a Fortnite update that included its own in-app purchasing system. It was the fact that Epic deceived Apple that got Fortnite booted.
I totally agree with you there, but I'm also not convinced that it was the media attention that forced Apple's hand so much as brought it to the attention of those who mattered.
It seems much more likely somebody was overzealously applying the new rules (no doubt doing so at the insistence of upper management), and Wordpress got caught in the crossfire because it technically did violate the new rules, but it did so largely inadvertently, and yet it was misled into believing that it had to add in-app purchasing, when really it just had to take out web views that potentially advertised to led to in-app purchasing. Somebody in Apple's App Store Review Team goofed up and lowered a big hammer, simply demanding they add IAP rather than working with them to find the proper solution.
The somewhat opaque and monolithic nature of Apple's App Store Review team is really the biggest part of the problem here when dealing with many of these case-by-case scenarios, but of course that's also still entirely the fault of the larger corporate policies at play, as the entire process should be more transparent and less seemingly capricious. Apple's propensity for figuring this out as it goes along has created as many problems as it's solved, but what's ironic about the Epic situation is that they're not really fighting against Apple's capriciousness, they're fighting almost entirely against the 30% commission, which is the one rule that's been pretty consistently applied since the very beginning.
I don't either, but I expect that their lawyers might. The firm they hired has quite a history defending against antitrust cases, so they probably have a fair idea of what will or won't have legal traction.
I believe they're framing iOS devices as the market, not mobile devices as a whole.
I second this. We should just abolish the antitrust law.
“Don’t like a cartel? Just create your own company!”
Hell we should abolish elections too. “Don’t like a dictatorship? Just create your own country!”
Literally nothing is stopping you to do that. I hate it when people whine duh.
Don't confuse "illegal" with "contractually not allowed"
Epic agreed to the contract terms Apple sets for inclusion on the iOS app store. Epic broke that agreement.
This is purely a contractual matter.
Anything about 30% cuts and whether they're fair are an entirely different matter and not related to the basic facts of Epic being in breech of contract and suffering the consequences of their action.
good question, why did the us government broke up standard oil, no one is forcing you to buy their oil. you could've use horses and candles 😂
Your comment shows you don't really have understanding or respect for it.
He's not getting into the debate, he was asked if he had seen the parody in an interview.
This really nails it with a well contemplated response.
In the past all revenue was collected up front. Games were expensive. A percentage of the sale price was retained by the developer.
The shift to ‘freemium’ games means that the cost and revenue is now often shifted to in-app purchases. In comparison to the old model Apple further provides hardware, software, and multiple resources.
I can sympathize with some services. But games? Where the economics are often outrageous? Nope.
Epic is suing for a whole lot of things, but the crux of their argument is that they should be able to open their own app store in parallel to Apple's with the same rights and privileges that Apple's native App Store enjoys on iOS devices, allowing developers to sign up with them and bypass Apple's normal 30% cut. That was the request they made to Apple back in June. Apple naturally refused.
The in-app payment system in Fortnite was basically the first shot they fired to try and prove their point and bolster their claim that Apple is being anti-competitive, and while they're accusing Apple of a lot of things in the lawsuit, it's still their own app store that they're ultimately pushing for as a result. Their claim that they're doing this for customers and developers is a bit disingenuous, as it's true only insofar as Epic believes it can be the hero by offering better rates for those customers and developers in its own app store.
Of course, if Epic won it would undoubtedly set a precedent allowing for other third-party app stores to pop up, but that's really not what Epic is after — it's trying to set up an app store empire of its own, where it will presumably charge developers a smaller commission, but it expects to do this almost completely independently of Apple, which will receive no part of the revenue or profits.
This case will take years to untangle, as it stands to define exactly how computing devices, operating systems, and software applications should be expected to interrelate. The famous Microsoft/Netscape antitrust case was a bit of a precedent, but it never really went far enough in defining this landscape. The crux of the entire argument is Apple's belief that the App Store is part of the entire iPhone experience, and therefore not only does Apple need to control it and therefore deserves to earn revenue from it, versus Epic's belief that the entire platform should be open for users and developers to do with it what they want, and that Apple should really have no part of it once they've collected the purchase price of the iPhone.
Last edited:
Apple built the ecosystem, the marketplace, curates content to ensure consumers are not at risk, and host application downloads at no cost to the developer. All this for 30%. I consider this reasonable.
I have plenty of apps that let me pay via the App Store or via a website. I'm not sure why Epic is being called out.
I'm just wondering how well one can make an antitrust / monopoly case for a platform with 1/3 of Android's market share globally? (I know, device market share is not the same as $ share, but folks act like there's not a great big Android market sitting there)
Ridley Scott was a known producer at that time (Aliens)!? Maybe it's cause the message of the commercial was so powerful so critically acclaimed THAT was the key! Same with Alien as well ... many ppl had no idea yet the movie it's story and message along with the production was the key!
I'm glad Ridley commented on this parody commercial and not taking sides yet more so about the message - very astute of him.
I'd LOVE to see another commercial by Ridley for Apple ... maybe for a breakthrough product use like the upcoming AR glasses!