Ridley Scott Comments on Epic Games' Parody of His '1984' Ad

[forerunnerg34]

Was Fortnite that important for iOS users? I don't think so, because I believe iOS users like their locked ecosystem and will always side with Apple no matter what, Epic could be "fighting" alone since users won't support their claims and will play something else, from that point of view is Epic the company that looks greed.

 

[boss.king]

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)

I believe that they're basically claiming the Android market isn't relevant to the Apple lawsuit (and vice versa) because of the prohibitively high switching costs relative to the benefits gained by switching. Again, just my understanding based on what I've seen reported, I may be wrong.

 

[gnipgnop]

It's pretty clearly a service and tie-in can definitely be between products or services.

Good point. That's correct. However, that only matters if Epic can convince the court that iOS is a market that Apple monopolizes. Considering that courts have already ruled that an OS can't be viewed as a monopoly unto itself (Psystar) and that a company can totally control what software appears on it's own hardware (Nintendo), it's hard to see how Epic has much of an argument.

 

[litedesign]

How does Apple distinguish between in-app purchases in game apps, and in-app purchases in retail apps? Apple doesn't take a 30% cut of all sales made from the Amazon app, or Starbucks or Grubhub, do they?

So where do they draw the line?

 

[gnipgnop]

I believe that they're basically claiming the Android market isn't relevant to the Apple lawsuit (and vice versa) because of the prohibitively high switching costs relative to the benefits gained by switching. Again, just my understanding based on what I've seen reported, I may be wrong.

They sank their own argument by using a marketing message to tell iOS/macOS users to use alternate devices to play Fortnite. How can you send out a mass communication to your customers telling them to change hardware and realistically claim in court that it's prohibitive?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Developers need the platforms but platforms also need the developers

Thought experiment. Let’s just say Apple and Google were to shut down the App Stores on their platforms tomorrow.

Six months from now, how many of those developers would still be developing apps for those devices? How might that impact them? Would Google and Apple still be in business?

Apple and Google would simply prefer to have developers, but could exist without them. Developers on those platforms NEED those platforms to allow them to release apps for them.

If Microsoft cannot create a profitable new phone, phone OS or a phone App Store, then this proves Apple and Android have an impenetrable monopoly over phone consumer devices.

This is defeatist thinking. If Apple had looked at the market and said, “No, there’s no way we can ‘make our own’. Plus Nokia has a monopoly on Nokia phones! We’d better just sign up with Motorola” we would have the ROKR today. Most likely, we wouldn’t even have Android as it is today.

No one could create a profitable new phone, Nokia was king, everyone else was a percentage of a percent of Nokia’s marketshare! Did years of preeminence prove they were an impenetrable monopoly? No, Nokia’s not king anymore. And, it’s not because anyone tried to force their way onto Nokia’s massive platform. It’s because another company with better ideas came out with something better. Thinking “how can I make something better” pushes the industry forward and, though you may not think so, there IS better technology than Apple out there.

 

[boss.king]

They sank their own argument by using a marketing message to tell iOS/macOS users to use alternate devices to play Fortnite. How can you send out a mass communication to your customers telling them to change hardware and realistically claim in court that it's prohibitive?

No idea, I don't work at Epic. I assume they checked with the law firm before doing it, as the whole roll-out of these lawsuits seems to have been pretty well-coordinated, but who knows, maybe that will sink them.

 

[bsolar]

Good point. That's correct. However, that only matters if Epic can convince the court that iOS is a market that Apple monopolizes.

Tying doesn't require a monopoly to be an antitrust violation: only "sufficient market power". Whether Apple wields such "sufficient market power" will likely be a key point of debate in the lawsuit.

To be more clear, I don't think the key argument will be the monopoly "whithin iOS", but whether the market power of iOS in the mobile market is sufficient to consider tying Apple's IAP and iOS together a potential antitrust violation.

 

[mw360]

How does Apple distinguish between in-app purchases in game apps, and in-app purchases in retail apps? Apple doesn't take a 30% cut of all sales made from the Amazon app, or Starbucks or Grubhub, do they?

So where do they draw the line?

It's whether the product will be 'consumed' on the Apple device or not. In the Oculus and Steam apps you can even buy games, but because those games don't run on the iOS device, the payment doesn't need to go through Apple.

 

[hot-gril]

Company with strong ties to China made an ad criticizing authoritarianism... referring to something silly (on the world scale), a game. Scott is right.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Epic Games has defied gravity by jumping off a building. In retaliation, gravity splatted them all over the ground.

What Epic said sounds just as stupid as this.

”32 feet per second per second is just TOO HIGH! I suggest something more reasonable like 15 feet per second per second or maybe even negat...”

>splat<

Apple absolutely has a monopoly on iOS

I know!! Apple is SO STUPID, they put all the things they have monopolies on RIGHT THERE ON THEIR WEBSITE!! They are making the anti-trust judge’s job SOOOOOO easy! LOL

It’s just a whole list of monopolistic activities. They have GOT to be shut down.

 

[pasamio]

Microsoft tried—REALLY HARD—and failed. If Microsoft cannot create a profitable new phone, phone OS or a phone App Store, then this proves Apple and Android have an impenetrable monopoly over phone consumer devices.

So your argument falls flat in the face of evidence.

If you can’t beat ‘em, join them, is really the only choice everybody—EVERYBODY—has.

Microsoft pre-dates iOS and Android, here's a market share graph from 2005 to 2014, you'll notice that in 2007 that Microsoft actually had almost a majority of the market as iOS comes on the scene. Microsoft started losing marketshare hard to Apple and decided to copy Apple as Google had successfully done with Android (Google had a head start though by being on the Apple board). However the new Windows Phone didn't get the marketshare they were expecting.

Microsoft decided it wasn't a business worth pursuing for them, just as they've decided Mixer wasn't a business worth pursuing, and they terminated it. For Microsoft they don't need to own a mobile phone platform, they started a perspective shift where they brought Office to iOS and Android, they're increasingly a services driven company. Do they need a phone to own that market? Probably not.

Impenetrable though? I don't think so, I think if Microsoft decided that they needed more power to build what they need to build their vision of how computing works moving forward that they could move back into the market. What I feel was missing was what made Windows Phone special compared to everyone else. I think Microsoft is starting to get to a point where they're able to do that more compellingly but they've also figured out they can build on top of Android or iOS and let someone else pay for the phone hardware development and phone OS development.

Apple is greedy and Apple App Store fees are `highway robbery` which is damaging the whole industry and especially the small developers.

I do not want more App Stores on our iPhones as Epic wants. But the 30% cut, on top of all development costs, means the death for many indie developers.

How does it hurt small developers? They give away the developer tools for nothing, a full blown IDE, testing environment, ability to push to devices and build the app to get started. All you need is a Mac to get started. For $99/yr you get the ability to get access to more resources and the ability to submit your app to the App Store. It also opens up a monetisation pathway for 30% of the price you set on your app.

Given how many apps are on the App Store, how many small apps are there it's hard to say that it's damaging the whole industry and especially small developers. The developer who is just getting started that makes a sale a week? If they don't make any money all they're out of pocket is the $99/yr without having to pay for any distribution costs or update costs. They get access to this developer tooling and platform that Apple have built for nothing and when they start to make money from the platform, Apple starts to recover it.

What makes the iPhone great? Apple and the App Store. Without Apps, nobody would buy an iPhone. And currently, developers are not happy. Most of them can barely make any money. One never knows when you will get a rejection because of some arbitrary rule. Or maybe the reviewer had a bad day. Who knows. This is preventing developers from even releasing even greater apps.

People bought the iPhone when it was released, then Apple came out with the App Store which has really defined this industry. You could find an app and download it directly on the device, there was an easy monetisation strategy with a level playing field. Apple said they would have a human review process to try to enforce the rules they had and ensure content they didn't want got in and it might be crazy but a human review process is not robotically consistent. The appeal process seems to have problems but it does seem to exist.

Just take a look at what recently happened with the WordPress app. Apple apologized because it got media attention. Sadly for one of these, there are many other apps which are rejected for unjust reason of which we hear nothing about.

This is a particularly curious case where I could have sworn I saw a note from Matt that they would add IAP for the Wordpress.com plans they sold through the phone. This sounds like they got rejected for something legitimate though, they're selling through the platform. Apple said WordPress would no longer be required to include in-app purchases because "the developer removed the display of their service payment options from the app … we have informed the developer and apologize for any confusion that we have caused." The developer fixed the app and Apple said sorry for the confusion. They removed the IAP pathway and got approved.

And to whoever that suggests the web apps. Web apps are broken on iOS. And Apple forbids third-party browsers with proprietary engines in the App Store. All of them must make use of WebKit. There is zero chance we will see Steam or Microsoft releasing their streaming gaming platforms on iOS. And with 30% there is zero incentive. It is just not worth it.

It's odd that you conflate web apps are broken then point to Apple forbidding third-party engines as the explanation. I wonder if you misunderstand that the suggestion that people are making is that folk can use the functionality that Apple launched with the first iPhone to put web apps on the device. Not saying that is necessarily a fully viable option for all use cases but it is a path forward. I remember many moons ago the Financial Times had a really well done web app for iOS with their own custom styling and a bunch of functionality. I think they eventually went native but it's struck me how powerful things can be. Given that on the desktop everyone building Electron apps are essentially making web apps anyway, the inversion is curious.

Now if companies don't release apps for the platform, this will create a market differentiation where the iPhone won't have features that the Android phone does have. If it starts to hurt Apple's market in a way they think they need to make a change, they'll make a change. This is how markets work though and that's how market differentiation works. If you want a phone that is locked down into it's own walled garden, you buy the Apple phone. If you want the phone that is open, you buy an Android phone. If that isn't enough for you and want even more access you go buy something like a Pinephone and you pick your choice of Linux phone system.

 

[pmiles]

Epic games is all about the micro-transactions... they aren't saints by any stretch of the imagination. This whole micro-transaction crap is far worse than any monopoly period.

 

[Ubuntu]

Thought experiment. Let’s just say Apple and Google were to shut down the App Stores on their platforms tomorrow.

Six months from now, how many of those developers would still be developing apps for those devices? How might that impact them? Would Google and Apple still be in business?

Apple and Google would simply prefer to have developers, but could exist without them. Developers on those platforms NEED those platforms to allow them to release apps for them.

None of those developers would be developing apps for those platforms as the App Stores would be shut down. It would be a disaster for all involved. For me, personally, I'd have to switch to web development (which I don't want to), but many would not have the privilege of being able to do so.

Sure, Apple and Google could exist, but would they thrive like they do today? I highly doubt it because in this thought experiment if we're to assume some other company would slowly come along and offer a new home for these developers you'd ultimately end up with two platforms that are stuck without key apps.

Sure, an iPhone is still useful without third party apps but it wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as it is today, hence the mutual need from both developers and platforms - otherwise Apple would have not offered an App Store.

 

[Gutwrench]

I sure have and I wrote to them because on the one hand I can be fully complimented by the fact they copied [my commercial] shot for shot. But pity the message is so ordinary when they could have been talking about democracy or more powerful things… And they didn't use it.

I think the animation was terrific, the idea was terrific, the message was "ehh."

Unfortunately for you it was their message not yours.

 

[Gutwrench]

Epic wants to run their game store on iOS so developers can pay Epic instead of Apple. That is the crux of their argument.

I personally think they should be allowed to do that - but it’s not about ”punishing” costs - Epic has earned billions while paying those fees. They want to add an extra zero to their already insane profits.

Can’t blame them. Apple is doing the same by potentially not packaging a charger with phone sales.

 

[archer75]

I do think 30% cut is a bit greedy from Apple.

What about the 30% from google? Or Microsoft? Or Sony? Or Nintendo? Why is epic focusing their attacks only on apple and google?

 

[jayducharme]

Would it make you happier if Epic charged $1.99 for their app so Apple gets their 30% for everything you say they do, but then in-app purchases are processed by Epic (which has nothing to do with Apple since the game and IAP's are not on Apple servers at that point)? That seems fair.

I agree, and that seems like a model that's worked for many other game companies.

 

[gnipgnop]

Tying doesn't require a monopoly to be an antitrust violation: only "sufficient market power". Whether Apple wields such "sufficient market power" will likely be a key point of debate in the lawsuit.

To be more clear, I don't think the key argument will be the monopoly "whithin iOS", but whether the market power of iOS in the mobile market is sufficient to consider tying Apple's IAP and iOS together a potential antitrust violation.

You may be right. That would require Epic to convince the court that iOS had "sufficient market power" AND that the market power for iOS + the tie-in for IAP had a significant negative impact on the IAP market outside of iOS.

One of the problems there is that it's hard to believe that the market for IAP on mobile was actually more robust prior to the launch of the iPhone/iOS/App Store. It seems more likely that the mobile IAP market is far better now than it was prior to the dawn of the smartphone and app downloads.

 

[applicious84]

But pity the message is so ordinary when they could have been talking about democracy or more powerful things… And they didn’t use it...the message was, 'ehhh'."

I mean, I get it, and I agree. That message could have been better, but it's not like Scott was doing anything much differently in '84. He was working for a company that was capitalist to its core, one that eventually would become the world's most valuable company, surpassing Saudi Aramco and ahead of Microsoft, Google, and Amazon.

Plus, I'm pretty sure that Scott could have considered his message for "more powerful things." Racism, transphobia, antisemitism, white supremacy, zionism, Islamophobia, misogyny, homophobia, and so many other forms of bigotry existed then.

You know, Reagan was a president starting cold war battles in Afghanistan that took far more Afghani victims than 9-11. The US was still supporting South African Apartheid. Trickle down economics was devastating underrepresented communities. The war on drugs was oppressing BIPOC populations. Israel was continuing it's long practice of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Colonial policies and neocolonial practices were continuing unabated. Grenada and South America in general, etc. There were so many more powerful things that Scott could have focused on in 1984, but you know, he made an Apple ad.

Hell, even now, he could be focusing on something less "ordinary" than a corporate battle between the two companies and mention how that message could be talking about more powerful things. All the -isms above are still rampant issues. Black people are recorded while as they're murdered, and the president supports the murderers and jailers. Colonial policies and neocolonial practices still continue, unabated. Antisemitism and zionism are on the rise while hate groups like the ADL, CUFI, and AIPAC capitalize on and exploit related tragedies for their own ends. The wealth gap has only increased. Palestine is still being devastated with even greater cooperation from the states than the 80s. Both sides-ism is routinely expressed to bolster the arguments that support one-sided oppressors. Neo-nazis and other white supremacist groups roam US streets openly. The doomsday clock is ticking, and Apple is not doing too much to turn it back, so you know, let's hear something better than, "ehhh," because there are, indeed, so many more "powerful things."

My first post and and quite the soapbox

 

[hot-gril]

Apple is greedy and Apple App Store fees are `highway robbery` which is damaging the whole industry and especially the small developers.

I do not want more App Stores on our iPhones as Epic wants. But the 30% cut, on top of all development costs, means the death for many indie developers.

And let's not start with the fact that big names are blatantly violating the rules. Apple pushed Epic out of the app store because as a game they feel this decision is not damaging their business. They won't do the same with the likes of Netflix or Facebook. There is even proof that they give special treatment to them.

What makes the iPhone great? Apple and the App Store. Without Apps, nobody would buy an iPhone. And currently, developers are not happy. Most of them can barely make any money. One never knows when you will get a rejection because of some arbitrary rule. Or maybe the reviewer had a bad day. Who knows. This is preventing developers from even releasing even greater apps.

Just take a look at what recently happened with the WordPress app. Apple apologized because it got media attention. Sadly for one of these, there are many other apps which are rejected for unjust reason of which we hear nothing about.

And to whoever that suggests the web apps. Web apps are broken on iOS. And Apple forbids third-party browsers with proprietary engines in the App Store. All of them must make use of WebKit. There is zero chance we will see Steam or Microsoft releasing their streaming gaming platforms on iOS. And with 30% there is zero incentive. It is just not worth it.

It is time for Apple to change its rules. And I am for once am happy to see Epic fighting this fight.

Apple created that market for indie developers to begin with. On PCs (incl Mac), only games get such a market, via Steam, which also takes 30% but as low as 20% after >$10M*, and all other small developers' paid software is dead. Except for paid software/services presented through the web browser, which is also where you go to avoid the App Store.

* good summary in this IGN article, 30% is common for games at least

If anything, the cut is worse for big devs who don't care about what Apple gives them for it. It's true, though, some big ones get exceptions to the rules, and those tend to be ones Apple either doesn't compete with or can't afford to lose. The enforcement isn't consistent. But oh well, it's Apple's store, not mine.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Jesus Christ

So lemme ask this, if creating a competing company in a market with a monopoly or duopoly is so easy, then why wouldn’t Samsung or Microsoft (Microsoft is $1T+ company I’ll remind you) do it?

Why does every Chinese phone company do it? Rather successfully I might add.

And Samsung does have it's own market - the Galaxy Store. Epic distributes through it. And Epic pays Samsung... 30%....

 

[BuffaloTF]

Apple is greedy and Apple App Store fees are `highway robbery` which is damaging the whole industry and especially the small developers.

I do not want more App Stores on our iPhones as Epic wants. But the 30% cut, on top of all development costs, means the death for many indie developers.

I don't know what indie developers you portend to know about. But it's a boon to them. 30% for all the marketing and exposure they get, the SDKs, the APIs, the international exposure and tax payments that get made on their behalf, as a result is a huge cost savings for them. Dodge Roll, for example, was a team able to leave EA/Mythic and go off on their own with Enter the Gungeon because of these stores.

 

[BuffaloTF]

How does Apple distinguish between in-app purchases in game apps, and in-app purchases in retail apps? Apple doesn't take a 30% cut of all sales made from the Amazon app, or Starbucks or Grubhub, do they?

So where do they draw the line?

Physical goods, which they don't acquire, warehouse, and distribute and, therefore, don't bear the costs of obtaining and distributing through their servers.

 

[Cydoniaworld]

Erm, the ‘message’ is little hard to read being white text on blown out white background- YMMV 🛵