Or… he does what companies trying to enter a well established market do, offer a cheaper service (for devs). I see it as business not social justice, so I am always wary when business is covered in such a way.
Sure, it’s good for their business too if they succeed. That’s kind of their point, that 12% isn’t running a charity.
Have developers really complained in force about this issue somewhere? Or is Epic “solving” a problem that is not particularly problematic?
Yes, they are starting to speak out more publicly this year, finding some strength in coordinating statements with Basecamp, Epic, Microsoft, etc. I believe it’s true that many developers have been afraid to say something public against Apple, but have wanted to before now.
As a developer who sells through the app store, Epic Games already had standing to bring this claim. They are having to pay what they claim to be a unlawfully monopolistic price. So, then, this was a ploy: Epic Games did it (a) to make it a media story, (b) to try framing it as a David v. Goliath story, and (c) to create pressure from the people who really want to play Fortnite and who Epic Games’ hopes will blame mean Apple instead of innocent Epic Games. The reality is this is mostly a Goliath v. Goliath story.
From an ethical standpoint, I think it was dirty gamesmanship. Nevertheless, from a litigation and PR strategy, it was quite clever. If I were advising Apple this would have been my thought process. The moment it came to light that Epic Games added this payment method and violated the rules, it should have been clear that this was foreshadowing a lawsuit. Rather than shut it down and issue the press release Apple released. I might have have advised them to put that in the introduction to a lawsuit for declaratory relief and breach of contract against Epic and steal their thunder. Then remove the app from the app store. OTOH, Apple may have considered this option and thought the optics of suing a developer was worse PR for them than being accused by Epic of being a monopolist.
Nota bene. I don’t have any involvement in the case, so this is just my trial-lawyer arm-chair analysis.
5 Likes
This makes sense. That being said, I think it definitely boosts their “standing” if there’s a more direct mechanism of harm. Sometimes that whole thing gets a little bit fuzzy, and can result in things getting tossed if there’s a technical way to maneuver around.
With high-priced lawyers who literally do nothing all day except figure out ways to technically wiggle around contract terms, more “violations” probably bolster a case - and give them some wiggle room for striking an agreement.
Although I don’t think they’re going for an “agreement” here.
I think this is the right answer; we should factor in that, even if epic has a unreal amount of money (sorry 
), it’s still David vs Goliath given how big is apple itself.
Epic wanted a media story, not a lawsuit, IMO. We’ll see where it goes.
1 Like
I like your pun re Unreal. Niiiiice.
1 Like
But not Nintendo (which licenses the Unreal Engine), Sony (which it sued, settled with and then Sony made a $250 investment just a couple of months ago), or Microsoft - at the HoloLens 2 premiere Time Sweeney stated, “Epic loves Microsoft… Epic hearts Microsoft.” Please note that these three utterly closed platforms each charge 30% and have more restrictions than Google and Apple impose.
Sweeney is a white knight only when it suits him.
1 Like
The Google story seems clearer when you look at this as a ploy. They had already been tossed from Google Play in the summer of 2018, and hadn’t sued, and Fortnite could be sideloaded on alternate Android stores as well as directly from Epic. So why agree to Google’s terms and return to the Play Store in June only to do this now?
If they already had standing from having previously been a dev on the Play Store this was not a matter of standing but grandstanding.
1 Like
Tim Sweeney has been obsessed with that kind of stuff long before 2020. I’m beginning to see where Fortnite’s motives are coming from…
Epic left Steam, which charged the same 30% cut, and basically created a competitor (using some shady tactics while doing so). They didn’t sue Steam.
And they aren’t suing the game console makers who represent around 70% of sales (and all of which also take a 30% percent cut of all microtransaction sales on their platform)? Why are they so focused just on mobile and not game consoles? Why do they think they can attack Apple as a monopolist when it has just 13% of the worldwide smartphone market? (Granted, it’s almost 50% in the US.) As ArsTechnica notes:
On mobile platforms, Epic is calling the same kind of 30-percent fee “exorbitant” and says it wants to offer a more direct payment solution so it can “pass along the savings to players.” On consoles, though, Epic happily introduced a permanent 20-percent discount on all microtransaction purchases, despite there being no sign that the console makers have changed their fee structure.
As @iPersuade notes, this makes sense if you consider it a ploy.
Epic Games compensates for the 30% cut by collecting personal data/user data?
They probably still want to cater to the 30% (mobile and PC users) in order to squeeze out as much money as possible.
They probably only look at/see the market share for the U.S.
Either that or they’re biased.
I sincerely don’t understand what Epic’s issue is here. It’s quite simple -
- Apple built the hardware
- Apple built the operating system
- Apple built the App Store
- Apple built the platform
- Apple built and maintains the cloud infrastructure
- Apple built and takes care of the entire payment structure, making it simple & secure for all users
- Apple provides access to millions upon millions of potential customers all over the planet.
And, actually, the same goes for Google too - who Epic are also suing.
All the developer has to do, is write the app or game.
Nobody is forcing them or any other developer to have their app available in either of these stores.
Epic signed up to the developer program(s), agreeing to its terms and conditions.
It won’t be cheap to have created that entire ecosystem, so for Apple and Google to want a cut of any sales is perfectly warranted I think.
Of course, Epic could always opt to invest in their own hardware, their own OS, build a sizeable global user base of their own, etc… Apple and Google already have that and are offering it on a platter for what I think is a reasonable amount, given the alternative.
If this is about Epic (or again, any developer really) wanting to earn a certain $ amount from each sale then all they need to do is work out whatever price will give them that $ amount after Apple/Google take their 30% and charge accordingly.
Epic are wilfully biting the hand that feeds them here and I hope they lose big time.
6 Likes
Thank you for summing this up so clearly. I wholeheartedly agree.
It could be argued that Apple has a monopoly if it was the only tech ecosystem, which it very much isn’t: Android is bigger. And from the look of things, a third Chinese system might emerge at some point… They are monopolistic on their own platform? That’s an idiotic argument: they design the thing, their rules. You want your goods to be sold at Amazon or Wal-Mart, you abide by their rules. You don’t blame Wal-Mart for having… what, a monopoly with Wal-Mart? Duh.
The story would be different if
- Google and Apple had a secret agreement on App Store pricing - they don’t, they are at each other’s throats;
- iOS was the dominating ecosystem - it’s not, it’s Android;
- Android did not allow sideloading of Apps, escaping the Play Store entirely - it does.
That PR stunt, selecting very carefully to attack Apple and Google and not, as was pointed out in this thread, Microsoft or Nintendo, is clearly disingenuous and I too hope Epic falls hard on its face.
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, but by God’s given right of the Internet, I am an armchair specialist on All the Things™. 
6 Likes
Nice analysis.
Sidenote, do you license third-parties the right to use your specialist designation trademark? And if so, is there a certification process?
1 Like
Well, you see, it’s a fair deal – I only take 30% of all the lols… 
2 Likes
Because that’s where they can get leverage right now. Epic is big and rich for a game/game engine company, but they’re small compared to Sony, MS, Apple, Google, etc.
They can actually be really greedy and inconsistent, personally bad people, etc., and still have a point here. And they can be wrong about their point and Apple might still decide to find a way to take less, like they did with the second year subscription developer share increasing to 85%.
They can’t get leverage when they’re in court with a losing argument. They hope to pressure legislative action but that’s not leverage; it’s a gamble. And they’re not using leverage to go after console makers eventually - as I pointed out they’re buddy-buddy with Microsoft on Hololens 2, they got a $250 million investment form Sony (while this lawsuit was being prepared) and they license the Unreal Engine to Nintendo (and Epic has long made console the main focus of its Unreal Engine development, something they apparently can’t downsize then sell on mobile). There’s no leverage, and no evidence of a grand plan to attack console makers with whom they have relationships yet who charge the same 30% cut.
1 Like
Don’t they constantly praise Sony (especially recently)? Bias?
I can’t help myself. I’m rooting for 
!
1 Like
This is a long video at 26-minutes, but it’s a well-considered examination by Rene Ritchie (formerly of iMore) of the issues involved here:
1 Like