A better price, sure. But Epic isn’t paying for the software platform development in any way in that model, so that’s a potential issue in the sustainability arena.
Whether or not “platform development” justifies a 30% cut is a whole different question…but presumably Apple deserves some revenue for the work they do on the platform.
And payment processing isn’t free either. Apple does very much deserve something, though the amount is, as you say, a whole different question 
Of course. I don’t think that means Epic can’t make a case for that number being low. Or zero, if they think they have a reason why. I also don’t think anyone is obligated to implement what they say. And that in turn does not mean they’re crazy for saying it. And so on.
I am much more sympathetic to Hey.com, and even Spotify, than to Epic because their rhetoric is dishonest. They present themselves as knights is shining amor defending customers, where all they want is to eat the cake and own it too. I am not saying either Apple is without faults. But Epic signed a contract, then willfully broke it and now whines Apple shot them in the foot. They didn’t. Epic brought this on themselves and now they appeal to social media using easy rhetoric and grandiloquent formulas to stir up masses. This might be a very modern way to wage a battle, but it remains the fact that it’s a disgusting one where there is no place left for sensibility and reason and is therefore utterly despicable.
An interesting and balanced summary (I especially like how it points out Epic demonstrates itself Apple is not in a monopoly position over software)
Very little if anything has been said in this conversation about the EU dimension of the US case, but I think it may be worth bringing it in.
By my reading the US case centres on the legality or otherwise of certain of Apple’s contractual terms, namely the the iOS App Store rules which are incorporated into the developer agreement between Epic and Apple. Epic’s argument is essentially that Apple has a monopoly on distribution of iOS Apps, which brings Apple’s behaviours within the scope of the Sherman Act and other antitrust legislation. If it can be established that Apple has a monopoly and that it has abused that monopolistic position, then the questionable terms are illegal. That makes those terms of Epic’s contract with Apple unenforceable, thus Apple cannot terminate Epic’s developer contract or throw Epic’s apps off the App store for breach of contract. Apple may be able to do so for other reasons, but not breach of contract.
Apple, of course, argues that it is not a monopolist and thus Epic’s entire argument falls. Apple makes this argument on technical grounds (of course the manufacturer of an infungible good has a monopoly over that product), on market grounds (the iPhone is just one type of mobile phone, there are many other supplier of moibile phones) and on consumer benefit grounds (we are not monopolising the distribution of iOS apps for our own benefit, but to protect consunmers from bad actors). Any one of these defenses suffices; Apple may well succeed.
The EU position, however, is somewhat different. EU competition law does not rest upon the existence of a monopoly, but rather on dominance within a market. Neither does attempt, as I understand the Sherman Act does, to enumerate specific prohibited actions. Rather EU law sets up a general principle that a dominant player in a market may not act in an anti-competitive manner. Whether a market exists is determined by the economic concept of “substitution” in either or both supply and demand. Can a consumer (e.g. a user or programmer) find a functionally similar product at a similar price elsewhere? Can a new supplier easily establish itself?
From an app developer’s perspective it is impossible to distribute an iOS app except through the App Store; if there is an market – as opposed to simply a marketplace – for iOS apps, clearly Apple is in a dominant position. From a consumer’s perspective, quite obviously you can’t install an Android app on an iOS device. The fundamental question, then, is whether apps are simply an aspect of a device or a whether apps and devices are separate markets. Is there a market for iOS apps separate from Android (or other OS) apps and distinct from that of mobile phones?
Therein lies the rub. The more Apple pushes the argument that its App Store procedures differentiate iOS apps from Android apps – hence iPhones and iPads from other mobile devices – and its monopoly over the distribution of apps to iOS devices is a benefit to users, the more it is showing the EU that iOS and Android apps and devices cannot be substituted for one another; that they are indeed separate markets.
Apple may well successfully defend Epic’s case against it, but it could be a Pyrrhric victory.
Thank you for that very insightful and thought-provoking take.
I think that there isn’t a case for zero, because Apple would lose money on the merchant fees (as mentioned by @ACautionaryTale) - but there’s absolutely a case for significantly less than 30%.
I just see this as "either Epic’s CEO is lying through his teeth, or he’s crazy enough to believe that he’s doing the Robin Hood sort of thing. Either way, doesn’t play all that well to my ears.
I’d much rather hear their argument as “look, we make Apple millions and millions of dollars every year - they should cut us some kind of a break”.
Apple should cut rates by half… for indie devs who actually need it. Epic makes too much money already. As one of those people who wants to purge the world of Fortnite, I personally don’t think we should be helping them out.
Let me remind you that Apple is a $2 trillion company. 
Yup. To Apple, millions of dollars are basically a rounding error - but since the war is being fought in the public theater, anything with “millions” in it looks significant to the populace at large.
Or as Bullwinkle Moose used to say, “that’s antihistamine money - not to be sneezed at”. 
I cant even… 
The videos linked below are definitely worth taking a look at.
Haha! What argument does Epic Games have now? 
Uh, that’s Epic winning a major concession. Like I have been saying, they are on the side of developers here, and that’s great for small developers. 15% is similar to Epic’s 12% on their store that they are using to pressure Steam’s 30%.
Obviously Epic would want that 15% for everyone, though.
Epic Games doesn’t get to be a part of it though. They obviously made more than $1 million from the App Store. 
Right, it’s a benefit for other developers. Epic isn’t just after this for themselves.
of course they are, they want their own App Store where they can developers X% for the same thing and save themselves some money.
I highly doubt that. Epic Games has their own interests, to say the least.
Exactly!
Yes, as I mentioned, they charge 12% on that store to everyone.
They are so not on the side of developers. They want to open their stores and take the cut themselves. All their case is just grandiloquent PR moves.
And, as for the commissions, I would argue that when you app nets $1 billion of revenue through a distribution channel you have not invented and that you do not contribute to maintaining in any other way, you can pretty damn well pony the 30% up.