Silent_Buddha
Legend
Epic Sues Apple and Google due to Fortnite getting pulled [2020-08-13, 2021-05-03]
- Thread starter eastmen
- Start date
Apple Earned Over $100 Million From Fortnite - MacRumors
Epic should build their own iPhone with Blackjack and hookers!
Epic should build their own iPhone with Blackjack and hookers!
I don't see the logic in Epic's argument. 30% doesn't come from consoles or loss-leading products. Traditionally console software sales provided a smaller cut to the platform owners when content was all physical (discs or carts). What made the publishers cut smaller was that unaffiliated retailers and distributors also took a share of the sale of physical games.
30% in terms of being a common cut for digital distribution of games comes from Steam on PC. PC is literally the opposite of consoles. The hardware nor the software are loss-leading products. Yet Steam till this day charges 30% unless you pass certain sales points that benefit bigger publishers more than benefit smaller pubs or devs that generated less revenue.
Epic charges less but it isn't doing so profitably. They are expending 100s of millions of dollars in payments on guarantees to pubs to have their games on EGS but only recovering a fraction of that through their 12% fee. On top of that, most games sold on EGS maintain price parity with Steam and aren't cheaper than similar titles even when they are exclusive and don't exist on Steam.
Today's landscape is a more welcoming environment to devs than in years past. Digital distribution has played a huge part in that transition and 30% and been a part of the landscape for a long time.
What totally ridiculous is that Epic is literally the most unfit plaintiff for this type of lawsuit. The basis of their argument is completely destroyed by the fact that Fortnite is one of the most profitable titles ever. They haven't suffered one iota due to Apple's policies. It can easily be argued that their motivation is mostly based on greed and not from being harmed by Apple's policies.
Next thing you know we are going to see a similar suit from Rockstar regarding GTA 5 on consoles. LOL
Last edited:
But image what 18% more Hookers and Blow could do for them...
LOL. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't solely motivated from within Epic. I could easily see the main motivation coming from Tencent. A win for Epic may allow Tencent to offer a competing product to the App store on the iPhone especially in China.
Last edited:
If they offered some freebies for installing it, a lot of people would have used an Epic Store and they'd have made 30% more on iOS.
Apple is only just using their monopoly rent to expand their monopoly into gaming, ie. Apple Arcade. Give it time to start strangling their competitors while having 30% of their revenue on top of their own. Still, gaming is far more resistant to monopolizing than video and music streaming, the real impact of Apple's monopoly will be visible there first ... simple bundling on iOS will murder the competition.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
The difference for Steam is that they don't own the platform and they can't prevent other storefronts from offering the same things they do. Thus there has been competition to Steam in the form of other storefronts since shortly after their inception. Whether consumers wish to use competing storefronts or not in this case isn't governed by any monopolistic or platform ownership shenanigans. But the fact remains that software developers have options for releasing games and software on Windows, Mac and Linux other than Steam. Thus, Steam refusing to allow their product to be sold on Steam doesn't suddenly mean they have no way to sell their product on the platforms that Steam is on. In fact, quite a few developers that couldn't get their product onto Steam instead made a modest living selling on places such as Itch.io, Kongregate, and other independent storefronts.
Steam refusing to allow an app didn't cut off revenue possibilities for app revenue on Windows, Mac, or Linux unlike what happens in the Apple Store. That's the huge difference. If an app developer doesn't want to pay 30% to Steam or if Steam refuses to allow the app on their storefront, it doesn't mean they can no longer sell their app on Windows, Mac, or Linux ... again unlike the Apple Store.
Plenty of software products aren't sold through the Steam store and aren't even available on the Steam store. My imaging software was purchased directly from the developer. Warframe, my most played game, I buy everything for that through the developer website and not through Steam. When I played Final Fantasy 14, I did all transactions through Square-Enix instead of Steam.
Is that possible on iOS? Not really.
On iOS, Android, and consoles, the storefronts face no competition, so it comes down to whether Apple's cut (in this particular case that is on trial) represents predatory and monopolistic behavior (NOTE that you do not have to be a monopoly to have your behavior judged as being monopolistic and anti-consumer/anti-competition in the US) based on the fact that it is not possible to release an app on a competing storefront other than that owned by the platform holder. If you want to sell on iOS devices you must pay Apple. If Apple doesn't like you and denies you the ability to be in their Store, you cannot sell on iOS devices. If Apple does this capriciously (rules applied to some developers but not others) that's going to put up a lot of red flags.
For Sony and MS, the case that their practices aren't predatory is based on the presumption that the hardware is sold at cost or at a loss and the profit for the business is primarily earned through licensed sales of software on those platforms. Hence why Epic called on MS as a witness during the trial. Epic is arguing that since Apple makes a profit on their hardware then the consumer faces a double whammy of Apple gaining a profit from them via the hardware purchase and software purchases.
Now, whether the court decides that this is indeed the case or not? We'll have to wait until the Judge renders their judgement. And then likely that won't settle it either as Apple or Epic will likely appeal the judgement if it doesn't go in their favor.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
I don't think this particular case is determining whether there are monopolistic or anticompetitive practices at work here.
The fear for Apple is that a lot of the discovery and testimony in this case could be used by US and EU regulators to file separate antitrust actions.
Instead this trial is, Epic signed up to distribute through the App Store, agreeing contractually to the terms Apple set out. At some point, they decided those terms weren't good for them, even though Epic has made a ton of money just from the iOS version of Fortnite.
I don't know if it will be established in this trial but for any antitrust action, can Epic or any other developer show consumer harm? That is, can they say that they have to price their product, including microtransactions, at a higher price on iOS than on other platforms?
Can they also show that on their own app store or on other platforms which have a lower fee, they were able to deliver lower prices for consumers but still make more money than on iOS?
The fear for Apple is that a lot of the discovery and testimony in this case could be used by US and EU regulators to file separate antitrust actions.
Instead this trial is, Epic signed up to distribute through the App Store, agreeing contractually to the terms Apple set out. At some point, they decided those terms weren't good for them, even though Epic has made a ton of money just from the iOS version of Fortnite.
I don't know if it will be established in this trial but for any antitrust action, can Epic or any other developer show consumer harm? That is, can they say that they have to price their product, including microtransactions, at a higher price on iOS than on other platforms?
Can they also show that on their own app store or on other platforms which have a lower fee, they were able to deliver lower prices for consumers but still make more money than on iOS?
BTW, Tim Sweeney has said he's litigating this case for the little guy, the software developers who are starting out, don't have a big hit product like his.
Sweeney was already very successful and Fortnite, including the iOS version, has made him very rich. He's supposedly a billionaire.
Another vocal critic of the App Store is another successful guy, David Hansson of Basecamp, which he co-founded. He talks about when he became a millionaire and his lifestyle and pursuits made possible by his wealth.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/06/basecamp-founder-on-becoming-a-millionaire-overnight.html
Basecamp became embroiled in some internal controversy, which led to a lot of staff resignations, for impolitic communications within the company.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/30/22412714/basecamp-employees-memo-policy-hansson-fried-controversy
I thought the interesting thing was the benefits that they cut back.
Clearly Basecamp is a very profitable company. No wonder Hansson didn't want to pay 30%, he wanted more.
As he says in the CNBC article, paying for high CA taxes and expensive Malibu real estate are "worth it." But he aint gonna pay Apple's price for access to profitable iOS customers.
Sweeney may be too old to be a tech bro but this Hansson guy seems to be right in that demographic and mindset.
Sweeney was already very successful and Fortnite, including the iOS version, has made him very rich. He's supposedly a billionaire.
Another vocal critic of the App Store is another successful guy, David Hansson of Basecamp, which he co-founded. He talks about when he became a millionaire and his lifestyle and pursuits made possible by his wealth.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/06/basecamp-founder-on-becoming-a-millionaire-overnight.html
Basecamp became embroiled in some internal controversy, which led to a lot of staff resignations, for impolitic communications within the company.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/30/22412714/basecamp-employees-memo-policy-hansson-fried-controversy
I thought the interesting thing was the benefits that they cut back.
Clearly Basecamp is a very profitable company. No wonder Hansson didn't want to pay 30%, he wanted more.
As he says in the CNBC article, paying for high CA taxes and expensive Malibu real estate are "worth it." But he aint gonna pay Apple's price for access to profitable iOS customers.
Sweeney may be too old to be a tech bro but this Hansson guy seems to be right in that demographic and mindset.
Just one correction, android devices can have other stores. My samsung came with the galaxy store installed as well as google play.
American courts verdicts are not applicable in China.
Betanumerical
Veteran
lol, hoops indeed. There's a lot of caveats with that and not really comparable.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
The billionaire Tim Cook telling Trump level lies (though unlike trump he prolly is a true billionaire)
To me the most surprising thing to come out of this trial is how litttle money epic makes on its engine (which does explain why theres fuck all support with it)
Wow, the level of incompetency if Apple truly does not break down P&L for the app store.
He has a "feeling" that it might be profitable?
Regards,
SB