So you say, that third party developers like Netherrealm Studios/WB Games (Injustice 2 Mortal Kombat), that own their own developer accounts, are stupid like shit to improve/update their games on iOS without Epic Games?
Epic Sues Apple and Google due to Fortnite getting pulled [2020-08-13, 2021-05-03]
- Thread starter eastmen
- Start date
ltcommander.data
Regular
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/17/apple-terminate-epic-developer-accounts-august-28/
Assuming Macrumours has an accurate quote of Apple's letter to Epic, there doesn't seem to be anything there about banning third-party games from using Unreal Engine. Banning Epic's developer account makes it difficult, although perhaps not impossible, for Epic to develop new versions of Unreal Engine for Apple platforms, but shouldn't affect third-party developers' ability to release updates or even new games on the App Store using existing versions of Unreal Engine. Over time though, the limited support for Apple platforms will likely cause third-party developers and games to move away from Unreal Engine which is what Epic is worried about.
Summing up. All involved are big monopolies who got in that position by creating paradigm shifting products and services that saw great success, and now that they are at the top they are absolutely not above using each and every scummy trick in the book to stifle any competition or further innovation.
They chose to clash against each other head-on, top executive's metaphorical dicks are being mesured at full swing (I'm absolutely convinced their actual literal dicks put together could not mesure up to an avarage joe's)
They'll all bleed a bit, they will still survive, the more they bleed the more the consumer wins, and so does the market. I hope they stay at each other's jugulars for a long time and waste as much money as they can on legal fees.
Leave the bullies busy bullying each other while whatever next dark-horse on the race has a chance a disrupting the market with something thar actually brings value to consumers more than it does for just themselves.
They chose to clash against each other head-on, top executive's metaphorical dicks are being mesured at full swing (I'm absolutely convinced their actual literal dicks put together could not mesure up to an avarage joe's)
They'll all bleed a bit, they will still survive, the more they bleed the more the consumer wins, and so does the market. I hope they stay at each other's jugulars for a long time and waste as much money as they can on legal fees.
Leave the bullies busy bullying each other while whatever next dark-horse on the race has a chance a disrupting the market with something thar actually brings value to consumers more than it does for just themselves.
The bold part is not established in this case.
I have to wonder what longer game Tencent (largest owner of Epic, 40%) plays here. Helping establish a stronger chinese platform independent of Apple and Google, and Trump policymaking, backed by righteous ire over Western profiteering? Chinese handset manufacturers might appreciate a closed home market, complementing their global Android business.
Ike Turner
Veteran
This is a fact known by everybody since forever. All digital stores have this same exact policy (with specific exceptions made for certain apps like Netflix etc). Epic (Timmy) doesn't care about the 30% cut. What he wants is literally written down (on Page 41 IIRC) of the court filling against Apple: The right to have the fucking Epic Game Store installed on iOS which will allow him to totally bypass Apple & sell whatever the hell he wants while cashing 100%.
Ike Turner
Veteran
Around 12% of the players are on mobile while 71% are on Console & the rest on PC.
Wow. For some reason I thought they had massive explosion of players on mobile (Apple/Android). That's certainly not the case. Thanks for the info.
What if microsoft closed windows same as ios is closed? Any app installed in windows10 would require MS approval. Any game/app sold in steam, gog, cloud(adobe), amazon etc. would have to give 30% cut to microsoft. Doesn't sound so good? Maybe it would be good to have the discussion if ios should be opened or not. Epic/Sweeney can be taken completely out of this argument to make it easier to digest, open or not? What are the rights of platform owner/user?
Let's expand this to non digital world. Assume someone owns a car and uses it to commute to work. Perhaps car manufacturer should get 30% cut of car owners salary? Yes, both needed buy car and additionally give 30% of salary to car manufacturer. What a world it would be.
Ike Turner
Veteran
PUBG Mobile (which is a Tencent product like Fornite..) totally crushes it thanks to its Chinese version.
Call of Duty Mobile (which uses Unity) is also crushing it.
Google and Apple are eventually going to lose a major antitrust suit and reform their behaviors or will be broken up.
Both companies only play this game with some of those that sell digital goods. Apple nor Google take a 30% cut from sales through apps that sells physical goods like Walmart or Amazon or sells services like Uber. They limit the practice to in-app purchases of digital content. Why? Probably because most of in-app purchases crowd are small developers that aren't as rich or organized as more traditional retailers.
Netflix and Amazon Prime Video are from huge digital content companies. Why haven't they sued? That's because Netflix or an Amazon Prime do not pay a 30% cut. Apple now exempts those companies from having to pay fees. Before Netflix received an exemption they stopped allowing new members from subscribing in-app and forced to users to a mobile webpage. Amazon did something similar even though its never been forced to pay 30% to Apple. Its initial fee was only 15%. Apple never pulled either app due to both companies skirting apple's payment system and developing workarounds.
No telling who benefits from these type of exemptions. But its becoming more obvious that Apple's or Google's tax are not fair across the board and they seem targeted at those who can't really fight back.
Both companies only play this game with some of those that sell digital goods. Apple nor Google take a 30% cut from sales through apps that sells physical goods like Walmart or Amazon or sells services like Uber. They limit the practice to in-app purchases of digital content. Why? Probably because most of in-app purchases crowd are small developers that aren't as rich or organized as more traditional retailers.
Netflix and Amazon Prime Video are from huge digital content companies. Why haven't they sued? That's because Netflix or an Amazon Prime do not pay a 30% cut. Apple now exempts those companies from having to pay fees. Before Netflix received an exemption they stopped allowing new members from subscribing in-app and forced to users to a mobile webpage. Amazon did something similar even though its never been forced to pay 30% to Apple. Its initial fee was only 15%. Apple never pulled either app due to both companies skirting apple's payment system and developing workarounds.
No telling who benefits from these type of exemptions. But its becoming more obvious that Apple's or Google's tax are not fair across the board and they seem targeted at those who can't really fight back.
Last edited:
Eh, that’s not really what the full picture looks like. Apple has struggled a bit with how to deal with different kinds of third party products on their platform. At the moment:
Free apps = Pays nothing to Apple
Free apps with advertising = Pays nothing to Apple
Free apps with in app purchases = Pays 30% to Apple
Free apps with physical goods and services (Amazon, ebay, Airbnb, coffee shops and what not) = Pays nothing to Apple
Free apps with some kind of subscription (Not the category for Spotify et al, see below) = 30% to Apple the first year, subsequent years 15% to Apple
Apps that cost money = 30% to Apple
Free apps that offer some kind of subscription outside the app such as Spotify, Netflix and others = pays nothing to Apple
Cross platform apps = pays nothing to Apple
It’s a bit more thorny than this overview, but it’s a start. Once you sink your teeth into it, you can see how tricky it can get, and what loopholes some businesses use to get a free ride.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Maybe a different dynamic also has somethingto do with it? The relationship between console makers and devs is a lot more symbiotic.
Console manufacturers sell relatively little hardware compared to smartphones yet have a lot of custom hardware that, certainly at the time of launch, is usually expensive but prices of hardware are kept to a minimum for consumers.
They take that "risk" to get hardware to as many consumers as possible which gives devs a bigger chance to sell their games. The payback is in terms of higher licensing fees.
Smartphone manufacturers OTOH do, as far as I can tell, not really spend any money on making their hardware or software better suited for gaming.
And that is ignoring the sales & marketing side of things.
There is a separate tab on the App Store app called Games, and that's in front of the "Apps" tab.
Apple invited a lot of game developers to their iPhone release keynotes, probably equal or more than other kinds of apps.
You can see a lot of Facebook ads by the App Store marketing third party (i.e. not made by Apple) games.
Apple now has a service called "Apple Arcade," which lets you pay a subscription to play a collection of third party games for free.
iOS has a SDK called "SceneKit" which is designed for making 3D games. Not to mention other things like ARKit which they invited game developers to demo its functionalities, primarily for making games.
The same goes for Google. There are also "gaming" Android phones, designed for gaming.
Hardware wise, console vendors are very conservative. Now the average age of a console is like 5 years or more. PS4 was released 7 years ago. Phones, on the other hand, are updated pretty much annually.
Phone makers and Apple/Google might have been ignoring mobile games for some time, but it's no longer the case for many years already. In some markets, the main sales of a high end mobile phone is mostly for gaming.
They want third-party stores so they could get much cheaper distribution on iOS right, so they are looking to cut costs, increase profits.
Has there ever been an antitrust action which resulted in the supposed monopolist being forced to lower prices?
Govts. dictating prices may be some threshold that they never crossed previously. In periods of high inflation, some govts. have tried setting price ceilings. Or you could say minimum wage is setting a floor for the price of labor.
But as part of antitrust action?
If there's protracted antitrust litigation, maybe Apple would agree to a settlement involving lower fees.
The other options which the govt. would pursue would be to require side loading and/or alternate app. stores. Or some combination of all 3 remedies.
Wonder which one Apple would accept if it seemed likely that the App. Store would be defined as a distinct market and thus they'd be liable to antitrust regulation.