Apple strikes Epic with iOS dev tools access revocation

[Ttaskmaster]

Epic would have been better off saying they were doing this to kick Apple in the nuts over their aggressive logo protection policy!

edit: I miss the days when Epic just made and published good video games. It's a really sad tale of a company that had so much respect in the gaming community and created some amazing titles, which spawned one of the most popular game engines in existence....and then fortnite happened and they seem to have gotten super greedy, alienating much of their fanbase in the process. Real shame.

I feel the same way about Steam.....

[3dcandy]

This impacts Unreal Engine though...

So Apple might basically ruin things for hundreds of games that use that engine...

High stakes indeed.... with this and the games streaming debacle Apple might finally lose it's hold on mobile gaming

[Spud1]

I feel the same way about Steam.....

Again putting aside differences in opinion over the store issue.....yes agreed, maybe we'd have HL3 then instead

[QuorTek]

Both google and Apple is disgusting companies these days, it will backfire one day when people get enough of it, especially if the games and entertainment they want is on other platforms... they will simply switch to that and also they could end up ending getting sued by their own customers from preventing them stuff.

[LSG501]

It's all irrelevant though. If i want to sell a product in a particular store, my product must be compliant and as a supplier I need to follow my customer's requirements. If I don't want to, then I don't access that market.

Except in those circumstances you could argue that you sell your product at x and then the store puts their markup on top which in turn means varying prices depending on which store you sell it.... problem is you only have one store to sell it from in this case so no competition or 'alternative' price options.

If you are a company that doesn't want to penalise your customers and have differing prices on differing platforms you then have to 'suck up' the extra fees incurred due to having no choice but to sell from that one store along with your own 'website'. Now the issue arises in the t&c's when the store stops you from telling people they could buy x 'cheaper' at your website.

We all know what would happen if epic were to put the '30% fee' on top of the actual cost when buying from iOS... epic would be the one getting complained at for charging more even if they put in the most simple terms why the cost of the same item is higher on iOS versus their own site.


Essentially what we fall back on is that there is simply no other option but to agree to the terms that apple have set because they are the only store in town... while not a great example, as they're usually pretty poor, there has always been the option of alternative stores on android, iOS has never even allowed that option, hell they even go out of their way to stop jailbreaking...



To be fair as well, epic (or the bloke in charge) has been pretty vocal about the percentages 'stores' take from the people who make the things they sell and has actually put his money where is mouth is and takes far less than any other (as far as I know) currently out there (and gives away a fair few games too). If they can run at 12% so can other stores.

[Spud1]

Again, your post above is pretty much correct, and evenmoreso....this all applies directly to Epic and their exclusivity rubbsih they are pulling with the EGS. All those criticisms apply there and I agree with you. I have written almost the same words countless times trying to explain to people why the EGS is actually bad for the industry and gamers, but typically people leap to their defence for some unknown reason.

I guess part of the issue here is if you determine that "fortnite" on iOS is the same as "fortnite" on andorid, or pc, or switch...to me, its the same product, so therefore they can sell it all over the place. If you look at each platform individually then there is more of an argument (as you can only sell apps for apple products from their store).

Interesting and all that, but still irrelevant here mind

[LSG501]

Again, your post above is pretty much correct, and evenmoreso....this all applies directly to Epic and their exclusivity rubbsih they are pulling with the EGS. All those criticisms apply there and I agree with you. I have written almost the same words countless times trying to explain to people why the EGS is actually bad for the industry and gamers, but typically people leap to their defence for some unknown reason.

I guess part of the issue here is if you determine that "fortnite" on iOS is the same as "fortnite" on andorid, or pc, or switch...to me, its the same product, so therefore they can sell it all over the place. If you look at each platform individually then there is more of an argument (as you can only sell apps for apple products from their store).

Interesting and all that, but still irrelevant here mind

Don't go down the 'exclusivity' rabbit hole... I hate that even more than apple's fee's, especially with tv/movie streaming lol

As to fortnite, it's not so much about the actual game, which is basically the same on each platform (limits to graphics etc obviously), it's more about the micro transactions that go on inside the game that is the issue.

Epic basically doesn't want to give apple a 30% cut of what they see as 'their' product where apple has basically had no input and in all honesty, as I said earlier, I actually agree with epic on this.

[Tabbykatze]

If every developer was able to use the app store for free and have the option of using an external payment gateway, then that means the entire app delivery infrastructure becomes basically unfunded.

So what model should Apple adopt instead?

We have:
-cut back the percentage taken
---this sjows apple can be bossed around, unlikely
-move to a developer freemium model where a developer has to pay a subscription fee to sell
---this creates a barrier to new app developers because theire their app can't grow organically for free with zero cost
-allow other app stores
---this detriments the secure closed ecosystem Apple have created

None of those options seem very apple like

[QuorTek]

they do the same on youtube with koda_cs

[LSG501]

If every developer was able to use the app store for free and have the option of using an external payment gateway, then that means the entire app delivery infrastructure becomes basically unfunded.

So what model should Apple adopt instead?

We have:
-cut back the percentage taken
---this sjows apple can be bossed around, unlikely
-move to a developer freemium model where a developer has to pay a subscription fee to sell
---this creates a barrier to new app developers because theire their app can't grow organically for free with zero cost
-allow other app stores
---this detriments the secure closed ecosystem Apple have created

None of those options seem very apple like

Apple already charges for their developer kit and while it's not overly expensive it is an additional expense per year on top of the 30%....

I think the 'best case' scenario is either tiered or lowered percentage being taken. I've said it before, I don't think any company has an issue paying a fee to be on the store, the issue is the amount they're being asked to pay.

(digitial goods, seems you can at least use paypal for physical goods) Assuming no (forced) reduction in fees I personally think they should be made to allow other (validated) payment providers who have to pay a small percentage. IMO no more than 7.5% to apple which then gives the other 22.5% that apple charges as 'wiggle room' for their own fees.



If apple were to allow other app stores (unlikely without EU/USA mandate) Apple can put the same 'warnings' in place as android does...they've managed to balance out security and allowing other stores/sideloading.

This same 'secure closed ecosystem' is also what essentially allows apple to maintain the anticompetitive nature of their store/iOS and the huge profits that come from it. Remember when Apple said the 30% was to cover the cost of running the app store and wasn't about profit, in 2019 the iOS store made Apple around 15 BILLION in revenue.... it does not take 15BILLION to manage/maintain/run the iOS store, hell I doubt it even costs 1 billion.

[Iota]

feck it, drop to 15% across the board fro ios apps and they'll still make trillions and get loads of goodwill. Asking for 1/3 of everything for acting as a store is a ridiculous margin for any store digital or physical.

It's not just a storefront though is it? It's a walled garden where Apple directly approve each application etc to ensure that the Apple customers are not being duped or treated unfairly. So from that standpoint, the 30% surcharge which all developers of paid apps pays for not only that, but also the backend stuff that goes into making that all work. That probably isn't an insignificant cost considering how many apps are on the App Store (not all of them paid, but those also have to be vetted).

Erm, Epic agreed to terms that they have since circumvented, so they're in breach, not sure why anyone would argue Epics point, grated Apple can, and are often, a bunch of dicks, but if you agree to something, why then moan about it when you get caught out trying to get around the things you agreed too...

This is the part that gets me. Epic agreed to the terms of service, they wouldn't have agreed to them if they didn't think there was a market for their product, which they could make money from. Epic are essentially saying to Apple that they want a larger portion of the money, this definitely isn't about the consumer gaining in any form. What did they discount Vbucks for? 20%? Why not 30% then?

Epic Tim Sweeney has essentially ignored the developer code of conduct, so why should Apple actually provide access to their software and utilities or their walled garden? It is Apple who get to decide what to do with that, considering the wider consideration of their own customers.

I'm not saying that I agree with all of Apple's recent decisions though (lack of Microsoft xCloud is one I'm bemused about). However it is their platform, I actually like the walled garden approach they've taken. If that means no Epic games or UE games etc then I'm fine with that, that's worth the trade off or me as a consumer.

[big_hairy_rob]

The whole thing is pathetic. The game will be on both again in no time and they'll all be making trillions of all this advertisement. Like or loath Apple and google, you really have little practical choice these days...

[Saracen999]

....

Epic basically doesn't want to give apple a 30% cut of what they see as 'their' product where apple has basically had no input and in all honesty, as I said earlier, I actually agree with epic on this.

The other way to look at that is that Apple have spent years, and many, many billions building their platform/ecosystem. And people buy Apple hardware because of their products.

Apple aren't forcing anyone to develop for or sell via their system. But Epic chose to, because they wanted to access users that had bought into the Apple system (which, I haven't, by the way, and the closed nature of it is a large part of why not.)

Now, having built up a large userbase at least partly on the back of Apple's system, they decided they don't like the rules. Well, tough, would be my stance if I were Apple. You shouldn't have built the popularity of your product on the back of our platform if you don't like the rules. Feel free to pull out, and not develop any more stuff that succeeds because you piggyback on our coat tails.

Of course, if enough developers did that, Apple would lose users and maybe wouldn't have coat tails to piggyback on. Or if users didn't buy Apple hardware, etc ....

But users do, and developers for the most part don't want to give up that market segment.

The same sort of logic applies to publishing books via Amazon. I can write a book, sell it via Amazon Prime Unlimited and (simplistically) get paid $1 to $1.50 per copy. Or, more accurately, a bit under half a cent per page read. So .... if I do well and thousands of people read it, I might make a few grand. Amazon do naff all to create the book and take a larger cut than I will, either via sales or subscription fees, but without Amazon's platform, I'd be lucky to sell dozens, and very, very lucky to have a mainstream publisher pick it up and indulge in the marketing spend necessary to promote it.

Odds are, I can make usuable money via Amazon, or beggar all on my own.

It's the same principle. Apple's platform facilitated a good chunk of Epic's success with Fortnite and nobody held a gun to their head to make them sign up.

[LSG501]

The other way to look at that is that Apple have spent years, and many, many billions building their platform/ecosystem. And people buy Apple hardware because of their products.

An ecosystem that arguably wouldn't be there if it wasn't for all the small scale developers (where 30% feels a lot worse when you're only making small amounts) bulking up the numbers because lets be honest a large portion of that ecosystem is made up of the small scale developers. You also got to consider the money they make from the hardware too, they wouldn't have sold nearly as many iPhones/iPads if it wasn't for the apps so there is that symbiotic relationship that could have easily turned out differently.

You only need to look at MS and Windows mobile who basically couldn't get the dev's onboard, even though the os was pretty good, to see how important certain apps are are to a platforms success.

The thing with fortnite is that it had a huge following BEFORE the mobile versions and you could easily argue that the reason it was so successful on mobile was because of it's popularity on desktop/consoles, so I don't think you can really say that the success of fortnite was due to the mobile platforms it was released on, increasing it's player base would be fair comment though.

None of this really changes the issue at hand for epic and other developers and that is the forced usage of the apple store with it's 30% fee and the forced usage of apple as the payment processor when apple does very little if anything other than host the files, process the money (no other choice on digital downloads) and supposedly review apps before release, although that hasn't exactly been great of late from what I've seen.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Since Epic is in a righteous mood,maybe they can stop making the main PC branch of Unreal Engine so Nvidia orientated,with proprietry Nvidia Gameworks features integrated into the engine. Especially when they are price dumping UE onto the market,meaning any 3rd party competing engine such as Unity will increasingly struggle to get traction. This means despite the consoles being AMD powered,a lot of UE based PC games unless they are optimised specifically for AMD,run natively better on Nvidia hardware.

[ByteMyAscii]

Trig;304]Erm, Epic agreed to terms that they have since circumvented, so they're in breach, not sure why anyone would argue Epics point, grated Apple can, and are often, a bunch of dicks, but if you agree to something, why then moan about it when you get caught out trying to get around the things you agreed too...

That is untrue though.
Apple repeatedly cite guidelines, not rules.
Apple will upon "reviewing" simply refuse to allow anything they do not want, even when in this case it is not circumventing anything they agreed to.
If it was actually rules being circumvented, then say that.
Not guidelines, at least twice stated as all Epic have failed to meet.