Early indications in the Epic vs. Apple suit

MightyUnclean

Here's a new article:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/28/tech/apple-fortnite-epic-hearing/index.html

IceAge

Call me crazy, but EPIC has a ..decent point here. Imagine if Microsoft would take 30% from all sales which happens on...Windows! Every software which earns money , BUM, they needs to pay 30% to Microsoft!

I am not saying APPLE should not earn money, but 30% IS a lot! 

If in the past years it was..acceptable because not many could create an App, now this 30% is making more harm then good, especially to Startup companies who wish to develop a business, but for most, a 30% DIRECT cut from all the profit, is not a viable option.

I don't know how much they should take from sales, but again..30% is absurd! 

Aeander

IceAge said:

Call me crazy, but EPIC has a ..decent point here. Imagine if Microsoft would take 30% from all sales which happens on...Windows! Every software which earns money , BUM, they needs to pay 30% to Microsoft!

I am not saying APPLE should not earn money, but 30% IS a lot! 

If in the past years it was..acceptable because not many could create an App, now this 30% is making more harm then good, especially to Startup companies who wish to develop a business, but for most, a 30% DIRECT cut from all the profit, is not a viable option.

I don't know how much they should take from sales, but again..30% is absurd! 

30% is what literally every major game platform takes. Steam does it (unless you're a big game that meets unreasonable sales benchmarks). Sony does it. Microsoft does it. Nintendo does it. Apple does it. Google does it.

The only one that doesn't is, surprise surprise, Epic. Meaning that this lawsuit is yet another episode in Epic's grandstanding crusade.

If they win this, it's going to hurt the entire gaming industry.

cameltosis

IceAge said:

Call me crazy, but EPIC has a ..decent point here. Imagine if Microsoft would take 30% from all sales which happens on...Windows! Every software which earns money , BUM, they needs to pay 30% to Microsoft!

I am not saying APPLE should not earn money, but 30% IS a lot! 

If in the past years it was..acceptable because not many could create an App, now this 30% is making more harm then good, especially to Startup companies who wish to develop a business, but for most, a 30% DIRECT cut from all the profit, is not a viable option.

I don't know how much they should take from sales, but again..30% is absurd! 

So, I don't really know much about American business law (who does, right?!) but there are a few things going on that I'm aware of.

Apple provides app devs a service.

Apple have invested a lot in developing their eco-system, but they also do, actually, review every single app submission to their store for no upfront cost. I'm sure a lot of this is automated, but I also know from personal experience that some of this review process is handled by actual people.

They also offer free support, person-to-person, for developers. I've used this service when some of my business's apps failed review process, I got to speak to Apple people and they helped us fix our problems.

Apple deserve to get paid for this service they provide.

30% may seem like a lot, but it's better than up-front costs.

You mention that startups cannot really afford that 30% and it is hurting their business. In reality, it's the opposite: with no upfront costs, startups can get their product to market easily. This is a proven business model that does genuinely help startups. Could Apple reduce the percentage? Sure, but they aren't obligated to. It's competition that'll drive this percentage down, just as the Epic store is attempting to drive Steam's 30% cut down.

For every success story, there are 1000s that fail.

Apple provides their support, review and eco-system to everyone equally, but for the overwhelming majority of apps, Apple never receives a single penny for their services. That 30% cut pays for everyone's support, not just that one business. In other words, the rich (Epic) are supporting the poor (all those failed apps). It's basically the same as income tax systems, just for apps.

Apples cut of in-app purchases does seem "wrong"

This is where I think Epic have a decent case. Apple are fully justified in charging for their services (app store cut), but in-app purchases? If a dev has written all their own code, uses all their own payment providers, why does Apple deserve anything? Apple gets to check all of the code when it's submitted to the store so they can check that it's ethical / safe / conforms to their TOS. They can prevent devs from bypassing their store (which is what apple is arguing will happen if they don't control all the money).

Epic still acted like dicks

Whilst I believe Epic has a pretty decent case in certain respects, they still knowingly violated the contracts they signed with Apple. Is it any surprise Apple removed their apps from their store?

The F2P Issue

If Apple loses control of in-app purchases (which i believe should happen), how to they recoup their money from F2P apps? They won't be getting a cut of the upfront sale price, nor will they get a cut from in-app purchases. So, this would necessitate a change in business model, probably to charging an upfront cost of some sort, which then would hurt startups. No easy way to solve this problem.

Apple don't have a monopoly

Epic keep trying to insist there is a monopoly. Not true. Google has a bigger market share, so any consumer can choose to buy a different phone. I don't think Epic will get anywhere with this line of thinking.

Quizzical

It doesn't matter if Apple's fees are reasonable.  They were well-known in advance.  Epic can pay them or not.  No one is forcing them to do business with Apple.

If I walk into a store and see prices that I think are ridiculous, I have every right to walk right back out of the store and buy nothing.  I do not have the right to force the store to sell their goods to me at prices that I find more reasonable.  Epic is basically asserting that they do have that right.

ChildoftheShadows

“Other stores charge 30%” isn’t really valid when all of those other platforms provide other means to distribute your application. 

Also everyone seems to be content that if a gigantic corporation is raping you it’s ok because they all do it. I guess if you like getting raped /shrug.

Then someone will argue, “But Google does allow alternative installation procedures on Android!”, well technically that’s true, they actively make it difficult for the average user and heavily warn against the dangers of installing outside of the App Store. Again, imagine if Windows made you jump through hoops any time you installed from anywhere other than the Windows Store.

The last argument about those prices being upfront is only somewhat true because not all developers have to pay 30% for in-app purchases and not all developers are treated the same. Then you pile on the fact that it’s the only method to install (in the case of iOS) in order to reach those millions of customers and you have a bit of a monopoly, or duopoly, however you want to call it.

What Google and Apple are saying here is they are providing a service and the 30% is to help pay for it. There are lots of problems with this thought process for instance none of those services are something that other companies cannot provide, as seen by the many different store outlets on Windows and OS x. They set it up so they wouldn’t have to compete with other companies.

I’m all for capitalism, but it’s not without its problems. There’s a reason why the notion of a Monopolies and Duopolies came about and became illegal. Just because they could be working within the law now, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be looking at setting new laws or new precedents to prevent single (or dual) entities from controlling everything. It’s the same argument against social media like Twitter and Facebook becoming so large they have too much influence to be allowed to control speech even though they are their own platforms, though that’s a different discussion it is similar because these guys all seem to be working within the current law, but that doesn’t mean the law is right.

Wizardry

It is simply a monopoly standing,as one giant sets the standard,the other greedy monopolies join in and do not dare play cutthroat because that would mean competition and losing money.

This happens at the gas pumps,slight differences but never enough to step on each others toes.
When the government "USA"did the inquiry with a few of these giants,they brought up the notion that these 30% figures were more or less forced within the contract wording and did not allow for fair marketing standards.In a few words the government basically stated that these contracts were in essence a monopoly standing.

So when the tough questions were asked about certain tell tale numbers then of course the reps for these monopolies that seemingly knew everything about everything and every single number/fact somehow misplaced THEIR own numbers.So then of course the excuse "i cannot fully answer your questions without these figures".Then the reps followed that with "I will get back to your offices with the answers".

What I gathered from the inquiry was VERY careful and well chosen words by the reps as you could easily tell they were hiding the truth.They were also carefully swerving around the questions,pretty much going off topic in a different direction.

As I stated before Epic has employed a lawyer that used to work for the government's division that looked into monopolies,so he knows full well the law and what facts are out there to prove their case.

Wizardry

Just a small excerpt from a website that talks about Apple  contracts an shows a graph.I assume you have to be a member to read the full article but there is enough to see.

Basically if your are an avid Apple user you may have agreed to 30 contracts involving over 100 thousand words.

What is really funny is that only a year ago Apple was in a lawsuit battle with Qualcomm another giant,complaining of too high pricing ..lmao.Basicall ythey were suing each other back n forth similar to Epic and Apple.Your charging and unfair price,no your charging an unfair price lol.

https://qz.com/797928/apple-fans-have-click-signed-more-than-100000-words-of-legal-contracts/

Aeander

ChildoftheShadows said:

“Other stores charge 30%” isn’t really valid when all of those other platforms provide other means to distribute your application. 

Also everyone seems to be content that if a gigantic corporation is raping you it’s ok because they all do it. I guess if you like getting raped /shrug.

Then someone will argue, “But Google does allow alternative installation procedures on Android!”, well technically that’s true, they actively make it difficult for the average user and heavily warn against the dangers of installing outside of the App Store. Again, imagine if Windows made you jump through hoops any time you installed from anywhere other than the Windows Store.

The last argument about those prices being upfront is only somewhat true because not all developers have to pay 30% for in-app purchases and not all developers are treated the same. Then you pile on the fact that it’s the only method to install (in the case of iOS) in order to reach those millions of customers and you have a bit of a monopoly, or duopoly, however you want to call it.

What Google and Apple are saying here is they are providing a service and the 30% is to help pay for it. There are lots of problems with this thought process for instance none of those services are something that other companies cannot provide, as seen by the many different store outlets on Windows and OS x. They set it up so they wouldn’t have to compete with other companies.

I’m all for capitalism, but it’s not without its problems. There’s a reason why the notion of a Monopolies and Duopolies came about and became illegal. Just because they could be working within the law now, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be looking at setting new laws or new precedents to prevent single (or dual) entities from controlling everything. It’s the same argument against social media like Twitter and Facebook becoming so large they have too much influence to be allowed to control speech even though they are their own platforms, though that’s a different discussion it is similar because these guys all seem to be working within the current law, but that doesn’t mean the law is right.

Maybe they shouldn't need to offer alternative means of obtaining the application (Android does and Epic is still sueing them, btw).

I know the narrative here is that walled gardens = bad. But no. Walled gardens and curation don't = bad. There is a consumer demographic that specifically wants a walled garden, like what the Apple store offers, and we shouldn't be eliminating that option for consumers.

ChildoftheShadows

Aeander said:

ChildoftheShadows said:

“Other stores charge 30%” isn’t really valid when all of those other platforms provide other means to distribute your application. 

Also everyone seems to be content that if a gigantic corporation is raping you it’s ok because they all do it. I guess if you like getting raped /shrug.

Then someone will argue, “But Google does allow alternative installation procedures on Android!”, well technically that’s true, they actively make it difficult for the average user and heavily warn against the dangers of installing outside of the App Store. Again, imagine if Windows made you jump through hoops any time you installed from anywhere other than the Windows Store.

The last argument about those prices being upfront is only somewhat true because not all developers have to pay 30% for in-app purchases and not all developers are treated the same. Then you pile on the fact that it’s the only method to install (in the case of iOS) in order to reach those millions of customers and you have a bit of a monopoly, or duopoly, however you want to call it.

What Google and Apple are saying here is they are providing a service and the 30% is to help pay for it. There are lots of problems with this thought process for instance none of those services are something that other companies cannot provide, as seen by the many different store outlets on Windows and OS x. They set it up so they wouldn’t have to compete with other companies.

I’m all for capitalism, but it’s not without its problems. There’s a reason why the notion of a Monopolies and Duopolies came about and became illegal. Just because they could be working within the law now, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be looking at setting new laws or new precedents to prevent single (or dual) entities from controlling everything. It’s the same argument against social media like Twitter and Facebook becoming so large they have too much influence to be allowed to control speech even though they are their own platforms, though that’s a different discussion it is similar because these guys all seem to be working within the current law, but that doesn’t mean the law is right.

Maybe they shouldn't need to offer alternative means of obtaining the application (Android does and Epic is still sueing them, btw).

I know the narrative here is that walled gardens = bad. But no. Walled gardens and curation don't = bad. There is a consumer demographic that specifically wants a walled garden, like what the Apple store offers, and we shouldn't be eliminating that option for consumers.

You completely missed my point about Google I see. 

As far as ‘wanting a walled garden’ that’s fine, then don’t install something from outside of the App store. It’s a really simple solution. Allowing installations from elsewhere has nothing to do with those that don’t want to. It’s a false statement.