Epic Games CEO Likens Apple's Core Tech Fee to Unity's Disastrous Runtime Fee(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Epic Games CEO Likens Apple's Core Tech Fee to Unity's Disastrous Runtime Fee
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1750661023936209400
52 comments
Is it actually a key difference? The whole point of the DMA is that the EU wants to encourage competition on platform marketplaces, so that the platform owner does not have a say in which apps can go on the platform. Here, Apple is saying that "As the platform owner, if you choose not to adopt our app store with the existing terms, we will levy very large fees on you for the simple use of our platform." It's doing exactly what the DMA was created to prevent it from doing.
The DMA has very broad anti-circumvention provisions (i.e. "If you comply with the letter but not the spirit of this law, expect to see us in court anyway"), so I'm expecting a protracted legal battle between Apple and EU authorities. Plus this smells an awful lot like leveraging a monopoly, and Apple is appealing the whole law itself anyway, so this is gonna keep the lawyers busy for years.
The DMA has very broad anti-circumvention provisions (i.e. "If you comply with the letter but not the spirit of this law, expect to see us in court anyway"), so I'm expecting a protracted legal battle between Apple and EU authorities. Plus this smells an awful lot like leveraging a monopoly, and Apple is appealing the whole law itself anyway, so this is gonna keep the lawyers busy for years.
>Is it actually a key difference?
Because another commenter[0] also wondered the same thing, I will answer "Yes" and "No" because it depends on what type of discussion is happening.
- If it's a "big picture" discussion about freedom from Apple's App Store and avoiding their commissions, then the answer is "no difference" because the overall desirable outcome that developers wanted didn't happen.
- If it's a specific discussion about Tim Sweeney & Ashley Gullen's tweet equating the Unity "disastrous" fees with Apple's new optional EU TOS, then the answer is "yes there is a key difference"
In response to TS & AS tweet, Unity's new fee rollout was a public relations disaster because (1) it was retroactive (2) had no option to stay with existing license to avoid the fee. Developers felt "betrayed" by the change and Unity eventually backtracked the changes. Apple will not suffer the same embarrassment that Unity did because devs can just continue "business as usual" by staying with Apple's old TOS (even while EU and Apple continue to fight it out in courts.)
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39147211
Because another commenter[0] also wondered the same thing, I will answer "Yes" and "No" because it depends on what type of discussion is happening.
- If it's a "big picture" discussion about freedom from Apple's App Store and avoiding their commissions, then the answer is "no difference" because the overall desirable outcome that developers wanted didn't happen.
- If it's a specific discussion about Tim Sweeney & Ashley Gullen's tweet equating the Unity "disastrous" fees with Apple's new optional EU TOS, then the answer is "yes there is a key difference"
In response to TS & AS tweet, Unity's new fee rollout was a public relations disaster because (1) it was retroactive (2) had no option to stay with existing license to avoid the fee. Developers felt "betrayed" by the change and Unity eventually backtracked the changes. Apple will not suffer the same embarrassment that Unity did because devs can just continue "business as usual" by staying with Apple's old TOS (even while EU and Apple continue to fight it out in courts.)
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39147211
Yeah, it's 100% a poison pill. They clearly tried to craft an alternate TOS that would look reasonable at a glance to regulators and/or judges but that almost no serious companies would accept.
Even if you are just a small indie developer that's far too much risk for anyone offering free apps (or that might want to in the future). Imagine being the next flappy bird (over 50 million downloads before it got pulled) and suddenly being on the hook for $25,000,000.
Even if you are just a small indie developer that's far too much risk for anyone offering free apps (or that might want to in the future). Imagine being the next flappy bird (over 50 million downloads before it got pulled) and suddenly being on the hook for $25,000,000.
I agree with Tim Sweeney, but I will note that It's awkward to do so because Epic charges to be in their App store too, so he's being a bit hypocritical. But I'd have the tech world know that logically speaking, appeals to hypocrisy only speaks to the men's character. They do nothing to refute the argument the hypocrite is making. It's not as simple as So and so is a hypocrite and therefore their argument is invalid.
If that were the case then every time someone who smokes told you it's a filthy habit don't copy me, you would take up smoking concluding there was vitamin C in it, and it must be good for you.
If that were the case then every time someone who smokes told you it's a filthy habit don't copy me, you would take up smoking concluding there was vitamin C in it, and it must be good for you.
No, it's not hypocritical. You don't need the Epic Store to install or distribute your game on Windows.
Right, you buy a windows device with that calculation in mind.
Apples always has had fees and probably always will as long as they control the os.
Apples always has had fees and probably always will as long as they control the os.
Unity was not going to allow its users to use the old terms. Apple developers have the choice to stick with the current system.
How is that relevant?
The point of this entire exercise is to allow developers and consumers to leave the Apple app store if they like. A free choice. If people must stick with it because the alternative will lead to total financial ruin, then there is still no choice.
The point of this entire exercise is to allow developers and consumers to leave the Apple app store if they like. A free choice. If people must stick with it because the alternative will lead to total financial ruin, then there is still no choice.
It's directly relevant to the tweet that mockingly said this scheme worked out so well for Unity. If Unity would have allowed developers to choose to stay on the old terms or migrate to the new terms, it might have ended differently for them. I am not passing judgement on either company, just on the idea that Apple will fail because Unity failed.
Especially when the tweet is a severe stretch of the truth or a straight up lie.
> Did... did Apple just introduce the equivalent of Unity's runtime install fee... but for all iOS app developers in the EU?!
That answer to that question is without a doubt, "No" unlike what Tim is trying to say.
> Did... did Apple just introduce the equivalent of Unity's runtime install fee... but for all iOS app developers in the EU?!
That answer to that question is without a doubt, "No" unlike what Tim is trying to say.
Unity also relicensed retrospectively! Which is also not happening here!
Epic had their day in court to prove their claims, and lost, so everything they say sounds like sour grapes.
Epic had their day in court to prove their claims, and lost, so everything they say sounds like sour grapes.
he is just trying to be inflammatory because he didn't get what he wanted. with unity, you had no alternative. CTF only applies if you want to not use Apple's own AppStore.
Yes which is even more absurd. You get billed for saving apple money!
yes I get the protest, but it is an ideological one. you create a device, and all the dev tools around it, should a government be able to force you to give it away and support people using it for free? they obviously can't (and shouldn't). EU can plug all the holes it wants, in the end Apple can say "hey we are selling the dev kit for $500k, only good for this major version of the OS" and that will be the end of that. Apple is trying to do the "no upfront cost, low barrier to entry" thing here - they have to get something for it to make it worth their while, but if forced it would come to that and no one can argue that they should not be able to sell their tools.
Actually yes you should give the essentials away.
If you develop a platform that runs software, you should freely distribute necessary the tools to develop software for the platform.
The end user should own their device and that means they should be able to develop software for it free of charge once they have the device.
That does not mean that you can not make libraries that you sell. So I think apple could sell a specialized ML library for their chips, as long as they document the hardware such that someone else willing to do the work could also create such a library
If you develop a platform that runs software, you should freely distribute necessary the tools to develop software for the platform.
The end user should own their device and that means they should be able to develop software for it free of charge once they have the device.
That does not mean that you can not make libraries that you sell. So I think apple could sell a specialized ML library for their chips, as long as they document the hardware such that someone else willing to do the work could also create such a library
>you create a device, and all the dev tools around it, should a government be able to force you to give it away and support people using it for free?
they aren't using it for free, though. These are $1000+ luxury hardware powered by software that developer pay a yearly license to develop for (and because Apple has no modern server OS, these devs also buy into said $1000+ hardware).
At this point I see it as rent-seeking since essentially they are saying that companies need to retroactively pay for software they made decades ago, even if they want to bypass it.
>in the end Apple can say "hey we are selling the dev kit for $500k, only good for this major version of the OS" and that will be the end of that.
that would honestly be a better deal. $500k for a dev kit for a large gaming company would pay for itself if it can make $2m+ or so in revenue (after advertising budgets). It would be catastropic for indies but indies aren't likely to see alternate stores as is.
they aren't using it for free, though. These are $1000+ luxury hardware powered by software that developer pay a yearly license to develop for (and because Apple has no modern server OS, these devs also buy into said $1000+ hardware).
At this point I see it as rent-seeking since essentially they are saying that companies need to retroactively pay for software they made decades ago, even if they want to bypass it.
>in the end Apple can say "hey we are selling the dev kit for $500k, only good for this major version of the OS" and that will be the end of that.
that would honestly be a better deal. $500k for a dev kit for a large gaming company would pay for itself if it can make $2m+ or so in revenue (after advertising budgets). It would be catastropic for indies but indies aren't likely to see alternate stores as is.
> You create a device, and all the dev tools around it, should a government be able to force you to give it away and support people using it for free?
This is an overly broad straw man argument because no one is trying to force Apple to give away iPhones. And yes, the government should be able to force you make major concessions, especially if your device becomes integral to the daily lives of half the citizens of said government.
Apple is selling these devices at a significant profit to end users. The primary purpose of the app store for Apple is to provide value to those consumers, so they continue to buy iPhones. Even if the EU decided tomorrow to confiscate all profits Apple makes from the app store in perpetuity Apple would continue to offer the App Store.
This is an overly broad straw man argument because no one is trying to force Apple to give away iPhones. And yes, the government should be able to force you make major concessions, especially if your device becomes integral to the daily lives of half the citizens of said government.
Apple is selling these devices at a significant profit to end users. The primary purpose of the app store for Apple is to provide value to those consumers, so they continue to buy iPhones. Even if the EU decided tomorrow to confiscate all profits Apple makes from the app store in perpetuity Apple would continue to offer the App Store.
you're the one making a strawman from my argument. I obviously did not imply Apple giving away iOS devices. I was talking about forcing Apple to support a 3rd party developer ecosystem, providing the tools to develop for that ecosystem and eating the costs.
And even then, it is not much different from forcing them to give away iPhones. So what, producing iPhones has a cost so giving them away is "obviously" not tenable, but making tools to develop for it has no cost? Forcing a security model where they have to be ready for "anything, anytime" instead of having a gate where they check things right at the gate has no cost? Especially when if their security fails, they will be the ones to be held responsible?
the rest of the things you say you support is a sure-fire way to make sure no company would risk anything to make devices / inventions so valuable that they become an integral part of your lives. at least not in your jurisdiction.
And even then, it is not much different from forcing them to give away iPhones. So what, producing iPhones has a cost so giving them away is "obviously" not tenable, but making tools to develop for it has no cost? Forcing a security model where they have to be ready for "anything, anytime" instead of having a gate where they check things right at the gate has no cost? Especially when if their security fails, they will be the ones to be held responsible?
the rest of the things you say you support is a sure-fire way to make sure no company would risk anything to make devices / inventions so valuable that they become an integral part of your lives. at least not in your jurisdiction.
>the rest of the things you say you support is a sure-fire way to make sure no company would risk anything to make devices / inventions so valuable that they become an integral part of your lives.
yeah, sounds better than this future where they embrace, extend, and extinguish with the mindshare gained before pulling wool over the customer's eyes.
And this isn't new. This is the entire reason behind anti-trust. Because it's not in the government's best interest to allow Microsoft to push out other browsers. Post-innovation runs down a road to greed and corruption, which stifles future innovation for current convinience. It's never worth it.
yeah, sounds better than this future where they embrace, extend, and extinguish with the mindshare gained before pulling wool over the customer's eyes.
And this isn't new. This is the entire reason behind anti-trust. Because it's not in the government's best interest to allow Microsoft to push out other browsers. Post-innovation runs down a road to greed and corruption, which stifles future innovation for current convinience. It's never worth it.
Doesn't Unreal charge a "core technology fee"?
Different but yes:
Under the standard EULA, Unreal Engine is free to use for learning, and for developing internal projects; it also enables you to distribute many commercial projects without paying any fees to Epic Games, including custom projects delivered to clients, linear content (such as films and television shows) and any product that earns no revenue or whose revenue falls below the royalty threshold. A 5% royalty is due only if you are distributing an off-the-shelf product that incorporates Unreal Engine code (such as a game) and the lifetime gross revenue from that product exceeds $1 million USD; in this case, the first $1 million remains royalty-exempt.
https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/license
Under the standard EULA, Unreal Engine is free to use for learning, and for developing internal projects; it also enables you to distribute many commercial projects without paying any fees to Epic Games, including custom projects delivered to clients, linear content (such as films and television shows) and any product that earns no revenue or whose revenue falls below the royalty threshold. A 5% royalty is due only if you are distributing an off-the-shelf product that incorporates Unreal Engine code (such as a game) and the lifetime gross revenue from that product exceeds $1 million USD; in this case, the first $1 million remains royalty-exempt.
https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/license
They charge royalties, not a per-install fee. If your app is free you wouldn't owe anything, unlike Apple's new system.
You do not owe royalties to Apple unless your app is either A: non-free or B: on another store.
The install fee applies to free applications.
No it doesn't. Not unless you opt into the new agreement, which a free app would have zero reason to do so, as the whole reason would be to pay reduced commission, which is irrelevant.
> ... the whole reason would be to pay reduced commission
Citation needed. I use F-Droid not because I want the devs of the apps I install from there to be free of the Google Play Tax. I use it so I can be free of Google Play.
Citation needed. I use F-Droid not because I want the devs of the apps I install from there to be free of the Google Play Tax. I use it so I can be free of Google Play.
What does that have to do with the iOS ecosystem?
An app that wants to be free fro the Google play ecosystem can do so without paying Google. An app that wants to be free from the App Store needs to pay Apple, or set up a company as a non-profit.
You see the parallels and why "I-Droid" won't be a sustainable store?
You see the parallels and why "I-Droid" won't be a sustainable store?
Epic/Unreal doesn't also own 50% of the PC hardware market making tens of billions at high margins where only Unreal made Games are allowed and other game engines are banned.
They're probably over 50% of AAA games. Freakin' everything is Unreal Engine these days.
Because it's really good, not because it's the only option.
Wait, did Android suddenly disappear?
I'm guessing they mean the app store on the iPhone, that being the only option.
The iPhone itself has been consistently superior to its competition across its history (although obviously not always best at everything). And I say that as an Android fan.
The iPhone itself has been consistently superior to its competition across its history (although obviously not always best at everything). And I say that as an Android fan.
I meant the PC hardware market, edited it.
In the EU, iOS sits ~33% marketshare, ~60% in the US, and ~28% worldwide.
Yes, but you choose to use Unreal because it's actually good. Meanwhile Apple gives you no choice.
So should we expect Epic to give ME, the user a choice of how I want to install Fortnite?
Because they clearly are not. So why do developers get the choice but not the consumer?
Sounds to me the power is still in the wrong hands and consumers loose.
Because they clearly are not. So why do developers get the choice but not the consumer?
Sounds to me the power is still in the wrong hands and consumers loose.
>So why do developers get the choice but not the consumer?
because you can't just push a button and port Fortnite to Linux. Or maybe you can, but expect a lot of bugs that will ultiamtely be negative PR for Fortnite instead of a boon for consumers. What benefit does this give consumers?
Besides, this metaphor doesn't work. You do not have to play, pay, nor install fortnite to do anything except play fortnite. With this ruling, you need IOS to do anything involving making an IOS app, even if you do not need the app store. I don't see the use in being charged for hardware and dev licenses and ALSO be charged per install because your free app chose not to be on the app store.
because you can't just push a button and port Fortnite to Linux. Or maybe you can, but expect a lot of bugs that will ultiamtely be negative PR for Fortnite instead of a boon for consumers. What benefit does this give consumers?
Besides, this metaphor doesn't work. You do not have to play, pay, nor install fortnite to do anything except play fortnite. With this ruling, you need IOS to do anything involving making an IOS app, even if you do not need the app store. I don't see the use in being charged for hardware and dev licenses and ALSO be charged per install because your free app chose not to be on the app store.
You do have the choice to not target an Apple platform. There's lots of apps that're exclusive to Android out there.
I don't like this fee model, but let's not pretend Android doesn't exist.
I don't like this fee model, but let's not pretend Android doesn't exist.
The choice is in the technology you use when you build an application for a user. You don't get a choice what platform you build your apps for, you already have your customers, and they already have their phones. If you're a business for which the technology provided by Apple is not a key part of the product, then you're being forced to pay for technology you're trying your hardest not to use but are obligated to by policy.
If I build a Flutter app for checking bus times, what am I paying Apple for? I'm already deliberately avoiding their badly documented frameworks. Apple don't own the buses, they don't own the internet, they should not be claiming ownership of the users phones.
If I build a Flutter app for checking bus times, what am I paying Apple for? I'm already deliberately avoiding their badly documented frameworks. Apple don't own the buses, they don't own the internet, they should not be claiming ownership of the users phones.
And web apps. Even as an iOS dev myself, I can see there's a lot of apps out there that should've been websites.
I think the context of iOS is safely implied here. To say you have the option of going Android is as relevant as giving the option of doing a mobile app; Sure it is an option but out of the context of the discussion.
> Yes, but you choose to use Unreal because its actually good. Meanwhile Apple gives you no choice.
How did you have no choice, did Apple threaten you or something?
Android is a competent competitor you could choose instead.
How did you have no choice, did Apple threaten you or something?
Android is a competent competitor you could choose instead.
You have no choice if you want to serve IOS users, even if you do not need the app store to sell your product. The #1 questino for any IOS/Android exclusive app is "are you making an Andoid/IOS version"? And saying no because Google/Apple won't let you isn't a resolution that satisfies any party.
This comparison makes no sense. Unreal is a game engine. Apple is a platform. Are you expecting Apple to open an Android app store or something?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Apple and Unity have slightly different financial moats
Epic games, the company where you can only purchase some titles through them and don’t really own what you’ve bought? That Epic games?
That said, there's no doubt that Apple carefully crafted the financial terms of the new EU developer TOS to make it economically unattractive.
[0] [...] Also today, Apple is sharing new business terms available for developers’ apps in the European Union. Developers can choose to adopt these new business terms, or stay on Apple’s existing terms. [...] -- excerpt from https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/01/apple-announces-chang....