Apple is holding the Unreal Engine hostage, Epic says in new motion(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Apple is holding the Unreal Engine hostage, Epic says in new motion
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/23/21397369/epic-apple-fortnite-lawsuit-ios-microsoft-developer-tax
111 comments
I'm not even sure what "backing" Epic would mean in this context, but if they somehow are able to force Apple to release it's dictatorial grip on the app store, I'm all for it. I don't really care what kind of company Epic is, the result counts.
[deleted]
> Their war chest is funded by gambling mechanics, mostly gambling mechanics which are actively aimed at minors.
Funny that Apple wants a cut of this action.
In fact the App Store was a giant contributor to the free with In App Purchase model of software, undermining the previous paid upfront model.
Funny that Apple wants a cut of this action.
In fact the App Store was a giant contributor to the free with In App Purchase model of software, undermining the previous paid upfront model.
As I said, there's plenty to hate about Apple as well. But as bad as that IAP is for companies, it's actually not terrible for customers - they're only having to interact with one trusted party when it comes to their payments. The cost will be higher (which is not nice) since companies will pass that cost on to their customers.
This in comparison to the wild west of submitting your payment information to every Tom, Dick and Mary out there.
This in comparison to the wild west of submitting your payment information to every Tom, Dick and Mary out there.
Being Epic, of course there's an example already: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-08-12-epic-games-hit...
> The law firm reported that Epic was notified about the security issue back in November 2018, but didn't acknowledge the problem until two months later.
> The data breach occurred back in January this year, when hackers found a flaw in Fortnite's login system, allowing them to impersonate players and purchase V-Bucks with the bank information attached to their accounts.
Epic is truly not a company you want to be supporting in this. I am not an Apple fan (I have a phone from all major mobile OSes), but Epic is truly abhorrent and stands for everything you do not want sticking their fingers into everything.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/b15k8g/epic_games...
They've refused to pay out newly-introduced bug bounties over mass hijackings of their subdomains, do sketchy spyware-like stuff with their software running on your machine, collect data without consent, etc. Even if you hate Apple's stance on IAP, this is absolutely not a big guy vs little guy fight.
> The law firm reported that Epic was notified about the security issue back in November 2018, but didn't acknowledge the problem until two months later.
> The data breach occurred back in January this year, when hackers found a flaw in Fortnite's login system, allowing them to impersonate players and purchase V-Bucks with the bank information attached to their accounts.
Epic is truly not a company you want to be supporting in this. I am not an Apple fan (I have a phone from all major mobile OSes), but Epic is truly abhorrent and stands for everything you do not want sticking their fingers into everything.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/b15k8g/epic_games...
They've refused to pay out newly-introduced bug bounties over mass hijackings of their subdomains, do sketchy spyware-like stuff with their software running on your machine, collect data without consent, etc. Even if you hate Apple's stance on IAP, this is absolutely not a big guy vs little guy fight.
> This in comparison to the wild west of submitting your payment information to every Tom, Dick and Mary out there.
Somehow capitalism survived this situation in all of history prior to 2008. Also, Visa and Mastercard have a duopoly over payments, so it's not entirely accurate to say that it's the "wild west", or even that there weren't "trusted parties" before Apple.
In my experience, the credit card companies are actually quite protective of customer payments, and you don't have to pay if there's fraud. They just cancel your card and send you a new one. It's largely the merchants who have to eat that cost.
Somehow capitalism survived this situation in all of history prior to 2008. Also, Visa and Mastercard have a duopoly over payments, so it's not entirely accurate to say that it's the "wild west", or even that there weren't "trusted parties" before Apple.
In my experience, the credit card companies are actually quite protective of customer payments, and you don't have to pay if there's fraud. They just cancel your card and send you a new one. It's largely the merchants who have to eat that cost.
How many websites out there - who don't use a trusted third party like Stripe or PayPal - are you willing to submit your Visa or MC information to?
My answer is pretty close to zero, with a few exceptions for large companies who have earned my trust with my payment information.
My answer is pretty close to zero, with a few exceptions for large companies who have earned my trust with my payment information.
I do it all the time, and have for decades. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Personally, I don't have much trust for PayPal or Stripe. PayPal is infamous for randomly banning accounts, for example.
Personally, I don't have much trust for PayPal or Stripe. PayPal is infamous for randomly banning accounts, for example.
> They don't fund exclusives, they buy exclusives after they've been completed.
I see this a lot but I have yet to come across a good explanation of why this matters, could you explain? From my point of view it doesn't make a difference when the developer gets the money, an exclusive is an exclusive.
I see this a lot but I have yet to come across a good explanation of why this matters, could you explain? From my point of view it doesn't make a difference when the developer gets the money, an exclusive is an exclusive.
Not to mention it's a false statement. They do fund exclusives through their publishing arm, and are currently in the process of funding the next games by Remedy (creators of Control), Playdead (Limbo, Inside), and Gen Design (ex Team Ico team, responsible for The Last Guardian and such): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_m4LxDG1D4
And according to Skybound Games CEO, Epic was also involved in helping to establish the team that completed development of The Walking Dead's final season after Telltale collapsed, so it wasn't just a case of Epic simply buying exclusivity after the fact:
"We’re excited to work together on their latest transformative event with the launch of the Epic Games Store. Epic stepped up to the plate immediately to work with us in order to bring the original team back together and ensure fans will receive the completed season of ‘Telltale’s The Walking Dead: The Final Season.'”"
https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/telltales-the-walking-d...
And really, the same can be said for other exclusive games that are still in development, since money given to the devs is money that inevitably goes into the production of the game. By virtue meaning that they're helping to fund the game, at least in part.
And according to Skybound Games CEO, Epic was also involved in helping to establish the team that completed development of The Walking Dead's final season after Telltale collapsed, so it wasn't just a case of Epic simply buying exclusivity after the fact:
"We’re excited to work together on their latest transformative event with the launch of the Epic Games Store. Epic stepped up to the plate immediately to work with us in order to bring the original team back together and ensure fans will receive the completed season of ‘Telltale’s The Walking Dead: The Final Season.'”"
https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/telltales-the-walking-d...
And really, the same can be said for other exclusive games that are still in development, since money given to the devs is money that inevitably goes into the production of the game. By virtue meaning that they're helping to fund the game, at least in part.
Means people who want it on Steam (Linux, Big Picture, local and remote streaming, etc) have to wait.
I tick all those boxes. I just want to honk.
I tick all those boxes. I just want to honk.
Two large evil corporations is better than one large evil corporation. It at least encourages consumer-friendly practices as a means of competition.
FWIW, I don't think history is proving this out. Apple and Google haven't exactly become bastions of customer friendliness, despite their competition in the mobile space.
Nor have ISPs, Online Retailers, repair shops, etc.
Nor have ISPs, Online Retailers, repair shops, etc.
>They don't fund exclusives, they buy exclusives after they've been completed.
Timed exclusives, mind you. Also, it literally doesn't matter and just changes where you download the game from, woohoo.
Absolutely support Epic on this endeavor. Anything that can make Apple eat shit is a valuable investment of your time.
Timed exclusives, mind you. Also, it literally doesn't matter and just changes where you download the game from, woohoo.
Absolutely support Epic on this endeavor. Anything that can make Apple eat shit is a valuable investment of your time.
Strategically, I wonder who has the most to lose if the Unreal engine is basically deplatformed from Apple.
iOS is a huge game market, but how many iOS games are powered by Unreal? macOS is a tiny game market.
For game developers, between this and the ARM switch on macOS, this could be a serious death to gaming on macOS.
I would also expect game developers to be mad at Epic to be playing chicken with their game engine, although that may be unexpected fall out. It might drive some game developers to move to other engines although this is probably a stretch.
iOS is a huge game market, but how many iOS games are powered by Unreal? macOS is a tiny game market.
For game developers, between this and the ARM switch on macOS, this could be a serious death to gaming on macOS.
I would also expect game developers to be mad at Epic to be playing chicken with their game engine, although that may be unexpected fall out. It might drive some game developers to move to other engines although this is probably a stretch.
Those game developers may also benefit from what comes of this ordeal. They too need to pay a 30% cut to Apple (plus some % to Epic for the Unreal Engine).
Given that iOS games/apps are purported to work on Arm based macOS, it’s actually a whole potentially new market.
> basically deplatformed from Apple.
Nobody takes deplatforming seriously until it hits them. It's the slippery slope, played out in real time.
Is this inaccurate? Epic doesn't make some fringe hate content, they make the world's most popular video game. Exactly zero normal people foresaw Epic losing access to the app store and development tools completely, regardless about how you feel about whether they should pay 30% or 0% or whatever in IAP fees.
And now, only now, it's newsworthy that some app, like that WordPress app no one has heard of, also gets deplatformed for totally bullshit reasons. Every scenario is different, but surely you see, that it's about the power to deplatform, not the reasons, that people don't take seriously.
Nobody takes deplatforming seriously until it hits them. It's the slippery slope, played out in real time.
Is this inaccurate? Epic doesn't make some fringe hate content, they make the world's most popular video game. Exactly zero normal people foresaw Epic losing access to the app store and development tools completely, regardless about how you feel about whether they should pay 30% or 0% or whatever in IAP fees.
And now, only now, it's newsworthy that some app, like that WordPress app no one has heard of, also gets deplatformed for totally bullshit reasons. Every scenario is different, but surely you see, that it's about the power to deplatform, not the reasons, that people don't take seriously.
These are totally different situations and comparing them will make things worse not better. Epic 100% knew this was going to happen and opted to do it anyway to throw bombs. They could continue to operate and make money but they want that 30%. Wordpress was not trying to make a dramatic point, they’re just trying to be a reasonable citizen and ran afoul of a policy.
Apple never cared about games (minus maybe a short period when the G4 came out), and gamedevs know it. Unreal was never a serious contender for iOS. So no serious immediate effect on either side.
In the long run, gamedevs would be even more reluctant to provide iOS/MacOS builds, which doesn't matter at all since people don't buy Macs for gaming.
In the long run, gamedevs would be even more reluctant to provide iOS/MacOS builds, which doesn't matter at all since people don't buy Macs for gaming.
Apple cares desperately about exclusivity since even before Cook. If Android has the same games and the same apps then there is less reason to favor iOS. There is nothing sacrificed to move between platforms. They don't care for any technology that fosters multi-platform games or apps.
Apple Arcade could basically be called "Games Never On Android".
> Here’s what being “exclusive to Apple Arcade” means. The game is a mobile-exclusive and cannot be released on other mobile operating systems ... Video game consoles are not considered mobile
https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/13/apple-arcade-exclusive-means-...
They even banned Unity3d, Mono and the concept of 'cross compilers' while they were waging war on Flash, who at that point were perfecting cross-platform compiling from Flash "the IDE" to native Android and iOS apps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughts_on_Flash
> desire to avoid "a third party layer of software coming between the platform and the developer"
They even are on record complaining about Amazon promoting Kindle books being accessible cross-platform.
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/31/emails-apple-blocked-ki...
> While the primary message is that there are Kindle apps on lots of devices, the secondary message [something garbled] is that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android
Apple Arcade could basically be called "Games Never On Android".
> Here’s what being “exclusive to Apple Arcade” means. The game is a mobile-exclusive and cannot be released on other mobile operating systems ... Video game consoles are not considered mobile
https://9to5mac.com/2019/09/13/apple-arcade-exclusive-means-...
They even banned Unity3d, Mono and the concept of 'cross compilers' while they were waging war on Flash, who at that point were perfecting cross-platform compiling from Flash "the IDE" to native Android and iOS apps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughts_on_Flash
> desire to avoid "a third party layer of software coming between the platform and the developer"
They even are on record complaining about Amazon promoting Kindle books being accessible cross-platform.
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/07/31/emails-apple-blocked-ki...
> While the primary message is that there are Kindle apps on lots of devices, the secondary message [something garbled] is that it is easy to switch from iPhone to Android
>Apple never cared about games
They're currently trying to sell people a gaming subscription service.
They're currently trying to sell people a gaming subscription service.
Ah, wonderful. A platform where Apple can remove backward compatibility even more easily, and which forces you out of the other subscription services.
The big difference between games and other software, is that typical devs also profit from Apple making changes, e.g. Adobe managing to deprecate their previous licences and switch to subscription-only without backlash since it's Apple changing the platform. So Adobe loses a bit from porting, but gains more from new subscriptions.
Old games are almost never ported as is, at best they're "remade/remastered" which is a serious investment. So Apple making changes and choosing their own APIs is a pure loss for gamedevs. That's hardly the only problem but that's a big one.
The big difference between games and other software, is that typical devs also profit from Apple making changes, e.g. Adobe managing to deprecate their previous licences and switch to subscription-only without backlash since it's Apple changing the platform. So Adobe loses a bit from porting, but gains more from new subscriptions.
Old games are almost never ported as is, at best they're "remade/remastered" which is a serious investment. So Apple making changes and choosing their own APIs is a pure loss for gamedevs. That's hardly the only problem but that's a big one.
> For game developers, between this and the ARM switch on macOS, this could be a serious death to gaming on macOS.
ARM could be a boon for macOS gaming if it allows for better access to iOS titles.
ARM could be a boon for macOS gaming if it allows for better access to iOS titles.
It's rather unlikely that titles made for an entirely different control method and a screen smaller by a factor of 4 to 5 will provide a good experience.
You already have games that work on both iPhone and iPad, and the iPad screen resolution is about the same as a MacBook retina, so I don’t see that being an issue. The different input methods wouldn’t be a huge deal either - fruit ninja with a mouse probably would not be quite the same, but couldn’t think of any other examples that wouldn’t work just fine with mouse or keyboard instead of touch events.
Have you ever tried to play a bad Console-to-PC port, or a game ported from desktop to mobile which didn't get a good interface refit? Sure, it is all doable, but it requires effort, and given relative size of markets it's obvious where the effort would be.
Not every game will, and many will need some modifications, but lots of games work great on iOS, console, and PC. Stardew Valley, Darkest Dungeon, Hearthstone are some examples that have controls that do well in multiple platforms. I personally think Clash Royal would be awesome with a mouse and keyboard.
All your examples already had OSX ports, I'm sure they'll be on ARM Macs as well. The big 'winners' from easy iOS porting are likely be cheap iOS games with matching small technical effort to port [which is different from actually porting the gameplay/interface]. Hopefully Apple will improve discoverability in their store so they're easy to filter.
[deleted]
Epic wants to ship 'Epic Payments' as a built in and trivial to enable feature in every Unreal built game which I'm sure would give a much higher cut to devs which in turn would drive higher and higher %s of devs for IOS to their engine.
This is Apple trying to ward off a business model they consider parasitic and destructive to a large chunk of their app store revenue.
This is Apple trying to ward off a business model they consider parasitic and destructive to a large chunk of their app store revenue.
What a world we live in where running code on a computer without giving a third of your revenue to that computer's manufacturer could be considered "parasitic" by anyone.
This is demonstrably untrue (from Hey.com to Netflix/Amazon and in between there’s plenty of ways to not give up 30/15% of your revenue). But even if it were true, it’s the same world that didn’t largely have computers in people’s pockets 15 years ago, and that then involved cell phone network operators defining 100% of the installed content on those computers. So this is one of those things where you can be as irate or happy as you want to be.
I have a feeling this was a calculated move for Epic to save face while abandoning MacOS development of the Unreal dev tools. If it really mattered to them, they could remove their TOS-violating hacks from Fortnite and get their developer license reinstated at any time.
Keep in mind that everything here has been gamed out ahead of time by Epic. They knew they would get their app removed for the brazen TOS violation. They knew that it would result in their developer account being suspended, and they knew that it meant their other apps tied to that account would also be locked out.
Keep in mind that everything here has been gamed out ahead of time by Epic. They knew they would get their app removed for the brazen TOS violation. They knew that it would result in their developer account being suspended, and they knew that it meant their other apps tied to that account would also be locked out.
To sue they need to have standing, simply asking and getting a no and then carrying on accepting the old standard won't get you anywhere.
They already had standing from the $300 million Apple collected in IAP fees, so they didn't need to actually break the contract to file their lawsuit.
I really don't understand why people keep saying this. They had standing because they were a party to the Developer Program License Agreement. They would have had standing even if they weren't because they allege they're being denied use of an "essential facility".
Prefacing this with that I'm just a layman so this is just an interesting discussion for me.
Looking at the Wikipedia page and the requirements for standing the way Epic is doing this looks at least for me much more in line with the given requirements.
Though I guess the Wikipedia page is a simplification of the reality.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
Looking at the Wikipedia page and the requirements for standing the way Epic is doing this looks at least for me much more in line with the given requirements.
Though I guess the Wikipedia page is a simplification of the reality.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
They might have had standing for some of their claims, but many others would have had a reasonable chance of being dismissed for lack of standing. Better to make it explicit.
They had standing yeah. I think it's about showing reduction in consumer welfare - Apple delisted an app that lowered prices for consumers.
Their stunt doesn't actually demonstrate that Apple's commission harms consumer welfare. If it did any retailer with a margin over the price of a manufacturer's goods would also be harming consumer welfare.
Yes, I agree, margin over the price of a manufactured good does harm consumer welfare. I didn't write the legal opinions, but it's much more interesting to talk about them this way!
The consumer welfare thing is just one factor of many to make a status-quo antitrust law case a real battle. There hasn't been antitrust victories for consumers in a very, very long time.
The consumer welfare thing is just one factor of many to make a status-quo antitrust law case a real battle. There hasn't been antitrust victories for consumers in a very, very long time.
Then we're in agreement that Epic's breach of the developer agreement wasn't actually required to have standing or to bolster their antitrust claims.
Then it should be obvious that, Apple could write whatever it wants in its god damned agreements, it doesn't actually matter w.r.t. anti-trust claims.
Epic had to get Apple to go do an anti-trust thing - in their opinion. So it's definitely required to bolster the claim.
Epic had to get Apple to go do an anti-trust thing - in their opinion. So it's definitely required to bolster the claim.
When I refer to consumer welfare I'm referring to the "consumer welfare standard" that is relevant to antitrust cases. Epic's breach doesn't actually aid them in demonstrating that Apple has harmed consumer welfare. The same holds true for Spotify when they charged more on iOS to cover Apple's commission.
It will be interesting to see how consumer welfare standard will evolve to accommodate people paying more for IAP because of app store fees. It's likely that it will.
Probably 100% of congress uses an iPhone. 100% of judges. Every lawyer. It's right in their face. 100% of them use Google, 0% use Bing. I don't think I know a single non-engineering professional, English as a first language adult who uses an Android device.
It's not some abstract situation the consumer welfare standard didn't anticipate; it's the now. Nobody is going to sympathize with arguments about choice because that hasn't been true for a while - nobody makes the choice, not among these people, for alternatives, so is there really a choice?
Probably 100% of congress uses an iPhone. 100% of judges. Every lawyer. It's right in their face. 100% of them use Google, 0% use Bing. I don't think I know a single non-engineering professional, English as a first language adult who uses an Android device.
It's not some abstract situation the consumer welfare standard didn't anticipate; it's the now. Nobody is going to sympathize with arguments about choice because that hasn't been true for a while - nobody makes the choice, not among these people, for alternatives, so is there really a choice?
Sure, but let's be honest, their lawsuit probably doesn't have any chance of success. Apple's terms are the same as Playstation/Xbox/Nintendo and they're not crying about those platforms not allowing them to open up their own app store there. The courts are going to tell them the obvious, that you can't call a monopoly on your own products a true Monopoly for antitrust purposes.
I have a feeling their money on iOS is a rounding error compared to the serious gaming platforms, and this whole thing is basically a marketing activity that they calculated would pay off better than the revenues they'd lose from losing access to iOS/Mac.
I have a feeling their money on iOS is a rounding error compared to the serious gaming platforms, and this whole thing is basically a marketing activity that they calculated would pay off better than the revenues they'd lose from losing access to iOS/Mac.
Did you consider that Epic gets a deal from Playstation, Xbox and Nintendo?
I would call those platforms much more symbiotic in their existance.
Also considering if they win this much more clear cut case, then they or someone else would try to apply it to those markets.
Also considering if they win this much more clear cut case, then they or someone else would try to apply it to those markets.
> Also considering if they win this much more clear cut case, then they or someone else would try to apply it to those markets.
The case is definitely clear cut, but not to Epic's advantage.
I have no love for Apple, but at the same time Epic doesn't have a leg to stand on here. This is two extremely wealthy parties fighting over a giant pile of money, and Epic is cynically trying to claim they're fighting for the consumer.
The case is definitely clear cut, but not to Epic's advantage.
I have no love for Apple, but at the same time Epic doesn't have a leg to stand on here. This is two extremely wealthy parties fighting over a giant pile of money, and Epic is cynically trying to claim they're fighting for the consumer.
So reducing the commission from 30% to something more reasonable by having competing app stores would harm the consumer?
If the underlying structures wouldn't change it would be a smaller pile of cash more parties share. On the other hand, if it opens up for innovation the pile would grow allowing better products for all. Though I guess the innovation angle is hard to prove in court.
If the underlying structures wouldn't change it would be a smaller pile of cash more parties share. On the other hand, if it opens up for innovation the pile would grow allowing better products for all. Though I guess the innovation angle is hard to prove in court.
>So reducing the commission from 30% to something more reasonable by having competing app stores would harm the consumer?
Wait until Epic gets their app store entrenched and raises their prices for Fortnite content 30% because they know people are willing to pay that already, and no matter how much they raise the price, it's always the cheapest option.
Wait until Epic gets their app store entrenched and raises their prices for Fortnite content 30% because they know people are willing to pay that already, and no matter how much they raise the price, it's always the cheapest option.
How can Apple prevent an unrelated dev from publishing something made with Unreal by banning Epic's account? Can't I deploy an app to the App Store with my own?
They can't. This is another attempt by Epic at gaining public sympathy for intentionally breaking the terms of their licensing agreement with Apple to publish on the app store.
Between this PR nonsense and attempting to strong-arm it’s way into the market by introducing exclusives to PC, I have quite little sympathy for Epic.
Apple’s “bad behavior” here ultimately aligns with my desires as a consumer. By controlling the marketplace, they enforce privacy and UX controls. They use that money to improve the products I use every day.
I cannot say the same for Epic. Every battle they are starting is to degrade my experience as a consumer so they can make even more money.
Apple’s “bad behavior” here ultimately aligns with my desires as a consumer. By controlling the marketplace, they enforce privacy and UX controls. They use that money to improve the products I use every day.
I cannot say the same for Epic. Every battle they are starting is to degrade my experience as a consumer so they can make even more money.
This is a legal argument to a court attempting to get an injunction. It seems to me to have very little to do with public sympathy.
The public really doesn't give a crap about whether or not their is one contract or multiple, or the quality of apples legal arguments, which seems to be some of the core issues raised in this motion responding to Apple's motion.
The public really doesn't give a crap about whether or not their is one contract or multiple, or the quality of apples legal arguments, which seems to be some of the core issues raised in this motion responding to Apple's motion.
It may also be a legal argument, but it's very clearly a move to gain public sentiment to their side - it's being published broadly by the media, after all.
Epic is painting themselves as the underdogs being bullied by Apple - the multi-billion dollar contract-breaking underdog.
Epic is painting themselves as the underdogs being bullied by Apple - the multi-billion dollar contract-breaking underdog.
Facing the multi-trillion dollar gorilla, if this would even be a relevent perspective.
When was Epic ever given a chance to negotiate the terms of this contract?
They were given the same chance as you and I are with Epic's TOS for their games/game store.
They wanted access to the iOS market, and the terms were there.
They wanted access to the iOS market, and the terms were there.
Which same chance is that? Please fill me in, I've never negotiated with Epic's game store.
Zero. It's take-it-or-leave-it. Standard contract negotiation "tactics" these days.
That's unfortunate, maybe neither of them should be doing it?
Is it though? If you create a set of rules for your sandbox and somebody comes along and wants to play in it but only if you change the rules and you say “no thanks”, that seems totally reasonable. Why should you have to negotiate?
The "sandbox" isn't their property anymore, it was sold to the end user when they bought the phone.
Maybe this is one of the fundamental misunderstandings of these arguments: those who think this statement to be true and those who don’t. You bought the phone, you didn’t buy the ecosystem, buying a $500 phone doesn’t give you the right to dictate the multi-billion dollar business.
> it's very clearly a move to gain public sentiment to their side
While they have certainly engaged in PR, I really don't see this motion as being motivated by PR in any way...
> the multi-billion dollar contract-breaking underdog.
This is assuming Apple wins. If Epic is right they didn't break any contract because the terms Apple is claiming they broke were in fact not legally binding in the first place, by virtue of being illegal.
While they have certainly engaged in PR, I really don't see this motion as being motivated by PR in any way...
> the multi-billion dollar contract-breaking underdog.
This is assuming Apple wins. If Epic is right they didn't break any contract because the terms Apple is claiming they broke were in fact not legally binding in the first place, by virtue of being illegal.
Apple could cut Epic's access to developer tools, which would make it impossible for Epic to support (patch and adding features) Unreal Engine on iOS and Mac. At least this is what the article states.
The engine is released with the game, not as a stand-alone binary. The dev tools are a different story, but unrelated to the question.
And even if this did impact the engine, perhaps epic should have thought about that when playing chicken with Apple.
And even if this did impact the engine, perhaps epic should have thought about that when playing chicken with Apple.
If I were looking for an engine to build a game on I'd have to think twice about using Unreal Engine in the future. Having the company that builds such a foundational component of the product in open war with one of the most important platforms it runs on is an added complication that would only harm me.
In this case, it seems the goals of Epic the game publisher versus Epic the component supplier really don't align, and Epic the publisher's needs are winning out.
In this case, it seems the goals of Epic the game publisher versus Epic the component supplier really don't align, and Epic the publisher's needs are winning out.
Disagree, this lawsuit strongly supports Epic the component suppliers business as well, because one of those components they can supply and make significant money off of is payment processing.
There is a bit of a conflict between Epic the component supplier and Joe the game developer's goals here, because Joe the game developer doesn't really care whether it's Apple or Epic taking the payment processing cut. Joe doesn't necessarily lose either because Joe seems some benefit (just less) too due to competition lowering the cost of payment processing. It's just not clear cut.
In reality it probably the case that some game developers will win thanks to lower cost of payment processing dominating their cost benefit analysis, and others will lose thanks to worse unreal engine platform support dominating their cost benefit analysis.
There is a bit of a conflict between Epic the component supplier and Joe the game developer's goals here, because Joe the game developer doesn't really care whether it's Apple or Epic taking the payment processing cut. Joe doesn't necessarily lose either because Joe seems some benefit (just less) too due to competition lowering the cost of payment processing. It's just not clear cut.
In reality it probably the case that some game developers will win thanks to lower cost of payment processing dominating their cost benefit analysis, and others will lose thanks to worse unreal engine platform support dominating their cost benefit analysis.
I keep seeing two conflicting points of view in this comment thread: 1) iOS isn’t a big games platform and 2) iOS is an important platform to Epic.
Maybe iOS isn’t that important to Epic or their clients which is why they can do this.
Maybe iOS isn’t that important to Epic or their clients which is why they can do this.
3) Epic wants to establish a precedent against these policies for possible use in all markets. Apple is the clearest case to make, the other cases are more ambiguous, if Epic won't win this it won't win elsewhere.
The developer tools are free for anyone with a free developer account. So they still have access, just not with the account they used for distributing Fortnite. Any 3rd party dev using Unity will use it’s own account.
> The developer tools are free for anyone with a free developer account.
Developer accounts are not free. Of course $99 is not a problem for Epic or most game developers, but please be accurate.
Developer accounts are not free. Of course $99 is not a problem for Epic or most game developers, but please be accurate.
The developer tools are free for anyone with a free developer account. Submitting apps to the store requires a paid developer account.
Again, there's no such thing as a free developer account.
Anyone with an Apple ID — which is not a developer account — can download Xcode from the App Store. However, this version of Xcode does not support prerelease versions such as iOS 14 and macOS 11, so it's not adequate for professional purposes.
Anyone with an Apple ID — which is not a developer account — can download Xcode from the App Store. However, this version of Xcode does not support prerelease versions such as iOS 14 and macOS 11, so it's not adequate for professional purposes.
Downloading Xcode at least used to require enrolling your Apple ID as a developer. I stand corrected if it doesn't now.
Apple can prevent it just by saying so, and you'd have no recourse.
Is there something inaccurate about this answer? This is what this saga is all about.
Is there something inaccurate about this answer? This is what this saga is all about.
[deleted]
While I understand this is an ugly turf war between Epic and Apple, I'm a little confused about certain other app. How is it that Audible (owned by Amazon) let's you "spend credits" that you purchase at Audible.com directly in the iOS App? Are they getting special treatment?
Doesn't Amazon have a better deal with Apple than pretty much anyone else?
Apple is not opposed to payment systems that load money from a website into a platform like Spotify or Amazon. They are opposed to payment systems that bypass their Apple payment system from an app.
I am continuously surprised by the response from a lot of the HN community to this. I would never have expected people to be championing the kind of gate keeping Apple (and Google) have been enjoying for years. It hurts consumers by driving prices, forcing awful IAP business models, and holds back innovation due to private APIs or "policy violations".
These app stores are filled with so much shit these days that it's impossible to find quality software, and the app store model gives these companies little opportunity to differentiate and sell their offerings.
Give me the ability to install apps from any store, website, or platform. Give me the ability to use a device whatever way I decide. Incentive developers to create useful, enjoyable software instead of IAP shovelware. Make it the norm and break users from depending on The One App Store.
These app stores are filled with so much shit these days that it's impossible to find quality software, and the app store model gives these companies little opportunity to differentiate and sell their offerings.
Give me the ability to install apps from any store, website, or platform. Give me the ability to use a device whatever way I decide. Incentive developers to create useful, enjoyable software instead of IAP shovelware. Make it the norm and break users from depending on The One App Store.
>Give me the ability to install apps from any store, website, or platform. Give me the ability to use a device whatever way I decide. Incentive developers to create useful, enjoyable software instead of IAP shovelware. Make it the norm and break users from depending on The One App Store.
You're continuously surprised that most people aren't ideologues about this?
These are old debates about computers. Decades ago the rift was between computer tinkerers and Apple for what they derisively called "appliances". They cared, customers didn't. The rest is history.
You're continuously surprised that most people aren't ideologues about this?
These are old debates about computers. Decades ago the rift was between computer tinkerers and Apple for what they derisively called "appliances". They cared, customers didn't. The rest is history.
I've learned to no longer be surprised by it. There are a huge amount of people in this industry who have staked their personal identity in a brand. Apple, Tesla, Google, or whatever. It's no different than the high school behavior I grew up with where you were allowed be one of three types of people: Chevy, Ford, or Dodge.
The unusually downvoted answer holds the key to the riddle: it's the hardcoded tribalism making us justify our purchases as if they're political statements.
I do think it has to do with spending money. Don't see the same levels of defense for companies with "free" stuff. If Epic had only sued Google in this issue they'd have had more support.
I think we're like crabs in a bucket, got to pull each other down if we see someone close to getting what they want.
You have that ability: buy any android phone!
I want to support Epic, because they're challenging Apple's monopoly. But… I have a feeling they're not doing it to be nice to us, but because Apple's mooching off “their turf” (i.e. us) when they want to be doing all the mooching.
There no one to support here. If Epic was to force some kind of change here, expect Epic Pay in every Unreal game whi h may have benefits in the short term but how long does that ever last?
> but how long does that ever last?
Forever? Because now there are competing payment providers.
Forever? Because now there are competing payment providers.
How are they competing? Either the court rules that what Apple is doing is lawful, and is the single payment provider, or they decide it’s not, and Epic becomes the single payment processing provider for unreal games.
Either way game devs have no choice
Either way game devs have no choice
> and Epic becomes the single payment processing provider for unreal games.
This seems like an unjustified assumption that Epic would attempt to leverage any monopoly they had on game engines to create a monopoly on payment processing. They haven't done this on desktop where they (up to legal issues) could, so I don't see why you think they would on IOS.
Moreover, there is competition between game engines and gamedevs are not a captive audience to quite the same extent as consumers are.
Moreover, if epic wins and they attempted this they would have literally established the precedent for Apple to sue them in return.
This seems like an unjustified assumption that Epic would attempt to leverage any monopoly they had on game engines to create a monopoly on payment processing. They haven't done this on desktop where they (up to legal issues) could, so I don't see why you think they would on IOS.
Moreover, there is competition between game engines and gamedevs are not a captive audience to quite the same extent as consumers are.
Moreover, if epic wins and they attempted this they would have literally established the precedent for Apple to sue them in return.
> This seems like an unjustified assumption that Epic would attempt to leverage any monopoly they had on game engines to create a monopoly on payment processing.
Why? That’s what they’re selling
Why? That’s what they’re selling
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
EPIC and it's CEO are a bunch of hypocrites trying to get a special deal just for them from Apple and now playing victim when got rejected.
Who cares. The whole point of free market capitalism is to have self interested actors competing to create change that benefits society as a whole. It may not work all the time but right now this is an example of the invisible hand at work.
If it were not for competing business interest what human is altruistic enough to throw this many resources at taking down apples monopolistic iron grip over the app market?
Support Epic not for their moral reasoning, support them because their interests align with yours.
If it were not for competing business interest what human is altruistic enough to throw this many resources at taking down apples monopolistic iron grip over the app market?
Support Epic not for their moral reasoning, support them because their interests align with yours.
> Support Epic not for their moral reasoning, support them because their interests align with yours.
How do you know? I don’t
How do you know? I don’t
You're telling me you're not interested in getting rid of apples' monopolistic policies?
You're telling me that you're not aware that if epic wins then it means apple has less of a monopolistic foothold over the app store?
You're telling me that you're not aware that if epic wins then it means apple has less of a monopolistic foothold over the app store?
> You're telling me you're not interested in getting rid of apples' monopolistic policies?
I’m telling you I don’t know. Are you 100% sure that all alternatives are best?
What if this prompts governments to have app stores regulated as public utilities? To me that sounds like a nightmare.
If I were interested in reducing the ‘monopolistic foothold’ I can always get an android phone, can’t I?
I’m telling you I don’t know. Are you 100% sure that all alternatives are best?
What if this prompts governments to have app stores regulated as public utilities? To me that sounds like a nightmare.
If I were interested in reducing the ‘monopolistic foothold’ I can always get an android phone, can’t I?
>I’m telling you I don’t know. Are you 100% sure that all alternatives are best?
Don't know what? I made a bunch of guesses but you haven't specified what you don't know. What do you mean by alternatives that are best?
I am saying that apple should not impose monopolistic regulatory practices in the app store, what alternative are you talking about?
>What if this prompts governments to have app stores regulated as public utilities? To me that sounds like a nightmare.
Yeah like how the government regulates the stock market. Sounds like a nightmare, we should not regulate the stock market.
>If I were interested in reducing the ‘monopolistic foothold’ I can always get an android phone, can’t I?
The google play store does the same shit. It's essentially a dual-opoly.
Don't know what? I made a bunch of guesses but you haven't specified what you don't know. What do you mean by alternatives that are best?
I am saying that apple should not impose monopolistic regulatory practices in the app store, what alternative are you talking about?
>What if this prompts governments to have app stores regulated as public utilities? To me that sounds like a nightmare.
Yeah like how the government regulates the stock market. Sounds like a nightmare, we should not regulate the stock market.
>If I were interested in reducing the ‘monopolistic foothold’ I can always get an android phone, can’t I?
The google play store does the same shit. It's essentially a dual-opoly.
No they are not, Epic decided to go all out, thereby risking the all ios business including the Unreal Engine.
Any iOS developer at Epic can still use their own developer account, even a free one, to access all of the tools they need. The only thing impossible is _deploying_ their own software like Fortnite. Any 3rd party Unity dev has it’s own certificate and isn’t hurt by this.
Pretending you’re blocked on doing anything for iOS and macOS because the account you use to deploy Fortnite has been locked is bullshit
Pretending you’re blocked on doing anything for iOS and macOS because the account you use to deploy Fortnite has been locked is bullshit
1) They engage in anti-customer behavior by buying exclusives. They don't fund exclusives, they buy exclusives after they've been completed.
2) If they can't get an Indie as an exclusive, they don't want it. They don't want to compete with Day and Date releases.
3) Their war chest is funded by gambling mechanics, mostly gambling mechanics which are actively aimed at minors. While I can understand arguments for "parents should parent" and "adults should be allowed to adult", Epic is based out of the US, and gambling is largely controlled within the US.
4) EDIT: Oh, and their weaponizing their minor-heavy userbase as well against Apple - their trailer and anti-apple skins are being promoted in Fortnight (Rated T by the ESRB).
So yeah. Hate Apple all you want - there's plenty there to hate. But don't let your hatred of Apple push you into backing Epic.