Fortnite seems to have been removed from the Play Store as well

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.epicgames.fortnite&hl=en_US

by cinntaile • 6 years ago

485 499 6 years ago

play.google.com

leereeves• 6 years ago

Confirmed by The Verge, who got a statement from Google:

The open Android ecosystem lets developers distribute apps through multiple app stores. For game developers who choose to use the Play Store, we have consistent policies that are fair to developers and keep the store safe for users. While Fortnite remains available on Android, we can no longer make it available on Play because it violates our policies. However, we welcome the opportunity to continue our discussions with Epic and bring Fortnite back to Google Play.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368079/fortnite-epic-an...

crazysim• 6 years ago

It's definitely a statement that's very aware of the situation on iOS.

celdon252• 6 years ago

Seems pretty rare to hear about Google having humans and not AI bots do the "discussing". Interesting that they don't trust the algorithm when it comes to allowing retailers on its video game store, but the algorithm is a-ok when it comes to performing blanket political censorship for the many millions who watch YouTube.

wetpaws• 6 years ago

I predicted it one hour ago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24149151

taytus• 6 years ago

Take it easy Nostradamus.

fungizid• 6 years ago

Thank you. Public predictions tied to an identity are useful, good job on getting it right!

emadabdulrahim4• 6 years ago

Epic will lose this fight, because they initiated it the wrong way.

You just don't start a law suite by violating the terms, then go ahead and cry about it.

gsich• 6 years ago

With Google: probably, as there isn't just one appstore.

I am not sure about Apple.

frisco• 6 years ago

That’s exactly how you do it. You need an “actual controversy” to have standing to sue, not just a theoretical one.

emadabdulrahim4• 6 years ago

Got it. Thanks.

ssivark• 6 years ago

That is exactly how you start a lawsuit, because filing a claim in the US system requires “standing”. It’s perfect if the plaintiff can point to clear examples of this kind.

emadabdulrahim4• 6 years ago

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

ffggvv2• 6 years ago

where did you get your law degree?

emadabdulrahim4• 6 years ago

Epic Games, obviously.

xxxxxxxx• 6 years ago

Via an in-game purchase perhaps?

Someone2• 6 years ago

Depends on whether society thinks you’re doing it for a good cause. Laws should serve people. If “the people” think they’re unfair, they will allow lots of technically illegal actions to change them.

Mahatma Gandhi did that, and society nowadays thinks he was within his rights.

Uber also did that, but isn’t universally acclaimed for it (¿yet?)

(There’s a large legal difference in that the Gandhi was a person and Uber a company, but Uber somewhat got away with its actions. That’s an indicator that society isn’t unanimous in condemning those actions)

This could and, I think, will be similar. This strong protest by Epic will lead to change.

echlebek• 6 years ago

You can't seriously be equivocating Uber and Gandhi?

jonplackett2• 6 years ago

This is a PR move. They would have known they’d get kicked off for adding their own payment system.

They didn't make this in the time it took Apple to reject it. It's all pre-planned

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6B4glqJFz0&feature=emb_rel_...

MereInterest2• 6 years ago

So? That something is predictable does not make it ethically right. That Epic could predict Apple enforcing its monopoly does not make it right for Apple to have a monopoly.

cvandebroek2• 6 years ago

Epic is also not ethically right. They shamelessly make their money on minors and pretend to do good for the gamers.

aaomidi• 6 years ago

I think you two generally agree that this is a bad thing from Apple & Google

jonplackett2• 6 years ago

Never said it was ethically right, just that Epic are up to something.

blunte• 6 years ago

Good. The sooner a big well-funded company hits this duopoly wall, the better. They will have the resources to fight this, and the outcome will hopefully be positive for all other developers.

Apple and Google are gatekeepers to all mobile devices (practically), but the value they add as gatekeepers is questionable. Certainly there is some value in their delivery (and much lesser so, their security) service; but their fees are not market set (since they are effectively monopolies by device type). If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably.

AnthonyMouse• 6 years ago

Another interesting thing this could do is get some momentum behind alternative app stores on Android. They exist but they're not popular. But suppose some of the big names who are tired of Google's fees go together, choose one and put all their apps there instead. That could be enough to get people to start using it. At which point, if it was charging e.g. 5% instead of 30%, many other apps would move there too.

It could be the best thing to happen in this space for a while.

celdon252• 6 years ago

If you want the alternative app stores to become more popular like you say, there's no better place to actually name some of them than in the comment you just made.

dnissley• 6 years ago

Why bother when you can just install apks directly?

hiram112• 6 years ago

Would it even matter? Google has tied so much critical functionality into their Play API that they could probably just flip a switch, and any app that didn't go through their own store would lose huge amounts of capabilities that Google has locked up.

This is a fine - even advantageous - for open stores like F-Droid, as the target market is users who explicitly don't want more Google spyware on their phone. But for large software companies pushing out profitable apps that require Play apis, it wouldn't be feasible.

tick_tock_tick• 6 years ago

Other stores aren't allowed to auto update apps which is a pretty big disadvantage.

hangonhn• 6 years ago

Dumb question but if there is no collusion between the companies in a duopoly, is it still illegal in the US? Or does it have to be a monopoly to be illegal?

amiga_5005• 6 years ago

They both carefully added up all their costs and each independently arrived at a fair 30% fee, even though entire physical supply chains can undercut this percent.

not2b2• 6 years ago

They are different markets. If you have an iPhone you must use Apple's store, Google's store is not competition for that market. For Google, use of the store is not required, but there's a risk to side-loading because ideally there would be competing stores that also do quality control and security audits, and there aren't. So it isn't a duopoly, it's one absolute monopoly and one near-monopoly.

grandmczeb• 6 years ago

Monopolies aren’t illegal per se in the US if they were acquired lawfully. What’s illegal is using monopoly power in a prohibited way. However, collusion (even tacit collusion) can be illegal even if there’s no monopoly by a single company, e.g., market sharing[1].

Note: Not a legal expert, this is just my understanding.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividing_territories

AznHisoka• 6 years ago

“ Apple and Google are gatekeepers to all mobile devices (practically), but the value they add as gatekeepers is questionable”

If you own an app and remove it from all App Stores, you’ll quickly see what value they add. It’s the millions of users who are able to download your product.

amiga_5005• 6 years ago

This kind of gatekeeping / rentier activity is not good for economic activity. There are two big players.

Amazing coincidence that both charge 30%, isn't it?

zizee• 6 years ago

That is only because their app stores hold monopoly positions on their respective devices.

untog5• 6 years ago

That is not value. That is gatekeeping.

wombatmobile5• 6 years ago

What's questionable, AznHisoka, is what value the gatekeepers add for consumers by charging such a high tax.

Most of the value is being provided by the app developers.

30 - 50% is an acceptable markup in the retail world, like a bricks and mortar store selling furniture, but the purchase of virtual currency is not the same as a retail transaction. It's closer to the sort of service a money changer provides, or even a credit card merchant. The fee for such as service should be in the range of 3 - 18%, not 30%.

simonh3• 6 years ago

Android has a plethora of app stores, there have always been tons of them. Some phones have shipped with three or more, one from Google, one from the phone manufacturer and one from the network. Then you could add another one from Amazon, etc, etc.

Google Play Store won out on Android simply because the multitude of stores was a nightmare for customers. They don’t want multiple stores, they want one store on this phone, that will also be on their next phone. Any ‘monopoly’ wasn’t seized by Google, it was pushed eagerly on them by customers craving consolidation and simplicity.

Same for me, I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust. The same goes for my Switch too, I’m quite happy for Nintendo to run the store for it. If I don’t like how they run it, I’ll get a PS 5 or XBOX. That’s where the competition is. I have plenty of choices thanks.

ISL2• 6 years ago

I'm really interested in a Debian-quality DFSG Android app store. Debian's apt repository is truly the "app store" that I have chosen to trust.

warent• 6 years ago

Is your iPhone primarily a gaming device? I don't understand how you're seamlessly leaping from "Phone" to "Game console" and making equivalency comparisons. In my ways my phone/computer is an extension of who I am as a person. They are my second brain. Having that functionality dictated by a company feels nightmarish to me. Imagine if you didn't want to be blasted by multiple internet forums, multiple news feeds, or even multiple websites. Why have more than one website on the internet? Have the entire internet be a single website run by someone you trust. That's the natural conclusion of where your preference leads.

Larrikin• 6 years ago

One store is great IF you can load apps independently from other sources

ocdtrekkie3• 6 years ago

This is completely false. The Play Store has "won" by Google chopping the legs off all the alternatives. They have to be sideloaded and you have to enable a scary checkbox to do so, that suggests it's less secure to use any app store but the Play Store.

rbecker• 6 years ago

iPhone, Switch, PS5, XBOX [..] I have plenty of choices thanks.

I can hardly imagine anything more pathetic than listing 4 locked down, corporate controlled devices, and calling that "choice".

jrockway• 6 years ago

Same for me, I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust.

The individual stores thing is actually really annoying. If you play games on Windows you're familiar with this situation. They all want to run 24/7 and cram their UI in your face at every opportunity, and you just want to play that publisher's one game. They are trying to become chat apps, and web browsers, and it's just crazy. I think my computer will explode if it sees one more web page wrapped in a "start at login" script claiming to be an "app store" or "game launcher". (Why can't these things just let me "chocolatey install" them? I know how to keep Windows apps up to date. Just accept my credit card number from inside the app. Or, horrors, a web page.)

On Windows, the underlying cause of this is "because we can". Everyone that wants a game will install an app store to get it from without thinking, because the one Microsoft offers is too limited. (They don't use Steam because it's run by a direct competitor, and Steam games kind of have that feeling like there are 3 good games in there next to 100,000,000 "I downloaded Unity this weekend, give me money!" games.)

Where I'm going with this rant is that unlimited freedom is the worst form of app distribution -- except for all the others. (I guess I have zero qualms with "go get". It works 100% of the time. Apps can't explode files all over my computer. Google provides a CDN for free.)

rkagerer• 6 years ago

Are there any well-curated and maintained app store alternatives?

I'd love to keep Google Play off my phone if there were a competitor who did a better job at surfacing truly great apps (rather than the garbage suggestions Google spams me with) and passed on a bigger piece of the pie to publishers.

beastman82• 6 years ago

This is an anticompetitive argument. You're asking to be taken advantage of.

gknoy2• 6 years ago

Same for me, I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust

To be honest, I wouldn't mind having the option to specify multiple stores that I trust the same way I do the Google Play store. I could imagine having Google Play, the Epic store, the Blizzard store, and Steam on my phone if that were necessary.

I am not worried about being spammed with stuff, as apps don't run until you open them, normally, and I already have granular controls over what notifications spam me on Android as it is.

kgwxd2• 6 years ago

I want 0 stores.

kuon• 6 years ago

I can understand that having multiple store can be frustrating for the user, but why not have multiple stores with federation? You have one app implementing the federated store protocol, and you and browse all federated stores.

This would allow multiple actors to be present, while keeping things simple for the users.

yellowapple• 6 years ago

The answer, then, is to have a single "store" app with multiple sources, such that you can add and remove sources at will.

This is exactly what F-Droid is able to do on Android, and what nearly all reasonably-popular Linux distributions have been able to do for decades.

mulmen3• 6 years ago

Didn't Linux package repos solve this like 20 years ago? The store app (or yum/apt/whatever) is the entry point then you load in as many repo URLs as you want. Can't that model expand to phones?

It's basically how my Fire TV worked. I could search for a title in the home screen and it would tell me that it was on Prime Video, Hulu, Netflix or I could rent from Amazon or whatever.

heavyset_go12• 6 years ago

Android has a plethora of app stores, there have always been tons of them.

Google put restrictions on Android so that third party app stores can't install in the background, auto-upgrade or batch install.

Google Play Store won out on Android simply because the multitude of stores was a nightmare for customers.

The Play Store is the only app store on Android where users can install apps in the background, auto-upgrade apps or batch install apps.

The reason the Play Store won out on Android is because it the only app store that Google allows to have the features app stores require.

barrkel• 6 years ago

What you're describing is a natural monopoly.

rpdillon• 6 years ago

The problem I have with one-store-to-rule-them-all is that it has to be run by somebody, and I never agree with the decisions of one judge 100% of the time. So I like to have the option to get software somewhere else. I purchased the device, after all.

kccqzy• 6 years ago

Not just the user, but the developers want a single store. As a developer you are focused on writing apps; you don't want to spend energy to figure out how to upload apps to 5 different stores, understand their individual requirements like app descriptions and screenshots, manage 5 sets of credentials and certificates, deal with 5 different review processes, etc.

Just ask any android developer who develop for the Chinese market where Google is absent. It's a nightmare.

gfxgirl• 6 years ago

That seems like such a ridiculous attitude.

I want one just one grocery store! Want less common ingredients? NO! I just want one store! I want just one hardware store! Want some part they don't carry? Sucks to be you. Just one car store, etc...

If nothing else I at least one two stores. One for regular apps and one for porn apps. You can see steam now has lots of adult apps.

bromuro• 6 years ago

What about _no stores at all_? I am fine downloading the app or buying it from the dev website.

birksherty• 6 years ago

Are you saying people avoid other stores even though they know about them? Then I disagree. If I ask people I know in real life, they can't tell any other app store besides Google's. Even if their phone includes others. Every phone comes pre-installed with play store. Then they don't look for another store, they never need that. People learn and teach others how to install apps only from play store.

smichel17• 6 years ago

I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone

I don't want 5 blasted distribution methods on my (Android) phone. I'm perfectly happy with 5 different sources, though. Put plainly: I want repositories, not stores. I get to use the same tool (app) to manage all of them, and I can add different sources if I'd like.

coliveira• 6 years ago

I don’t want 5 blasted stores on my iPhone. I want one store and run by someone I trust.

You must be representing the first generation that is anti-competition and pro-monopoly. It makes no sense that you would really want to have fewer options to buy a product. If the problem is trust, then clearly what you need is regulation, not a monopoly.

ckastner• 6 years ago

If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably.

Now that's an interesting (though highly impractical) idea!

Imagine both app stores on every phone, providing the exact same service. There's probably no room for price fixing here, because Apple's market share is far smaller than Android's, so Apple would have a significant incentive to reduce the fees (and snatch some of Google's customers.

Now add two or three other "app store providers", and things get interesting.

rdiddly2• 6 years ago

Gatekeeping is never about adding value; it's about removing or keeping out [whatever is the opposite of value]. A subtle difference but one to keep in mind.

wombatmobile5• 6 years ago

Not subtle - a fundamental point. Thank you for putting it so succinctly, rdiddly.

morei• 6 years ago

I'm not sure that's true? Gatekeeping is definitely about keeping out/removing, but that doesn't mean that it has zero or negative value?

For example, there's absolutely positive value for users in filtering spam. This tends to be negative value for spam senders, but that doesn't detract from the user value.

Ductapemaster5• 6 years ago

The fact that you phrase this in such a binary fashion invalidates your point. Decisions are never so one sided.

Apple's version of gatekeeping is a balance between providing a user experience that they control and design, and managing/controlling competition.

millzlane2• 6 years ago

Agree it's a subtle difference.

It reminds me of the internet filters at large companies. Keeps out the filth and bad actors at the detriment of being on a truly free internet. That makes sense when it's the companies computers.

But not so much when you own the device.

danilocesar• 6 years ago

Although I agree with you that is good that a big company did hit both walls at the same time, and that might benefit developers in the long term, It doesn't seem fair to compare Google's behavior and Apple's.

In the Android world, you still have an option. The option isn't good, you might end up limited, the user have to enable a scary checkbox, but you have an option. If Epic wants, they can create a micro store for android. The same thing they do with PCs today.

But you can't do it with an apple device. You have no option, no workaround. That's the monopoly that needs to be destroyed.

Even if both companies behaviors are detrimental for developers, Apple is way, way worst.

That all said: Sadly, this is not about freedom but about money. My bet is that Apply will lose the restrictions for Epic and they will drop the case.

millzlane2• 6 years ago

My bet is that Apply will lose the restrictions for Epic and they will drop the case. They will have to do it for all dev's. Not just the big house name brands.

This is probably going to fundamentally change the landscape. Congress accused the big players including Apple of anti consumer behavior. Not being in control of your own device (Read: not being able to side load software without paying a fee.) will be the downfall of the app store.

tzs• 6 years ago

If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably

Maybe for the more expensive apps, but not for the $0.99 apps that consumers love. For those, 2-5% doesn't come anywhere near covering the credit card processing costs.

Barrin92• 6 years ago

this has a pretty trivial workaround, get in-store credits with a one-time payment and then keep paying the 1$ apps with that like any other store that has a wallet system/micro transactions.

nmfisher• 6 years ago

Keep in mind that Apple is slugging developers $150 every year just to get their foot in the door of the App Store. That's not an insignificant sum.

No developer or company is happy with the way Apple runs the App Store. Their commission is outrageously high, their approval process is slow and often arbitrary, and their tooling is god-awful. We all just put up with it because the iPhone/iPad install base is so large, we don't really have a choice.

That being said, I'm very reluctant to demand regulation that interferes with a private company's right to run its own products. After all, maybe Apple's attitude is precisely why their install base is so large.

But God I wish there was a competitor that knocked them down the leaderboard a few pegs. Android is great, but the ecosystem is too fractured for the market to force Apple to change.

zemo• 6 years ago

If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably.

probably not. Visa takes a bigger cut than 2% when you buy a hamburger.

KptMarchewa• 6 years ago

Those fees are fixed at 0.2% in EU.

jassinpain• 6 years ago

You do realize that credit card processors take 2-3% alone? Honestly I agree with Apple and google one this one.

georgespencer12• 6 years ago

1. What's the evidence to support a view that Apple and Google would charge 2-5%? Steam charges 30%. Epic takes 12%. Origin/EA takes 30%. Amazon takes an average 13% but it scales up to 25%.

2. Nobody gives a shit if this is better for developers, do they? Epic could charge +30% on IAP and use the Apple IAP system which is orders of magnitude better than anything else in the market. Developers set the pricing, and Apple handles security, authentication, refunds, etc. Consumers know it's a consistent experience across the platform.

3. The only benefit anyone seems to be able to come up with here is "choice" and a misguided belief that prices would come down as if by magic. Video game publishers took up to 60% of video game sales in physical stores, but the ARP of a video game has risen since 2008 and the advent of Steam and other online stores.

4. Seems like Apple has built a successful hardware/software play at least partially based on the fact that consumers don't have to do bullshit things like entering credit card details into some third party payment gateway to buy things, or deal with different refund policies from different folks. Consumers have flocked to the platform and now its success is being used as the basis of an attempt to strip it of its competitive advantage.

5. Same thing happened in the UK with sports coverage. The English Premier League was only broadcast on Sky until a few years ago. £29.99 a month got you all the live televised top flight soccer. Now to watch all of the televised soccer in the UK you need Sky Sports, Amazon Prime Video, and BT Sport. And Sky Sports prices have not decreased in real terms. (Oh, and BT's tech infrastructure is hot garbage.) I don't know anyone who loves the experience of having three different services to deal with and paying more money. Nobody is bleating about "choice" now.

6. I object to this on exactly the same terms as I object to Spotify's bitching that IAP margins -- which have been the same since before Spotify launched -- are too thin. They operate a business where they pay sixty cents of every dollar they make to rights holders for fuck's sake. Why are they bitching at Apple telling them that if they want to do a monthly subscription and net £9.99, they need to charge £14.28? Why can Spotify try to tell Apple that the HomePod -- a fucking speaker -- should let Spotify onto the device natively (when you can already connect via Bluetooth)?

7. Nearly every online store has serious arbitrary limitations placed on it by the operator of the store. Many of these are to do with the user experience, but many of them are a means of paying the bills for something they fund (hosting, marketing, app review team, developers working on APIs). It helps them sell phones, but it's intertwined with the user experience.

8. Gruber's point stands: if you think it's OK for Microsoft to prevent Sony from selling a PlayStation game streaming service on the Xbox Store, I don't see why you have an issue with this. It's not the same as Netflix: it's more like an app store within an app store.

donmcronald6• 6 years ago

I’d say the $.60 per dollar to rights holders is a much better deal than $.30 per dollar to Apple for payment processing. There are a lot of people involved in creating a song vs a couple automated API calls to process a monthly payment.

harry82• 6 years ago

The really tragic part about this comment is the idea that what was needed was a "big, well funded company" to hit the duopoly.

The law exists that the strongest might not always get their way. Literally anyone hitting it /should/ have the same claims, rights, laws, and the same process as the very rich and strong when up against these enormous "legal persons". It's an ideal and we won't achieve perfection in trying to get there and there are tradeoffs with other ideals.

But let's never lose sight of the ideal of equality before the law and the strongest should not always get their way.

It's just so important. Without it, we end up with people as the enemy of the state with its monopoly on violent enforcement, then on to revolution and all that horror. I think it's an ideal that is slightly more important than the desire and profit of google and apple claiming the right to tax success and profit as though they were nation-states and the welfare of other big, well-funded profitable companies that don't like that. Regulatory capture is a disaster and an even bigger one that it first appears, be you leftist, rightist, collectivist, rugged individualist or, more hopefully, someone not so easy to label who thinks about individual issues and wants an outcome approximating what you think is best for everyone. We're all united against corruption, I have no doubt, we only disagree on whether particular cases are or are not that. The unity opposed to corruption is a thing that gets lost quite often as the division are imposed on us.

zepto9• 6 years ago

Why would more competitors drive the price down? Developers will have to support Google and Apple’s stores regardless of whether they lower the rate.

If the rate mattered, Google would have lowered it to compete with Apple for developers.

hellisothers• 6 years ago

2-5%? Where did you pull that number from? Credit card fees alone are 2-3%, and besides payment processing Apple/Google obviously has other costs (at the least distribution).

Let’s not forget, you can frame this as a “cost” to developers, but it can just as easily be framed as a convenience fee to consumers, I as a consumer am happy to pay it.

ace_of_spades• 6 years ago

It’s astonishing how the most people here look at this whole situation just from the perspective of a developer and mostly tune out the implications for society and consumers. Case in point: You discount the value of security compared to delivery which is ridiculous. Apple does a much better job at the former and look at the societal outcomes. The value generated by a relatively safe computing platform is ENORMOUS. Even a developer should be able to acknowledge as much.

I agree that fees seem somewhat high but we might be underestimating the cost it takes to check all the apps. One reasonable change of law could be a requirement for cost and revenue transparency for app stores and if we are hell bent on lowering prices maybe even a stipulation that margins must remain reasonable or even that stores must be run by a separate nonprofit with its own goals and guidelines.

However, all of this seems to be more in the realm of congress and law making rather than the courts. I don’t think that there are many good legal grounds for epic here. Everyone is paying... they can’t really claim damages in a competitive market sense as they are not worse of than any competitor.

anupamchugh• 6 years ago

I don't think Epic Games is doing this to get the rates for the whole market down. They're just looking to get their tax cut reduced and increase profits. Once its down, they won't even look at indie developers and smaller firms.

AnonHP• 6 years ago

If there were actual competitors, their rates would be much lower... around 2-5% probably.

You can only get nothing for 2-5% because that barely meets the payment processing fees (of course, a large company can negotiate a lower rate). If you’re saying 2-5% plus payment processing fees, then that might be possible depending on the solution and what’s provided to users and developers.

bredren2• 6 years ago

I thought they required an install from their Epic Games app store on Android, specifically to get around Google Play fees.

mcny• 6 years ago

They did. Seems like it only changed in April. Maybe they wanted to see the numbers and gather data.

https://archive.fo/Z0huU

bredren2• 6 years ago

Huh. I presume these numbers will look very bad for Google. There are no extra-app store options on iOS.

If lowering the cost of app sales royalties to all 3rd developers is the only result of this, I'd say this will be worth it.

soulofmischief• 6 years ago

A lot of people are giving Epic a hard time for this, but I think it takes quite a bit of gusto to disrupt such an insane moneymaker in order to rally its userbase against these anti-competitive practices.

throwaw4y-plate• 6 years ago

They must have wargamed this out and feel like it's a winner.

MBCook4• 6 years ago

I imagine both of them and Apple (and possibly Google) have.

Well we don’t know for sure there’s a very good chance the negotiations have been going on behind the scenes and they finally broke down far enough that Epic decided to pull the trigger and force the issue.

tinco• 6 years ago

If this gambit doesn't pan out, they can just return to the status quo, it's not like Apple would ever permanently ban them, nor would they even reneg on the 30%.

So the only loss is the time they're off the store, plus legal. They just need to get this lawsuit started, maybe lose a couple weeks profits from the iOS store, and they've created the possibility of permanently increasing profits by 20%.

elmo2you• 6 years ago

You can bet on it that this is part of a larger game of chess. Certainly not the rebellious resistance fight of an underdog, as it is mostly being presented.

More like cannibalization between several large and ruthless corporations, and mostly because those who should have protected this market from being cornered into its current corrupt state, miserably failed at that (time and again).

Many may be hopeful about the results of this move, which is no doubt part of Epic's strategy. However, I expect that the results will mostly just favor the bottom line of whoever wins this fight. I'm rather convinced that it won't be much of an improvement for end users.

Maybe end users will benefit for a short while after a victory by Epic, until the company decides to "cash in" on their win and end users will (again) get pretty much what they had up till now. Because that is apparently what Epic can charge its users.

MBCook4• 6 years ago

Really? I don’t think I’ve seen anyone today with an anti-Epic take. Maybe I just haven’t gone down far enough in the comments.

partiallypro2• 6 years ago

Look on Twitter & Instagram. HN isn't going to be the place to find comments going against developers.

judge2020• 6 years ago

There was a lot of debate on whether or not Apple should allow third-party app stores/easily sideloaded apps, which really shouldn't be the debate since Epic already had Fortnite on Android via a third-party launcher and went to the Play store anyways.

The debate needs to be on whether or not they should take a cut on in-app purchases, and/or what that cut should be, and/or if they should allow third-party processors where the store owner doesn't see profit.

echelon6• 6 years ago

Twitter has Apple fans rushing to criticize Epic. I'm absolutely flabbergasted the freedom disruption blinders are so strong.

Why anyone supports Apple is a mystery to me. What if the web forced you to use Apple Payments? What if Microsoft forced all installs to go through the Microsoft Store?

Apple took focus from the web and then extinguished openness. It's tyranny.

m0003• 6 years ago

For real? In the HN thread about Apple removing Fortnite [1] the Apple apologists seem to vastly outnumber people who are in favour of what Epic did.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24146987

pvg• 6 years ago

Why does it take gusto?

AJ007• 6 years ago

Tim Sweeney was outspoken about Microsoft’s attempt to force their “App Store” down windows users throats. Microsoft backed down, has certainly moved in a more developer friendly direction, and arguably may have saved their own asses in the process.

For everyone defending Apple, consider your main desktop/laptop computer and how you would feel if all of the apps you installed not only had to be downloaded from Apple/Dell/Lenovo/Microsoft but also 30% of any software or subscriptions you bought on that device went to one of those companies. Apple sells devices with high margins on top of all of this. Which is probably why they are the most valuable public company in the world besides maybe Saudi Aramco.

donmcronald6• 6 years ago

I never got into mobile development because I didn’t think there was any way Apple’s App Store would survive asking for a 30% cut and final say on distribution. And now it’s way worse than it was in the beginning. There’s way less upside for small developers and a lot more risk of being rejected IMO.

ashtonkem3• 6 years ago

How does a rallied user base win a lawsuit?

googthrowaway42• 6 years ago

In the real world public pressure does affect court cases. Also there's clearly an attempt here to get political action on this issue.

chillfox2• 6 years ago

It doesn't, but it can help in other ways.

It can force regulators to act.

It can put pressure on politicians to create new laws.

reissbaker3• 6 years ago

This is also bad, but Google still allows Android users to install Epic's game store (which does continue to list Fortnite), so I think it's a bit more defensible than Apple's ban in which it's now just impossible to install the game at all. Removing from the Play Store on Android isn't equivalent to removing from the App Store on iOS; you can install apps from outside of the Play Store on Android, but you can't install apps from outside of the App Store on iOS (at least, not without jailbreaking).

dade_• 6 years ago

And on Samsung’s store. This could be good for alternate Android app stores. https://galaxystore.samsung.com/detail/com.epicgames.fortnit...

ridiculous_fish• 6 years ago

Epic already tried to make a run of it outside the Play Store, and gave up, citing Google's efforts to "outright block software obtained outside the Google Play store." I don't think there's a practical difference here.

tanilama• 6 years ago

That is not my experience at all.

I have apps not listed in PlayStore but works just fine.

How would Google actually block it?

reissbaker3• 6 years ago

If I go to fortnite.com/android, I can still download and install the Epic Game Store for Android. So it's definitely better than the situation on iOS. In practice, you can still install Fortnite on Android (and it's only a Google search away — when I searched "fortnite android" just now, it was the top hit of the search results, just after the News section that's filled with the news of the Play Store ban); you can't install Fortnite on iOS at all.

It's actually even slightly easier to install APKs on Android than installing non-Mac-App-Store software on macOS — with Android it prompts you right when you open to allow or disallow installs from the source you downloaded from, whereas macOS makes you dig around in Settings the first time. I tried installing the Epic store just now on Android, and it was a fairly seamless experience.

I'm sure it gets fewer sales, since the Play store is bundled with most Android phones and the Epic store isn't. But it's pretty different than an outright ban: the Play store is charging you the 30% Google tax for reach/audience, but you're free to list on an alternative store if you choose to.

baby-yoda• 6 years ago

the enemy (aapl/goog) of my enemy (antitrust regulators) is my friend?

markus_zhang• 6 years ago

No but you want them to fight at least

Judgmentality• 6 years ago

I know it's a bit pedantic, but...

"The enemy of my enemy is my ally."

bsder• 6 years ago

Maxim 29--The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.

"The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries"

https://schlockmercenary.fandom.com/wiki/The_Seventy_Maxims_...

skc• 6 years ago

Google may have missed a great PR opp here.

therealmarv• 6 years ago

exactly! Now is the chance for them to show how much better they are than Apple.

SquareWheel• 6 years ago

I'm sure they weighed that against setting a precedent that developers can sidestep their 30% cut. The income was probably considered more valuable than the PR.

dragonwriter3• 6 years ago

I'm sure they weighed that against setting a precedent that developers can sidestep their 30% cut

That precedent is being set anyway, the Epic Games store still exists on Android, and you can get Fortnite through it, and this dispute can't do anything but bring more attention to that fact.

Of course, that kind of does show a way in which they are better for devs and consumers than Apple, since dispute over store terms with devs are less of a total barrier to delivering/selling (for devs) or getting access to (for consumers) apps on the platform.

james412• 6 years ago

Who is to say Google were actually responsible for delisting the app? Epic possibly could have done it as another leg of this campaign

jay_kyburz2• 6 years ago

I look forward to putting my game Neptune's Pride in the Epic Games store and using PayPal to collect payments.

Wowfunhappy12• 6 years ago

Frankly, if you did it right now, I think you'd get away with it. Epic understands the game here, and they aren't going to ruin it.

Note, however, that not just anyone can publish a game on EGS, so you'd have to already be an established developer.

DetroitThrow• 6 years ago

I had been trying to remember the name of this game for over a year now, my few Google searches for "long term space strategy mmo" never yielded anything. I love that hackernews seems to dredge up the interesting parts of the net.

Anyways, Neptune's Pride is very very fun and I can't wait to play it again!

jay_kyburz2• 6 years ago

Hello DetroitThrow! Glad to hear my not very subtle plug for the game might get at least one player back!

ivanstojic3• 6 years ago

It's important to remember that Epic games isn't a champion of freedom here.

After Epic store launched on the PC in 2018, Epic used their platform's growing popularity to bait and/or strong arm (it's unclear to me) indie developers into exclusivity contracts on Epic's game store. This action caused a massive uproar in the gaming community because with those exclusivity deals, Epic made developers break existing preorders.

This isn't about freedom or choice or walled gardens. It's about cutting off a slightly bigger slice of a billion dollar pie.

the8472• 6 years ago

The outcome may still be beneficial for others.

hellotomyrars2• 6 years ago

Do you really consider giving developers a giant bag of guaranteed money up front to be strong arming them?

They took the deal, they didn't get their life/safety threatened.

There was some really shitty behavior by developers who took the pot of money who had already made promises to crowdfunders previously. That's on the developer though, and they should be judged appropriately for their actions.

ivanstojic3• 6 years ago

No, I do not consider that to be strong arming. I consider that to be baiting.

As my post says: it's unclear to me which tactic was used with which developers, or how those contracts influenced the promises developers made to preorder customers.

We don't know mostly because those contracts are secret.

user59944616• 6 years ago

One of the non negotiable condition to get the pile of money was to not publish the game on steam, removing it if it was already there and cancelling preorders. That's not exactly friendly to developers, forbidden to publish to the other platform with more customers.

ffggvv2• 6 years ago

who cares about their motives. i still think it’s a good thing if they win.

no one thinks corporations don’t do what’s in their best interest monetarily

_qulr8• 6 years ago

It's about Epic's freedom and choice. Hopefully this leads to widespread developer freedom. You're looking for a "perfect victim", but it's impossible to find those, especially perfect victims who have the financial resources to fight Apple and Google.

If this were just about money, it would be totally irrational. Epic does have money to gain if they're successful, but they have a lot more money to lose if they fail. It's kind of a suicide mission to simultaneously take on two of the most powerful corporations on Earth. No rational purely profit-seeking corporation would follow this strategy.

dannyw2• 6 years ago

Developers were offered a lot of guaranteed money, which is vital financial support for indie devs.

I'm amazed "feeding starving artists" is turned into a bad thing.

onepointsixC2• 6 years ago

Epic was fighting the Valve Steam digital store monopoly. Fact is that Epic in the process of cutting off a bigger slice of pie for themselves would be giving consumers more choice while breaking up anti consumer monopoly.

Wowfunhappy12• 6 years ago

By strong-arm, you mean by offering them money? I'd call that fair competition. You can't run an entertainment service without exclusive content: Sony knows it, Nintendo knows it, Netflix knows it, and Epic knows it. And Valve knows it, by the way—try to install Portal 2 without installing Steam.

Steam needed that competition. Valve's 30% cut of sales is ludicrous considering that they do not manually audit, validate, or curate the software on their store. They don't even handle security properly—there have been multiple instances of Valve ignoring vulnerabilities in Steam.

I think Epic and Tim Sweeney have acted with remarkable consistency.

el_nahual• 6 years ago

I happen to know some first-time indie devs that were given this deal. The deal is incredibly generous. Basically, epic offered them a bag of money in exchange for a certain period of partial exclusivity (basically "don't be on Steam"). That's it. This bag of money allowed the developers to:

- Grow the dev team enough to accelerate time to launch--QA extra engineers, heck, the devs even used the money to pay for porting the game to other devices!

- Guarantee that they could continue to fund development of the game after launch. Bugfixes, DLC, etc.

- Have enough left over to "try again" and launch a sophomore game regardless of the performance of this one.

You'd think that fans of indie games would love this. Who could possibly be opposed to having an indie dev get funds that would enable them to graduate to managing a small indie game studio instead of a ramen diet & 20 hour work days in the living room.

And yet they got enormous amounts of hate from so-called indie game fans and members of the gaming community. And yes, the devs were aware that the hate was coming from a disproportionately small number of people and that most people don't actually care at all. But still, the psychological toll of having to deal with the harassment was enough to make them strongly consider not taking the money--even though it was the right thing to do both from a financial pov and from a development pov (because it would guarantee they could finish and support the game).

The crazy thing is that even if you hate epic you should love these deals: cheer for your favorite dev, then wait a year and buy the game on Steam, doubly sticking it to the man.

Ruthalas• 6 years ago

Some of the vitriol stems from the specific manner in which they set up their exclusivity deals. In multiple cases they set up deals with studios who had previously advertised or sold keys to other platforms such that customers found their purchases retroactively bound to Epic. I personally found their PR around these cases to be patronizing, and it left a bad taste in my mouth regarding Epic.

donmcronald6• 6 years ago

Exclusives on consoles suck, but the Epic store has been a huge win for developers and gamers. Bags of money, more choice, and competition and the only downside is needing to install an extra launcher. Yes please!

renewiltord• 6 years ago

This is total bullshit. There is no evidence of any strong-arming. It's the usual Internet storm in a teacup from 'gamers'. They offered exclusivity monetary incentives.

$20 to a charity of your choice if you show affirmative proof of (within 7 days¹) a contract showing strong-arming². Email is in profile if I don't notice HN reply. When you make your comment showing strong-arming, I will make two comments one saying "this is strong-arming" and one saying "this is not" and we can see what the community votes up.

If there are at least 5 votes and the former wins, you get to pick the charity. Otherwise, it goes to AMF.

¹ just so that there is a day the money goes out. If you need more time, just say so.

² Email is in profile, you can set up a call with me or send me an email of the contract if you don't want to share the contract publicly.

the-pigeon2• 6 years ago

My own view is that "They offered exclusivity monetary incentives." should be completely illegal.

Everyone should get the same rates with no lock in or out. In media terms if Netflix can stream a movie for $0.40 per stream then every other provider should be able to stream it under the same terms.

Exclusivity agreements are anti-competitive. We've seen them grow unchecked and it's created the same unhealthy relationship between distributors and creators that lead to the forced sale of movie theaters away from the movie studios.

the-pigeon2• 6 years ago

I have no problem with villains fighting other villains.

Epic Games is obviously just out to profit more. But this is a war that we all benefit from if they win.

Sure I'd love to see someone like the EFF change this. But the reality is they don't have the funding to go directly against Apple and Google on this. Epic Games does.

2OEH8eoCRo0• 6 years ago

Who cares? Who cares if it's for money or if Epic is not a champion of freedom here. Epic is in the right- Apple and Google need to be regulated.

philliphaydon• 6 years ago

Anyone who tries to justify epic buying exclusives is a fool IMO.

Tim isn't doing it for developers or publishers, he wants a piece of the steam pie.

If he was serious about being competition he would come out with a better platform and compete.

When MS came out the windows store, Tim said "they’re trying to force this thing on the industry and it’s woefully inadequate for the tasks they’re trying to serve it for"

https://www.pcgamer.com/tim-sweeney-microsoft-uwp-is-still-w...

Yet, the epic store, was... IS STILL woefully inadequate. They built a terrible store that has no functionality, no currency options, no linux support, nothing more than a front for a dozen games. Then turn around and buy exclusives under the disguise of "we're doing it for developers and publishers, we are the good guys, screw all you gamers out there who don't care!!!"

(I'm aware they have tried to fill some of these features, but they have ALONG way to go)

They could have come out with something better, and been competition, but they have nothing to compete with.

----

Tim also said: "I believe Microsoft has every right to operate a PC app store, and to curate it how they choose."

Tim is now: "Oh Apple and Google shouldn't be allowed to run their own app store how they choose."

Wowfunhappy12• 6 years ago

IMO, this was Epic's one misstep—they should have pulled Fortnite from the Google Play Store a week before this stunt. Apple is the big fish (revenue-wise) with the most draconian policy. Provoking two giants at once was not necessary.

Every other aspect of how Epic played this has been brilliant IMO.

wvenable5• 6 years ago

I disagree. This proves that one can be shut out of the almost the entire mobile software market in a single day.

Apple is not a monopoly but Apple and Google together have just shown the incredible power they wield.

Wowfunhappy12• 6 years ago

Android users can still download Fortnite though, they just have to sideload it. Epic isn't truly shut out from that market.

kmonsen5• 6 years ago

Of course you can when you break the terms of services. Try adding some porn to your game and see it gone from both stores in a day as well. Or some other way to obvious break their terms.

TillE• 6 years ago

I really don't see how Epic has a leg to stand on here, not on a platform which allows sideloading. The Apple case is complicated, but this seems like a straightforward violation of an entirely voluntary contract.

dannyw2• 6 years ago

Microsoft got pinged for pre-installing Internet Explorer.

Android could potentially get pinged for pre-installing Play Market and not offering a choice.

dagmx• 6 years ago

Doubtful. Android can be customized by the OEMs and many do provide alternate stores preloaded. They'd have to go after Pixel phones (not a massive market share) or after the requirement to use Play services to be in the store.

ta17711771• 6 years ago

Android doesn't.

Google Android does.

teknopurge5• 6 years ago

This is going to backfire for Epic. I see both sides, however, the App Stores have overhead to support free apps, and they need to be compensated.

If a software developer has an issue with the distribution channel, then they can make their own, including the R&D and operate expense for the hardware. I know, really unpopular take. Bigger question is are Apple and Google (with hardware/software ecosystems) deserving of Bell-style regulation? The US already has a playbook for this.

mmastrac2• 6 years ago

That argument doesn't work for other monopolies and won't hold a lot of water here either.

teknopurge5• 6 years ago

there is no monopoly - there are two primary choices(coke and pepsi), both with the similar constraints.

You can choose RC cola or Faygo - always an option. Maybe Faygo offers a great new flavor(no payment fees) and tons of Users see that benefit outweighing other features? That's the market. Make the compelling value prop and you win.

wvenable5• 6 years ago

According to another comment here, Epic paid Apple over $360 Million dollars in the last twelve months. I'm pretty sure Apple's overhead isn't so high that they need to charge that much money for just one application.

Epic already has a distribution channel, payment processing, the whole 9 yards, what they don't have is anyway onto the hardware that you own.

teknopurge5• 6 years ago

The amount paid to Apple is not a factor - it's what the agreement was. If that 360 MM is 30%, then we can also say I doubt Epic has over a billion in overhead. I do not believe the point is valid.

Epic does have a way onto the phones: provide an easy way for User's to jailbreak them as part of the ingress to the Epic distribution channel.

"In 2010 and 2012, the U.S. Copyright Office approved exemptions that allowed smartphone users to jailbreak their devices legally,[62] and in 2015 the Copyright Office approved an expanded exemption that also covers other all-purpose mobile computing devices, such as tablets"

So all Epic needs to do is assume the cost and investment of managing the inter-dependencies of the hardware with various other pieces of software, including their distribution channel.

tomxor2• 6 years ago

the App Stores have overhead to support free apps, and they need to be compensated.

That doesn't add up to anywhere near 30%

teknopurge5• 6 years ago

With respect, it's not our call to criticize the amount. If we as a community care that much we can create and adopt alternate means, or choose not to use their technology.

rangewookie• 6 years ago

the 1984 ad is a little strange TBH. Apple was saying IBM wants to control the future of all information in this country, so come join us instead. Epic is saying, we want more money so standby while we go to court. Where is the epic smart phone alternative which is going to save us from the apple monopoly?

It will be better for all developers if the gatekeepers lower their rates, but epic really doesn't strike me as a white knight here.

kmonsen5• 6 years ago

I agree with the spirit here, what we really want are more phone operating systems and competition that way.

They are of course really hard to make ...

suby• 6 years ago

The problem is that app stores are charging 30%. More Operating Systems and competition would be good, but it's not going to fix the problem. After all, Steam takes a 30% cut, and they've got a client for multiple desktop operating sytems, as well as numerous stores competing against them (Windows Store, Mac Store, Itch.io, GoG, Humble, Greenman gaming, tons more). Normal people are just not going to install another operating system on their phone, or app store for that matter.

Apple or Google may cave in this particular case because Epic has some leverage with their userbase, but I'd be shocked to see either of them lower the rates for anyone other than Epic. I think it's going to take legislation to fix this.

gimmeThaBeet• 6 years ago

It's a fair enough point. However, I think that the truth is that intrinsically you can't find a player with enough resources and weight to throw around and force the issue, who isn't also a self-interested money-hungry corporate bully when the occasion suits them.

The app store is a two way street. For most developers, apple can hide behind "no one's forcing you to be on our app store". And they are right, apple doesn't have a monopoly, but they have a lot of users, and what they really have is a lot of users who spend money on their platform. They have the customers you want.

But there is the flip side, which is that apple needs apps to be in the store, and sometimes needs specific ones. For most companies, apple doesn't need your app. The only parties that stand a chance at making waves are those who do control apps apple can't do without, e.g. "what do you mean I can't get Fortnite on my iPhone?"

No one in the situation is gonna be perfect, because at the end of the day, this is a fight for who provides what value and should get what money. It's sort of a Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla situation.

627467• 6 years ago

Good for Epic to open this new battle front against Apple (and it seems Google).

As I wrote in the Apple thread: I think Epic are the ideal entity to do this since - so long as Apple or Google won't actively erase apps from people devices - they already have large install base and it's unlikely to grow much more.

Those who managed to install the latest update are already able to use epic "apple/google tax"less payment system so that protects their revenue for a while.

If either of those para-monopolies start erasing apps from people's phone's that would only add to the narrative that Epic, Spotify, EU et al. are already pushing: these two entities have built a global extractive platform that keeps partners and consumers hostage by their fees.

mcint• 6 years ago

It may not just be for a lawsuit. They may provide fuel for a change of law, as Congress bumbles through an attempt at anti-trust enforcement, maybe they can become a test case for lawmakers looking for loss of competition and consumer choice. (Although existing lobbying dollars from Google, Apple, Facebook, & company may be effective in holding back representatives. Money in hand, in election season no less.)

Epic Games can show just how much the on-going appstore tax prevent new business models from taking hold. They shown an incredible ability to entice people to separate from their money, even convinced Disney?! to partner for branded content.

Alongside Epic Games licensing of the Unreal Engine at-or-below cost (12% [1]), I believe Sweeney's commitment to growing a "Metaverse" market at the expense of Epic's short-term profit.

This comes alongside EPIC(.org)'s comparisons about American vs Chinese & emerging markets competitiveness, linked today [2].

[1] https://www.matthewball.vc/all/themetaverse [2]: https://epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/EPIC-19-09-11-NSC...

mschuster91• 6 years ago

Isn't Congress on summer vacation and then they'll all be fighting for reelection anyway? I hardly doubt anything will get passed until next year if it's not important enough to get a bipartisan vote.

nsgoetz• 6 years ago

The Google statement really feels like they're subtweeting Apple:

The open Android ecosystem lets developers distribute apps through multiple app stores. For game developers who choose to use the Play Store, we have consistent policies that are fair to developers and keep the store safe for users. While Fortnite remains available on Android, we can no longer make it available on Play because it violates our policies. However, we welcome the opportunity to continue our discussions with Epic and bring Fortnite back to Google Play.

scott31• 6 years ago

As a Fortnite player, its time to buy an iPhone then

humanlion87• 6 years ago

Good luck playing it on an iPhone :)

tveita• 6 years ago

You might have missed some steps of this still developing story: https://twitter.com/markgurman/status/1293984069722636288

gumby• 6 years ago

I really don’t understand the argument about Apple’s store, when Apple has only 20-25% of the installed base and the dominant platform has many stores to choose from.

Customers are plainly choosing the open platform.

partiallypro2• 6 years ago

First off, that's globally, not the US (in the US it's ~50/50.) Secondly, despite Apple not having a "monopoly" on the install base they do essentially have a monopoly on store expenditures and revenue. There is a reason why Apps launch on iOS first (usually), AppStore members are more likely to buy the app and do in-app purchases than Android users. This is BY FAR. I forgot the exact numbers, but I believe it's near double or triple that of Android. The AppStore is a cash register for Apple, 30% is insanity.

Andrew_nenakhov3• 6 years ago

I won't stop telling this: mobile platforms need not only third party app stores, but third party push notifications services too. Both iOS and Android love to kill apps in the background. This behavior, sans push notifications, cripples a lot of types of applications (chiefly, all messengers).

If there ever would be some legal pressure on Apple& Google to open up their platforms, it is important to make this point known to legislators.

user59944616• 6 years ago

Applications have to be paused to save battery, or killed to save memory. You can lookup the Android doc since the first version 10+ years ago, it explains very well the lifecycle of apps. Mobile devices would be unusable if it were not for that.

Andrew_nenakhov3• 6 years ago

This obvious thing you say doesn't change the fact that there is no a way to wake an app from sleep without FCM push notifications or running a background service with persistent notification (which users hate), which has a lot of restrictions that get tighter with every new version of Android.

tony• 6 years ago

If anyone likes to follow app store case law, Oyez has the verbal arguments for Apple v Pepper that follow with text captions: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper

csneeky• 6 years ago

The link leads to nothing? Has been removed? (Sorry if late to the game but seems no one has mentioned this yet)

jandrese• 6 years ago

As I see it this improves their chances of winning the suit. By having Google act in the same manner they have a stronger case that the market is a duopoly that restricts customer's freedom.

Remember that courts tend to be very lenient towards business practices, so it takes egregious behavior to convince them to step in. This bolster's Epic's position.

bigtones• 6 years ago

The real reason Epic Games did this... Money - they were forced to hand over more than $500 Million dollars to Apple and Google in the past 12 months alone. That's $1.3 Million dollars per day.

Epic gave Apple over $360 Million dollars in the last twelve months just to list the game in it's app store, and over $150 Million to Google to do the same. By any measure, having to hand over half a billion dollars is just an insane cut of revenue to have to give two companies that had absolutely nothing to do with conceiving, designing or developing such a successful game.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/technology/apple-fortnite...

DivisionSol3• 6 years ago

But did have everything to do with developing the hardware capable of running the game on a handheld device?

eganist3• 6 years ago

You say this as if the devices don't have profit margins and the companies aren't constantly adding to their cashpiles.

sturgill• 6 years ago

Which they then “sold” to an end user. (Scare quotes because my I don’t believe for a second my iPhone belongs to me; but Apple is kind enough to rent it to me...)

efficax• 6 years ago

jesus christ they're clearing 1.25 billion+ a year on v-bucks????

georgespencer12• 6 years ago

By any measure, having to hand over half a billion dollars is just an insane cut of revenue to have to give two companies that had absolutely nothing to do with conceiving, designing or developing such a successful game.

Uh, you know Epic makes a 12% cut of all games sold in their store, right?

cochne• 6 years ago

I think the distinguishing factor here is you can distribute your game to any computer without the epic game store. Imagine if the epic game store was the only way to distribute it :)

turndown4• 6 years ago

All companies are hypocrits, but I will say that the difference here is that there are other options if you want to publish your game - as I'm sure you know. If Apple offered other avenues for publishing apps then I think there would be no leg to stand on i.r.t their fees. Of course, this also glosses over the fact that Apple controls the platform and thus has to be judged differently.

wccrawford2• 6 years ago

Not all games. If you make the game with Unreal Engine, it's free.

UE4 itself is free until you make $1mil lifetime per game, and then 5% after that, IIRC.

But unlike Google and Apple's store, there are plenty of other stores on Windows, and making your own store is really easy. It can literally just be a website with downloads.

Aissen2• 6 years ago

You know 12% is much smaller than 30%, right?

redm• 6 years ago

They develop the platform, including the API's, the toolkits, X-Code, updates, and the stores themselves (bandwidth billing etc). I wouldn't say they do nothing. Putting a value on that is harder, but you at least have to look at what they provide holistically. Its not just the app store.

Panini_Jones4• 6 years ago

Quick question: Do console developers like XBox and the Switch take ~30% cuts of every game sold for their platform? Genuinely curious.

hn_check• 6 years ago

"Epic gave Apple over $360 Million dollars in the last twelve months just to list the game in it's app store"

The stat you cited was for two years, not one. Further, they paid $99 for a developer account "just to list the game" (and any other games they want to list). The fees you are mentioning are only for transactions that occurred on the Apple device. Their "v-bucks" can be bought on other platforms and are cross platform (for some platforms - Switch and PS4 do not allow cross-platform in-game currency). But strangely Fortnite gave no discount on their Windows app, for instance... (almost like they set up this whole ridiculous charade just to play the crowd).

Now add that anyone assuming Apple is actually getting that full 30% is deluded. Apple sells iTunes cards at Costco often $100 for ~$80. They have lubricated the market to encourage grandparents, etc, to give their relatives gift cards, and created a system where people feel confident enough to buy. Those gift cards become vbux. Without Apple's and Google's system, they would never have made a fraction of what they've made.

I hardly think Apple is innocent in this -- their position on cloud gaming is absolutely wrong -- but the horde that is suddenly falling in line behind Epic is uproarious. Sweeney is playing this crowd like a fiddle.

Ductapemaster5• 6 years ago

"...absolutely nothing to do with conceiving, designing or developing such a successful game."

But it has everything to do with distributing the game. Also it has a lot to do with outsourcing the maintenance of the mobile platforms — designing hardware, OS releases, etc. Epic did not design their own hardware, their own silicon, build entire global supply chains, design UX, etc. Apple and Google did. Do they not deserve a cut?

I'm not here arguing the percentage of the revenue, just that that some percentage is clearly warranted here. Their relationship with Apple and Google is clearly a partnership, meaning it has to benefit both sides. Same way it works with consoles.

harry82• 6 years ago

A unit fee for each distribuion of a couple of cents is warranted here and NO MORE than that. And it should be a flat fee for each unit be it 1 unit of a billion unit. Possibly with volume discounts if there were any variation in that pricing.

Apple and Google are claiming the right to tax the success of others as though they were nation states and had been granted that right by popular mandate.

A percentage? Of revenue? From companies that refuse to pay a percentage of profit in acutal tax to governments who actually do have that mandate to impose the tax.

Evil is what evil does. Call it out.

wvenable5• 6 years ago

But it has everything to do with distributing the game.

Because they're the only option. I mean there's no reason why Epic couldn't host the app on their server that people could download. It's not without precedent. But it's just not allowed for mobile.

designing hardware, OS releases, etc. Epic did not design their own hardware, their own silicon, build entire global supply chains, design UX, etc. Apple and Google did. Do they not deserve a cut?

Seriously? You think Epic should have to pay for the hardware that we consumers buy for thousands of dollars? Apple has some of the highest hardware margins in the world. They don't need software developers to pay for the hardware that we've already paid too much for. These aren't consoles sold for a loss.

Panini_Jones4• 6 years ago

Epic did not design their own hardware, their own silicon, build entire global supply chains, design UX, etc. Apple and Google did. Do they not deserve a cut?

Where did the $1k I spent on my phone go?

_qulr8• 6 years ago

Apple's expensive hardware pays for itself, and for the operating system. That's the way it's always been, since 1976. Third party software helps sell Apple's hardware, so in that sense it's always been mutually beneficial, while each side remained independent financially. The App Store in 2008 was an unfortunate change in this relationship, making it too one-sided.

Google didn't even invent Android, they purchased it. (Of course Apple purchased NeXTSTEP too.) And Google is not even the biggest Android hardware manufacturer.

The bizarre thing is that most apps on both iOS and Android are free, so they pay very little for the so-called "maintenance", even if these apps are hugely popular. This is very different from a game console, where every game earns money directly. Fortnite is hugely popular, but for some reason struggling little indie paid apps are forced to subsidize the platform for immensely popular free apps?

cma2• 6 years ago

Should your monitor and hard drive companies take a cut of every software purchase you make? Nvidia?

handmodel• 6 years ago

I've always wanted to see a breakdown of Apple's value just based on the apps. For instance, Apple gets 30% of all money Tinder brings in. Tinder has to spend a lot of money on engineers and hosting the app - but Apple has close to no cost for this. If MTCH is worth 30B dollars based on apps that will indefinitely pay Apple 30% - how much extra market cap can you assign to Apple based solely on this? It must be at least 10 billion. Same must go for Fornite and dozens of other apps that gross huge numbers.

(I know Tinder is on other phones and the percentage could change - but you get the idea).

ctdonath• 6 years ago

And how hard is it for Epic to sell in-game v-bucks?

And Epic is making how much ... off what, beyond the game itself?

zepto9• 6 years ago

This isn’t an accurate representation.

Epic gave nothing to Apple. Apple gave Epic $840 in proceeds from sales it couldn’t have made without Apple’s work.

I think you know that the margins Apple charges for the apps they retail are not a listing fee, and pay for a significant collection of services.

I’m not commenting on whether Apple’s margin is too high or not. Just that this comment is a misrepresentation.

ecf2• 6 years ago

Epic Games has absolutely no moral authority here as long as they charge a royalty fee to games made with their Unreal Engine.

grawprog• 6 years ago

Was fortnite on the play store? A few months ago I decided to try it for android, I had to download the epic games store app from their site and install it from there. This was in like February or something.

dustinmoris• 6 years ago

It's important to remember that Apple and Google only have a Duopoly, because nobody else seems to be able to develop anything that is remotely appealing to customers. Microsoft tried with their own mobile operating system many years ago and they failed at every attempt.

If Apple was told to open its App Store they could literally just shut down their App Store instead the next day and in a few days or weeks consumers all around the world would put too much pressure on any legislator to revert their changes, because not a single consumer cares about Epic, but everyone cares about their iPhone to remain as awesome as it is today, ad part of it is Apple's walled garden.

gizmodo59• 6 years ago

I don’t see Apple shutting down App Store even for spite. Not sure their operating expenses on App Store but if they reduce their cut, it won’t look bad on the books.

BooneJS• 6 years ago

Will my kid be able to buy new skins with something other than vbucks when this is all said and done?

chrisan• 6 years ago

Don't xbox and playstation also take a 30% cut on sales?

brundolf• 6 years ago

It's fascinating that Google is deciding to form a unified front with Apple instead of playing the "good guy" and taking an opportunity to paint their competitor in a bad light. It really betrays just how important that 30% fee must be to them. The plot just keeps thickening.

damnyou5• 6 years ago

I've been very critical of Apple, but Google deserves the same as well. Hope Epic files a lawsuit against Google too.

dragonwriter3• 6 years ago

Since there are alternative stores on Android (incluid Epic’s own, which, IIRC, they used Fortnite exclusivity to launch), to which developers demonstrably do resort if Google's pricing or other terms become unfavorable, there's a lot weaker antitrust argument with Google Play.

damnyou5• 6 years ago

I use Android with alternate app stores everyday, so I'm intimately familiar with the issues with them. The most prominent ongoing issue is that they can't auto-update apps the way Google's can. It's not a level playing field.

quotemstr• 6 years ago

Totally not coordinated at all. That Google and Apple have been completely consistent on demonetization, censorship, and general fuckery is just a coincidence. That the principal people involved all hail from the Bay Area and have similar social circles doesn't matter. Nope, no antitrust problem here, no cartel, no siree.

drusepth• 6 years ago

Not commenting on whether Fortnite should or shouldn't have been removed from either app store, but wanted to point out one HUGE difference between Android and iOS here:

Removing Fortnite from the iOS store wholly removes the ability for people to download and play Fortnite on iOS devices, unless they're jailbroken.

Removing Fortnite from Google Play does no such thing. It's still readily available to download and play from other app stores and/or Epic directly. No need to jailbreak or root.

This is a huge difference in paradigms that'll probably go overlooked with headlines of "Apple and Google remove Fortnite from app stores".

I think this is why Epic is so ready to "take on Apple" (see: their Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite ad). This'll be a legal battle that's exciting to see, especially in the current/brewing anti-big-tech political climate.

mulmen3• 6 years ago

I'm confused, the other story on this is "Apple kicked Fortnite off the app store". Did Google coincidentally do the same thing? Did Epic actually pull their game in both places?

3PS• 6 years ago

Epic pushed a server-side update which gave users on both iOS and Android access to discounted prices that sidestepped the usual 30% cut to Apple or Google. This was a violation of terms of service on both platforms, so Fortnite was removed from both the App Store and the Play Store. Epic already knew this would happen, which is why they prepared their PR and legal teams accordingly.

social_quotient• 6 years ago

Did this decision likely get made before the meeting with congress? Curious the lag time on corporate decision making on something like this.

The fight was bound to happen but I’m fascinated by the timing.

Datsundere• 6 years ago

This is exactly what DHH fought over apple to get their app approved in the play store. If you still think that having to pay 25% of your profit just to list your product that you didn't even use their tools to make, then you're insane.

z3t4• 6 years ago

One reason for the duopoly is that it cost more to have your app on more platforms. Its a disaster that for example government apps like id only works on the latest ios or android. There are also Sailfish, FirefoxOS, bunch of feature phone OS, and likely a lot I dont know of. The duopoly is self inflicted by the software industry.

muyuu• 6 years ago

Any official statements released?

FridgeSeal• 6 years ago

I can do nothing but laugh - I have precisely zero sympathy for Epic here.

lwansbrough• 6 years ago

Crazy number of boot lickers in these threads.

tomcam2• 6 years ago

Apple and Google are totally not acting like a cartel.

tibbydudeza• 6 years ago

Hey does TenCent not own a big chunk of Epic ???.

It would be great for Huawei if this whole closed appstore ecosystem would be broken up and give customers the freedom of choice.

Mandatum• 6 years ago

What happens to players who refund everything from these stores once the apps are no longer accessible? Does Apple or Google just eat the cost? I presume Epic has already been paid out, it seems like Apple and Google wouldn't be able to claw back that refund money.

Aissen2• 6 years ago

It seems Google is still using the same tactics it used to kill Skyhook (Maps competitor on wifi location), and probably most GApps competitors: they blocked Oneplus from bundling the Epic launcher with system permissions (allows updates in background, like the Play Store):

https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/08/13/google-reportedly-b...

Fortnite seems to have been removed from the Play Store as well

Related Stories