INSTG8RRight? They’re literally trying to bypass “paying rent” on the platforms provided to them for an agreed “rental fee”

Good point. I think I'll call my landlord, and tell them that I'm not paying rent from next month to show my way of "promoting more open ecosystems", and if they kick me out of my flat, I'll sue. :cool::kookoo:

INSTG8RRight? They’re literally trying to bypass “paying rent” on the platforms provided to them for an agreed “rental fee”

Rent implies a charge per time they're a avoiding tax.

TotallyRent implies a charge per time they're a avoiding tax.

True. And the way your road/council/whatever tax goes towards the maintenance of said services, Google and Apple's charges go towards the maintenance of their services that Epic agreed to use. These lawsuits and TPU's open support of Epic's thievery are total BS.

The Fortnite problem is not be associated the decisions made by Apple and Google.

First thing first, as many said, while iOS is blocking "free apps" to be installed and only allows those from the store is clearly an abuse of position. Google, even if they also applies cuts, they allow (for now) to install outside apps.
To compare with something more tangible, it's like Google is giving you a choice : "rent one of our houses or build your own."
On the other hand, Apple tells you : "if you don't rent our houses, you have no right to build your own, even if you can ; you'll be homeless"

I strongly dislike Apple policy, which is barely legal. But legal don't mean right.


The problem here is that Epic chose to occupy a house at both Apple and Google, not pay, show them a finger, got kicked, and now filling a lawsuit because they had to pay their rent, saying they are fighting for "everyone".
This is wrong, totally wrong. Sure, Apple don't allow to install external apps. Make it Google exclusive and that's how you show a finger at Apple.

If rich kids spending money on that game can't do it on an iPhone, they won't buy an iPhone, and it backfires at them.



Supporting Epic on that is totally a populist action, following the one that shouts louder.
The truth is that Epic was greedy, trying to play balls of steel with Apple and Google and got banned. Good riddance.

Maybe Epic should ask music artists how much they earn per sold song/album. Pretty sure they get LESS than 20% of the sales.

Whiners gonna whine. I hope Epic goes down and under. Move to China while you're at it.

AusWolfTrue. And the way your road/council/whatever tax goes towards the maintenance of said services, Google and Apple's charges go towards the maintenance of their services that Epic agreed to use. These lawsuits and TPU's open support of Epic's thievery are total BS.

I'd agree with you except the part "tax goes towards the maintenance of said services," if it is just for maintaining said services then 30% is excessively high they could get by with charging 3% and probably still turn a profit. They don't even need to charge this as they still have income streams from ad revenue, and selling usage data. I don't mind fees as long as they are commensurate with the service provided and maintenance of said service, like real world road taxes, they are not. If they were then it would make absolutely no sense for to go out of their way to try and establish their own direct pay. Intentionally or not putting it out there that at least 66% of that 30% charge is pure profit or i.o.w. "hey we can still make boatloads of money and charge only 1/3rd of what the other guy charges."

RenaldThe Fortnite problem is not be associated the decisions made by Apple and Google.

First thing first, as many said, while iOS is blocking "free apps" to be installed and only allows those from the store is clearly an abuse of position. Google, even if they also applies cuts, they allow (for now) to install outside apps.
To compare with something more tangible, it's like Google is giving you a choice : "rent one of our houses or build your own."
On the other hand, Apple tells you : "if you don't rent our houses, you have no right to build your own, even if you can ; you'll be homeless"

I strongly dislike Apple policy, which is barely legal. But legal don't mean right.


The problem here is that Epic chose to occupy a house at both Apple and Google, not pay, show them a finger, got kicked, and now filling a lawsuit because they had to pay their rent, saying they are fighting for "everyone".
This is wrong, totally wrong. Sure, Apple don't allow to install external apps. Make it Google exclusive and that's how you show a finger at Apple.

If rich kids spending money on that game can't do it on an iPhone, they won't buy an iPhone, and it backfires at them.



Supporting Epic on that is totally a populist action, following the one that shouts louder.
The truth is that Epic was greedy, trying to play balls of steel with Apple and Google and got banned. Good riddance.

While I agree with your opinion on Apple in principle BUT I also know that any app I download has been vetted and safe as to maintain Apples safe “walled garden“ too many stories of the minefield the Play Store can be. For the record I’m still on a 6S so I’m by no means a fanboy tho I don’t think I could live without my iPad.

TotallyI'd agree with you except the part "tax goes towards the maintenance of said services," if it is just for maintaining said services then 30% is excessively high they could get by with charging 3% and probably still turn a profit. They don't even need to charge this as they still have income streams from ad revenue, and selling usage data. I don't mind fees as long as they are commensurate with the service provided and maintenance of said service, like real world road taxes, they are not. If they were then it would make absolutely no sense for to go out of their way to try and establish their own direct pay. Intentionally or not putting it out there that at least 66% of that 30% charge is pure profit or i.o.w. "hey we can still make boatloads of money and charge only 1/3rd of what the other guy charges."

And I'd agree with you if Epic hadn't signed the agreement with Apple and Google (the agreement that they broke). It's not about how much certain services cost and how much of it is profit. If I own a service, I can charge whatever I want. And if you sign the agreement, you pay. It's that simple. Also, Epic never contested the 30% service charge. They simply tried to bypass it altogether, which is basically the definition of theft.

AusWolfAnd I'd agree with you if Epic hadn't signed the agreement with Apple and Google (the agreement that they broke). It's not about how much certain services cost and how much of it is profit. If I own a service, I can charge whatever I want. And if you sign the agreement, you pay. It's that simple. Also, Epic never contested the 30% service charge. They simply tried to bypass it altogether, which is basically the definition of theft.

If that agreement is compulsive in that there aren't any other realistic choices it's not valid imo. Going back to your rent analogy, a tenant is looking for home to move into the first landlords is exhorbantly high, and if the tenant wants to move in that's what they have to pay or they can go elsewhere. Tenant goes to a second landlord and same thing happens but the second landlord tells them if that they are unsatisfied they could just build their own house. Unfortunately both landlords have bought out every piece of land out there.

As a consumer, if I want to do business with Epic who is offering product/service for x, why should I have to pay x + % of x to a third party? Oh wait because if I want to make and receive calls that I already pay another company for that service on a phone I already paid for I have to agree with this practice?

What they are doing is the definition of contesting (oppose, challenge, not agree with), also it's not theft if they were charging the same amount then I would be inclined to see it as theft. Even then it is strecth if the imagination as this is money that was not in owned or in possession of Apple/Google in the first place.

As always... Giants bickering. Consumer gets shafted.

robalAs always... Giants bickering. Consumer gets shafted.

Yep, but it is irksome when those very consumers unconditionally/irrationally defend those giants.

I think epic has less than respectful business practices. They have been buying a lot of exclusive games to block Steam from selling them at release along with trying to undercut Google and Apple.

I think the thing Epic is overlooking is that Apple has invested heavily in developing powerful mobile SOCs, ones capable of running games like Fortnite. Also, Apple created software that allowed developers to get the most out of their hardware—Metal. Why would Apple do this if they didn’t somehow get a return for that investment from the companies selling games that leverage it? Otherwise we’d see old-era Intel-level graphics in Apple SOCs because there is little incentive to do otherwise. Also, mobile (smartphone) gaming is commonly Freemium-based, so without getting a cut of IAPs, Apple would get nothing for their efforts, and they created and maintain a platform that makes mobile gaming possible! Do you think Epic is going to challenge Sony and MS next on console IAPs? If not, why not?

hatI'm not sure how I feel about this one. If you want to use someone's service, you play by their rules. Google and Apple have the right to operate as they see fit within the boundaries of the law. The question is whether or not Google and Apple are breaking the law by imposing these rules.

I'm not sure about iOS, but on Android, you can easily install anything from an "unverified source" or whatever by ticking the option in Security Settings. It's no different than installing GPU-Z, which you downloaded from TechPowerUp, instead of installing it from the Microsoft Store, or whatever it's called.

Well yes, and exactly because of that reason you are assured that your Iphone is'nt infected with malware from a "untrusted source".

I mean iphone is more then just a phone. It's very stable, secure and does what it needs todo. A phone made simple.

TotallyYep, but it is irksome when those very consumers unconditionally/irrationally defend those giants.

nothing is irrational about this, they DON'T get money for them downloading the "free" game, they get it from buying through the store.
this is epic suing because they can't steal what they want and trying to add it to their " everyone's unfair but us" crusade.
also "giants" ? like "epic" is a small under dog company....

I don't even know how some of you can think that Epic is in the right or has any foothold for suing. Apple, Google or Valve provide a platform that you agree to put your product on. The Epic Games Store was the way to go, not throwing lawsuits around. But let me tell you that even making the EGS and all around it they can't help but being dicks about everything.

On Android you have alternative stores or you can install whatever app from an .apk. But this cunt wants to bend Google with whatever bull to avoid paying for a service. And I'm not defending Google or Apple here but this is the same as opening a mall and having this asshole trying not to pay rent because he is selling houses and because those are outside the premises he shouldn't pay rent.

Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft with their consoles and the same 30% distribution tax are next.

You do understand that the duopoly of Apple and Google is the only way to get into the mobile space right? You also do understand that that is the whole point of EPIC, to brake that duopoly. For their own gain of course but it so happens to be beneficial for the consumer in the long run. So all the bs comparing it to rents and taxes is at best laughable, compare it to the mafia, because that is exactly what it is. Btw American law is so.. I'll be kind and say disgusting, because the lobbyists write it. The "invisible hand" ladies and gentlemen. And even though I despise EPIC, in this case I really hope they win.

R0H1TRight, I'll ask you again you as see the distinction between how a game can be installed on Android, even iOS, without the need for a "play store" though to be fair iOS is a lot more restricted. Heck in China, the world's largest market, you don't even have a Play Store! Why are you discriminating against user choices here? I want China to open up their internet for outside world as well, do you not have an "opinion" on that?
You're not making a (valid) point about the platforms either, because that's what you're saying basically! The platforms are a "showroom" & you can't force them to sell anything & everything at rates which the client, Epic is both a client to Apple & Google as well as a middleman here, is asking for!
That's not a right guaranteed under any constitution, until it is please take this argument elsewhere.

It's either all greed, or none of it is. You can't pick & choose a % cut where one company is greedy & the other isn't!

Okay. How did MS get fined for not offering all browsers on a Windows OS install? They have a dominance that disturbs a fair market. So no, its not all that simple as you think it is and these walled gardens that own the market between just two big players, are definitely eligible for the same antitrust approach. With great power comes equal responsibility.

Its not really about greed. Its about a level playing field and that is something consumers benefit from. Why even argue against it, and for monopolies?

ImoutoI don't even know how some of you can think that Epic is in the right or has any foothold for suing. Apple, Google or Valve provide a platform that you agree to put your product on. The Epic Games Store was the way to go, not throwing lawsuits around. But let me tell you that even making the EGS and all around it they can't help but being dicks about everything.

On Android you have alternative stores or you can install whatever app from an .apk. But this cunt wants to bend Google with whatever bull to avoid paying for a service. And I'm not defending Google or Apple here but this is the same as opening a mall and having this asshole trying not to pay rent because he is selling houses and because those are outside the premises he shouldn't pay rent.

Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft with their consoles and the same 30% distribution tax are next.

I sincerely hope so, but console is a different one altogether. Mobile and being connected has taken up a prominent position in our everyday lives, it could be considered as essential as internet access itself. App Stores have worked diligently and with active enforcement to pull all apps through that one funnel both Apple and Google desired. Now that they own the market, they start swinging the banhammer, they continuously buy up startups and anything that could pose them a threat. The fact Apple and Google have the same policy and are fought in the same way should tell you enough. Together they own 90%+ of the smartphone market.

Epic's approach is wholly different, and it is also a platform on an entirely different level. NO, they cannot offer their own funnel for data to end up as secure and verified on phones. If a user does not tick a box in settings to allow apps outside the Stores, which also opens them up to any kind of malicious software, they simply won't be able to use Epic's service.

This is not a level playing field and in the context of users of mobile phones having app access, Apple and Google have monopolized the distribution market. Thát needs a counterbalance and a good one is setting a fixed or very low maximum rate on any percentage of sales, in-app or of the app itself. 30%, as it is with Steam, is straight up criminal and to even enforce it over all the money streams INSIDE apps is next level. 30% for some curation and moving a few bits around the globe. For real?

Either Epic will win this, or they actually should and might still win in the future. The current situation has made these tech giants way too powerful as it is for doing way too little work. When EGS started off combating Steam with much lower rates, people said it would never benefit us. This is what you've missed, right here; this is the battle EGS is fighting on our behalf. Lower price of distribution = higher cut towards developers = better software or at least bigger margins to do more. Do you really want to pay 3 dollars out of every 10 to Apple for the software of others? That's 30% of a paycheck - perhaps even YOUR paycheck, directly if you build your own apps.

And let's be honest. Isn't this how the market SHOULD work? A competitor offers a way more competitive distribution channel for software, but gets roadblocked from doing so. How should that NOT be fought, aside from the technicalities of outdated law and fast technological progress? Rules can and will have to be changed, sometimes, or the situation needs to be placed in the right perspective. I think the latter is what most people here are missing, and they fail to realize they damage themselves and keep an unhealthy balance of power in play.

mbeestonnothing is irrational about this,

Irrational is calling something as it isn't. So in clearly defined terms what has Epic stolen i.e. owned by Google/Apple then forcefully seized and is now in the possession of Epic?

they DON'T get money for them downloading the "free" game, they get it from buying through the store.

Still not theft. Cheated? up for debate.

this is epic suing because they can't steal what they want and trying to add it to their " everyone's unfair but us" crusade.
also "giants" ? like "epic" is a small under dog company....

" "epic" is a small under dog company.... " other than you, said by no one...ever. Even that original comment implied Epic is a giant.

Two very important points:

1. Epic planned this lawsuit with Apple months in advance. They didn't whip up this "Free Fortnite" marketing campaign in the 10 seconds after they got kicked off the App Store, they spent a long time engineering it. The Fortnite update that bypasses the App Store payment method was effectively the launch of their campaign, because they knew Apple would ban them almost immediately.
2. Epic didn't plan for a lawsuit against Google - they believed that Google would be willing to negotiate because (a) Fortnite is so lucrative (b) Google would enjoy giving Apple a black eye. Unfortunately, Epic was wrong, which is why they had to scramble to file the second suit.

Honestly I think Epic misstepped here: they believed that Fortnite was big enough that one or both of the mobile app store vendors would want to keep a (smaller) cut of the pie, but it turns out neither vendor is interested, and Epic is out in the cold on mobile.

Vayra86Okay. How did MS get fined for not offering all browsers on a Windows OS install? They have a dominance that disturbs a fair market. So no, its not all that simple as you think it is and these walled gardens that own the market between just two big players, are definitely eligible for the same antitrust approach. With great power comes equal responsibility.

There's no basis for antitrust here because there's no single player that's monopolised the market for mobile applications. Apple and Google have been very careful in this regard precisely in order to avoid the possibility of such litigation: there is no legislation that deals with duopolies.

Just for a fact that EPIC Store itself is doing the same thing getting cuts from developers revenue, this whole lawsuit is unjustified.

CrackongJust for a fact that EPIC Store itself is doing the same thing getting cuts from developers revenue, this whole lawsuit is unjustified.

True but Epic aren't the gatekeepers to the PC platform are they? There are multiple methods of marketing and deploying your game to millions of PC owners. The same can't be said for iOS.

Vayra86I sincerely hope so, but console is a different one altogether. Mobile and being connected has taken up a prominent position in our everyday lives, it could be considered as essential as internet access itself. App Stores have worked diligently and with active enforcement to pull all apps through that one funnel both Apple and Google desired. Now that they own the market, they start swinging the banhammer, they continuously buy up startups and anything that could pose them a threat. The fact Apple and Google have the same policy and are fought in the same way should tell you enough. Together they own 90%+ of the smartphone market.

There is no possible lawsuit against Google because it allows alternative stores on Android and manually installing .apks. Then you see the Apple market share an realize that they have a 15% that is nowhere near a position that would warrant an antitrust lawsuit. So I am honest here: What the hell are you or Epic complaining about? That a private run business doesn't want to have anything to do with you without the consent of both parties? Because this argument seems as moronic as it sounds.

You can't force a private business to sell the goods from a third party if they don't want to. And to make things worse at a lower cut. Hilarious. Playing Fortnite isn't the same as a utility or being able to afford food.

Vayra86Epic's approach is wholly different, and it is also a platform on an entirely different level. NO, they cannot offer their own funnel for data to end up as secure and verified on phones. If a user does not tick a box in settings to allow apps outside the Stores, which also opens them up to any kind of malicious software, they simply won't be able to use Epic's service.

With great freedom comes great responsibility.

Vayra86This is not a level playing field and in the context of users of mobile phones having app access, Apple and Google have monopolized the distribution market. Thát needs a counterbalance and a good one is setting a fixed or very low maximum rate on any percentage of sales, in-app or of the app itself. 30%, as it is with Steam, is straight up criminal and to even enforce it over all the money streams INSIDE apps is next level. 30% for some curation and moving a few bits around the globe. For real?

Yes, 30%. The industry standard. Does that reduction to absurdity work on this forum? Because that's the same as claiming you don't deserve to be paid for your work because most of the time you are breathing. See? We both can play this stupid game.

Vayra86Either Epic will win this, or they actually should and might still win in the future. The current situation has made these tech giants way too powerful as it is for doing way too little work. When EGS started off combating Steam with much lower rates, people said it would never benefit us. This is what you've missed, right here; this is the battle EGS is fighting on our behalf. Lower price of distribution = higher cut towards developers = better software or at least bigger margins to do more. Do you really want to pay 3 dollars out of every 10 to Apple for the software of others? That's 30% of a paycheck - perhaps even YOUR paycheck, directly if you build your own apps.

I couldn't care less about developers if they are going to bag all the earnings from a better cut and I still have to pay $60 for new games. If the EGS was half as good for the developers as you and other supporters claim, the publishers wouldn't put their games in Steam within the same day the exclusivity ends.

So far the only thing Epic has done with the EGS is to make it rain and that should impress only the most simple minded of the common people.

Vayra86And let's be honest. Isn't this how the market SHOULD work? A competitor offers a way more competitive distribution channel for software, but gets roadblocked from doing so. How should that NOT be fought, aside from the technicalities of outdated law and fast technological progress? Rules can and will have to be changed, sometimes, or the situation needs to be placed in the right perspective. I think the latter is what most people here are missing, and they fail to realize they damage themselves and keep an unhealthy balance of power in play.

I will say it again, there's no case here and will never be because there are alternatives for one player and the other one is nowhere near a position of dominance.

ImoutoThen you see the Apple market share an realize that they have a 15% that is nowhere near a position that would warrant an antitrust lawsuit.

46% isn't 15%, 49% the previous quarter. Places where the don't command those numbers are usual suspects poor countries or countries whose government shut them out orshut them out/try to level the playing field like China, India, S.Korea

www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/