
Epic will mock Apple’s most iconic ad as possible revenge for App Store ban - pseudolus
https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21367904/epic-parody-apple-1984-ad-fortnite-removal-app-store
======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24148204](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24148204)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24148548](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24148548)

There a zillion more related to Epic/Apple, but those are about the ad.

------
Hokusai
We are not in 2001 anymore. App Stores are a growing part of the real economy
and Apple 30% makes no sense. Big tech has been under the radar of many
because it started small and had little impact on the economy. To let tech
companies grow revolutionized the world. That revolution is over, tech
companies are the new car companies. Apple is not a new innovative company, it
is a monopoly that churns the same product year after year and profits from
its dominance and the natural tendency of technology to create monopolies.

Many businesses cannot survive if you cut 10% of their income. 30% is mind-
blowing and unsustainable.

I hope that the popularity of Epic brand helps on this fight. This level of
legal battle is not only won in the court, but also in the public discussion
domain.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Apple 30% makes no sense_

Apple provides useful services with its App Store: filtration and curation.
The degree to which this is effective is debatable. But that it has an effect
is not.

Apple also extracts socially useless rents from its App Store. The degree to
which this exists is debatable. But its existence, given Apple's dominance in
app industry profits, is not.

The first costs Apple in terms of labor, tools and research. The second is a
result of their independently-profitable devices business. These costs are
roughly the same from app to app, review to review.

One solution might be to charge a fixed fee per review. This scales perfectly
with Apple's costs. But it's prohibitive for small players. A scaling fee
structure relative to revenues promotes first movers, thereby keeping the app
ecosystem fresh. Apple came up with a 30% flat rate. This made sense when apps
made hundreds of thousands of dollars. It does not make sense when they make
hundreds of millions.

A simple answer is a sliding scale. 30% for the first $20mm in a year. 20% for
the next $40mm. 10% after $60mm. This is _more_ than generous to Apple. It
beats Epic's request for a 12% flat fee at $400mm. And it continues letting
Apple give new entrants, who are both more sensitive to costs and more needing
filtration and curation, a field to play on. As a bonus to Apple, it reduces
the incentive for developers to litigate as a function of their capacity to
sue.

~~~
fenomas
I don't think the issue is the raw numbers, it's a question of market forces.
Processing payments has costs and risks; if Apple solves that problem so well
that a developer thinks their fee is worthwhile, that's all well and good
regardless of what the fee is.

But by prohibiting apps from even _telling_ the user about alternate payments,
Apple is effectively trying to dictate how everyone on their platform can and
can't do business. That seems problematic regardless of whether what numbers
they dictate.

~~~
Closi
It’s also problematic when it means that Apple takes competitor revenues - for
instance in the streaming audio market Apple is Spotify’s biggest competitor,
while forcing Spotify to give them a bigger % of iOS revenues than their own
margin. Apple ends up making more money out of Spotify on iOS than Spotify
does, and then continues to spend money investing in a competing product.

~~~
skygazer
Would it be feasible for Apple to discount their 30% developer/iap fees in app
categories in which they compete with developers commensurate with Apple’s
dominance in that category? As though they themselves had to pay the same 30%
fees, but to developers in the category, rather than to themselves. Would that
level the playing field?

~~~
Closi
It would be more straightforward if they waived fees in those categories.

------
farhadhf
IMO the Google vs Apple, Apple vs Epic Games and all other similar cases are
secondary. My main issue with Apple is that it is violating user rights - the
users, who _owns_ the device - should have the freedom of doing any thing they
want (including installing any app they want) with the device. It's not
Apple's place to arbitrarily decide what I can or cannot do with _my_ phone.

~~~
raxxorrax
I think so too but I don't buy Apple in that case. I have spend < 10$ on apps
from stores and it was mostly just a test for me. I don't like smartphones as
software platforms at all, I think we could have done much better than what
the market supplies but I have niche expectations the common companies cannot
fulfill. That said, the casual users in my circle don't spend anything on apps
either. That isn't a good solution as well, since the alternatives finance
themselves via adds.

Before app stores, you could actually get real free software that didn't use
customer data to finance themselves. Sustainable as a business? Perhaps not,
but certainly an advantage to users.

~~~
jayd16
I don't buy Apple either but its getting frustrating when they take the best
talent to build the best chips. Good for them but what if the trend continues
such that the alternatives are at a serious hardware disadvantage?

------
parkovski
I hope Epic wins this. I would buy from Apple again if they would open their
platforms. I think it's ridiculous that when I was working on an app, the app
would expire after a week unless I paid them more money for the privilege of
keeping an app I wrote on a phone I paid for. Nevermind software other people
made that I should be free to choose to run.

~~~
donor20
You can distribute an app for free if you are part of their developer program
- which is something like $99 for all the needed software and tooling (perhaps
one of the lowest SDK prices historically?). They will actually subsidize all
your bandwidth / storage / distribution costs in that case.

~~~
fomine3
I should tell you that Android SDK takes $0.

~~~
pjmlp
And $25 for distribution on the store.

So what, if those $100 prevent shitty copy-cats, the more the better.

~~~
hesarenu
It does not in fact prevent anything. There are hundreds of shitty apps in
both iOS and Android.

~~~
pjmlp
Which proves the point that $100 is quite affordable.

~~~
grumple
For first world professionals, it’s nothing.

For others it’s steep. And maybe that was the point.

~~~
pjmlp
Others tend to have an Android dominated market, so....

------
guidedlight
The existence of this video demonstrates that Epic Games anticipated the App
Store ban long before they made their recent update to bypass Apple's payment
system.

The entire thing looks like a thinly-veiled attempt to abandon the Fortnite
mobile apps, and direct community blame on Apple.

~~~
gpm
The entire thing looks like a successful attempt to get standing to sue Apple
for their anti-competitive actions, and you know, get some free PR while you
do what you need to do to make millions more dollars because why not.

~~~
chrischen
I don't get how any of this relates to anti-competition, since Fortnite
doesn't compete with Apple, and is using and capitalizing on the money making
potential of the app store (and refusing to pay the fees). Meanwhile Apple's
actual competition in the App store market does the exact same ban... In an
actual court of law (rather than court of public opinion) there is no way Epic
will win especially since Google took the same stance.

At the end of the day Fortnite/Epic is just trying to maximize their
shareholder value in leveraging lower/no fees from Apple for a revenue source
for them that is frankly optional (iOS/Google Play are just two platforms they
can choose to offer their app, and there is competition from the Windows and
macOS platforms as well which do not charge these fees). Even if Epic wins
you're still not going to jailbreak your phone and install malware the way you
really want to.

The "anti-competition" platform is great because consumers just want to
install random apps on their phones, but we bought our iPhones/Google phones
knowing the app store was restricted to those who paid... we still did it.

~~~
gpm
> Meanwhile Apple's actual competition in the App store market does the exact
> same ban

Google Play doesn't compete with Apple's app store or Apple's payment
processing... since you can't install Google Play on IPhones.

Fortnite does compete with Apple, in terms of payment processing. Fortnite
chose to do it themselves (to get standing), and were promptly banned from
operating on IPhones. Epic Games distributes Fortnite themselves in their own
app store, but apple has prevented that app store from being installed on
IPhones.

> In an actual court of law (rather than court of public opinion) there is no
> way Epic will win especially since Google took the same stance.

You _definitely_ shouldn't be stating this this strongly. You might think it's
a weak argument (I don't), but it's certainly far from hopeless.

If you'll excuse the appeal to authority (since repeating the fine legal
arguments in the brief seems pointless, you can read them better written
there). Look at who has signed onto this complaint for a moment. The lawyers
representing Epic Games include a former Federal Trade Commissioner and senate
confirmed assistant Attorney General heading the anti-trust division
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_A._Varney](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_A._Varney))
and a former judge
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_B._Forrest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_B._Forrest)).
You don't get people like this to represent you if they don't agree with you.

~~~
chrischen
Google Play does compete with the App store. Both on the developer side
(choosing which platform to support) and on the consumer side (choosing which
phone/ecosystem to enter).

~~~
Fjolsvith
Choosing one App store (for either developer or consumer) doesn't prevent you
from also choosing the other.

------
jerkstate
This reads as pre-planned and co-ordinated to me. My guess is Apple will soon
introduce some reduction of platform fees as long as you comply to certain
editorial standards in your app, and everybody will be happy.

~~~
Rapzid
I don't believe so.. As part of Epics business strategy since the Tencent
investment they have been working to reduce license and distribution costs
across the industry to the benefit of a lot of developers; and themselves of
course.

Now Epic is worth over $18b, has some VERY big name investors, and controls
the most popular game on the planet. They have the power to sway public
sentiment against Apple, a legal leg to stand on as far as anti-trust, deep
pockets, and powerful friends.

My guess, and hope, is that Epic takes Apple to the cleaners.

~~~
coreblocks
Apple is worth 2 trillion if we are looking at market cap. They can literally
buy out epic if they wanted to.

~~~
gpm
Not necessarily. Tim Sweeney owns more than half of Epic Games, and
(presumably, I'm obviously not privy to what contracts he has signed) has no
obligation to sell for any amount of money. He is also rich enough to have
"fuck the world money" and not accept a price that is _far_ above what his
share in Epic Games is actually worth.

------
MR4D
This is huge. And a much bigger threat than a DOJ monopoly lawsuit.

~~~
userbinator
You mean, this is _Epic_.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

~~~
MR4D
Well played.

Can't believe I missed that opportunity for so much pun. ;)

------
etaioinshrdlu
The worm in the apple is a nice touch.

~~~
dschuetz
That must be a metaphor for Tim Cook, I guess?

------
zabhi
It looks like Epic expected this to happen. It could even have been waiting
for it.

I don't know why the application developers don't develop their own OS/phones.
If this is the only way we can have an open Linux phone, I am all for it.

~~~
iratewizard
Every battle is won or lost before it is even fought.

------
stunt
I'm not against 30% Apple tax. It's their service and they can argue about it.
But, the fact that there are no alternative app stores for IOS users, makes it
wrong.

------
fomine3
I wish EPIC win for this case to get the free of AppStore, not free of
AppStore's payment provider.

Free of computer is very important but free of payment provider is not so
much.

------
mullingitover
Does anyone know how much of a cut Playstation, Switch, and XBox take for
their in-app purchases?

~~~
dogma1138
A better question would be what cut Epic takes for theirs...

------
remarkEon
Fortnite's primary demo is people in their teens and early 20s. They are all
too young to get the cultural reference of this ad. This isn't directed at
them - hell, how many of them have actually read 1984? (Honest question, is
that book still taught in high school?)

This ad is targeted _at us_. I'm inclined to agree with others in this thread
who think this entire episode was some kind of product operation, designed to
exit the (probably failing) mobile market and gin up some controversy as a
convenient excuse.

~~~
zamadatix
1984 is still a very popular book to assign in schools.

It's both. The cleverness of this ad isn't just that those that get the
reference think it's a great riff but if you don't get the reference that
means your first time seeing this legendary ad is not for the Mac but about
this issue. In either case it's a great success for awareness and the hashtag
at the end doesn't hurt either. Also it's not just an ad they put on YouTube
this plays as a cinematic when players launch Fortnite right now.

And of course it's all planned. Not only is it perfect timing to do this but
mere minutes after getting banned they posted legal action and pushed a
cinematic in game. You can't just do that instantly without having known.

