sato30

greginprague said:

• Bornstein says that console markets taking 30% is fundamentally different than Apple, since consoles generally operate at a loss

Why is that fundamentally different?  Apple isn’t allowed to make money on the equipment and the App Store?  That seems like a preference of Bornstein but nothing that would hold up in court.  To me the App Store commission percentage between platforms is completely relevant and should stand on its own.  If Epic is fine with Sony and Nintendo charging 30% then he must be fine with Apple doing the same.  How was that not ruled on in summary judgement??

Epic really isn't "fine" with Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony charging 30% on their console's stores. When Epic says they are "fine" it is like asking another person if they are okay and they go "yeah I'm fiinnee!" They say they are fine but clearly they are not fine.

However in the home video console market you only have 3 companies and all 3 have similar, uniform policies for their online stores hence why Epic isn't doing anything there. There is no alternative way for Epic to distribute their product on Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4 & 5 and Xbox One (X/S) & Xbox Series (X|S) without agreeing to their terms. A publisher like Epic can't skate around the console's digital storefronts in any way. To release a physical disc version (PlayStation/Xbox) or cartridge (Switch) a digital version of the game must be released either before the physical release or on Day 1 of the physical release.

Since Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony control the publishing of physical games on their platforms and do not allow third party companies to press their own game discs or cartridges to maintain quality control (to avoid what happened on the Atari 2600 in the 80s) the consoles are absolutely deadlocked.

Plus the userbase on consoles is too much to ignore. This why Microsoft never pulled Minecraft from Sony when Microsoft was going hard on cross-platform play and Sony was like "um, how about no". This is also why Epic will not force a situation where Microsoft, Nintendo & Sony have to enforce their policies that is just too much of a userbase that is way more brand loyal than the mobile phone market. 

On the PC front Epic has been at war with Steam over Steam keeping 30% as well. Epic pulled their content from Steam and created the Epic Games Store and put all their content there. Epic also attracts other publishers to the Epic Game Store by offering to only take a 12% cut. They will even cover part of a game's production cost and waive licensing fees for their Unreal Engine if the game developer enters into either a timed or complete exclusivity agreement with Epic Games Store. This has created a huge amount of controversy on the PC space mainly hatred towards Epic for this. 

On the Android side the primary storefront is the Google Play Store which has policies similar to Apple's App Store. However Android smartphone & tablet users can still play Fortnite and get the updates unlike their iOS & iPad OS counterparts. The reason is the Android OS allows for third party official storefronts and major device manufactures like Samsung operate their own storefronts alongside the Google Play Store.

Like on my iPad Pro I can't play Fortnite or any other Epic game even if I wanted to. On my Samsung Galaxy Note20 5G there are no Epic Games in the Google Play Store but I can download Epic's games like Fornite from the Samsung Galaxy Store. The alternate method on Android OS is you can download Fortnite directly from their website and sideload it onto your Android device.

So on the Android front there really isn't a anti-competitive case to be made. Epic has alternate ways to release their product for Android users if they don't like the Google Play Store like on PC. If Epic wants to use the Google Play Store then they need to abide by Google's rules. 

Apple devices are the only non-console devices that have a complete walled garden with no other form of acquiring apps. This does give Apple way more control over apps than the Android OS and PC space. Apple can control what features an app has on their platforms and reject them or ask them to remove a feature. 

Also the consoles treat all games and apps the same on their platforms. Apple does make special exemptions to their policies for streaming apps. (A big difference between the consoles and Apple here.) The only reason you don't find many streaming apps on Nintendo Switch is simply after they made the Hulu & YouTube agreements they decided they didn't want anymore streaming apps on Switch. 

Apple takes a 15% cut from Prime Video in app subscriptions which Amazon used their opt-out on to prevent this. Apple doesn't collect anything from Prime Video rentals & purchases (normally Apple would collect 30% which is why Vudu opts out of allowing its customers to rent and purchase content from its app.) Apple's agreement allows them to take 15% of the revenue of Prime Video Channel subscriptions made within the app on Apple devices so Amazon disabled the feature which Apple allowed. 

Netflix is given an opt-out of offering in-app subscriptions to avoid the 30% cut and also has an opt-out so they don't have to support the Apple TV app. 

Spotify is given an opt-out from in-app purchases for their subscriptions because the app has a "free component" and its app can play your local audio files. 

So while legally Epic may not have a leg to stand on here since they willfully agreed to and then broke the guidelines the more that comes to light about Apple's App Store practices clearly indicate not all apps are treated equally.

Apple has made it known however they can make exceptions when the exceptions benefit Apple. They want to get more people on Apple TV so the exceptions given to streaming apps benefits Apple especially when competitors do no have a particular app.