Microsoft Warns Court That Apple Blocking Epic Will Hurt Games Business (cnbc.com) 127
Microsoft has stepped into the brewing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games over the former's policies with regard to its ubiquitous App Store. From a report: In a declaration filed on Sunday, a senior Microsoft engineer said that allowing Apple to block Epic Games' developer account would deal a significant blow to game makers including Microsoft by making them unable to use Epic's Unreal Engine. The Unreal Engine, a type of gaming engine, is a widely used set of technologies that provides a framework for the creation of three dimensional graphics. Epic licenses the engine to companies that use the technology for a fee. "If Unreal Engine cannot support games for iOS or macOS, Microsoft would be required to choose between abandoning its customers and potential customers on the iOS and macOS platforms or choosing a different game engine when preparing to develop new games," Kevin Gammill, Microsoft's general manager for Gaming Developer Experiences, said in the declaration.
He added that "Apple's discontinuation of Epic's ability to develop and support Unreal Engine for iOS or macOS will harm game creators and gamers." While there are alternative gaming engines, Gammill said that "very few" are available with as many features and the same functionality. The declaration came as part of a lawsuit brought by Epic against Apple over the iPhone maker's rules guaranteeing itself a 30% cut of in-app purchases. The suit is filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Epic Games tested Apple's policy by sidestepping the rule in an update to its hit game Fortnite, and then sued after Apple removed the game from the App Store. The company has brought a similar suit against Google over its Play Store.
He added that "Apple's discontinuation of Epic's ability to develop and support Unreal Engine for iOS or macOS will harm game creators and gamers." While there are alternative gaming engines, Gammill said that "very few" are available with as many features and the same functionality. The declaration came as part of a lawsuit brought by Epic against Apple over the iPhone maker's rules guaranteeing itself a 30% cut of in-app purchases. The suit is filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Epic Games tested Apple's policy by sidestepping the rule in an update to its hit game Fortnite, and then sued after Apple removed the game from the App Store. The company has brought a similar suit against Google over its Play Store.
I'm missing something (Score:2)
How does preventing Epic from selling its games prevent others using Unreal Engine?
Re:I'm missing something (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding is that if Epic doesn't have access to any of the Apple OS's, they won't be able to develop the Unreal Engine from this point forward. Without someone supporting and continually developing Unreal Engine that basically means End Of Life for the Unreal Engine on any Apple OS's.
--
So vast is art, so narrow human wit. - Alexander Pope
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There's something I'm obviously missing here. I'm currently developing my own game engine for macOS, and I don't even have an Apple developer account yet. Xcode is freely downloadable by anyone with a valid Apple login, which gives you access to the store. All the SDKs you need for macOS and iOS development come with Xcode.
Is everyone saying that Epic no longer has even this level of access? That seems unlikely. Or is something beyond this required for Unreal development, like additional tools and reso
Re: (Score:3)
anyone with a valid Apple login,
I think this is the key; isn't Apple threatening to terminate Epic's account?
Their developer account, yes. As far as I understand, you need that developer account to PUBLISH anything. But all you need is an Apple ID to sign into the store (which in turn gives you access to all the developer tools), and for that, you only need a valid e-mail account.
Well, maybe someone with an Apple developer account can explain what sort of special magic comes with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple isn't just preventing Epic from selling games, they're hindering Epic's ability to develop Unreal Engine on Apple platforms which in turn effects the ability of others to use Unreal Engine.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
which in turn effects the ability of others to use Unreal Engine... on Apple platforms...
This story has a moral...
Re: (Score:2)
This story has a moral...
Which is... 'this is what happens when you end up on the wrong side of the walled garden'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can create a walled garden in a computer network, to access that part of the network you have to adhere to the rules. The walled garden with regard to hardware, that you sell, that is really problematic. Does a manufacturer have the right to lock up the choices of the owner of the product, the person who bought and paid for the product.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to removing Fortnite from the App Store, Apple has threatened to cut off Epic’s access to development tools necessary to create software including the Unreal Engine as soon as Friday.
Re: I'm missing something (Score:3)
How does preventing Epic from selling its games prevent others using Unreal Engine?
Iâ(TM)m genuinely curious: What games does MS have on the Apple App Stores that actually use the Unreal Engine?
Re: (Score:2)
Better headline (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
It is funny what 20 years has done.
Re: (Score:2)
Today Windows 95 is 25 years old. Shipped with Internet Explorer V3.
Re: (Score:2)
Doing some research it seems like there were two versions for OEMs. The one with USB support out of the box included IE.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
(want Apple to have to cut it out if they had to, probably - I'm not a fan of the monopoly abuse practices of either)
Re: (Score:3)
> Microsoft, an expert in software monopoly abuse...
Then why would you discount an expert giving advice on their area of expertise?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's like a victim impact statement for a civil suit.
Re: (Score:2)
When do I get to make my statement?
Go after Epic. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not claiming any legal expertise. My first thought though, is about antitrust. It's been argued that Apple is abusing a market position to exercise control over these subscriptions. Applying Microsoft's argument in a similar way, doesn't this suggest that Epic might itself have an antitrust issue, where it is leveraging the market position of the Unreal engine in order to dictate the terms of the app store?
(FWIW, I don't really like Apple's rules in this case, but wouldn't be surprised if they are t
Re: Go after Epic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Go after Epic. (Score:2)
Re: Go after Epic. (Score:4, Informative)
What I find amusing is all the people rushing to support an exploitative microtransaction model by Epic.
On one hand, Epic can stick their microtransactions up their ass. On the other hand, Apple can stick THEIR abuse of the microtransaction model up THEIR ass. Apple isn't fighting against microtransactions, they're fighting against not getting a cut of microtransactions, and their justification for the cut is that they're providing services that developers don't want and haven't asked for.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple provides infrastructure to distribute your app worldwide. It maintains a system for you to beta test your app. It stores your app assets. It tests your app to assure minimal compliance with Apple user experience guidelines and that your app works across a variety of devices
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to mention - Apple rejects your app saying, "Violates our terms" but won't tell you which terms or give you any clue why. No prizes for guessing how I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple provides infrastructure to distribute your app worldwide. It maintains a system for you to beta test your app. It stores your app assets. It tests your app to assure minimal compliance with Apple user experience guidelines and that your app works across a variety of devices ... (you should too, but how many test their iPhone app in compatibility mode on a real iPad) Apple provides a searchable store to place your app on.
For this Apple collects nothing, zip, zero, for free apps. Thatâ(TM)s huge.
It isn't huge. They do a crap job of all of those things; they have delivered malware before, for example. And if developers don't care or want those things, they have to have them anyway. That's not doing it for those developers, it's doing it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they can fuck off then if they dont want to pay for it? ios is not the only place epic can sell fortnite.
iOS is not a place, it's a shitty version of OSX. The Apple App Store is the only way for Epic to sell Fortnite to iOS users, who are ultimately the people who matter most. That's why Apple's behavior is anticompetitive — it stands between users and the software they want to run.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple is blocking updates to Unreal Engine, because of the fight over Fortnite. There's no reason for Apple to do this other than spite.
Yes, purely spite that you would boot a developer who intentionally breaches your ToS off your service. How dare they. Apple isn't blocking Unreal Engine in the slightest, they are just telling Epic to go self fornicate. That Epic use a common account for UE is their problem. Maybe they should have thought about the impact of their actions before acting like little entitled crybabies. "How dare we have to obey the ToS, don't you know we're Epic, and you're just some fruit!"
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know. I don't think this is an anti-trust issue. It sounds a lot like rent-seeking to me.
From Wikipedia:
"Rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic rent (i.e., the portion of income paid to a factor of production in excess of what is needed to keep it employed in its current use) by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth. Rent-seeking implies extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contrib
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The CC companies are not providing a store front, product development support and delivery. Certainly I think 30% is a big cut, but it is disingenuous to compare it to the 3%-5% fees charged by credit card companies.
Re: (Score:2)
The anti-competitive comes in to explain how they can get away with a 30% cut.
In a competitive ecosystem, if 30% is an unreasonable premium, another company would be offering a competing app infrastructure in exchange for a smaller cut.
For example, on PC Valve demands a 30% take (like Apple and Google). Epic's response was another app store with a 12% cut (and not charging engine royalties for games sold through their store).
They could do that on Android, but they can't even in theory do this in Apple land.
Re: (Score:2)
For Valve, they can feel free to run at 30%. If the market decides that 30% is workable for what they provide versus what Epic provides at 12% or decides there is room for both, than so be it. The point is that the ecosystem is such that a company can put forth an offering and see if they are right in the market.
If steam and apple are so uncompetitive then how come they are so popular.
I didn't say that either where uncompetitive, I said Apple may be considered anti-competitive. Steam is fine (I assume they don't restrict pricing through other channels), I just pointed out that Ep
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know. I don't think this is an anti-trust issue. It sounds a lot like rent-seeking to me.
[...]
There close to 1 and a half billion iOS devices in the world. For all of those devices, the only way to buy apps and purchase services is through the App Store.
That's why it's an anti-trust issue, and not just rent-seeking, which is legal.
Re: (Score:2)
But, they decided it would be beneficial to allow third parties to develop on their platform, and created a structure to sell and distribute those apps. It's open to anyone willing to follow the rules. How opening their platform to third party developme
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not about development, it is about the store. Is it possible to compete with the App Store and sell apps for the enormous IOS market? No. Why not? Because Apple won't allow it. Therefore, it is anti-competitive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, the mall owns it's property, of course they can control who uses it. Apple does NOT own my phone. Who are they to say you can't sell to me if I want to buy from you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you being intentionally obtuse? Of course Apple owns the App Store. So what? Nobody is saying Apple doesn't have the right to say what is and isn't sold in the App Store. They have that right. What they DON'T have the right to do is prevent any ALTERNATIVE to the App Store for the IOS market.
I know the fanboys like to claim that IOS is 'only a small part of the market', but that is bullshit. Most people only have either IOS or Android devices, not both. And very few people are willing to buy a di
Re: (Score:3)
But they do have the right to lock their phones to the App Store. You just don't like that. You should have done more research before buying into that system. Apple's not hiding it. In fact, they market it as an advantage for privacy and security.
Green Mountain/Kourig does it with K-cups. HP does it with ink cartridges. John Deere does it with tractor parts. MS does it for XBox. Sony does it for Playsta
Re: Go after Epic. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems the GP simply doesn't understand how markets work - they want to have their cake, and eat it too. Their argument that the (cellphone) market is limited to Apple IOS and Android ignores that others (e.g. Microsoft, Nokia) have tried to compete in the same market and failed. Those failures weren't because of
Re: (Score:2)
They sure could. That's why it's so delicious to hear the manufacturer of the XBox, and the licensor of the XBox dev kit, complaining about it.
Please proceed, Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah... I have a hard time feeling bad for Epic on this part of it— they broke the software license, much the same license terms that every other software out there has.
The app store issue is a little less clear for me; Epic needed leverage, and the “30% cut” likely should be reduced. I don’t however want Apple to run a store with a 3-5% processing fee only and no real vested interest in the store— something more in the 15-25% range seems more appropriate today.
Re: (Score:2)
They broke which software license? Xcode's? The developer license? What section of those license(s)? Quote the applicable provision(s) to me.
The app store issue is the only issue. This is Apple attempting to leverage independent agreements concerning other software against an App S
Re: Go after Epic. (Score:1)
MS should be pissed at Epic, who got themselves kicked off Apple's platform by deliberately breaking the rules
Exactly!
Viral licensing (Score:3)
Heh, remember when the GPL was called "viral"? Now we have "viral" proprietary licensing too. "Your decision fucked me downstream? Nooooo!!!!!!"
Re: Go after Epic. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's basically the opposite... Microsoft built an iOS app for their game streaming service (xCloud) and Apple blocked it for no good reason. Microsoft and iOS users lost out. The people in Microsoft's Games division are likely cheering Epic's battle with Apple, and the legal brief they filed is their way of throwing their support behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
and Apple blocked it for no good reason
Except that Apple blocked xCloud for a fairly standard reason which they have used to block all 3rd party game providers - lack of the ability to curate and profit. I still support Microsoft in this fight, but it's far from "no good reason". Hell if they didn't block xCloud that would open them up for a mega frigging slapping from anti-trust regulators. You can have restrictions when you let other people in your stadium, but the playing field needs to be level for all.
Re: (Score:2)
and Apple blocked it for no good reason
Except that Apple blocked xCloud for a fairly standard reason which they have used to block all 3rd party game providers - lack of the ability to curate and profit. I still support Microsoft in this fight, but it's far from "no good reason". Hell if they didn't block xCloud that would open them up for a mega frigging slapping from anti-trust regulators. You can have restrictions when you let other people in your stadium, but the playing field needs to be level for all.
Fine. Then Apple should delete Safari from iOS.
If you're confused, let me break it down:
Re: (Score:2)
Fine. Then Apple should delete Safari from iOS.
Actually judging from your comment it appears *you* are the one confused. Safari isn't a games service that provides additional apps on the phone.
But I can create a native game that gets a single game from a server, even though the server content can change, and Apple can't curate it.
That is something you just failed on. The curation of singular content comes in the form of banning the native game. Apple has done this in the past.
If this doesn't sound bonkers to you, then you aren't paying close enough attention. Apple's policies are arbitrary and capricious.
Not bonkers at all. Your first three points are all reasonable and follow on from each other. Point 5 is you exploring a loop hole in the requirement that a browser be present on a phone, and in no way installing cont
Re: (Score:2)
Safari is a general browser that, among its many other tasks, provides additional apps on the phone. Have you never saved a web app to your home screen?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you know why SWF died.
It died because Adobe's code quality has always been an abomination riddled with security holes and performing about as well as a first-year violin student. And yet, recompiled Flash-based apps were allowed on the App Store. And originally, Apple wanted every app to be a web app, so SWF didn't die because Apple wanted to profit off of the app store, if that's what you're implying. The app store didn't happen until a year and a half after the iPhone was announced.
And lest anybody think that the "web apps
Re: (Score:2)
so... "Companies complain they will make less money if forced to follow the law!" Sounds to me like the system is working as intended? Cry me a river, Epic!
Epic has as much a monopoly as Apple has (Score:2)
While there are alternative gaming engines, Gammill said that "very few" are available with as many features and the same functionality. ...
Oh, by "Very few" you mean like 1...... Not unsimilar to how there are very few Smartphone OSes with the features for developers that iOS' developer tools and mobile operating system provide for customers and native applications to use.
This is basically two companies with government-granted monopolies going up against each other in a war, and the end result is prov
Re: (Score:2)
Basically if either side wins, we loose.
I have been around the block. When one side wins and the other loses. The Looser will often either appeal and keep it in the courts, or maliciously comply with the order.
So if Epic wins. Apple will be like. Sure you can run your store. However your purchases, will not be saved from one device to an other. Or the latest security update just happens to make your engine run like crap. While the new Apple Engine is much improved.
Why can't Epic just follow the rules for now? (Score:4, Interesting)
Look, the thing that Apple sent out wasn't, "if you don't drop your lawsuit, we're going to cancel your account," it's, "make your app comply with the rules."
Epic has made their point, the lawsuits are underway. If you're going to win on the merits of the case, you can stop trying to make some pennies while this whole ordeal is getting hashed out; you'll probably get damages anyway. Just do the thing. Do you think Apple will budge? Because I am 99% sure they will actually nuke your fucking account, Tim.
under apples rules they have to change the same on (Score:2)
under apples rules they have to change the same on all stores.
Wrong (Score:1)
under apples rules they have to change the same on all stores.
A) No they do not. You are free to do what you like on other stores.
B) They are already following Appple's rules on the Playstation and Xbox because those rules are even more strict.
Re: (Score:2)
B) They are already following Appple's rules on the Playstation and Xbox because those rules are even more strict.
Are we sure? We know without special treatment that would be true, but Epic did try for special treatment before going very public about it. They may have actually gotten special treatment from the console stores. It's not great, but I could easily see console vendors a bit more eager to appease a major game provider than Apple or Google.
Re: Why can't Epic just follow the rules for now? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, they signed a contract. Apple can terminate the account for any reason they want, including no good reason at all.
Maybe some of the rules in there are unfair—that's a worthwhile debate to have. But they agreed to those terms and lived with those exact terms for years, and they haven't won any lawsuits yet. So they should just do what Apple asks.
I'm pretty sure that Apple has no legal obligation to do business with other corporations if they don't want to. They have a store, and they can sell wha
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, nobody is challenging whether or not the store can set their terms. They can. And nobody is challenging whether or not Apple can decide who to do business with. They can. What IS being challenged is whether or not Apple has the right to say the ONLY store that can sell IOS apps is theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but this current fight really IS about whether or not they can set the terms of their store. Epic can fight the battle of multiple app stores in court, but right now, Apple has set the rules of the store and Epic is in violation of them, period, end of story. Apple certainly has the right to withdraw Epic's developer licence for violation of those rules. To make sure that they're not kept off the store and out of Apple's ecosystem entirely, they have to change their app so it's no longer in violation of
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't have to do what Apple wants. They have already filed for an injunction preventing Apple from kicking them out.
Re: (Score:2)
So they should just do what Apple asks.
Or, alternatively, they can walk away and throw their marketing efforts behind non-Apple alternatives (which they have also done).
I personally appreciate some chance to highlight the better situation in Android: A store on par with Apple in terms of terms. However the freedom to install apps, but with a more hardened security infrastructure to still be better protected than a typical PC operating system.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's legit—Android presents a very different ecosystem with somewhat different rules.
But a) that undermines Epic's argument entirely—there IS competition in the market, though you might have to change devices; and b) they sued Google too, because they feel that the warnings to install a whole new app store on an Android device are too scary and therefore present too great a burden on them.
Like, you can't really win with Epic here. They want Apple and Google to do all the work, jump all the
Re: (Score:2)
Guess the argument is whether you consider the market to only be divisible to 'handheld computing devices' or 'iOS devices'. I mean, Microsoft got smacked for browser bundling as being anti-competitive even though theoretically you could run Linux, BeOS, OS/2, MacOS, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, or Irix on 'computers that sit at your desk and can connect to the internet'. Apple has a large market share and so they pull this. If, say, any phone maker apart from Apple pulled this, they would lose their business becau
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'Making their app comply with the rules' is not an option. If they do that, then they can't show harm from the rules, and the suit gets tossed because they don't have standing.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they probably have enough data to show harm. "Over the x number of days that the payment option was available, we made this much money through our payment system, but if it had all filtered through Apple, we would've only made this amount of money."
Like, it really is just about money, so they've got more than enough to go on. It's also clear that Apple has the power to enforce those rules, so if that's something that they want to challenge, I think they've got enough evidence there too.
Re: (Score:2)
The harm already occurred. Past tense. Thus, they have standing. The harm does not need to be ongoing for them to retain their standing, nor does them complying with the rules to deal with an unrelated consequence of those rules affect their standing.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the rules where Amazon only has to pay a 15% [businessinsider.com] app store fee and everyone else has to pay the normal 30%?
Microsoft is to big for apple to ban & office (Score:3)
Microsoft is to big for apple to ban & office 365 being blocked will kill apple systems in enterprise
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. From Microsoft’s persepctive there is still the web app, and from most users’ persepective there are actually viable alternatives today. For my money though... I am getting more fidgety with all of this lock-in. Linux FTW!!
How is that relevant? (Score:1)
Microsoft is to big for apple to ban & office 365 being blocked will kill apple systems in enterprise
How does any of that relate to the story at hand? I am near 100% sure Office 365 does not use the Unreal game engine.
This is all about the secondary effect if Apple drops Epic's developer account, and people using the Unreal engine in apps won't be able to support iOS anymore, because Epic can't support that platform in the engine.
One thing I've not seen is, maybe Apple would allow Epic to have a devel
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is to big for apple to ban & office 365 being blocked will kill apple systems in enterprise
Apple has no reason to block Microsoft. Microsoft aren't intentionally trying to breach Apple ToS and suing them when Apple doesn't get it's way. Microsoft as a developer is following the rules. xCloud is banned, but as a developer they are following rules. Epic is not. Comparing the two on some business based metric is silly and a complete red herring.
Geeze! Just drop Apple (Score:1)
If enough people complain, Apple will do whatever it is that they do
We're not dealing with the railroads or Standard Oil here. It's a toy
Re: Geeze! Just drop Apple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If Epic were shipping wheat, barley, and hops through Apple or Google, I might care a little bit more.
Good that we're having this argument (Score:3)
It's good that we're having this argument before Apple switches over to their in-house laptop/desktop CPUs for which they might have the only compilers.
Re: (Score:1)
The instruction set isn't the issue, anyone can write a compiler targeting that as long as it's known or reverse engineered. And the ARM instruction set is a well known one.
The problem is the software ecosystem around it that only allows running programs which have been digitally signed by Apple. They could introduce that on MacOS in any update they liked. They have never been brave enough to do that because decades of PCs and the competition from Windows means it is in their interest to remain an open plat
Hey... Epic... (Score:1)
The game business - or MS? (Score:2)
Will Epic sue Epic? (Score:2, Informative)
Last I know, the Unreal Engine is free to anyone to develop over but if you do sell a product using Unreal Engine, Epic is entitled to royalties. So will they sue themselves for having a bite on other companies? Or will they change their model to decrease even further their size of the share as well? After all, with a % going to Apple, another % to RIAA (which we also know pays pennies for music artists), Epic’s % for rights to use the Unreal Engine, Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo % for the use of their plat
Re: (Score:2)
No Epic only sues about other people not being open. Remember they are saving open gaming ... by introducing a very crap service and forcing users to adopt it through 3rd party exclusives - something previously unheard of in the PC land, and probably the single worst feature of console gaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft will hurt games business (Score:1)
Epic should set an example (Score:2, Interesting)
I think Epic should set an example for Apple to follow. Any 3rd party should be able to create their own Fortnight skins and weapons, and sell those items within the Fortnight game with seamless integration. Further, those sellers should be able to use their own payment systems to directly allow players to buy those items, and they can be unlocked within the game by using a code provided by the seller. Thus Epic will not see a penny from any of that revenue. Finally, Epic should foot the bill fr all infr
The one and only authority on what XBoxes may do (Score:2)
Can one publish whatever software they want to, or install even your own code, on an XBox? Can you do it without Microsoft's permission (i.e. no licensing)?
Unless they have opened the XBox up so that anyone can use it, I think it's long-term foolish for Microsoft to encourage people to think about this "only with the hardware manufacturer's blessing, otherwise go fuck yourself" position.
"Sir, we've traced the origin of these ballistic stones to their source: a glass house!" I would love to see Apple get wre
Protection money (Score:2)
This is MY neighborhood. Any business goings on this corner belong to me, see?
Phew! (Score:2)
Thank god, Apple isn't into the gaming business but in the fee-collecting one.
They don't care WHAT the app does, they really don't.
Interesting Angle from Microsoft (Score:2)
So Microsoft's argument is that if a company builds their business using your software and services becoming so entrenched within a market that they can decide that they no longer want to pay for their continued use of your software and service which, according to Microsoft, is OK because their customers could be harmed if you decide to stop provided the software and services? Am I getting that about right? I wonder if their could be any unintended consequences to Microsoft's business model.
Hey Apple, what's that 30% cut actually for? (Score:2)
What hard work are you actually doing for that?
I mean real people.doing real work for specifically each case of a payment.
Surely, you aren't just *stealing* most of that money with localized monopolism aka lock-in, are you?
On that note:
Hey Epic, what's that 70% you get actually for?
What hard work are you actually doing for that?
I mean real people doing real work for specifically each case of a payment.
Surely, you aren't just *stealing* most of that money with imaginary property lies, are you?