Read the emails between Epic and Apple that led to Fortnite’s App Store ban

[thisismadness]

I can't even believe I'll say the following, because it is in line with what Tim said previously, but it's not quite the same.

An iPhone is sold at a profit on day one. All the R&D and manufacturing improvements, the materials being "eco" friendly or whatever new buzz Apple is trying to generate, every iPhone users pay for that.

Now this is a multitasking device, which funnily enough at its core is a "phone", an almost forgotten feature.. Apple might get a user to commit a lot of money on Apple Arcade, maybe iTune music/movies, App Store games, App Store business/work apps, or maybe just fucking nothing, maybe the user is using the phone and text messages and that's it.

Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo sell the console at crazy low prices, for sure they take a hit on losses initially, maybe a bit less Nintendo as they kind of did their thing for 2 generations of not being cutting edge.. but the point remains, they expect that a gamer buys a console to play games. They make money on games being sold. Maybe after 2~3 years when yields get better and tech advances that they'll profit on console sales, but by that point R&D is already bleeding money for the next gen.

Now I'm not saying Apple should get 0, but clearly we cannot compare consoles and smart phones.

Click to shrink...

Console makers selling hardware at a loss is not good justification for a full 30%. The console companies have always had a licensing fee for that purpose (closer to 10%). Consumers are also paying monthly/annual fees for their online services (services that are free everywhere else in the industry).

 

[Buggy Loop]

Console makers selling hardware at a loss is not good justification for a full 30%. The console companies have always had a licensing fee for that purpose (closer to 10%). Consumers are also paying monthly/annual fees for their online services (services that are free everywhere else in the industry).

Click to shrink...

Look, i'm not saying 30% is justified, but clearly it's hardly comparable platforms.

Consumers might be paying monthly/annual fees for their online services, most of that cost probably eaten up by costs of servers/bandwith/cloud R&D.

One thing for sure, we're not paying console hardware at >1000$ for cutting edge.

 

[spineduke]

Now I'm not saying Apple should get 0, but clearly we cannot compare consoles and smart phones.

Click to shrink...

I seriously think we should be having this conversation. People seem so ready to define the business scope of each maker and willing to assign what is and isn't acceptable. Till now it's all been arbritatry with approximations of how their business functions and if they're allowed to charge a rate. A hardware sale is not the be all of a relationship between customer and business. People need to look at the whole process holistically and come to terms with the tail end of operating a long lasting, trustworthy business.

One thing for sure, we're not paying console hardware at >1000$ for cutting edge.

Click to shrink...

Each generation seems to edge forward into this - if the rumors are to be believed, we'll be seeing new record setting prices on the upcoming consoles. So until how long?

 

[Buggy Loop]

I seriously think we should be having this conversation. People seem so ready to define the business scope of each maker and willing to assign what is and isn't acceptable. Till now it's all been arbritatry with approximations of how their business functions and if they're allowed to charge a rate. A hardware sale is not the be all of a relationship between customer and business. People need to look at the whole process holistically and come to terms with the tail end of operating a long lasting, trustworthy business.



Each generation seems to edge forward into this - if the rumors are to be believed, we'll be seeing new record setting prices on the upcoming consoles. So until how long?

Click to shrink...

Honestly, it's very complicated to evaluate.
In the end, is it not the publishers that decide if it is acceptable or not? If it's too high, nobody will publish on the platform. If you don't agree with the platform's fee, then don't publish.

Epic has every rights to think it's too high. Apple also has every rights to show them the door if Epic is not happy. This is capitalism 101.

As for the cost of hardware. iPhone prices have doubled in 13 years since the original model. Consoles costing 559~599$ would be almost a flat line comparatively if we consider inflation. https://www.inflationstation.net

 

[Entryhazard]

Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo sell the console at crazy low prices, for sure they take a hit on losses initially, maybe a bit less Nintendo as they kind of did their thing for 2 generations of not being cutting edge.. but the point remains, they expect that a gamer buys a console to play games. They make money on games being sold. Maybe after 2~3 years when yields get better and tech advances that they'll profit on console sales, but by that point R&D is already bleeding money for the next gen.

Click to shrink...

Actually Nintendo always made a point to not sell consoles at a loss, except maybe with the Wii U and the 3DS after the initial cut
It's true however that Microsoft and then Sony made heavy use of loss leaders

 

[spineduke]

Honestly, it's very complicated to evaluate.
In the end, is it not the publishers that decide if it is acceptable or not? If it's too high, nobody will publish on the platform. If you don't agree with the platform's fee, then don't publish.

Epic has every rights to think it's too high. Apple also has every rights to show them the door if Epic is not happy. This is capitalism 101.

As for the cost of hardware. iPhone prices have doubled in 13 years since the original model. Consoles costing 559~599$ would be almost a flat line comparatively if we consider inflation. https://www.inflationstation.net

Click to shrink...

If consoles sold at the rate that phones did, I'm not sure they'd be willing to lose so much per sale. Selling at a loss will work within certain bounds, but in the end its a business decision - if Apple sold closer to at cost, would developers feel less robbed with the 30% fee? You're still being denied the same money per sale. I don't think what differentiates a devs antagonism towards the 30% between Sony and Apple has anything to do with the cost of the hardware - and everything to do with the service and support they receive.

 

[koiwai]

sweeney seems utterly inept but i don't understand why people should cheerlead for the largest company on the planet - if epic somehow manage to break up apple's monopoly that's cool, even if these emails show they probably won't be able to

 

[DominicanPower]

I have no love for neither of them. They're all part of the problem.

 

[Unkindled]

Lmao Apple burried Epic with Tim Sweeney's tweets.

 

[NookSports]

Highest market share for desktop usage: Windows with 77.04%
Highest market share for server usage: Linux with 96.3%
Highest market share for mobile usage: Linux 75.16%

All devices combined with their market shares: Linux 39%, Windows 36%, iOS 14%.

I'm kinda curious where you get your "literally 96% of the market" number from.

Click to shrink...

Multiple places but here's one example:

"PC sales shot up, and Macintosh sales slumped. By 1998, PCs were closing in on sales rates of 100 million units per year, while Macintosh sales fell from 4.5 million in 1995 to just 2.7 million in 1998"

I'm sure you can expand or contract the market by defining it differently, but at least what I said is true of PCs that families bought and took home.

 

[EloKa]

"PC sales shot up, and Macintosh sales slumped. By 1998, PCs were closing in on sales rates of 100 million units per year, while Macintosh sales fell from 4.5 million in 1995 to just 2.7 million in 1998"

Click to shrink...

You are comparing PC to Macintosh sales and not the operating systems. You can't conclude that every single sold PC in the 90s was running on Windows.

 

[Keio]

Why are the cuts obnoxious? If 30% is too high, what is the alternative, and what would you base the new number on?

Also earlier you mentioned that this is a consumer rights issue. Can you touch on that some more?

Click to shrink...

As Apple has a monopoly on app distribution on iDevices, I could understand a premium on the initial access to marketplace, but setting a 30% on additional content e.g. newspaper editions, movie streams, other in-app content etc. is just abusing a market position.

Epic runs a game marketplace at cost with a 12% revenue cut, payment platforms charge around 2,5% - that sets expectations a lot lower than Apple/Google app stores.

As a consumer, the margins made on content by Apple/Google are money that could either be passed to us as savings (since content providers are a multitude competing, whereas Apple/Google are a duopoly at best) or invested to content creation. Also, it's uncomfortable for consumers to have two platforms policing what content is accepted, the platform holders already have a nasty history of censoring "controversial" content.

 

[Plywood]

Tim Apple's power level is too strong for Tim Epic, all he can do is throw softballs with Fortnite updates with his devs being forced to crunch more w/o proper compensation.

 

[Lobster Roll]

As Apple has a monopoly on app distribution on iDevices, I could understand a premium on the initial access to marketplace, but setting a 30% on additional content e.g. newspaper editions, movie streams, other in-app content etc. is just abusing a market position.

Click to shrink...

You can't have a monopoly if it's your marketplace on your devices. There are alternatives for people to develop apps for, and if they want to have their apps on a store that has a reach to billions of consumers, they have to sign an agreement to have access that kind of reach, infrastructure, security, and network availability. By definition, Apple does not have a monopoly, especially not in the way that you've worded it.

Epic runs a game marketplace at cost with a 12% revenue cut, payment platforms charge around 2,5% - that sets expectations a lot lower than Apple/Google app stores.

Click to shrink...

Epic's game marketplace is also completely devoid of features, is nothing more than a lemonade stand, and is a storefront that I frankly don't feel comfortable putting my credit card information into. The amount of overhead that goes into operating something like Apple's store or Steam is exponentially more expensive to maintain and requires far more bandwidth as well. EGS is essentially a stapled-together storefront that is so featureless that it doesn't even have a shopping cart. Tim Sweeney himself has in the past eluded to the fact that the 12/88 split is not sustainable, and that's with them running an absolutely barebones operation.

As a consumer, the margins made on content by Apple/Google are money that could either be passed to us as savings (since content providers are a multitude competing, whereas Apple/Google are a duopoly at best) or invested to content creation. Also, it's uncomfortable for consumers to have two platforms policing what content is accepted, the platform holders already have a nasty history of censoring "controversial" content.

Click to shrink...

Trickle down economics is a really dumb take.

 

[kiaaa]

Can any of you "for the sake of consumers" people explain what you mean? A lower cut is good for devs, but I can't think of any reason this would benefit consumers. Games aren't any cheaper on EGS.

 

[Dalek]

Can any of you "for the sake of consumers" people explain what you mean? A lower cut is good for devs, but I can't think of any reason this would benefit consumers. Games aren't any cheaper on EGS.

Click to shrink...

Reminds me of the cost of digital comics/movies. They aren't any cheaper than physical media-so there was no cost benefit passed down to me, the consumer.

 

[Alvis]

Can any of you "for the sake of consumers" people explain what you mean? A lower cut is good for devs, but I can't think of any reason this would benefit consumers. Games aren't any cheaper on EGS.

Click to shrink...

There is none. There is absolutely no reason to prefer EGS over Steam as consumer, ever, except if you live in one of the few regions in where regional pricing is better on EGS for now.

 

[MrNelson]

As a consumer, the margins made on content by Apple/Google are money that could either be passed to us as savings (since content providers are a multitude competing, whereas Apple/Google are a duopoly at best) or invested to content creation.

Click to shrink...

So we about trickle-down economics now?

Also, it's uncomfortable for consumers to have two platforms policing what content is accepted, the platform holders already have a nasty history of censoring "controversial" content.

Click to shrink...

You mean like how Epic picks and chooses what goes into their store right now, rather than allowing anyone to publish stuff there?

 

[Keio]

The "trickle-down economics" straw man is too weak, please come up with something better.

Right now creating monetized content for either of the bigger players means playing with a monopolist, and there's no way around it - whether you are a major media company, games publisher, streaming platform or whatever. When a third of your revenue goes instantly down the throat of A/G, and usually then you keep paying for cloud processing/storage to the next guy, it's no wonder the record profits keep piling up at the techies doorstep.

Demanding a change to that isn't a naive belief that somehow we as consumers magically benefit, but it does open a possibility for healthier business models.

To add, I have no insight on whether Epic censors content on its marketplace and consider most of the content filtering policies problematic, but that's a further debate.

 

[NookSports]

You are comparing PC to Macintosh sales and not the operating systems. You can't conclude that every single sold PC in the 90s was running on Windows.

Click to shrink...

PCs were synonymous with windows PCs in the 90s.
Here's another that shows windows with 90% market share as late as 2013, and their height was in the 90s. Please continue nitpicking, but the claim that the iPhone is in any market share position similar to Microsoft with Windows is asinine.

 

[MrNelson]

The "trickle-down economics" straw man is too weak, please come up with something better.

Right now creating monetized content for either of the bigger players means playing with a monopolist, and there's no way around it - whether you are a major media company, games publisher, streaming platform or whatever. When a third of your revenue goes instantly down the throat of A/G, and usually then you keep paying for cloud processing/storage to the next guy, it's no wonder the record profits keep piling up at the techies doorstep.

Demanding a change to that isn't a naive belief that somehow we as consumers magically benefit, but it does open a possibility for healthier business models.

To add, I have no insight on whether Epic censors content on its marketplace and consider most of the content filtering policies problematic, but that's a further debate.

Click to shrink...

How is it "too weak"?

You're basically running this idea on nothing but blind hope that somehow the savings will be passed down to the consumer, or that the people doing the work will somehow benefit, and just trying to ignore how this song and dance has gone on for decades.

What makes you think it will be different this time?

 

[Keio]

How is it "too weak"?

You're basically running this idea on nothing but blind hope that somehow the savings will be passed down to the consumer, or that the people doing the work will somehow benefit, and just trying to ignore how this song and dance has gone on for decades.

What makes you think it will be different this time?

Click to shrink...

Usually "trickle down" is marched out to justify tax relief for billionaires, instead of cutting out middle-man fees. That doesn't work.

But when a value chain has a component that can't be negotiated controlled by two corporations, and an ecosystem in fear of retaliation as individual companies have been stifled whenever they try to challenge the App Store content tax - believing that if that revenue cut is reduced the benefits will go to fostering competition in content (not just Apple and Google benefit but a wide variety of content producers) or passed to consumers in cost (as it's the easiest way to compete for consumer attention).

All in all, private revenue cuts in business are not the same as national taxation, the same as national debt isn't the same as household debt.

 

[Armaros]

Usually "trickle down" is marched out to justify tax relief for billionaires, instead of cutting out middle-man fees. That doesn't work.

But when a value chain has a component that can't be negotiated controlled by two corporations, and an ecosystem in fear of retaliation as individual companies have been stifled whenever they try to challenge the App Store content tax - believing that if that revenue cut is reduced the benefits will go to fostering competition in content (not just Apple and Google benefit but a wide variety of content producers) or passed to consumers in cost (as it's the easiest way to compete for consumer attention).

All in all, private revenue cuts in business are not the same as national taxation, the same as national debt isn't the same as household debt.

Click to shrink...

We have already seen that Epic does not lower prices for a lower cut,

 

[Alec]

I wonder what their sales have been like. Existing players can continue to pay and make purchases, so that would be very interesting data.

I wonder if they will hire jailbreakers?

 

[Lobster Roll]

The "trickle-down economics" straw man is too weak, please come up with something better.

Right now creating monetized content for either of the bigger players means playing with a monopolist, and there's no way around it - whether you are a major media company, games publisher, streaming platform or whatever. When a third of your revenue goes instantly down the throat of A/G, and usually then you keep paying for cloud processing/storage to the next guy, it's no wonder the record profits keep piling up at the techies doorstep.

Demanding a change to that isn't a naive belief that somehow we as consumers magically benefit, but it does open a possibility for healthier business models.

To add, I have no insight on whether Epic censors content on its marketplace and consider most of the content filtering policies problematic, but that's a further debate.

Click to shrink...

It's really funny to see you reply to nobody in particular, claim that people are using straw man arguments, and then to continue to argue to nobody in particular (i.e. a straw man argument).

 

[bawjaws]

You are comparing PC to Macintosh sales and not the operating systems. You can't conclude that every single sold PC in the 90s was running on Windows.

Click to shrink...

In 1998, "PC" was pretty much a synonym for "Windows PC".

 

[Keio]

It's really funny to see you reply to nobody in particular, claim that people are using straw man arguments, and then to continue to argue to nobody in particular (i.e. a straw man argument).

Click to shrink...

I have a different view of what constitutes a straw man, but please proceed.

re: Epic not dictating pricing on their platform with a lower cut, there is also the element of some dominant platforms possibly demanding pricing parity, such as Booking.com not allowing lower prices on other accommodation aggregators. Again a function of the market not performing due to lack of ground rules.

 

[Lobster Roll]

please proceed.

Click to shrink...

You can't have a monopoly if it's your marketplace on your devices. There are alternatives for people to develop apps for, and if they want to have their apps on a store that has a reach to billions of consumers, they have to sign an agreement to have access that kind of reach, infrastructure, security, and network availability. By definition, Apple does not have a monopoly, especially not in the way that you've worded it.

Epic's game marketplace is also completely devoid of features, is nothing more than a lemonade stand, and is a storefront that I frankly don't feel comfortable putting my credit card information into. The amount of overhead that goes into operating something like Apple's store or Steam is exponentially more expensive to maintain and requires far more bandwidth as well. EGS is essentially a stapled-together storefront that is so featureless that it doesn't even have a shopping cart. Tim Sweeney himself has in the past eluded to the fact that the 12/88 split is not sustainable, and that's with them running an absolutely barebones operation.

Trickle down economics is a really dumb take.

Click to shrink...

Still waiting on you.

 

[Keio]

Still waiting on you.

Click to shrink...

If you are unable to recognize a monopoly situation (or an equivalent duopoly) there is nothing to discuss here. Let's agree to disagree.

 

[Lobster Roll]

If you are unable to recognize a monopoly situation (or an equivalent duopoly) there is nothing to discuss here. Let's agree to disagree.

Click to shrink...

"Let's agree to disagree", a classic. Fine. I'll let you off the hook.

 

[boi]

Goddamn this email from Sweeney to Apple:

Hi Tim, Phil, Craig, Matt, Douglas,

It's a sad state of affairs that Apple's senior executives would hand Epic's sincere request off to Apple's legal team to respond with such a self-righteous and self-serving screed -- only lawyers could pretend that Apple is protecting consumers by denying choice in payments and stores to owners of iOS devices. However, I do thank you for the prompt response and clear answer to my two specific requests.

If Apple someday chooses to return to its roots building open platforms in which consumers have freedom to install software from sources of their choosing, and developers can reach consumers and do business directly without intermediation, then Epic will once again be an ardent supporter of Apple. Until then, Epic is in a state of substantial disagreement with Apple's policy and practices, and we will continue to pursue this, as we have done in the past to address other injustices in our industry.

Tim Sweeney

Click to shrink...

At a certain point, Apple just started responsing wirh lawyers.

 

[julian]

I'm still waiting for somebody, anybody, to defend Epic asking the court to force Apple to let Fortnite onto the iPhone right now with the ability to circumvent Apple getting a cut. That's not even getting into the even crazier things they are asking like Apple not being able to take the app down under any circumstances no matter what updates they apply while this litigation is ongoing.
Epic is making absolutely insane requests and people defending them are clearly just cheering on anybody taking on Apple while ignoring what Epic is actually asking for.

 

[Deleted member 442]

Seems like a swing and a miss for Tim Sweeney.

Fair enough on him trying to drive a wedge on the rates issue between Apple and fans of Fortnite, but he seems to have drastically miscalculated in his approach up to now.

Little about his approach has come across as particularly effective and I figure his investors at Tencent will feel like he misplayed what could have been an effective push on this.

 

[spineduke]

Usually "trickle down" is marched out to justify tax relief for billionaires, instead of cutting out middle-man fees. That doesn't work.

But when a value chain has a component that can't be negotiated controlled by two corporations, and an ecosystem in fear of retaliation as individual companies have been stifled whenever they try to challenge the App Store content tax - believing that if that revenue cut is reduced the benefits will go to fostering competition in content (not just Apple and Google benefit but a wide variety of content producers) or passed to consumers in cost (as it's the easiest way to compete for consumer attention).

All in all, private revenue cuts in business are not the same as national taxation, the same as national debt isn't the same as household debt.

Click to shrink...

the lower rate for devs will be used to minimize risk, not give back to the players. game dev is risky enough as it is. nobody is passing the cuts down to the customer, save for one example (Metro Exodus devs who reduced their game by $5 in the US region only). Increasing scope is also wishful thinking. the term trickle down is obvious in its context here - a reduced tax (as Sweeney likes to call it) for a publisher that would lead to a direct financial benefit to the customers.

 

[bawjaws]

I'm still waiting for somebody, anybody, to defend Epic asking the court to force Apple to let Fortnite onto the iPhone right now with the ability to circumvent Apple getting a cut. That's not even getting into the even crazier things they are asking like Apple not being able to take the app down under any circumstances no matter what updates they apply while this litigation is ongoing.
Epic is making absolutely insane requests and people defending them are clearly just cheering on anybody taking on Apple while ignoring what Epic is actually asking for.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, in what reality did Epic think that Apple would acquiesce to any of these requests? Or maybe they knew that they wouldn't?

 

[Armaros]

Goddamn this email from Sweeney to Apple:



At a certain point, Apple just started responsing wirh lawyers.

Click to shrink...

'I can't beleive Apple passed serious legal matters to their legal team' -Sweeney

Also a billionare CEO using lawyer stereotypes in an official letter of negotiation regarding a legal conflict

 

[Bruceleeroy]

Dennis Dyack must be laughing while destroying the last copies of Too Human.

Click to shrink...

Lol okay this got me

 

[Weltall Zero]

I think the industry standard of 30% is too high across the board but then I see disingenuous takes on this board that state Apple deserves 0% while Sony, Microsoft, Google, Nintendo and Epic absolutely deserve 30%. Either it's applicable to everyone or it's not. Otherwise these people are just transparent.

Click to shrink...

Exactly this. To be fair, Epic does charge 12% rather than 30%, but I'd love to see if they would still do this if they were the dominant marketplace on PC (or any other platform).

 

[Darknight]

Can any of you "for the sake of consumers" people explain what you mean? A lower cut is good for devs, but I can't think of any reason this would benefit consumers. Games aren't any cheaper on EGS.

Click to shrink...

At the bare minimum the user experience would be better. Apple charges 30% across all digital goods whether it be a monthly membership, a movie, a book, a comic book, etc. As a result you have to jump through hoops in order to get content because of how much that 30% cut impacts the sale which in turn makes it so businesses do not offer the ability to purchase that content in the app.

Go check out the Vudu or Comixology app. All you can do is view your current content. If you want to buy or add new content, you can't in the app and you have to jump through hoops which makes it a worse consumer experience. This isn't true on other platforms like Android, Xbox One, etc where you're allowed to buy the content within the app.

This implies that the 30% cut that people are saying standard isn't actually standard with what it applies to because why else would these various online services and digital retailers be offering the content to be purchased on other platforms but not Apple if the 30% cut was the same on all platforms? I don't believe this is true when you're buying digital content like that. As far as I'm aware, you can also sign up for monthly video services within the app on Xbox One and PS4 without Microsoft or Sony taking a 30% cut too.

So the consumer would benefit from a better and easier user experience at the bare minimum.

 

[Dalek]

At the bare minimum the user experience would be better. Apple charges 30% across all digital goods whether it be a monthly membership, a movie, a book, a comic book, etc. As a result you have to jump through hoops in order to get content because of how much that 30% cut impacts the sale which in turn makes it so businesses do not offer the ability to purchase that content in the app.

Go check out the Vudu or Comixology app. All you can do is view your current content. If you want to buy or add new content, you can't in the app and you have to jump through hoops which makes it a worse consumer experience. This isn't true on other platforms like Android, Xbox One, etc where you're allowed to buy the content within the app.

This implies that the 30% cut that people are saying standard isn't actually standard with what it applies to because why else would these various online services and digital retailers be offering the content to be purchased on other platforms but not Apple if the 30% cut was the same on all platforms? I don't believe this is true when you're buying digital content like that. As far as I'm aware, you can also sign up for monthly video services within the app on Xbox One and PS4 without Microsoft or Sony taking a 30% cut too.

So the consumer would benefit from a better and easier user experience at the bare minimum.

Click to shrink...

Man do I hate this. I want to be able to just use the ComiXology, Audible and Kindle apps to browse and purchase content. I hate having to go to Safari to do so.

 

[Darknight]

Man do I hate this. I want to be able to just use the ComiXology, Audible and Kindle apps to browse and purchase content. I hate having to go to Safari to do so.

Click to shrink...

Yep! If someone could get Apple to budge on this aspect, the whole user experience would be so much better for consumers.

 

[Armaros]

Yep! If someone could get Apple to budge on this aspect, the whole user experience would be so much better for consumers.

Click to shrink...

Im sure this forum would support games that deliberately bypass being able to buy things through MS, Sony and nintendo in the same fashion? Because those three do the exact same thing as Apple here, requring that MTX purchases on their plateform go through the three companies.

 

[spineduke]

Im sure this forum would support games that deliberately bypass being able to buy things through MS, Sony and nintendo in the same fashion? Because those three do the exact same thing as Apple here, requring that MTX purchases on their plateform go through the three companies.

Click to shrink...

Crossbuy is the future, lets get Steam/EGS on the PS5/SeriesX

 

[Darknight]

Im sure this forum would support games that deliberately bypass being able to buy things through MS, Sony and nintendo in the same fashion? Because those three do the exact same thing as Apple here, requring that MTX purchases on their plateform go through the three companies.

Click to shrink...

It can't be the same because you can sign up for monthly services like HBO Max, Hulu, etc on a Xbox One, PlayStation 4 or Nintendo Switch but you can't on an Apple device. You can buy or rent movies in Vudu on a Xbox One, PlayStation 4, or Android device but you can't an Apple device. You can buy comics in Comixology on an Android device but you can't on an Apple device. Why is that? It's because Apple is taking a 30% cut in those cases, but it doesn't seem to be with Google, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo under those specific conditions. That's where Apple is different than everyone else.

 

[Armaros]

It can't be the same because you can sign up for monthly services like HBO Max, Hulu, etc on a Xbox One, PlayStation 4 or Nintendo Switch but you can't on an Apple device. You can buy or rent movies in Vudu on a Xbox One, PlayStation 4, or Android device but you can't an Apple device. You can buy comics in Comixology on an Android device but you can't on an Apple device. Why is that? It's because Apple is taking a 30% cut in those cases, but it doesn't seem to be with Google, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo under those specific conditions. That's where Apple is different than everyone else.

Click to shrink...

And you are sure that no one pays for that?

 

[Darknight]

And you are sure that no one pays for that?

Click to shrink...

Okay, you explain why it's allowed on other devices but not Apple then? Apple is most certainly doing something different than everyone else.

 

[StallionDan]

Can't copy/paste, but the Apple riposte at the end of page 10 is glorious.

Click to shrink...

Eh, it really not comparable as Epic isn't forcing anyone to use their services. Apple is.