What is Epic vs Apple about really?
Epic vs Apple. It has been the talk of the town for quite a while. Epic’s top brass made the decision to move away from Apple’s App Store policies to fight what they felt was the right cause.
No wonder, numerous groups of people have jumped into the fray. Apple is just that kind of company. Loyalists took up arms to defend Apple. Detesters went on the offensive. Experts had a great payday talking about the legality, ethics and even the now common anti-competitive narrative.
Even other companies, rivals and feudists sought to grab this opportunity to bust open the closed-system nature of iOS and its variants. As the case hangs right now, Epic positions itself as the defender and reform seeker for freedom and choice while Apple asserts itself as a user-focused security, privacy and curated gate-keeper.
And both have gone long ways in trying to establish their respective causes, as the right ones. Epic’s ostentatiously public PR campaign of turning Apple’s much beloved 1984 campaign against the company was both a strategic and tactical masterpiece as it was a call to war, weaponizing public youth sentiment against Apple. Apple’s brilliant retaliation with account termination and denying access to their tools could have potentially ruined Epic if the restraint order hadn’t been secured.
Now, the case is finally being heard in court. The ways both companies try to delegitimize and construe the other’s points and facts just leave a bad taste in my mouth. This gets us back to why they are fighting in the first place.
Let us start with Epic.
Fortnite, being completely based on the impulsive purchases of skins and other FOMO goods, has exploded into the world stage. It is by far the most profitable game of that business model. Its rise to success can be attributed to Apple’s tight control over its ecosystem, its unique App Store model and its optimized algorithms that help advertise and push games forward.
However, all that comes at a cost; 30% of the sales of digital goods must proceed to Apple’s coffers. Epic considered that trade-off worth it initially. That has to be the assumption made as it was launched first on iOS where the lack of “choice” is far more apparent than on Android. (People argue that it was the profitability of the platform or the popularity of the platform in the US that influenced the choice, and they are true as well, but only in part. The iOS ecosystem is more controlled and consistent, with design refreshes happening every 4 years while launching 3 to 5 phones a year. Optimizing for iOS is frankly much easier when compared to Android.)
Once Epic’s revenues reached heights unprecedented before, the 30% cut no longer seemed appealing to them. Their brand had been established and was recognizable to whoever was interested in playing their game were already hooked. They no longer felt that a 30% cut was justified. Besides, 30% of 9 billion dollars is quite a lot of money.
And now for Apple.
Apple, on the other hand, strives to control and curate its users’ experiences. That has been and continues to be their business model since 1998, after the revamp Steve Jobs orchestrated. Any Apple customer knows that Apple’s products give them an easy-to-use, no hassle, already setup experience that they do not have much control over. If they do not like it, they have plenty of other brands to choose from to fulfil their requirements.
Controlling the narrative has provided Apple with much of the advantage. They have pushed to the farthest corners, the concept of an ecosystem and made digital an inseparable part of living. The unique experience, services and other Apple-centric focuses are the things that helped Apple gain its one billion-plus devices.
Among those key features is Apple’s App Store. A certified, secure, hassle-free software search and download portal that keeps Apple’s users satisfied, for the most part. This allows Apple, its enormous control over who gets into its closed and stringent ecosystem.
Apple has always made life hard for developers with constantly changing rules and increasingly vague reasons for certain actions. But, for the most part, it helped create a huge industry for mobile software unlike anything envisioned prior to the App Store’s launch. The very reason smartphones became as successful as they are today can be solely linked to the launch of the App Store. It built trust among the generally wary populace with digital spending and the internet on the whole.
So, Apple believes it can demand a 30% cut when it was responsible for Fortnite coming into prominence, gaining the trust of its users and finally helping it succeed with its incredible app delivery system and payments interface. That’s not including the huge amounts spent in R&D, running the App Store, reviewing and providing developers with the tools needed to develop for its ecosystem.
The real reason — Epic.
Epic doesn’t really care about freedom or choice or its users. For all we know, even if it manages to sideload its app, it may still keep its current rates and not send the savings towards its users. Sure. Perhaps a year or two of lower rates before it succeeds in raising back to original prices and then regain the 30% it used to send to Apple’s coffers.
No. Epic wants a PC-like gaming industry. Yes, it wants to replace steam. But the larger point being, they don’t want to be reviewed, curated or subjected to review by another authority. They also don’t want to shill out any more of its hard-earned loot to Apple. (I do not like games that make in-app purchases their business model. I believe their means of tricking youngsters into spending impulsively is a detriment to society at large and akin to hypnotic dacoity.)
Their secondary objective is widely known - they want to be the curator and central hub for other game developers.
Freedom and choice consequently align with their objectives, and thus they try to disguise their attempts in public trying to invoke the spirit of American Democracy.
The real reason — Apple.
Like I had written in an unrelated but similarly themed article, Apple’s only desire is to stay in control over their platform. By control, I mean total top-to-bottom control. From hardware to software and even accessories. That is nothing new.
Apple doesn’t really care about Epic’s stance on the 30%. Perhaps, like Amazon, Epic might have been able to threaten and negotiate Apple into a special deal if not for their stance on trying to bust up the closed system Apple has worked so hard to establish. Evidently, Apple’s move to reduce the cut to 15% for those who generate less than a 1M USD clearly demonstrates that. They just wish to retain control and sole authority. Any challenge to that and the fight turns ugly. (Seriously. Bananas, somehow proclaimed naked due to their apparent need for clothing, in Epic Game Store were used to discredit the store and play the sentiments of the judge!!! That’s ludicrous and yet oddly effective.)
Their secondary objective is to retain their best services revenue generator. It is clear that besides Apple Music, none of the services has been a smash hit. App Store is probably its best performer in the Services segment of the revenue. (Undoubtedly being the only way to get software on iPhones.)
To protect their interests, they thus hide themselves under a cloak of security, privacy and curation for the best “interests” of the population.
The Real Losers - Consumers.
At the end of the day, it is quite likely that this case will be ruled in Apple’s favour or end with a settlement agreement between the two companies. Just as it had with Apple v Samsung and Apple v Qualcomm. Two big dogs of the tech industry are fighting, and the real losers will be consumers.
Neither of the outcomes really benefit consumers. Even if by incredible luck, Epic wins the case (after violating probably dozens of legal contracts and partnership agreements with Apple), the consumers who chose Apple for its privacy-centric, secure, closed-system model will be chucked aside. If Apple wins, there will be no change to the obviously oppressive and monopolistic App Store policies that have been ruling the lives of developers and consumers on iOS and iPadOS.
Most likely, with a settlement being reached, the outcome cannot be determined for certain except for perhaps Epic’s permanent ouster from Apple platforms altogether making an already sparsely populated gaming area on Apple products, even more sparse.
Consumers are the worst affected and neither of the two vipers who wish to battle this cause out in court, care.
