Game over for Google: Fortnite snubs Play Store, keeps its 30%, sparks security fears The maker of super-hit Fortnite has snubbed Google by deciding to release the Android version of the video game through its own website rather than the Google Play app store. The decision is unusual for an app running on a mobile operating system and raises all sorts of questions, not least of which are whether Google's profit …
Will I be able to sue Epic if I get malware because they made me disable my device security???
If epic told me not to wear seatbelts in my car and I got badly injured as a result of that, they surely would be liable.
Waiting in anticipation for the class action lawsuit when a thousand fake fortnight malware APKs are loaded up onto fake websites offering free versions of the game.
It's pretty disgusting that Epic has put the dollar above device security, they clearly don't give a crap about their users.
I really hope the lawsuits cost them many more times that 30% cut...
"Not really the same though is it. One is a DIRECT result, the other is totally unrelated"
The only way you can get to the dentist is by travelling outside temporarily, where there is a risk of an accident.
The only way to install this software is by accepting third-party sources temporarily, where there is a risk of malware.
I don't know where you are, but I'm in the US. Here you can sure anybody for anything.
But the first question is going to be: in what way did Epic _force_ you to install the game?
Look over this way. See this? This is me not installing Fortnite.
If I can do it, you can do it. Be brave!
Same with Steam I think. With the same kind of cut. You can bypass Steam for payment tho.
Actually, if you're outside of the Google Play payment apparatus, doesn't that mean you're independently juggling credit card details? For kids?...
I think there may be several more cans of worms in this smashable lootcrate...
Apple have a rule that stops you having any kind of in-app purchase mechanism that isn't apple (it's the reason amazon couldn't offer kindle books through the kindle app for a while) - although out-of-app purchases are of course completely fine as apps supporting many commercial services couldn't exist otherwise. Google don't seem to have an equivalent rule.
I can only assume fortnite on android will not be free.
Forgive my ignorance, but if the game is free-to-play, what difference does it make if Google take 30% from nothing?
Or...do Google also get a cut of all in-game purchases? If so, why does THAT have to go through the Google Payment system?
Google gets a cut of all purchases using Google Play Store api, including app purchase, in-game purchase and subscription. To enforce this google policy, google removes / rejects all Google Player Store apps that do not use their api for in-game purchase.
Depending on how things work on Android, Epic may well moot leaving ITunes or even launching a legal challenge or most likely: renegotiate rates with Apple and Google.
Given that Google is already the subject of anti-trust action, it's unlikely to do something as demonstratively anti-competitive as restricting side-loading.
I think that would come with legal risks: Android has a monopolistic position in many markets. Apple somehow got around this by reducing their market share to the lower double digits before thw regulators could catch up, but Google surely would be hit with the force of the law (and their near monopoly already makes them a punching bag in the EU).
"then Epic should pull Fortnite from iTunes. Otherwise, the only lesson to be learned by Google is that they need to shut down the side load avenue too."
As others said before, but I can repeat it: Apple gets a percentage of the sale price, which is zero, so Apple gets 30% of nothing to host the app on their servers, to review it so there's nothing dogy going on, and to display it in their app store app. (And to Apple having lots of apps making users buy lots of iPhones is more important than getting money from app sales).
Apple also gets a percentage of any in-app sale (30%, 15% for subscriptions). But you don't have to use in-app sales; you can do all sales through your web site. You can also do both at the same time, so if you have a $10 item to sell, you get $7 from every in-app purchase, and $10 from every purchase through your website. The only thing you cannot do is advertise your website sales in the app.
One argument of the company is incorrect: "Development etc. costs 70% of the sale price". No, development costs a fixed amount of money, which you would subtract from whatever money comes in. So the question to decide is not the amount of development cost, it is whether 70% of sales made through Apple is more than 100% made from sales through your website minus cost of running the website, or not. Your development cost doesn't matter for that decision.
And to Apple having lots of apps making users buy lots of iPhones is more important than getting money from app sales
The results from the most recent quarter would suggest otherwise: Apple is still selling lots of phones but app sales and other intangibles are becoming more important.
I'd think that retail store costs are much higher so 30% markup would be quite justified (though unlikely for all merchandise sold). I'm not quite sure that Google deserved the same cut but at least they develop Android and distribute platform for free (sure, they also skim user data). Apple simply does not deserve 30% as users of their toys already paid premium that covers all development cost and maintenance of the marketplace.
30% is pretty cheap compared with a typical retail distribution channel.
Not sure why you got downvoted for this. Presumably because people don't know how things actually work.
Back in the day, the breakdown of the costs for games was something like this:
Shop: 45% - Including VAT, etc.
Distributor: 15%.
Publisher: 30%.
Developer: Whatever scraps they could negotiate after the publisher's up front costs were recouped - typically 8-10%.
Because you have no clue about the real cost for a company directly selling software as electronic downloads. You can't compare with physically packaged games sold in a store - where you have packaging cost, transport costs, store and shelf space costs, unsold items costs, etc. etc. - where the revenues are also shared across a large number of shops.
A file stored on web server and the bandwidth to download it are much, much cheaper, and even electronic payment and their management don't cost you 30% of the item costs. Don't compare apples and oranges...
Because you have no clue about the real cost for a company directly selling software as electronic downloads. You can't compare with physically packaged games sold in a store - where you have packaging cost, transport costs, store and shelf space costs, unsold items costs, etc. etc. - where the revenues are also shared across a large number of shops.
I have a very real clue about the cost of selling software both physically and electronically, which is why I wondered why the comment 30% is pretty cheap compared with a typical retail distribution channel. was down voted. Because as far as I can tell it's a pretty accurate assessment of how the real world works. (Which I then explained further with an example of how things used to be for games developers.)
The point I was originally making was that from the point of view of a game developer, a 70% cut was a huge step up from the peanuts they were being given before. The fact that Apple is still taking 30% today is because nobody can dictate any terms to them - you publish in their store, or you don't publish on iOS. At the end of the day, there's a reason Apple are making so much money from such a small market share.
To be fair, IIRC back in Nokia store days, a 30% cut would have been a big improvement - it was more like 40-50%.
I get Epic’s motivation but the security effects might indeed end up painful for users.
Then, again, that last may not be entirely to Google’s disadvantage. Better that than caving to <30%, for them.
Interesting play against the app store semi-monopolies. Popcorn.
This means that profits from successful and established developers keep the store open for small developers. If successful apps get a discount (and newcomers pay high fees), this creates a competitive disadvantage for newcomers.
However, looking at the bottom line of Google, they should significantly reduce their take. There should be room for competitor stores (Apple store on Android?), who offer vetted apps and build a reputation for easily found quality apps.
This post has been deleted by its author
“Mostly safe Google Play store”
Haha, yeah good one
Honestly, most software houses can’t get their shit together and will happily release insecure code, willingly too!
Your best bet to staying safe is just dont install anything on anything
Whether it’s Google, Apple or Microsoft, they’re all equally shit
History has spoken, many many times, and it will continue to do so
Define "safe." Don't immediately kill you, sure. Search for any popular title in Google Play Store and note how many impostor apps there are. Even if you find the right one, it's likely a gateway for advertising malware. I've seen ads pretend to be a homescreen. I've seen spearphishing ads simulating a specific application's upgrade screens so that it can trick you into downloading an impostor app. There are apps full of 1-star reviews saying it's malware yet Google says it's OK.
No security is lost without Play Store. If anything, people will have an easier time identifying fake apps without it.
Utter horseshit, apps simply don't have permission to do the things you mentioned, not since about 2014 and android 4.
It sounds like yet more fake news where very old devices are given very specific problem apps and them a whole clickbait non story is written about it and then sold to desperate news sites.
Can't you get a real job?
"Utter horseshit, apps simply don't have permission to do the things you mentioned, not since about 2014 and android 4."
I know quite a few people that own older, outdated Androids myself included.
Some people can't afford to purchase a new phone every year and most people I talk to don't realize that their Android phones will not receive any updates unless they connect to WIFI.
There was even a rumour that the current US President was using an older device not too long ago.
There are also vendor modified Androids like the one I own that will modify the system apps to start pushing ads if you install the latest firmware by the manufacturer so many have opted out of updating their devices.
Another interesting thing I've seen is factory installed apps on vendor modified Androids that could be updated independtly from the Play Store.
I believe this is because they were not official Play Store apps.
The Facebook app on phones that were part of the "Facebook experience" may be one of them.
Please tell us. You know, dish the dirt. Who? What? When? and especially how much...
I'm sure that this site (and many others) would just love to put a few really big knives into Apple and make them squirm.
Yes, I have an iPhone but I've not paid Apple even a bent penny for the apps I use unless, my bank pays Apple for each transaction I make using the banking App.
Now that would be a big, big story.
You need to read the article again. It says that Apple ‘perfected’ the absolute walled garden approach (in that unless you jailbreak, it’s impossible to circumvent); not that it’s a ‘perfect’ model; and it’s not passing judgement on one or the other. Where did you read Apple good, Google evil?
"Why is that virtually unearned 30% not evil no matter who does it?"
I believe that what the competition authorities would be concerned about is that Google has 85% of the mobile phone market and is therefore in a "market dominant position". Though I admit that as an ordinary punter the sight of unrestrained greed is not a pretty one regardless of who we are talking about.
And I am hoping the message back to Google is that they need to negotiate their Playstore take with developers like Epic that can bring millions of customers and have strong brand equity outside of the Google Playstore.
However, I fear the message that Google will hear is that they need to build some serious walsl around their garden, and maybe cyanide the gophers, moles and bunny rabbits that are cavorting inside.
"However, I fear the message that Google will hear is that they need to build some serious walsl around their garden, and maybe cyanide the gophers, moles and bunny rabbits that are cavorting inside."
Unless they fancy a(nother) massive fine from the EU, they probably shouldn't.
If Google do that the EU will cheerfully smash them over the head and collect several billion more.
If people start leaving Google's play store, the EU won't be able to fine Google anymore for leveraging the only game in town.
Maybe EA should port Origin to Android?
"Why can'take Google counter with Apple's walled garden: contending that Apple keeps its own ecosystem with it as sole proprietor?"
Because in the EU/EEA, Apple is a minor bit player in terms of numbers and customers. They aren't even close to being a monopoly.
"Because in the EU/EEA, Apple is a minor bit player in terms of numbers and customers. They aren't even close to being a monopoly."
There are other points. One is that you could argue that Apple has some rights to do things with Apple phones, and Google would have the same rights with Google phones, but they try to extend this to Samsung, Huawei, Sony, and plenty other phones. So that is a different situation right there.
The other thing that this is all about consumer rights. So both for Apple and Google, you'd need to argue how a consumer is damaged, not a games manufacturer.
It's no surprise that larger companies selling more expensive software, and which already have the infrastructure to sell and distribute their software, won't pay the 30% fee as long as they can - it's only OK for smaller developers selling cheap apps who have not the resources.
That's one reason, for example, why repackaging applications for the Windows Store will fail - why should you give others a so large cut of your revenues, when you don't need their services?
They will found other ways, like installing "free apps" that do nothing and get enabled if you pay a subscription outside the store mechanism.
While store might increase security a little - but we've seen lot of bad apps getting into anyway, they can't peruse each line of code - they're also a big anti-competition system. I would prefer vetted development company and signed applications, so bad ones can be stopped expiring the signatures.
And I am hoping the message back to Google is that they need to negotiate their Playstore take with developers like Epic that can bring millions of customers and have strong brand equity outside of the Google Playstore.
"You need us more than we need you" has worked out well enough for Amazon's dealings with HMRC.
Not working out quite so well for brexit though.
Yes you can.
Epic states their reason as '30% is too damn high'.
Yet they until recently also charged 30%.
They talked about reducing it to 12% four years ago.
Fortnite comes along, $100m + potential.
Change their percentage to 12%.
Cry google charges too much @ 30% and *that's* why they aren't going via play store. yeah right.
Teehe .. they now keep 100% and don't have to give google $30m +
Epic Douche.
AS people have pointed out 30% doesn't seem that high compared to legacy distributor cuts. In line with Apple's 30% for example.
The last thing you want is trusting kids with download apks. it's going to be a disaster and could very will punch Epic back in the face.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
