Yeah but it does have ramifications over “Content Owner” versus “Conduit Owner”.
So while maybe we don’t agree with how either party has acted… honestly I can see an argument in either case.
It’s going to be interesting because it kind of decides key rules in the e-commerce space.
If you go to a mall and into a store, the Mall does not collect necessarily against the purchase you made. Instead they charge rent to a store owner.
However, in the current electronic landscape, every software application charges a kind of “processing fee”. This was also an issue in the Philippines some months back when the e-commerce partner of the national electric company was charging a “transaction fee” for monthly bill payments. The Coronavirus lockdown meant everybody was now doing this online instead of over the counter. The electric company had the same argument that Apple does today: “They are charging because they render a transaction service.”
They lost that case a few weeks ago and are now doing a lot of refunds.
So we have to watch that space.
This has impact everywhere. If you’re a webcomic creator for example, it may make it one day illegal for the site that hosts your comic to charge on top of your selling price unless you consent to it. Currently it’s more “That’s the rules, take it or leave it.”
P.S.: I dodged the entire Transaction Fee fiasco because I paid it through my bank… where the Transaction Fee does NOT happen… so in a way I have done what Epic Games was encouraging people to do…
P.P.S.: There is a dark side btw to what Epic Games wants… if you cut off the Conduit Owner from your Content revenue stream, much like the criticism of some Shopping Mall mavens… As Content owner you lose a financial detriment that would have discouraged the Conduit Owner from competing against you. They would be less inclined to fight you if they were already sharing in your revenue… This is already an issue in some brick and mortar environments.