Epic Battle Of The Platforms

Virtual combat has spilled into the boardroom as Fortnite has been kicked off the Apple App store for violating in-app payment guidelines. Fortnite is rallying its users to fight back against what it calls the “App Store Monopoly”. But it’s more complicated than just a popular video game standing up to an anti-competitive big bad brother. Platform ecosystems have complex forces at play that helps us understand this real life stand off.

Epic Games, who owns Fortnite, is suing Apple for kicking them out, and in a staged rebellion, have produced a brilliant parody remake of Apples’s own Superbowl ad in 1984. Ironically, 36 years ago, Apple were also “rebelling” against IBM’s dominance of the personal computer market and launching their new Macintosh as a challenger product. Now in 2020, Apple is no longer the protagonist but has replaced IBM as George Orwell’s 1984 dystopian villain, simply because they are enforcing pre-agreed platform rules. These standards embed trust and consistency in how the platform is used by everyone and also protect privacy, prevent age-restricted content etc. The #FreeFortnite dispute is a potential loss of trust and could be a significant imbalance in the Apple ecosystem.

Fortnite could argue they keep 350m totally gamified, highly engaged users on the Apple platform – ask any Fortnite parent about behaviour modification! An average Fortnite gamer clocks up to 10 hours per week, they spend / earns V-Bucks and gain social acceptance with battle victories called Royales. On the other hand, Apple have built a very intuitive platform which Fortnite takes full advantage of to give its players an immersive virtual battle experience. Apple famously digitised the keyboard into touch screens on the iPhone and then they did the same for gaming interfaces on the iPad. I still remember watching Steve Jobs play Need For Speed live on stage with an iPad. Its accelerometer-control feature and digital interaction changed the gamer’s interface forever.

A digital platform ecosystem like Apple has become very successful because it uses network effects to gain dominance. As more platform users join, so the compound benefit increases for everyone; this is perfect for multi-player war games like Fortnite or social scrollers of Facebook. There are four roles in such an ecosystem: provider, consumer, producer and owner. The iPhone is an incredible handset but its exponential success is actually because it is a provider of access into the ecosystem; the iPad provides access for gamers into the battlegrounds of Fortnite. The gamers play the role of consumers in the ecosystem, while the producers are the app developers, like Epic Games. See Van Alstyne, Parker and Choudary’s platform players model for a full description of the players in a platform ecosystem.

The fourth, equally important role player, is the platform owner, in this case Apple Inc. The owner builds or buys the platform, they control it, they run it and in exchange they extract value from the interactions between consumers and producers. In the Apple ecosystem their extraction of value is the 15-30% commission they take on any payment between a Fortnite gamer (consumer) and Epic Games (producer). Epic Games tried to bypass this commission by getting payments directly from their users and this breaks the rules; it’s the same reason you can’t pay your Uber driver directly. Epic builds games not platforms, but they need a platform for their users to get access to their virtual battlegrounds. All the producers on the platform must follow the rules; why should Epic Games be treated differently just because they keep a disproportionately large number of highly engaged users on the platform?

Here’s why: Network effects in an ecosystem can only create value if there are sufficient users. You wouldn’t be on Facebook if there were only 100 other people using it. You wouldn’t use Uber if there were no drivers within a reasonable distance. This is Epic Games’ big gamble; taking their consumer’s attention off the platform could reduce these benefits for everyone else. This could affect the owner’s value extraction, potentially even more than the loss of commission. My son won’t stop using his iPad if he can’t play his hour of Fortnite per week; there’s simply too much other variety and convenience in the rest of the ecosystem that it provides access to. He will probably find another game to play, but losing 10 hours a week of 350m other young, and possibly distrustful, platform users might be significant in the long run.

Apple will need to calculate the risk of letting them go vs offering special conditions that keep them on the platform. A competitor game has already been promoted and released by Apple so it looks like Fortnite is truly heading for the door, but it remains to be seen how many of their loyal gamers will follow. It’s worth remembering how well Apple has done since they threw down the gauntlet to IBM in 1984; Fortnite is just following their revolutionary pattern and that should make Apple nervous. The ultimate outcome might be difficult to predict, but for me the easiest approach is just to see what my son does.

If you are interested in these concepts, my Digital Masterclass teaches about digital disruption and how these forces are shaping a very different future for everyone.

About The Author

Leave a Reply

Scroll to Top