As someone writing about Epic Games and the Unreal Engine, I've been thinking about Epic v. Apple, and was inspired by @Sierra_OffLine 's thread.

Something to add: this isn't (just) about app v. platform. It's also about unsettling the boundaries of hardware and software. https://twitter.com/Sierra_OffLine/status/1295029900995432448

As @nickstatt has written about, Apple hasn't been in the good graces of the gaming community recently. This has been exacerbated by Apple's stance on competitor cloud-based gaming, as seen by their "pre-bans" of Google Stadia and Microsoft's xCloud. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/15/21369607/apple-ios-fortnite-ban-epic-lawsuit-cloud-gaming-xcloud-microsoft-antitrust-war

Cloud-based gaming is the idea that most of the "hard work" of running a game, like high resolution graphics processing, can be performed on remote hardware, rather than on a player's personal internet-connected device. The results of that "work" are sent to the player's screen.

This, in theory, means that players' need for high-end hardware is radically reduced. You only need enough computing power to run the cloud-based service app, and a relatively strong internet connection.

(Note that I'm a bit skeptical of cloud-based gaming, especially because of unequally distributed access to any net connection at all, an issue that tends to be "yada yada'd" over by devs.)

Anyway, Apple has already banned its competitors' CBG services, claiming that it would be impossible for Apple to individually review and approve so much externally hosted content.

This is.... a pretty thin argument, and one that wasn't applied to, say, Netflix.

One obvious reason for this is the existence of Apple Arcade, Apple's non-cloud based gaming subscription service that requires developers to ensure iOS mobile device exclusivity in order to publish.

Another is the changing relationship to mobile gaming hardware: if the majority of your game is handled server side, why do you need a $900 phone?

So where do Epic, Fortnite, and the 1984 ad fit into all of this? While there's ample evidence that Epic founder and majority owner Tim Sweeney is less than happy with middleware, Epic concurrent lawsuit against the Google Play store has had less fanfare. https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1288139365399633924?s=20

While Fortnite was banned from the Google Play store for the same reasons it was banned from the Apple store (circumventing the payment-skimming central to both of these apps), there's no real PR campaign there, at least to the level of the anti-Apple ad.

Epic doesn't care about the Play Store or the App Store. Epic cares about screen access--literally the ability to get on a player's screen.

While Fortnite was banned from the Play Store, it wasn't banned from Android phones. Gamers can still access Fortnite on those phones through non-Google android stores, like the Epic Games App. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21368363/epic-google-fortnite-lawsuit-antitrust-app-play-store-apple-removal

Such is the difference between closed environments like iOS and "semi-open" (heavy scare quotes there) like Android.

But the new 1984 ad is letting on more than we might see. See, I'm pretttty sure the ad was made using the Unreal Engine. Not only would this make sense (Epic owns Unreal and Fortnite), but the super slick floor looks a lot like the way Unreal 4+ handles physically based lights.

And, one of the premiere spots the ad was aired--literally in Fortnite.

Epic's $15B valuation has way more to do with the Unreal Engine than Fortnite--although Fortnite has been instrumental in the explosion in functionality and popularity the Unreal Engine has seen.

Part of this valuation is based on the idea that Unreal is going to become a, if not the, house-standard in media production across gaming, architecture, and urban planning.