My cynical opinion is that it feels Tim Sweeney is purchasing companies in hopes he finds the “right” one that that causes enough public outrage to get his way in regards to App Store cuts.
Apple/Google/Anyone else trying to limit general purpose computing on mobile/PC platforms is a terrible thing for computing, but thats just my view. The ideal situation is we have a default app store - where the system integrator enforces all their policies, but then a user can voluntarily choose to download a separate app store where that store is run by different less exploitative policies. To make it easy for users, you can have an central store-front which then re-directs users to the different store pages. No different than a "Nike store" on Amazon.
Apple on the other hand has a war against "evil" sideloading. :P
There are roadblocks and deficiencies though, a major one being that sideloaded app stores cannot automatically update their applications, making them permanently inferior and crippled compared to Google's offering.
I don't know what the reason for this is, but the result is that Android is not a truly "open" platform.
Tim Sweeney is buying creator marketplaces. The Github in each market: 3D (sketchup/artstation), 2D (artstation), music (bandcamp), etc. It's the Microsoft play, but for creatives.
He's trying to leapfrog the gaming industry and build a content creation engine that encompasses Hollywood, marketing, architecture, automotive, you name it. He's actively cultivating skilled creator mindshare and winning.
He's also trying to set legal precedent that siloed distribution marketplaces can't charge an arm and a leg and enforce draconian rules, because his play is a two sided multi-channel marketplace where he wins regardless of where you buy or sell.
The endgame for Tim is huge if it works.
Relatively rich/privileged software developers making their problem (App Stores wanting a 30% cut) the musicians' problem isn't noble, it's evil.
Edit: The way I see it, Tim Sweeney/EPIC is responsible for breaking the status quo that allowed bandcamp’s niche to operate the way they did, which seems a reasonable assumption. That acquisition turned the userbase into a pawn in the App store battle.
Say I sell my album for $10 for easy math.
I think Bandcamp takes something like 10-15%, there’s a small PayPal fee (~1%) and the rest goes to me.
That’s ~$8.41 in my pocket.
If Google takes their cut at the beginning for providing…the App Store where the buyer downloaded the app… the artist’s cut becomes ~$5.89. For a $10 album.
It just doesn’t line up with the whole point of Bandcamp.
How do you feel about 10%, which is what it probably would be according to TFA?
Well you should. Because regardless of if Epic bought bandcamp or not, the fee that google charges would come directly out of musicians pockets.
Regardless of who is running bandcamp, that feel would directly cause artists to not make as much money.
> I personally feel that 30% isn't even outrageous
Ok, and now the end result is that fee is coming out of artists pockets.
If you don't care about artist compensation, and want them to make less money, well fine. But don't pretend like you are on the side of artist compensation.
You can argue that google provides the foothold that gets the app on the device, so maybe a small fee could be justified, but taking place in all transactions that enables in perpetuity despite providing no technical contribution to them is ridiculous.
Bandcamp could do a billion dollars a week in sales and it wouldn’t cost google a dime.