Which makes me wonder: if this was intended to be a mass-market thing, why didn't they program it so it could run on lower-end tech? Not doing so would seem to chop off a huge chunk of the potential market before you even start.
This is literally something I've been going "BUT WHY?!" about since we saw the initial demo, which was very visually fancy, because obviously that wasn't going to run on lower-end tech.
If I'm guessing and being positive I'd imagine the plan was:
A) Phones and computers are getting more and more powerful! (Incorrect but a common misconception, actual gains are getting increasingly minimal/specialized)
B) We should plan for the future not today - planning for today was the mistake we made with Silverlight! So let's select an engine that will be around for a while.
C) We also want an engine that is relatively easy to extend to more devices in future.
All these choices led them to Unreal 5. I think they expected that they'd have a product out sooner, and that it'd run well on PCs and could then quickly be translated to Mac and so-called "flagship" phones (i.e. $1000+ phones). And in say, four or five years, most new phones would run it.
I don't think that was remotely the right call, but I do think that was the call that got made. Or something just dumber but I'm being charitable.
Ignoring Apple is a good (and Good) thing to do. Friends don't let friends buy Apple.
Whilst I kind of agree, the issue is that in the United States of America, 58% of mobile phones are Apple and it was trending that way even back then. Some Americans are even socially trashy about people not having Apple phones, which is wild.