Epic Games and Apple are battling it out in what’s being referred to as certainly one of the most necessary tech antitrust instances in years.

Angela Lang/CNET

For the previous two weeks, Fortnite maker Epic Games and Apple have been battling in court docket over how the iPhone App Store must be run. Epic argues that Apple is performing like a monopoly that is overly controlling, opportunistic and unfair. Apple says Epic does not need to comply with the guidelines. Together, they might remake the means we see antitrust in the age of huge tech.

As a part of its arguments, Apple referred to as up Phil Schiller, who oversees the App Store. Now an Apple Fellow, Schiller had spent the previous 30 years working the firm’s worldwide advertising and marketing. As a part of his testimony, Schiller stated Apple had centered on privateness and safety from the App Store’s inception.

Apple’s attorneys cited a 2007 public letter from firm co-founder Steve Jobs, in which he outlined Apple’s focus on privateness. “As our phones become more powerful, these malicious programs will become more dangerous,” he wrote at the time. “And since the iPhone is the most advanced phone ever, it will be a highly visible target.”

Schiller stated it is much more so the case now.

He additionally spoke about Apple’s fee construction for the App Store, which he famous the firm has by no means raised, however did decrease for 90% of builders. And he defended Apple’s strategy to streaming recreation providers from Xbox, Google and Sony, as opposed to video-streaming apps like Netflix, saying privateness insurance policies and logins sometimes differ between video games, no matter whether or not they’re in a catalog. “It isn’t about movies. It’s an Apps and Games Store,” he stated. “I do think there’s a difference there.”

It’s Apple’s highest profile protection to this point, from certainly one of its most excessive profile executives, in the previous two weeks, throughout which Epic and Apple have used the court docket to air grievances and knock each other’s companies whereas selling their very own. What’s unclear is whether or not these efforts will work. The proceedings are a bench trial, which means the choose will resolve the case, not a jury.

Epic’s hit Fortnite recreation was kicked from Apple’s App Store in August final 12 months after Epic CEO Tim Sweeney accredited a change to the app, purposely breaking Apple’s guidelines towards utilizing different fee processing. Apple says its fee processing and strict app retailer guidelines are necessary to the firm, serving to it stand out from Google’s competing and extra extensively used Android software program, which permits “side-loading” apps and different app shops.


Fortnite is certainly one of the hottest video games in the world.


The final result of the lawsuit may change every part we find out about how Apple’s App Store works, in addition to Google’s Play retailer too. Apple could possibly be pressured to disregard its considerations over app safety, permitting different app shops and fee processing into its gadgets. Legal specialists, lawmakers and regulators are intently watching as properly, seeing the case as a primary have a look at how antitrust legal guidelines may apply to tech giants.

US District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has additionally taken alternatives all through the previous couple weeks to ask her personal powerful questions of each side of the courtroom as they made their arguments.

Below are a few of the issues we discovered throughout the court docket trial:

Opening salvos and Sweeney’s testimony. When Katherine Forrest started her opening assertion for Epic Games in its battle towards Apple in a California courtroom on May 3, she blasted the iPhone maker as a monopolist, holding app makers hostage to its onerous licensing phrases and fee construction, taking on to 30% off subscriptions and different gross sales with out explicitly telling customers. But when she requested a seemingly benign query of Sweeney on May 4, she revealed potential hypocrisy on her aspect too.

In the summer season of 2020, Sweeney despatched emails to Apple executives, asking them to enable his firm to supply its personal app retailer for iPhones, successfully an alternate to the system Apple’s used since 2008. Apple has solely allowed app builders to supply applications to iPhone and iPad customers by submitting apps to its retailer the place they go beneath assessment earlier than being supplied on the market or at no cost. Apple additionally requires all app builders to use its fee processing service if they need to promote subscriptions or in-app gadgets, like a brand new search for a personality or a power-up for his or her subsequent flip.

Sweeney at the time appeared to be searching for a separate and particular cope with Apple, one thing that did not match with the firm’s blustery lawsuit in which Forrest had claimed, “Epic is suing for change, not just for itself, but for all developers.” 

“The market will not self correct,” she added. That requires the intervention of pressure, extra highly effective than even the largest firm in the world has ever seen: Our justice system.”

The next day, on May 4, she asked the soft-spoken Sweeney whether he’d have accepted a side deal with Apple, effectively getting special treatment while other app developers continue losing out. “Yes, I might have,” he said.

Sweeney prefers an iPhone. When Apple’s lawyer asked if part of the reason Sweeney prefers the device is Apple’s treatment of customer data, privacy and security, he responded, “appropriate.” He’d been handed Android devices but confirmed he gave them away.

Epic argues app scams undermine App Store. One way Epic’s lawyers and executives attacked Apple’s App Store was to highlight scam apps, stories from upset developers who complained Apple played favorites and instances where Apple generally didn’t deliver on its promises. 

While Epic saw that as a symptom of Apple’s problems, the iPhone maker tried to frame it as a strength.

“The errors that I’ve been proven originated from buyer and developer complaints,” Trystan Kosmynka, a senior director of marketing at Apple, said in court on May 7. Rather than seeing these messages as signs the App Store team is struggling to do its job, he said, the activity shows people trust the store and want to help keep it safe. “I’m glad they’re passionate and electronic mail our executives reporting the considerations and that we examine them shortly and enhance on it,” he said.

There were some notable concerns Epic raised though, including a copy-cat app of its Fortnite game.

Judge Rogers took opportunities to ask tough questions of Apple too. When Kosmynka described Apple’s review process, he added that the App Store team told developers it would approve 50% of apps in 24 hours and 90% within 48 hours, depending on the app. So Rogers asked if Apple delivered on those promises. “Absolutely,” Kosmynka said, revealing that Apple currently approves 96% of apps within 24 hours.

She also challenged Apple’s argument that restricting the app distribution to just the App Store is a worthwhile tradeoff. “One of the issues with limiting competitors is that you do not get innovation, or a minimum of that is certainly one of the considerations,” Rogers said. She also asked if Apple’s had an outside party independently review what’s on the App Store and pay bounties, similar to how tech companies do for security researchers who find vulnerabilities in their products.

Epic says Apple isn’t as invested in its partner’s success. During his testimony, Epic marketing director Matthew Weissinger said Apple doesn’t help market Fortnite as much as MicrosoftSony and Nintendo do for his or her Xbox, PlayStation and Switch. “We create all types of engagement, hours of engagement inside Fortnite,” Weissinger testified on May 10. “And then, at the final minute, Apple type of injects themselves and says, ‘We require 30% on this as properly.'”

Epic executives said they didn’t mind similar commissions they pay to Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo on their stores because their devices are typically sold at a loss, making up the difference with video game royalties. (This is often called the “razor-razorblades” business model, where the razor is sold for next to nothing, while the sales of blades provide companies with their profit.) Apple, meanwhile, makes a profit off every iPhone sold. 

Epic argued video game industry profit models incentivize hardware makers to partner with developers because royalties from those game sales help make up the cost on the console. As a result, Epic said, the video game console makers have sponsored in-person and in-game events as part of their marketing. That’s something Apple doesn’t really do.

But Judge Rogers didn’t appear convinced. The console makers, she said, “had been selling their product everytime you did a collaboration with them.” So how was it different from Apple?

Weissinger said it came down to the types of people Apple funneled to Fortnite too. Console gamers are there to play a video game. The App Store has a lot more people who might be looking for than a Fortnite fix. “It’s not essentially individuals making the buy, it is also like, all types of random of us who’re going by way of that have. It is perhaps someone in search of a health app or one thing like that,” he said. The App Store, he argued, “simply offers a much less certified viewers or much less certified shopper.”

Not just Project xCloud. Microsoft has been vocally complaining about Apple’s app review process and its rules against game streaming services, like its formerly named Project xCloud Xbox service. In cross-examination with Nvidia’s Aashish Patel, a director of product management who helped oversee its GeForce Now streaming service, Apple’s lawyer said a streaming app from Nvidia had also been denied. In a steady stream, Apple’s lawyer asked, “You’re not a impartial observer in this dispute, appropriate?” “You need Epic to win this case, appropriate?” “Just possibly you are upset that Apple has rejected your app as a local app and you are not completely satisfied about that?” Patel said he was disappointed.

Xbox loses money — kinda. One of Epic’s arguments is that Apple’s business model is to profit from the iPhone at sale. Microsoft’s Xbox and Sony’s PlayStation follow the razor-and-razor-blades model, where they sell the console at a loss (the razor) and then sell the video games and accessories at a profit (razor blades). Though this has been commonly known, a Microsoft representative confirmed during trial that its Xbox itself has never turned a profit.

Apple spends a lot on events. We all knew Apple events are slick and tightly choreographed. But now we’re learning they cost a bundle too. Schiller told the court on May 17 that Apple spends about $50 million each year on its Worldwide Developers Conference, also known as WWDC. Depending on how you see the return on investment there, Schiller said about 25 million people viewed the event before it was made widely public and free amid the coronavirus pandemic. Now, it’s about 50 million. And, he added, aside from ticket sales and the $99 annual developer fee, Apple doesn’t charge for WWDC.

Apple spends a lot on research and development. As part of his testimony on May 17, Schiller revealed that Apple’s building a facility on its Apple Park “spaceship” campus specifically for developers. He didn’t say much else about it, but the detail was part of a larger point he was making in testimony about how much Apple spends on research and development of its software, hardware and developer ecosystem, effectively justifying the 30% commission it charges from in-app purchases. He also noted that Apple’s spent $100 billion specifically on R&D in the last 15 years, including for retina displays, its in-house A-series and M-series chips and the software program that helps energy them.

Source hyperlink


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here