After epic tried the claim the universe was all apps, since epic is a gaming company that universe was changed. But none the less Apple was unscathed for that legal point.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Might Be Forced to Bring Fortnite Back to U.S. App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What's the effective difference? I would think it likely that Apple has a similar percentage of digital mobile gaming transactions as it does of all app transactions. Heck, I'd bet they has a higher percentage of gaming transactions.
“In considering direct evidence of monopoly power, Epic Games has failed to demonstrate that there is a necessary restriction in the output of the relevant product—here, mobile game transactions*.” So if I understand this correctly, Epic tried to argue that Apple had a monopoly on app distribution and IAP, but the court found that this was not the relevant market (Apple's proposed market was also deemed unsatisfactory). Regarding the Apple Developer License Agreement the court states “Given this distinction, a business may set conditions for dealing unilaterally and refuse to deal with anyone who does not meet those conditions.” So Apple is allowed to set reasonable restrictions for developers to enter their app store. The court then wants Epic “To demonstrate anticompetitive effects on the two-sided [mobile gaming] market as a whole,” plaintiff must prove that Apple’s app distribution provisions increased the cost of mobile gaming transactions “above a competitive level, reduced the number of [mobile gaming] transactions, or otherwise stifled competition in the [mobile gaming] market.” It concludes that Apple has set the 30% rate by coincidence in 2008. It also states that “Having carefully considering the evidence, the Court finds that Apple’s app distribution restrictions do have some anticompetitive effects.”
The court concludes “Thus, and in summary, the Court does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the submarket for mobile gaming transactions.”
"Ultimately, Epic Games overreached. As a consequence, the trial record was not as fulsome with respect to antitrust conduct in the relevant market as it could have been."
Again, correct me if I am wrong, as that I may have overlook it, but so as I understand it, the court has decided that Epic (and Apple) argued for the wrong market. And when looking at app distribution in the gaming market, Epic has failed to convince the court, because it had to prove that the DPLA was unreasonable (which it is not), and that it would raise the cost for transactions (which it does not, because Apple has had these set overall, and a similar rate exists on Android). It did, in my reading, not consider whether the App Store in itself consituted a monopoly, though.
---
* The difference is that it considers the transactions of games, which are not tied to iOS or Apple Pay per se. I haven't looked at this, but I assume that this is why the court decided that it was unreasonable from Apple to not allow links etc. to the payment in a browser.
---
The case: https://cand.uscourts.gov/wp-conten...ic-v.-Apple-20-cv-05640-YGR-Dkt-812-Order.pdf
I already addressed this with my last post. You just used more words this time.
No, you didn't, you didn't add anything of value only questioned something, which seems inconsidered. And even that I addressed for you:I already addressed this with my last post. You just used more words this time.
---
Also, by doubting what difference it was between app distribution and mobile gaming transactions, what is your argument the court considered this in the first place?
Last edited:
Again, assuming that their share of mobile gaming apps is similar to their share of all mobile apps, why would the judge find differently for all mobile apps? There is no relevant distinction between the two markets with respect to market power.
- Apps can only be dowloaded from App Store, no where else.
- Mobile game transactions can be either done in app, or on the web, maybe other places (Patreon, via Andoid?). The developer can provide option out side of the app, in app, or both, maybe more. So Apple does not have a monopoly on gaming transactions, because they can not force the developer IAP.
- They did, which was found unreasonable, limit linking to those websites or even referencing to them.
I doubt this discussion is conducted in good faith, but if you really can't comprehend the difference, I made you a little graphic:
Last edited:
You’re comparing the “mobile gaming market” and the “iOS App market”. You should be comparing “the mobile gaming market” with “the mobile app market”
But if you did that your graphic would be the same on both sides.
I am analysing the contents of the case, and they clarily state 'iOS app distribution' and the 'mobile gaming transactions market.' And as I said, they do not consider the iOS app distribution. I made this comparison to show @BaldiMac why the scope is different between iOS app distribution and the mobile gaming transaction market, because they claim it would not make a significant difference.
Last edited:
You're creating a market with the logic that the court rejected for games. Again, there is no reason the court would treat games any differently than all apps. In the parlance you are quoting, the appropriate market would be the "mobile app transactions", and despite your picture, it would include all the same sources. Primarily because "all apps" includes games.
Give me arguments instead of your opinions. In every reply, you have shown you don’t actually understand what I am saying.
Also, you don’t want (or are incapable of) moving this discussion forward, by giving arguments for:
- why the App Store is not in itself a market,
- how in god’s name it would ‘include the same sources’. Game transactions ≠ downloading games (it would be downloading skins etc), is that the part you don’t understand?
Honestly, by just repeating and not giving substance to your opinions (or wishes), you give the intention you are conducting this discourse in bad faith.
Concluding too, that in my reading, and thus far no point against it is made, of the initial point, that the judge has not clarified whether the App Store is a monopoly, or not, as it did not consider this point.
Last edited:
I understand what you are saying. I'm just going with he court's reasoning, instead of yours. Again, the court rejected the premise of a single vendor market. Mobile games are a majority of the total mobile app market! You can read the decision.
Central to antitrust cases is the appropriate determination of the “relevant market.” Epic Games structured its lawsuit to argue that Apple does not compete with anyone; it is a monopoly of one. Apple, by contrast, argues that the effective area of competition is the market for all digital video games in which it and Epic Games compete heavily. In the digital video game market, Apple argues that it does not enjoy monopoly power, and therefore does not violate federal and state law.
The Court disagrees with both parties’ definition of the relevant market. Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court finds that the relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store. The mobile gaming market itself is a $100 billion industry. The size of this market explains Epic Games’ motive in bringing this action. Having penetrated all other video game markets, the mobile gaming market was Epic Games’ next target and it views Apple as an impediment.
Order – #812 in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-05640) – CourtListener.com
RULE 52 ORDER AFTER TRIAL ON THE MERITS. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 9/10/2021. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2021) (Entered: 09/10/2021)
Here's the logic:
Epic argues that the appropriate market is iOS mobile games.
Judge rejects that argument and defines the market as digital mobile gaming transactions.
So consistently:
ToothBlueth argues that the appropriate market is iOS mobile apps.
Hypothetical Judge rejects that argument and defines the market as digital mobile app transactions.
you’re mixing things. The court hasn’t ruled on the App Store itself, but on mobile game transactions. This takes the scope away from the App Store as Epic reasoned. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in that scope because you can pay for those transactions elsewhere.I understand what you are saying. I'm just going with he court's reasoning, instead of yours. Again, the court rejected the premise of a single vendor market. Mobile games are a majority of the total mobile app market! You can read the decision.
Central to antitrust cases is the appropriate determination of the “relevant market.” Epic Games structured its lawsuit to argue that Apple does not compete with anyone; it is a monopoly of one. Apple, by contrast, argues that the effective area of competition is the market for all digital video games in which it and Epic Games compete heavily. In the digital video game market, Apple argues that it does not enjoy monopoly power, and therefore does not violate federal and state law.The Court disagrees with both parties’ definition of the relevant market. Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court finds that the relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store. The mobile gaming market itself is a $100 billion industry. The size of this market explains Epic Games’ motive in bringing this action. Having penetrated all other video game markets, the mobile gaming market was Epic Games’ next target and it views Apple as an impediment.
Order – #812 in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-05640) – CourtListener.com
RULE 52 ORDER AFTER TRIAL ON THE MERITS. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 9/10/2021. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2021) (Entered: 09/10/2021)storage.courtlistener.com
Here's the logic:
Epic argues that the appropriate market is iOS mobile games.
Judge rejects that argument and defines the market as digital mobile gaming transactions.
So consistently:
ToothBlueth argues that the appropriate market is iOS mobile apps.
Hypothetical Judge rejects that argument and defines the market as digital mobile app transactions.
The discussion whether iOS App Store is a market in itself and of that constitutes a monopoly is not conclusively considered by the judge, and one can thus not follow the judge reasoning.
The discussion whether the market scope is iOS app distribution or ios and android apps is a hypothetical that can be discussed, but is not at all relevant on the judgement.
These are two separate discussions that you’re mixing together (the judgement, hypothetical scope of market).
Last edited:
There is no market for "the App Store itself". Just like with games, the market is the transactions that mobile app stores facilitate.