Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Epic Games vs. Apple Trial Begins With Opening Remarks Underway

If Apple loses this trial. What happens? Does Apple have to allow other stores, or is it more than that?
 
LordVic said:
Never said anything about the illegality of Monopolies

Monopolies however are BAD for business and BAD for the consumers. there's a reason why there are anti-trust regulations (and they used to be better enforced)

Monopolies are bad for us. we would all benefit with competition in the space. Competition in business keeps the company honest.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree that monopolies are bad. It is all subjective. They can be good if everyone benefits, just as they can be abused if only one side benefits.

You should understand that having a monopoly and having competition are not mutually exclusive.
 
laurensvo92 said:
If Apple loses this trial. What happens? Does Apple have to allow other stores, or is it more than that?
Click to expand...

I am not sure even the judge has the power to force Apple to open up their App Store. That will have to come in the form of new legislation by congress, which is probably years away at best.

This article sums everything up very well.

www.macstories.net

Epic Versus Apple: The MacStories Overview

Later today, Epic Games and Apple will square off in a high-stakes trial in US federal district court that’s nominally about money. However, if that were all that was at stake, the claims each company has made against the other would likely have been resolved by now. Companies the size of Apple...
www.macstories.net www.macstories.net

Regardless of your opinion of the way Apple runs the App Store or Epic’s litigation tactics, the thing to keep in mind as the trial starts is that the judge is being asked to settle a legal dispute, not set policy. Both companies have made specific claims against the other, which by definition means the judge’s ruling will likely be narrower in scope than it would be in an antitrust case brought by the US government. Nor is any remedy imposed by the judge likely to be as broad as government regulation of the App Store might be someday.

Still, that doesn’t mean the stakes aren’t high; they are. An adverse ruling against Apple could significantly change the way the company operates the App Store and would likely trigger more antitrust lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny in the future.
Click to expand...
 
It sounds that Apple will likely win this case, but Apple may loose the regularly law (source: The Economist). I think Apple maybe wise to make a compromise and change some of its polices slowly. We've already started to see that with the 15% on any app that makes less than $1 million.
 
laurensvo92 said:
It sounds that Apple will likely win this case, but Apple may loose the regularly law (source: The Economist). I think Apple maybe wise to make a compromise and change some of its polices slowly. We've already started to see that with the 15% on any app that makes less than $1 million.
Click to expand...
The Economist is a paid site - can you summarize what regulatory issue(s) Apple might face?
 
4nNtt said:
Grocery store markup averages 12%. Ironically the same as Epic Store and Windows Store. However the AppStore is more then a store which is what makes the store a bad analogy.
Click to expand...
12%? No. I sell to stores all day every day, most need 40-50 points.
 
Understandably, the commission [EU] is now trying to go down another path. Proposed in December, its Digital Markets Act (dma) avoids lengthy debates about such things as the “relevant market” by explicitly defining a gatekeeper: firms that have annual revenues in the eu of at least €6.5bn in the past three financial years and have at least 45m users in at least three member states. Any company that meets these criteria will have to follow a set of strict rules. Among many other things, barring app developers from linking to their own website would be prohibited, as would be efforts by gatekeepers to give their own offerings a leg up (which Apple stands accused of doing with its music-streaming service).

Although they think along similar lines, regulators in other countries are not as convinced a thick rule book will do the trick. Britain, for instance, is likely to go for more flexibility, paired with a strong regulatory agency, called the Digital Markets Unit (dmu). In America the Federal Trade Commission could become a dmu, although Congress may yet turn growing bipartisan tech hostility into action and pass a dma-like law.

It will still take several years before this is settled, but it would come as a surprise if digital gatekeepers, like many of their analogue predecessors, do not end up being regulated in some manner. Even if it wins its fight with Epic, Apple may want to start changing some of its policies. This may be good business anyway, Bill Gurley, a noted venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, has long argued. Maximising the take rate may backfire because it tends to weaken a platform, he wrote a few years back in a blog post. “There is a big difference between what you can extract versus what you should extract.”■
Click to expand...
Source: The Economist

I know that's a long summary, but it does contain the key points of the article. Personally, I think the article makes a good point in that Apple may win this battle against Epic Games, but not necessary the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back