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

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,563
30,892


In the ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games, the two companies are this week calling up their expert witnesses to argue their points before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who will make a decision in the case after a three week trial.

fortnite-apple-logo-2.5.jpg

Expert testimony is not as exciting as some of the leaked App Store documents that were highlighted last week, especially as much of what's being discussed was shared by Epic and Apple ahead of the trial. When speaking to expert witnesses, however, Gonzalez Rogers hinted that she might aim for a compromise between Epic and Apple to solve the dispute.

As outlined by Bloomberg, there was a discussion about Apple's rules that prevent app developers from directing users to make purchases outside of the App Store, such as through the web, as an alternative to in-app purchases.

Speaking to Epic expert witness Dr. David Evans, an economist specializing in antitrust, Gonzalez Rogers asked him if whether removing this rule would solve the problems that Epic and other developers have with App Store rules. "If Apple didn't have these rules, would the problem be solved?" she asked.

Evans said that while it "wouldn't eliminate the market power that Apple has," it would "certainly diminish it." Though for apps and games without alternative payment systems, he said it "would not be much of a solution."

Apple has long prevented apps from directing users to outside purchase options. The Netflix app, for example, does not use in-app purchases but is not able to direct users to sign up for a subscription through the iPhone or iPad apps, instead using vague language to inform users that it's just not possible to sign up in the app.

netflix-sign-up.jpg

Fortnite, the game at the heart of the dispute between Apple and Epic, does support purchasing in-game currency (v-bucks) on the web, but Epic Games is not allowed to advertise that option in the app under the current rules.

fortnite-v-bucks.jpg

If Fortnite and other apps were able to advertise alternative payment options available to customers that aren't subject to Apple's 30 percent cut, it would address Epic's "walled garden" arguments and calls for alternative app store and payment options.

Apple is arguing to maintain the status quo, and when Apple witness and economist Richard Schmalensee was asked by the judge why it would be bad for customers to have choice, he pointed out that it would be undercutting the App Store sales and preventing Apple from collecting its commission.

It's not clear how the trial will ultimately play out, but there are still several days to go. Week three should be much more interesting, with Apple executives like Tim Cook and Phil Schiller planning to testify.

Article Link: Judge in Epic vs. Apple Case Floats Potential Compromise
 
  • Like
Reactions: motulist

Realityck

macrumors G4
Nov 9, 2015
10,137
15,190
Silicon Valley, CA
Trial rests with who better at arguing about the others relevant market.

Epic argues that the relevant market is limited to the market for apps on Apple devices. By definition, Apple has a monopoly in that market because it requires that all apps on iOS devices be distributed through the App Store. (Epic makes a similar argument about the relevant market for in-app purchases on Apple devices, which Apple also exclusively controls.)

vs

By contrast, Apple sees the relevant market as anywhere Fortnite can be downloaded or played. That includes not only the App Store, but also Android phones, PCs, and video-gaming consoles. Apple describes this as the market for digital gaming transactions, and it doesn’t have close to monopoly power there. According to its experts’ pretrial submissions, Apple controls between a quarter and a third of all digital gaming transactions. Apple’s share is even smaller when it comes to Fortnite, which earns most of its revenues on PlayStation and Xbox, with Apple accounting for less than 10 percent.

Source
 
Last edited:

Botts85

macrumors regular
Feb 9, 2007
218
164
I'm happily in the walled garden.

I have a PC and non-iOS mobile devices if I want the freedom, but there's absolutely a reason why my daily driver devices are all MacOS and iOS.

It's near impossible to determine where the "walls" and restrictions can safely be dismantled without detrimenting the total experience. It is also impossible to know which restrictions if dismantled would dissuade development on iOS.

Develops know iOS has the most profitable customers ,and the best protections against piracy.
 

countryside

macrumors 6502a
Jan 9, 2016
660
2,173
NO! HELL NO! Please, NO!

I love my walled garden. Apple is a self-imposed authoritarian dictator! This Judge is incompetent!

I will not give any money to an app that wants me to purchase things off-site and not through Apple. It wreaks of insecurity and identity theft. Purchase scams will increase immensely.
 

LogicalApex

macrumors 65816
Nov 13, 2015
1,283
1,959
PA, USA
It is a question of who breaks first. If Epic wins you can expect Apple to appeal this all the way to SCOTUS. The question is will another court stay with Epic or will SCOTUS stay with them?

The issues are complex. Though I'm not yet convinced SCOTUS is willing to exert control over stores without direct intravenous language from congress or an antitrust action from the DOJ.
 

Abazigal

Contributor
Jul 18, 2011
19,602
22,067
Singapore
For the benefit of users and developers let us pray Epic wins.
While I am rooting for Apple to win, I suspect that this is one of those areas where Apple might be willing to capitulate on. I do agree that letting developers communicate more freely with users in apps stands to be a positive development for both parties. Being able to include language like “visit our website for additional ways of buying our service” wouldn’t hurt customers and would be viewed positively for developers.

The reality is that many services like spotify, Netflix and even Hey are already funnelling users to sign up via their website by not allowing users to subscribe within the app anyways. For games, they will still want people to buy IAPs within the app because the convenience of using iTunes more than outweighs any cost savings from trying to get users to visit their website in the middle of a game.
 

IamTimCook

Suspended
Dec 13, 2016
264
661
Don't know why people haven't drawn the parallel to the increase in Bot calls in the past 6 years to when Facebook allowed game apps like FarmVille to download user's iPhone/Andriod contact list for prizes, and what happens when someone with your info on their phone downloads an infected app.

You yourself may have never have had Facebook (or side loaded apps) on your phone but someone in your contacts list did and download FarmVille, now FarmVille has your contact info, and is selling it to the highest and lowest bidder.

Now imagine someone in your contacts list downloads apps from shady App Store, now that shady app has all your info too.

Seriously can't understand how people aren't seeing this.
 
Last edited:

Appleman3546

macrumors 6502
May 13, 2019
406
690
Thankfully, there was already testimony that playstation takes a cut from Epic even when the purchase happens off a ps4/5, so the judge’s compromise should weasel this out to prevent Apple from doing the same thing.
 

The Reverend Dr Galactus

macrumors newbie
May 12, 2021
12
59
Judge: Hey I have a compromise. Apple. You get to keep the store, upkeep, and code and support. But now for free! Compromise!
This should force Apple to do what every other company that provides web services does: Charge for them.

If Epic, Netflix, or anyone else wants to offer a free app with off-site purchases, then Apple can charge them a reasonable fee to cover App Store maintenance costs.
 

grjj

macrumors 6502
Apr 5, 2014
269
530
How about just letting people install apps, like they can on macOS, Windows, Android, and Linux? That would solve everyone's problem.
It doesn't solve Apple's problem of maintaining security on the devices.
IF anyone can load any app, the people are going to get mislead to install scam/spam/malicious software unintentionally.
You need to understand that probably 60% of people don't even know how to go to a website. They enter "www.apple.com" into Google and blindly click on the first link that shows up.
I see this every day.
There's a 100% chance that side-loading apps will result in massive amounts of unintended software installed on iOS devices, doing unintended things.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.