> Epic Games v Apple Verdict

Sara Morrison writing for Recode:

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in Apple’s favor on almost every count. Epic Games had hoped to prove that the tech giant’s App Store was a monopoly, causing higher prices for consumers and forcing developers to follow all of its rules in order to be allowed on Apple’s mobile devices. Gonzalez Rogers ruled that the App Store is not a monopoly and that Apple should not be punished for its success. And while the court is forcing Apple to allow developers to tell app users about alternative ways they can pay for subscriptions and in-app purchases — which may seem like (and in some cases, was initially reported as) a win for Epic — Apple will be allowed to continue most of the App Store practices Epic was fighting to get it to stop. “The Court finds in favor of Apple on all counts except with respect to violation of California’s Unfair Competition law (Count Ten) and only partially with respect to its claim for Declaratory Relief,” the judge wrote.

The simple truth here is that Epic just got greedy. Fortnight is in a slow decline even if it is still raking in literal tons of cash. There are way more battle Royale titles out now than there were a few years ago and most of them are arguably better.

Apple’s App Store practices aren’t monopolistic in anyway. The problem in this sense isn’t Apple’s practices, it’s that there are only two phone platforms and users who use iOS tend to spend more than users of Android. That’s just a fact. So if you can’t sell on iOS and you aren’t making money on Android where else do you go? Nowhere. It’s that simple. And that, perhaps is the problem. Apple isn’t a monopoly it just owns the market. There’s competition, just not good competition.

A big factor in the decision was the definition of the “market” Apple allegedly had a monopoly over. This was a sticking point in the trial: Apple argued that the market was all gaming platforms; Epic said the market was just Apple’s App Store. Gonzalez Rogers said during the trial that she thought the market might be all mobile gaming, which would include other mobile platforms and stores like Google Play. And that’s the definition she went with in her ruling. It’s hard to prove that Apple is a monopoly when the judge’s definition of the market also includes its competitors.

This is how it should be. This, in my limited legal knowledge, is how I would feine the market. As a whole with more than one platform. Epic’s narrow definition doesn’t make sense in this case. Now, had they defined the market as a market for strictly iOS apps then that may different. You’re defining the market that you want to compete in specifically as a market is not always just the one device but across multiple devices. To say hat Apple has a monopoly because of the Apps Store on iOS would be to say that Microsoft or Sony have a monopoly because of the stores on Xbox or Playstation. It’s Apple’s platform. They can do what they want to. I can’t go on my Xbox and buy Playstation games.

The one victory Epic Games did achieve was a limited one: Though Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple had to allow developers to show app users links where they can make purchases outside of the App Store (purchases Apple won’t get a cut of), Epic is still not allowed to insert its own payment method in the app itself, nor can it place its own app store on Apple devices.

Which is really always how it should have been. It should always have been an option to pay through Apple/The App Store/iTunes or to the vendor themselves. But not both. You cant facilitate a payment through Apple and then not expect Apple to take their cut. That’s not how this works. Either you use Apple’s system and let them take their cut or you have users go outside your app to your system. Which is way more cumbersome than doing it in app.

> ▋