Sadly, we're still not sure (legally, anyway) exactly what a video game is.Much to my relief, the hearing is still going to take place this year. We've also learned a lot from the suit, including the ways in which Epic weaponized its fans against Apple and the general confusion the court system experienced when faced with, well, video game nonsense. We've since seen plenty of similar challenges to Apple's walled garden, including proposed legislation that would solidify the ability for developers to use their own payment systems, as well as continued pushback on Apple from other developers frustrated by its policies. Tim Sweeney has said that as a result of this, he will not be bringing Fortnite back to to the App Store until direct payment is permitted.Įpic first brought this suit to Apple following Apple's removal of Fortnite from its App Store last year after Epic incorporated the ability to skirt Apple's payment system, thus avoiding Apple's 30% platform fee. Overall, most of the ruling was in favor of Apple, though Epic won a specific battle with an injunction forcing Apple to allow developers to link to outside payment options within their apps (though this still doesn't let them add direct payment that bypasses the App Store's systems). Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because plaintiff did not focus on this topic." "The evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share. But with competition currently held back, there's just no way to tell.īut, again, the ruling doesn't call Apple a monopoly - just "anticompetitive." It has a share of the mobile gaming market between 52% and 57% that it battles with Google for, making for a "mostly duopolistic" ecosystem that Apple has "considerable market power" within.Īnd that, the court concludes, may soon turn into a monopoly if its market share keeps going up, competition doesn't step up its game, or Epic or someone else brings a better antitrust case to court next time. The court went further, pointing out that the justification for a 30% rate could be determined if a third-party store put pressure on the company to innovate and provide features to developers it had previously neglected. Furthermore, it doesn't seem like anything Apple does for developers has any relation to the money they take from in-app purchases.
To the contrary, Apple started with a proposition, that proposition revealed itself to be incredibly profitable and there appears to be no market forces to test the proposition or motivate a change."īasically, the judge is saying that the 30% rate Apple takes is impossible to determine the value of, because there isn't enough competition to suggest otherwise. Two, Apple has provided no evidence that the rate it charges bears any quantifiable relation to the services provided. Indeed, at least a few developers testified that they considered Apple’s rate to be too high for the services provided. "Absent competition, however, it is impossible to say that Apple’s 30% commission reflects the fair market value of its services. "One.developers could decide to stay on the App Store to benefit from the services that Apple provides," the ruling reads.
0 kommentar(er)
