Ahead of its next lawsuit against Epic Games, Apple today filed 500 pages of documents covering the findings of fact and the law, which summarizes the information exchanged between Apple and Epic, presents the relevant facts to the judge and argues for logical conclusions that should be drawn when the law is applied to the case.
/article-new/2020/08/fortnite-apple-logo-2.5.jpg?resize=560%2C315&ssl=1){kind=logo}
Apple maintains many of the points of discussion it has held since the beginning of its dispute with “Epic Games”. The App Store has remained unchanged in terms of the overall fee structure since it debuted in 2008, and while policies have been updated, development principles have remained the same.
Apple sees the Epic challenge as an attack on its core 13-year “App Store” business model. Apple claims that its rigorous application review guidelines provide consumers with security, privacy, and reliability, which is why its devices are also known, leading to significant benefits for end users and developers.
The 30% fee that Apple charges is in line with the fees charged by other application and software vendor markets, as demonstrated in a study that Apple commissioned earlier this year, and Apple recently introduced the Program for small businesses to reduce taxes to 15% for developers earning less than $ 1 million annually. Apple entered a market where 30% commissions were already accepted – it did not set this rate at the launch of the “App Store”.
In response to claims that the “App Store” is anti-competitive because there are no other allowed app stores on the iPhone, Apple indicates competition in the device and game transaction markets. There are other platforms that people can choose from, along with other gaming options, and web applications are supported on the iPhone and iPad as gaming alternatives that Microsoft and Google have already taken advantage of. Apple uses Epic’s main title, Fortnite, to illustrate its point.
Epic’s iconic game, Fortnite, illustrates the competitive landscape. Apple supports cross-platform games and cross-platform transactions. The same consumer can make V-Bucks in-app purchases on the iPhone (via browser) during a lunch break and on a home console in the evening. Apple (unlike some of its competitors) allows the “cross wallet” game, so in-game purchases – called V-Bucks in Fortnite – can be made on one device and used on another. In other words, an iOS user can buy V-Bucks on a computer and then (before removing Fortnite) use them in Fortnite on an “iPhone” or iPad – with Epic owing not a penny of commission to Apple.
Epic internal documents related to “Project Liberty” suggest that Epic has been plotting against Apple and Google since 2008. Epic started Project Liberty when it saw a decline in users and its average monthly active revenue, devising a strategy to pay less commissions while still taking advantage of the benefitsApp Store and the money that Apple has invested in the ecosystem.
Epic Games has hired lawyers and a public relations firm as part of its plan to launch a lawsuit against Apple, which eventually throws hundreds of thousands of dollars. Epic presented its plan to get Fortnite’s approval with hidden alternative payment options, which was then triggered by a quick fix, leading to the current dispute. Epic internal documents described the legal battle against Apple and Google as “fun!” and contemplated how to get Apple and Google to reconsider their taxes without making “Epic Games” look “bad.”
All of this was part of a pre-planned media strategy called “Project Liberty.” Epic retained Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP and a public relations firm in 2019, and this process is the culmination of this effort. Epic is trying to describe Apple as the bad guy, so he can rekindle the blatant interest in Fortnite. However, ironically, when Epic was released from the iOS platform, it told players that they could continue to play on consoles, PCs and other devices – proving the existence of competition and the absence of a monopoly.
Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, confirmed Project Liberty in previous interviews and said that Epic spent months preparing the lawsuit against Apple, although Apple’s lawsuits offer a new perspective on the lengths Epic has made. to link Apple and Google. in an antitrust lawsuit.
Apple claims that an extension of the antitrust law is not justified and that the descriptions of the Epic product market are inaccurate due to the other platforms with which ingApp Store competes. Apple claims that Epic overestimates the profitability of the “Apple Store” and that the arguments that the review process is inefficient are inaccurate. Last year, Apple rejected 150,000 apps, and malware on iOS devices is almost unheard of compared to the large number of malicious apps found on PCs and Android devices.
Apple says that Epic’s claim that the market is just iOS apps will fail and that the relief that Epic is looking for would be detrimental to consumers and developers because it would weaken the “App Store.” Apple also sees ppApp Store as an integrated feature of iPhone and in-app purchases as an integrated feature of App Store that does not allow third-party payment options, which Epic is pursuing.
At the bottom, Epic is asking this court to force alternative terms on Apple so that Epic can make more money. But Epic’s lawsuit would hurt other developers and consumers, in addition to imposing unprecedented obligations on Apple to open its own systems and engineering to third parties.
The Epic v. Apple trial will begin on May 3 and end in the week of May 24. Both Epic and Apple will call profile witnesses, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, Phil Schiller, Apple Fellow, Apple’s chief engineer. Craig Federighi and former iOS software chief Scott Forstall will testify on behalf of Apple.