We were 'blindsided' by Epic's cheek, claims Apple exec on 4th day of antitrust wrangling
- Reference: 1620398106
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/05/07/epic_apple_day_4/
- Source link:
Testifying on the fourth day of [2]the bench trial , Apple's vice president of App Store, Matt Fischer, said he had been "blindsided" by the deployment of the workaround, given the amicable relationship previously enjoyed by both companies.
Fischer said ( [3]audio here ) that Apple's marketing teams had previously promoted in-game events taking place within Fortnite involving DJ Marshmello and rapper Travis Scott. He also claimed that Cupertino had expressed a willingness to reconsider its prohibition on the in-game gifting of virtual items.
[4]
[5]
[6]
As a free-to-play title, Fortnite is almost entirely monetised through in-app purchases of items, skins, and virtual currencies. Despite this, the title has proven incredibly lucrative for Epic Games, bringing in almost $9bn in revenue between 2018 and 2019, according to disclosures made during the trial.
Epic Games' workaround, which was deployed late at night, briefly allowed players to purchase in-game content at a 20 per cent discount by using the company's own payment infrastructure.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney directly informed Apple of the move in a 2am email sent to Fisher, as well as CEO Tim Cook, Apple Fellow Phil Schiller, and Craig Federighi, the company's senior vice president of Software Engineering.
[7]
In the email, Sweeney wrote: "I'm writing to tell you that Epic will no longer adhere to Apple's payment processing restrictions."
He added: "Today, Epic is launching Epic direct payments in Fortnite on iOS, offering customers the choice of paying in-app through Epic direct payments or through Apple payments, and passing on the savings of Epic direct payments to customers in the form of lower prices," noting that he believed both "history and the law" were on his side.
Sweeney warned that if Apple blocked or removed Epic Games' apps, the company would pursue legal action.
[8]
Apple later responded [9]by banning Fortnite . It additionally wanted to kick Epic Games from its developer tools programme, but that was halted by a [10]temporary restraining order from a federal judge . Such a move would have proven disastrous for the developers that [11]rely on Epic's Unreal Engine software .
In response, Epic Games kept its promise and filed suit, claiming Apple's tight grip on the app store broke federal and state antitrust law, specifically the Sherman Act, and California's Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Law. The trial continues. ®
Get our [12]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/22/apple_epic_lawsuit/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/04/apple_vs_epic_trial/
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKIHN631ZrQ
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YJVkGZL7Ag6-8lzcGZ@@-gAAAAM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YJVkGZL7Ag6-8lzcGZ@@-gAAAAM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YJVkGZL7Ag6-8lzcGZ@@-gAAAAM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YJVkGZL7Ag6-8lzcGZ@@-gAAAAM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YJVkGZL7Ag6-8lzcGZ@@-gAAAAM&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/14/epic_games_apple/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/25/epic_vs_apple/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2020/09/16/apple_epic_unreal_engine/
[12] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Safari and Internet Explorer
Because the America [that I live in] follows the Golden Rule:
He who has the gold, makes the rules
How does Apple get away with restricting competitive web browsers on the iOS platform? Because, quite flatly and without American pro-business apologetics, both regulators and politicians look the other way . Apple has money, lots and lots and lots of it, so they get a Pass Go without any harassment.
It is disgustingly corporatist, but that's the America that far too many of our inbred electorate thinks works for them. They believe this whilst their wages stagnate for 2+ decades, then complain about how they can never get ahead.
But keep doing the same thing. Expecting different results, of course.
30% is extortion, pure and simple
As a freelance consultant, and a consultant for the past 25 years, I can vouch for the fact that 10% is an acceptable fee when someone is offering you a post somewhere.
And I'm talking about real work being done by a person through someone else's contacts.
If someone told me that I could have a contract somewhere but they were taking 30% I would laugh out loud and tell them to get stuffed. Yes, they have the contact, but I'm doing the work. I'm the one with the expenses.
In Apple's magic land, Apple believes it has the right to demand 30% of someone else's work which it is only just selling and reselling endlessly, having done nothing more than provide the platform to do so.
Come on. Apple is one of the companies in the world that has the most money in the bank. It's platform is proven and all it's doing is selling bytes. Bytes that someone else sweated to create. 5% is what Apple should be getting. Not a cent more.
Re: 30% is extortion, pure and simple
"Yes, they have the contact, but I'm doing the work. I'm the one with the expenses."
But Apple are the ones hosting the content, and providing a trusted (for certain values of trust) environment for users to acquire your goods (not services).
So they are the ones with ongoing expenses, not you.
Re: 30% is extortion, pure and simple
"But Apple are the ones hosting the content, and providing a trusted (for certain values of trust) environment for users to acquire your goods (not services)."
No they are not !!!!!
Apple are providing the store which is used to deploy the app to a device. Once the app is downloaded onto a users phone the app is free to make API calls where ever it likes. It's up to the companies running the apps to then have sufficient capacity elsewhere for the app to function.
If I create an el-reg app that allows you to read the content, login, vote and post Apple are not magically going to magically host all of the content. Additionally I'd have serious issues if Apple proxied all requests through their servers.
I'm all for Apple charging fees directly related to their store and for offering a payment service, but those should be reasonable. Bandwidth on the backbones is cheap so the store costs shouldn't be that much. The payment service should be on par with what Visa and Mastercard cost (probably a little extra for the convenience of not needing to process the transactions yourself). The cost to Apple is no where near 30%
Re: 30% is extortion, pure and simple
Try being a photographer selling images through Getty.
I see 45% of the sale price.
Re: Getty
That does not make it right , that only makes it allowed in the marketplace due to lack of competitive options. How many stock photographers want to use Getty Images and pay that kind of commission?
Same with both Amazon and eBay. When the gateways to markets are mostly controlled by large players, they'll set the rules and you don't have very much choice in the matter - either play with them, or go your own way but suffer from lack of market. There's technically a choice, but it isn't a great one (cough, Standard Oil , cough).
Re: 30% is extortion, pure and simple
Well then your App Store is going to corner the market I should imagine, look forward to you bringing it to market!
I think the IE vs Netscape as about MS promoting its own browser and making it the default. They never actually prevented people using Netscape, they just made it harder for the people who thing browser == computer == internet == www etc. Whereas Apple flatly block it. You can't install apps without going via App Store, and you can't pay for them (or in-app purchases) without also going through same store.
Lack of "good will"?
Hard to say from this, but doesn't this make it look like Epic simply decided to break the terms of their agreement with Apple without even trying to negotiate a change?
Safari and Internet Explorer
What I don't understand in all this is how can Apple force any and all Web rendering through it's own Safari engine ? Doesn't the InternetExplorer -vs- Netscape on Windows serve as precedence ? This is a genuin question, and may-be much more important for Apple.