The trial between EPIC and Apple is coming to an end, but what has happened really? We review everything

Our colleagues from MGG France deepen in the case and the decision taken in the first instance of the trial between Epic and Apple , which has taken place only a few days ago.

When Epic Games disobey Apple by adding to the IOS version of fortnite a button that invites players to buy turkeys directly on their site instead of using ip , the Almighty Apple automatic payment system through which Normally all transactions made in the application pass, the developer knows that he will never be welcomed again at the application store.

Problem: In the ecosystem iOS, if you are not welcome at the application store, you do not exist. After all, there is only one store to download all games and programs available for iPhone users. Is because iOS is a closed system, a closed garden even that Apple defends jealously, explaining to whoever wants to hear it that the ultimate goal: it is the safety of its users who, unlike the owners of the PC, will never have to do it. worry about what they place on handheld computers.

As if it were a telenovela that involves actors of horizons much broader than video games (Spotify and Tinnder are publicly on the Epic side in this story) but their first episode ended a few days ago with a decision.

A decision that is ultimately based on the definition of the market in which Apple is accused of having an illegal monopoly, Is it only the ecosystem iOS as Epic says? Or is it more fair to judge them in the Game Transactions market, as Apple defends? The judge will end up cutting the pear-or the apple- in two, is the market of mobile game transactions (mobile only) the market in question.

This is where EPIC is at fault, by not having prepared its arguments for such a large market, you can not demonstrate that the 57% market share that Apple has in mobile games transactions constitutes a monopoly. If the monopoly is not established, it is not useful to go see if Apple's practices are anti-competitive (any form of competition is, after all, of an anti-competitive nature, a company that always seeks to get advantage ahead of its rivals). ), only in the presence of a monopoly established these anti-competitive practices can lead to sanctions.

In all other points, EPIC loses in the same way, unable to demonstrate that the 30% tax raised by IAP is too high, unable to demonstrate that it was within your rights when violating the contract that linked Apple, finally unable From avoiding the 30% tax that EPIC will have to pay for all the earnings obtained in Fortnite iOS.

The only light in the dark, EPIC manages to invoke the leyes anti-direction that are at the California anti-competitive practice law to force Apple to allow application store developers to redirect their customers to their own Sites to complete their transactions.

To take into account: Apple is still entitled to its 30% tax (this is repeated many times in the decision), but IAP will not deduce it necessarily and automatically for each transaction as it was the case until now.

We ended up with a decision that proves that EPIC is wrong almost everywhere, but suggests that the management of iOS by Apple is not normal either. EPIC could have done a better job, and if that work had been done, Apple's monopoly and behind, its characteristic anti-competitive practices of an illegal monopoly could have been demonstrated.

It is a sentence of 185 pages, which details the errors of Apple's advisors that the judge finally read us, a first instance decision that manages to demonstrate that Apple is right at all points and be extremely threatened for the apple brand.

Contente Original MGG France