• - Epic Games v. Apple vs. Monopoly Charge, Forced Alternative In-App Payments

    Epic Games v. Apple vs. Monopoly Charge, Forced Alternative In-App Payments
    5 Days, 2 Hours ago

    Tags:  Fortnite  -  App-Store  -    -  Apple

    In August 2020, after Epic Games, owner of Fortnite, was banned from the App Store for offering in-app direct payment and bypassing Apple's payment system, it filed a lawsuit against Apple, which received a lot of attention. Attracted many to the commission received by Apple and Google from in-app payments. Epic Games' claim against Apple, however, went beyond in-app payments and monopolization and competition constraints. Now, a year later, the California District Court has ruled in favor of the 185-page case, which Apple called a great victory, and Epic Games is talking about an appeal. Epic Games v. Apple vs. Monopoly Charge, Forced Alternative In-App Payments

    Take a look at the series of events Announced in this case, first it is better to briefly review the events surrounding this historic event. Although the dispute between Apple and the owner of Fortnite in August 2020, after the legal dispute between the two companies became official, to find the root of this dispute, we must go back to two years ago; In 2018, Epic Games criticized what it called Apple's monopoly approach, expressing its dissatisfaction with paying part of the revenue to Apple (which was not a small amount due to the very high popularity of Fortnite). Tim Sweeney, founder and CEO of Epic Games, even years earlier in 2015, had criticized Apple's approach.

    Under Apple law at the time, Apple accounted for 30 percent of in-app purchases, and provided a large portion of the company's revenue from the App Store. To determine the magnitude of this figure, it is enough to know that the Apple service and services subset, of which the App Store is a large part, in 2019 brought revenue of more than $ 48 billion for the company and did not say that any change What a big change in Apple's commission revenue from apps in the App Store will hurt Apple. This revenue, especially for owners of popular apps, could not be ignored and they were always trying to find a way to bypass it and earn more.

    In the summer of 2020, after removing Fortnite from the App Store due to the presentation An alternative to in-app payment solutions that offered a lower figure than Apple's solution, Epic Games immediately filed a lawsuit against Apple under Apple's monopoly procedure and in violation of US antitrust laws. Google's support for Apple's move by removing Fortnite from the Google Play Store was another unexpected event that made headlines at the time. Over the past year, with much debate, both Apple and Google have made changes to their current policies, including reducing the Apple Store commission rate for developers with annual revenues of less than $ 1 million. November 2020 noted that it dropped from the usual 30 percent to 15 percent. Apple's move, of course, due to the very low revenue share of such applications, has virtually no significant impact on Apple's revenue, and this completely diminishes the importance of this decision. According to some news sources, the share of apps with less than $ 1 million a year in Apple's revenue in 2019 is only close to 5%, and halving the commission for these apps will not do much harm to Apple's multi-billion dollar revenue. p> Epic Games v. Apple vs. Monopoly Charge, Forced Alternative In-App Payments

    Google But In a completely opposite move in September 2020, it announced that a 30% commission on in-app payments would be mandatory from next year, which was bad news for the platform's developers. This action will require Android developers to install the Google payment system, and according to the previous announcement, Google will enter the implementation phase in a few days, from September 30, 2021.

     Epic Games v. Apple vs. Monopoly Charge, Forced Alternative In-App Payments

    Apple also a few weeks ago, after a separate lawsuit with software developers, Announced a new agreement to change some of Appostor's rules, under which developers will be able to use in-app registration information to notify users via email and other similar alternative payment methods. Developers, of course, still do not have the ability to provide information in this regard in the program itself, but in a situation where until a few months ago it was not possible to use users' contact information (collected from within the application) to inform about alternative payment options. In itself, it is a significant victory for developers.

    On September 1, 2021, the company also allowed apps such as Netflix, Spotify and Kindle to direct users to the web for the Sign up registration process, which allows them to bypass Apple's payment system (and of course 30%). Commission of this company) is provided. Apple's move, of course, will again do almost no harm to its revenue, as apps like Spotify and Netflix on iOS are currently no longer usable without an account and offer only a sign-in option. The story is almost the same with the Amazon Kindle app, and although it is possible to register in it, you have to go to the web browser to buy the book.

     Epic Games v. Apple vs. Monopoly Charge, Forced Alternative In-App Payments 's review of the court ruling

    Let's go to US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; Where, despite Apple coming out on top in nine of the 10 charges, virtually neither side, Epic Games and Apple, can be considered the ultimate winner of the lawsuit. According to the verdict, Judge Rogers did not rule out Epic Games' allegations that Apple had violated US antitrust lawsuits, saying: "A state is a monopoly." "While the court found that Apple had a significant market share of 55 percent and an extremely high profit margin, these factors alone do not reflect anti-competitive behavior," Judge Rogers added. Success is not illegal. "The final trial record did not contain evidence of other critical factors, including [creating] barriers to entry and activities [to] reduce [competitors'] production or reduce market innovation." In another part of its ruling, the court did not rule out the possibility that Apple was in fact an "illegal expansionist" and did not find it impossible, but also noted the fact that Epic Games has a responsibility to show this in this The section was unsuccessful. Epic Games v. Apple vs. Monopoly Charge, Forced Alternative In-App Payments

    "The market here is mobile digital gaming, not gaming in the general sense, nor Apple's own internal operating system related to the App Store," said Judge Rogers. In other words, this file does not apply to all iPhone applications, as Epic Games says, and does not extend to all video games, as Apple claims, and should be defined in the context of mobile digital game transactions. "However, this trial has shown that Apple is engaged in anti-competitive activities under California's anti-competitive laws," said Gonzalez Rogers, referring to the market, noting that the court ultimately failed to classify Apple under any federal or state antitrust laws. The court also required the company to pay 30%, citing that Epic Games violated its contract with Apple last year when it placed its direct payment method on Fortnite. From its revenue from Fortnite, from August to October 2020, it came from a different direct route from Apple Payment System on iOS. That would be a huge defeat for the series, given Epic Games' $ 12,167,719 revenue over the period. The 30% payment requirement also extends to the total revenue the company earned from November 1, 2020, until the day of the trial. The verdict against Epic Games does not end there, and the court speaks of the "validity, legality and enforceability" of the expiration of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement (DPLA) and the decision to reinstate Apple has also resumed its Epic Games developer account in the App Store. Epic Games v. Apple vs. Monopoly Charge, Forced Alternative In-App Payments. The final is seen; Among the issues before the court was Apple's restrictions on informing users of other payment methods other than the App Store (known as anti-steering), which Judge Rogers said provided vital information to customers. Hides and

    The court noted that Apple's anti-steering restrictions prevented developers from communicating with their users over lower prices in other countries. Platforms have been artificially enhanced. Judge Rogers also issued a permanent ruling barring Apple from banning developers from introducing direct payment methods, placing external links, and other notification methods within the app. This order will enter into force within the next 90 days (December 9, 2021, coinciding with 18 Azar 1400) unless violated by a higher court. The two sides' reactions to the ruling were naturally different, with Tim Sweeney, founder and CEO of Epic Games, in two separate tweets stating that the ruling was a victory for developers and customers. "Epic is fighting for a fair competition between in-app payment methods and app stores for one billion consumers," he added. Fortnite will return to the iOS App Store when and where it can offer [an] in-app payment in fair competition with Apple's [in-app payment] system [and] pass on [costs incurred in this way] to customers .

     Epic Games v. Apple vs. Monopoly Charge, Forced Alternative In-App Payments

    The effects of this court ruling are likely to extend beyond its current parties in the near future, affecting in the first place Google, which is currently involved in a similar lawsuit to Epic Games. This complaint, of course, apparently has not yet reached the court stage. Finally, it is interesting to note that Apple shares fell 3 percent after the ruling was announced on Friday.

Latest news from the Fortnite & App-Store & & Apple