This is an awful practice and should stop." He also said, "I can only imagine how an indie developer must feel when they're trying to make a living and the $900B company that runs the App Store sells their search result to a $730B company. Sweeney said he was frustrated that Fortnite didn't show up in some searches. May 6 New EmailsĪ newly released email from Epic's CEO Tim Sweeney showed Sweeney complaining about companies spending money to have their apps highlighted in the App Store. Revenue from iOS also made up a very low percentage of overall sales, Weissinger said.
When Fortnite was available on iOS, it made up around 10% of the total number of players for the game overall. Weissinger testified that Epic has been meaningfully impacted by Apple's decision to remove Fortnite from iPhone. That's in part because not everyone owns a console or a gaming PC, but a much bigger percentage own a smartphone that could play Fortnite. He said Fortnite has the biggest growth potential overall on mobile. Week Two began with Epic marketing boss Matt Weissinger testifying about Fortnite's popularity on mobile. Apple counsel says likely the last day, which is consistent with what we've heard before. Judge asks when Apple CEO Tim Cook will be on the stand, asking for media. The court case is projected to run until May 21, so that could be the day Cook testifies, though timelines can change. The judge in the case asked on the behalf of reporters when Cook might appear, and Apple's lawyers said it would likely be the final day. Epic court case until the very last day of testimony. May 11Īccording to Washington Post reporter Shannon Liao, Apple CEO Tim Cook is unlikely to testify in the Apple vs. It's likely there will be an appeal of some kind in this case, so keep checking back with GameSpot for the latest. The Court does not find that it is impossible only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist."
#APPLE VS EPIC CASE TRIAL#
"The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. "Success is not illegal," the ruling continues. With the judge ruling that Apple must allow alternative payment methods on the App Store, Apple could theoretically miss out on billions in revenue. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers concluded in the ruling that the court could not prove that Apple was engaging in monopolistic behavior under federal or state anti-trust laws, but that "the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws." This was the only count that the court sided with Epic Games on, with Apple winning all other nine counts.Įpic was ordered to pay millions for breaking Apple's rules initially, but this could be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost to Apple. For background on how we got here, read our primer on the Epic v Apple suit. On September 10, that decision finally came. Throughout weeks of testimony, lawyers from Apple and Epic argued their cases about digital storefronts and virtual economies, with major ramifications expected when a decision was made about the future of digital landscapes. A clash of industry titans took place inside a California district courtroom starting in May.
0 kommentar(er)
