Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

[dronology]

Să nu uităm că Epic are un proces similar cu Google pentru ”anti-competitive practices”: Epic is suing Google over Fortnite’s removal from the Google Play Store

Epic’s lawyers said the lawsuit was not just about Epic and Fortnite but about fairness for all apps that must use Apple’s App Store to reach consumers.

“Our contention in this case is that all apps are at issue,” said Katherine Forrest, a lawyer at Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

Epic is not asking for a payout if it wins the trial; it is seeking relief in the form of changes to App Store rules. Epic has asked Apple to allow app developers to use other methods to collect payments and open their own app stores within their apps.

Apple has countered that these demands would raise a world of new issues, including making iPhones less secure.

On Tuesday afternoon, Benjamin Simon, founder of Yoga Buddhi, which makes the Down Dog Yoga app, testified about his company’s problems with Apple’s policies. Mr. Simon said that he had to charge more for subscriptions on the App Store to make up for the 30 percent fee that Apple charged him, and that Apple’s rules prevented him from promoting inside his app a cheaper price that is available on the web.

Mr. Simon said Apple warned app developers against speaking out about its policies in guidelines for getting their apps approved. “‘If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps,’” he said. “That was in the guidelines.”

Judge presses Epic on the impact of its antitrust suit against Apple.

În același context:

Apple has been charged with breaking EU competition rules over the way it runs its App Store.

European Commission anti-trust regulator Margrethe Vestager tweeted that "consumers are losing out".

It relates to charges brought two years ago by music streaming app Spotify which claimed that Apple was stifling innovation in that industry.

Apple faces a large fine and may be forced to change its policies if its arguments do not convince regulators.

Previously it has denied any wrong-doing.

The case is looking specifically at how its App Store policies affect music streaming. The charge was initially filed in 2019 by co-founder of Spotify Daniel Ek, who said that Apple was "limiting choice and stifling innovation".

"Apple's rules distort competition in the market for music streaming by raising the costs of competing music streaming app developers. This in turn leads to higher prices for consumers for their in-app music subscriptions on iOS devices," an EC statement said.

In response, Apple said it did not receive any commission on 99% of Spotify's subscribers.

"At the core of this case is Spotify's demand they should be able to advertise alternative deals on their iOS app, a practice that no store in the world allows," it said in a statement.

"Once again, they want all the benefits of the App Store but don't think they should have to pay anything for that. The Commission's argument on Spotify's behalf is the opposite of fair competition."

Alexander Holland, chief content and strategy officer at music streaming platform Deezer said he was pleased with the Commission's findings.

"It's an important step towards a fair competitive landscape where dominant market players like Apple have to compete with independent companies like Deezer on quality of service, innovation and consumer experience, rather than artificially created barriers and a lack of a level playing field."

Earlier Ms Vestager tweeted that the preliminary conclusion of the EC was that "Apple was in breach of EU competition law" and "charges high commission fees on rivals in the App Store and forbids them to inform of alternatives".

Apple charged over 'anti-competitive' app policies