Epic Games witnesses criticize App Store anti-steering provisions
Two expert witnesses in the Epic Games v. Apple trial on Tuesday argued that Apple's App Store anti-steering provisions make it difficult for iPhone owners to know they can use some apps on other devices.
Credit: Epic Games
Economist David Evans, who is laying out a case for why Apple has an unfair monopoly on iOS app distribution, specifically pointed toward measures that prevent developers from advertising outside platforms and websites on the App Store.
Evans gave the example of V-Bucks, the in-game currency of "Fortnite," saying it's "theoretically possible" for "Fortnite" players to buy V-Bucks via web browser instead of in the iOS app. However, Apple blocks developers from advertising off-platform mechanisms.
"The problem here is a combination of both requiring Epic to use [in-app purchases] in the iOS Fortnite app in combination with also putting a whole set of barriers that ... makes it much more difficult for Epic to communicate to the iOS app user," Evans said.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers then asked if the removal of those anti-steering provisions could mitigate the problem.
In response, Evans said that this solution would work "for the time being," since it would diminish but not eliminate Apple's alleged market power. He added that the solution wouldn't be possible for apps that don't have a website or web version, or for consumers without easy access to a computer.
Apple's lawyer suggested that Epic Games could buy ads letting players know they can purchase V-Bucks outside of the App Store. The implication is that platform owners shouldn't be required "as a matter of competitive activity to advertise the actions that are available to the consumer."
Epic's other witness on Tuesday, Stanford Economics professor Susan Athey, also mentioned the anti-steering provisions during her testimony.
Consumers, Athey said, "can't tell from looking at their app on their iPhone where they may be able to find that app" on other devices or platforms. At another point, she also pointed out that subscriptions made through Apple's platform are stuck in the Apple ecosystem. One solution, Athey said, is "middleware," or systems like alternative payment platforms on iOS or cross-platform app stores.
Apple's lawyers countered these arguments. In Athey's case, they pointed out that she hadn't actually analyzed how much money users would spend on repurchasing apps or subscriptions. Athey agreed. Apple also took issue with Athey's ties to Microsoft, as well as they fact that she didn't have access to critical App Store-related business documents prior to offering testimony against the storefront.
Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.
Credit: Epic Games
Economist David Evans, who is laying out a case for why Apple has an unfair monopoly on iOS app distribution, specifically pointed toward measures that prevent developers from advertising outside platforms and websites on the App Store.
Evans gave the example of V-Bucks, the in-game currency of "Fortnite," saying it's "theoretically possible" for "Fortnite" players to buy V-Bucks via web browser instead of in the iOS app. However, Apple blocks developers from advertising off-platform mechanisms.
"The problem here is a combination of both requiring Epic to use [in-app purchases] in the iOS Fortnite app in combination with also putting a whole set of barriers that ... makes it much more difficult for Epic to communicate to the iOS app user," Evans said.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers then asked if the removal of those anti-steering provisions could mitigate the problem.
In response, Evans said that this solution would work "for the time being," since it would diminish but not eliminate Apple's alleged market power. He added that the solution wouldn't be possible for apps that don't have a website or web version, or for consumers without easy access to a computer.
Apple's lawyer suggested that Epic Games could buy ads letting players know they can purchase V-Bucks outside of the App Store. The implication is that platform owners shouldn't be required "as a matter of competitive activity to advertise the actions that are available to the consumer."
Epic's other witness on Tuesday, Stanford Economics professor Susan Athey, also mentioned the anti-steering provisions during her testimony.
Consumers, Athey said, "can't tell from looking at their app on their iPhone where they may be able to find that app" on other devices or platforms. At another point, she also pointed out that subscriptions made through Apple's platform are stuck in the Apple ecosystem. One solution, Athey said, is "middleware," or systems like alternative payment platforms on iOS or cross-platform app stores.
Apple's lawyers countered these arguments. In Athey's case, they pointed out that she hadn't actually analyzed how much money users would spend on repurchasing apps or subscriptions. Athey agreed. Apple also took issue with Athey's ties to Microsoft, as well as they fact that she didn't have access to critical App Store-related business documents prior to offering testimony against the storefront.
Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.
Comments
who benefits the most if Apple goes down besides Epic?
CHINA
If an idiotic judge(knock on wood) mandates that companies need to advertise 3rd party alternatives this could cost companies their livelihood.
In fact, I have to configure most of my Netflix account settings on the web site b/c they are not available through the app.
Just buy the VBuck via Epic's site. Sounds like their lawyers are asking for a solution where a problem doesn't exist. Oh wait, if I'm too stupid to know that I can buy VBuck directly from Epic. OK, got me there.
So if I’m using Spotify on iOS and I want to get it on Android I can’t just go to Google Play and search for “Spotify”?
how could someone say this with a straight face?
So consumers can have access to a smartphone, but no easy access to a computer? Isn't the smartphone itself a computer? I wonder which smartphones he is thinking about, that do not have web browsers.
I am able to go to the Amazon website on my iPhone and purchase an e-book for Kindle, even though I cannot directly buy an e-book on my Amazon app.
Why should Apple allow Developers to advertise other App stores on their platform for free? If Epic wants to do that, they should just buy a damn ad. Freeloading $hitheads!