![]() ![]() A new approach, however, harks back to the original theory of structure-oriented competition policy to preserve innovation, which could mean trouble for Apple and Amazon, both of which oversee platforms that critics claim put smaller companies at a competitive disadvantage. It morphed to the Chicago School approach that took hold in the 1970s and 1980s, with a focus on efficiency, prices and consumer welfare. “This is not just about Apple being a monopolist, but a new way of interpreting antitrust law,” Valarie Williams, an antitrust attorney based in San Francisco who is closely following the case, told MarketWatch.Īntitrust law started with a populist bent, in the protection of mom-and-pop businesses from marauding corporations. In-depth: Big Tech has an antitrust target on its back, and it is only going to get bigger The influence of the case extends well beyond Silicon Valley and could help redefine antitrust law - something lawmakers have been unable to do, despite frequent saber rattling over the influence of Big Tech on the economy and on American culture. ![]() That power has already gotten the attention of the European Union, who on Friday levied antitrust charges against Apple for abusing its dominant position in the music-streaming market on the App Store. ![]() While Apple intends to prove Epic plotted to disrupt the App Store to maximize profits, Epic will insist it was forced to confront Apple after years of unsuccessful negotiations to put an end to what it and others call Apple’s history of using its platform to unfairly limit competition to its products. Ultimately, the outcome of the momentous case hinges on the success of each company’s legal team in selling a narrative. See also: ‘Fortnite’ dispute might open floodgates to serious scrutiny of Apple “This is a tough fight for Epic,” Kerpelman, who has a legal background, told MarketWatch. The onus is on Epic to both show that its contract with Apple is illegal, and that Epic did not breach that contract when it bypassed the App Store with its own store, according to Adam Kerpelman, director of strategy for business-to-business company NetWise. That revenue is based on the large chunk of app developers’ revenue that Apple keeps, which Epic has challenged. Cook has repeatedly highlighted the services business as a formidable engine of growth the past few years. Apple Services, in which the App Store is the crown jewel, hauled in $15.76 billion in the December quarter, up from $12.72 billion in the year-earlier quarter. The 12-year-old App Store is an ecosystem with 28 million members in 227 countries and regions, and it houses 1.8 million apps for more than 1.5 billion iPhone owners. In-depth: Will videogames be the Achilles heel for Apple, Google in antitrust investigations? Later in the trial, Schiller is scheduled to be Apple’s first witness, and, after more expert testimony, Cook is slated to be the iPhone maker’s final witness, during the week of May 17. After Epic and Apple present opening statements, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney is expected to take the stand. The presiding judge is Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.ĭay 1 in court could shape up as a digital shoot-’em-up. Live audio of the day’s proceedings will be available for up to 500 journalists, two of whom will be designated as pool reporters and report live from the courtroom daily. In a trial that is expected to last three weeks, Apple executives, including CEO Tim Cook, software head Craig Federighi and former top marketing executive Phil Schiller are scheduled to testify, according to a court filing by Apple on April 14. It was Epic’s choice,” Bajarin said.Īpple’s approach: Apple will fight Epic antitrust suit by claiming ‘a carefully planned plot against Apple and Google’Įpic’s game plan: How ‘Fortnite’ maker Epic Games will try to prove Apple is operating App Store as an illegal monopoly “Apple did not force them to sell on their site. The case “will help decide key issues about control of an ecosystem and if a third party can charge their customers on their own terms,” Tim Bajarin, president of market researcher Creative Strategies Inc., told MarketWatch.īajarin and others believe Apple has the stronger case if it “provides a huge audience to Epic and gives still the lion’s share of the profit,” he added. Apple countersued in September, and removed “Fortnite” from its App Store, preventing iPhone users from playing the popular game. Familiar battle lines have hardened since Epic sued Apple in August and attempted to bypass Apple’s 30% commission fee via a server software update that skirted the App Store payments system. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |