{"id":32495,"date":"2021-05-18T15:30:46","date_gmt":"2021-05-18T19:30:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=32495"},"modified":"2021-06-18T07:05:09","modified_gmt":"2021-06-18T11:05:09","slug":"epic-v-apple-day-11","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2021\/05\/18\/epic-v-apple-day-11\/","title":{"rendered":"Epic v. Apple, Day 11"},"content":{"rendered":"

Nick Statt<\/a> (tweet<\/a>):<\/p>\n

Apple spends about $50 million hosting its annual developer conference, known as WWDC, every summer. That is until the event, which has been held in recent years at the San Jose McEnery Convention Center, went all-virtual last year amid the coronavirus pandemic.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Elizabeth Lopatto<\/a> (tweet<\/a>, also: Adi Robertson<\/a>, Leah Nylen<\/a>):<\/p>\n

The Steve Jobs line that Epic has touted — ”We don’t intend to make money off the App Store” — comes from these early days. At the time of this announcement, Apple didn’t know if it would make money, Schiller testified. He also suggests that the line was not a promise that Apple would not <\/em>make money. The App Store was a “huge” risk, Schiller said. “We’re taking our hot new product and putting something we’ve never done before on it, and we have no apps yet! So we have no idea how this is going to do.” This is credible. What is less convincing is Schiller’s attempt to redefine what it means to “lock customers into our ecosystem,” a phrase that comes from a Jobs email entered into evidence earlier in the trial. <\/p>

Look, “locked in” has an accepted meaning, and it’s not a very friendly one: prisoners, for example, are locked in. Schiller gives this the old college try anyhow, telling the court that the idea behind “locked in” was just to make services more attractive, so that customers wouldn’t want to leave.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

Despite Schiller’s friendly demeanor, some of his testimony is a stretch. For instance, he says he doesn’t see mobile as a duopoly. He lists Samsung, Microsoft, Google, and Amazon as competition. The Amazon Fire phone was discontinued in 2015, as was the Windows Phone.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Juli Clover<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Schiller has also been speaking about Apple’s App Store policy to treat developers large and small the same, and his testimony has included some interesting little tidbits. Apple wanted to charge $99 for the App Store developer program to prove that an app that’s being worked on is “important” and that developers are “serious about making a quality app.”<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

On the topic of physical goods, Schiller said that in 2019, the App Store drove $400 billion+ in transactions like food delivery, Amazon purchases, Uber, and more, which are not subject to a 30 percent cut. According to Schiller, Apple does not take a cut of physical purchases because Apple can’t guarantee they will actually arrive.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

I don’t think it makes sense to count purchases using the Amazon app as being driven<\/a> by iPhone. Also, as I mentioned earlier<\/a>, Apple can’t guarantee<\/a> that digital purchases will arrive (or will not be withdrawn), either.<\/p>\n\n

Nick Statt<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Schiller says the App Store 70-30 commission was better than the physical model and competitive for digital distribution.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Nick Statt<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Schiller says they anticipated competition for the App Store that might necessitate a commission reduction.<\/p>\n

But of course… that did not happen! At least not until after the Epic lawsuit, when Apple dropped rate to 15% for small devs.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Adi Robertson<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Was Epic’s lawsuit a factor?<\/p>

“I would say it helped me get it done. I would absolutely agree it helped to get the program done,” Schiller says. “I wouldn’t say it’s why we did it, but it helped.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Nilay Patel<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Again, Apple keeps thinking of what happens inside third-party apps<\/em> as part of Apple’s store<\/em>. If this trial has accomplished anything it is making that crystal clear.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Horacio Gutierrez<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

When it suited them - in Apple v. Pepper - Apple vehemently denied that they had any direct control over the sale of apps on the App Store. Instead, they said, they were akin to a “shopping mall”.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Adi Robertson<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Phil Schiller gets asked about Roblox, which you may remember Apple’s earlier witness said was not a game.<\/p>\n

“In my opinion, it’s a game,” Schiller says.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

“Roblox itself allows a class of users often called creators to create games within the Roblox app, and those are added to Roblox and they’re released as content within the app.”<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

To recap: Apple is okay with iOS apps that allow access to many games, but only if those games are created by creators and not developed by developers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Adi Robertson<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Schiller: “Well, it’s a new type of app I think in the industry,” Schiller says. “It’s made up of multiple games, it’s not one game. And the idea of who creates them and what they’re for is a new phenomenon in our industry … it’s pretty new stuff.\"<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Dan Wineman<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Roblox is older than the App Store.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Michael Love<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Claiming Apple deserves to get money from developers<\/em> for implementing these features - which they use to sell iPhones + constantly plead with us to suport + undoubtedly make way, way more money from than we do - is downright obnoxious.<\/p>\n

Apple: give us 30% of your money for inventing ARKit<\/p>\n

Also Apple: please please please support ARKit<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n