Epic Games has filed its response to Apple’s request for the court to order settlement talks in the long-running App Store lawsuit. Here are the details.
Epic sees no benefit in court-mandated settlement talks
Last Thursday, Apple submitted its proposed commission structure for in-app purchases made outside of the App Store system in the US.
Under Apple’s proposed structure, the company would charge commissions of up to 15% on purchases completed through alternative payment systems.
On the same day, Apple submitted another motion, asking Judge Gonzalez Rogers to order the parties to attend a settlement conference.
In its motion, Apple said that “discussions of a potential settlement in a confidential, non-adversarial setting would increase the likelihood of reaching a practical resolution that could obviate the need for prolonged remand proceedings.”
Epic has now responded to Apple’s motion, stating that although the company “has been, and remains today, willing to entertain any direct approach from Apple with a serious settlement proposal that would introduce competition and benefit all developers,” it “does not believe the prospects of such settlement would be meaningfully advanced through referral to a settlement conference at this juncture.”
In its response, the company adds that “should [the] Court order referral to a settlement conference, Epic will participate in good faith.”
It is now up to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to decide whether to refer the case to a settlement conference, which Apple has requested to be held under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.
You can read Epic’s full response below:
9to5Mac’s take
Apple has repeatedly attempted to narrow the scope of Judge Gonzalez Rogers’s injunction regarding purchases made outside the App Store. In particular, Apple has argued that because Epic’s lawsuit is not a class action, the injunction should not broadly apply to other developers.
During one of its appeals, for instance, Apple argued that developers seeking similar relief could bring their own lawsuits rather than benefit from the injunction in the Epic case. The Ninth Circuit rejected Apple’s attempt to narrow the injunction on those grounds, finding that limiting it to Epic and its affiliates would not provide Epic with the complete relief it seeks.
Top comment by Nate
Both sides are doing what is in their best interest.
Apple wants to deal with Epic on an individual level and not concede to other developers what they give to Epic because other developers don't have leverage and depend on the App Store for their funds and they don't have the ability to setup their own alternative to sell their apps.
Epic wants to setup their own alternative store so they can maximize their profits and cut Apple out of the equation. If Epic gets their way, they'll push people to their store and maybe lure other developers with the promise of improved margins. If Epic is able to pull enough devs and people, they'll make millions.
Epic has a point, but they're being obnoxious to the point where I root against them. To be fair, Apple built a product without third party apps. Then, people demanded apps, so they build the platform for that. Keep in mind that when the original iPhone came out, other devices had apps, but apps were through cell phone providers. So an App Store was not a given. Apple's restrictive system also reduces piracy. There are workarounds, but it's way easier to pirate apps on Android and that costs devs money. Also, because of that, developing for iPhone is more lucrative and forces different strategies like using ads on Android.
So yeah, both sides are trying to do what's best for them and any virtue signaling to the opposite is just PR.
That reasoning also aligns with Epic’s public position throughout much of the case, that its fight extends beyond its own business interests and is intended to benefit developers more broadly.
In its motion to refer the case to (confidential) settlement talks, Apple does not indicate what it might offer. However, anyone following this case closely would likely agree that Apple would probably seek a deal that is particularly attractive to Epic, while limiting any concessions to Epic only.
In fact, Epic’s response already preempts this notion, by stating that Apple’s “serious settlement proposal” would have to “benefit all developers,” while concluding its response by suggesting that Apple’s efforts might be too little, too late.
If you were Apple, what would you offer Epic Games? Let us know in the comments.
Worth checking out on Amazon
- Geoffrey Cain – ‘Steve Jobs in Exile’
- David Pogue – ’Apple: The First 50 Years’
- MacBook Neo
- Logitech MX Master 4
- AirPods Pro 3
- AirTag (2nd Generation) – 4 Pack
- Apple Watch Series 11
- Wireless CarPlay adapter
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Comments