Epic Games

The consensus view of the Epic Games case is that Apple is likely to win, but Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman has today suggested that it may not be quite as clear cut as that.

He argues that Apple may end up making some further concessions to developers to help fend off similar lawsuits and antitrust investigations in the future…

The Apple vs. Epic trial continued today, with Epic CEO Tim Sweeney testifying and facing cross-examination from Apple’s lawyers. Sweeney was pressed on Epic’s business model, the company’s relationship with the likes of Microsoft and Sony, and more.

As part of the documents turning up in the ongoing Epic vs. Apple trial that commenced today, various details have leaked out about Epic’s planned road map for the game.

Seemingly, when Apple and Epic were on better terms, the companies plotted a services bundle that would offer a bundle subscription of Fortnite Club (a Fortnite subscription tier, which was later released in the US named “Fortnite Crew”), Apple Music, and Apple TV+.

On the day that the Apple/Epic case begins, a senior Google engineer has used a blog post to undermine a key part of the Cupertino company’s antitrust defense.

Apple denies that the iOS App Store amounts to a monopoly, for two reasons. First, it says that developers can create apps for other platforms, like Android and games consoles. Second, it argues that those who want to reach iPhone users can simply create web apps. It is this latter claim that has come under fire …

New court documents show that Fortnite didn’t rely on Apple’s platform for much of its overall revenue. According to files seen by the Verge from Epic’s trial against Apple, the iOS system was one of the smallest platforms in terms of revenue for Epic Games.

The Epic Games lawsuit continues in the form of written testimony ahead of the trial next month. Epic has presented expert arguments from a number of academics from prestigious colleges as it makes its antitrust case against Apple. In particular, the experts took issue with Apple’s claim that the primary role of the App Store was to protect users.

The academics make the case that it’s possible to have a monopoly on access to iOS apps despite the existence of a competing smartphone platform; that Apple gives its own apps an unfair advantage; that security of apps is just a pretext for blocking competing app stores; that Apple’s cut reduces app sales; and more…

Apple and Epic Games have been fighting in court after the popular game Fortnite was removed from the App Store in August 2020, but there’s still a lot to come. Both companies are expected to face each other in a trial expected to begin on May 3, and Apple continues to strengthen its arguments to defend the App Store business model.

The Epic Games vs Apple saga continues today with the news that an Australian judge has ruled to temporarily suspend the case in the country while the trial looms for the US lawsuit. The decision comes after Apple asked for a permanent suspension of the Australian case.

Internal documents released as part of the Epic Games lawsuit reveal an Apple anti-fraud engineer suggesting that App Store checks were grossly inadequate.

Epic cited two particularly damning quotes from Eric Friedman, head of the company’s Fraud Engineering Algorithms and Risk unit, in internal documents …

Today saw the publication of court filings by both Apple and Epic Games, and in them we see that Epic accuses Apple of using app security as a “pretext” for its commission. The company also argues that Apple enables fraud by app users.

In the run-up to the antitrust trial between the two companies, both sides were required to submit documents known as Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Each company presents the facts it considers relevant to the case, and the legal arguments on which it intends to rely …

Back in August 2020, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store after an update that bypassed the App Store’s in-app purchases system. Since then, Apple and Epic Games have been fighting in court — and now the findings of fact and conclusions of law filed by Apple with the court give us more details of what to expect from this trial.

Less than a month away from the Apple vs. Epic trial, Facebook is getting involved. According to a letter filed with the court, Apple requested some documents from Facebook, but Facebook doesn’t want to provide them.

Epic Games has filed a UK antitrust complaint against Apple, despite having lost a court case in the country over the same issue.

Using the kind of hyperbolic language we’ve now come to expect, Epic’s complaint accuses Apple of ‘kneecapping the competition’ and ‘exerting monopoly power’ …

The Epic Games versus Apple dispute is not the David versus Goliath battle the game developer wants people to believe, said the Cupertino company: It is instead a battle of two Goliaths.

Apple asked an Australian court to rule against a trial in the country, arguing that Epic agreed to terms that clearly state that any legal challenges need to be made in California …

Apple has defended the App Store app review process following formal complaints lodged by Epic Games and other developers to the Australian antitrust watchdog.

In addition to complaining about Apple’s 30% cut, Epic had told the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) that the app review process could delay the launch and update of apps; apps could be rejected by Apple without proper cause; and that it was hard to engage with the company when this happened …

Some Apple executives received on Friday a tentative initial witness list to testify in the Apple vs Epic Games case set to be held in May. The list includes Tim Cook, Craig Federighi, and others.

Over the last year, Epic Games has filed antitrust lawsuits against Apple in a variety of countries. Now the first lawsuit it filed in the US has been scheduled to go to trial in May. Notably, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers says “this is a very significant case, so the judiciary should give it the best it has to offer, which is an in-person trial.” However, that could change depending on “the infection numbers.”

Apple subpoenas in the Epic Games case are over the top, says a judge in the case, noting that the iPhone maker was seemingly demanding information from anyone and everyone. But he did rule that the company should get some of the Steam data it wanted in order to help understand how the games market as a whole operates.

Apple had demanded hugely sensitive Steam data to help its defense in the Epic antitrust lawsuit…

Apple has claimed to Epic Games that it doesn’t have Scott Forstall’s phone number.

Epic is seemingly not content with being able to question Apple CEO Tim Cook for seven hours: The company also wants to do the same to former iOS SVP Scott Forstall. But it has so far been unable to contact him, and Apple says it can’t help as it doesn’t have his current phone number!

The hilarious development in the antitrust case is revealed in court papers…