And it hasn’t,” she said of Apple’s commission on app sales.
And if there was real competition, that number would move. “The 30 percent number has been there since the inception. But she also questioned some of the ways it sought to do so. On Monday, Judge Gonzalez Rogers’s comments suggested that she believed Apple deserved to profit from its innovations. Cook effectively admitted that Apple wanted to maximize its profits.
She then interrogated him on why Apple was unwilling to give iPhone users more choice on where they could buy apps. Cook that it was clear his company had made changes to its App Store fees in response to public pressure. on Friday, Judge Gonzalez Rogers told Mr. In a sharp back-and-forth with the Apple C.E.O. But the angle of her questions shifted when Apple presented its witnesses, including Mr. When Epic brought its witnesses to the stand, she appeared at points to be sympathetic to Apple’s arguments. Throughout the trial, lawyers, investors and journalists parsed Judge Gonzalez Rogers’s comments and questions for hints of her thinking. Regulators and lawmakers have homed in on the issue, making it the center of antitrust complaints against the company. Companies big and small have argued that the fee shows Apple is abusing its dominance, while Apple has responded that its cut of sales helps fund efforts to keep iPhones safe. The case focused on how Apple wields control over the iPhone App Store to charge its commission on app sales.
“And the problem for many smaller companies and smaller businesses is that they don’t have the wherewithal to mount that type of a fight.” “To mount a credible antitrust campaign, you need to have a significant war chest,” said David Kesselman, an antitrust lawyer in Los Angeles who has followed the case. Any verdict is also likely to be tied up in appeals for years, at which point rapid change in the technology industry could leave its effects obsolete. While Judge Gonzalez Rogers signaled openness to Epic’s arguments during the trial, a ruling in favor of the video game maker might not lead to momentous changes in the market for mobile apps.
TOAST TITANIUM MAC APP STORE TRIAL
Yet it still began the trial at a disadvantage because antitrust laws tend to favor defendants, according to legal experts who tracked the case. Epic also spent millions of dollars on lawyers, economists and expert witnesses. The games maker, which is based in Cary, N.C., sacrificed a valuable product when Apple yanked the Fortnite iPhone app - which had generated more than $1 billion in sales - from the App Store. To sue Apple, Epic spared little expense. Judge Gonzalez Rogers has said she hopes to issue a verdict by mid-August.
The decision over the case, as well as the future of the $100 billion market for iPhone apps, now rests in her hands. District Court for the Northern District of California pressing the companies on what should change in Apple’s business, if anything. On Monday, the trial - which covered esoteric definitions of markets as well as oddball video game characters - concluded with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. Epic Games, the maker of the popular game Fortnite, sued Apple last year seeking to allow apps to avoid the 30 percent commission that the iPhone maker takes on many app sales. And lawyers in masks debated whether an anthropomorphic banana without pants was appropriate to show in federal court.įor the past three weeks, Apple has defended itself in a federal courtroom in Oakland, Calif., against claims that it abused its power over the iPhone App Store, in one of the biggest antitrust trials in Silicon Valley’s history. The billionaire creator of one of the world’s most popular video games walked a federal judge through a tour of the so-called metaverse. Tim Cook took the stand for the first time as Apple’s chief executive.
0 kommentar(er)
