At another point, Apple’s attorney asked Mr. Cook about Apple’s competition in the app market. Mr Cook said he believes the digital markets that distribute games, including Epic and those of game console makers like Sony and Microsoft, are direct competitors of the App Store. However, he admitted, “I am not a player.”
Throughout the trial, Judge Gonzalez Rogers frequently asked for clarification of technical jargon and placed more emphasis on witness responses. She asked about the difference between the business models of Fortnite, Epic’s most popular game, and games like Roblox and Minecraft from other companies, and asked how Apple’s security compared to that of other companies. third-party companies.
Earlier this week, she said she hadn’t seen much evidence for one of Epic’s nine allegations that Apple accuses Apple of violating the Essential Facilities Doctrine, which prohibits companies from denying others. companies access to certain markets. Apple quickly filed a motion to have the essential facilities claim dismissed.
The biggest challenge in deciding the case may be defining the market in which Epic and Apple are competing. Apple has argued that Epic has many options for distributing games, including web browsers, game consoles, and personal computers. Many of these platforms charge a commission similar to that of the App Store. If gaming is the market, Apple argued, then there are many competitors – like Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo – and Apple cannot have a monopoly.
Epic responded that Fortnite is more than a game. It’s something the company calls the metaverse – an endless digital universe with activities, social media, and even concerts. The argument has led to a long and detailed debate about what a game really is. The point? This case, according to Epic’s lawyers, concerns all mobile applications, which can only reach one billion iPhone users through the Apple App Store.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers expressed his frustration with the semantics of the market. “One side will say it’s black, the other says it’s white – usually it’s somewhere in the gray,” she said last week.
Apple argued that its charges were necessary to keep its customers safe. Lawyers for the company said the App Store restrictions were protected against malware and data breaches for iPhone users.