Epic Games Vs. Apple Trial Concludes With Testimony From Tim Cook And Closing Remarks

We have now entered the home stretch of the historic Epic Games vs. Apple trial. Last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook took the stand to answer questions about the App Store’s policies, curation, and profits, reported Gamasutra. Cook was also asked to comment on the testimony of Epic’s expert witness who calculated that the App Store saw a 78% profit margin in 2019.

Cook gave a vague response when asked about Apple’s profits from the App Store, arguing that the company doesn’t calculate the total revenue and profit from individual divisions which would make it hard to say how much the App Store actually makes. Cook, however, said that he is confident that the App Store is profitable despite the lack of hard data to back it up.

“I have a feel, if you will,” he said.

Cook was also asked whether in-app purchases made up the majority of revenue from the App Store, to which he answered, “I think so.”

According to GamesIndustry.biz, both sides also made their closing arguments earlier this week beginning with Epic’s counsel, Gary Bornstein, who recognized the importance of the case and the lasting effect that it will have on the mobile games industry.

“Epic acknowledges that this is an important case, that there's an important set of conduct, and that a remedy... of the sort that Epic has requested would be important and significant,” said Bornstein. “But that is because the issue affects such a large number of consumers, such a large number of developers, and has persisted for such a long period of time.”

“Remedying that conduct is of necessity a more robust endeavour and exercise than your typical injunctive relief, because the conduct and the harm is more robust than the court would typically face,” he added.

Apple’s legal counsel, Richard Doren, responded by emphasizing that Apple’s goal is to make the court realize the extent of what Epic is asking and how adding a direct payment structure, changing the IAP commission, and opening the iOS to third-party app distribution platforms will adversely affect Apple’s customers, community of developers, and the company itself.

“Epic is talking out of both sides of its mouth on this [case], when the impact, the results and the way this will play out, the impracticalities, are plain and are simple,” Doren said. “The law protects technological incompatibility as pro-competitive. That is how consumers are given a choice...”

“Apple's business model was developed long before it had anything that anyone planned as market power, it served its customers and developers well, and Epic is now attempting to [change this] without any... guidances as to what the impact of that attack would be,” he concluded.

Bornstein countered Apple’s stand in his final remarks, saying that, “Ultimately, what I continue to hear as a theme from Apple is ‘We're doing a really good job, your honour. Please let us continue to do a really good job.’ There's this undertone of ‘We're the good guy. We're the benevolent overlord of this ecosystem. Let us continue to do it without competition because it's worked out okay so far.’ That is not a defense under the antitrust laws. Competition is what's supposed to guide excellence, not our just trusting that Apple will be excellent on its own.”