Tuesday's testimony put Apple's anti-steering rules in the judicial spotlight.
From The Verge's "Epic v. Apple keeps coming back to the gap between ignorance and inconvenience" posted Tuesday:
Last week, the judge in Epic v. Apple asked whether Epic really had an antitrust case against Apple, or whether it just wanted to help kids make impulse purchases. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers was talking about the importance of where and how people pay for their apps, and today she continued that line of questioning to the point of suggesting a kind of App Store policy change that Epic never originally put on the table.
Epic sued Apple for banning Fortnite from iOS over a direct payment system for V-Bucks, Fortnite’s in-game currency. Epic called that unfair and monopolistic. But Apple argued that it lets developers sell in-app purchases through its Safari browser, even at a discounted price — so there’s no lockout. And while Epic itself has focused on explaining why web apps aren’t a good substitute for native ones, its expert witness David Evans brought up another major issue: anti-steering rules.
Anti-steering rules (in this context) refer to rules that ban developers from pointing users outside of Apple’s ecosystem. iOS developers can’t add links or references telling people to get a better deal on their website, or send emails to accounts created through Apple...
[Economist Susan] Athey argued that “consumers do get klutzy and disconnected and sensitive to delays when trying to complete that type of activity,” and telling people to go use a web browser doesn’t solve that problem. But [Judge] Rogers could easily decide that inconvenience and enforced ignorance are separate issues, and that only the latter is a serious antitrust concern.
Getting rid of anti-steering provisions would be a comparatively small win for Epic, which wants to put full-fledged third-party App Stores on iOS. But it’s a smartphone ecosystem feature that’s often overshadowed by bigger antitrust complaints — and Epic v. Apple is putting it under the spotlight.
My take: A small win for Epic would be a big win for Apple.
See also: Apple should lift the gag order on apps -- Ben Thompson
“Anti-steering is standard throughout the e-commerce industry. Amazon, EBay, and Etsy don’t allow sellers to communicate alternate places of purchase on their sites and neither do gaming stores like Steam on PC or the Playstation Store on Sony consoles…”
Back you Epic: Will you sue Sony, one of your investors, for anti-steering?
So the title to this article is misleading? Maybe it should be “Epic opens massive can of worms”….
Last week, the judge scolded both sides for wasting the court’s time. Maybe she sees this suit as a dispute over price and terms.
Things boiled down to a proxy vote. Founder’s lawyer collected our proxies, laid them on the other side’s table, and started talking to the judge. The new CEO pushed the pile of paper off the table onto the floor. Judge said, “Sir, pick them up. Bailiff, escort this person from the court. And sir, you should be glad you’re not opening your wallet as you leave.” The other side rapidly proceeded to settle out of court!
I get scolding Epic. I don’t get scolding Apple. Apple’s wealth, is Epic’s target. They have an obligation to shareholders to defend themselves, as David’s brilliant postings make clear as day….
Still, “wasting court’s time” can’t be music to Epic’s ears.