Apple Epic Trial

App Store chief argues the virtues of Apple's walled garden

Matt Fischer took the stand in the fourth day of testimony in Epic v. Apple.

App Store chief argues the virtues of Apple's walled garden

Matt Fischer is the current App Store vice president and reports directly to longtime executive Phil Schiller.

Photo: David Paul Morris/Getty Images

Apple isn't expected to start building its official defense in the antitrust fight with Epic Games until the week after next, but one of its key executives at the heart of the dispute began laying the groundwork in court on Thursday.


Matt Fischer, the current App Store vice president who reports directly to longtime executive Phil Schiller, took the stand in Oakland as an Epic witness to answer questions about the App Store business model, as well as its role in the broader iOS operating system. Fischer is arguably the most high-profile Apple employee on the witness list outside Schiller and other members of Apple's executive leadership, and his testimony provides part of the foundation for the company's justification of its App Store commission.

So far, Apple counsel has revealed its strategies through opening arguments and at times aggressive cross-examination of Epic witnesses, including CEO Tim Sweeney and a number of third-party game industry executives. That's involved comparing iOS and the App Store to the console game ecosystems of Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, and suggesting that game makers are just fine reaching iOS customers through cloud streaming and mobile web browsers if they don't like Apple's policies.

But Fischer provided the company's first robust rationalization for many of the App Store's more controversial policies. He called the store "incredibly unique" in the benefits it provides to consumers and developers and steadfastly defended it against claims that Apple overlooks fraud. That, in turn, justifies the commission Apple collects and the restrictions it imposes.

"We work really hard to make the App Store a marketplace that's attractive to both customers as well as to developers," Fischer testified. "I might be biased, but I certainly l think that what we do is incredibly unique, and I certainly have not seen any marketplace that distributes apps or games do what we're doing in terms of providing marketing and editorial support like this to developers."

The key takeaway from day four is that the future of this trial could very well hinge on how Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers perceives the true purpose of the App Store. Is it a level playing field designed to protect user privacy and security and take only its fair share? Or is it an increasingly byzantine pillar of Apple's walled garden, one preoccupied with chasing profit and marred by inconsistently applied and ever-changing rules? Fischer, and Apple by extension, would very much like it to be seen as the former. Epic, of course, the latter.

Central to this characterization will be how Apple justifies keeping out competing game-streaming and subscription apps, like Microsoft's Xbox Game Pass and Google Stadia. That was the focus of a rather grueling cross-examination of Epic witness and Xbox Vice President Lori Wright on Wednesday. Another factor will be whether Fischer and others at Apple can successfully downplay or dismiss concerns of special treatment, like the deals Apple has cut with Amazon in the past to reduce its commissions for streaming video apps.

Fischer did his part in that regard, when he was asked outright by Apple lawyer Jay Srinivasan whether any developer receives special treatment. "The App Store review guidelines apply equally to all developers," Fischer replied. He also commented on the notion that Apple privileges its own apps over those of competitors, saying, "We have promoted apps that are competitive to Apple apps since before I joined the App Store team in 2010, and we continue to not only distribute but to feature and promote apps that are competitive to Apple apps in the store. We do this all the time."

Epic lawyer Katherine Forrest spent much of her time questioning Fischer by trying to poke holes in Apple's security justification, which the company has used to deny alternative payment processing systems that could, as Epic's did, bypass the App Store's fees. Forrest listed more than a dozen companies that use their own payment processing systems, companies like PayPal-owned Braintree and Amazon, that are allowed to do so because they process transactions of non-digital goods, of which Apple does not take a 30% cut.

Fischer said he could not recall any study Apple conducted on the security or privacy of any third-party payment system relative to Apple's. Later, during cross-examination, Fischer asserted he is in fact not responsible for security, privacy, fraud or app review.

Fischer confirmed to Epic that Apple has in the past given certain developers exclusive access to APIs and other privileges, after use of the term "whitelisted" was shown in emails related to Hulu's use of a not-yet-released API for canceling and refunding consumer subscriptions. During cross examination, Fischer disputed the term whitelisting, going so far as to call it "offensive," and later claimed access to such features was part of an ongoing testing process conducted through its TestFlight program.

"In this particular case, it was something we were testing with a few companies to see how this feature would perform, with the intention that, if it performed well, we would roll it out to all developers," Fischer argued.

Fischer, as the first Apple employee to be cross-examined by Apple counsel, used his time in front of Srinivasan to promote the App Store as a fair marketplace that goes above and beyond what other app stores do to support developers. Fischer described his early relationship with Epic, during the years the developer made the Infinity Blade trilogy of iOS games, and later when Fischer worked with Epic to promote a holiday Fortnite skin in the winter of 2018. He said Apple gave Epic valuable onstage time during its developer conferences to promote the games.

"Did Epic pay Apple for any of that support?" Fischer was asked. "No, they did not," he said. Fischer also said Apple was willing to change its rules at Epic's request, including when it began allowing in-app gifting for Fortnite, a feature Fischer said it enabled for all developers. "When we make a change, we want to make a change that applies equally to all developers," Fischer said.

The App Store chief also shed light on how Apple came to the conclusion it would not charge certain app makers a 30% fee if they produced a physical good or service, compared to a digital one like Epic and other game developers.

"The decision was made that for an app that sells physical goods and services, it didn't make sense for Apple to earn a commission as part of that, because we ultimately didn't know if that good or service would be delivered to the end user," he said, using the example of an Uber ride or an Amazon package ordered through an iPhone. Apple does not take a cut of those purchases and allows those developers to use their own payment systems.

Epic has taken issue with this distinction, saying it unfairly penalizes competing software distributors while exempting companies that make use of much of the same Apple technology and platform benefits. But Fischer cast the decision as another reason Apple keeps tight control over its ecosystem, because it's concerned primarily with whether users are receiving what they paid for when they buy something that is primarily experienced on the iPhone itself, such as an in-game purchase in Fortnite.

"[Apple in-app payment] in its simplest form is a way to sell digital content within an app. But actually it's a lot more complicated than that," Fischer argued, saying it "enables the safe and frictionless delivery of digital goods from a developer to a user."

That argument — that the App Store's control over digital purchases is for the good of the platform and not a profit ploy — will likely be one Apple and its lawyers fall back on as the trial moves forward.

Power

How the creators of Spligate built gaming’s newest unicorn

1047 Games is now valued at $1.5 billion after three rounds of funding since May.

1047 Games' Splitgate amassed 13 million downloads when its beta launched in July.

Image: 1047 Games

The creators of Splitgate had a problem. Their new free-to-play video game, a take on the legendary arena shooter Halo with a teleportation twist borrowed from Valve's Portal, was gaining steam during its open beta period in July. But it was happening too quickly.

Splitgate was growing so fast and unexpectedly that the entire game was starting to break, as the servers supporting the game began to, figuratively speaking, melt down. The game went from fewer than 1,000 people playing it at any given moment in time to suddenly having tens of thousands of concurrent players. Then it grew to hundreds of thousands of players, all trying to log in and play at once across PlayStation, Xbox and PC.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.

While it's easy to get lost in the operational and technical side of a transaction, it's important to remember the third component of a payment. That is, the human behind the screen.

Over the last two years, many retailers have seen the benefit of investing in new, flexible payments. Ones that reflect the changing lifestyles of younger spenders, who are increasingly holding onto their cash — despite reports to the contrary. This means it's more important than ever for merchants to take note of the latest payment innovations so they can tap into the savings of the COVID-19 generation.

Keep Reading Show less
Antoine Nougue,Checkout.com

Antoine Nougue is Head of Europe at Checkout.com. He works with ambitious enterprise businesses to help them scale and grow their operations through payment processing services. He is responsible for leading the European sales, customer success, engineering & implementation teams and is based out of London, U.K.

Protocol | Policy

Why Twitch’s 'hate raid' lawsuit isn’t just about Twitch

When is it OK for tech companies to unmask their anonymous users? And when should a violation of terms of service get someone sued?

The case Twitch is bringing against two hate raiders is hardly black and white.

Photo: Caspar Camille Rubin/Unsplash

It isn't hard to figure out who the bad guys are in Twitch's latest lawsuit against two of its users. On one side are two anonymous "hate raiders" who have been allegedly bombarding the gaming platform with abhorrent attacks on Black and LGBTQ+ users, using armies of bots to do it. On the other side is Twitch, a company that, for all the lumps it's taken for ignoring harassment on its platform, is finally standing up to protect its users against persistent violators whom it's been unable to stop any other way.

But the case Twitch is bringing against these hate raiders is hardly black and white. For starters, the plaintiff here isn't an aggrieved user suing another user for defamation on the platform. The plaintiff is the platform itself. Complicating matters more is the fact that, according to a spokesperson, at least part of Twitch's goal in the case is to "shed light on the identity of the individuals behind these attacks," raising complicated questions about when tech companies should be able to use the courts to unmask their own anonymous users and, just as critically, when they should be able to actually sue them for violating their speech policies.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Protocol | Workplace

Remote work is here to stay. Here are the cybersecurity risks.

Phishing and ransomware are on the rise. Is your remote workforce prepared?

Before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

Photo: Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The delta variant continues to dash or delay return-to-work plans, but before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

So far in 2021, CrowdStrike has already observed over 1,400 "big game hunting" ransomware incidents and $180 million in ransom demands averaging over $5 million each. That's due in part to the "expanded attack surface that work-from-home creates," according to CTO Michael Sentonas.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma
Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol, where she writes about management, leadership and workplace issues in tech. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.
Protocol | Fintech

When COVID rocked the insurance market, this startup saw opportunity

Ethos has outraised and outmarketed the competition in selling life insurance directly online — but there's still an $887 billion industry to transform.

Life insurance has been slow to change.

Image: courtneyk/Getty Images

Peter Colis cited a striking statistic that he said led him to launch a life insurance startup: One in twenty children will lose a parent before they turn 15.

"No one ever thinks that will happen to them, but that's the statistics," the co-CEO and co-founder of Ethos told Protocol. "If it's a breadwinning parent, the majority of those families will go bankrupt immediately, within three months. Life insurance elegantly solves this problem."

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

Latest Stories