Apple Epic Trial

Epic's expert testimony makes the case for an App Store monopoly

Some of the expert testimony strikes at Apple's core defense.

Epic's expert testimony makes the case for an App Store monopoly

The Epic v. Apple trial starts May 3.

Photo: Chris Delmas/AFP via Getty Images

Following Apple's submission Tuesday, Epic has now submitted its own written expert testimony ahead of the start of its landmark antitrust case against Apple, which goes to trial on Monday.


In similar fashion, academics and experts hired by Epic lay out the case the Fortnite maker plans to argue in court. The foundation of Epic's approach is a focus on establishing alleged monopolistic conduct on behalf of Apple and laying out the perils of Apple's walled garden ecosystem with respect to how difficult it is to switch to other mobile platforms.

For instance,. Dr. David Evans, the co-executive director of the Jevons Institute for Competition Law and Economics at University College London, lays out the argument that Apple harms competition in the mobile software distribution market through its App Store restrictions, rules that do not exist on other platforms like macOS and Windows:

I have identified at least 10 third-party app stores that distributed Windows and Mac applications in 2008 when the iOS App Store was launched. Direct distribution was also widely used. Based on a survey of major Windows and Mac apps in 2020, I found that they all distributed their software through multiple app stores and through direct downloads. A survey found that 78% of macOS developers distributed their apps through channels other than the Mac App Store.

Evans also points out how a vast majority of Fortnite players choose to play on only one platform, with a small minority of players opting to use a different platform. Epic's argument is that by denying Fortnite players the option to play on iOS, Apple is restricting that availability completely for players who either choose not to or cannot financially play on other platforms like game consoles:

Most Fortnite users play all or nearly all of their game minutes on a single platform. Of accounts with positive all-time game minutes, 82.7% have played Fortnite on only a single platform. The same pattern holds among players who use iOS as their primary platform—90.9% of those players have only used iOS.39 This means there are basically two types of players who used the iOS Fortnite app: those who predominantly used iOS, and those who predominantly used game consoles and personal computers but occasionally used the iOS app. Neither type of player engages in material substitution between playing Fortnite on their iPhones and playing on another device.

Evans also argues the App Store's abnormally high profit margins are a direct result of Apple's monopoly power over iOS app distribution, striking at Apple's core defense that the App Store restrictions serve mostly user privacy and security instead of its bottom line:

Despite Apple's claim that it would operate the App Store on a break-even basis, it soon earned profit margins that are very high relative to reasonable competitive benchmarks. It has been able to earn these high profits because it has had, and continues to have, monopoly power over iOS app distribution. That power is not constrained by other iOS app distributors because none exist—the App Store has effectively a 100% share in the iOS app distribution market. And, as discussed above, it is not constrained by competition in the foremarket because iOS app users have sunk costs, and switching and information costs, and developers have no choice but to distribute iOS apps to reach the large, stable installed base of iPhone users.

Dr. Susan Athey, a professor of Economics of Technology at Stanford's Graduate School of Business, speaks to the switching costs argument. Epic is raising this point to highlight that Apple's walled garden locks users into iOS and may harm competition by not allowing consumers easy access to alternative platforms if they're dissatisfied by high prices or locked out of access to apps like Fortnite:

Most users already own a smartphone and use numerous apps. Consequently, users are often "locked-in" to a specific smartphone OS because of the costs associated with changing OSs, including two app-related costs. First, a user leaving one platform and joining another faces app-related switching costs, including the costs of re-purchasing apps and in-app purchases that cannot be migrated, and of migrating and synchronizing apps and app data when possible. These switching costs create what I call the 'App Barrier to Switching.' Second, users incur what I call 'mixing-and-matching costs' in accessing and collaborating on apps across different platforms, whether among their own personal devices or the devices of members of a group such as a family or organization.

And Dr. Peter E. Rossi — a professor of marketing, economics and statistics at UCLA — conducted a study pointing out that users of iOS are willing to pay higher prices for in-app purchases and subscriptions rather than decreasing spending, while only 1.3% of users said they would switch to a different device, bolstering Epic's switching costs argument:

Professor Rossi surveyed 2,595 iOS users who had spent money on in-app purchases or subscriptions in the past 30 days. (Rossi.) Of these iOS users, 81% stated that they would have made the same in-app purchases if the cost of the digital content had been 5% higher, or 34.7%. (Rossi.) The remaining 19% of iOS users would have decreased their spending by 27%. (Rossi.) Only 1.3% of survey participants reported that they would have switched from iOS to a different device if the fees for in-app digital content increased by 5%. (Rossi.)
Climate

This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. 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.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Workplace

Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

Climate

The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Policy

White House AI Bill of Rights lacks specific guidance for AI rules

The document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is long on tech guidance, but short on restrictions for AI.

While the document provides extensive suggestions for how to incorporate AI rights in technical design, it does not include any recommendations for restrictions on the use of controversial forms of AI.

Photo: Ana Lanza/Unsplash

It was a year in the making, but people eagerly anticipating the White House Bill of Rights for AI will have to continue waiting for concrete recommendations for future AI policy or restrictions.

Instead, the document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is legally non-binding and intended to be used as a handbook and a “guide for society” that could someday inform government AI legislation or regulations.

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights features a list of five guidelines for protecting people in relation to AI use:

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins