Apple Epic Trial

Is the App Store a monopoly? Epic’s expert makes the case.

For all the talk of "substitutions," the question comes down to whether Apple faces competition.

Two hands hold an iPhone in low light as the Fortnite screen glows on it

Epic's expert tried to zero in on the Fortnite maker's case in rigorous terms.

Photo: Chris Delmas/AFP via Getty Images

An economist testifying this week on behalf of Epic, in its landmark antitrust complaint against Apple, finally laid out the real crux of the game maker's complaint — and while couched in jargon, the argument is critical to Epic's case and larger questions about how to understand digital platforms.

David Evans explained in court on Monday and Tuesday that although Apple has competition when it comes to actually making smartphones, it monopolizes what he described as a market for distributing apps. That control, Evans argued, leads to inappropriately high prices for consumers and competitors as well as an array of other ills.

That's the argument Epic and many critics of big tech platforms have been making all along. Epic claims, among other things, that Apple uses its peerless economic muscle to extract its 30% App Store commission at a higher price than competitive markets would bear, and that Apple hobbles anyone who tries to get around the fee.

Evans, who is chairman of Global Economics Group, spent some time after Monday's discussion of Peely the Banana with another witness, trying to zero in on those ideas — though he had to use economic and research terminology like "substitution," "switching," "lock-in" and "aftermarket" to do it.

The first step for Evans was to answer the questions, "In what market is Apple an alleged monopoly?" and "How do we know?" Just being big, after all, isn't illegal. Antitrust law instead relates to what a company does with that power.

First, Evans explained, Apple monopolizes a market for getting apps to consumers. How did he know? He studied anonymous data from Epic's Fortnite players themselves before and after the game was taken off Apple's App Store. He found that most users only played on one platform — iPhone, PC, Xbox, etc. — in part because of the cost of switching to another way of playing. Those switching costs include the price of a new system, the difficulty of moving data, the appeal of a device that fits in a pocket or the desire to stick with other apps on the phone. Users' reluctance to switch platforms suggests there's less competition for getting apps than it might appear.

Evans also found that, even after Apple pulled Fortnite from the App Store, less than 20% of playing time switched over to a console or a PC. Playing time did go up on other platforms, but only by about nine minutes per week, versus the 56 minutes it went down on iOS, and even those who switched over likely were already playing on multiple platforms to begin with. "More than 80% of the [iOS playing] time was completely lost," Evans said.

Evans took the fact that players tended to only use one platform and rarely switched even when the game was removed to mean that for many consumers, there aren't really substitutions for Apple. Users are locked in to one competitor, in a way that's giving Apple power to destroy consumption of the game. Evans said that according to his analysis, although Fortnite and lots of other iOS apps are also available on other platforms, consoles and systems, Apple is essentially a market unto itself for most players because they don't want to or can't switch.

"My opinion is Apple has monopoly power in the iOS app distribution market," he concluded.

Costs and competitors

According to Evans, the lack of substitutions for the iOS version of Fortnite, even mobile competitor Android, implies Apple has monopoly power over the selling and supplying of apps to Apple users. That absence of serious competitors allows Apple to charge unreasonable fees or impose unfair terms on both app-makers and consumers.

Antitrust critics of big tech increasingly argue this point — that costs, behavioral nudges and the way data is guarded create lock-in across digital markets. Whether, or where, U.S. courts take up the reasoning is an open question, although Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers seemed frustrated with some of the specific definitions and implications that Evans said he hadn't studied.

Evans on Monday also suggested, in a vague discussion referring to confidential financial figures, that Apple is able to pull in profits "vastly higher" than similar groups of companies, as monopolies often are. Evans said developers don't have enough incentive to create products for other platforms in a way that may break Apple's alleged monopoly.

He also discussed the other main prong of Epic's antitrust accusations against Apple: a related but separate alleged monopoly for Apple's in-app payments themselves.

It's important to discern how much users know upfront about costs of owning Apple devices, particularly what they'll pay for in-app purchases, Evans said. Such purchases relate to existing Supreme Court rulings about the antitrust implications of "aftermarkets." Common aftermarkets include, for example, the ink cartridges that you need for a printer or replacement parts you need for a car. According to Evans, buying apps and goods through the App Store after you've purchased a phone is one such aftermarket.

Even beyond market definition and the presence of monopoly, there are a lot of components to an antitrust complaint that Evans was trying to address. His overall point, though, was that Apple has monopoly power over distributing apps — in a technical, economically rigorous sense.

"Was it your understanding that Mr. Jobs was running a charitable enterprise here?" Epic lawyer Gary Bornstein asked at one point, referring to Apple's late founder. Evans said he was not.

Apple's view

The point Apple's economist will argue, not surprisingly, will be that everything Evans said is wrong. Antitrust cases often devolve into battles between experts, and economist Richard Schmalensee will argue on behalf of Apple that Evans completely misunderstands the market, the substitutions, the lock-in (or lack thereof) — everything. (Evans and Schmalensee have collaborated extensively in the past, so there's a bit of collegial sniping going on.)

During cross-examination, Apple hammered Evans for discounting Android as a competitor, forcing him to concede that Apple does not have a monopoly in the phone business by market share — approximately 47% of U.S. smartphone owners have iPhones. However, Evans argued, Apple still has monopoly power within the market because of users' reluctance to switch. Evans also had to defend his argument that buying a game on one platform doesn't substitute for buying it on another, while two vastly different iPhone apps, such as a graphing calculator and a video game, belong in the same market.

Apple's key argument in previous filings has been that what iOS really provides is a place for users to engage in transactions in the games they love, which they play across platforms. Substitutions in that market are numerous, according to Apple, with robust competition from the web, consoles and PCs. The in-app payment processing that Apple users and app developers are required to use? It's an integral part of the product that pays for improvements, not some afterthought that's invisible to consumers and delivers undue profit. And game transactions are thriving, Apple says, suggesting those fees and the privacy and security they pay for haven't harmed the market.

And since other platforms comprise robust competition, Apple will argue, it cannot possibly be a monopoly, which must therefore mean no violation of antitrust laws, especially if the market is thriving.

What Gonzalez Rogers will take from this is anyone's guess. She directed sometimes frustrated questions to Evans about whether players might have picked up other games in lieu of Fortnite when it was banned, if he had evidence of profit or loss on console sales and what she should make of his treatment of in-app purchases as separate from app distribution.

At one point Gonzalez Rogers pointed out Fortnite's in-game currency, V-Bucks, is available for purchase on the web where Apple doesn't get a cut. She also suggested Apple's prohibitions on app developers telling consumers they can buy digital goods elsewhere may be a problem. Evans began to explain why he thought the availability of V-Bucks on the web didn't alter his market definition and to discuss the prohibitions, but Gonzalez Rogers cut him off.

"Have you done any real analysis?" she asked.

Another Epic expert, Susan Athey, is testifying Wednesday. The trial is expected to last at least through next week.

Protocol | Policy

New report shows kids see COVID-19 misinfo on TikTok in minutes

A new report finds that kids as young as 9 are being fed COVID-19 misinformation on TikTok, whether they engage with the videos or not.

NewsGuard researchers asked nine kids to create new TikTok accounts and record their experiences on the app.

Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images

TikTok is pushing COVID-19 misinformation to children and teens within minutes of creating a new account, whether they actively engage with videos on the platform or not, a new report has found.

The report, published Wednesday by the media rating firm NewsGuard, raises questions not only about how effectively TikTok is enforcing its medical misinformation policies, but also about how its own recommendation algorithms are actively undermining those 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.


Keep Reading Show less
Nasdaq
A technology company reimagining global capital markets and economies.
Protocol | China

Beijing meets an unstoppable force: Chinese parents and their children

Live-in tutors disguised as nannies, weekday online tutoring classes and adult gaming accounts for rent. Here's how citizens are finding ways to skirt Beijing's diktats.

Citizens in China are experienced at cooking up countermeasures when Beijing or governments come down with rigid policies.

Photo: Liu Ying/Xinhua via Getty Images

During the summer break, Beijing handed down a parade of new regulations designed to intervene in youth education and entertainment, including a strike against private tutoring, a campaign to "cleanse" the internet and a strict limit on online game playing time for children. But so far, these seemingly iron-clad rules have met their match, with students and their parents quickly finding workarounds.

Grassroots citizens in China are experienced at cooking up countermeasures when Beijing or governments come down with rigid policies. Authorities then have to play defense, amending holes in their initial rules.

Keep Reading Show less
Shen Lu

Shen Lu is a reporter with Protocol | China. Her writing has appeared in Foreign Policy, The New York Times and POLITICO, among other publications. She can be reached at shenlu@protocol.com.

Protocol | Policy

Google and Microsoft are at it again, now over government software

The on-again, off-again battle between the two companies flared up again when Google commissioned a study on how much the U.S. government relies on Microsoft software.

Google and Microsoft are in a long-running feud that has once again flared up in recent months.

Photo: Jens Tandler/EyeEm/Getty Images

According to a new report commissioned by Google, Microsoft has an overwhelming "share in the U.S. government office productivity software market," potentially leading to security risks for local, state and federal governments.

The five-page document, released Tuesday by a trade group that counts Google as a member, represents the latest escalation between the two companies in a long-running feud that has once again flared up in recent months.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

People

Facebook wants to kill the family iPad

Facebook has built the first portable smart display, and is introducing a new household mode that makes it easier to separate work from play.

Facebook's new Portal Go device will go on sale for $199 in October.

Photo: Facebook

Facebook is coming for the coffee table tablet: The company on Tuesday introduced a new portable version of its smart display called Portal Go, which promises to be a better communal device for video calls, media consumption and many of the other things families use iPads for.

Facebook also announced a revamped version of its Portal Pro device Tuesday, and introduced a new household mode to Portals that will make it easier to share these devices with everyone in a home without having to compromise on working-from-home habits. Taken together, these announcements show that there may be an opening for consumer electronics companies to meet this late-pandemic moment with new device categories.

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.

Latest Stories