The government’s anti-trust proceedings against Google and Facebook are pending, but a trial was filed in Epic Games’ proceedings against Apple for removing the Fortnite app from the App Store. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of California will determine in the coming months whether Apple’s App Store policy represents a competitive issue. Specifically, it requires Apple to download all iPhone apps from the App Store, Apple to handle all in-app purchases, and Apple to receive a 30% fee for many of those paid downloads. Evaluate the policy you want to do.
In the meantime, companies looking to limit their business partners from doing certain types of business or implementing independent strategies outside of partnerships can learn important lessons. .. The discussion in the Apple-Epic proceedings reveals that such restrictions need to be closely tied to the consumer interests they provide, not the pure interests of the company.
Judge Rogers will review thousands of pages of evidence and make her decisions on many technical topics. For example, how to define Apple’s market is said to dominate (for example, phone-to-mobile game app-to-app distribution). Consumers are being hurt by Apple’s policies, and what are the appropriate remedies to regain lost competition? But at the heart of it is the business question of whether one of the companies keeps in the best interests of the consumer.
Apple argues that the reason for the app distribution policy associated with the 30% commission is to continue to invest in the security, privacy, and overall reliability that consumers expect from their products. In closing arguments, Apple argued that Epic’s favor ruling “turned iOS into a poor copy of Android”, eliminating the option of consumers choosing products that meet their expectations.
Epic argues that Apple’s 30% commission isn’t necessary to protect security and privacy, and the fact that the 30% commission rate hasn’t changed over time is serious about Apple’s app distribution. It shows that we are not facing any competition. In other words, according to Epic, Apple’s claim to privacy does not justify its policy, but rather aims to maximize the interests of the dominant enterprise.
Apple disagrees with this, pointing out the various improvements that have been made in the security and iOS ecosystem over time, and claiming that it is entitled to compensation for its intellectual property (as mentioned above). Here). Apple also points out that the number of game apps currently supported by iOS is increasing, and that programs such as video partner programs and small business programs are reducing fees.
On the Epic side, judges really want to see if Epic is trying to switch its investment in Apple’s App Store for free, and for the benefit of the app developers rather than trying to make a better deal for them. I asked if there was. .Epic will be charged a competitive fee (less than 30%) and will use those funds to further invest in better products if it can promote the ability of consumers to download apps outside the App Store. Insisted.
In wrestling with these arguments, the judge asked Epic if the court had previously forced a $ 1 billion or $ 1 trillion company to change its business model. What does this question mean? If is widely adopted by consumers, why can it be a competitive issue? Epic claims that when consumers choose a phone / operating system, they don’t think about fees or policies related to the treatment of app developers.
Proponents of a wide range of antitrust reforms, such as Senator Amy Crobcher and Senator David Sicilin, were able to maintain a dominant platform in the fact that so many consumers were adopting products at high prices. You might argue that it reflects a lack of choice. The question should be focused on whether remedies are appropriate under such circumstances, not whether the court has taken remedies in another similar case.
Embedded in all these questions and discussions is what’s best for consumers, and in this particular case, it’s Apple or Epic that is driving the biggest technological future.
The point of leadership. When a company attempts to impose restrictions on its business partners or apply policies that they do not like, the key question to analyze is how the policies meet consumer expectations. At Apple-Epic, Apple claims that policies are needed to ensure security, privacy, and reliability.
In other cases, the restrictions may be related to competition with partnerships between other companies in order for the partnership to be fully functional (also). Here), Or to maintain partner consumer loyalty. In Amex’s antitrust proceedings in the Supreme Court, it succeeded in claiming that the “no steering” clause with retailers (not promoting competing cards at the point of sale) achieved such consumer interests. ..
A company’s philosophy of how a company works with consumers does not correspond to the claim that a particular practice is aimed at competing and profiting at the expense of others. It should be reflected in everything. Future decisions at Apple-Epic may provide information on how this applies specifically to distribution and pricing policies.
In addition, the company’s overall reputation and consumer performance with respect to feedback and changes in preferences need to be closely monitored. Companies can’t respond to all of the feedback they receive, but they may not land in highly competitive landmines if they respond in a critical way that their culture is to meet the expectations of consumers and business partners. Maximize.