Stratechery The Apple v. Epic Decision
Sep 13, 2021
The podcast delves into the impactful ruling by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Epic v. Apple case, particularly focusing on the surprising injunction against Apple's anti-steering policy. It discusses the unique legal status of the mobile gaming market and concludes that Apple doesn't hold a monopoly. The complexities of Apple's in-app purchase policy and its tension with developers are explored, along with the potential future changes to App Store regulations affecting games versus other applications.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Market Definition
- Epic Games argued for distinct iOS app and in-app payment markets, while Apple claimed all digital gaming was one market.
- Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers defined the relevant market as mobile game transactions, distinct from console and PC gaming.
Games vs. Non-Gaming Apps
- Judge Gonzalez Rogers distinguished between gaming and non-gaming apps based on several factors like business models and user demographics.
- This suggests Apple should treat these two app categories differently, potentially easing App Store regulations for non-gaming apps.
Apple's Market Power
- Apple does not have monopoly power in mobile gaming transactions, despite controlling 52-57% of the market, due to market growth and competition.
- However, the ruling acknowledges Apple's substantial market power and its position in a duopoly with Google.