"What we learned from the Eplc Games v Apple Lawsuk"By Dan PattersonLndated May 27 2021 CBS MarketuichThe future of Apple's App Store is now in the hands of U.S. District Judge Yvonne Ganzalez Rogers.The dramatic trial between the Fortnite video game developer and the iPhone maker came to a close this week.Developer Epic Games offered final arguments to bolster its case that the tech giant runs a monopoly that forcesdevelopers to use Apple's in-app purchase system, which gives Apple a 30% cut of all sales. The company wantsApple to scrap mandatory in-app purchases and to permit App Stare campetitors to distribute iOS apps.Apple maintains there's plenty of competition in the gaming market, citing the Nintendo Switch, Sony's Playstationand Microsoft's Xbox. The company made the case for itself as an innovatur that has invested billions intechnology and intellectual property for the benefit of consumers and app developers. Opening up its system tothird-party app stares, as Epic has asked, would harm users' privacy and security, Apple argued.While a ruling is notfor several months, a number of revelations emerged during the three-week trial,*- and just how profitable the App Store is for its owner.shedding light an Apple's relationship with developersGaming subsidizes free appsThe trial took a dramatic turn on Friday when Judge Cionzalez Rogers peppered Apple CEO Tim Cook with aseries af questions about how the App Store makes money, nating that the majority of the market's revenue comesfrom videa games' in-app pun:hases. The judge asked Cook why Apple prevents developers from providing linksto more affordable altematives."If (cansamers wanted to go and get a cheaper Batle Pass or V.Bucks," the digital items sold by Epic insideFortnite, "and they don't know they've got thaI option, what is the poblem with Apple giving them that option? Orat least the information that they can go and have a different option for making purehases?" Gonzalez Rogersaskeri.Cook shat hack. "If we allowed people m link out like that, we would in essence give up uur total return on our IP."arguing that Apple prevents linking to exterual payme nt options in arder tw protect their investment mn the AppStare's technology.The judge pressed on. "1 have muluple hanking apps, I haven't paid fot them. but I suspeca other than the $99. youdon't charge Wells Fargo, nghr? Or iSank of America? But you'te charging the gamers o subsidize Wells Fargo."Cook relented, stating gamers are ane of the largest guups ansarting on our plattocm." While the fall amount ofthe game's earnings weren t revealed at trial. Nome analvsts estimate he ame stossed 12 bilon. This putaApple's commussion at over $100 million.EU regulation a bigger worryApple's legal problems might be growing. Eunspean Union ceiorIEKentl.klaal that by tateng tval developers like Spotify to use its payment system and pay the company a 30% commission, Apple is in violationof antitrust laws.The EU echoes many of Epic's grievances, alleging that "Apple's devices and software form a closed ecosystem inwhich Apple controls every aspect of the user experience for iPhones and iPads."Apple gave Netflix a preferable dealAccording to email records released during the trial, Netflix considered removing in-app purchases from its iPhoneand iPad apps in 2018. Instead, the company would direct new customers to subscribe and pay in a web browser,which wauld help it get around Apple's 30% commission.Initially, Apple considered demoting Netflix as punishment. But rather than risk alienating a top-earning partner,Apple appeared to give Netflix preferential treatment, allowing the company to pravide discounts and otherbene fits to app subscribers and giving Netflix greater cantrol aver featured content, something other developersdon't get to do.High stakesWall Street analysts expect Apple to prevail in the trial which would mean no or few changes to iOS and theApp Store. However, revelations about the company's treament of smaller competitors could provide fodder forongaing antitust probes in the U.S. and abrpad.The stakes are high for Apple. The firm is protective of its public image and has dodged regulatory challenges thathave dogged rivals like Google and Faceboak. Other lawsuits, like the EU's, threaren to crack Apple's brand and itssoftware. Win or lose, that might be Epic's strategyAnswer the follawing questions:1. What is a monopoly? What are anti-trust laws? How da these relate to the Epic Games vs. Applelawsut?2. How do you think U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will rule? Whar's your argument for thatruling? Do you think Apple is a manopolist?3. It you're a regular gamer, how does this lawsuit pique your Curiosity ahout the business behind thevirtual world? What other questions do you have about how your plattorm and the companies that ownthem operate?

Question

&#34;What we learned from the Eplc Games v Apple Lawsuk&#34;By Dan PattersonLndated May 27 2021 CBS MarketuichThe future of Apple's App Store is now in the hands of U.S. District Judge Yvonne Ganzalez Rogers.The dramatic trial between the Fortnite video game developer and the iPhone maker came to a close this week.Developer Epic Games offered final arguments to bolster its case that the tech giant runs a monopoly that forcesdevelopers to use Apple's in-app purchase system, which gives Apple a 30% cut of all sales. The company wantsApple to scrap mandatory in-app purchases and to permit App Stare campetitors to distribute iOS apps.Apple maintains there's plenty of competition in the gaming market, citing the Nintendo Switch, Sony's Playstationand Microsoft's Xbox. The company made the case for itself as an innovatur that has invested billions intechnology and intellectual property for the benefit of consumers and app developers. Opening up its system tothird-party app stares, as Epic has asked, would harm users' privacy and security, Apple argued.While a ruling is notfor several months, a number of revelations emerged during the three-week trial,*- and just how profitable the App Store is for its owner.shedding light an Apple's relationship with developersGaming subsidizes free appsThe trial took a dramatic turn on Friday when Judge Cionzalez Rogers peppered Apple CEO Tim Cook with aseries af questions about how the App Store makes money, nating that the majority of the market's revenue comesfrom videa games' in-app pun:hases. The judge asked Cook why Apple prevents developers from providing linksto more affordable altematives.&#34;If (cansamers wanted to go and get a cheaper Batle Pass or V.Bucks,&#34; the digital items sold by Epic insideFortnite, &#34;and they don't know they've got thaI option, what is the poblem with Apple giving them that option? Orat least the information that they can go and have a different option for making purehases?&#34; Gonzalez Rogersaskeri.Cook shat hack. &#34;If we allowed people m link out like that, we would in essence give up uur total return on our IP.&#34;arguing that Apple prevents linking to exterual payme nt options in arder tw protect their investment mn the AppStare's technology.The judge pressed on. &#34;1 have muluple hanking apps, I haven't paid fot them. but I suspeca other than the $99. youdon't charge Wells Fargo, nghr? Or iSank of America? But you'te charging the gamers o subsidize Wells Fargo.&#34;Cook relented, stating gamers are ane of the largest guups ansarting on our plattocm.&#34; While the fall amount ofthe game's earnings weren t revealed at trial. Nome analvsts estimate he ame stossed 12 bilon. This putaApple's commussion at over $100 million.EU regulation a bigger worryApple's legal problems might be growing. Eunspean Union ceiorIEKentl.klaal that by tateng tval developers like Spotify to use its payment system and pay the company a 30% commission, Apple is in violationof antitrust laws.The EU echoes many of Epic's grievances, alleging that &#34;Apple's devices and software form a closed ecosystem inwhich Apple controls every aspect of the user experience for iPhones and iPads.&#34;Apple gave Netflix a preferable dealAccording to email records released during the trial, Netflix considered removing in-app purchases from its iPhoneand iPad apps in 2018. Instead, the company would direct new customers to subscribe and pay in a web browser,which wauld help it get around Apple's 30% commission.Initially, Apple considered demoting Netflix as punishment. But rather than risk alienating a top-earning partner,Apple appeared to give Netflix preferential treatment, allowing the company to pravide discounts and otherbene fits to app subscribers and giving Netflix greater cantrol aver featured content, something other developersdon't get to do.High stakesWall Street analysts expect Apple to prevail in the trial which would mean no or few changes to iOS and theApp Store. However, revelations about the company's treament of smaller competitors could provide fodder forongaing antitust probes in the U.S. and abrpad.The stakes are high for Apple. The firm is protective of its public image and has dodged regulatory challenges thathave dogged rivals like Google and Faceboak. Other lawsuits, like the EU's, threaren to crack Apple's brand and itssoftware. Win or lose, that might be Epic's strategyAnswer the follawing questions:1. What is a monopoly? What are anti-trust laws? How da these relate to the Epic Games vs. Applelawsut?2. How do you think U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will rule? Whar's your argument for thatruling? Do you think Apple is a manopolist?3. It you're a regular gamer, how does this lawsuit pique your Curiosity ahout the business behind thevirtual world? What other questions do you have about how your plattorm and the companies that ownthem operate?

Accepted Answer

1)
Monopoly is defined as the single ruler, where there is a high barriers to entry and there is a…