Although it has been out of the media’s attention for several months, The confrontation between Epic Games and Apple remains very active in the legal and communication and public relations departments of both companies. It has rained a lot since September last year, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in the first instance. And what would mean the end of the trial for ordinary mortals, in this case it was obvious that it was only the first assault.
We already told you a week after the verdict no company was fully satisfied with the result and therefore it was just the beginning. Indeed, the challenges and responses began to circulate at the speed of the Formula 1 monopost. Several months have passed since then, but nothing has changed and the last to comment was Epic Games, which sent a letter in response to a letter from Apple. last March.
Apple stated the following:
«Epic Games based their case on witnesses who “lacked credibility” and were “unreliable”, whose testimony lacked an “absolutely evidentiary basis” and who were “willing to enforce the truth in support of the desired outcome. [por Epic]’. His theories have been shown to be “artificial”, “misconcepted” and “litigated.” Epic Games has not “proven”, “convinced”, “produced”, “presented”, “shown”, “persuaded” and “proved” the facts of its case all along. .»
And this was Epic’s response:
«Apple also claims that the fix requested by Epic will compromise the security of the iPhone. But it’s fake. The operating system that Apple uses on its Macs (“macO”) does not include the content restrictions found in the iPhone (“iOS”) operating system, and Apple has consistently supported Mac security.
Apple also provides more alternative payment solutions in the App Store for applications that sell physical products, confirming that the requirement to use Apple’s in-app payment solution, IAP, for digital products serves no pro-competitive purpose. If Epic wins, the App Store wouldn’t be dismantled. No customer would have to use anything Apple complains about: an alternative application store, direct application distribution, or an alternative payment solution. The difference is that Apple would have to compete for its customers.»
In the Epic Games argument, we find a point that can be key to defending your positionand is that the advent of hypothetical alternatives to iOS would not deprive users of continuing to use Apple’s application store and payment platform, so that users can choose to maintain the protection and security that Apple defends.
With information from MacRumors
Source: Muy Computer
Alice Smith is a seasoned journalist and writer for Div Bracket. She has a keen sense of what’s important and is always on top of the latest trends. Alice provides in-depth coverage of the most talked-about news stories, delivering insightful and thought-provoking articles that keep her readers informed and engaged.
