U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is currently overseeing the Epic Games v. Apple trial hinted at a compromise: the ability for app developers to inform users that Apple’s App Store isn’t their only shopping option.
“What’s so bad about it anyway, for consumers to have choice?” Gonzalez Rogers asked Richard Schmalensee, an economist and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, who was testifying Wednesday as an expert witness for Apple in the second week of trial in Oakland, California.
Her question drew pushback from Schmalensee, who highlighted the downside for Apple: a decline in its App Store “revenue stream.”
MacDailyNews Take: So, we can sell our t-shirts and mousepads in Target’s, Walmart’s, Amazon’s, etc. online stores, taking advantage of the audience and clientele that Target, Walmart, Amazon, etc. have built through the years at considerable cost to them and use their store infrastructures, also funded by them, alongside a link to our own store that offers the same products for 15% – 30% less?
Sign us up!
Oh, wait. Target, Walmart, Amazon, etc. don’t allow free advertising for other stores in their stores. Duh.
You know, one slight change could transform this judge’s hint from epically stupid to genius: Epic Games or any other developer gets to “inform users that Apple’s App Store isn’t their only shopping option” simply by paying Apple a 15% – 30% advertising fee for each sale they make outside the App Store.