Here are Apple’s and Epic’s full slideshows arguing why they should win at trial

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

Both Apple and Epic have released their opening presentations on why they feel they should win this week’s trial, which is set to determine the future of the App Store. In the documents, which you can look through below, each company lays out its case.

The lawsuit started when Apple removed Epic Games’ Fortnite from the App Store after Epic bypassed Apple’s system for in-app purchases. But it’s turned into a much deeper examination of Apple’s walled-garden approach to technology, and whether some of the walls the company puts up might violate antitrust law.

We took a deeper look at the companies’ legal strategies in advance of the trial, but you can see the same arguments play out in these presentations. Epic uses metaphors of brick walls and gas stations to argue that Apple’s control over what can and cannot be installed on the iPhone is unfair, and that allowing other methods of installing apps wouldn’t harm iOS’s security. Apple pushes back saying that Epic getting the openness that it wants would harm not just the App Store but other stores from Sony and Nintendo.


Apple’s slides look pretty damning lol, Epic doin some shady shit behind the scenes. Epic’s whole argument looks especially bad given their revenue on iOS is only 7%. Even if they want to make a bigger difference beyond their own app, masquerading it as a huge blow to Epic’s business is just disingenuous and cringe.

Keep in mind that neither side’s slides are evidence. They contain each side’s characterization of what they expect the evidence to show packaged in the most favorable way possible.

The evidence may come in very differently.

So are you saying the revenue isn’t only 7%?

I’m saying that’s a point without context.

The context is self-explanatory.

I guess we can cancel the trial, then. That Apple highlighted a fact that is favorable to them in their opening statement doesn’t change that as the trial moves forward, the judge is going to 1) weigh those facts against all of the evidence and 2) may or may not even consider them to be relevant to the issues at hand or as important to the overall arguments as lay people in comment threads deem them to be.

At any rate, I didn’t argue that any given claim might not be important or damning to Epic after all is said and done, i argued that deciding one side or the other has the better case before any actual evidence has come in is probably pointless.

Oh the trial should still go forward, because the verdict might be a defining moment for the whole industry. I’m just not advocating for one side or the other simply because I brought up a particular damning point against a monopoly. Now whether or not that matters wasn’t within the context of my point.

It really comes down to definition of "market." Apple contends that the market is all users on all app stores, while Epic contends that the market is iOS users. If the relevant market is the former, then 7% is pretty damning, but if it’s the latter, apple clearly controls 100% of the market. This is why switching comes up so frequently in both decks.

It’s going to be very interesting to see how it ultimately plays out, but I wouldn’t be on one outcome or the other. It’s pretty complex.

I’m in the same boat. I wouldn’t put money on an outcome either way but just as a "for fun" exercise I’d give Apple the upper hand ESPECIALLY because it’s a bench trial.

I might be more a bit more favorable to Epic or maybe just say it’s a tossup if it were a Jury trial

I am of the opinion that Epic is wrong in characterizing the iOS appstore as a market in and of itself. If I develop a appstore for my hardware, that appstore is mine to do with what I please. A separate company shouldn’t be allowed to come along and try to dictate how I run said appstore. You chose to abide by the rules and conditions for selling on my appstore. I didn’t force you to join or stay. If you break my rules, you deserve the consequences. If the appstore is considered its own market, then of course the company has 100% of it, because they made it.

I am fully aware that that opinion is probably naïve or ridiculous, whatever you want to call it. But I would have the same opinion no matter which company owned all the facets, store, OS, and hardware.

Also in my opinion, the Google Playstore is completely different since it has been open to many different hardware manufacturers. It doesn’t enjoy the same advantages that Apple has.

Lawyer here! These opening argument demonstratives are of course not themselves evidence, but don’t dismiss them as mere spin. These things aren’t PR spin for a disinterested public; they’re the underpinnings of legal arguments made for the benefit of a really capable judge who’s going to spend the next several weeks checking whether they hit the mark. That’s why lawyers are really careful not to over-promise in openings. You may scoff at this in light of lawyers making asses of themselves in the public arena or whatever, but folks at this level wouldn’t get caught dead torching their credibility with a judge by mischaracterizing the evidence the judge is going to see for themselves in a couple of days

I’m aware. I am not a lawyer but my job is to create demonstratives and manage exhibits for an in house team at a law firm and in that role I attend 3 – 4 major trials a year, for the last 16 years.

I realize this is what they expect the evidence to be. But I also think it’s folly to assume the evidence will come in or be weighed exactly as its presented in an opening presentation and there is clearly going to be a counter argument.

Well, that explains a lot

So what do you think about the relative quality of the two presentations?

Apple’s is very Apple. Overall I applaud both sides for making content the focus of the presentations rather than doing something showy.

That may be a reflection of presenting to a judge and not attempting to "wow" a Jury though. (Though, my recollection is that Apple had a similar aesthetic in their Samsung trial.)

Epic’s brick wall is the sort of visual build I’m not surprised to see given the theme but it’s pretty cheap looking.

Some of the attention to detail doesn’t matter much overall but bothers me anyway: For example some of Apple’s charts have slightly different formatting from slide to slide. Epic’s documents on the callout slides aren’t lined up from slide to slide.

It appears some of the slides probably had some subtle build properties (which I approve of but can’t grade because these are static images) but I don’t see any evidence of crazy swooping animations which I generally despise. So that’s good.

I appreciate the effort in Apple’s slides to use high quality photos of the witnesses with the background cut out in a way that shows they spent time on it. Often in presentations they’ll just nab a screencap from a depo and that never looks good.

Overall, I’d give both them an "A-" for restraint, A "C+" (Apple) and a "C-" (Epic) for being a bit too boring visually with not enough attention to detail. (Which stands out more to me based on how simple the slides are.)

Apple has one chart that shows off the standard nature of the 30% cut over the years which looks really nice. Some people over-design charts or add chart elements that are a distraction and this one is a simple attractive chart with nice-looking (equally-sized) logos and a color pop that helps drive home the point. (Slide16)

I’d be curious to know if Apple’s counsel used Keynote instead of PowerPoint. (Or if they’re using Macs at all.) The issue with using a Mac in court it you’re running presentations is virtually all of the courtroom presentation software for exhibits and cutting deposition videos is Windows-only. There’s some stuff for Mac but it’s pretty hard to use when the standard that everyone else uses is on the PC side.

These slides look very powerpoint. Could well have been built in keynote, but I’m not sure why they’d bother when keynote doesn’t really offer any advantages for static presentations.

That 30% slide was excellent. Using the X axis to both show the individual stores and the passage of time is clever and very intuitive. Agreed. It’s very apple.

I’d be curious to know if Apple’s counsel used Keynote instead of PowerPoint. (Or if they’re using Macs at all.)

I have been involved in a fair number of trials against Apple (going back 15 years or so). In the past, they have had their trial techs try to start trials using Macbooks, but in every single trial the tech was using a windows based laptop by day 2 because of issues trying to use Apple devices. The last couple of years, they just start with windows laptops. I guess they have finally given up with trying to roll in with macbooks. They also have always used PowerPoint for their slides.

Well Apple’s slides also leaked 2 email addresses if you read carefully.

I count 6 if you count the 4 Apple emails in there, but these emails aren’t really a surprise. It’d be easy to guess

Based on the slides alone, Apple’s arguments are much more compelling. I don’t know what Epic’s lawyers are thinking, but whatever they are presenting in the slides is pure horseshit and not very convincing. I’d go as far as saying that many of their arguments focus on irrelevant factors entirely, many of which Apple already rebutted in their own slides.

Funny, I think the contrary is true.

legally though, based on this slides epic has a weak hand.

Yeah. Agreed.

I went out on a pretty sturdy limb last year when Epic filed this suit and predicted Apple will win. The market for gaming is probably the weakest possible angle of attack if you’re going to go after Apple for antitrust.

These slides don’t change my opinion.

Sweeney has recently come into enormous wealth. I think he has a "Master of the Universe" complex and believes he’s never wrong. Just look at his incredibly self indulgent opening today. I would further guess that his attorneys tried to dissuade him from this course of action, but he thought he was smarter than them all.

There I am – further out on that limb.

Did I miss it? Does Epic’s slide show mention single purpose or general purpose computing devices?

I dont think so.

Did not see it.

View All Comments
Back to top ↑