This week, Apple CEO Tim Cook faced surprisingly tough questioning from judge
- Reference: 1621712647
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/05/22/apple_ceo_tim_cook_faces/
- Source link:
Last August, Epic Games, maker of Fortnite, [1]sued Apple alleging that the iPhone maker illegally monopolizes iOS app distribution and payments. Epic hopes to convince Judge Gonzalez that Apple is violating antitrust law by imposing rules that force iOS developers to distribute through the iOS App Store and to rely solely on Apple's in-app payment system.
As recounted by press pool reporter Mike Acton of legal news service MLex, Cook arrived around 0735 Pacific Time wearing a dark grey suit, a white shirt with grey tie, black shoes, and a clear face shield. It did not protect him from Judge Gonzalez's skepticism.
[2]
[3]
[4]
The judge cited the findings of the developer survey that's been entered into evidence, which indicated that 39 per cent of software makrs were either very dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied with Apple's distribution service, with 19 per cent neutral and 36 per cent somewhat or very satisfied.
Sometimes the developer and the user are not necessarily intersecting interests
Gonzalez then asked how that was acceptable and how, if those figures were correct, whether Cook feels the motivation or incentive to address developer needs.
Cooke made clear that Apple's interpretation of user needs took precedent over placating developers.
"I’m not familiar with the document you are referencing – friction is what creates a curated experience for users that they are assured safe and trusted," said Cook. "So sometimes the developer and the user are not necessarily intersecting interests."
Gonzalez responded by expressing doubt that Apple feels "real pressure or competition to actually change the manner in which you act to address the concerns of the developers."
[5]
Cook disagreed, insisting that Apple is responsive to developer concerns.
At another point, Gonzalez asked Cook whether he agrees with the basic proposition that competition is good.
"I think it’s great," said Cook.
[6]
"You don’t have competition in IAP though," said Gonzalez, referring to in‑app purchases.
Cook insisted people could buy a Sony PlayStation or Nintendo Switch to play video games games and purchase stuff on a non-Apple system, to which Gonzalez said, "Well, only if they know, right?" (Apple's developer rules disallow promoting other platforms.)
[7]Apple's macOS is sub-par for security, Apple exec Craig Federighi tells Epic trial
[8]Apple's expert witness grilled by Epic over 'frictionless' spending outside the app
[9]We were 'blindsided' by Epic's cheek, claims Apple exec on 4th day of antitrust wrangling
[10]Apple vs Epic Games trial kicks off featuring the same old arguments, hundreds of angry Zoombombing tweens
The judge also found it curious that the bulk of iOS revenue comes from gaming apps. She noted that she has free multiple banking apps, for which Apple does not charge a commission. "You don’t charge Wells Fargo or Bank of America," she said, "but you are charging the gamers to subsidise Wells Fargo."
Cook replied that Apple charges for digital transactions and that's simply the business model it has chosen.
In response to questioning from Epic's counsel about whether Apple makes editorial judgements about the apps in the App Store, Cook said, “We’re not making a moral judgement on them, if that’s what you’re asking."
Apple's developer rules suggest otherwise. As [11]noted by Reuters reporter Stephen Nellis, Section 1.1 of Apple's [12]App Store Review Guidelines is titled "Objectionable Content" and disallows "content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy."
Cook insisted Apple's oversight was essential to keep people safe and that the App Store would become "a toxic mess" if it ceased reviewing apps.
He also had trouble remembering just how much Apple gets paid by Google to make Google Search the default on the iPhone.
Gary Bornstein, representing Epic, suggested the amount was $10bn.
“I don’t remember the exact number," said Cook.
Bornstein asked if Cook didn't know it was upwards of $10bn.
"I don’t know," Cook replied.
Later in the afternoon, after Cook's testimony concluded and other matters were dealt with, Gonzalez said the evidentiary portion of the trial was done and she expects closing arguments will follow, after which she will issue a written opinion. It will take some time, she said, but she intends to try to do so as quickly as possible.
At the start of this bench trial, the consensus among observers appeared to be that Apple would prevail. As it winds down, the outcome looks a lot less certain. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/14/epic_games_apple/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/applications&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YKl-K4pxhHnYUW-oeVTRJQAAAAo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/applications&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YKl-K4pxhHnYUW-oeVTRJQAAAAo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/applications&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YKl-K4pxhHnYUW-oeVTRJQAAAAo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/applications&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YKl-K4pxhHnYUW-oeVTRJQAAAAo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/applications&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YKl-K4pxhHnYUW-oeVTRJQAAAAo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/20/epic_macos_malware/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/14/expert_witness_apple_epic/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/07/epic_apple_day_4/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/04/apple_vs_epic_trial/
[11] https://twitter.com/StephenNellis/status/1395790467967725573?s=20
[12] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Another way
Allow people to unlock their phone (jailbreak) for full functionality but set a flag in Secure Enclave to indicate this has been done; then allow it to operate with the ability to side load unconditionally. This flag would be easily detectable by apps as the phone being jailbroken and apps/services which do not want to run on jailbroken phones can then refuse to operate.
Epic gets their third party store and nobody will use it just like how nobody uses EGS on PC today.
At a minimum Apple should not be able to stop apps from alerting users to alternate and possibly cheaper methods of payment/subscription.
Unfortunately, the question about bank apps probably has Tim Cook trying to figure out how to get a cut of all app-initiated bank transfers.
When speaking to a Judge, avoid saying:
I don't remember...
I don't know...
I don't care
Apple's to lose
I read the report on the BBC yesterday and it stated that Cook came across as evasive and vague and this article seems to support that view.
He did not know if the App Store made a profit only a "feeling" that it was profitable. How can you run a business if you don’t know if the business strategy you implement is making a profit or costing the business money? There is no way Cook does not know how much profit the App Store is making.
Quote from the BBC Article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57199547
“Most experts believe this is Apple's to lose but anti-trust cases are notoriously difficult to predict.” My views on the App Store aside if Apple do lose it will be down to them with their poor performance in court.
Dept of Corrections and Clarifications
In a previous edition, we printed, "Cooke made clear that Apple's interpretation of user needs took precedent over placating developers.".
This should have said, "Cooke made clear that Apple's bottom line needs took precedent over placating developers."
Consoled opinion.
Being able to buy something on a game console seems more like an opinionated choice rather than any fact or fiction that relates to the operations of the iOS store regardless if the people "users" are aware of the option.
Apple's entire defense know resembles Regan's "I do not recall" testimony. Strangely, all of Apple's witnesses are liars, but here's the thing: Would you rather be found looking greedy or like a liar? Either way it's not a good look, but at least if you're found looking greedy you can keep your honesty. But found as a liar, well, you keep nothing and can't be trusted with anything.
At this point Apple should just set the fee to 0% and roll with it, see how it goes. If any company should be able to endure the tide, it should be a TRILLION dollar company right? Shit, Domino's Pizza pulled off "30 minutes or less" for decades, surely Apple can go a bit with a 0% fee.