Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple CEO Tim Cook Testifies in Epic Games v. Apple Trial

cmaier said:
Two issues- each side only has a certain amount of time in the trial. Since this is the last full day, they are essentially out of time. Second, I believe there were some limits imposed by the judge because Cook doesn't really have much to do with the issues in the case and he's busy guy.
Click to expand...
Yeah, busy like the guy from Game of Thrones that became King for chilling 8 Seasons long on his Chair.
 
  • Disagree
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Pezimak, secretbum, WiseAJ and 1 other person
JKAussieSkater said:
Hmm. Even though his comments are addressing privacy, replace the word "everyone" with "Apple's app review board", then it's totally okay for developers to do less over time. Wait, what's this whole court case about anyway? Privacy, right?


Hmm. So your income is allocated non-specifically to the App Store… In other words, the App Store's "expenses" aren't high enough to warrant specific consideration? Wait, why are we charging developers 30% on in-app purchases and subscriptions? Oh yeah, to fund R&D not specifically related to the App Store.


Ha! Hahahaha!!! I'm surprised and delighted at the stupidity to use this analogy in court. You can't "be both a judge and a player". Furthermore, products (especially toys) often have special deals inside their boxes that invite the purchaser to go to their website for special deals. Best Buy still sells those products. If that's not enough, the iPhone is not a brick-and-mortar store, it's a digital internet device. To compare online intangible purchases with real-world tangible purchases needs a lot more explanation than a simple analogy that presumes the two to be equivalent.

This is so problematic and the judge will see right through it. Like I said, I'm surprised at this statement, but delighted.
Click to expand...

you must be listening to a different judge and a different trial than I am listening to.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: buddhistMonkey, IMFHSN, secretbum and 4 others
Wildkraut said:
"...it's hard to imagine a part of your life that you can't have an app for..."

LOL, and Cook just gave the a powerful answer that proves, why there MUST be sideloading on every platform and device, and no company should be in total control what an user can install, or a developer can develop and distribute.

"When asked why apps can't direct users to deals on their websites, Cook said it would be "akin to Apple down at Best Buy saying 'Best Buy, put a sign there advertising where we are and that you can go across the street and get an iPhone.'"

Sure, but customers a.k.a. users can go elsewhere and buy it.
Just another reason to force open the platform, currently Apple users can't go elsewhere.
Click to expand...
They can. They can buy an Android phone.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: buddhistMonkey, tongxinshe, WiseAJ and 3 others
JKAussieSkater said:
I want to respect your comment, but I literally quoted from the MacRumors post… so… please criticize me directly, or the author of the post directly… so that I can at least defend myself or agree with you.
Click to expand...
You said the judge will see through something, but all of her comments and questions indicate that she thinks Epic is unlikely to have a case. As for allocating costs, as Cook pointed out, Apple is famous for using a single P&L and not allocated by product/feature. They are organized by business function, not by product.

Rather than relying on summaries, i suggest you dial-in and listen first-hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: buddhistMonkey, peanuts_of_pathos, ZZ9pluralZalpha and 2 others
dabi said:
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of corporations telling me what I'm allowed or not allowed to install. But that's just me.
Click to expand...
I understand and respect that perspective, and I had a jailbroken device for a few years back in the good old days of iPhone 3GS and 4, but now that Apple has pretty much caught up with all the stuff I wanted from the jailbreak, I haven't felt that need at all with my current device. Plus these days there is no shortage of apps available in the App Store that can do whatever most people need. In my view the main person Apple won't allow to install whatever they want is the hacker who wants to install malware on my device, and I'm totally cool with that protection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: buddhistMonkey, ZZ9pluralZalpha, Uofmtiger and 1 other person
omihek said:
I understand and respect that perspective, and I had a jailbroken device for a few years back in the good old days of iPhone 3GS and 4, but now that Apple has pretty much caught up with all the stuff I wanted from the jailbreak, I haven't felt that need at all with my current device. Plus these days there is no shortage of apps available in the App Store that can do whatever most people need. In my view the main person Apple won't allow to install whatever they want is the hacker who wants to install malware on my device, and I'm totally cool with that protection.
Click to expand...
Even if I weren't ok with Apple's protection, which in some ways I'm not, I'm supportive of their right to do what they want. Even though I'm not part of Apple in any way, those rights apply to other corps and individuals too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos and Mal Blackadder
hot-gril said:
For months, there have been these articles with MR user comments making analogies to Best Buy, Target, department stores, malls, etc.
Click to expand...

Dang, I was hoping Tim unrelatedly inserted an angry comment that the 2020 iPad Pro 256 wifi+cellular refurb (which is now a dead deal, but went for $450 when in stock which was rare) has been cleared out for an 'offensively low' price that doesn't represent Apple quality or brand

Sounds like no evidence of perusing MR at all
 
RedTheReader said:
Nice. If we’re lucky, we might get a ruling by around this time next year. And whoever loses, they’ll spend the next 5 years fighting the case all the way to the Supreme Court. In other words, nothing happened, and I am shocked… shocked!

(Don’t get me wrong by the way; I believe her about having more cases, but I’d bet a part of her just wants to put off dealing with such a difficult ruling.)
Click to expand...
Me also. Shocked I tell you. :apple:
 
cmaier said:
You said the judge will see through something, but all of her comments and questions indicate that she thinks Epic is unlikely to have a case. As for allocating costs, as Cook pointed out, Apple is famous for using a single P&L and not allocated by product/feature. They are organized by business function, not by product.

Rather than relying on summaries, i suggest you dial-in and listen first-hand.
Click to expand...

Ahh, that makes sense. Thank you for elaborating. You are right, too, that first-hand information is more reliable.
 
What about giving some companies a better cut, and others exclusive access to APIs?

Has that been followed up on in this case so far? I haven't really followed it that closely (mostly because busy / don't really care just find this all mildly interesting)

---

Though I think Craig saying 'Mac security sucks' essentially is an interesting argument to lockdown iOS completely, I really don't like that he's thrown Mac under the bus like that or believe that he necessarily believes that. Mac being more open obviously has its benefits and is a core strength. it's why people chose Mac over a tablet for 'serious work' in some verticals. Just like iOS being closed obviously has its benefits too. But both have cons for their strengths, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: peanuts_of_pathos
The P&L are sealed for those who were hoping that it will be exposed during trial. Didn't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back