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

[kmann1983]

He's 100% right about this. Nothing incorrect about what he said.

Except they have "bugs" in there system that "accidentally" prevents texts from getting to Android phones due to iMessage.

Be both know that's not an accident that's been going on since iMessage existed. Like how they specifically gimped Kindle when Amazon tried to say "same smooth experience" -- we both know Apple isn't known for being "the good guy" in these situations.

So yeah, Apple tries to hinder migration to other platforms. This isn't a new secret.

It's why they want vendor lockin for the appstore.

 

[kmann1983]

They want to make money on their IP.

Why can't Epic treat Apple the same as they treat Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo?

Microsoft doesn't get a cut of the apps I write. Just giving you an FYI. Things I sell.. yeah... that doesn't go through Microsoft. So yeah.. I pay Microsoft $0. Even Unity is free if you don't pull in 100k.
Heck, I can even write MacOS programs that don't go through the Apple Store.
Scary world, right?

Oh... you're talking about video games? Is the AppStore going only video games now? Does Apple REALLY want to compare iOS to a real OS like Windows/Linux/Mac again? Because if so, it looks like a gimped OS if we want to compare it to a full blown OS. How's the cursor support workin?

Why are people so terrified of third party software? You likely use it every day. And you aren't infected. It'll be ok, I promise.

 

[Sensa2004]

The same could be said of Microsoft when they were bundling IE. That didn't change the fact Microsoft was deemed a monopoly.

They were deemed a monopoly because at the time they controlled 95% of the entire PC market. There were literally no alternatives. Not only can you choose between iOS and android (which has a higher market share then Apple) but in the case of Fortnight you can play it on several other services which all charge a similar commission and which also have similar restrictions as to what company's can and can't do on their platforms.

 

[Sensa2004]

Best Buy doesn't get a cut, there is no cut. Best Buy purchases most of it's inventory and then sells it at msrp. Does Apple purchase apps to resell them? No. So it's not even remotely the same.

Best Buy's cut is that they get the goods at wholesale and sell them for a profit (MSRP). On the App Store Apple provides the service to developers who get the full price less Apple's cut. Apple's 30% cut is much less than the typical mark-up Best Buy charges customers which probably averages close to 50%. Both Apple and Best Buy get a cut, in slightly different formats, to cover their costs and make a profit. So what you're saying is that Apple deserves zero compensation for developing and maintaining an entire distribution system which is not how business works,

 

[NoBoMac]

Moderator Note

Posts have been deleted.

This is a reminder to keep the discussion civilized.

 

[buddhistMonkey]

And how is not paying Apple 30% mooching for Epic but not Uber? You’re not buying a car from Uber you’re buying a ride.

In the case of Uber, what you’re buying is external to iOS, i.e. a ride. If Uber sold cars, Apple wouldn’t take 30% of that transaction either. With Epic, though, the in-app purchase is for digital goods used entirely within iOS. Without iOS’s APIs, there would be nowhere to use them.

 

[quarkysg]

And what about when I give Apple $1000 for an iPhone?

I think Apple would thank you if you did.

Last I checked, semiconductor R&D cost a lot of money, so iPhones don't exact cost nothing to produce. Some other posters also commented earlier that there are also premium Android phones that cost just as much as well.

Besides, you got your iPhone if you paid for it. Why are you expecting more from that transaction?

 

[SurferPup]

I do not want a third party App Store on my iPhone, I will uninstall if Apple is compelled to supply this bloatware. I choose Apple hardware, software and services for a multitude of reasons some of which are privacy, security, payment integrity and reliability. I happily share analytics and Siri history across my whole Apple platform however in contract decline sharing with Google on my Nokia smart phones except for Beats and  Music For Android. I trust Apple impeccably to improve my user experience, reduce software bugs and improve security as for Giggle...

 

[m1maverick]

They were deemed a monopoly because at the time they controlled 95% of the entire PC market. There were literally no alternatives. Not only can you choose between iOS and android (which has a higher market share then Apple) but in the case of Fortnight you can play it on several other services which all charge a similar commission and which also have similar restrictions as to what company's can and can't do on their platforms.

Either you don't know what the word literally means or you're ignoring the alternatives, one of which was Apple. Furthermore Microsoft didn't set terms preventing you from installing an alternative browser. Contrast this to Apple who has 100% control of the App Store who decides what can and cannot be installed on your iOS device.

 

[m1maverick]

You can’t determine a company to be a monopoly because you feel like it. Law doesn’t work that way.

Then it's a good thing I'm not doing that eh?

 

[9927036]

So a museum choosing to show some pieces and not others isn’t curation? A quick perusal of the largest museums in the world shows several have over 1 million items: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_art_museums

It is. However that is not what the OP said.

 

[Sensa2004]

Either you don't know what the word literally means or you're ignoring the alternatives, one of which was Apple. Furthermore Microsoft didn't set terms preventing you from installing an alternative browser. Contrast this to Apple who has 100% control of the App Store who decides what can and cannot be installed on your iOS device.

I didn't ignore the alternatives. I specifically stated that MS controlled 95% of the world market at the time (1999 - https://time.com/3553242/microsoft-monopoly/ ). I then stated that there were "literally" no alternatives. There were 113.5 million PC sold in 1999 ( https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jan-24-fi-57038-story.html). Of that total 111.5 million were running microsoft software and Apple sold a measly 2 million units for a 3.4% market share ( https://igotoffer.com/apple/history-apple-1999 - scroll to the bottom for the numbers) and had virtually no presence in the business world. That's a textbook definition of a monopoly and support for the true statement that there were "literally" no alternatives to MS in 1999.

What you are arguing is that Apple is a monopoly simply because it exerts total control over it product. That is not the standard and accepted legal meaning of a monopoly. In fact, if you are trying to make the case that an OS has a monopoly in mobile phones it would be much easier to make that claim if you referred to Android which has a 75% market worldwide ( https://www.businessofapps.com/data/android-statistics/ ). Your argument also completely ignores the fact that in regards to gaming there are a myriad pf platforms (playstation, x-box, google play, steam etc) where games like Fortnight can be played. Again, from a market share perspective, Apple clearly doesn't have a monopoly.

Your definition of a monopoly would make virtually any business a monopoly. Every gas company (Shell, Exxon etc) would constitute a monopoly under your definition because at their gas stations they have total control of what they sell and you can't buy another brand of gas from them or use your Exxon points card at a Shell station. Netflix, Hulu, HBO etc would all be monopolies because they control their content, pricing and have exclusive content not available elsewhere. And the list goes on and on.

If you don't like Apple's control of their ecosystem that's fine don't buy from them...you have other options. And its because you have those options, and because Apple is not the dominant market player in any area it competes in globally, that unfortunately no matter how hard you try you can't call the App Store a monopoly (no matter how much you want to).

 

[1258186]

Just this week I read an article about how Betsy DeVos will submit to questioning for three hours in some investigation. I despise DeVos and all she stands for, and I think three hours is woefully insufficient, but I understand that there are people who will do a lot just to get someone rich & powerful on the stand.

It's reasonable that they have a say in how much time they're there because they're not integral to the case and you certainly can harass people through the legal system. I think the term is barratry.

Thanks to all who replied. You learn something new every day on here.

 

[1258186]

no offense, but are you a legal expert of any kind? I have actually heard of it, and I am not. did work a lot with corporate legal departments though, oh and I stayed at aHoliday Inn Express last night!

Nope. Not saying it’s wrong just that I hadn’t heard of it before. Must be more common than I thought.

 

[Paulio]

Seemed to me that Cydia was a great alternative store that saw my best value iOS purchases by far. Apple to me is a 3rd party and I have no reason to trust their practices as best, especially when they go out of their way to destroy viable competition whilst only ever delivering a substandard product. They attack the alternate solutions every way they can, because they themselves know their own offerings are deliberately limited.

 

[vladi]

Best Buy's cut is that they get the goods at wholesale and sell them for a profit (MSRP). On the App Store Apple provides the service to developers who get the full price less Apple's cut. Apple's 30% cut is much less than the typical mark-up Best Buy charges customers which probably averages close to 50%. Both Apple and Best Buy get a cut, in slightly different formats, to cover their costs and make a profit. So what you're saying is that Apple deserves zero compensation for developing and maintaining an entire distribution system which is not how business works,

Cut is when you are entitled to a portion of party's profit or revenue (cutting the profit/revenue ie cut) for being a middle man between a two or more parties without investing a single cent into the transaction between parties.

 

[Gasu E.]

Best Buy's cut is that they get the goods at wholesale and sell them for a profit (MSRP). On the App Store Apple provides the service to developers who get the full price less Apple's cut. Apple's 30% cut is much less than the typical mark-up Best Buy charges customers which probably averages close to 50%. Both Apple and Best Buy get a cut, in slightly different formats, to cover their costs and make a profit. So what you're saying is that Apple deserves zero compensation for developing and maintaining an entire distribution system which is not how business works,

Best Buy has to finance and maintain physical inventory. That makes a big difference to their cost structure. I do not think you can compare margins for bricks & mortar vs. a virtual store front.

 

[stevet]

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.

No, that’s not the same analogy. You’ve completely read that the way you wanted to read it But it’s not close to what was meant. If you went to the Best Buy looking for a toy and there was a toy on the shelf that said $9.99 but had a sign that said you can buy this for $6.99 across the street, that would be the correct analogy.

 

[stevet]

the comment the lawyer made about the 15% cut was apt. Cook didn’t sound very confident or believable with that answer.

 

[JKAussieSkater]

No, that’s not the same analogy. You’ve completely read that the way you wanted to read it But it’s not close to what was meant. If you went to the Best Buy looking for a toy and there was a toy on the shelf that said $9.99 but had a sign that said you can buy this for $6.99 across the street, that would be the correct analogy.

No that’s not the right analogy. You’ve overlooked that the toy has already been purchased (the app downloaded) and now you can buy add-ons direct from the supplier (the subscription/in-app purchases).

 

[Sensa2004]

Best Buy has to finance and maintain physical inventory. That makes a big difference to their cost structure. I do not think you can compare margins for bricks & mortar vs. a virtual store front.

That's true and that's also why retail brick and mortar margins are significantly higher, in most instances, than Apple's 15-30% cut or fee. I said Best Buy's average margin was probably around 50% - there are many items they sell where the margin is 100%.

Additionally, Best Buy and many other retailers now have their own digital stores that resell products from a 3rd party and aren't responsible for the inventorying of the item and in many cases don't prepay for the item either (here's an example from the Canadian web page - notice it says sold and shipped by a 3rd party - https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/diono-radian-3qx-convertible-car-seat-jet-black/14996016). You can bet your last dollar that Best Buy, like Apple, takes a cut of that sale for facilitating the transaction.

The point, though there are semantic differences in the set-up of a digital store and a brick and mortar store (the difference being blurred in the 21st century as per the above example) is that the distributors of a product (be it Best Buy or Apple) PROFIT from the sale/distribution of products / Apps supplied by others.

Epic's position, and apparently many people in this thread feel the same way, is that Apple doesn't deserve to make one red cent for being the creator of the market (giving companies access to a billion customers) being the provider of the infrastructure to facilitate the transaction and/or for billion of dollars of R&D that went into creating the iPhone and App store and continues to drive innovative features (AR for example) that provide even more opportunities for developers to introduce more interesting apps as a result. That's simply not how business works.

 

[Poisednoise]

I didn't ignore the alternatives. I specifically stated that MS controlled 95% of the world market at the time (1999 - https://time.com/3553242/microsoft-monopoly/ ). I then stated that there were "literally" no alternatives. There were 113.5 million PC sold in 1999 ( https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-jan-24-fi-57038-story.html). Of that total 111.5 million were running microsoft software and Apple sold a measly 2 million units for a 3.4% market share ( https://igotoffer.com/apple/history-apple-1999 - scroll to the bottom for the numbers) and had virtually no presence in the business world. That's a textbook definition of a monopoly and support for the true statement that there were "literally" no alternatives to MS in 1999.

What you are arguing is that Apple is a monopoly simply because it exerts total control over it product. That is not the standard and accepted legal meaning of a monopoly. In fact, if you are trying to make the case that an OS has a monopoly in mobile phones it would be much easier to make that claim if you referred to Android which has a 75% market worldwide ( https://www.businessofapps.com/data/android-statistics/ ). Your argument also completely ignores the fact that in regards to gaming there are a myriad pf platforms (playstation, x-box, google play, steam etc) where games like Fortnight can be played. Again, from a market share perspective, Apple clearly doesn't have a monopoly.

Your definition of a monopoly would make virtually any business a monopoly. Every gas company (Shell, Exxon etc) would constitute a monopoly under your definition because at their gas stations they have total control of what they sell and you can't buy another brand of gas from them or use your Exxon points card at a Shell station. Netflix, Hulu, HBO etc would all be monopolies because they control their content, pricing and have exclusive content not available elsewhere. And the list goes on and on.

If you don't like Apple's control of their ecosystem that's fine don't buy from them...you have other options. And its because you have those options, and because Apple is not the dominant market player in any area it competes in globally, that unfortunately no matter how hard you try you can't call the App Store a monopoly (no matter how much you want to).

Just jumping in to point out that all this guff above simply supports the argument that you do not understand what the word “literally” means. The word doesn’t really have a place in this argument, as it would be difficult to have a figurative or virtual (as opposed to material) monopoly, but insofar as it does have a place, as you have used it here the word literal would mean that there were NO alternatives at all, none. In 1999 there were many alternatives: the Macintosh has of course already been mentioned, but Linux in various forms was already about too, OS/2 was around, BeOS, AmigaOS and RiscOS were still hanging on, and all of these had web browser capability, So, there were in fact literally many alternatives. You may care to argue that most if not all of these were not realistic alternatives for most businesses, and I think that’s a strong argument, but that’s not what you said. Defending your use of the word simply weakens the rest of your point.

 

[goonie4life9]

It is. However that is not what the OP said.

It sure is what the OP said. The whole issue is the lawyer attempting to “catch” Cook with a dictionary “gotcha” question and using a false analogy. Again, the size of a collection has no bearing, definitionally or functionally, on whether something is curated. To the OP’s comment, the OP conflated an act (curation) with a descriptor (archive or museum). Things being on public display (museum) or in non-public/limited access storage (archive) has no bearing on whether those things are curated.

 

[9927036]

It sure is what the OP said. The whole issue is the lawyer attempting to “catch” Cook with a dictionary “gotcha” question and using a false analogy. Again, the size of a collection has no bearing, definitionally or functionally, on whether something is curated. To the OP’s comment, the OP conflated an act (curation) with a descriptor (archive or museum). Things being on public display (museum) or in non-public/limited access storage (archive) has no bearing on whether those things are curated.

So perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what it is that Apple is "curating"?

 

[goonie4life9]

So perhaps you would be kind enough to explain what it is that Apple is "curating"?

I'm a bit lost. We're talking about the App Store, which is curated. For example, Apple rejects, on average, 40% of submitted apps. You can find information about the App Store here: https://www.apple.com/app-store/