Apple CEO Tim Cook to Testify in U.S. Antitrust Hearing on July 27

[MacRumors]

Apple CEO Tim Cook will participate in an antitrust hearing held by the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee on Monday, July 27 at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time, the Judiciary Committee announced today. The hearing is part of an ongoing U.S. antitrust investigation that involves competition in digital markets.

The hearing, labeled "Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 6: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple," will also include Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Alphabet/Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. There will be a live stream of the questioning available on YouTube.

Since the antitrust investigation launched last year, the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee has been investigating tech companies. Apple's App Store policies have been under scrutiny, and Apple has been questioned about the removal of certain apps, how search ranking results are determined, how the in-app purchase mechanism works, whether apps are allowed include in-app links to non-Apple payment systems, and Apple's policies on setting non-Apple apps as default.

Ahead of the hearing the committee has been soliciting opinions from App Store developers and there has been a recent focus on the 30 percent cut that Apple takes from in-app subscription purchases. Cook is likely to be questioned about Apple's App Store policies, including the subscription-based rules that have recently made headlines.

In a statement, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler and Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline said that it is essential to hear testimony from the CEOs of the four tech companies in the antitrust investigation.

"Since last June, the Subcommittee has been investigating the dominance of a small number of digital platforms and the adequacy of existing antitrust laws and enforcement. Given the central role these corporations play in the lives of the American people, it is critical that their CEOs are forthcoming. As we have said from the start, their testimony is essential for us to complete this investigation."

The investigation into Apple's ‌App Store‌ practices is in the early stages as the Justice Department is focusing resources on a separate investigation into Google's dominance in digital advertising, but the committee's goal with the hearing is to generate a report with recommendations on legislative action.

Article Link: Apple CEO Tim Cook to Testify in U.S. Antitrust Hearing on July 27

 

[AdonisSMU]

Apples cozy relationship with Authoritarian governments was always gonna be a moral hazard.

 

[ouimetnick]

I hope the representatives ask meaningful questions and don’t waste everyone’s time asking stupid questions that a google search would answer.

 

[Cosmosent]

Cool, now I have a date to work from !

 

[farewelwilliams]

App Store complaints are completely overblown. You want a healthy App Store? Pay up the 30%. I would have never made this much money for an app I made in a couple of weeks had Apple not invested billions into developer tools and the App Store.

 

[fairuz]

App Store complaints are completely overblown. You want a healthy App Store? Pay up the 30%. I would have never made this much money for an app I made in a couple of weeks had Apple not invested billions into developer tools and the App Store.

I would totally agree if they were applying the rule fairly, but they aren't. They pick and choose who is exempt, like Netflix.

 

[Rogifan]

App Store complaints are completely overblown. You want a healthy App Store? Pay up the 30%. I would have never made this much money for an app I made in a couple of weeks had Apple not invested billions into developer tools and the App Store.

So none of the $1000 iPhone or iPad Pro goes towards the App Store? The only thing that sustains it is Apple taking 30% of someone else’s revenues? Then why do they allow freemium apps in the store? My mother has a phone full of games and other apps she didn’t spend one cent on. And why do they allow Netflix, Spotify and others to get around paying 30% (or 15%)? I just re-installed my SiriusXM app today and you can’t do anything in the app unless you’re a subscriber and there is no option to subscribe in app. All you get when you launch the app is a login screen. So I guess Apple is A-OK with Sirius not paying up and having an app that doesn’t function unless you’re a subscriber?

I would totally agree if they were applying the rule fairly, but they aren't. They pick and choose who is exempt, like Netflix.

And don’t forget all the “free” apps which are the majority in the App Store. I pay to get rid of ads so Apple gets a cut of that but I’ll bet a lot of people don’t. Especially if the price to remove ads is more than $1.99.

 

[citysnaps]

Apples cozy relationship with Authoritarian governments was always gonna be a moral hazard.

What? Are you familiar with the concept of anti-trust?

 

[farewelwilliams]

I would totally agree if they were applying the rule fairly, but they aren't. They pick and choose who is exempt, like Netflix.

you mean they chose several categories of apps that are exempt which is fair.

it's no different than saying "no porn apps on the store" which most people don't complain about

 

[Blackstick]

I hope the representatives ask meaningful questions and don’t waste everyone’s time asking stupid questions that a google search would answer.

You give septuagenarian politicians a LOT of credit. This is a generation that can't figure out how to delete an app off their phone.

 

[tatsumi]

I would totally agree if they were applying the rule fairly, but they aren't. They pick and choose who is exempt, like Netflix.

Wrong. Netflix is not exempt of anything.
Anybody can do what Netflix does. We did as a small start up.
It’s just developers who have no clue about how to use loopholes.

 

[4jasontv]

Am I crazy or is this the same post from 6 days ago?

Can someone explain to me how these are different?

 

[farewelwilliams]

So none of the $1000 iPhone or iPad Pro goes towards the App Store?

$1000 pays for several years of major operating system updates. Those updates include developer APIs. But they're no where close to what the App Store pays for.

Keep in mind, the iPhone SE is only $399 that includes ~5 years of operating system updates.

The only thing that sustains it is Apple taking 30% of someone else’s revenues?

Nope.

Then why do they allow freemium apps in the store? My mother has a phone full of games and other apps she didn’t spend one cent on.

Freemium apps? They make Apple a ton of money through IAP. Less than 5% of people that use freemium apps actually pay money, yet Apple makes more money through freemium apps than paid apps.

And why do they allow Netflix, Spotify and others to get around paying 30% (or 15%)? I just re-installed my SiriusXM app today and you can’t do anything in the app unless you’re a subscriber and there is no option to subscribe in app. All you get when you launch the app is a login screen. So I guess Apple is A-OK with Sirius not paying up and having an app that doesn’t function unless you’re a subscriber?

Same with Slack. Same with Dropbox. If you want to make a Netflix/Slack/Dropbox/SiriusXM/Spotify competitor, you too can be exempt. Those apps are considered exempt categories listed in the guidelines.

And don’t forget all the “free” apps which are the majority in the App Store. I pay to get rid of ads so Apple gets a cut of that but I’ll bet a lot of people don’t. Especially if the price to remove ads is more than $1.99.

Steve Jobs literally said on stage that Apple pays out of their pocket to host 100% free apps because both developers and Apple have the same goal: deliver as many apps as they can to the iPhone which appeals a lot of customers into buying iPhones.

 

[yoavcs]

Am I crazy or is this the same post from 6 days ago?

Can someone explain to me how these are different?

They give the exact date this time. July 27.

 

[fairuz]

Wrong. Netflix is not exempt of anything.
Anybody can do what Netflix does. We did as a small start up.
It’s just developers who have no clue about how to use loopholes.

Evidently Spotify can't
[automerge]1594094864[/automerge]

you mean they chose several categories of apps that are exempt which is fair.

it's no different then saying "no porn apps on the store" which most people don't complain about

They pick arbitrary categories that are clearly meant to exempt certain players, and they don't even keep to those. What was that email app again that just got a pass?

 

[Rogifan]

$1000 pays for several years of major operating system updates. Those updates include developer APIs. But they're no where close to what the App Store pays for.

Keep in mind, the iPhone SE is only $399 that includes ~5 years of operating system updates.

Freemium apps? They make Apple a ton of money through IAP. Less than 5% of people that use freemium apps actually pay money, yet Apple makes more money through freemium apps than paid apps.



Same with Slack. Same with Dropbox. If you want to make a Netflix/Slack/Dropbox/SiriusXM/Spotify competitor, you too can be exempt. Those apps are considered exempt categories listed in the guidelines.

Steve Jobs literally said on stage that Apple pays out of their pocket to host 100% free apps because both developers and Apple have the same goal: deliver as many apps as they can to the iPhone which appeals a lot of customers into buying iPhones.

You haven’t explained why it’s OK for companies like Netflix to pay Apple nothing. Or how an App Store mostly full of freemium apps jives with: ”You want a healthy App Store? Pay up the 30%.”.

I get why free apps exist. Apple knows most people won’t pay for apps and Apple wants an App Store with a huge quantity of apps they can brag about. And I get why Apple created a loophole for companies it competes with. Apple needs Netflix and Spotify more than they need Apple. Plus it keeps regulators at bay. But don’t anyone say the 30% is still justified because we all know it’s not. And Apple has shown it will reduce or cut it out all together if it’s in their business interest to do so. Also, I can’t think of one app on my iPhone or iPad that I downloaded because Apple promoted it. Ben Thompson calls Apple’s 30% cut “rent seeking” and he’s absolutely right. The biggest component of services revenue is App Store. And I’ll bet the biggest component of App Store is the IAP people pay to get rid of adds or do things in games. Is that something you would call insanely great?

 

[Plutonius]

I hope the representatives ask meaningful questions and don’t waste everyone’s time asking stupid questions that a google search would answer.

It seems to me that most of the time they don't even bother asking questions in the hearings.

My prediction is that most of the time is spent on prepared speeches by House members claiming that Apple and others are bad or that Apple and others are good.

 

[AndiG]

The role of the gatekeeper and competitor should always be separated. Google had the same problem showing Google ads and at the same time ads from different companies.
AppleTV+ pays no fees at all while other competing services have to pay the Apple Tax?

 

[farewelwilliams]

You haven’t explained why it’s OK for companies like Netflix to pay Apple nothing.

Netflix was paying Apple with IAP. Then they decided to remove IAP ever since the guidelines changed to allow streaming apps to handle payment outside the app because it was a common developer request.

The only special deal Apple has with a company is with Amazon where Amazon doesn't pay Apple under *special circumstances* for video streaming rentals and purchases. The deal states that Amazon must incorporate all of the TV features of Apple TV (AirPlay, universal search, Siri, etc...things that were optional by third party developers).

Or how an App Store mostly full of freemium apps jives with: ”You want a healthy App Store? Pay up the 30%.”.

What are you talking about? Freemium apps have to pay Apple the 30%.

But don’t anyone say the 30% is still justified because we all know it’s not.

Wrong. It's 100% justified with the amount of developer services and tools we get. Are you an iOS developer? If so, you would know that:
- we developers get up to 1 petabyte of user storage via CloudKit 100% free. Bear notes app does this and they manage 0 servers for their subscription-paid users.
- we could submit 1000 app and app updates in a year which translates to Apple paying about 1000 man-hours worth of paychecks at about $30/hr or ~$30k.
- we have free access to using Apple Maps instead of paying Google tons of money to use their mapping API keys (for those high volume users). this saves Yelp a ton of money.
- we get many more new features every single year via the SDK compared to Android (like ARKit, Core ML, SwiftUI, Vision, etc... just to name a few).
- we get global distribution for free (including China, you know, where Google Play doesn't exist and also it is that place with a great firewall where most of our third party cloud servers can't reach from USA).
- we get app store curated editorial with a chance to reach front page in front of 500 million customers a week.
- we have no credit card fees to worry about
- we get hosted testflight service for public and private beta testing for free
- app store creates many different binaries of our app and distributes device-optimized versions to each customer. a 1 gigabyte app with many different permutations of versions across hundreds of servers around the world means Apple is hosting about several terrabytes in the cloud for us
- push notifications/push notification sandbox servers, web versions of cloudkit/mapkit, yearly major releases of Xcode with new features, 1 time per year code level support from Apple engineers, analytics dashboard and crash reporting, and the list goes on and on.

You think $99/year is going to cover that? Nope. Not even close.

 

[DeepIn2U]

I hope the representatives ask meaningful questions and don’t waste everyone’s time asking stupid questions that a google search would answer.

agreed. I don’t want this to be another FB farce from 1.8yrs ago that we saw on the news.

 

[driveparty]

You want a healthy App Store? Pay up the 30%.

Healthy does not mean or imply greedy or freaking expensive.

Suppose, you'r real developer and not an apple (paid?) "fan", just murmuring something to spread their "args" to create a feeling of common opinion. You say, you've made "this much money" from an app, and I know manies that made not. Some of them really failed in aspects of usability & etc. But some just got stopped by the 30% barrier 'cause their apps were costly to maintain, so once again, to comply with apple policies (those apps required moderation for user content uploads).
There's always a balance between safety & its costs. It would be 99% safe to live all life "in a closet", but you don't. 30% fee is not for safety, it's for raking in shekels.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Healthy does not mean or imply greedy or freaking expensive.

Suppose, you'r real developer and not an apple (paid?) "fan", just murmuring something to spread their "args" to create a feeling of common opinion.

It’s not expensive considering the resources we get for being a developer as listed here https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...rust-hearing-on-july-27.2244659/post-28647671

Or, hear me out, the common opinion is usually anything that bashes Apple with barely any substance to backup those opinions.

Also another common opinion is that anyone defending Apple is usually a “paid” Apple fan. 0 evidence to back up that opinion, but here we are. Please tell me where you got that idea.

You say, you've made "this much money" from an app, and I know manies that made not. Some of them really failed in aspects of usability & etc. But some just got stopped by the 30% barrier 'cause their apps were costly to maintain, so once again, to comply with apple policies (those apps required moderation for user content uploads).
There's always a balance between safety & its costs. It would be 99% safe to live all life "in a closet", but you don't. 30% fee is not for safety, it's for raking in shekels.

I said I “made this much money” given the dev time of a couple of weeks.

That 30% went towards focusing on developer tools making better apps faster. For example: SwiftUI makes setting up list views with substantially less code (compared to Android’s ListView component). That 30% cut paid for developer APIs and tools that cut down on dev time. There’s nothing like this on Android’s SDK.

For a lot of us individual developers, the 30% pays for it self. Even ask the Bear note app developers. They don’t have to maintain a single server and just rely on Apple’s CloudKit to store all user data (up to a petabyte which is 1000 terabytes) for free, yet they charge a subscription fee for their app.

 

[Tor Eckman]

Tim needs to stick with running Apple and drop the fake social justice.

 

[123]

Are you an iOS developer? If so, you would know that:
bla bla bla bla bla

Yes I am. And I know that this is either not relevant for most developers or should be paid on an as-needed basis.

Nobody said that $99 is too much for what you get. On the contrary, this should be much more expensive. The problem is that successful apps with relatively little infrastructure requirements are forced to subsidize unsuccessful and free apps.

 

[telepheedian]

It kind of bothers me that Microsoft isn’t a part of this hearing, Windows 10 does things to promote Microsoft services that Apple wouldn’t dare try doing, especially with regards to Edge. It claims that your PC is not fully protected if you don’t have OneDrive turned on, it sends surveys and shows Edge ads when you install a competing browser, Office 365 has a bundled plug-in that changes the user’s search engine to Bing. Just awful behavior. I’m also getting the feeling that the politicians won’t be asking Google about how their text messaging app suggests starting a Duo call if you mention Zoom in a conversation.