Tim Cook 'Practicing for Hours' Ahead of Epic Games Testimony Expected This Week

[MacRumors]

So far, Apple CEO Tim Cook has taken a backseat in defending Apple as it faces a significant legal battle with Epic Games regarding the App Store. While the CEO has commented on the platform in the past, for the first time this week, Tim Cook will take center stage in his company's battle with Epic Games.

Apple in March submitted its list of executives that will testify during the trial between Apple and Epic Games which began on May 3. Epic Games, developers behind the hit-game Fortnite, are accusing the Cupertino tech giant of holding a monopoly and anti-competitive behavior surrounding the App Store and the distribution of apps on Apple devices.

Apple's Phil Schiller, a company fellow, and the senior vice president of software engineering, Craig Federighi, are two executives set to appear this week. In addition, the company's top chief is likely set to appear at the trial this week or early next week and has reportedly been preparing for the hearing with "hours of practice," according to The Wall Street Journal.

His testimony is likely to be the most detailed public discussion he will give on a subject that is likely to loom over Apple for years to come. Mr. Cook has been preparing for the trial, according to a person familiar with his effort. That has included hours of practice rounds from former prosecutors chosen by his legal team to simulate the witness stand.

Apple's former marketing chief Phil Schiller, now a company fellow, and Craig Federighi, head of software, are likely witnesses this week while Mr. Cook, who is scheduled to be on the stand for a total of 100 minutes, is expected toward the end of the week or early next week, as the trial in Oakland, Calif., looks to wrap up.

Cook is expected to defend the App Store by touting its economic success, and the entirely new industry it has created. Apple often promotes the success of the App Store, saying the platform created 300,000 new jobs in the U.S. as the global health crisis was in full swing last year.

Cook is also likely to face questions regarding the App Store's 30% commission charge. To keep the App Store running, Apple takes a 30% cut from developers for in-app purchases. While the company has lowered the cut for developers making less than $1 million a year, many larger developers still argue that the "Apple tax" is unfair and that developers and users should have access to alternate means of purchasing in-app services and goods.

Apple's App Store policy requires that apps use its own in-app purchasing system. Epic Games attempted to skirt the policy in August of last year in its Fortnite game. Epic's violation of App Store guidelines led to the removal of the game from the App Store and marked the now nearly one-year-long legal battle.

Apple says that by requiring apps to use its own system, it can offer users a safer experience. Tim Cook himself has said that if third-party payment methods were to be allowed, the App Store would become a "flea market."

Article Link: Tim Cook 'Practicing for Hours' Ahead of Epic Games Testimony Expected This Week

 

[Reason077]

Good luck Tim. I'm expecting a passionate, albeit somewhat insincere, plea to protect Apple's App Store gravy train. There's a lot on the line here!

 

[Expos of 1969]

Looking forward to a good exchange. I hope the questions are tough and to the point.

 

[djcerla]

Good luck Tim. I'm expecting a passionate, albeit somewhat insincere, plea to protect Apple's App Store gravy train. There's a lot on the line here!

Good luck, indeed, albeit I expect a fully sincere plea to protect Apple’s iOS user experience.

 

[Wildkraut]

The ones who lies, needs to practice, to not get caught lying.
Hey Tim, this is not a Keynote btw. no way to impress with rhetoric,too.

 

[andrewxgx]

imo theres only one question worth asking and not sure if they can (or want to) disclose it: what profit margin app store operates on. if its say 30-40% - all good. if ifs like 90% (and i'm pretty sure its close to that number) then 30% rev cut is nothing more than a cash grab on developers that have no other option to sell their app/services.

oh, and i'm pretty sure Adobe and MS didn't willingly put their stuff on MAS at 30%. willing to bet my left nut they get 15% if not lower.

 

[sirozha]

Thank you, Your Honor. You are amazing, unprecedented, innovative, and magical.

 

[Jason2000]

The ones who lies, needs to practice, to not get caught lying.
Hey Tim, this is not a Keynote btw. no way to impress with rhetoric,too.

Nothing wrong with preparing.

 

[NightFox]

Article title just gave me visions of a red-eyed, Red Bull-fuelled Tim Cook at 2am half-way through a massive Fortnite session.

 

[I7guy]

Tim, you’ll do your regular bang up job. Just tell them Epic wants to use Apple software and hardware, skirt safety mechanisms after they made $750 million or so.

 

[I7guy]

imo theres only one question worth asking and not sure if they can (or want to) disclose it: what profit margin app store operates on. if its say 30-40% - all good. if ifs like 90% (and i'm pretty sure its close to that number) then 30% rev cut is nothing more than a cash grab on developers that have no other option to sell their app/services.

oh, and i'm pretty sure Adobe and MS didn't willingly put their stuff on MAS at 30%. willing to bet my left nut they get 15% if not lower.

And also have the lawyers ask should epic be limited in how much they make? Because the last I looked non-regulated companies like autos and electronics and apple are allowed to set the price of their products:

 

[andrewxgx]

And also have the lawyers ask should epic be limited in how much they make? Because the last I looked non-regulated companies like autos and electronics and apple are allowed to set the price of their products:

oh, they can set whatever the price they want. i just want the public to know whether that price is reasonable or not (especially since locking device to their store only by definition does not allow for any competition on that price)

 

[ericwn]

The ones who lies, needs to practice, to not get caught lying.
Hey Tim, this is not a Keynote btw. no way to impress with rhetoric,too.

In dubio pro reo.

 

[duanepatrick]

This reminds me of the "You want my property, you can't have it" scene on Iron Man 2.

 

[Digital Dude]

Doesn't quite have the Steve Jobs stair of death, but it's a good try.

 

[I7guy]

oh, they can set whatever the price they want. i just want the public to know whether that price is reasonable or not (especially since locking device to their store only by definition does not allow for any competition on that price)

Sure and I agree, we should educate the public on what all manufacturers make. Whether or not it's legal or illegal not to have price point competition on fees and commission within the ios app store is yet remaining to be seen. That's one of the things that Epic wants, who knows if they will get it?

 

[ThunderSkunk]

They’re just trying to get him to stop making praying gestures.

 

[easy4lif]

Hold the line Tim. I and everyone else that bought apple DO NOT WANT ios to be turned into Android! 🤮

 

[RedTheReader]

All the jokes and sarcasm aside, is there anyway we'll be able to listen to this testimony live? And if so, where and how can we do that? Thank you!

 

[sdz]

Sideloading Apps! That would be the dream!
Finally the iPad would be a useful device.

 

[3NV7]

"The reason for a 30% cut? COURAGE."

 

[ManDark]

I still dont get, that this is still going on. It is the same situation like this. I have small shop in a Shoppil Mall Center where a lot of other shops are, im paying 30% of my earn to the Shoping mall owner, i dont have to pay for anything else, like rent, advertising, electricity, or a security engineer, or a network adminisrtator, i can focus on one thing only that that is my product(s). On top of that for clouple of months or a year now if i earn less that $1 million in a year i pay just 15% of my earn. Ok this are the facts.

Now im unsatisfied with this conditions a want to have all of that above ( like rent, advertising, electricity, or a security engineer, or a network adminisrtator, ) a a lot of more also the platfrom which im developing my app for free, and a dont want to pay anything to the landlord of the shopping mall so instead that the land lodt will throw me out i will sue him that he is a monopy and i cand pay some other landlord which has nothing to do wit the shopping mall that im in ....

Im sorry but are the Judges in America total IDIOTS or what.

Could users on Xbox pay outside of the Plattform ... NO, could users on Sony pay oustside of the Plattform ... NO, could users on Nitendo pay outside of the Plattfrom ... NOOO, could Google (Android) user pay outside of the Plattfrom probably asno NOOOO .... what the heck, why is Apple a Monopoly Hehe and why did Apple get sued ... wenn i know for sure, because if epic would sue someone of theese oether ... it just get unnnoticed whi case about some non interesant battle betweeen gamers, but when you have Apple somwhere it gent the first page on every magazine .... thats why a this is **** not what they want or a unfair commision from apple or someone else.

 

[mtneer]

Hope his rehearsals are better than Adam Neumann’s

 

[stocklen]

Good luck Tim. I'm expecting a passionate, albeit somewhat insincere, plea to protect Apple's App Store gravy train. There's a lot on the line here!

any why shouldn't they?

Its a 'gravy train' that Apple created from scratch... and maintains and runs 24/7 since.

Thats the deal. You want to use the service to sell your app to an audience of literally billions worldwide? On a platform that they provided..? a commission seems totally reasonable to me.

As per the percentage? to the layman 30 seems high doesn't it... but what the hell do we know how much it costs to run and maintain?? Isn't that 30% also pretty standard from Google and other similar services?

 

[Captain Trips]

Nothing wrong with preparing.

Especially in a legal setting - it is the job of the opposing lawyer to trip you up and get you to answer things in a way that makes their client's case.

Nothing wrong with that, that is how legal proceedings go, at least in the USA. But to suggest someone is practicing only because they are a liar doesn't really match up to the reality of current legal matters (again, in the USA).

Seriously, this is just like responding to questions in an audit - people who are involved in audits are cautioned very strongly to be on point, only answer the auditor's questions, and don't provider information the auditor did not specifically ask for.