>Rep. Johnson: Does Apple treat every app and every developer the same?
>Cook: “We treat every developer the same. We have open rules. It’s a rigorous process. Because we care about privacy and quality, we do look at every app before it goes on. We apply these rules equally to everyone.”
> Apple CEO Tim Cook defended the company’s App Store commission structure in his sworn testimony before the House Antitrust Subcommittee on Wednesday.
> “We treat every developer the same. We have open and transparent rules,” Cook said, in his testimony. “It’s a rigorous process, because we care so deeply about privacy and security and quality. We do look at every app before it goes on,” he added.
This is glaringly evident at the very least in the way Apple and Google (don't) apply app store review to their own apps, so I don't understand why you're being downvoted.
FWIW I think Apple's apps do actually go through review, but the issues that crop up (non-public API usage, etc.) get swept under the rug (don't quote me on that though). Similar to how third parties blessed for private API usage probably get their apps through review.
The amount of commission that Apple receives from an IAP isn't something that's in the code for an app. It's not something that could be part of the app review process. It's an arrangement between Apple and the developer.
To be fair, from the third email it's clear they meant for Netflix to be treated as everyone else (after they figured the rules for the program they mention), eliminating this special treatment.
In my personal belief, Cook would've won more by admitting they may have some exceptions, but actively try to get rid of those. It's arguable of course, but it the email he justifies it by end-user interests and he probably means it. That's just real-world realities - that exceptions happen even with the principled people, just because things are never white-and-black.
Instead, he told a lie how they're holier than the Pope. Even if he believes in that and genuinely wants things to be that way, he surely knew it's not the reality.
And I just wonder why. I don't have any knowledge how things work at those levels, but my very naive risk analysis is that if there's any serious investigation there are significant chances such lie would be uncovered, and legal and PR consequences of that would be harsher than admittance, especially with justifications.
> It's arguable of course, but it the email he justifies it by end-user interests and he probably means it.
Perhaps I’m just cynical but I can’t help but think all of the Apple execs have had “best for the consumer” drilled into them for the purposes of the antitrust issues that are inevitably coming. If I were a shrewd Apple exec trying to posture against antitrust litigation and/or regulation I’d be sprinkling “best for the consumer” at every possible opportunity. Memos. Emails. Slide decks. Fucking everywhere. There’s no down side to mentioning it and a ton of upside if the document ever becomes public.
They're unique arrangement with Netflix predates their Video Partner Program and probably some of their other app store rules:
Peter Stern:
"Longer Version: I explained that these IAP tests are not OK for Apple. Our commitment to developers and customers is to run the world's best App Store, and when Netflix is cycling in and out, they are undermining that. I also explained that we run a principled App Store, and they have a unique arrangement because it was struck before the existing Video Partner Program came into effect..."
It's only blatantly false if you ignore the context that it was spoken in of talking about basic App review and not IAP commission. And plenty of wiggle room there, especially if the "same process applied to everyone" includes the stage "Have we negotiated a contract with them for an exception on this"
Not that I think that anything would happen if it were in the IAP context.
Your question made me think of that quote. There are technical answers to you question (that lying under oath is a crime), but the realist answer is, that unless Congress/executive has the will to enforce consequences, very little.
Lying to Congress is a crime (distinct from perjury), but it's unusual for anyone to be tried for/convicted of it though. Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, is a (rare) recent example.
>Cook: “We treat every developer the same. We have open rules. It’s a rigorous process. Because we care about privacy and quality, we do look at every app before it goes on. We apply these rules equally to everyone.”