>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.”
> “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.
Slightly different quote, added some context and here is a source too: https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/29/apples-app-store-commissio...
The Fortnite app behind the lawsuit that we got these docs from was explicitly taken down for failing app review by not complying with IAP guidelines.
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.
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.
Oh, I'm sure every talking head is trained for newspeak until they start to believe it.
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..."
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.
Not that I think that anything would happen if it were in the IAP context.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210712060426/https://www.teleg...
After all, Congress critters constantly lie or spout nonsense, why should we ask more of those before them?
In principle, it's a crime. But, nobody will do anything about it, especially when it comes to a powerful white man.