5 ms·

>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.

>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.”

leeoniya 5y ago
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
- smoldesu 5y ago
  "Privacy is a human right, but humanity has such a fickle definition these days."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
What is the consequence of such a blatantly false testimony to Congress?
- apendleton 5y ago
  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.
  - hh3k0 5y ago
    Cook was under oath, no? So as per my understanding, it is perjury on top of lying to congress. I am, however, not a lawyer.
    - qwytw 5y ago
      Also you didn't read what Cook actually said in the preceding and following sentences.
    - apendleton 5y ago
      Right, lying to Congress is a crime regardless of whether you're under oath, but if you're under oath and lie, it's both.
- i21QMgplhRJs2OL 5y ago
  It depends on who your friends are. Compare Clapper and Flynn.
- hh3k0 5y ago
  For your average Joe or the CEO of a trillion-dollar company?
- comeonseriously 5y ago
  Absolutely nothing.
- rudyfink 5y ago
  "Law? What do I care about the law. Ain’t I got the power?” (attributed to Cornelius Vanderbilt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt) 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.
- misnome 5y ago
  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.
  - mthoms 5y ago
    Err... even in that context, it's blatantly false. https://web.archive.org/web/20210712060426/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/08/15/apple-chinas-wechat-bypass-rules-former-app-review-chief-claims/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210712060426/https://www.teleg...
- tialaramex 5y ago
  In practice? None whatsoever. Even under oath. 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.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    Ironically, it's both common knowledge and trivially verifiable. I'm not sure how this is a "debated" topic.
capableweb 5y ago
> 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. Slightly different quote, added some context and here is a source too: https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/29/apples-app-store-commission-structure-called-into-question-in-antitrust-hearing/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/29/apples-app-store-commissio...
- misnome 5y ago
  You seem to have missed out the crucial piece on context from that source, in that it's talking explicitly about app review and not IAP commission.
  - saagarjha 5y ago
    Which also has special-case rules (or lack of enforcement thereof…)
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      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.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - saagarjha 5y ago
        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.
judge2020 5y ago
Presumably any video platform could apply for the "Video Partner Program" mentioned in the email.
- Ajedi32 5y ago
  ...which that email says in the very same sentence is different from the "unique arrangement" they have with Netflix.
  - fiftyfifty 5y ago
    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..."
drdaeman 5y ago
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.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  > 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.
  - drdaeman 5y ago
    > 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 Oh, I'm sure every talking head is trained for newspeak until they start to believe it.

leeoniya 5y ago

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

smoldesu 5y ago
"Privacy is a human right, but humanity has such a fickle definition these days."

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago

What is the consequence of such a blatantly false testimony to Congress?

apendleton 5y ago
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.
- hh3k0 5y ago
  Cook was under oath, no? So as per my understanding, it is perjury on top of lying to congress. I am, however, not a lawyer.
  - qwytw 5y ago
    Also you didn't read what Cook actually said in the preceding and following sentences.
  - apendleton 5y ago
    Right, lying to Congress is a crime regardless of whether you're under oath, but if you're under oath and lie, it's both.
i21QMgplhRJs2OL 5y ago
It depends on who your friends are. Compare Clapper and Flynn.
hh3k0 5y ago
For your average Joe or the CEO of a trillion-dollar company?
comeonseriously 5y ago
Absolutely nothing.
rudyfink 5y ago
"Law? What do I care about the law. Ain’t I got the power?” (attributed to Cornelius Vanderbilt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt) 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.
misnome 5y ago
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.
- mthoms 5y ago
  Err... even in that context, it's blatantly false. https://web.archive.org/web/20210712060426/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/08/15/apple-chinas-wechat-bypass-rules-former-app-review-chief-claims/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210712060426/https://www.teleg...
tialaramex 5y ago
In practice? None whatsoever. Even under oath. 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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Supermancho 5y ago
  Ironically, it's both common knowledge and trivially verifiable. I'm not sure how this is a "debated" topic.

capableweb 5y ago

> 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. Slightly different quote, added some context and here is a source too: https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/29/apples-app-store-commission-structure-called-into-question-in-antitrust-hearing/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/29/apples-app-store-commissio...

misnome 5y ago
You seem to have missed out the crucial piece on context from that source, in that it's talking explicitly about app review and not IAP commission.
- saagarjha 5y ago
  Which also has special-case rules (or lack of enforcement thereof…)
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    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.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - saagarjha 5y ago
      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.

judge2020 5y ago

Presumably any video platform could apply for the "Video Partner Program" mentioned in the email.

Ajedi32 5y ago
...which that email says in the very same sentence is different from the "unique arrangement" they have with Netflix.
- fiftyfifty 5y ago
  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..."

drdaeman 5y ago

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.

elliekelly 5y ago
> 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.
- drdaeman 5y ago
  > 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 Oh, I'm sure every talking head is trained for newspeak until they start to believe it.