CEO Tim Cook challenged Apple to strict control rights in a high-risk trial on Friday, if the iPhone manufacturer is forced to allow third-party applications without censorship , Apple’s online market will become “toxic.”
Cook was the last witness in the case filed by Fortnite maker Epic Games, and he provided a strong defense for Apple’s review and approval of all applications it provides for iPhone and iPad users.
In an interrogation in California federal court by Apple’s lawyer Veronica Moye, Cook said: “If we no longer have complete control over the market, we will no longer be able to make… about privacy, security and Guaranteed promise.”
Cook said that Apple’s review process helps rule out malware and other problematic applications, thereby creating a safe place for consumers.
He said that without censorship, the online market “will become a toxic mess.”
“For developers, this will also be terrible, because developers rely on the store to be a safe and reliable place.”
Cook’s testimony limited the high-profile trial that began earlier this month, in which Apple was accused of abusing its market monopoly by creating a “walled garden” that squeezed app makers.
Epic, the maker of the popular Fortnite video game, is trying to force Apple to open the market to third parties in order to seek circumvention of Apple’s programs and 30% commission.
After Epic avoided revenue sharing with iPhone manufacturers, Apple launched Fortnite from its App Store last year.
During cross-examination, Cook argued with epic lawyer Gary Bornstein (Gary Bornstein) about the profitability of the App Store.
Cook disputed Epic’s argument that Epic’s profit margin on the app was about 80%, but due to confidentiality considerations, the court did not disclose financial details.
Apple executives said that the proprietary payment system challenged by Epic is to bring convenience to consumers, not profit.
Cook said: “We are always user-centric.” “It has nothing to do with money.”
In testifying, Cook defended Apple’s policy that prohibits apps from directing consumers to other platforms to purchase subscriptions or points for games or other services.
He said: “This is similar to the Best Buy advertisement, you can cross the street to the Apple store to buy an iPhone.”
But the district court judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers (Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) posed a series of serious questions to Cook at the end of his testimony. He suggested that Apple’s salary cut was too high, even if it was reduced to 15 in the first year. %is also like this.
The judge told Cook: “It does seem disproportionate.” “After the first interaction. The developers retained these customers and Apple profited from it.”
Cook quickly retorted: “My view is different,” and then added: “We are creating all the trade volume in the store and do this by attracting the largest number of customers.”
Apple does not allow users of its popular devices to download applications from anywhere outside of its App Store, and developers must use Apple’s payment system, which will reduce costs.
The epic lawyer also questioned Cook’s arrangement with Google to make it the default search engine for the iPhone manufacturer’s Safari browser, another area under scrutiny by antitrust officials.
Cook admitted that Google paid a salary for the position, but added that Apple made this arrangement “in the best interests of users.”
In the Oakland case, Apple felt pressure from numerous app makers to control the App Store, which critics said represented monopolistic behavior.
The European Union has formally accused Apple of unfairly squeezing out music streaming competitors based on complaints filed by Sweden’s Spotify and others. The complaint alleges that the California group has established rules in favor of its own Apple Music.
The recently established App Fairness Alliance, including Spotify and Epic, called on Apple to open up its market, claiming that Apple’s commissions are “taxes” on competitors.
It is expected that a conclusion will be reached in the trial in California early next week, and the judge is expected to make a ruling within a few weeks.