Wednesday, May 19, 2021

Epic v. Apple, Day 12

Adi Robertson (tweet):

“Product marketing works hand-in-hand with engineering on all of our projects,” Schiller explained. Different parts of Apple simply aren’t siloed into neat divisions; it’s one tight-knit company that makes a many-featured product.

That anecdote buttressed a more legally pertinent claim: because of this management system, Apple allegedly has no idea how much the App Store makes.


Where Epic has pointed out phrases like “lock-in” and seeking “stickiness” on iOS, Schiller emphasized that the “stickiness” involved trying to add features that would discourage phishing. “If there’s any plan here, it’s simply to come up with new features to help protect users from security and privacy scams.”


Cross-examination touched on topics like iMessage, but Epic’s counsel favored exhaustive readings of policies and lists that could show Apple in an unfavorable light, including every time it mentions relying on open source software and the search results for “BDSM” on the App Store.

Nick Statt (tweet):

Schmid was likely far underplaying the amount of revenue Apple earned from Fortnite’s mobile app, as court documents and independent analyst firms estimate the amount to be more in the range of $300 million to $350 million. It’s unclear why Schmid chose the $100 million figure when asked how much money Apple earned on commission from Fortnite through the App Store’s standard 30% cut.

Nick Statt:

Epic’s lawyer gets Schiller to admit there were no known security issues he’s aware of from downloading apps through the enterprise app program, which companies can use to sideload software on the iPhone.

Adi Robertson:

Epic’s attorney raises one case of a company that had to remove in-app purchases of a sort: Amazon. Schiller says Amazon launched a store specifically to sell Kindle ebooks, because “they didn’t expect anyone to read books on an iPhone.” So it was considered an external purchase.

Amazon added support for reading ebooks within iOS, and Apple said Amazon had to either remove it and force people to only read on the Kindle again, or start giving Apple a commission on what had become an in-app purchase.

I don’t really agree with that narrative, given the sequence of events:

Nick Statt:

Epic’s lawyer plays Schiller a clip of Scott Forstall’s deposition in which he reveals some apps were processing their own in-app payments prior to the launch of IAP in 2009.

Schiller says he doesn’t “agree” with Forstall’s testimony.

Nilay Patel:

Agree w Adi and Nick - Schiller did a good job today, and Epic failed to figure out what story to tell with him

Horacio Gutierrez (via MacRumors):

There is a lot to admire about Apple, but my company, Spotify, has seen another, brutish side.


1 Comment RSS · Twitter

>Different parts of Apple simply aren’t siloed into neat divisions; it’s one tight-knit company that makes a many-featured product.

This sentence, is precisely why Apple's hypocrisy is on a whole other level unseen in any other tech company. Even the Do No Evil Google. Other companies get the benefits of doubt, including Microsoft and Google of not knowing what other department were doing. But not Apple.

Despite everything that is shown, and even email they known they are in the wrong doing, including anti-competitive, App Store Scam, they still think they are so righteous.

And EPIC, Jesus Christ I wish they get some better story teller.

Leave a Comment