Apple CEO Tim Cook to refute App Store criticism in House testimony

Posted:
in General Discussion edited July 2020
Apple CEO Tim Cook in a prepared opening statement to be read at a U.S. House antitrust hearing on Wednesday denies that his company participates in anticompetitive behavior, adding that it does "not have a dominant market share in any market where we do business."

Cook


Cook plans to position Apple as "uniquely American company" that abides by the rules, according to prepared testimony seen by Bloomberg.

Apple's Cook is expected to be grilled by lawmakers on a number of subjects, including the App Store. Over the past few weeks, a growing chorus of developers has openly criticized the company over its revenue sharing policies, which take 15% or 30% of in-app purchases and store proceeds. Last month, David Cicilline, chair of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Antitrust, called Apple's slice of App Store sales "highway robbery," setting the stage for a bruising debate.

Ahead of Wednesday's hearing, Apple SVP of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller defended App Store practices in an interview with Reuters. Cook appears ready to do the same.

"After beginning with 500 apps, today the App Store hosts more than 1.7 million -- only 60 of which are Apple software," Cook's testimony reads. "Clearly, if Apple is a gatekeeper, what we have done is open the gate wider. We want to get every app we can on the store, not keep them off."

He adds that the App Store's pricing structure is a more appealing alternative to what previously existed when boxed software was the distribution method of choice. Further, Cook claims the "vast majority of apps on the App Store" supply a 100% revenue share to developers, the report said.

"When the App Store was created, the prevailing distribution options available to software developers at the time did not work well. Brick-and-mortar stores charged high fees and had limited reach. Physical media like CDs had to be shipped and were hard to update," the testimony reads. Cook later adds, "Apple's commissions are comparable or lower than commissions charged by the majority of our competitors. And they are vastly lower than the 50 to 70 percent that software developers paid to distribute their work before we launched the App Store."

Schiller hit on the same points in his interview today.

"In the more than a decade since the App Store debuted, we have never raised the commission or added a single fee. In fact, we have reduced them for subscriptions and exempted additional categories of apps," Cook says. "The App Store evolves with the times, and every change we have made has been in the direction of providing a better experience for our users and a compelling business opportunity for developers."

The chief executive goes on to tout the App Store's contributions to the economy, citing previously reported statistics like the creation of 1.9 million U.S. jobs. Cook also mentions a contracted study that found the App Store facilitated half a trillion dollars in commerce around the world in 2019.

Cook will offer testimony and answer questions alongside Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google CEO Sundar Pichai. The remote congressional hearing is schedule to take place at noon Eastern.

Update: Cook's opening testimony was released by the committee late Tuesday. This article has been updated with information from the official statement.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39
    It is interesting that when I sold goods on the Spotify equivalent for my country I could markup by 60% and so undercut the local market that the local importer made a play to shut us down. Big box are not selling at a loss when the have 50-60% off sales either. Fees of 15% - 30% are At least half of gray market rates outside USA. Remember that gray marketers generally offer six to twelve months replacement guarantee out of those profits also
  • Reply 2 of 39
    XedXed Posts: 2,507member
    Further, Cook claims the "vast majority of apps on the App Store" supply a 100% revenue share to developers, the report said. 
    So.. free apps, right? All other apps, either paid or subscription, would funnel some of the revenue to Apple (which is a completely reasonable expectation for running a curated shop).

    At this point I think it's likely that Apple is making a lot of profit with the store. I'd love to see two things happen: 1) Apple reduces their profit-share, and 2) develop more intense protections for customers with better testing of 3rd-party apps. This would help lead the industry as well as stick it to Android-based stores.
    lkrupp
  • Reply 3 of 39
    I don't think that Apple should reduce their 30% fee. People only countenance the idea because Apple is making so much money. So they arbitrarily decide that it is "too much for one company to have." It has nothing to do with trusts or markets. Note that no one talks about Amazon's 30% fee for their AppStore. It is only because while the Amazon AppStore is certainly profitable, Apple's store makes magnitutes more money.

    It wouldn't "stick anything" to Android-based stores. First of all, how is that possible in the first place with Android's market share? Also, it isn't as if there is true competition in the first place. True competition is going to the same store with Kelloggs cereals right next to General Mills on the same aisle. Or it is going to an intersection where a Burger King is across the street from McDonald's. But with Android, you can only buy or download apps from Android app stores. With iOS the same: only Apple's store. So the apps and how their gatekeepers handle them on the other platforms don't matter. If it did, Apple having more and better quality apps would have affected market share long ago. Instead, Android retains 85% with phones and 65% with tablets because Android users don't care about the higher quality and better vetted apps on iOS any more than iOS users care that the Android apps that do exist often allow you to do way more because they aren't as restricted. 

    As for Tim Cook's comments ... they only evade the issue, which is that why should the App Store be the only method of installing software on Apple devices. Saying "if you don't want to deal with that then just buy an LG phone" is a problematic stance for both consumers and developers. It will be curious to see how he responds to the actual issue when he is forced to confront it by direct questioning. The folks in Congress aren't the same as the ones in the media who are so in love with their iPhones, iPads and Macs that they never challenge Apple in the same way they do other large companies. You will see more negative articles about Facebook, Amazon, Google, Disney, Comcast, AT&T or Wal-Mart in a day than you will see about Apple in 5 years. Especially with some of the more agenda-driven ideological types in the media who insist that it is the job of the free press to challenge large corporations ... except Apple of course. We love them and everything they do and stand for! It would be curious to see how he handles the "tough room" that he never encounters otherwise.
    edited July 2020
  • Reply 4 of 39
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    I don't think that Apple should reduce their 30% fee. People only countenance the idea because Apple is making so much money. So they arbitrarily decide that it is "too much for one company to have." It has nothing to do with trusts or markets. Note that no one talks about Amazon's 30% fee for their AppStore. It is only because while the Amazon AppStore is certainly profitable, Apple's store makes magnitutes more money.

    It wouldn't "stick anything" to Android-based stores. First of all, how is that possible in the first place with Android's market share? Also, it isn't as if there is true competition in the first place. True competition is going to the same store with Kelloggs cereals right next to General Mills on the same aisle. Or it is going to an intersection where a Burger King is across the street from McDonald's. But with Android, you can only buy or download apps from Android app stores. With iOS the same: only Apple's store. So the apps and how their gatekeepers handle them on the other platforms don't matter. If it did, Apple having more and better quality apps would have affected market share long ago. Instead, Android retains 85% with phones and 65% with tablets because Android users don't care about the higher quality and better vetted apps on iOS any more than iOS users care that the Android apps that do exist often allow you to do way more because they aren't as restricted. 

    As for Tim Cook's comments ... they only evade the issue, which is that why should the App Store be the only method of installing software on Apple devices. Saying "if you don't want to deal with that then just buy an LG phone" is a problematic stance for both consumers and developers. It will be curious to see how he responds to the actual issue when he is forced to confront it by direct questioning. The folks in Congress aren't the same as the ones in the media who are so in love with their iPhones, iPads and Macs that they never challenge Apple in the same way they do other large companies. You will see more negative articles about Facebook, Amazon, Google, Disney, Comcast, AT&T or Wal-Mart in a day than you will see about Apple in 5 years. Especially with some of the more agenda-driven ideological types in the media who insist that it is the job of the free press to challenge large corporations ... except Apple of course. We love them and everything they do and stand for! It would be curious to see how he handles the "tough room" that he never encounters otherwise.
    You think people in the media don’t challenge Apple? 

    You really do live under a rock. 

    Neil Cybart:


    edited July 2020 qwerty52Beats
  • Reply 5 of 39
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Okay, how ‘bout this. 

    Apple introduces a hosting-only tier for the App Store. 

    You submit your app. 

    Apple checks it. 

    If it passes the checks, Apple sends you a checksummed URL, that is tied to your site, for you to put in your website, and the address on an admin page where you can buy the number of downloads you want. When you’ve paid, the link becomes active. 

    When someone clicks on the link, they get a warning that purchasing this app is outside of the App Store regulations and that any disputes are settled between you and the vendor. The app is downloaded straight onto the customer’s iDevice without going through the App Store. 

    Your app does not show up in App Store searches. 
    No editorial help in selling your app. 
    No reviews on the App Store. 
    You are responsible for informing users that your app has been updated. 
    You are responsible for handling payments and for making sure that the download link does not appear until you have received payment. 
    Apple does not keep a record of who has downloaded the app. 



    edited July 2020 qwerty52Beats
  • Reply 6 of 39
    Fidonet127Fidonet127 Posts: 507member
    Xed said:
    So.. free apps, right? All other apps, either paid or subscription, would funnel some of the revenue to Apple (which is a completely reasonable expectation for running a curated shop).

    At this point I think it's likely that Apple is making a lot of profit with the store. I'd love to see two things happen: 1) Apple reduces their profit-share, and 2) develop more intense protections for customers with better testing of 3rd-party apps. This would help lead the industry as well as stick it to Android-based stores.
    So you want Apple to receive less money and spend more time and money? 
    mike1SpamSandwich
  • Reply 7 of 39
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,590member
    Looks like Tim and Phil are wilfully ignoring the root issue. Just like they did with other areas where Apple has been open to scrutiny. 

    Apple can charge what it wants in its App Store. It can lay down the so-called guidelines on what is acceptable for inclusion although 'guidelines' they are mostly not. They are more like strict requirements with little to flexibility around them. 

    The problem is that basically Apple allows very little competition to challenge the App Store itself. 

    Not having a dominant place in the overall market is irrevelant when you are the only controlling factor on the entire platform (however small that platform may be). 

    When was the last time users were explicitly informed prior to purchase that the apps they will require to actually make good use of the phone will be subject to Apple's blessing (to even be available) and that Apple will sit as an obligatory intermediary feeding off all transactions between the user and third party apps?

    It may sound frivolous but this is exactly the kind of issue regulators love to look at. 

    Third party App Stores exist which take far less than Apple's 30%.

    My phone has two massive App Stores on it plus Petal Search which allows me to dig into yet more stores. 

    That's competition. 

    Users should have that option open to them and then decide for themselves which store is better. 
    chemengin1
  • Reply 8 of 39
    hriw-annon@xs4all.nl[email protected] Posts: 61unconfirmed, member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Okay, how ‘bout this. 

    Apple introduces a hosting-only tier for the App Store. 

    You submit your app. 

    Apple checks it. 

    If it passes the checks, Apple sends you a checksummed URL, that is tied to your site, for you to put in your website, and the address on an admin page where you can buy the number of downloads you want. When you’ve paid, the link becomes active. 

    When someone clicks on the link, they get a warning that purchasing this app is outside of the App Store regulations and that any disputes are settled between you and the vendor. The app is downloaded straight onto the customer’s iDevice without going through the App Store. 

    Your app does not show up in App Store searches. 
    No editorial help in selling your app. 
    No reviews on the App Store. 
    You are responsible for informing users that your app has been updated. 
    You are responsible for handling payments and for making sure that the download link does not appear until you have received payment. 
    Apple does not keep a record of who has downloaded the app. 



    If this is what you want why not make a web app?
  • Reply 9 of 39
    avon b7 said: The problem is that basically Apple allows very little competition to challenge the App Store itself. 
    Desktop/laptop software is sold in a system that allows a wide variety of stores and payment methods, yet doesn't provide better prices or better security than the App Store. How is that possible? It has all the features that people are saying would improve software purchase/installation for consumers, but obviously doesn't deliver the expected outcome. That was true before the launch of the App Store in 2008 and it's true today in 2020. Why has a system that provides more competition not actually resulted in a better experience for consumers?
    edited July 2020
  • Reply 10 of 39

    avon b7 said: My phone has two massive App Stores on it plus Petal Search which allows me to dig into yet more stores. 

    That's competition. 
    Do consumers benefit in any significant way from this competition, or is it more about giving a piece of the action to companies that aren't really that interested in providing better prices or better security?
  • Reply 11 of 39
    Rayz2016 said:
    Okay, how ‘bout this. 

    Apple introduces a hosting-only tier for the App Store. 

    You submit your app. 

    Apple checks it. 

    If it passes the checks, Apple sends you a checksummed URL, that is tied to your site, for you to put in your website, and the address on an admin page where you can buy the number of downloads you want. When you’ve paid, the link becomes active. 

    When someone clicks on the link, they get a warning that purchasing this app is outside of the App Store regulations and that any disputes are settled between you and the vendor. The app is downloaded straight onto the customer’s iDevice without going through the App Store. 

    Your app does not show up in App Store searches. 
    No editorial help in selling your app. 
    No reviews on the App Store. 
    You are responsible for informing users that your app has been updated. 
    You are responsible for handling payments and for making sure that the download link does not appear until you have received payment. 
    Apple does not keep a record of who has downloaded the app. 
    I like that idea. The only downside I see is that Apple would still have to invest resources into vetting the app and all it’s updates. That might be a minimal cost to pay to keep customers and iOS safe while also getting an annoyance off their back. I wonder how many devs would chose to go that route. My guess is the bigger ones would but the majority wouldn’t.
    edited July 2020
  • Reply 12 of 39
    qwerty52qwerty52 Posts: 367member
    I don't think that Apple should reduce their 30% fee. People only countenance the idea because Apple is making so much money. So they arbitrarily decide that it is "too much for one company to have." It has nothing to do with trusts or markets. Note that no one talks about Amazon's 30% fee for their AppStore. It is only because while the Amazon AppStore is certainly profitable, Apple's store makes magnitutes more money.

    It wouldn't "stick anything" to Android-based stores. First of all, how is that possible in the first place with Android's market share? Also, it isn't as if there is true competition in the first place. True competition is going to the same store with Kelloggs cereals right next to General Mills on the same aisle. Or it is going to an intersection where a Burger King is across the street from McDonald's. But with Android, you can only buy or download apps from Android app stores. With iOS the same: only Apple's store. So the apps and how their gatekeepers handle them on the other platforms don't matter. If it did, Apple having more and better quality apps would have affected market share long ago. Instead, Android retains 85% with phones and 65% with tablets because Android users don't care about the higher quality and better vetted apps on iOS any more than iOS users care that the Android apps that do exist often allow you to do way more because they aren't as restricted. 

    As for Tim Cook's comments ... they only evade the issue, which is that why should the App Store be the only method of installing software on Apple devices. Saying "if you don't want to deal with that then just buy an LG phone" is a problematic stance for both consumers and developers. It will be curious to see how he responds to the actual issue when he is forced to confront it by direct questioning. The folks in Congress aren't the same as the ones in the media who are so in love with their iPhones, iPads and Macs that they never challenge Apple in the same way they do other large companies. You will see more negative articles about Facebook, Amazon, Google, Disney, Comcast, AT&T or Wal-Mart in a day than you will see about Apple in 5 years. Especially with some of the more agenda-driven ideological types in the media who insist that it is the job of the free press to challenge large corporations ... except Apple of course. We love them and everything they do and stand for! It would be curious to see how he handles the "tough room" that he never encounters otherwise.
    I don’t know where from you’ve got this impression, but I read nothing else then negative articles about Apple. Years long! Without any reason, based on fake arguments. According to this articles, Apple should’ve been dead already long time ago. The only moments this articles are getting a bit milder, is the day after the quarter or the year Apples financial reports. And even then it sounds like:”...... yes, it is unexpected good, but...
  • Reply 13 of 39
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,590member

    avon b7 said: My phone has two massive App Stores on it plus Petal Search which allows me to dig into yet more stores. 

    That's competition. 
    Do consumers benefit in any significant way from this competition, or is it more about giving a piece of the action to companies that aren't really that interested in providing better prices or better security?
    The first step is for competition to exist. Everything else comes later.

    Security is based on standard practices by default and then each store adds on what they see fit. 

    The nature of the beast means that there is no fault proof system. This applies to everyone but by implementing industry standards you are off to a good start. 

    Consumers benefit through choice and preference. Some apps may be available via some app stores and not others.

    Developers also benefit through choice and obviously economic interests. It also allows for competition on a services level (all the different hooks apps can tie into behind the scenes). 

    App Stores will ultimately live or die by the services and security they offer. 




  • Reply 14 of 39
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Okay, how ‘bout this. 

    Apple introduces a hosting-only tier for the App Store. 

    You submit your app. 

    Apple checks it. 

    If it passes the checks, Apple sends you a checksummed URL, that is tied to your site, for you to put in your website, and the address on an admin page where you can buy the number of downloads you want. When you’ve paid, the link becomes active. 

    When someone clicks on the link, they get a warning that purchasing this app is outside of the App Store regulations and that any disputes are settled between you and the vendor. The app is downloaded straight onto the customer’s iDevice without going through the App Store. 

    Your app does not show up in App Store searches. 
    No editorial help in selling your app. 
    No reviews on the App Store. 
    You are responsible for informing users that your app has been updated. 
    You are responsible for handling payments and for making sure that the download link does not appear until you have received payment. 
    Apple does not keep a record of who has downloaded the app. 



    If this is what you want why not make a web app?
    Oh, I don’t want it, and I would never download an app that used it, but I’m trying to think of ways for Apple to give the developers who’re complaining what they want. 

    montrosemacsBeats
  • Reply 15 of 39
    cincyteecincytee Posts: 403member
    As for Tim Cook's comments ... they only evade the issue, which is that why should the App Store be the only method of installing software on Apple devices.

    Ridiculous, isn't it? It's almost as if Ford parts won't work on a Volkswagen.

  • Reply 16 of 39
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,590member
    avon b7 said: The problem is that basically Apple allows very little competition to challenge the App Store itself. 
    Desktop/laptop software is sold in a system that allows a wide variety of stores and payment methods, yet doesn't provide better prices or better security than the App Store. How is that possible? It has all the features that people are saying would improve software purchase/installation for consumers, but obviously doesn't deliver the expected outcome. That was true before the launch of the App Store in 2008 and it's true today in 2020. Why has a system that provides more competition not actually resulted in a better experience for consumers?
    I'm way behind on macOS major updates but much prefer the old way of doing installs. I have my installs and they stay put. Little to no risk of them stopping working without me running an OS update to provoke it.

    None of the shenanigans of features 'vanishing' in a app update under the guise of a bug fix update. Updates themselves seem to come thick and fast on mobile, just like features. There is far more stability in that sense in a classic desktop environment.

    Again, this all boils down to choice at the end of the day. People having the option of going elsewhere if they want. 
  • Reply 17 of 39
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,590member
    cincytee said:
    As for Tim Cook's comments ... they only evade the issue, which is that why should the App Store be the only method of installing software on Apple devices.

    Ridiculous, isn't it? It's almost as if Ford parts won't work on a Volkswagen.

    It's not the part. It's where you get it. And we are talking about the same apps for the same platform so the anology doesn't work very well. 


  • Reply 18 of 39
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Okay, how ‘bout this. 

    Apple introduces a hosting-only tier for the App Store. 

    You submit your app. 

    Apple checks it. 

    If it passes the checks, Apple sends you a checksummed URL, that is tied to your site, for you to put in your website, and the address on an admin page where you can buy the number of downloads you want. When you’ve paid, the link becomes active. 

    When someone clicks on the link, they get a warning that purchasing this app is outside of the App Store regulations and that any disputes are settled between you and the vendor. The app is downloaded straight onto the customer’s iDevice without going through the App Store. 

    Your app does not show up in App Store searches. 
    No editorial help in selling your app. 
    No reviews on the App Store. 
    You are responsible for informing users that your app has been updated. 
    You are responsible for handling payments and for making sure that the download link does not appear until you have received payment. 
    Apple does not keep a record of who has downloaded the app. 
    I like that idea. The only downside I see is that Apple would still have to invest resources into vetting the app and all it’s updates. That might be a minimal cost to pay to keep customers and iOS safe while also getting an annoyance off their back. I wonder how many devs would chose to go that route. My guess is the bigger ones would but the majority wouldn’t.
    Well, I was thinking that the vetting cost would be covered in the purchase of the downloads. They'd need to set a minimum number of downloads for each update, say about a thousand or so? 

    Yes, the bigger ones probably would go for it, since its the bigger ones who're doing most of the whining. A lot of the smaller devs hit the big time when they get featured on the app store editorials. 
  • Reply 19 of 39
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member

    cincytee said:
    As for Tim Cook's comments ... they only evade the issue, which is that why should the App Store be the only method of installing software on Apple devices.

    Ridiculous, isn't it? It's almost as if Ford parts won't work on a Volkswagen.

     :D 
  • Reply 20 of 39
    XedXed Posts: 2,507member
    Xed said:
    So.. free apps, right? All other apps, either paid or subscription, would funnel some of the revenue to Apple (which is a completely reasonable expectation for running a curated shop).

    At this point I think it's likely that Apple is making a lot of profit with the store. I'd love to see two things happen: 1) Apple reduces their profit-share, and 2) develop more intense protections for customers with better testing of 3rd-party apps. This would help lead the industry as well as stick it to Android-based stores.
    So you want Apple to receive less money and spend more time and money? 
    I do and I'm not the only one to suggest it. Gruber:
    Why not pull a Steve Jobs on the App Store? Cut the commission rate to 85/15 across the board and act like it’s innovative and something only Apple could or would do. Open up the Netflix rule to all developers — maintain the rule that if your app charges money as an in-app purchase, you must use Apple’s in-app payment system — but let any and all apps choose to do what Netflix does if they want to opt out of that, and sign up customers on their own outside the app. Just make all of this antitrust stuff disappear before it even starts by eliminating the complaints about money and maintaining what matters more to Apple: independence and control.


Sign In or Register to comment.