> When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI
Tim Cook, 2023:
> Lawyers suggested Cook himself was involved with how the warning to App Store customers would appear, recommending an update to the text that appears when the external links were clicked. In one version, that link warned customers they were “no longer transacting with Apple.” Later, the link was updated to subtly suggest there could be privacy or security risks with purchases made on the web.
By "one action" you mean the systematic war against 3rd party app stores and payments in the EU and elsewhere? By actions like this they made them so unappealing they basically destroyed any chance of success. Very anti-competitive and nasty behaviour, I think.
It is. We need to stop holding up these mortal men as saviors, especially those that have no qualms working with tyrants across the globe. The only reason Apple cares about a11y is due to being legally compelled to by the ADA. Maybe uphold the US activists that fought to make accessibility a thing the people of the United States cares about and enshrined into law (fun fact, this went on to inspire other countries to pass ADA like legislation as well).
Also a11y lawsuits are not only a great way to make an easy $10k a pop, it's a even better way to organize with your local legal teams. They always like easy money IME.
Oh don't forget that you can get sued for the same violation multiple times by different people at once, nice way to collect some money and if you want to attack big tech.
He micro-managed minimizing the cost of developers using third party payments in apps, so his nonchalance to ROI is likely overstated - or changed significantly since 2014.
The TV shows and stuff were never in competition for their money, they spent over $700 billion on stock buybacks in the last decade that's where it went, and they certainly could have spent a miniscule portion of that to ignite the iPad and AVP software scene. It will be interesting to see if they change approach with the folding iPhone, the rumour mill says it won't support iPad apps so it is primed for the same problem.
> Chief among the violations, Apple said that Cal AI had bypassed Apple’s in-app purchases by implementing an embedded in-app payment flow using a third-party service (in this case, Stripe) to unlock access to digital goods. In doing so, it removed Apple’s in-app purchase (IAP) as an option for users during checkout. This violated Apple’s App Review Guideline 3.1.1, which requires that IAP be offered alongside the external link.
Guess the first two injunctions weren't clear enough lmao, they are double-banned from interfering with developers using third-party payments!
Whether or not you agree with their position on JIT, their claim is more complete and nuanced than that. Their actual denial states:
We have reviewed your submission and determined that your request falls outside the scope of
Article 6(7) DMA because it is not seeking interoperability with a software feature accessed or
controlled by iOS or iPadOS and used by an equivalent Apple service. Apple does not itself
offer emulation functionalities on iOS or iPadOS and it does not offer JIT compilation for non-
browser apps on iOS or iPadOS.
Specifically they are arguing that since the only application on iOS that is allowed to do JIT is safari and that since they already have access to that JIT capabilities for other browser apps, the DMA does not require them to create a broader JIT capability for all applications.
That’s not a wholly unreasonable stance though I can certainly see how the EU might argue that the capability existing for browsers at all implies it should be available for all applications regardless of their purpose. This does make me wonder about the swift playground app. Is that not using JIT to execute the swift code?
If blatant perjury didn't get anyone in jail nothing will...
> “The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases.”
> …
> “Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases:
> Q. And I take it that Apple decided to impose a 27 percent fee on linked purchases prior to January 16, 2024, correct?
> A. The decision was made that day.
> Q. It’s your testimony that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases?
> A. That is correct.”
> “Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27% commission, were determined in July 2023.
> Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court.”
The status quo is insanely profitable for Apple and Cook is still going to be "engaging with policymakers around the world" so I don't think they'll deviate from malicious compliance and stalling tactics any time soon.
The perjury, contempt and referral for criminal investigation in the US carried no consequence, Japan and Brazil's regulations have been undermined by massive fees, as has the EU but they're afraid to fine them because of Trump. Except for the possibility of a $38 billion fine in India this strategy has been very successful for Apple: it's 5 years since the US ruled developers could use third party payments, 3 years since the DMA came into effect, and nothing has changed.
> 3 years since the DMA came into effect, and nothing has changed.
Not nothing. In the EU, there are settings now to set default apps for browser, email, navigation, contactless payments, calling and messaging, for example.
It's not the brand - it's not like Apple's hit this valuation in isolation Meta, Nvidia, Google, Microsoft all enjoy similar.
It's the cash-money value of putting a fee on all digital goods and subscriptions and cash transactions in a world predisposed to forming and consolidating around monopolies. What does Apple's services revenue look like in another 20 years when Africa, China and India are paying their smartphone provider every time a dollar moves, a few billion more people paying one of two companies every time for their music, movies and tv, games, books, real-world transactions... in de-facto perpetuity.
Carbon offsetting is risky. You plant a tree and you don’t know if it will die. You create a swampy area to absorb co2 and 10 years later it dries out due to global warming. Offsetting should be used if there is no other way to reduce emissions in the first place. Same is true for sucking carbon out of the air and storing it somewhere… it’s expensive and it should not be the default - we need offsetting and carbon segregation for the really unavoidable stuff
Sucking carbon out of the air using fully renewable energy (solar/wind) is a great thing to do! ... once we've fully decarbonized all other energy use and we have extra, left-over renewable energy.
> When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI
Tim Cook, 2023:
> Lawyers suggested Cook himself was involved with how the warning to App Store customers would appear, recommending an update to the text that appears when the external links were clicked. In one version, that link warned customers they were “no longer transacting with Apple.” Later, the link was updated to subtly suggest there could be privacy or security risks with purchases made on the web.
https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/24/apple-exec-phil-schiller-t...
reply