As part of the trial against Epic Games, Apple CEO Tim Cook took the witness stand at the California court, answering questions regarding Apple's monopoly and restrictions on the App Store, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Denying Epic Games' claim that Apple is solely driven by profit motives, Tim Cook noted that banning competing app stores and reviewing all apps sold on the App Store ensures users' safety.
Tim Cook's defense of in-app payment revolved around the idea that Apple helps developers bill. The head of the company also added that about 100,000 applications are checked a week, and about 40,000 of them are rejected for various reasons, and without this, the App Store would instantly become cluttered.
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers objected that the developers bring Apple a disproportionate amount of money compared to the technology that the manufacturer provides. She backed her argument by the fact that the App Store's payment system is not facing competition, and asked why Apple forbids developers to offer users cheaper payment options in their applications.
Tim Cook responded that users have a choice between many different models of Android smartphones or iPhones, which have a specific set of security and privacy principles. He also revealed that there are many free apps available on the App Store that attract users, and defended Apple's right to use a business model based on in-app purchases commissions.
In addition, Tim Cook noted that Epic Games' announcement of Apple's monopoly is not true, as the developer also promotes its games in app stores on other platforms, including Android, PC and game consoles, which also have a commission. The head of Apple recalled that Apple faced tough competition from Google, Samsung and others, recalling large investments in application developers.
In the litigation, both sides focused on Apple's decision to cut commissions from 30% to 15% for apps that generate revenue of less than $1 million, according to Tim Cook, to support small businesses amid the pandemic.
However, according to the judge, this was due to the pressure that Apple experienced as a result of investigations and litigation, but not competition.