> 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. (May 2024 Tr. 266:22–267:11 (Roman).)
> 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 -- what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases? A. That is correct
> (May 2024 Tr. 202:12–18 (Roman).) Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business
So was Roman incompetent or just kissing ass hoping to become the President of Finance
> So was Roman incompetent or just kissing ass hoping to become the President of Finance
Why do you think Apple sent the Vice President to such a high visibility trial and not the President, who is the person with the ultimate authority and accountability in Finance?
In any large enough organization (and I haven't stumbled on one where this wasn't the case), private or public, the people at the top are shielded by a "second in command" whose job is to take the hit if needed, with the promise that they're next in line for the big position. It's a requirement of the job, they do it and maybe get rewarded, or don't and absolutely get ejected. Sometimes it pays off and they get the coveted president, CEO, etc. position. Sometimes it doesn't and they go to prison or their career is completely derailed.
Survivorship bias says we only see the ones who managed to pull it off. If you look at any large company's CEO now, they're there because they took these hits or provided plausible deniability for the big boss in the past.
Could you please provide any proof for: “if you look at any large company’s CEO, they’re there because they took these hits or provided plausible deniability for jig boss in the past”.
Never thought from this angle, interesting theory
Are you asking if any company, institution, or political party documented asking their subordinates to commit illegal acts in order to provide cover for the head honchos?
Generally no but when you look into scandals like Dieselgate, Enron, Lehman Brothers and others you'll see a pattern of lower level employees being pressured to sign off on misleading documents that the higher ups could just sell as "real". Work in any company or institution above a certain level and you'll see it every day.
It's a test for loyalty, it's a way to select a successor, and very importantly a way to subsequently guarantee that loyalty and keep the ambitious deputies in check. Every large organization is a pyramid scheme of avoiding accountability and passing it on to the lower level.
Execs will continue to default to obfuscating and misleading in testimony as well as minimally complying with court orders until a high-profile exec spends time in jail for criminal contempt. I fear this particular guy isn't senior enough to be the example we really need. While I'm sure he lied and obfuscated, I doubt a VP Finance was really the top decision-maker on "Despite the clear court order, we're going to keep fucking with Fortnite through aggressive non-compliance". I suspect that's an EVP on Tim Cook's staff.
Having spent several years at the top levels of an F500 valley tech company, I'm certain a consistent, broad and aggressive posture like that doesn't happen by accident or any lower than EVP. There was a meeting at some point where the Chief Legal Officer basically laid out the options: A) Give in and do what the court ordered, B) Do most of what the court ordered but drag our feet on all of it and 'accidentally' miss some of it where plausibly deniable, C) Make only token concessions to the order while ensuring the actual intent of the order is blocked, delayed or minimized wherever possible.
Someone with an EVP title picked "C" and until that person spends a couple months in jail on criminal contempt, senior execs will never pick "A". The VP Finance going down isn't enough. Until Tim Cook's staff meeting has an empty EVP chair for several months, none of this is serious. They'll just accelerate this VP Finance's options, bonus the shit out of him and consider his "sacrifice" to be collateral damage.
> Someone with an EVP title picked "C" and until that person spends a couple months in jail on criminal contempt, senior execs will never pick "A". The VP Finance going down isn't enough. Until Tim Cook's staff meeting has an empty EVP chair for several months, none of this is serious. They'll just accelerate this VP Finance's options, bonus the shit out of him and consider his "sacrifice" to be collateral damage.
Agree. They'd have to feel some personal threat of going to prison or at least losing their fortune. As long as they feel protected behind the corporate veil, it's not a big deal to them.
> I fear this particular guy isn't senior enough to be the example we really need.
>> Tim Cook ignored Schiller
>> Cook chose poorly.
>> Cook, Schiller, and Maestri were the ultimate decision makers “about what they felt was [an] acceptable” level of risk to cabin the Injunction’s effect in terms of link placement and design.
It really seems like the judge is saying Tim Cook was acting in willful violation of the court orders. Tim Cook is as senior as you get. I think the usual problem is that they're not able to gather good enough evidence. IIRC the FTC went after Bezos last year because be was using disappearing messages with Signal to hide business records.
> the judge is saying Tim Cook was acting in willful violation of the court orders
Yes, I chose not to focus on Cook because of the reason you mention, "unable to gather evidence." While I'm certain an EVP-level exec had to sign off on the aggressive non-compliance posture, I'm also almost certain that EVP ran it by Tim Cook. The problem is that very likely happened in a one-on-one, in-person conversation. No notes, witnesses or recording.
It's the same age-old problem of convicting the mafia boss for ordering or approving the hit when it was a private conversation and he spoke euphemistically or even just nodded. So, I decided the EVP who communicated the strategy with the team in a wider meeting was probably the best we could do.
> I chose not to focus on Cook because of the reason you mention, "unable to gather evidence."
What I was trying to point out is that it appears there is significant evidence. My interpretation of them is that the court is claiming Cook was knowingly in violation with the court's orders.
I don’t agree with your broad characterization. Apple is a special case: their wealth tends to bend the rules. Every other company operates in risk mitigation mindset.
Well good point. I guess I was just trying to present it as he just lied because he thought it's not a big deal, as in he is incompetent enough to not understand in the kind of trouble he can be in. Or, he fully understood what deep shit he would be in, but it was a worthy risk to become Mr. Cook's personal favorite.
Another thing that came out from the transcript (and this was called out by Ben Thompson of Stratechery) that Phil Schiller who is head of the App Store actually read the entire ruling and spoke up and wanted Apple to follow the spirit of it.
He was actually complimented by the judge. Schiller was overrruled by the CFO.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
> 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. (May 2024 Tr. 266:22–267:11 (Roman).)
> 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 -- what fee it’s going to impose on linked purchases? A. That is correct
> (May 2024 Tr. 202:12–18 (Roman).) Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business
So was Roman incompetent or just kissing ass hoping to become the President of Finance