Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral

Likelihood of Criminal Consequences

• Many commenters are convinced no Apple executive will actually be charged, tried, or jailed; “rich people rarely face consequences” is a recurring sentiment.
• Others stress “rarely ≠ never” and hope this could be a test case, but confidence in prosecutors pursuing perjury or contempt is low.
• Some expect the 9th Circuit to soften or overturn the outcome; others note Apple already lost on appeal on the underlying injunction, so reversal on noncompliance may be harder.
• There is worry that, even if convicted, federal pardons or political pressure could neutralize the result.

Corporate Liability, Remedies, and Deterrence

• Strong frustration that companies can violate the law while individuals evade responsibility; many want executives and boards personally liable, including jail time.
• Several argue only severe penalties (multi‑year prison terms and fines large enough to erase the gains, possibly in the “tens or hundreds of billions”) will change behavior.
• Proposed remedies include: 100% refund of improperly collected App Store fees, mandatory consumer/developer restitution, daily doubling contempt fines, or banning Apple from collecting commissions until compliant.
• Others caution that such remedies, if fully enforced, would be historically large and politically disruptive, and doubt the political system would allow it.

What the Judge Found Apple Did

• The order (and summaries linked in the thread) describe Apple’s “27%” off‑App‑Store commission, restrictive link placement rules, scary warning dialogs, and audit rights as designed to nullify the spirit of the Epic injunction.
• The VP of Finance is described as having given “misdirection and outright lies” under oath (e.g., claiming they hadn’t studied alternatives or decided on the 27% fee until the last moment, which documents contradicted).
• The judge referred this testimony for criminal contempt and emphasized that this was an injunction to obey, not a negotiation to game.

Apple Leadership and Internal Dynamics

• Commenters highlight that internal emails show one senior product leader wanted to comply with the injunction, but was overruled by the CEO and CFO, who chose a high‑risk strategy to preserve revenues.
• This fuels calls for a leadership change and arguments that the CEO knowingly approved a willful, coordinated violation. Some say he should personally face criminal charges.
• Others argue he was a brilliant operations choice post‑Jobs but has overstayed: innovation has slowed, software quality has slipped, big bets (car, Vision Pro, “Apple Intelligence”) look weak, and the company now feels paranoid about any revenue loss.

Antitrust, App Store Power, and the 30% Cut

• One camp sees Apple’s App Store behavior as naked rent‑seeking: using platform control to extract up to 30% on everything, suppress alternatives, and punish developers. They note earlier promises of uniform terms were undercut by special deals for large partners.
• Another camp argues the fee buys real value: security review, distribution, billing, fraud handling, refunds, platform privacy features (ATT, “Sign in with” protections), and high‑spending users. For many devs, iOS reportedly generates more revenue than Android despite the cut.
• There’s recurring debate whether 30% (or 27% on external links) is arbitrary and anti‑competitive or simply “what the market will bear.” Some question whether courts should be in the business of pricing margins at all.

Developers, Products, and Ecosystem Fallout

• Developers in the thread see Apple as having burned a lot of goodwill: arbitrary app review, hostile policies, and now lying to courts. That undermines enthusiasm to support new platforms like Vision Pro.
• Vision Pro’s weak ecosystem is attributed to a mix of extreme price, limited user base, lack of core VR use cases (social VR, porn, PC‑VR), and developer distrust.
• Several recall the early iPhone era, when indie devs rushed in out of excitement; today, devs are more cautious and transactional, “following the money” only when user numbers justify the investment.

Politics, Capture, and “Rule of Law for the Powerful”

• The thread repeatedly links Apple’s behavior to broader concerns about unequal justice: executives, politicians, and large firms not being held to the same standard as ordinary people.
• Apple’s donations, tariff carve‑outs, and senior lawyers moving into key federal roles (e.g., NLRB) are cited as examples of overt “pay‑to‑play” and regulatory capture.
• Some commenters argue culture‑war theatrics distract from the underlying class and power dynamics; others note that performing loyalty to political leaders can directly affect enforcement choices and pardons.

Broader Justice and Punishment Debate

• Many argue that if ordinary workers can face jail for small‑scale offenses, executives whose decisions impact thousands or millions should face at least equivalent risk.
• There’s discussion of other corporate scandals (opioids, tobacco, Wells Fargo, industrial disasters) where no top executives saw serious prison time, reinforcing cynicism.
• Some advocate extreme deterrents (life sentences, even capital punishment in some jurisdictions) for massive, knowing harms; others push back on ethical grounds but still call for much harsher white‑collar penalties.