Apple’s on-line market would change into a “toxic” mess if the iPhone maker had been compelled to permit third-party apps with out reviewing them, chief govt Tim Cook instructed a high-stakes trial Friday difficult the corporate’s tight management of its platform.

Cook, the final scheduled witness within the case introduced by Fortnite maker Epic Games, supplied a strong defence of Apple’s procedures for reviewing and approving all of the apps it presents for iPhone and iPad customers.

“We could no longer make the promise… of privacy, safety and security,” with out full management of {the marketplace}, Cook stated beneath questioning from Apple legal professional Veronica Moye in federal court docket in California.

Cook stated Apple’s evaluation course of helps hold out malicious software program and different problematic apps, serving to create a secure place for shoppers.

Without this evaluation, the net market “would become a toxic kind of mess,” he stated.

“It would also be terrible for the developer, because the developer depends on the store being a safe and trusted place.”

Cook’s testimony caps a high-profile trial which opened earlier this month through which Apple is accused of abusing a monopoly on its market by making a “walled garden” that squeezes app makers.

Epic, maker of the favored Fortnite online game, is searching for to drive Apple to open up {the marketplace} to 3rd events searching for to bypass Apple’s procedures and commissions of as much as 30 %.

Apple booted Fortnite from its App Store final yr after Epic dodged income sharing with the iPhone maker.

‘Not about cash’
Under cross-examination, Cook sparred with Epic lawyer Gary Bornstein concerning the profitability of the App Store.

Cook disputed Epic’s rivalry that its revenue margin on apps was some 80 %, however monetary particulars weren’t disclosed in court docket as a result of confidentiality issues.

The Apple govt stated the proprietary funds system challenged by Epic was about comfort for shoppers, greater than about earnings.

“We always put the user at the centre of everything we do,” Cook stated. “It has nothing to do with money.”

During his testimony, Cook defended Apple’s coverage of barring apps directing shoppers to different platforms to buy subscriptions or credit for video games and different companies.

“It would be akin to Best Buy advertising that you can go across the street to the Apple Store to buy an iPhone,” he stated.

But District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, in a sequence of harsh questions for Cook on the finish of his testimony, urged that Apple’s reduce is simply too excessive even when decreased to fifteen % after the primary yr.

“It does appear to be disproportionate,” the decide instructed Cook. “After that first interaction.. the developer is keeping those customers, Apple is just profiting from them.”

Cook retorted shortly, “I see it differently,” after which added: “We are creating the entire amount of commerce on the store and we are doing that by getting the largest audience there.”

Apple doesn’t permit customers of its standard units to obtain apps from anyplace however its App Store, and builders have to make use of Apple’s fee system, which takes its reduce.

The Epic lawyer additionally questioned Cook about Apple’s association with Google to be the default search engine for the iPhone maker’s Safari browser, one other space scrutinised by antitrust officials.

Cook acknowledged that Google pays for this place however added that Apple made the association “in the best interest of the user.”

The case in Oakland comes with Apple feeling stress from a variety of app makers over its management of the App Store, which critics say represents monopolistic behaviour.

The European Union has formally accused Apple of unfairly squeezing out music streaming rivals primarily based on a grievance introduced by Sweden-based Spotify and others, which declare the California group units guidelines that favour its personal Apple Music.

A just lately shaped Coalition for App Fairness, which incorporates each Spotify and Epic, have known as for Apple to open up its market, claiming its fee is a “tax” on rivals.

Closing arguments within the bench trial in California had been anticipated early subsequent week, with the decide anticipated to rule inside a number of weeks.