An early look at an ongoing analysis of Apple's App Tracking Transparency suggests that the vast majority of iPhone users are leaving app tracking disabled since the feature went live on April 26 with the release of iOS 14.5. MacRumors reports: According to the latest data from analytics firm Flurry, just 4% of iPhone users in the U.S. have actively chosen to opt into app tracking after updating their device to iOS 14.5. The data is based on a sampling of 2.5 million daily mobile active users. When looking at users worldwide who allow app tracking, the figure rises to 12% of users in a 5.3 million user sample size.

With the release of iOS 14.5, apps must now ask for and receive user permission before they can access a device's random advertising identifier, which is used to track user activity across apps and websites. Users can either enable or disable the ability for apps to ask to track them. Apple disables the setting by default. Since the update almost two weeks ago, Flurry's figures show a stable rate of app-tracking opt-outs, with the worldwide figure hovering between 11-13%, and 2-5% in the U.S. The challenge for the personalized ads market will be significant if the first two weeks end up reflecting a long-term trend.

As part of the trial against Epic Games, Apple released emails that show that 128 million users, of which 18 million were in the U.S., downloaded apps containing malware known as XCodeGhost from the App Store. From a report: In 2015, unknown hackers snuck malware onto thousands of apps on the iPhone App Store. At the time, researchers believed the hack had the potential to impact hundreds of millions of people, given that it affected around 4,000 apps, according to researcher estimates. This made it perhaps the largest hack against iPhones ever in terms of affected users. But for years, the full scale of the hack was unknown to the public. Some even thought the real impact of the hack -- known as XCodeGhost, the name of the malware used -- would never be revealed.

But now, thanks to emails published as part of Apple's trial against Epic Games, we finally know how many iPhone users were impacted: 128 million in total, of which 18 million were in the US. "In total, 128M customers have downloaded the 2500+ apps that were affected LTD. Those customers drove 203M downloads of the 2500+ affected apps LTD," Dale Bagwell, who was Apple's manager of iTunes customer experience at the time, wrote in one of the emails. Another Apple employee wrote in the emails that "China represents 55% of customers and 66% of downloads. As you can see, a significant number (18M customers) are affected in the US." The emails also show that Apple was scrambling to figure out the impact of the hack, and working on notifying the victims.

An attack that targeted Apple devices was used to spy on China's Muslim minority -- and US officials claim it was developed at the country's top hacking competition. An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from an MIT Technology Review article: The Tianfu Cup offered prizes that added up to over a million dollars. [It was held in November 2018, shortly after the Chinese banned cybersecurity researchers from attending overseas hacking competitions.] The $200,000 top prize went to Qihoo 360 researcher Qixun Zhao, who showed off a remarkable chain of exploits that allowed him to easily and reliably take control of even the newest and most up-to-date iPhones. From a starting point within the Safari web browser, he found a weakness in the core of the iPhones operating system, its kernel. The result? A remote attacker could take over any iPhone that visited a web page containing Qixun's malicious code. It's the kind of hack that can potentially be sold for millions of dollars on the open market to give criminals or governments the ability to spy on large numbers of people. Qixun named it "Chaos."

Two months later, in January 2019, Apple issued an update that fixed the flaw. There was little fanfare—just a quick note of thanks to those who discovered it. But in August of that year, Google published an extraordinary analysis into a hacking campaign it said was "exploiting iPhones en masse." Researchers dissected five distinct exploit chains they'd spotted "in the wild." These included the exploit that won Qixun the top prize at Tianfu, which they said had also been discovered by an unnamed "attacker." The Google researchers pointed out similarities between the attacks they caught being used in the real world and Chaos. What their deep dive omitted, however, were the identities of the victims and the attackers: Uyghur Muslims and the Chinese government.

Shortly after Google's researchers noted the attacks, media reports connected the dots: the targets of the campaign that used the Chaos exploit were the Uyghur people, and the hackers were linked to the Chinese government. Apple published a rare blog post that confirmed the attack had taken place over two months: that is, the period beginning immediately after Qixun won the Tianfu Cup and stretching until Apple issued the fix. MIT Technology Review has learned that United States government surveillance independently spotted the Chaos exploit being used against Uyghurs, and informed Apple. (Both Apple and Google declined to comment on this story.) The Americans concluded that the Chinese essentially followed the "strategic value" plan laid out by Qihoo's Zhou Hongyi; that the Tianfu Cup had generated an important hack; and that the exploit had been quickly handed over to Chinese intelligence, which then used it to spy on Uyghurs. The US collected the full details of the exploit used to hack the Uyghurs, and it matched Tianfu's Chaos hack, MIT Technology Review has learned. (Google's in-depth examination later noted how structurally similar the exploits are.) The US quietly informed Apple, which had already been tracking the attack on its own and reached the same conclusion: the Tianfu hack and the Uyghur hack were one and the same. The company prioritized a difficult fix.

App Store Vice President Matt Fischer is on the stand answering questions from Apple and Epic lawyers, and one of the emails shared as evidence confirms that Apple has established special deals with major app developers like Hulu. From a report: In 2018, a tweet from developer David Barnard commented about App Store subscriptions being automatically cancelled through the StoreKit API, questioning why there hadn't been more offers to swap billing away from the App Store. Matt Fischer asked Cindy Lin about it, and she explained that Hulu is a developer with special access to a subscription cancel/refund API. Hulu is part of the set of whitelisted developers with access to subscription cancel/refund API. Back in 2015 they were using this to support instant upgrade using a 2 family setup, before we had subscription upgrade/downgrade capabilities built in. Apple does not further detail who other developers with special access might have been in the correspondence, but these are not features that all developers have access to. Apple has long said that the App Store provides a "level playing field" that treats all apps in the App Store the same with one set of rules for everybody and no special deals or special terms, but it's clear that some apps are indeed provided with special privileges.

Researchers at Brigham Young University conducted a study to see how much blue-light-reducing features like Apple's Night Shift improve sleep quality. Their conclusion? Night Shift doesn't help at all. From a report: In the study, which was published in Sleep Health, the BYU researchers assessed the sleep quality of 167 young adults, asking each to wear a wrist accelerometer before sleep. Participants were randomly assigned three conditions regarding iPhone use before bed: one group didn't use their iPhones at all, one group used their iPhones without Night Shift enabled, and another group used their iPhones with Night Shift enabled. "There were no significant differences in sleep outcomes across the three experimental groups," the researchers concluded. For individuals who slept more than 6.8 hours per night, there was some improvement in sleep quality for those who did not use their smartphones at all. But Night Shift didn't have a significant impact, and there was no difference between those who used smartphones and those who didn't when the amount of sleep was less than 6.8 hours per night. "This suggests that when you are super tired, you fall asleep no matter what you did just before bed... the sleep pressure is so high, there is really no effect of what happens before bedtime," said Chad Jensen, one of the researchers.

Apple has added extra paid-for advertisements to its App Store, a week after its new operating system limited tracking for ads from other companies. The BBC reports: The new ad space lets app-makers advertise on the App Store search tab, rather than just in the search results. Previously, Apple sold adverts to appear at the top of search results only. The new slot effectively doubles the advertising space for sale. Enders Analysis senior media analyst Jamie MacEwan said: "The timing makes sense. Apple probably anticipates increased demand for exposure on the App Store. That's because Apple's iOS privacy changes have made other options less attractive."

Ad campaigns on other sites had less reliable measurements of success, he said. And app developers ran ads only if they were sure the cost of winning new customers was lower than the amount they would spend on the app. "As its ads business grows, Apple will have to make sure its execution on consent and privacy is impeccable" to avoid accusations of putting itself first, Mr MacEwan added. Some reports suggest Apple's ad sales could be worth more than $2 billion and are growing.

As the Epic Games v. Apple trial progresses into its third day, Apple's internal documents and communications with various companies are continuing to surface, giving us some insight into the dealings that Apple has had around the App Store. From a report: Back in December 2018, Netflix stopped offering in-app subscription options for new or resubscribing members and instead began requiring them to sign up for Netflix outside of the App Store in order to avoid paying Apple's 30 percent cut. As it turns out, Apple executives were unhappy with Netflix's decision, and made attempts to persuade Netflix to keep in-app purchases available. The subject hasn't yet been broached in the live in-person trial that's going on right now, but news outlet 9to5Mac highlighted emails between Apple executives discussing Netflix's decision. When Apple learned that Netflix was A/B testing the removal of in-app purchases in certain countries, Apple started scrambling to put a stop to it. Apple's App Store Business Management Director Carson Oliver sent out an email in February 2018 outlining Netflix's testing plans and asked his fellow App Store executives whether Apple should take "punitive measures" against Netflix. "Do we want to take any punitive measures in response to the test (for examples, pulling all global featuring during the test period)? If so, how should those punitive measures be communicated to Netflix? (sic)," asked Oliver.

On iOS, Apple wants all the browsers to run WebKit. Even Google Chrome is forced to use WebKit on iOS devices. Alex Russel, Google's engineer, in a blog post outlines his case: Apple's iOS browser (Safari) and engine (WebKit) are uniquely under-powered. Consistent delays in the delivery of important features ensure the web can never be a credible alternative to its proprietary tools and App Store. Alex has cited an example of this by mentioning Stadia and other cloud gaming services. Apple did not allow those services to be available on the App Store and pushed them to use the web instead, which requires Apple to allow gamepad APIs so controllers can be used with these new web apps. That is a function that other browsers have offered for a long time except on iOS. He writes: Suppose Apple had implemented WebRTC and the Gamepad API in a timely way. Who can say if the game streaming revolution now taking place might have happened sooner? It's possible that Amazon Luna, NVIDIA GeForce NOW, Google Stadia, and Microsoft xCloud could have been built years earlier. It's also possible that APIs delivered on every other platform, but not yet available on any iOS browser (because Apple), may hold the key to unlocking whole categories of experiences on the web. Blog WCCFTech adds: Alex has also talked about how iOS browsers are underpowered in several other places compared to the competition. For starters, iOS browsers lack push notifications, standardized Progressive Web App (PWA) install buttons, background sync, and numerous other tools that make it easier for developers to make fully functional web apps. Access to hardware such as Bluetooth, USB, and NFC are also not easily available. Last but not least, the royalty-free AV1 standard is also not available.

The Apple vs. Epic legal battle has brought new documents to light, revealing the strained relationship between Apple and Facebook that dates as far back as 2011. 9to5Mac reports: Around this time, Facebook had not yet released a dedicated app for the iPad, which debuted in 2010. Apple's Scott Forstall, then serving as the company's software chief, sent an email to Phil Schiller and Steve Jobs regarding a meeting he had with Mark Zuckerberg about bringing Facebook to the iPad. At the heart of Facebook's concerns was that Apple would not allow the Facebook for iPad application to include "embedded apps." Forstall wrote: "I just discussed with Mark how they should not include embedded apps in the Facebook iPad app -- neither in an embedded web view or as a directory of links that would redirect to Safari. Not surprisingly, he wasn't happy with this as he considers these apps part of the 'whole Facebook experience' and isn't sure they should do an iPad app without them. Everything works in Safari, so he is hesitant to push people to a native app with less functionality, even if the native app is better for non-third party app features."

Zuckerberg suggested a few compromises to Forstall: Do not include a directory of apps in the Facebook app, links, or otherwise; Do not have third-party apps run in the embedded web view; Allow user posts in the news feed related to apps; and Tapping on one of these app-related links would (1) fast switch to a native app if one exists and the user has it installed, (2) take the user to the App Store if a native app exists and the user has not installed it, (3) link out to Safari otherwise.

"I think this is all reasonable, with the possible exception of #3," Forstall wrote in the email. Steve Jobs responded and wrote, "I agree -- if we eliminate Fecebooks third proposal it sounds reasonable." Note Jobs's spelling of Facebook there. A few days later, Forstall followed up and said that Zuckerberg did not like Apple's counterproposal. [...] CNBC adds: "When Facebook's iPad app eventually launched, it said that it would not support its own Credits currency on iOS for apps like Farmville -- a compromise along the lines of what Apple's executives discussed.

Fans of Fortnite aren't happy that Apple pulled the game app off the iPhone last year -- and some aren't shy about appealing to the federal judge who has the power to make things right. From a report: "Can we please have Fortnite mobile back?" a voice was heard saying Tuesday as a clerk was testing dial-in access for the public to monitor Epic Games' trial against Apple in federal court in Oakland, California. Yesterday, as the three-week trial opened, there were enough hecklers who'd figured out how to unmute themselves -- against the court's rules -- that the phone system was briefly shut down, prompting some online commentators to refer to the situation as a hijacking. Further reading: The Apple vs. Epic Games trial airs private emails.

Phil Schiller, the Apple executive in charge of the App Store, raised the possibility of the company cutting its 30 percent commission rate to 25 or even 20 percent back in 2011 in response to competition. From a report: Schiller floated the idea in an email to then Apple CEO Steve Jobs and head of Apple services Eddy Cue. The email has been made public as part of the company's legal battle with Epic Games. "Do we think our 70/30 split will last forever?" Schiller's email begins. "I think someday we will see enough challenge from another platform or web based solutions to want to adjust our model." Schiller goes on to suggest that if Apple were to ever change its fee structure, that it should do so "from a position of strength rather than weakness" and floats the idea of Apple dropping its commission rate once the App Store is generating over $1 billion in annual profit. "I know that this is controversial, I just tee it up as another way to look at the size of the business, what we want to achieve, and how we stay competitive," Schiller wrote. "Just food for thought." Attached to the email is a Wall Street Journal article from 2011 which discussed the possibility of developers using web apps to bypass Apple's App Store fees.

The Apple Watch may gain the ability to measure blood pressure, blood glucose, and blood alcohol levels, according to newly-revealed information about one of Apple's chosen business partners. MacRumors reports: Apple has been revealed to be the largest customer of the British electronics start-up Rockley Photonics, The Telegraph reports. Rockley Photonics has developed non-invasive optical sensors for detecting multiple blood-related health metrics, including blood pressure, blood glucose, and blood alcohol levels, many of which are only normally detectable with more invasive dedicated medical equipment. Rockley's sensors beam infrared light through a user's skin, much like the existing sensors on the back of the Apple Watch for detecting heart rate and blood oxygen levels.

Rockley's disclosure that its biggest client is Apple came about as the company prepares to go public in New York. The company's filings said that Apple accounted for the majority of its revenue over the last two years and that it has an ongoing "supply and development agreement" with the company, under which it expects to continue to heavily rely on Apple for most of its revenue. Given the growth of Rockley Photonics and the scale of Apple's partnership with the company, it seems to be virtually inevitable that the company's health sensor technology will be coming to the Apple Watch sooner rather than later.

iFixit has ripped apart Apple's recently-released AirTag, a small battery-powered tag that will allow you to track your items within Apple's "Find My" app on iOS. An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from an Ars Technica article: Like with most Apple products, it looks like some serious engineering went into the $29 tracker. The device is barely larger than the user-replaceable CR2032 battery that powers it, putting competing devices like the Tile and Samsung Galaxy SmartTags to shame with their comparative bulk. Inside, a single circuit board uses a unique donut-shaped design that crams all the components into a ring under the battery. The hole in the middle of the circuit board lets Apple pack in a surprisingly huge voice coil speaker. The speaker is just for playing ringtones so you can find your AirTagged thing when you lose it, but apparently, the ringtones will be super high quality.

The other very Apple-like quality of the AirTag is that it almost seems designed to sell accessories. The most popular use for these trackers is to help find your car keys, but out of the box, there is no way to attach a keychain to an AirTag. Instead, Apple has enabled a wide ecosystem of AirTag cases ranging from a $13 keyring holder to a $449 (yes, that's four hundred forty-nine dollars) Hermes' luggage tag. iFixit's solution to the much-demanded keyring hole is -- what else -- a power drill! The teardown experts found some suitable dead space inside the AirTag that somehow isn't blocked by either the battery, speaker, or circuit board, and after some careful drilling, iFixit's AirTag now has a keychain hole with the least possible bulk. "The AirTag survived the operation like a champ and works as if nothing happened," the site says. iFixit went on to note that the sound profile "didn't seem to change much," but the IP67 dust and water resistance rating is now greatly compromised.

Rumors about a foldable iPhone have bubbled up before, but a new one has more credibility. From a report: Reliable analyst Ming-Chi Kuo told investors that Apple plans to launch an 8-inch foldable iPhone by 2023, according to documents seen by Engadget. The report, based on an "industry survey," predicts that Apple plans to sell 15-20 million units in 2023. Kuo said already revealed the possibility of a folding iPhone in March, but his latest report has more detail on suppliers. It predicts that the QHD+ flexible OLED will be supplied by Samsung Display, while the DDI display controller will come from Samsung Foundry. It also notes that Apple will use silver nanowire touch tech supplied by TPK, "because of its several advantages over [Samsung's] Y-Octa technology."

Apple's App Store had operating margins of almost 78% in fiscal year 2019, according to testimony from an Epic Games expert witness based on documents obtained from the iPhone maker. From a report: The figure comes from Ned Barnes, a financial and economics researcher, who said he obtained documents "prepared by Apple's Corporate Financial Planning and Analysis group and produced from the files of Apple CEO Tim Cook." Apple is disputing the accuracy of Barnes's calculations -- and urging a judge to restrict public discussion of App Store profit -- as the companies head into a high-stakes trial Monday in Oakland, California. Epic, maker of the blockbuster game Fortnite, is trying to show that the App Store is run like a monopoly with its commission on developers of as much as 30%, while Apple insists it doesn't abuse its market power. Epic is also suing Apple in the U.K. and Australia while Apple faces scrutiny from antitrust regulators in the U.S. and abroad.

The companies are relying heavily on dueling economists as they make their case to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is conducting the three-week trial without a jury. As part of the pretrial information-sharing process, Barnes said that an Apple employee told him that the numbers from the company's internal documents don't show the full picture. Barnes said he then made additional calculations, which resulted in higher margin estimates of 79.6% for both 2018 and 2019. In a statement Saturday, the Cupertino, California-based technology giant said Epic experts' "calculations of the operating margins for the App Store are simply wrong and we look forward to refuting them in court." Barnes said he also obtained documents prepared inside Apple that show profit and loss estimates for fiscal year 2020. He said Apple had been tracking App Store profits for years and that he also obtained such statements for 2013 through 2015.

Long-time Slashdot reader theodp writes: The announcement Monday that Apple Inc. would locate its new high-tech campus in Research Triangle Park," reports The News&Observer's Tyler Dukes, "was heralded as a coup for the state, which has pursued the company and the promise of its high-paying jobs for at least three years. But that victory comes at a cost. State and local incentives for the deal could be worth nearly $1 billion to the company over the next four decades. That award, by far the largest in the state's history, will mostly come from new Apple employees' state income tax payments — the vast majority of which will flow right back to Apple....

"The JDIG award approved by the state's Economic Investment Committee Monday morning would mean $845.8 million in payments to Apple through 2061 — provided the company meets its hiring, worker-retention and investment targets. These payments are recouped from the income taxes Apple's new employees would normally pay to the state. Starting in 2023, the state will start issuing payments to Apple worth a little more than half of those employees' annual tax payments. In 2032, if all goes as planned, that percentage increases to 90%."

Apple, whose market cap on Monday was $2.26 trillion, isn't exactly hurting for money...

Florida is on track to be the first state in America to punish social media companies that ban politicians, reports NBC News, "under a bill approved Thursday by the state's Republican-led Legislature." Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican and close Trump ally who called for the bill's passage, is expected to sign the legislation into law, but the proposal appears destined to be challenged in court after a tech industry trade group called it a violation of the First Amendment speech rights of corporations...

Suspensions of up to 14 days would still be allowed, and a service could remove individual posts that violate its terms of service. The state's elections commission would be empowered to fine a social media company $250,000 a day for statewide candidates and $25,000 a day for other candidates if a company's actions are found to violate the law, which also requires the companies to provide information about takedowns and apply rules consistently...

Florida Republican lawmakers have cited tech companies' wide influence over speech as a reason for the increased regulation. "What this bill is about is sending a loud message to Silicon Valley that they are not the absolute arbiters of truth," state Rep. John Snyder, a Republican from the Port St. Lucie area, said Wednesday... The Florida bill may offer Republicans in other states a road map for introducing laws that could eventually force social media companies and U.S. courts to confront questions about free speech on social media, including the questions raised by Thomas.

State Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, an Orlando area Democrat, said if Republicans want to stay on private services, they should follow the rules. "There's already a solution to deplatforming candidates on social media: Stop trafficking in conspiracy theories...."
NetChoice, a trade group for internet companies, argued the bill punishes platforms for removing harmful content, and that it would make it harder to block spam. But they also argued that the freedom of speech clause in the U.S. Constitution "makes clear that government may not regulate the speech of private individuals or businesses.

"This includes government action that compels speech by forcing a private social media platform to carry content that is against its policies or preferences."

Slashdot reader zantafio points out the bill specifies just five major tech companies — Google, Apple, Twitter, Facebook and Amazon.

And that the bill was also amended to specifically exempt Disney, Universal and any theme park owner that operates a search engine or information service.

In the Great Recession more than a decade ago, big tech companies hit a rough patch just like everyone else. Now they have become unquestioned winners of the pandemic economy. From a report: The combined yearly revenue of Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft and Facebook is about $1.2 trillion, according to earnings reported this week, more than 25 percent higher than the figure just as the pandemic started to bite in 2020. In less than a week, those five giants make more in sales than McDonald's does in a year. The U.S. economy is cranking back from 2020, when it contracted for the first time since the financial crisis. But for the tech giants, the pandemic hit was barely a blip. It's a fantastic time to be a titan of U.S. technology -- as long as you ignore the screaming politicians, the daily headlines about killing free speech or dodging taxes, the gripes from competitors and workers, and the too-many-to-count legal investigations and lawsuits.

America's technology superpowers aren't making bonkers dollars in spite of the deadly coronavirus and its ripple effects through the global economy. They have grown even stronger because of the pandemic. It's both logical and slightly nuts. The wildly successful last year also raises uncomfortable questions for tech company bosses, the public and elected officials already peeved about the industry: Is what's good for Big Tech good for America? Or are the tech superstars winning while the rest of us are losing?

Apple has "abused its dominant position" in the distribution of music streaming apps through its App Store, the European Commission said Friday. From a report: "Our preliminary finding is that Apple exercises considerable market power in the distribution of music streaming apps to owners of Apple devices. On that market, Apple has a monopoly," Margrethe Vestager, the head of competition policy in the EU, said in a press conference. The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, opened an antitrust investigation into the App Store last year, after the music streaming platform Spotify complained in 2019 about Apple's license agreements. The agreements mean that app developers have to pay a 30% commission on all subscription fees that come through the App Store. On Friday, the EU said it took issue with the "mandatory use of Apple's own in-app purchase mechanism imposed on music streaming app developers to distribute their apps via Apple's App Store." App developers are also unable to inform users of alternative ways to purchase the same apps elsewhere --another issue the commission said it was concerned with.

According to The Verge, citing a new deposition made public as part of the Epic case, Apple's senior VP of software and services, Eddy Cue, pushed to bring iMessage to Android as early as 2013. "[...] Cue wanted to devote a full team to iMessage support on Android, only to be overruled by other executives," adds The Verge. From the report: The latest deposition cites a specific email exchange between Cue and Craig Federighi, currently Apple's SVP of software engineering, beginning on April 7th and 8th, 2013. The exchange came after news circulated that Google had attempted to purchase WhatsApp for $1 billion. According to the exchange, Cue took the rumors as a sign that iMessage should expand to Android to cement Apple's hold on messaging apps:

Cue: We really need to bring iMessage to Android. I have had a couple of people investigating this but we should go full speed and make this an official project.... Do we want to lose one of the most important apps in a mobile environment to Google? They have search, mail, free video, and growing quickly in browsers. We have the best messaging app and we should make it the industry standard. I don't know what ways we can monetize it but it doesn't cost us a lot to run.

Federighi: Do you have any thoughts on how we would make switching to iMessage (from WhatsApp) compelling to masses of Android users who don't have a bunch of iOS friends? iMessage is a nice app/service, but to get users to switch social networks we'd need more than a marginally better app. (This is why Google is willing to pay $1 billion -- for the network, not for the app.)...In the absence of a strategy to become the primary messaging service for [the] bulk of cell phone users, I am concerned [that] iMessage on Android would simply serve to remove an obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones.

Elsewhere in the deposition, Cue says, "I remember the time of wanting to do an iMessage app on Android ourselves." "Would there have been cross-compatibility with the iOS platform so that users of both platforms would have been able to exchange messages?" the questioner responds. "That was certainly the discussion and the view that I had," Cue says. [...] The line of questioning is likely to play a significant role in Epic's antitrust lawsuit, which argues that iOS app store exclusivity represents an illegal use of market power. Epic has made clear in previous filings that it plans to make iMessage exclusivity part of that argument, citing a 2016 email from Phil Schiller that argues iMessage expansion "will hurt us more than help us."