By the experience of the kind of vacuous things companies say time and again when someone is sidelined/has moved on/and so on, only to be proven BS.
I'm not an employee at an acquired SaaS startup either, but I do know from similar experience that 9 times out of 10, "nothing will change", "we now have more resources to make an even better product" etc, means the product you'll loved and used will be either become unrecognizable or will shut down within a year or so...
In this case, if "Phil Schiller took over the App Store from Eddy Cue 7 years ago. So the OP got it backward" then that's probably not the case. But the general principle remains...
The OP made a factual mistake. I corrected it, with documented evidence.
Whether Schiller is fully engaged now or not isn't even the main question. The main question about the OP's comment is, where in the world did "Eddy Cue" come from?
The exact same thing I argued since my first comment in this thread.
You're arguing for Schiller vs Cue. I didn't comment on that.
I merely meta-remarked that the 9to5 quote given as supporting evidence doesn't mean much, since those kind of assurances are given by companies to journalists all the time, and especially when they're not true at all.
I'm positing that such claims are not good gauges of what's going on - regardless of the particulars of this case.
Nothing wrong with those, if they're also true. Sometimes you have to go by experience, not evidence.