Antitrust Hearing Involving Apple Chief Tim Cook and Other Big Tech CEOs Reportedly Postponed [Update: Delay Confirmed]

[MacRumors]

An antitrust hearing held by the U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee where Apple chief Tim Cook was set to join other big tech CEOs is likely to be postponed, according to a report on Thursday.

The hearing involving Cook, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Alphabet/Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was supposed to happen next Monday, but two sources told CNBC that it was now unlikely to take place due to a conflict with the memorial service for the late representative John Lewis.

The hearing is meant to be the culmination of a more than year-long investigation into the four tech giants. After the hearing, lawmakers plan to publish a report based on their findings and propose legislation to bring antitrust laws up to date to deal with issues unique to digital marketplaces.

A recent report by The Information underlined Cook's initial reluctance to take part in the hearing, and how under the pressure of a potential subpoena, Cook ultimately agreed to participate.

Cook is said to have spent the better part of a month preparing for the hearing, which may touch on a wide range of subjects from App Store policies to Apple's disputes with the FBI over providing methods for law enforcement to access locked devices to Apple's relationships with China.

Update: The antitrust hearing with Apple CEO Tim Cook and other tech CEOs has been officially postponed. A new date has not been announced.

Article Link: Antitrust Hearing Involving Apple Chief Tim Cook and Other Big Tech CEOs Reportedly Postponed [Update: Delay Confirmed]

 

[itsmilo]

I always feel bad for those people having to actually prepare those numbers and slides you spent weeks working on, only to have the MD / CEO skipping over them. People like me 😅

 

[djcerla]

So much CEO time wasted for nothing.

Apple has no monopoly whatsoever, it only has a fraction of the markets in which it competes.

They should rather thank Apple every morning for the huge marketplace they created, to the benefit of millions.

 

[Crowbot]

Why would a hearing on supposed anti-trust activities by Apple have anything to do with their inability to unlock their products for the FBI? Especially given that these people know nothing about the technical details.

 

[michaelsviews]

Imagine if you will , the people having hearings on "our elected officials". The people having the same access that's abused I mean used by the federal government every day.

 

[LV426]

I like Tim Cook's ear plugs in that photo. He's obviously just stepped out of his office where he has a MacBook Pro 16" connected to an external monitor. And he still needs ear plugs!

 

[Crowbot]

I like Tim Cook's ear plugs in that photo. He's obviously just stepped out of his office where he has a MacBook Pro 16" connected to an external monitor. And he still needs ear plugs!

Active Noise Cancellation is one of my favorite features of the AirPod Pros. Just nod your head and they think you're listening to them.

 

[arvinsim]

I like Tim Cook's ear plugs in that photo. He's obviously just stepped out of his office where he has a MacBook Pro 16" connected to an external monitor. And he still needs ear plugs!

Is this issue really prevalent? Thinking of buying an 16" MBP.

 

[ghanwani]

They decided to hold off until Intel is able to release its 7 nm product.

 

[4look4rd]

So much CEO time wasted for nothing.

Apple has no monopoly whatsoever, it only has a fraction of the markets in which it competes.

They should rather thank Apple every morning for the huge marketplace they created, to the benefit of millions.

If it’s a monopoly or not is irrelevant.

The question is: is apple’s anti competitive behavior harming consumer?

Apple is acting anti competitively by not allowing other app stores in iOS, and forcing developers to use their payment system for 30% cut. Further more Apple has direct competing products to Netflix, Spotify, and others. That’s just a given.

Where the legal battle will be fought is whether or not consumers are better off using apple’s closed system, or if Apple is harming consumers through these practice (higher prices).

The outcomes could be huge. Either nothing will happen, or Apple will be fine, or Apple will be forced to open up iOS, or on a more extreme level Apple may have to spin up the App Store as a separate company.

 

[cjducasse]

Who paid who?

 

[Crowbot]

If it’s a monopoly or not is irrelevant.

The question is: is apple’s anti competitive behavior harming consumer?

Apple is acting anti competitively by not allowing other app stores in iOS, and forcing developers to use their payment system for 30% cut. Further more Apple has direct competing products to Netflix, Spotify, and others. That’s just a given.

Where the legal battle will be fought is whether or not consumers are better off using apple’s closed system, or if Apple is harming consumers through these practice (higher prices).

The outcomes could be huge. Either nothing will happen, or Apple will be fine, or Apple will be forced to open up iOS, or on a more extreme level Apple may have to spin up the App Store as a separate company.

I disagree. I think the monopoly question is the only question the government can answer. I don't think the government really has anything to say about Apple's business model of the "walled garden" since there are alternatives that are a much larger proportion of the market. If Netflix, et al, want to play in Apple's garden they have to play by Apple's rules. Otherwise they'll have to be satisfied with the Android world.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Is this issue really prevalent? Thinking of buying an 16" MBP.

I’ve seen at least two people parrot that there is some type of issue, but neither even bothered to say what version of MacOS they’re running. That’s the first thing you would want to mention if you were actually trying to solve the problem. So I just assumed they weren’t really having the issue at all. Hard to know nowadays.

 

[I7guy]

If it’s a monopoly or not is irrelevant.

The question is: is apple’s anti competitive behavior harming consumer?

Apple is acting anti competitively by not allowing other app stores in iOS, and forcing developers to use their payment system for 30% cut. Further more Apple has direct competing products to Netflix, Spotify, and others. That’s just a given.

Where the legal battle will be fought is whether or not consumers are better off using apple’s closed system, or if Apple is harming consumers through these practice (higher prices).

The outcomes could be huge. Either nothing will happen, or Apple will be fine, or Apple will be forced to open up iOS, or on a more extreme level Apple may have to spin up the App Store as a separate company.

Also Apple is acting anti-competitively by having guidelines and restrictions on what is allowable as far as api usage and another whole set of guidelines.

My opinion is that this tight control ultimately is better of for consumers. Where this goes and whether Apple prevails, no one knows at this point.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Who paid who?

Apple’s cut is 30% for digital goods in general. For subscriptions it’s 30% for the first year, then 15% thereafter.

 

[Ethosik]

I disagree. I think the monopoly question is the only question the government can answer. I don't think the government really has anything to say about Apple's business model of the "walled garden" since there are alternatives that are a much larger proportion of the market. If Netflix, et al, want to play in Apple's garden they have to play by Apple's rules. Otherwise they'll have to be satisfied with the Android world.

I agree. This will be like the government telling what businesses can or cannot do. Obviously they can’t do illegal things. But this will set a precedent that no business can create a closed system. No business can directly compete with Netflix, Spotify etc. it just won’t be good if this results in change.

 

[Rogifan]

They should delay it until it can happen in person.

 

[Crowbot]

They should delay it until it can happen in person.

Congress may just be looking for air time. Hearing like these never lead to any meaningful outcome.And listening to some old politician go on about subjects they had to be coached about can be entertaining when they're up against the likes of Coo, et al. Lots of eye rolling.

 

[LV426]

Is this issue really prevalent? Thinking of buying an 16" MBP.

Hell, yes. Unless you buy the model with the expensive graphics card.

Check out this massive thread on the matter.

The 16" MBP is a great machine in almost all respects. But if you use an external monitor, be very wary and make a wise choice.

 

[calzon65]

Regardless if Apple is anti-competitive or not (a complicated debate) the greater their success, the greater the "target" on their back. Creative companies like Apple are "wealth/value creators", government bureaucrats are "wealth/value takers".

 

[boss.king]

So much CEO time wasted for nothing.

Apple has no monopoly whatsoever, it only has a fraction of the markets in which it competes.

They should rather thank Apple every morning for the huge marketplace they created, to the benefit of millions.

Antitrust laws are meant to promote competition that benefits the customer. This isn't about whether or not Apple is a monopoly, it's about Apple stifling competition on their platform.

 

[Crowbot]

Regardless if Apple is anti-competitive or not (a complicated debate) the greater their success, the greater the "target" on their back. Creative companies like Apple are "wealth/value creators", government bureaucrats are "wealth/value takers".

Agreed but the Government does have a duty to see that these mega-companies play by the rules. The problem is that they don't know how tech works.

 

[Ethosik]

Agreed but the Government does have a duty to see that these mega-companies play by the rules. The problem is that they don't know how tech works.

Yes. And what’s the issue? Apple can’t offer Apple Music? Can’t offer Apple TV +?

 

[I7guy]

Antitrust laws are meant to promote competition that benefits the customer. This isn't about whether or not Apple is a monopoly, it's about Apple stifling competition on their platform.

If Apple is stifling competition according to the law, not according to posters on MacRumors.

 

[boss.king]

I didn't say they were, I was just explaining why this has nothing to do with a whether they're a monopoly or not.