Apple Agrees to Provide Executive to Testify At Upcoming App Store Senate Hearing

[Blowback]

If by job you mean a couple of Senators using their office to shake down some companies so they can push offices in Utah and Minnesota you would probably be right.

'Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one....' That Razor guy...

 

[Blowback]

If my memory of past headings is any indicator, this will be anything but.

Why would anyone in their right mind ever testify in a congressional hearing where the senators are all talking over you, ignoring everything you actually say and then repeatedly telling you that you said something totally opposite of reality.

It’s a total waste of everyone’s time, and nothing more than an opportunity for the government officials to grandstand before an audience and look like they are actually doing work.

Tim Cook’s time would be better spent playing candy crush than showing up.

Not to mention that almost anything not connected to getting more monies or monies for re-election (its ALL about that PERMANENT JOB in DC) is usually quite above their education level. Listen enough and you'll see....

 

[rp2011]

It would be great if the hearings provided committee members who are actually knowledgeable about technology. The last hearings were embarrassing in how ignorant committee members were and how it was only about creating a circus instead of actually learning or hearing what the tech executives had to say.

 

[Realityck]

Congress has all the evidence they need. Just get on with it and start regulating and reforming big tech.

Have you examined what happens to a regulated industry?

Perhaps the most substantial criticism of government regulations is that they create the potential for regulatory capture. When that happens, the agencies supposedly responsible for protecting consumers come under the control of the industries they are supposed to regulate. The regulator may actively create barriers to entry and divert public funds for bailouts to benefit favored firms.

KEY TAKEAWAYS​

• Regulatory capture is an economic theory that regulatory agencies may come to be dominated by the interests they regulate and not by the public interest.
• The result is that the agency instead acts in ways that benefit the interests it is supposed to be regulating.
• Industries devote large budgets to influencing regulators, while individual citizens spend only limited resources to advocate for their own rights.

You want something regulated go after cable and telecoms giants instead of targeting ecosystems created by tech companies allowed to evolve technology without government oversight. You know the ones that keep raising prices for internet and TV access each year and the FCC which casted a blind eye towards any consumer price protection.

 

[Abazigal]

Congress has all the evidence they need. Just get on with it and start regulating and reforming big tech.

I don’t think they know how to start, honestly.

Part of the reason why big tech got to be so big in the first place is because they do offer legitimately superior user experiences which draw users to their platforms. This is in contrast with say, carriers, who face little competition and are thus able to get away with charging higher prices and poor quality of service.

The challenge will be in regulating big tech without actually making the experience worse for the end user. Take google for example. You can’t tell them to be less good at search results. That would be a net negative for users.

Same thing with Apple. The very things that developers like Epic are complaining about are the exact things that consumers love because they make the whole integrated experience so seamless for us.

And anti-competitive laws in the US ultimately focus on whether harm has been done to the consumer, not to smaller businesses. In this regard, unless the very nature of said law is changed altogether, I simply do not see any such lawsuit going anywhere, or any progress being made in the US for the next couple of years at least.

Congress is simply out of its depth here.

 

[jz0309]

hmm, that didn't take long ... if I were to guess, Tim Cook got a few phone calls from Washington ...

 

[dukebound85]

I thought that the senate subpoenas whoever they want to appear. Didn't know that the companies could cherry pick whomever they wanted to testify.

it was a request, not a subpoena iirc

 

[Analog Kid]

With regards to "users being interviewed", there's already a lot of data out there. The interesting thing is that what we currently have is a free market where users are free to make a purchasing decision. Governments are usually reluctant to interfere in a free market.

Do users have a choice of an open system? Yes, they have android/ linux smartphones. Lots of good hardware choices and from numerous manufacturers. These manufacturers often offer handsets free on a plan and there's numerous devices that cost very little.

Do users have a choice of a closed ecosystem? Yes, they can choose Apple. But, they're way more expensive for equivalent hardware specs, are rarely discounted and are never offered for free. The software is more locked down to prioritise consistency, security and ease of use.

Apple's primary business model and what differentiates them FROM THEIR COMPETITION is the closed ecosystem.

So, if the closed ecosystem is allegedly harming consumers, and the hardware/ ecosystem is so much more expensive, why do so many people choose to purchase the iPhone? The free market has spoken, there are users out there who would rather pay a lot more for the iPhone because it offers a consistent user experience, ease of use and security. Not only that, it has scored the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the business every single year since the iPhone was released.

If the Apple ecosystem really was harming consumers, the free market would see that nobody would purchase their products. If the claim is "Apple users can't move because they are locked-in and it's too hard to swap", explain how they still get the highest user satisfaction scores year after year? If these users were dissatisfied and wanted to move but were locked in, how come the user satisfaction surveys don't show that? If the "Open Platform" really was the better option, the free market would choose that, especially if you can get better hardware for a better price. The closed platform HAS TO BE OFFERING ADDED VALUE for consumers to WILLINGLY PAY MORE.

Then the claim that the Apple App Store/ Google Play store is unfairly keeping prices high, which harms consumers. Explain to me why Epic first released Fortnight as Sideload only on Android? They then changed to distribution via the Play store. Users had the choice to install directly by side loading and avoiding any google policies but the majority of users want to install from an App Store so Epic had to release on the Play store. Epic also have their own Epic Games Store on Android, yet users choose to use the play store.

So, when consumers are given the choice of an open platform, a great many choose to pay more for a closed platform. The users that choose an open platform have had the choice of side loading, using the google play store or using the Epic Game store. Despite this, users overwhelmingly prefer to use the Play Store.

I'm not sure how it can possibly be claimed that Apple's/ Google's business model is harming consumers (one of the things needed to be proven in an antitrust case).

Developers are in a contractual business agreement with Apple/ Google and are not classed as "consumers".

I think this is a great summary. Government action regulating iOS or the AppStore effectively reduces consumer choice.

And the lock-in argument is a pretty bogus one-- it's just an attempt to invert the reality that customers see value in keeping their status quo. When Apple moved their MacBook Pros to USB-C connectors, you didn't hear people complain that the USB alliance has them "locked in" to USB-A, you hear people say they don't want to bear the expense of changing something that worked well enough even if the new model has features they may otherwise like.

This goes double for applications like Fortnite which is free to install on any platform and is funded by purchasing Epic arcade tokens which can be transferred across mobile platforms.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Congress has all the evidence they need. Just get on with it and start regulating and reforming big tech.

and all of your new phone purchases (android or iOS) will be monetized in a way to make up for the lost revenue due to the regulations, hampering the user experience.

congratulations, you played yourself.

 

[Solomani]

Ah, it would have been epic if Apple provided Cleetus from janitorial to testify before the Senate.

And who says they won't appoint Cleetus from Janitorial Services, or Pedro from Cafeteria Services?

If I was Tim Cook, I'd do exactly the above... as a middle finger to the Senate.

 

[1258186]

and all of your new phone purchases (android or iOS) will be monetized in a way to make up for the lost revenue due to the regulations, hampering the user experience.

congratulations, you played yourself.

Absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[1258186]

I don’t think they know how to start, honestly.

Part of the reason why big tech got to be so big in the first place is because they do offer legitimately superior user experiences which draw users to their platforms. This is in contrast with say, carriers, who face little competition and are thus able to get away with charging higher prices and poor quality of service.

The challenge will be in regulating big tech without actually making the experience worse for the end user. Take google for example. You can’t tell them to be less good at search results. That would be a net negative for users.

Same thing with Apple. The very things that developers like Epic are complaining about are the exact things that consumers love because they make the whole integrated experience so seamless for us.

And anti-competitive laws in the US ultimately focus on whether harm has been done to the consumer, not to smaller businesses. In this regard, unless the very nature of said law is changed altogether, I simply do not see any such lawsuit going anywhere, or any progress being made in the US for the next couple of years at least.

Congress is simply out of its depth here.

Not that difficult really. Congress has access to some very smart lawyers. Break up Google and Facebook so they can’t just buy up the competition. Open the iOS AppStore to competitors. Prohibit deals that allow Google to be the default search engine. I’m sure there are plenty of other things. Every one of these things would benefit consumers by increasing choice and competition.

 

[I7guy]

Not that difficult really. Congress has access to some very smart lawyers. Break up Google and Facebook so they can’t just buy up the competition. Open the iOS AppStore to competitors. Prohibit deals that allow Google to be the default search engine. I’m sure there are plenty of other things. Every one of these things would benefit consumers by increasing choice and competition.

None of those would benefit consumers, kill innovation. How did the break-up of AT&T result in better choice for the consumers with cell phone service, price, speed and coverage? Much of the world is far ahead of the US with that.

You are advocating breaking up companies that made markets that aren't even monopolies. I am not for that type of governmental overreach.

 

[deevey]

Congress has all the evidence they need. Just get on with it and start regulating and reforming big tech.

How naive to think that congress understand the technology enough to make those regulations. When it's become apparent in recent hearings they do not even know who supplies what service!

Not that difficult really. Congress has access to some very smart lawyers.

Then its lawyers should be the ones asking the questions, not the mouthpieces.

Break up Google and Facebook so they can’t just buy up the competition. Open the iOS AppStore to competitors. Prohibit deals that allow Google to be the default search engine. I’m sure there are plenty of other things. Every one of these things would benefit consumers by increasing choice and competition.

Choice does not necessarily equal competitive pricing for the consumer.

Explain exactly, point-by-point how you see an open OS improving things for us, the consumers. Change our minds.

 

[AL1630]

Not that difficult really. Congress has access to some very smart lawyers. Break up Google and Facebook so they can’t just buy up the competition. Open the iOS AppStore to competitors. Prohibit deals that allow Google to be the default search engine. I’m sure there are plenty of other things. Every one of these things would benefit consumers by increasing choice and competition.

Eh, banning default search engines would probably decrease competition by instantly killing Mozilla/Firefox. Then all the big browser players on desktop would be Chrome based.

 

[Ethosik]

Do users have a choice of a closed ecosystem? Yes, they can choose Apple. But, they're way more expensive for equivalent hardware specs, are rarely discounted and are never offered for free. The software is more locked down to prioritise consistency, security and ease of use.

This is the issue. I pay for an iPhone because of the closed environment. Let’s be real here, hardware wise there are FAR cheaper and BETTER android phones out there. I pay the price for an iPhone due to the environment only.

 

[Ethosik]

Break up Google and Facebook so they can’t just buy up the competition.

This typically needs to be approved by government entities. When Microsoft bought Bethesda, it needed to go through approval processes.

Why break up a company? Just add more restrictions when companies want to buy others

This was meant to be a quote from @Abazigal

 

[Blowback]

It would be great if the hearings provided committee members who are actually knowledgeable about technology. The last hearings were embarrassing in how ignorant committee members were and how it was only about creating a circus instead of actually learning or hearing what the tech executives had to say.

DUDE....this is the US Congress! Not Academia....you get what ("they") paid for.....'They' want mental midgets....

 

[1258186]

Eh, banning default search engines would probably decrease competition by instantly killing Mozilla/Firefox. Then all the big browser players on desktop would be Chrome based.

I didn’t understand your comment. If they stopped default search engines more people might choose an alternative to Google. That’s why Google pay Apple $12bn a year to be their default. No other search engine can compete with that.

 

[1258186]

This typically needs to be approved by government entities. When Microsoft bought Bethesda, it needed to go through approval processes.

Why break up a company? Just add more restrictions when companies want to buy others

This was meant to be a quote from @Abazigal

Ideally yes but they already bought the competition so what you’re saying is like closing the door after the horse has already bolted. Big tech is too big and needs to be broken up.

 

[I7guy]

Ideally yes but they already bought the competition so what you’re saying is like closing the door after the horse has already bolted. Big tech is too big and needs to be broken up.

I don't agree. US has already lost manufacturing, now let's break up tech so we make sure the US is the worlds followers and not the worlds leaders in tech. Nope.

Big tech should remain as regulated as it is today. Not exempt from oversight, but also not worrying about the ability to operate in a lawful manner.

 

[I7guy]

I didn’t understand your comment. If they stopped default search engines more people might choose an alternative to Google. That’s why Google pay Apple $12bn a year to be their default. No other search engine can compete with that.

For the 12B, duckduckgo is my default search engine. If I want google, I open safari and type in google.com. Simple. Nobody is stopping Apple customers from making that change, it's not like there isn't an option, which would be anticompetitive.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

it’s simple. if a new law causes a cut app store revenue by 50%, Google/Apple will figure out a way to nickel and dime you to keep shareholders happy

 

[theotherphil]

I didn’t understand your comment. If they stopped default search engines more people might choose an alternative to Google. That’s why Google pay Apple $12bn a year to be their default. No other search engine can compete with that.

They may not be able to compete on price, but if the product is better, Apple would switch in a heartbeat.

I could see the entire “default search engine” argument if Apple didn’t give the user an option when setting up the phone for the first time. But they do, and as an informed consumer, I’ve always selected duck duck go.

This isn’t “limiting user choice”, the user has a choice of 5 different search engines, both at initial setup and subsequently. Google are paying Apple for a ”check mark” next to their name in the list from opening the box to initial setup only. And given that it’s a competitive tender process in the first instance, the competition decided that it wasn’t worth their money….that’s the free market at work.

 

[Ethosik]

Ideally yes but they already bought the competition so what you’re saying is like closing the door after the horse has already bolted. Big tech is too big and needs to be broken up.

You don't break up the companies. You prevent them from being approved.

Facebook says WhatsApp deal cleared by FTC

Facebook Inc said U.S. regulators have cleared its $19 billion acquisition of mobile messaging service WhatsApp, even as the Federal Trade Commission warned the two Internet companies on Thursday that they must not backtrack on commitments to user privacy.

www.reuters.com

EU approves Microsoft’s $7.5 billion Bethesda acquisition

The approval clears the way for Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass plans.

www.theverge.com

What can be done to fix this? Hmm.....Don't approve Facebook's WhatsApp acquisition or Microsoft's Bethesda's acquisition! Breaking up the tech companies won't do any good. The gaming "company from Microsoft due to being broken up" could still buy out Bethesda.