Although failed Epic Games Company In convincing US courts so far that Apple's control of the App Store breaks any laws, that could soon change as a result of a new antitrust bill on the Senate floor aimed primarily at tech giants Apple, Google, Meta and Amazon. And if it is adopted, it will prevent them from preferring their products and services over those of their competitors. What is the impact of this law on those companies? And what was their reaction?
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill today by 16-6 votes in favour, showing strong support for it, meaning it will now move to the Senate floor, but it may still be a long way before it becomes a reality. , since many senators are of the view that the law needs to be drafted more broadly because it is too limited, which could be problematic.
Previously, some senators suggested that Apple shouldn't be allowed to create its own iOS apps at all, as this gives it an unfair advantage over third-party developers, and of course the bill we're about doesn't go that far.
Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said the bill is not meant to break up big tech companies or destroy the products and services they provide, but rather to prevent behavior that stifles competition.
What's wrong with the bill?
Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., criticized several elements of the bill, noting that it was specifically designed to target a small number of specific businesses, most of which are located in her state. It is hard to see a justification for a bill regulating the behavior of only a few companies while allowing everyone else to continue to engage in the same behaviour.
Others worry that the law is written too loosely and could lead to unintended harm. Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, the top Republican on the antitrust subcommittee, has expressed concerns that the bill could put in place strong provisions to stop any business with third parties being done by big companies, and that the result would be to make the competition situation worse, rather than improve things.
What does this mean?
To be clear, the new law, whatever its name, will go far beyond the Apple App Store, and since it will prevent companies from preferring their own services and products, it makes sense to include the App Store as one of Apple's main and favorite services, and open the door to external download, except It is still a matter of interpretation to determine how this will be done.
The bill's main sponsor, Senator Amy Klobuchar, noted that many of the provisions in the proposed legislation came from testimony by Sonos and Tile, which was raising concerns about unfair competition with AirTags.
Complaints raised by Sonos and Tile primarily focused on how Google and Apple are cracking down on their products to run on their respective platforms. In Tile's case, the issue appears to be largely related to Apple's strict privacy restrictions that prevented third-party apps from easily requesting permission to always track a user's location in the background.
"We've heard over and over again about how these companies abuse their power, so we need to have a roadmap to make things fair," Senator Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota, said.
As things started to get worse, Apple quickly opened its Find My network to third-party products, adopting competing products from Belkin, VanMoof and Chipolo, just two weeks before unveiling AirTags, indicating that third-party products could be free to share. As long as they walk by Apple's rules."
tech giants reaction
Members of Apple, Amazon, Google and Meta have argued that the wording of the law is so broad that it could end up banning services that consumers actually want to use. For example, Google says it may be prohibited from displaying any Google Maps results in a search, and Amazon says the language of that law can be interpreted in a way that forces it to close its marketplace to third-party sellers.
Apple also expressed concerns that the bill could prevent it from requiring apps to request permission before accessing personal data such as a user's location, a concern. Senator Ted Cruz said he heard this in person from a conversation he had with Apple CEO Tim Cook.
To be fair, the Judiciary Committee added some exceptions to address these concerns before moving forward with the bill. For example, fee-for-service subscriptions, such as Amazon Prime, are excluded, as are platform features that improve functionality or users' privacy.
In response to concerns that the bill could put tech giants at a disadvantage over foreign competitors, the legislation has also been expanded to include large foreign-owned internet platforms operating in the United States, limited to companies with a market capitalization of more than $550 billion that have more than 50 million monthly active users.
Source:
Lovely
google = alpha
Yes, there is a difference when larger companies compete with smaller ones because this is practically eliminating the small in favor of the big one. For example, Amazon’s subscription is a gradual cancellation of non-Amazon suppliers, to the point that the sale of their products is competed with by Amazon, which knows with its algorithm how to provide the price and service with higher efficiency and confidence for the consumer. As for the apple and its well-known bottle, which abhors the pollution of other programs, it promotes a kind of anxiety hidden in monopoly. This is the problem of problems, and the law alone will not change towards the required fair competition. Therefore, the solution lies in increasing the responsibility of these companies and instead of prohibiting them by legislation, imposing percentages of the companies’ profits to develop the competitiveness of the small ones so that they can compete and create a proportionate and fair market for both parties. It is possible to prevent specific harmful practices such as the Prime filter and displaying specific and pre-determined search results through legislation of the commercial jurisdictions.
There is a small solution, as Dubai did, which is a parallel investment in the quality provided by a giant such as Amazon, as the owners of the Noon have become real competitors in the region to Amazon.
Justice is required to continue competition and leave outlets for small companies so that they do not suffocate and die development and creativity