NetEase Technology News, June 19, according to foreign media reports, for many years, developers have always expressed dissatisfaction with the way Apple runs the app store, but they are afraid of conflicts with Apple, which will lead to their applications being rejected, thus affecting business. The behavior of the Apple App Store has recently received attention from many parties, including the US House Antitrust Committee. The chairman of the committee, David Cicilline, was interviewed a few days ago to talk about his views on the app store. He called Apple's behavior like a "road robber".

Sicillin said: "Due to Apple's huge market power, it threatens people to pay a 30% commission, otherwise it will refuse them to enter the market, which is like a road robbery. Apple's behavior is destroying those vulnerable small developers. If this There is real competition in the market, and this will not happen. Many people stand up to share their experiences, but they are afraid of being retaliated and fear that they will not survive the economic revenge of these large platforms, and we intend to pursue these very seriously Allegations. This is a real problem in the market. This is a direct consequence of huge market forces. Apple is the gatekeeper of these developers. We have heard many, many examples."

Sicillin said that it was not possible to allow someone to continue to enjoy this monopoly power just because they invented a system or a product, which violated US law. This is unfair to new developers and startups and hurt consumers. On the surface, the idea of charging a 30% commission seems unreasonable. But developers are willing to accept, because this is the only way for their applications or services to enter the market through the iPhone.

For Apple, being accused at this time is really unfavorable. Earlier, the European Union had announced an official antitrust investigation of the Apple App Store. In the United States, the House Antitrust Committee also requires the chief executives of Amazon, Google, Facebook and Apple to testify in person to investigate whether they are abusing their dominant position in the digital market. Most companies have said they will send the CEO to the hearing, and only Apple’s Tim Cook has not confirmed it.

Photo: David Sicillin, Chairman of the US House Antitrust Committee

The following is the summary of the Xixilin interview:

Question: Mr. Congressman, you have been leading an antitrust investigation against large technology companies for several months. How is the investigation going?

Sicillin: Our investigation is nearing completion. We have conducted a survey for about a year and expect to hold a final hearing with the chief technology platform’s CEO sometime in July, but we are always busy collecting documents and evidence so that a report can be generated at the end of the survey A report on the state of competition in the digital market and some suggestions on legislative actions to introduce competition into the digital market.

Q: Regarding the final hearing with the CEOs, the news from Google, Facebook, Amazon and other companies seems to be: "If everyone else participates, we will also participate." Is there any latest news from Apple?

Sicillin: All companies promised to cooperate with the investigation at the beginning of the investigation. Of course, the most important thing is that the CEOs (decision makers) of the main technology platforms need to share their views in front of the committee so that we can complete the investigation. At the beginning of the investigation, Cook had promised to cooperate with the investigation. In recent contacts, he reiterated his commitment to cooperate with the investigation. However, the other three CEOs confirmed through their lawyers that they are willing to attend the hearing, but Cook has not confirmed it yet. I am a bit surprised and shocked. But I expect that when the hearing is held, we will have all four CEOs present. This is the first major antitrust investigation conducted by the US Congress in 50 years, and their testimony is essential to properly complete this investigation.

Q: I don’t want to be too entangled in your investigation list, but Microsoft is not on it. Is there any reason?

Sicillin: The focus of the survey is indeed on the digital market. The main players in this field are Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon. Of course, there are other issues, but the digital market survey is indeed the focus.

Q: No one has heard of Larry Page for 10 years. You are a member of Congress, maybe you can let him talk to you. Will you focus on the CEO?

Sicillin: I think there is no doubt that Page holds the information useful for this investigation.

Q: Mr. Congressman, you may have heard many developers complaining about the Apple App Store at the hearing. We heard that many developers have this feeling, but they dare not express it bluntly. As the investigation continues, have you received any news from other developers?

Sicillin: This is actually a focus, and it is also the core area under investigation by the Antitrust Commission. We really should realize that in this country, we have a long tradition, many important networks are being developed, and the gatekeepers are rejected because of their external forces. Similar phenomena exist in the fields of railway, telecommunications and banking. When you think of the evil that the main purpose of antitrust is to combat, include the economic coercion just described.

Unfortunately, we have seen many and many such examples: Because of the huge market power Apple has, it threatens people to pay 30% commission, otherwise it will refuse them to enter the market, which is like highway robbery. This is the result of Google and Apple’s duopoly in iPhone and application technology, and it is overwhelming small developers who simply cannot survive on these payment methods. If there is real competition in this market, this will not happen. Therefore, this is a key area of concern for antitrust investigations in the digital market.

I just want to reiterate that we take this investigation very seriously. Many people have come forward to share their experiences, but they are afraid of being retaliated and fearing that they will not survive the economic retaliation of these large platforms. We intend to pursue these allegations very seriously, even after the report is released. Because in the context of this investigation, people need to be able to stand up to testify and share information with Congress.

This is a real problem in the market. This is a direct consequence of huge market power: Apple is the gatekeeper of these developers. We heard many, many examples, we all know many examples, people can not enter this market, because Apple has strong power in this market. There are actually two companies controlling it. This is one of the many issues we are concerned about in antitrust investigations. We intend to make some suggestions at the end of the investigation in response to this.

Q: When we talked to people inside and around Apple, their reaction was: "Look, we invented the iPhone, invented the app store and market. We just released a study that said the app store generated more revenue than $500 billion. We will not touch 85% of the money. These regulations will be implemented from 2010. If you don’t like it, then quit!" Can Apple’s rebuttals convince you?

Sicillin: This is always the answer of the monopolist: "If you don't like it, then leave!" But we believe that they cannot engage in anti-competitive behavior, which would allow them to use huge market share to blackmail people, essentially asking for Ransom, which will lead to higher consumption costs. The reason why we regard competition as a virtue and introduce policies to promote competition is because it promotes innovation; it creates space for the emergence of the next great idea and the next great company; it also lowers prices and gives consumption More choices.

You cannot allow someone to continue to enjoy this monopoly power just because they invented a system or a product, which violates our laws. This is unfair to new developers and startups and hurt consumers. On the surface, the idea of charging a 30% commission seems unreasonable. But developers are willing to accept, because this is the only way for their applications or services to enter the market through the iPhone.

And this is exactly the kind of competition that we are concerned about in the survey. Apple’s behavior in this context, I hope this is the only example. This is exactly why Cook needs to attend the antitrust committee hearing and answer questions related to these practices so that we can complete the investigation and make a good set of recommendations.

Q: There are two arguments here: First, Apple has established rules, and they are allowed to enforce the relevant rules in the app store. Second, certain business models and applications approved by the gatekeeper do not seem to be very good. If the rules are clear, do you think they can enforce them?

Sicillin: In fact, the rules are not clear at all. But beyond that, no company has the ability to formulate rules that violate competition policies or antitrust. In fact, the rules they have established ensure that they are the gatekeepers of this market, which actually further proves that there is a problem with competition in this market. Therefore, when the company really thinks you should do this, it is interesting, but from a competitive analysis point of view, it is related to whether this market is functioning normally, and whether people are required to pay commissions because Apple has a huge market share. unrelated.

The idea that certain practices are consistent with their rules actually proves that there are problems, because this is not just an example. This is just a practice or policy of the company. I think this shows that when you lack real competition in this market, and you have the market power that Apple has as the gatekeeper of this market, there will be serious The problem. They have the final decision power and can decide which applications will succeed and which will fail because they have such market power. In fact, this is a problem.

Q: From Apple's perspective, both Mac and iPhone are different products. iPhones are sold worldwide, they sell security products, and sell an integrated user experience. What do you think of this?

Sicillin: This is the argument that every monopolist will insist on: "We are different, we are more valuable." This is a classic strategy in which the monopolist seizes control of the distribution network and then bullies people, or charges them to enter the market. Ransom of the network. You can look at the history between railway monopolies and shippers, and the problems they face. This is what the railway monopolies believe in, and they do the same. This is why maintaining competition in the digital market or creating conditions where competition really exists is so critical to consumers, and consumers will be denied access to many good services and applications. When these services or applications are available, consumers need to pay a premium for them.

Q: Will it take several years for antitrust investigations?

Sicillin: Given the economic scale and economic strength of these large technology platforms, these factors can be translated into a degree of political power. There is no doubt that one of the reasons we started this survey is that we want to work hard to understand the market and understand how we can bring more competition to the market. This is a bipartisan joint investigation throughout. To this end, we hope to see the CEOs of these companies attend the hearings, explain and answer some difficult questions, so that we can complete the investigation.

We are committed to completing this investigation and submitting a report in the next few months, so that we have the opportunity to propose legislation in this Congress to deal with the lack of competition in the digital market. In terms of privacy, in terms of your own data control, in terms of consumer choice, in terms of innovation, this is true of all the harms that competition lacks. Whether in the short or long term, this has a major impact on our economy.

Thousands of small businesses across the United States face bullying by technology giants, and Congress has a responsibility to respond to their requests and ensure that we are doing what we can to understand the market and then repair it so that there can be real competition and innovators and entrepreneurs can be protected , Encouragement and development, this country can be born the next great new company.

Q: Congress has a lot of power, but split companies are not included. We have seen Apple take action in response to pressure from other regulators, right? For example, they are more open to Spotify. Do you think Congress needs to develop more aggressive legal remedies? A new law, a new bill on how the platform works? Or do you think the pressure is enough?

Sicillin: I think there is no doubt that large technology platforms have unambiguously stated that we cannot rely on them to self-regulate or solve this problem alone. This will require legislative and regulatory action, which is a problem that Congress has a responsibility to resolve. The motivation for these platforms has only one goal, which is growth and making money. It’s good for them, and I won’t blame them, but we have a responsibility to ensure that they do this in compliance with our laws, our competition policies, and antitrust laws, rather than bullying the weak with their market power. High commissions are charged, thereby hurting the interests of consumers, damaging innovation, and preventing people from starting businesses. Therefore, I think there is no doubt that this will require legislative action. (Little)

Source: NetEase Technology Report, translated by Google Translate