Waarschijnlijk heb je het al meegekregen: in de afgelopen periode onderzocht het U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee mogelijke oneerlijk competitie, met nadruk op Amazon, Apple, Facebook en Google. In het rapport (PDF, 4,5 MB) krijgen deze bedrijven er goed van langs.

Daarin worden ze bijvoorbeeld vergeleken met de oliebaronnen en spoorweg tycoons uit het verleden, niet een erg vlijende vergelijking. Het bedrijf dat verreweg de meeste kritiek krijgt is Amazon, dat volgens de commissie inmiddels minstens 50 procent van de Amerikaanse markt in handen heeft. Dat gaat trouwens niet alleen over shopping, ook in cloud computing zou Amazon inmiddels zo overheersend zijn dat sommige klanten bang zouden zijn om met concurrenten in zee te gaan.


Maar ook Apple werd niet gespaard, hieronder een aantal citaten uit het rapport, eerst een algemene:

Although these four corporations differ in important ways, studying their business practices has revealed common problems. First, each platform now serves as a gatekeeper over a key channel of distribution. By controlling access to markets, these giants can pick winners and losers throughout our economy. They not only wield tremendous power, but they also abuse it by charging exorbitant fees, imposing oppressive contract terms, and extracting valuable data from the people and businesses that rely on them. Second, each platform uses its gatekeeper position to maintain its market power. By controlling the infrastructure of the digital age, they have surveilled other businesses to identify potential rivals, and have ultimately bought out, copied, or cut off their competitive threats. And, finally, these firms have abused their role as intermediaries to further entrench and expand their dominance. Whether through self-preferencing, predatory pricing, or exclusionary conduct, the dominant platforms have exploited their power in order to become even more dominant.

Het volgende citaat gaat specifiek over Apple:

In contrast, Apple owns the iOS operating system as well as the only means to distribute software on iOS devices. Using its role as operating system provider, Apple prohibits alternatives to the App Store and charges fees and commissions for some categories of apps to reach customers. It responds to attempts to circumvent its fees with removal from the ‌App Store‌. Because of this policy, developers have no other option than to play by Apple's rules to reach customers who won iOS devices.Owners of iOS devices have no alternative means to install apps on their phones.



Natuurlijk zijn ze het bij Apple hiermee niet eens, en er is inmiddels al een eerste reactie uit Cupertino gekomen:

We have always said that scrutiny is reasonable and appropriate but we vehemently disagree with the conclusions reached in this staff report with respect to Apple. Our company does not have a dominant market share in any category where we do business. From its beginnings 12 years ago with just 500 apps, we've built the App Store to be a safe and trusted place for users to discover and download apps and a supportive way for developers to create and sell apps globally. Hosting close to two million apps today, the ‌App Store‌ has delivered on that promise and met the highest standards for privacy, security and quality. The ‌App Store‌ has enabled new markets, new services and new products that were unimaginable a dozen years ago, and developers have been primary beneficiaries of this ecosystem. Last year in the United States alone, the ‌App Store‌ facilitated $138 billion in commerce with over 85% of that amount accruing solely to third-party developers. Apple's commission rates are firmly in the mainstream of those charged by other app stores and gaming marketplaces. Competition drives innovation, and innovation has always defined us at Apple. We work tirelessly to deliver the best products to our customers, with safety and privacy at their core, and we will continue to do so.

"the dominant platforms have exploited their power in order to become even more dominant"

En concurreren niet. Per ongeluk wordt de markt verdeeld door de tech bedrijven. Internationaal ook. Spontaan. Zonder onderlinge afspraken. Zonder steun van de NSA of CIA. Wonderlijk. Soort van divine intervention dat het zo gekomen is.

In de USA hebben ze nog het minste last van deze monopolisten. De rest van de wereld heeft geen schijn van kans. De EU kan soms deze wanbetalers nog proberen de les te lezen. Helaas staat de rest van de wereld machteloos toe te kijken en schudt het hoofd.

Zouden deze hearings voor de show zijn? of gaat er echt wat gebeuren? (vermoedelijk gaat er helemaal niets gebeuren, het internationaal economisch belang is te groot voor de US)