Her wording is clumsy but the meaning is crystal clear to me: If you provide a platform you should not be allowed to compete with those who build on top of tha

Her wording is clumsy but the meaning is crystal clear to me: If you provide a platform you should not be allowed to compete with those who build on top of that platform, because it wouldn't be a level playing field. Apple provides iOS as a platform for others to build on, so in her view Apple should not be allowed to offer Apple Music to compete with Spotify or Apple Maps to compete with Google Maps or the upcoming Apple Movies to compete with Netflix. And this is not a small issue. This is everything Apple means when they say they want to expand their services business. It's very clear what it means. It's not ignorant. But I fear it could have side-effects that she hasn't considered. What if those rules had been in place when Apple first came up with the iPhone? I think Steve Jobs might have opted for vertical integration and against becoming a platform in the first place. There might never have been an App Store at all. There wouldn't have been a level playing field because there wouldn't have been a playing field. I think there is room for better regulation of internet giants. But it's incredibly complex, and each case is very different. I would favor a more cautious approach. For instance, large platforms should be required to have some sort of independent conflict resolution mechanism. Closing accounts of small businesses that build on top of your platform without recourse and with scant explanation is unacceptable if you're one of a handful of platforms worldwide.