5 ms·

This report is somewhat bipolar. On one hand it's arguing that Google and Apple exert too much control over smartphone app marketplaces. On the other hand its

This report is somewhat bipolar. On one hand it's arguing that Google and Apple exert too much control over smartphone app marketplaces. On the other hand its proposed remedy asks that Google and Apple exert even more control over these app marketplaces by stamping down on anti-consumer practices like subscription traps and scams. On the other other hand it proposes that Apple and Google should allow third party payment options, making it harder for Google and Apple to thwart subscription traps and scams.

asdfaoeu 6y ago
I think the general argument is that the stores are not competitive and providing a low value service (having scams and subscription traps) while collecting a large amount of proceeds from developers.
- simondotau 6y ago
  But the stores clearly do make it more difficult for developers to engage in scams and subscription traps. I strongly support increased pressure on Google and Apple to do a lot more in this regard (especially with certain kinds of pay-to-avoid-grinding games) but it's wrong to speak about this as though it was a binary state.
hugh-avherald 6y ago
I think you're looking for an inconsistency where there is none. Requiring Apple and Google to stamp down on subscription traps and scams is not handing more control to them.
- simondotau 6y ago
  I did not say it was "handing" more control to them. I said it was asking them to exert more control. The ACCC are calling on Google and Apple to clamp down harder on what developers can get away with inside their walled gardens. If Apple and Google comply, this clamping down will be seen as anti-competitive in other contexts and used as evidence against them in other venues.
- PoignardAzur 6y ago
  Yeah, but in the end it will have similar results. False negatives trade off against false positives.
fblp 6y ago
This is an interim report. It's okay for it to be proposing multiple directions that benefit consumers and competition.
- simondotau 6y ago
  It is okay to propose multiple directions if they benefit consumers and competition. This isn't what they did. They proposed one direction that benefits consumers at the expense of competition[1], and another direction which benefits competition at the expense of the consumer[2]. [1] Calling on Google and Apple to further clamp down on subscription traps and scams; [2] Calling on Google and Apple to give up control over the mechanisms which have allowed them to clamp down on malicious financial activity including some (but not all) subscription traps and scams.
  - fblp 6y ago
    In what part of the report do they call on Google and Apple to "give up control over the mechanisms which have allowed them to clamp down on malicious financial activity including some (but not all) subscription traps and scams." ?
    - simondotau 6y ago
      The "mechanisms which have allowed them to clamp down on malicious financial activity" are their payment gateways, the rules surrounding their use use, the ability to perform oversight over app payment activity, and the threat (whether actual or perceived) of total banishment if they are caught—particularly in Apple's case where there's no alternative path to customers. In the same breath, Google and Apple are also being told that these very same mechanisms are a concern to the ACCC.
      - fblp 6y ago
        Hey sorry i don't see how stating these mechanisms are a concern = calling on them to give up control (or "threatening banishment") per your comments. Your comments seem presumptive given the actual content of the preliminary report.
Mandatum 6y ago
Agreed. It's "the stores are extracting too much money for the services they provide and the way they run" without any concrete asks. Likely because we're in unexplored territory, I expect ACCC is using this release as a form to push other agencies to move first to see what happens. Australia NEVER moves first on these things. They want EU or US to make a move first to see what works.
- hydrox24 6y ago
  > Australia NEVER moves first on these things. I think it is uncommon for Australia to move first, but we do move first sometimes. I thought the recent news revenue-sharing laws[0] are an example of that. > They want EU or US to make a move first to see what works It's always nice to know how a policy will work beforehand, but I don't think it's remarkable how rarely Australia moves first. Putting aside cultural differences, we're a medium power in a world with many medium powers, even in the West, why would we expect to be first, ahead of European countries, or North American ones, or developed nations in Asia? [0]: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/australias-news-revenue-sharing-law-behind-battle-with-big-tech-2021-02-18/ https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/australias-ne...
  - simondotau 6y ago
    The revenue-sharing laws were a scam, basically the Government forcing Google and Facebook to pay arbitrary bribes to a few big media companies. If the laws weren't a scam, that money would have gone to pay for journalism, not prop up the bottom line of companies which are consistently cutting back the number of journalists under their employ.
    - simondotau 6y ago
      And it's worth remembering the ACCC's central role in this scam. https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-media-bargaining-code https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-m... My advice to any future Federal Government would be to gut the ACCC and rebuild it from the ground up. And then if the rebuilt entity demonstrates competence, significantly increasing its funding.
zmmmmm 6y ago
Yes it is a shame - while the ACCC often is well motivated, it lacks any sense of philosophical purity in its solutions. So you often see things that are highly anti-freedom, anti-democratic and ultimately anti-consumer come out as a result of its actions. The recent forced negotiation of Google/Facebook with news publishers is an example of this where they have no problem compromising completely fundamental aspects of the internet (the freedom to link to somebody else's intellectual property without fear) to achieve some dot point in their bureaucratic consumer-focused mandate (ensure consumers have access to a diversity of news).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
inopinatus 6y ago
The release does not say these things, and it is misleading to intentionally paraphrase as to invent logical conflicts that aren't present. In particular, it is wrong to equate the existence of controls with the abuse of market power. Examples: Kicking a scammer off your app store is a use of power that benefits the consumer. Obliging service providers to mislead the consumer about their subscription options is an abuse of power and a barrier to consumer choice. The desired outcomes are not "bipolar"; they are consistent with advancing consumer choice and consumer protection. They would only appears as conflicting demands to a rent-seeking organisation that prioritises its market share over consumer outcomes, which is of course why regulatory agencies like the ACCC exist.
- simondotau 6y ago
  > The release does not say these things I'm sorry, but it does. Just because they chose not to phrase it exactly as I did doesn't mean they didn't invoke these logical conflicts. But please, there's no need to take my word for it—I invite anyone to read the press release and form their own conclusion. > it is wrong to equate the existence of controls with the abuse of market power. I agree that it's "wrong" to equate them, but equating them is a common theme among complaints about Google and Apple's dominance of their platforms' app ecosystems. You make it sound like the ACCC is inherently on the consumer's side in any matter. One look at the borderline-corrupt Media Bargaining Code would quickly disabuse any objective observer of that notion. It could be argued that the ACCC was somehow incapable of comprehending what an internet link is or how news article snippets come to appear on Google and Facebook. That's certainly a more charitable hypothesis than the ACCC being corrupt unduly influenced by the political interests of the current elected Government. Whether it's incompetence or malice (see Hanlon's razor) it doesn't look good for them.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    > they chose not to phrase it exactly as I did Quite so. Let's emphasise that: they chose not to phrase it exactly as you did. And by my reading, significantly so. > I invite anyone to read the press release How about going one better: read the report that the media release accompanies. > equating them is a common theme among complaints about Google and Apple's dominance of their platforms' app ecosystems That's by the by, because this report does not make the same category error, and is a nuanced, lengthy, and considered analysis of the myriad different modes in which their controlling power is underused in some ways that leave the consumer unprotected, and overused/abused in other ways that harm consumer choice, create barriers to market entry, and enable rent-seeking behaviour, and suggests how changes in specific behaviours might correct those pathologies. > You make it sound like the ACCC is inherently on the consumer's side in any matter Well, yes, this is their job, their remit, their raison d'être. Deviation from that premise is the exception, not the norm, and frankly they are known globally as one of the most effective consumer regulators, and the ACL as gold-standard legislation that sibling institutions in other nations can only dream of administering. Trying to discredit the organisation because they got pulled into the federal Murdoch toadying over the MBC looks like misdirection. Which makes me reach for my high school Latin: what is the equivalent of ad hominem when the target entity is an institution, not a person?

asdfaoeu 6y ago

I think the general argument is that the stores are not competitive and providing a low value service (having scams and subscription traps) while collecting a large amount of proceeds from developers.

simondotau 6y ago
But the stores clearly do make it more difficult for developers to engage in scams and subscription traps. I strongly support increased pressure on Google and Apple to do a lot more in this regard (especially with certain kinds of pay-to-avoid-grinding games) but it's wrong to speak about this as though it was a binary state.

hugh-avherald 6y ago

I think you're looking for an inconsistency where there is none. Requiring Apple and Google to stamp down on subscription traps and scams is not handing more control to them.

simondotau 6y ago
I did not say it was "handing" more control to them. I said it was asking them to exert more control. The ACCC are calling on Google and Apple to clamp down harder on what developers can get away with inside their walled gardens. If Apple and Google comply, this clamping down will be seen as anti-competitive in other contexts and used as evidence against them in other venues.
PoignardAzur 6y ago
Yeah, but in the end it will have similar results. False negatives trade off against false positives.

fblp 6y ago

This is an interim report. It's okay for it to be proposing multiple directions that benefit consumers and competition.

simondotau 6y ago
It is okay to propose multiple directions if they benefit consumers and competition. This isn't what they did. They proposed one direction that benefits consumers at the expense of competition[1], and another direction which benefits competition at the expense of the consumer[2]. [1] Calling on Google and Apple to further clamp down on subscription traps and scams; [2] Calling on Google and Apple to give up control over the mechanisms which have allowed them to clamp down on malicious financial activity including some (but not all) subscription traps and scams.
- fblp 6y ago
  In what part of the report do they call on Google and Apple to "give up control over the mechanisms which have allowed them to clamp down on malicious financial activity including some (but not all) subscription traps and scams." ?
  - simondotau 6y ago
    The "mechanisms which have allowed them to clamp down on malicious financial activity" are their payment gateways, the rules surrounding their use use, the ability to perform oversight over app payment activity, and the threat (whether actual or perceived) of total banishment if they are caught—particularly in Apple's case where there's no alternative path to customers. In the same breath, Google and Apple are also being told that these very same mechanisms are a concern to the ACCC.
    - fblp 6y ago
      Hey sorry i don't see how stating these mechanisms are a concern = calling on them to give up control (or "threatening banishment") per your comments. Your comments seem presumptive given the actual content of the preliminary report.

Mandatum 6y ago

Agreed. It's "the stores are extracting too much money for the services they provide and the way they run" without any concrete asks. Likely because we're in unexplored territory, I expect ACCC is using this release as a form to push other agencies to move first to see what happens. Australia NEVER moves first on these things. They want EU or US to make a move first to see what works.

hydrox24 6y ago
> Australia NEVER moves first on these things. I think it is uncommon for Australia to move first, but we do move first sometimes. I thought the recent news revenue-sharing laws[0] are an example of that. > They want EU or US to make a move first to see what works It's always nice to know how a policy will work beforehand, but I don't think it's remarkable how rarely Australia moves first. Putting aside cultural differences, we're a medium power in a world with many medium powers, even in the West, why would we expect to be first, ahead of European countries, or North American ones, or developed nations in Asia? [0]: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/australias-news-revenue-sharing-law-behind-battle-with-big-tech-2021-02-18/ https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/australias-ne...
- simondotau 6y ago
  The revenue-sharing laws were a scam, basically the Government forcing Google and Facebook to pay arbitrary bribes to a few big media companies. If the laws weren't a scam, that money would have gone to pay for journalism, not prop up the bottom line of companies which are consistently cutting back the number of journalists under their employ.
  - simondotau 6y ago
    And it's worth remembering the ACCC's central role in this scam. https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-media-bargaining-code https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-m... My advice to any future Federal Government would be to gut the ACCC and rebuild it from the ground up. And then if the rebuilt entity demonstrates competence, significantly increasing its funding.

zmmmmm 6y ago

Yes it is a shame - while the ACCC often is well motivated, it lacks any sense of philosophical purity in its solutions. So you often see things that are highly anti-freedom, anti-democratic and ultimately anti-consumer come out as a result of its actions. The recent forced negotiation of Google/Facebook with news publishers is an example of this where they have no problem compromising completely fundamental aspects of the internet (the freedom to link to somebody else's intellectual property without fear) to achieve some dot point in their bureaucratic consumer-focused mandate (ensure consumers have access to a diversity of news).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

inopinatus 6y ago

The release does not say these things, and it is misleading to intentionally paraphrase as to invent logical conflicts that aren't present. In particular, it is wrong to equate the existence of controls with the abuse of market power. Examples: Kicking a scammer off your app store is a use of power that benefits the consumer. Obliging service providers to mislead the consumer about their subscription options is an abuse of power and a barrier to consumer choice. The desired outcomes are not "bipolar"; they are consistent with advancing consumer choice and consumer protection. They would only appears as conflicting demands to a rent-seeking organisation that prioritises its market share over consumer outcomes, which is of course why regulatory agencies like the ACCC exist.

simondotau 6y ago
> The release does not say these things I'm sorry, but it does. Just because they chose not to phrase it exactly as I did doesn't mean they didn't invoke these logical conflicts. But please, there's no need to take my word for it—I invite anyone to read the press release and form their own conclusion. > it is wrong to equate the existence of controls with the abuse of market power. I agree that it's "wrong" to equate them, but equating them is a common theme among complaints about Google and Apple's dominance of their platforms' app ecosystems. You make it sound like the ACCC is inherently on the consumer's side in any matter. One look at the borderline-corrupt Media Bargaining Code would quickly disabuse any objective observer of that notion. It could be argued that the ACCC was somehow incapable of comprehending what an internet link is or how news article snippets come to appear on Google and Facebook. That's certainly a more charitable hypothesis than the ACCC being corrupt unduly influenced by the political interests of the current elected Government. Whether it's incompetence or malice (see Hanlon's razor) it doesn't look good for them.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  > they chose not to phrase it exactly as I did Quite so. Let's emphasise that: they chose not to phrase it exactly as you did. And by my reading, significantly so. > I invite anyone to read the press release How about going one better: read the report that the media release accompanies. > equating them is a common theme among complaints about Google and Apple's dominance of their platforms' app ecosystems That's by the by, because this report does not make the same category error, and is a nuanced, lengthy, and considered analysis of the myriad different modes in which their controlling power is underused in some ways that leave the consumer unprotected, and overused/abused in other ways that harm consumer choice, create barriers to market entry, and enable rent-seeking behaviour, and suggests how changes in specific behaviours might correct those pathologies. > You make it sound like the ACCC is inherently on the consumer's side in any matter Well, yes, this is their job, their remit, their raison d'être. Deviation from that premise is the exception, not the norm, and frankly they are known globally as one of the most effective consumer regulators, and the ACL as gold-standard legislation that sibling institutions in other nations can only dream of administering. Trying to discredit the organisation because they got pulled into the federal Murdoch toadying over the MBC looks like misdirection. Which makes me reach for my high school Latin: what is the equivalent of ad hominem when the target entity is an institution, not a person?