Antitrust chief says EU has delayed Big Tech regulation too long

As the European Union debate threatens to delay Big Tech regulation, EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager is urging legislators to get to "80% now" instead of "100% never."

Large-scale legislation aimed at curbing anti-competitive growth of Big Tech firms such as Apple, have been hit by delays caused by internal EU political squabbles. Now ahead of a new forum to discuss the regulations, competition and digital policy chief Margrethe Vestager says the EU should urgently adopt the policies, even if they are not perfect.

According to The Irish Times, Vestager has suggested that the rules could be reviewed and reevaluated once they have been enacted.

"It's important that everyone realises that it is best to get 80 per cent now than 100 per cent never," she said. "This is another way of saying that perfect should not be the enemy of very, very good."

"We won't let another 20 years pass before we may revisit [the legislation]," she continued. "With the parliament and the council's position we can make a very strong rule book that can be enforceable soon."

Vestager was speaking ahead of the FT-ETNO Tech and Politics forum, an online conference, on November 29, 2021. The forum comes after close to a year of debate about the Digital Markets Act (DMA), and the Digital Services Act (DSA).

If enacted, the DMA would mean companies like Apple or Google could be required to cease anti-steering practices, and giving their own products preferential treatment.

Then the DSA would be concerned with how such companies could be held accountable for illegal or harmful content held on their services.

As well as specific requirements for the firms to follow, there would also be a series of potential fines for noncompliance.

The chief obstacle to enacting the legislation appears to be a disagreement over what size companies it should apply to. Some groups want it to address all digital works by any firm, while others propose a financial threshold that would target only the largest companies.

37 Comments

foregoneconclusion 12 Years · 2857 comments

About 3 years ago

Not sure why people have latched onto anti-steering as somehow harmful. It's a standard practice throughout the business world. Limiting how companies can provide preferential treatment for their own products makes sense in situations where either consumers would expect neutrality (like search) OR the company itself is claiming that everyone is treated the same (Apple makes this claim with the App Store).

mark fearing 16 Years · 441 comments

foregoneconclusion said:

Not sure why people have latched onto anti-steering as somehow harmful. It's a standard practice throughout the business world. Limiting how companies can provide preferential treatment for their own products makes sense in situations where either consumers would expect neutrality (like search) OR the company itself is claiming that everyone is treated the same (Apple makes this claim with the App Store).

It's only weird when you look at the retail and sales environment as a whole. For instance, within Walmart, I'd not expect them to have posters for Target prices. Or at a restaurant they don't also show you the menu and prices from the restaurant across the street. But I get that this digital market is 'different'. But I think it's very much a debate about what is different with it. As mush as people have complained about Apple charing that 15 or 30% in the App Store, all grocery stores charge a shelving fee. And wholesale sellers have to pay money (or discount) for better sell space. That has been deemed legal. The contradictions are rife.

mark fearing said: It's only weird when you look at the retail and sales environment as a whole. For instance, within Walmart, I'd not expect them to have posters for Target prices. Or at a restaurant they don't also show you the menu and prices from the restaurant across the street. But I get that this digital market is 'different'. But I think it's very much a debate about what is different with it.

IMO, the debate per anti-steering is based on a false pretense: that it's somehow difficult for an iPhone user to be aware that app developers could have an online presence outside the App Store. It just seems silly for the government to act like people in 2021 aren't aware the internet exists or that commerce takes place on the internet too.

dantheman827 9 Years · 118 comments

mark fearing said:

foregoneconclusion said:

Not sure why people have latched onto anti-steering as somehow harmful. It's a standard practice throughout the business world. Limiting how companies can provide preferential treatment for their own products makes sense in situations where either consumers would expect neutrality (like search) OR the company itself is claiming that everyone is treated the same (Apple makes this claim with the App Store).

It's only weird when you look at the retail and sales environment as a whole. For instance, within Walmart, I'd not expect them to have posters for Target prices. Or at a restaurant they don't also show you the menu and prices from the restaurant across the street. But I get that this digital market is 'different'. But I think it's very much a debate about what is different with it. As mush as people have complained about Apple charing that 15 or 30% in the App Store, all grocery stores charge a shelving fee. And wholesale sellers have to pay money (or discount) for better sell space. That has been deemed legal. The contradictions are rife.

The thing is though, Apple is the sole provider of apps, there is no competing stores like there is in the retail space.

Walmart has Target and numerous other stores they compete with... The App Store has none...

Some may argue that the Play Store is competition, but how can you really say that when you need a completely different device in order to access it?

iOS competes with Android, the App Store does not compete with the Play Store, and that's where the comparison to retail falls apart.

Walmart can't tell Target "You can't build your store here because we have one of ours in the city already.", but Apple is doing exactly that with the App Store.

foregoneconclusion said:

mark fearing said: It's only weird when you look at the retail and sales environment as a whole. For instance, within Walmart, I'd not expect them to have posters for Target prices. Or at a restaurant they don't also show you the menu and prices from the restaurant across the street. But I get that this digital market is 'different'. But I think it's very much a debate about what is different with it.

IMO, the debate per anti-steering is based on a false pretense: that it's somehow difficult for an iPhone user to be aware that app developers could have an online presence outside the App Store. It just seems silly for the government to act like people in 2021 aren't aware the internet exists or that commerce takes place on the internet too.

Are you, and were you prior to being asked this question aware that YouTube charges $15.99 in-app but $11.99 on their website?

Do you think it's fair that they can't tell you there is a discount available outside of the app?

And if you weren't aware and have been paying $15.99 in-app instead of $11.99, do you feel you've been financially harmed as a customer?

It's about being able to tell consumers that there's another option available that they likely aren't aware of.