Mike Wuerthele
Now that 2024 has arrived, the Competition and Markets Authority that will be responsible for big tech antitrust decisions in the UK has made it clear that when it is fully empowered it will immediately launch several investigations against US big tech.
A document that the group has made it clear what the plan will be to reign in what it sees as the dominance of big tech. Without naming names, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) will undertake three or four investigations in the first year it has full power, and it will do so in parallel.
It is promising to designate firms as having Strategic Market Status (SMS) as it pertains to digital marketshare. It will further refine designation, so it will be targeted at a "small number of firms" which will be under the purview of the group.
Expected antitrust mechanisms that the CMA says that it will undertake in the document will require SMS firms like Apple and Google to disclose data and open functionality that may not be available to third parties. It also addresses App Store dominance, with the document suggesting that they are an "exploitation of market power."
The CMA also says that it will focus more on consumer benefits than benefits to other companies. It's not yet clear how that will be determined, given that it says that it will operate very quickly, with accountability to the UK government at the same time with the latter often at cross-purposes.
The document, published on Thursday, is quite lengthy, and details scope, hiring plans, and powers that the agency expects it will have.
Not immediate power, but perhaps coming soon
There is a fly in the ointment, though. The CMA doesn't have its full powers yet. The group is assuming that it will be empowered by the spring of 2024, with full powers enacted in the fall of 2024.
The CMA is not entirely toothless at the moment, but power is limited and has been challenged in the UK courts. A "Browser and Cloud Gaming Market Investigation" has been restarted by the UK courts, after being challenged by Apple. It is specifically examining mobile browsers and mobile browser engines. It is also tasked with looking at cloud gaming services on mobile devices.
The latter cloud gaming element may be a problem for Apple, as it has policies in place that some may consider harmful to cloud gaming services in general. And, there is one web browsing engine on iOS and iPadOS.
Apple's rules effectively ban cloud gaming apps that would run on a Netflix-of-gaming sort of model, namely one app that all games are streamed through.
Instead, Apple does allow for games to be streamed, but individually instead of through a store-like central app. That means each cloud-gaming-enabled game would have to be listed in the App Store separately, and each must pass through the App Store Review process.
Apple has previously said games pose "real and novel risks from a security/privacy perspective" that streaming video services don't have. The counter-argument is that individually listing games requires more work and resources to accomplish, and raises the barrier for entry for services.
Wesley Hilliard
Christine McKee
Malcolm Owen
Amber Neely
William Gallagher
3 Comments
For most of the past couple centuries, British companies have been a key instrument in their efforts to colonize the world. It's ironic that they are the ones regulating corporations now.
Also, the EU being a collection of countries gives it more power to actually demand things from corporations. There is a high chance that Apple would leave the UK if it becomes too hostile.
The market share for iPhones and Androids is around 50-50( not exactly sure of the number but iPhones aren't as prevalent as in the US, mostly due to no lock in effect such as iMessage), even Japan, with 90% of the population using iPhones is more valuable to Apple.
Per cloud gaming, the "raising the barrier for entry" argument is really flimsy. Cloud based games are typically products that have already been released natively on a variety of platforms. In other words, they've already willingly accomplished on other operating systems what they are claiming is a barrier on iOS. Plus, you've got iOS developers that build gaming apps from the ground up for iOS. How can you argue that porting a game that already exists is more difficult than that?