Apple and Google's Fight in Seoul Tests Biden in Washington (nytimes.com) 23
For months, Apple and Google have been fighting a bill in the South Korean legislature that they say could imperil their lucrative app store businesses. The companies have appealed directly to South Korean lawmakers, government officials and the public to try to block the legislation, which is expected to face a crucial vote this week. From a report: The companies have also turned to an unlikely ally, one that is also trying to quash their power: the United States government. A group funded by the companies has urged trade officials in Washington to push back on the legislation, arguing that targeting American firms could violate a joint trade agreement.
The South Korean legislation would be the first law in the world to require companies that operate app stores to let users in Korea pay for in-app purchases using a variety of payment systems. It would also prohibit blocking developers from listing their products on other app stores. How the White House responds to this proposal poses an early test for the Biden administration: Will it defend tech companies facing antitrust scrutiny abroad while it applies that same scrutiny to the companies at home?
Washington has a longstanding practice of opposing foreign laws that discriminate against American firms, sometimes even when doing so conflicts with domestic policy debates. But President Biden wants a consistent approach to his concerns about the tech giants' incredible power over commerce, communications and news. In July he signed an executive order to spur competition in the industry, and his top two antitrust appointees have long been vocal critics of the companies. The approach the White House chooses may have widespread implications for the industry, and for the shape of the internet around the world.
The South Korean legislation would be the first law in the world to require companies that operate app stores to let users in Korea pay for in-app purchases using a variety of payment systems. It would also prohibit blocking developers from listing their products on other app stores. How the White House responds to this proposal poses an early test for the Biden administration: Will it defend tech companies facing antitrust scrutiny abroad while it applies that same scrutiny to the companies at home?
Washington has a longstanding practice of opposing foreign laws that discriminate against American firms, sometimes even when doing so conflicts with domestic policy debates. But President Biden wants a consistent approach to his concerns about the tech giants' incredible power over commerce, communications and news. In July he signed an executive order to spur competition in the industry, and his top two antitrust appointees have long been vocal critics of the companies. The approach the White House chooses may have widespread implications for the industry, and for the shape of the internet around the world.
F Apple & Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Encouraging access and distribution competition, the horror! If this keeps up, consumers may even get great deals. Where will it end?!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Competition is what benefits the consumers. There is no benevolence involved, no extra step.
Re: (Score:2)
Rarely. Competition is usually a race to the bottom of the garbage pile.
Re: (Score:3)
Encouraging access and distribution competition, the horror! If this keeps up, consumers may even get great deals. Where will it end?!
It will end at the U.S. boarders, where corporate profit is more important than the rights, security and privacy of its citizens.
"discriminate against American firms" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Washington has a longstanding practice of opposing foreign laws that discriminate against American firms, sometimes even when doing so conflicts with domestic policy debates."
Hmm, there is nothing in the Slashdot summary indicating that this policy would apply only to American firms. The fact that it *also* applies to American firms can hardly be called discrimination.
How about "Washington has a longstanding practice of meddling with foreign legislation to the benefit of American firms,sometimes even when doing so conflicts with domestic policy debates."
Re: (Score:2)
"Washington has a longstanding practice of opposing foreign laws that discriminate against American firms, sometimes even when doing so conflicts with domestic policy debates."
Hmm, there is nothing in the Slashdot summary indicating that this policy would apply only to American firms. The fact that it *also* applies to American firms can hardly be called discrimination.
How about "Washington has a longstanding practice of meddling with foreign legislation to the benefit of American firms,sometimes even when doing so conflicts with domestic policy debates."
Yes. This. Please mod parent up!
Re: (Score:3)
If they don't prioritize American workers in their hiring practices and use loans and tricks to shift profits to Ireland and other tax shelters come tax time then why should Americans defend them abroad?
Re: (Score:2)
It's remarkably difficult to claim competition is good for America -except- when it's good for someone else. Unless, of course, there's a tacit admission that competition isn't good for anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
What an odd assertion. Domestic competition is good for Americans because it results in better and more prolific offerings while generating more economic stimulus. No matter who wins the benefits stay here. Why would global competition be good for Americans?
Re: (Score:2)
"Washington has a longstanding practice of opposing foreign laws that discriminate against American firms, sometimes even when doing so conflicts with domestic policy debates."
The essential function of the American Government is to protect Americans. American corporations are, at least nominally, Americans. Thus the American Government is supposed to stand up for them internationally.
EU is also going after apple over this & the e (Score:2)
EU is also going after apple over this & the epic case may force apple hand some way.
Big companies don't get their way so they complain (Score:3)
It must be nice to be so rich, that if you don't get your way, you can pressure the President of the United States to stand up for you on your behalf.
While the Small App Developer is one good idea away from going out of business. Because if they Invent an App that is too useful and handy, Apple and Google will just copy it and incorporate it in its OS, and people will have no reason to buy yours. That small App Developer is not going to be able to get some time with the President to push their case.
Re: (Score:1)
Because if they Invent an App that is too useful and handy, Apple and Google will just copy it and incorporate it in its OS, and people will have no reason to buy yours.
Yes and Apple is so proficient at being a "good artist" (that steals) that there is even a term for it: Sherlocked. This is what they do, they allow apps on their platforms, find the successful ones and integrate them as a first-party component of their platform. Special privileges like direct integration with their virtual assistant (that users can't change) that their competitors don't have. Operating system as adware with access to APIs that allow them to advertise their service in OS-level applications
More American imperialism? (Score:2)
Fuck you Apple and Google.
All about Samsung (Score:2)
There are rather few good Korean app development outfits to "protect". This is really about which giant conglomerate holds power in the Korean market.
I believe the legislation is spurred by the fact that Samsung is great at devices and not so great at software. Without the ability to create an attractive iOS/Android alternative (even when basing on open parts of Android), Samsung aches for a way to control the phones they sell from top to bottom, and can't do that without tearing away Google's control.
I r
Re: (Score:3)
Article makes no sense at all (Score:2)
Will it [The White House] defend tech companies facing antitrust scrutiny abroad while it applies that same scrutiny to the companies at home?
Huh? Why would the White House oppose a South Korean bill when the White House is trying to pass an equivalent bill? There's no controversy or question here. Nothing to see, move along.
Campaign time already (Score:2)
The funny thing is, in the US the Democrats may successfully wrest a recent pet topic away from Republicans. They'll be able to campaign on, "See?! We reined in the tech companies, just like the Republicans wanted!"
Eh. Who am I kidding. They're Democrats. Campaigning is what they do worst.
"Appealing" (Score:2)
Spelt b-r-i-b-i-n-g.