![]() As monopolies, they are supposedly able to charge inflated fees and make unreasonable demands of app developers that use their platforms. The implied accusation of market interventionists is that the two biggest app stores, Apple’s App Store and the Google Play Store, possess monopoly power. But misguided charges of harmful antitrust market power are largely a result of defining the app store market too narrowly by looking only at mobile devices while ignoring the multiple hardware devices consumers often use, and thus arriving at the mistaken conclusion that there are only two app stores of consequence. In some sense, it stands to reason that the owners of these app stores have gatekeeper control over them-much as McDonald’s has gatekeeper power over Big Macs and Disney over the Matterhorn ride. Blumenthal’s website declared, “Two companies, Google and Apple, have gatekeeper control of the two dominant mobile operating systems and their app stores that allow them to exclusively dictate the terms of the app market, inhibiting competition and restricting consumer choice.” 2 Office of US Senator Richard Blumenthal, “Blumenthal, Blackburn & Klobuchar Introduce Bipartisan Antitrust Legislation to Promote App Store Competition,” press release, August 11, 2021. ![]() The proposed law seeks to set new rules for the operation of app stores, including requiring app stores to allow more payment options inside apps and requiring Apple devices to afford users more permissive downloading options. sponsored by Senators Blumenthal (D-CT), Klobuchar (D-MN), and Blackburn (R-TN), was one of many antitrust tech bills to garner bipartisan support in the 117th Congress. The Open App Markets Act, 1 Open App Markets Act, S. Melugin recommends abandoning this narrow approach to legislation to ensure competition and innovation can fully benefit consumers. Legislation based on a too-narrow conception of the full landscape of app stores may lead to unintended consequences that stifle innovation and limit choices. Melugin encourages policymakers to use a wider policy lens that recognizes users’ multiple hardware devices and the many app distribution channels available to developers. She also points out that the fees Apple and Google charge are not significantly higher than the fees other app marketplaces charge and that the App Store benefits developers by allowing them to piggyback on Apple’s valuable reputation for security. This limited focus ignores more than 300 app stores available worldwide servicing an average of 22 devices per American home. She explains that policymakers should focus on a wider market in determining whether to accuse Google and Apple of monopoly activity.Īccording to Melugin, policymakers have defined the app market too narrowly, assuming that all apps are exclusively developed for handheld mobile devices. The bill ignores modern economic analysis that separates a hardware device (like a phone or tablet) from the app marketplace. ![]() In this research in focus piece, digital technology expert Jessica Melugin explains why this bill is unnecessary. In other words, in an optimal competitive market, terms would be better for developers because the app stores would fear losing to other app stores with more appealing fees and conditions than those currently in place. The bill is based on the assumption that Apple and Google are unfairly advantaged in negotiating fee rates and other conditions because app developers don’t have sufficient substitutes aside from these two app stores. An identical bill has also been introduced in the House. The bill has bipartisan support in the Senate with seven Republicans and seven Democrats sponsoring it. The Open App Markets Act was introduced in the Senate earlier this year. ![]() A bill intended to regulate the two biggest app stores, Google Play and the Apple App Store, is currently waiting on the Senate Calendar. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |