Big Tech investors should be paying more attention to EU’s regulatory strikes - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
观点 监管

Big Tech investors should be paying more attention to EU’s regulatory strikes

Latest actions target some of the core practices that have helped the biggest companies consolidate their power

As far as the stock market is concerned, attempts by competition regulators to restrain the power of big tech have invariably been a case of too little, too late.

That was evident again this week as Microsoft and Apple came under fire from a European Commission armed with new and more draconian regulatory powers. Both companies’ shares flirted with record highs as investors displayed their usual, sanguine response.

The tech world moves too fast for regulators burdened with old theories of competition and weighed down by bureaucratic processes, they reckon (though the EU’s new Digital Markets Act is designed to change that). Even cases that have resulted in large fines haven’t forced any changes to the tech giant’s business models that would seriously weaken the power of their online platforms.

Those assumptions will be tested with a round of actions and investigations that target some of the core practices that have helped the biggest tech companies consolidate their power. And though the cases have been triggered by complaints that seem to have little relevance to new markets such as artificial intelligence, they could still establish important principles.

This week’s cases in Brussels included the old charge that Microsoft unfairly targeted rivals such as Slack and Zoom by including its Teams collaboration free of charge in the Office suite of productivity apps. This hardly feels like a pressing issue in today’s tech world. It is seven years since Teams was bundled with Office and four since Slack complained to regulators. 

The preliminary complaint that Brussels levelled against Apple also had a historic feel to it. It was brought under the EU’s DMA, which came into force in March, but turns on the same disputed App Store rule that already resulted in a €1.8bn fine against the iPhone maker under earlier EU rules.

All this has left the sense that regulators are fighting the last war. The focus of competition has moved on to new battlegrounds. Yet these cases get at business practices that will also shape new markets, including AI.

Microsoft’s use of bundling, for instance, has long been one of its most powerful business weapons, while Apple’s App Store restrictions on developers have cemented the power of its mobile platform.

Other investigations announced earlier this year under the new DMA targets other core practices, including Google’s ability to direct search engine users to its other in-house services (something that has been on Brussels’ radar since it first opened an investigation into online comparison shopping 14 years ago). It is also probing Meta’s take-it-or-leave-it requirement for users to accept all the company’s data practices if they don’t want to take up a new option to pay for its services in the EU.  

This more activist attempt to tackle central parts of the tech giants’ business models has been echoed in the US. A judge is set to deliver his judgment soon on the Department of Justice’s claim that Google unfairly monopolised control of distribution for its search engine, including paying billions of dollars a year to have its service featured prominently on Apple’s devices.

The regulators still have a long way to go to prevail in these cases, including against the inevitable legal appeals, and, if they win, will need to come up with effective sanctions. But the success of actions such as these is likely to play a key role in determining how disruptive the rise of AI turns out to be for today’s tech giants. As things stand, their control of networks spanning billions of people and the troves of personal data they hold present a daunting barrier to upstarts.

That has made it possible for companies like Apple and Meta to treat generative AI as just another tech ingredient, something they can use to add new features to their existing services.

As things stand, AI start-ups have had little choice but to play by the big companies’ rules. OpenAI, for instance, has aligned itself with Microsoft as a big investor and business partner and negotiated a deal to put ChatGPT in front of Apple’s users. But it also has more disruptive ideas: an app store of its own that would create an entirely new platform for developers looking to harness the power of large language models, for instance, and an expansion of ChatGPT for businesses that puts it into direct competition with Microsoft.

Tech’s AI wave is only just beginning. How it develops will depend greatly on regulators’ success at picking apart some of the practices that have shored up today’s giants.

richard.waters@ft.com

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

美国当选总统正在推广一种劣质币?

不要与他在选举前支持的“数字资产风险投资”混淆。
6小时前

从墨西哥到中国:2025年的新兴葡萄酒产区

值得关注的葡萄酒包括葡萄牙白葡萄酒、希腊红葡萄酒、中国天然起泡酒等。

我们在工作中是否需要更多的“阳刚之气”?

马克•扎克伯格想要庆祝进取心,但他认为办公室生活变得不那么具有竞争性的说法纯属无稽之谈。

感到忧郁?没关系,不必强颜欢笑

我们中的许多人会发现1月很难熬,但耐力是一种被低估的特质。

世界对英国美食的误解

一位加州的面包师很快意识到,英国的美食远不止“斑点丁丁”。

为什么100英镑的夏威夷披萨是一个经典的公关噱头?

对于大多数食品品牌来说,营销现在更倾向于关注体验而非头条新闻。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×