Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook all came out swinging against the House antitrust report that compared them to oil barons and railroad tycoons

cook bezos pichai zuckerberg apple amazon google facebook

Summary List Placement

Big tech is getting ready to take on the House of Representatives.

The House Democrats on Tuesday dropped a 449-page report following a year-long antitrust investigation, laying out what they view as the monopoly power wielded by Apple, Amazon, Google, and Facebook. 

“Companies that once were scrappy, underdog startups that challenged the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons,” members of the subcommittee wrote in the report. 

The report made a series of broad recommendations for leveling the competitive playing field, including new laws to prevent tech companies from using their platforms to boost their products ahead of competitors’, banning mergers, and breaking up companies to prevent conflicts of interest.

The tech companies aren’t taking this lying down.

Here’s how each of them responded to the report:
Amazon came out guns blazing.

Amazon’s response was by far the longest, as the company posted a 1,400 word blog post in response to the report on Tuesday.

“Large companies are not dominant by definition, and the presumption that success can only be the result of anti-competitive behavior is simply wrong. And yet, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, those fallacies are at the core of regulatory spit-balling on antitrust,” Amazon writes.

Amazon delved into various areas of the report in its blog, but in particular it took issue with the subcommittee’s conclusion that it is an anti-competitive conflict of interest for Amazon to both operate its marketplace and sell items on there which compete with third-party sellers.

  How to manage notifications on the Signal secure-messaging app on a computer or mobile device

It claims that in 1999 it tried operating two sites — one for itself and one for third-party sellers — but it was confusing for consumers.

“[The subcommittee’s] ill-conceived ideas would revive, via regulation, the failed two-store model that Amazon tried two decades ago; the model that both small sellers and customers rejected,” the company wrote in its blogpost.

“They would segregate sellers into separate, less visible stores, make it harder for customers to compare prices of products and, ultimately, reduce competition—all leading to higher prices and less selection,” Amazon concluded.

Facebook called itself “an American success story.”

Facebook pushed back against up on the subcommittee’s assertion that Facebook hurts competition by muscling in and acquiring smaller rival start-ups before they can become a serious threat, pointing to its 2012 and 2014 acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

“Acquisitions are part of every industry, and just one way we innovate new technologies to deliver more value to people. Instagram and WhatsApp have reached new heights of success because Facebook has invested billions in those businesses,” a Facebook spokesman told CNBC.

“A strongly competitive landscape existed at the time of both acquisitions and exists today. Regulators thoroughly reviewed each deal and rightly did not see any reason to stop them at the time.”

Apple said a tax it imposes on developers is “firmly in the mainstream.”

“We have always said that scrutiny is reasonable and appropriate but we vehemently disagree with the conclusions reached in this staff report with respect to Apple,” a company …read more

  The 14 coolest features of the $113,000 2022 Hummer EV 'Edition 1' — GMC's all-electric 'super truck' coming next year

Source:: Businessinsider – Tech

      

(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *