Apple issues weak response to Spotify’s claims of discrimination

Apple has presented its side of the dispute with Spotify, claiming it is treating the latter the same as other apps and it is reasonable to charge 30% of premium payment to apps.

Shortly after Spotify filed a claim at the EU against Apple for being discriminated by the latter’s App Store rules and practices, Apple released a statement to deny these claims and throw the accusations back at Spotify.

Apple argued for the 30% charge of premium paid to apps on App Store platform with a few justifications. “Apple connects Spotify to our users. We provide the platform by which users download and update their app. We share critical software development tools to support Spotify’s app building. And we built a secure payment system — no small undertaking — which allows users to have faith in in-app transactions,” the statement said. Apple also hastened to add that Spotify has left out policy that the revenue share will drop to 15% from the second year on.

On Spotify’s argument that Apple has restricted payment methods to Apple’s own payment system only, Apple retorted that it demands all “digital goods and services that are purchased inside the app using our secure in-app purchase system”.

There are a few layers in the reading of the attrition when each side is only talking its own side’s truth, but there are also bigger questions related to the whole digital economy. There are minor inconsistencies in Apple’s statement, for example it claimed that Spotify has made “substantial revenue that they draw from the App Store’s customers”, only to contradict a few lines below by playing down the App Store’s significance by saying “only a tiny fraction of their subscriptions fall (sic.) under Apple’s revenue-sharing model.” And there is no need for Apple to use the dubious accusation that Spotify is suing music creators. They (Spotify, Google, Pandora, Amazon) are not. They are appealing to overturn a court decision to increase royalty payment by 44%.

There is as much left unsaid as said. For example, Apple failed to address Spotify’s concern that Apple is both operating a platform and distributing its own competing products, in this case Apple Music. This was a point brought up in a conversation The Verge had with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who did not include in her first list of companies to “break up”. “It’s got to be one or the other,” Warren told The Verge referring to Apple. “Either they run the platform or they play in the store. They don’t get to do both at the same time.” This resonates with Spotify’s accusation that Apple is being both the referee and a player.

It also does not give out the reason why Spotify, or any apps, should not have the option to handle payments within the app with equally safe payment system (e.g. credit cards).

Then there is the broader question whether app stores should be allowed to collect a commission fee for apps distributed on its platform. Technically Apple, and other applications stores like Google’s Play Store, could argue that they are a distribution channel and a retail outlet. Like other channels and retailers, they must charge a fee to sell the products. This side of the business would not be so significant for Apple earlier, as it was mainly using the app ecosystem to sell, and lock consumers in, iPhones. It is getting more meaning for the company now that the iPhone sales are slowing down while “Services” has become a meaningful part of the business. That is also a key reason why both Apple and Google are actively encouraging apps to move to subscription model to generate recurring income for the platforms.

But there has never been any justification why the fee should be as high as 30%, and Apple and Google have been well synchronised with their charge level (as well as dropping the fee from second year onward to 15%). This has become a significant additional cost for the app developers. Some with deeper pockets could absorb the cost and keep the retail price similar to other platforms (e.g. The Economist magazine). Those businesses operating on low margin or on a loss have to move the additional cost to users who opt to pay for the premium inside the app (e.g. Spotify). Other businesses simply choose to disable the option to upgrade to premium inside their iOS app to avoid the fee (e.g. the Financial Times newspaper).

Apple used Spotify’s partnerships with carriers as a supporting argument for the charge, saying “a significant portion of Spotify’s customers come through partnerships with mobile carriers. (This) requires Spotify to pay a similar distribution fee to retailers and carriers.” This may or may not true as each carrier deal with OTT services is different. Even if this is accurate, mobile carriers most likely are following the Apple’s and Google’s benchmark rather than the other way round.

Almost half of UK value streaming video over pay TV

A report by EY showed 44% of UK households think they get better value from streaming services than from any pay TV operators.

This is one of the key findings from “Zooming in on household viewing habits”, a follow-up deep-dive on the annual survey EY conducted last September, which covered 2,500 UK families. This message from the UK consumers was also corroborated by a separate, US-focused research by Deloitte, where nearly half of all pay TV subscribers said they were dissatisfied with their service, and 70% felt they were getting too little value for their money.

One of the key themes coming out of the deep-dive into the UK family’s media consumption habits is the ascendency of the consumption of content over the Internet, at the expense of pay TVs. Despite that cord-cutting has not yet hit the UK hard, 54% of all families are already spending more time on the Internet than in front of the traditional TV, including two-thirds of young users primarily watch content on streaming platforms.

“It’s no surprise the UK is becoming a nation of streamers, but our research shows just how enthusiastically households have embraced it. Over the next 12-18 months we will see the launch of new streaming services to further sate the UK’s appetite for content,” said Martyn Whistler, Global Lead Media and Entertainment Analyst at EY. “However, reports of the demise of traditional TV seem a little premature. Our research shows their popularity is undiminished, with viewers watching them more now than in previous years.”

Although this could spell even more bad news for the pay TV operators, when the consumers do watch broadcast TV, 51% of households mainly just watch the five traditional “free” channels (if you did not count the £150 TV licence as “pay”), up from 46% in 2017.

In general consumers are much more tolerant towards pay TV carrying ads than streaming services do. But, still, more consumers are also willing to pay for the content they like. For example, Netflix ranked number one on the table of apps by consumer spending, according to App Annie. And the Deloitte report showed that in the US, a consumer would subscribe to up to three on-demand streaming services at the same time. The willingness to pay has even extended to catch-up watching, especially to get rid of the ads, according to the report. 18% surveyed would be happy to pay more to stream ad-free catch-up TV, up from 16% in 2017.

Another trends that stood out in the report is the diversification of content consumption platforms and its problems. A third families stream video on multiple screens, while 62% of the 18-24-year olds do so. Meanwhile, a quarter of all households have found it hard to track the availability of their favourite content across different services, apps and platforms. This number went up to 39% among the 18-24-year olds, which should be more tech-savvy.

These trends combined can have some implications for how content is produced, distributed, and monetised. For example, if consumers will most likely binge watch content on streaming services (e.g. the average Netflix user would stream two hours a day), the idea of “episode”, which has worked on broadcast TV, will be less relevant. Or should a long series be released all at once on a streaming platform, or making it available episode by episode as the conventional TV broadcasting does? How should pay TV services improve not only its users’ account management, but also the content’s ID management, to provide more pleasant experience for cross-platform and cross-device users?

As Praveen Shankar, EY’s Head of Technology, Media and Telecommunications for the UK & Ireland, put it: “Our survey demonstrates that audiences are struggling to keep track of their favourite content across various platforms and they are confused by the choices available to them. Technology, Media and Telecoms (TMT) companies need to move away from programme guides and big budget marketing and build artificial intelligence (AI) enabled recommendation engines to push content. This will improve user experience, reduce costs and maximise assets.”

On-demand video streaming has surely gained more impetus again in the last few days. CanalPlus has just launched its own streaming service Canal+ Séries, and Apple is widely expected to unveil a version of video on-demand service on 25 March at an event on its own campus.

Zuckerberg’s vision for Facebook: as privacy-focused as WhatsApp

The Facebook founder laid out his plan for the next steps how Facebook will evolve with a focus on privacy and data security, and promised more open and transparency in the transition.

In a long post published on Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg first recognised that going forward, users may prefer more private communication than socialising publicly. He used the analogy of town squares vs. living rooms. To facilitate this, he aims to use the technologies of WhatsApp as the foundation to build the Facebook ecosystem.

Zuckerberg laid out principles for the next steps, including:

  • Private interactions: this is largely related to users’ control over who they communicate with, safeguarded by measures like group size control and limiting public stories being share;
  • End-to-end encryption: this is about encrypting messages going through Facebook’s platforms. An interesting point here is that Zuckerberg admitted that Facebook’s security systems can read the content of users messages sent over Messenger. WhatsApp is already implementing end-to-end encryption and is not storing encryption keys, which makes it literally impossible for it share content of communication between individuals with any other third parties including the authorities. Zuckerberg recalled the case of the Facebook’s VP for Latin America being jailed in Brazil to illustrate his point.
  • Reducing Permanence: this is mainly about giving users the choice to decide how long they like their content (messages, photos, videos, etc.) to be stored, to ensures what they said many years ago would not come back to haunt them.
  • Safety: Facebook will guard the data safe against malignant attacks
  • Interoperability: Facebook aims to make its platforms interoperable and may extend to be interoperable with SMS too.
  • Secure data storage: one of the most important point here is Zuckerberg vowed not to save user data in countries which “have a track record of violating human rights like privacy or freedom of expression”.

To do all these right, Zuckerberg promised, Facebook is committed to “consulting with experts, advocates, industry partners, and governments — including law enforcement and regulators”.

None of these principles are new or surprising, and are an understandable reaction to recent history when Facebook has been battered by scandals of both data leaking and misuse of private data for monetisation purpose. However there are a couple of questions that are not answered:

  1. What changes Facebook needs to make to its business model: in other words, when Facebook limits its own ability to penetrate user data it weakens its value for targeted advertisers. How will it convince the investors this is the right step to take, and how will it to compensate the loss?
  2. Is Facebook finally giving up its plan to re-enter markets like China? Zuckerberg has huffed and puffed over the recent years without bringing down the Great Wall. While his peers in Apple have happily handed over the keys to iCloud and Google has working hard, secretly or not so secretly to re-enter China, how will the capital market react to Facebook’s public statement that “there’s an important difference between providing a service in a country and storing people’s data there”?

France creates new 3 percent tax for internet giants

Unable to convince the EU to impose a special tax on US tech giants, France has decided to go it alone.

Today the French Finance Minister, Bruno Le Maire announced the introduction of a bill that will grab 3% of all revenues deemed to have been generated in France by digital companies with sales in excess of €25 million in France and €750 million globally. This seems to cover around 30 companies, but especially Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, which is why it’s being called the GAFA tax.

“This is about justice,” Le Maire reportedly said. “These digital giants use our personal data, make huge profits out of these data, then transfer the money somewhere else without paying their fair amount of taxes.” Funny how new taxes are always in the name of fairness isn’t it?

Said tech giants are unlikely to take this new tax lying down and will presumably threaten some kind of strop in retaliation, but if they want to make money in France they will have to abide by its tax rules. A bigger danger for them will be if France manages to pull this move off as that will presumably give the rest of Europe, and even the world, some funny ideas.

France has been planning something like this for a while but it’s not obvious exactly how it will claim the tax, especially as it expects to tax revenues derived from advertising, which is the main business model of Google and Facebook. France reckons it will trouser at least €500 million a year from this, which will come in handy since its own population doesn’t seem too keen on paying tax these days.

RCS is here to stay and doing well

RCS has been touted as a saviour when the SMS value has been destroyed by OTT messaging services, but without much success, but it may finally have find its moment.

Mavenir, the software company, presented on day 1 of MWC 2019, promoting its rich communication solutions offered by Rakutan. The key benefits, or the main use cases that RCS can differentiate from OTT messaging actually are less to do with taking consumers back to texting each other, or P2P messaging, but rather the communication between businesses and consumers, or A2P messaging.

This view is corroborated by Infobip, a Croatia-based messaging platform that provides aggregated OTT messaging services (e.g. WhatsApp, LINE, Viber, KakaoTalk, etc.) for their corporate clients, which the clients then can use for customer service and CRM. However, the company told Telecoms.com that its dominant business, which it has seen annual growth of between 30% and 40%, is SMS and RCS based services.

One of the use cases is helping businesses improve customer engagement. Despite that on feature comparison RCS is mostly playing catching up on OTT messaging services, SMS and RCS tramp OTTs in consumer trust. To quote Guilliaume Le Mener, Manevir’s SVP for Enterprise Business, RCS is a “clean channel”, not tarnished by the privacy scandals committed by Facebook and co, or the over monetisation by others. Research shared by Mavenir showed 97% of SMS / RCS are opened within 3 minutes.

In one case, Infobip was hired by Twitter to reengage the inactive users, after the social media giant failed the mission with its early efforts through email. Thanks to its rich features, RCS messages can enable users to explore the content directly. For those users on phones not compatible with RCS, brands can choose to fall back on SMS with a web line. The results were much more improved also owing largely to the capability of producing rich analytics to evaluate the campaign effectiveness and make quick decisions on any changes needed.

In addition to A2P messaging, RCS is also being used by brands to engage consumers in P2A, that is engaging directly with the brands through messaging. On the brand side the service can be handled by bots. This will then need to be supported by AI and analytics which will be another business opportunity for the RCS solution providers. With OTTs also actively moving into the P2A domains, again this is an area that operators need to have a stronghold for RCS before it is too late.

For Rakuten, RCS may be particularly meaningful, as, coming from an internet service and MVNO background, Rakuten has a big range of digital service tied to a user’s Rakuten ID. RCS will be a key instrument to maintain and strengthen customer engagement when it builds out its 5G network from ground up.

Lobbying on the up as Silicon Valley feels the regulatory squeeze

The internet giants have started filing their lobbying reports with the Center for Responsive Politics with records being shattered all over the place.

Each quarter US companies are legally required to disclose to Congress how much has been spend on political lobbying. Although the figures we are about to discuss are only for the US market, international players will certainly spend substantially more, it gives a good idea of the pressure which the internet players are facing. Governments are attempting to exert more control and Silicon Valley doesn’t like it.

Looking at the filings, having spent $4.9 million in the final three months, Google managed to total $21.2 million across the whole of 2018, a new high for the firm. This compares to $18.3 million spent across 2017.

Facebook is another which saw its lobby bill increase. In its latest filing, Facebook reported just over $3 million for Q4, and totalled almost $13 million across the year. In the Facebook case it should hardly be surprising to see a massive leap considering the scale and the depth of the Cambridge Analytica scandal which it has not been able to shake off.

More filings will be due over the next couple of days, the deadline for the fourth quarter period was January 22, though the database search tool is awful. What is worth noting is this is set to be the biggest year for internet lobby spend, however it is still nothing compared to the vast swathes which are spend elsewhere.

Lobby tableIn total, the internet industry might have spent a whopping $68.7 million on lobbying Washington over 2017 (2018 data is still not complete), but that is nothing compared to more mature industries. The Oil and Gas segment spent $126 million, while Insurance pumped $162 million into the lobbyists pockets, but the winner by a long was the pharmaceutical industry spending an eye-watering $279 million on lobbyists across the year (see image for full list).

As you can see, the ceiling has been set very high for lobbying and it will almost certainly increase over the next couple of years. All around the world governments and regulators are attempting to exert more control over the internet industry, and while the lobbying process isn’t necessarily attempting to block these new rules, the aim will be to get the best deal possible.

In comparison to other industries, the internet specifically and technology on the whole is relatively new. You have to take into account the internet as a mass market tool is only in its teen years and is demonstrating the same rebellious tendencies as young adults do. New ideas are being explored and boundaries are being pushed; with some breakthroughs rules do not exist, while the emergence of new business models means companies fall into the grey areas of regulation. The internet has been operating relatively untethered over the last few years, though this is changing.

2018 was a year where it all started to hit home. Countless data breaches demonstrated the digital world is one where security has not been nailed, while data privacy scandals have shown how dated some regulations are. It doesn’t help that Silicon Valley seems to operate behind a curtain which only the privileged few are allowed to peak behind, but even if this barrier was thrown open, only a small percentage of the world would actually understand what was going on or how to regulate it effectively.

GDPR was a step in the right direction in handing control of personal information back to the user, but this only applies to European citizens. Other countries, such as India, are learning from these regulations with the ambition of creating their own, but it is still very early days. The rules and regulations of the digital economy are being shaped and the internet giants will certainly want to influence proceedings to ensure they can still continue to hoover up profits in the manner which they have become accustomed to.

Looking at where money has been spent, data privacy and security concerns is a common theme with all the internet players who want to protect their standing in the sharing economy, though mobile location privacy issues is another shared concern. With data getting cheaper, more people will be connected all the time, opening the door for more location-based services and data collection. This could be big business for the internet giants, though it has been targeted by privacy advocates looking to curb the influence of Silicon Valley. Other issues have included tax reforms, antitrust and artificial intelligence.

So yes, a remarkable amount of cash is being spent by the likes of Google and Facebook at the moment, but this will only grow in time as regulators and legislators become more familiar with the business of the internet and, more importantly, how to govern it.

Privacy champion Max Schrems is back with another lawsuit

The man who is largely credited with the downfall of Safe Harbour has re-emerged from the shadows to take eight of the internet giants to court over GDPR violations.

As user privacy increasingly seems to be an alien concept to Silicon Valley and the other internet players, Austrian data privacy champion Max Schrems has jumped into the limelight once again. This time he is challenged eight internet companies and their data privacy practices, suggesting they are violating Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Through a filing with the Austrian Data Protection Authority, by Schrem’s non-profit NOYB, the complaints focus on the ‘right to access’ enshrined in Article 15 GDPR and Article 8(2) of the Chart of Fundamental Rights. Amazon, Apple, DAZN, Filmmit, Netflix, Sound Cloud, Spotify and YouTube are on the receiving end of the lawsuit, with the potential penalties ranging from €20 million through to €8 billion.

“Many services set up automated systems to respond to access requests, but they often don’t even remotely provide the data that every user has a right to,” said Schrems. “In most cases, users only got the raw data, but, for example, no information about who this data was shared with. This leads to structural violations of users’ rights, as these systems are built to withhold the relevant information.”

GDPR is supposed to hand control of personal data back to said individual. Its aim is to hold the digital society accountable to their actions and provide a certain level of justification for holding onto, and potentially monetizing, an individual’s personal information. Several clauses are also aimed at transparency to ensure the user is fully informed, or at least offering the user the opportunity to be, about how these software and services providers commercialise data.

In addition to what raw data is being stored, individuals do now also have the right to know where this data was sourced, the recipients and also the purpose. This is where a few of the complaints are focusing specifically, as this is the information which was absent from some of the responses.

If privacy is an alien concept, then transparency is a dirty, inconceivable word to the internet players. It seems former habits have been hard to shake.

NOYB Snip

As you can see from the table above, Schrems has tested out how some of the internet players have reacted to the introduction of GDPR. Progress has been made, except in the case of Sound Cloud and DAZN, but that is irrelevant. The introduction of GDPR on May 25 2018 was not the starting line to gradually move yourself through to compliance, day one was a hard introduction of the rules. There are some circumstances where companies can avoid penalties, but these are scenarios where non-compliance would be seen as out of the control of the company, or best efforts have been made.

This is where these firms might find themselves in a bit of hot water. An automated response which offers up some information but not all which is required through the new regulation should not be considered good enough. The pair ignoring the requests completely should be very worried about the repercussions. And finally, the Austrian regulator will also have to decide whether four weeks is an appropriate response time or too long. None of these firms are in a safe place right now.

Another interesting aspect will be the readability of the data. In the complaint, Schrems notes the raw data was provided in what would be considered cryptic form for the general public. Users would not be able to read the data therefore it is not being made accessible by the company. Whether this is taken as a violation of GDPR remains to be seen, though Austria could set precedent.

Many of the internet giants have resisted the calls from data privacy advocates and governments around the world, but GDPR is supposed to be a stick to keep the segment in line. These are companies which will want to avoid giving too many details away as the power and depth of the data sharing economy has the potential to spook large swathes of the general public. Too much light shed on data processing and exchanging practices would also offer more ammunition to the blood-thirsty politicians, many of whom are on a PR crusade to make heads roll.

Ultimately this will give us a good indication as to how sharp European regulators’ teeth actually are. In passing GDPR, the European Commission has offered a stick to the pro-privacy regulators, but how hard they swing it remains to be seen. The dreaded ‘up to’ phrase is present when looking at potential fines, so let’s see whether these regulations have the stones to dish out appropriate punishments.

As Nielsen reports shift away from cable TV Netflix announces biggest price hike

A recent Nielsen report on the evolution of US TV viewing habits reveals a 48% increase in the number of households switching entirely to over the air access.

16 million US homes – 14% of households – are now OTA-only, up from just 9% of households 8 years ago. This constituency is split into older viewers (6.6m) looking to save a few bucks by settling for the good, old broadcast antenna option, and younger SVOD (subscription video on demand) subscribers (9.4m), who get everything they need from services like Netflix and therefore see no need to pay for cable.

A significant characteristic of this latter category is a move away from the traditional TV to viewing on mobile devices. These smaller screens tend to lend themselves to solitary viewing rather than the more communal TV experience, something that is greatly facilitated by the on-demand nature of these services.

Nielsen OTA chart

Coinciding with the publication of this report is the announcement from Netflix of its biggest ever price rise in the US. The SVOD giant has been investing more than ever on original programming and has such a massive installed base that it seems to have decided it’s time to start thinking about justifying its massive valuation.

“We change pricing from time to time as we continue investing in great entertainment and improving the overall Netflix experience for the benefit of our members,” a Netflix spokesperson said in a somewhat redundant statement to Light Reading.

“For many users, Netflix is an indispensable video services,” said Tech, Media & Telco Analyst Paolo Pescatore. “There will not be much backlash (for now). This is certainly one way to increase revenue significantly. It needs to focus on financials as well as subscriber growth. Netflix is following the traditional pay TV model of increasing prices annually. Expect other countries to increase prices over coming months.”

Anecdotally linear TV viewing seems to be a dying phenomenon. Even when families congregate around the living room TV they’re just as likely to watch a DVD or streamed box set and, if this correspondent’s experience is anything to go by, people prefer to do their own thing on tablets. Netflix is currently the boss of that sector so it’s probably free to keep raising prices for a while yet.

T-Mobile US won’t be rushed on TV proposition

The T-Mobile US TV launch has been anticipated for some time now, but we’ll have to wait until at least mid-2019 for this dream to become a reality.

After closing the Layer3 acquisition at the beginning of this year, it was assumed T-Mobile US would sharply enter the TV market with another ‘Uncarrier’ move. These disruptive plays have formed the foundation of T-Mobile US’ rise through the ranks in recent years, luring customers away from the still dominant duo of AT&T and Verizon.

But for those who were eagerly anticipating the launch of a TV service, don’t hold your breath. The launch has been kicked back, with no concrete commitments made. Why? Because CEO John Legere has high standards.

According to Bloomberg, people working on the project have suggested the wild-eyed CEO has set the bar so high, the team are struggling to meet expectations. This is not necessarily a bad thing and demonstrates Legere has the patience to produce a good product instead of being rushed to market due to the pressure of other players.

The first moments of life for this product could be the beginning and the end. Such is the competition in the ‘cord-cutter’ space, bringing a poor product to market could result in the venture failing before it has even started. If T-Mobile US wants to make a splash in this pond, he’ll have to meet consumer expectations, most of whom are dissatisfied at the moment.

While cable has had a place in the hearts of consumers for years, this trend is ending with the cord-cutting generation of today. Digital alternatives are wanted by the consumer, though with expensive and sub-standard options on the market as it stands, there is the opportunity for disruption. This is a perfect storm for Legere and the magenta army, but only if the proposition is right.

It’ll have to be cheap enough to attract interest, expensive enough to allow for future content investment, stylish enough to meet the visual and experience demands of the digital natives and have the content depth to attract a broad range of customers. This is a complicated equation to get right, but the rewards are potentially massive. We’re pleasantly surprised the team is taking its time and getting the proposition right.

Another factor to consider is the increased competitive threat from Disney. Disney has already shown its intention to go toe-to-toe with Netflix on the content battlefield, though should this entertainment heavyweight get its own OTT service right upon launch next year, the content gains for everyone else will get considerably smaller.

With a host of services already on the market, and more to come in 2019, T-Mobile US will have to make this Uncarrier move perfect if it wants to cash in on the content bonanza. Consumers are fickle and un-loyal enough to mean late-comers to the market can make a splash, so don’t expect Legere to be rushed with this challenge to the status quo.

Aussies question whether Google and Facebook are overstepping boundaries

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is shining the light of concern on Google and Facebook, seemingly one of the first steps towards regulatory overhaul.

Of course, there is no question the internet giants should be under greater regulatory scrutiny, though creating the red-tape maze does take time. The Digital Platforms Inquiry Preliminary Report released by the ACCC is just the first bureaucratic step in the dance which will take place over the coming months. Google and Facebook are in the crosshairs, though how long it will take to overhaul the dated and swiss-cheese like rules is anybody’s guess.

“The ACCC considers that the strong market position of digital platforms like Google and Facebook justifies a greater level of regulatory oversight,” said ACCC Chair Rod Sims.

“Australian law does not prohibit a business from possessing significant market power or using its efficiencies or skills to ‘out compete’ its rivals. But when their dominant position is at risk of creating competitive or consumer harm, governments should stay ahead of the game and act to protect consumers and businesses through regulation.”

There are several issues which are being raised through the report, though the important one seems to be the breadth and depth of influence which the internet players can wield. These are platforms which did begin their journey as curators or hosts of information, and despite pleas this position continues, their role in society has evolved at the same rate at which their bank accounts have grown. The ACCC is suggesting these platforms have an incredible influence on society, which they of course do, and this should be reflected in future regulation.

For the likes of Google and Facebook, there is another fight on the horizon. These are organizations which have enjoyed a relatively light-touch regulatory landscape, perhaps owing to the fact rule makers are not able to keep pace with the evolution of technology and the digital economy, though the world is starting to wake up. Recent scandals concerning privacy, location tracking, the dissemination of information and the depth of knowledge on the consumer are ensuring governments are taking this segment seriously now.

Looking at the specifics of this report, the ACCC is concerned about echo chambers being created thanks to personalisation algorithms. The lack of transparency is a concern here, as users might be unknowingly led down a biased news feed. Perhaps this would explain the polarised opinions we are seeing nowadays; not enough people are being exposed to both sides of the argument.

Other points raised by the report focuses on the depth of information collected on the user by these platforms, which far exceeds what the user has expressly given permission for, and also the ‘take it or leave it’ approach to T&Cs. The influence of these platforms due to the amount of information collected and the opaque ranking system might well be creating beasts which could favour certain businesses or political parties, a position which might be considered dangerous.

One of the proposals put forward in the report is to prevent Chrome being installed as a default browser on mobile devices, computers and tablets and Google’s search engine being installed as a default search engine on internet browsers. This is one example of how the Australian government is aiming to dilute the influence of Google, though it is important to note this report is not specifically directed at Google alone. Other proposals include modifications to the Privacy Act, which would (in theory) offer the consumer more choice and power.

For any fundamental changes to happen in government there are appropriate and measured steps to take. These steps involve research, consultations, as well (seemingly) endless debates and lobbying. This should be viewed as the first steps towards gaining greater regulatory influence over the internet players who have enjoyed greater freedoms over other businesses.

The world is starting to wake up and realise the internet players cannot be regulated in the same way as traditional businesses. It might be long overdue, but sooner or later the balance of power and influence will shift into a fairer and more sustainable position.