The Linkielist

Linking ideas with the world

The Linkielist

Apple apologises to WordPress for forcing in-app purchases and U-turns

Apple has clarified the situation with the WordPress iOS app, apologizing for the mistake of blocking developer updates to the app until they added in-app purchases, despite the app not including any functionality involving payments.

On Friday, it was reported the lack of app updates for the WordPress app were due to it being “locked” on the App Store. After three weeks of absence, developers of the app had agreed to implement some form of in-app purchase to the app to enable updates to go through again, among other possible solutions.

In a statement provided to AppleInsider on Saturday, Apple claims the issue with the app has been “resolved” overnight.

“Since the developer removed the display of their service payment options from the app, it is now a free stand-alone app and does not have to offer in-app purchases,” states Apple. “We have informed the developer and apologize for any confusion that we have caused.”

At the time the block came to light, it was suggested the app was blocked because it was possible for users to see a page within the app’s Help Center discussing upgrades to paid plans. This is in reference to WordPress.com’s paid hosting offerings, which are managed from the website, not the app.

While the app itself doesn’t offer any monetary transaction capabilities at all, it is believed the mention in the support page for the website version was a violation of App Store review guidelines

Source: Apple didn’t force in-app purchases on WordPress | Appleinsider

How Appleinsider managed to turn the above content into the above headline is a mystery to me.

Epic move: Judge says Apple can’t revoke Unreal Engine dev tools, asks ‘Where does the 30 per cent come from?’

A Federal US judge questioned why Apple takes a 30 per cent slice of developer revenues as she ruled that while Apple cannot cut off Epic’s access to iOS Unreal Engine development tools, she would not order the company to allow Fortnite to return to the App Store.

In the eight-page order [PDF], Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, the Northern California district judge yesterday said that Unreal – used by hundreds of third-party devs for both console and mobile games inside and out of Apple’s App Store and dubbed by Microsoft at the weekend as a “critical technology” – was governed by a separate contract between the parties, the “Xcode and Apple [software development kits] Agreement”.

Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders

She said it was “relevant” that this was distinct from “Apple’s agreements with developers and the App Store guidelines”, which do not generally permit third-party developers to circumvent the IAP [in-app purchases] system”.

The move on 13 August that kicked this all off – the activation of “allegedly hidden code in Fortnite allowing Epic Games to collect in-app purchases directly” via its “Fortnite Mega Drop” – was described as “calculated” by the Northern California court judge.

Making that move, as we’ve previosuly mentioned, precluded Apple from taking its traditional 30 per cent cut and saw the developer booted out of the store, prompting it to fling an almost certainly pre-prepared sueball at Cupertino as the boot hit its face.

Epic’s original complaint alleged Apple is abusing its dominant position by seeking to “control markets, block competition, and stifle innovation”.

The split order was handed down late last night after some oral wrangling with Apple’s counsel over Zoom – dodging an authentication issue on the platform earlier that day.

The judge reportedly asked Apple lawyer Richard Doren at the Zoom hearing yesterday: “The question is, without competition: where does the 30 per cent (App Store commission) come from? Why isn’t it 10? 20? How is the consumer benefiting?”

To the last question, Doren, a partner at LA law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, replied that consumers could choose when deciding to buy an Android device or an iPhone.

In the written order filed late yesterday, the judge noted:

While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero per cent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free.

The order will be a relief to Epic in that it won’t be cut off from Unreal Engine development on Apple’s operating systems; the judge noted the court had to weigh up whether an “injunction is in the public interest”.

She spoke of the “potential significant damage to both the Unreal Engine platform itself, and to the gaming industry generally, including on both third-party developers and gamers”, adding that “not only has the underlying [SDK] agreement not been breached, but the economy is in dire need of increasing avenues for creativity and innovation, not eliminating them. Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders.”

Source: Epic move: Judge says Apple can’t revoke Unreal Engine dev tools, asks ‘Where does the 30 per cent come from?’ • The Register

Microsoft sides with Epic over Apple developer ban, supports motion for temporary restraining order

Microsoft’s Kevin Gammill, general manager of Gaming Developer Experiences, called Epic’s Unreal Engine “critical technology” in a filing at the weekend [PDF] in support of Epic’s motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Apple from terminating its developer account.

Referring to the statement, Xbox supremo Phil Spencer tweeted yesterday to say “ensuring that Epic has access to the latest Apple technology is the right thing for gamer developers and gamers.”

Gammill’s argument is that Unreal Engine, a cross-platform runtime and development environment, is “critical technology for numerous game creators including Microsoft”, and that “there are few other options available for creators to license with as many features and as much functionality as Unreal Engine.”

“If Unreal Engine cannot support games for iOS or macOS, Microsoft would be required to choose between abandoning its customers and potential customers on the iOS and macOS platforms or choosing a different game engine when preparing to develop new games,” said Gammill in the filing. He added that it would also harm those with games in “later stages of development” using Unreal Engine, and already-launched games for which Unreal Engine could no longer be updated or receive security patches.

[…]

Source: Microsoft sides with Epic over Apple developer ban, supports motion for temporary restraining order • The Register

Epic Games start Free Fortnite cup time with awesome prizes incl a rotten apple skin

As PC Gamer’s Fortnite guy, I’ve written many a guide to Epic’s various tournaments, cash cups, and special events, but few have ever been as weird as this one. On Thursday evening, Epic announced the #FreeFortnite Cup, a new tournament seemingly designed to continue Epic’s campaign against Apple and Google. Barring a legal miracle, it’s effectively your last chance to cross-play with friends on iOS and Android devices for a long while.

“All of your friends. Awesome prizes. And one bad apple,” Epic writes.

The prizes available? Well, that’s where things get a little… silly.

Participants who score ten or more points during the tournament (details below) will earn the ‘Tart Tycoon’ skin. You’ll recognize it as the apple man from Epic’s parody of Apple’s famous 1984 ad that made the rounds last week. Here he is in all his subtle glory.

(Image credit: Epic Games)

It’s pretty much a guarantee that anyone who plays a couple matches during the tournament window will earn the skin, as you get points just for surviving every minute.

Epic could have stopped there and called it a day, but no. For some reason, they’re offering the top 20,000 players a #FreeFortnite hat. A dad hat. A dad hat with the Fortnite llama colored like Apple’s old rainbow logo.

(Image credit: Epic Games)

God have mercy on us all.

Epic is also giving 1,200 players (of undetermined criteria) some free gaming gear, like Alienware gaming laptops, Samsung Galaxy Tabs, and some good old-fashioned consoles. Not sure if that’s going to stem the tide of millions of mobile players from calling up customer support, but it’s a start?

Either way, Epic is clearly rolling full steam ahead with its campaign against Apple and Google. Whether or not they can win against the tech giants in a court of law remains to be seen, but Epic is certainly investing in the court of public opinion.

Source: Epic Games Free Fortnite cup time: How to get the Fortnite apple skin | PC Gamer

Apple cut off updates to completely free WordPress app until it adds in app purchases because it wants 30 percent

WordPress, the iOS app, lets you build and manage a website right from your iPhone or iPad, for free.

Separately, WordPress.com also happens to sell domain names and fancier website packages.

Now, WordPress founding developer Matt Mullenweg is accusing Apple of cutting off the ability to update that app — until or unless he adds in-app purchases so the most valuable company in the world can extract its 30 percent cut of the money.

Here’s the thing: the WordPress app on iOS doesn’t sell anything. I just checked, and so did Stratechery’s Ben Thompson. The app simply lets you make a website for free. There isn’t even an option to buy a unique dot-com or even dot-blog domain name from the iPhone and iPad app — it simply assigns you a free WordPress domain name and 3GB of space.

Apple admitted to The Verge that it’s involved, reminding us that in-app purchases are required whenever apps “allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site.” But again, the WordPress app doesn’t sell anything itself, and it sounds like you can’t do anything special with anything you’ve purchased from WordPress.com (beyond uploading additional files or selecting website themes) from the app, either.

While Mullenweg says there technically was a roundabout way for an iOS to find out that WordPress has paid tiers (they could find it buried in support pages, or by navigating to WordPress’s site from a preview of their own webpage), he says that Apple rejected his offer to block iOS users from seeing the offending pages.

Mullenweg tells The Verge he’s not going to fight it anymore, though — he will add brand-new in-app purchases for WordPress.com’s paid tiers, which include domain names, within 30 days. Apple has agreed to allow Automattic to update the app while it waits. (The last update was issued yesterday.)

In other words, Apple won: the richest company in the world just successfully forced an app developer to monetize an app so it could make more money. It’s just the latest example of Apple’s fervent attempts to guard its cash cow resulting in a decision that doesn’t make much sense and doesn’t live up to Apple’s ethos (real or imagined) of putting the customer experience ahead of all else.

Source: WordPress claims Apple cut off updates to its completely free app because it wants 30 percent – The Verge

News outlets join Epic in challenging Apple’s app store terms

Major news organizations are joining Epic Games in the push for Apple to rethink its app store terms following Fortnite’s high-profile ban this month.

Digital Content Next, a trade organization representing the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and dozens of other media outlets and publishers (including yours truly, G/O Media), sent a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook on Thursday asking if it was possible to renegotiate a better deal with the tech giant regarding its notoriously high commission rates for app developers. AKA what’s infamously known as “the Apple tax.”

As it stands, news outlets fork over 30% of all revenue from first-time subscriptions made through iOS apps, with Apple’s cut falling to 15% after the first year should the reader continue their subscription, per the Wall Street Journal. A 30% tax on an app’s revenue is standard across the board on both Google and Apple’s app stores, though the latter gets significantly more heat for this because of its walled garden (whereas Android’s open ecosystem allows for multiple stores if app developers would rather not pay the toll).

“The terms of Apple’s unique marketplace greatly impact the ability to continue to invest in high-quality, trusted news and entertainment particularly in competition with other larger firms,” said the letter, which is signed by Digital Content Next’s CEO, Jason Kint.

In the letter, Kint argues that Apple has previously made an exception to its usual 30% rate for one preeminent customer in particular: Amazon. Emails between top Apple exec Eddy Cue and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos that were revealed in an antitrust hearing last month showed that Amazon agreed to pay Apple just 15% of its revenue from Amazon Prime Video subscriptions during its first year on the app store. Given this, Kint contends that Digital Content Next’s news outlets and publishers should qualify for the same kind of modified terms Amazon was offered. At the very least, Apple needs to outline what conditions Amazon met to receive such a discount and afford other app developers the same opportunity.

“The monopolistic behavior of big tech puts a wide range of industries—not the least of which is the news industry—at a distinct disadvantage,” the group’s SVP of government affairs, Chris Pedigo, wrote in a blog post Thursday. “It is laudable that EU and American regulatory bodies are digging in and uncovering these anti-competitive behaviors. Talking trust is not enough. We need to level the playing field and transparency is a critical first step.”

[…]

Source: News outlets join Epic in challenging Apple’s app store terms

Securus sued for ‘recording attorney-client jail calls, handing them to cops’ – months after settling similar lawsuit and charging more than 100x normal price for the calls. Hey, monopolies!

Jail phone telco Securus provided recordings of protected attorney-client conversations to cops and prosecutors, it is claimed, just three months after it settled a near-identical lawsuit.

The corporate giant controls all telecommunications between the outside world and prisoners in American jails that contract with it. It charges far above market rate, often more than 100 times, while doing so.

It has now been sued by three defense lawyers in Maine, who accuse the corporation of recording hundreds of conversations between them and their clients – something that is illegal in the US state. It then supplied those recordings to jail administrators and officers of the law, the attorneys allege.

Though police officers can request copies of convicts’ calls to investigate crimes, the cops aren’t supposed to get attorney-client-privileged conversations. In fact, these chats shouldn’t be recorded in the first place. Yet, it is claimed, Securus not only made and retained copies of these sensitive calls, it handed them to investigators and prosecutors.

“Securus failed to screen out attorney-client privileged calls, and then illegally intercepted these calls and distributed them to jail administrators who are often law enforcers,” the lawsuit [PDF] alleged. “In some cases the recordings have been shared with district attorneys.”

The lawsuit claims that over 800 calls covering 150 inmates and 30 law firms have been illegally recorded in the past 12 months, and it provides a (redacted) spreadsheet of all relevant calls.

[…]

Amazingly, this is not the first time Securus has been accused of this same sort of behavior. Just three months ago, in May this year, the company settled a similar class-action lawsuit this time covering jails in California.

That time, two former prisoners and a criminal defense attorney sued Securus after it recorded more than 14,000 legally protected conversations between inmates and their legal eagles. Those recordings only came to light after someone hacked the corp’s network and found some 70 million stored conversations, which were subsequently leaked to journalists.

[…]

Securus has repeatedly come under fire for similar complaints of ethical and technological failings. It was at the center of a huge row over location data after it was revealed it was selling location data on people’s phones to the police through a web portal.

The telecoms giant was also criticized for charging huge rates for video calls, between $5.95 and $7.99 for a 20-minute call, at a jail where the warden banned in-person visits but still required relatives to travel to the jail and sit in a trailer in the prison’s parking lot to talk to their loved ones through a screen.

Securus is privately held so it doesn’t make its financial figures public. A leak in 2014 revealed that it made a $115m profit on $405m in revenue for that year.

Source: Securus sued for ‘recording attorney-client jail calls, handing them to cops’ – months after settling similar lawsuit • The Register

Ed Snowden has raked in $1m+ from speeches – and Uncle Sam wants its cut, specifically, absolutely all of it

Edward Snowden has brought in a health $1.25m in speaking fees ever since he jumped on a plane to Hong Kong with a treasure trove of NSA secrets, a new court filing [PDF] has revealed.

The whistleblower, who exposed mass surveillance of American citizens and foreigners by the US government by handing over top-secret documents to journalists before escaping to Moscow, earns an average of $18,745 per engagement. And Uncle Sam wants it – all of it.

The Feds subpoenaed Snowden’s booking agent, American Program Bureau, based in Massachusetts, insisting on a full rundown of engagements it had booked him for. The prosecution has added the list of 67 speeches, complete with fees and clients, to its lawsuit seeking to strip Snowden of any money earned through his actions.

[…]

With the monetary value of Snowden’s speaking tours now laid out of the table, it’s hard not to imagine that Donald Trump doesn’t have a figure in mind.

The US government has already won the right to claim all royalties from Snowden’s book and speeches after a district court awarded it all proceeds. The lawyers are now trying to figure out what those sums are.

Snowden has refused formal requests to provide all relevant information about his earnings, resulting in a magistrate deciding that the government can effectively decide what he had earned. His publisher agreed to hand over royalties from his book, although not the advance it paid him to write it.

Source: Ed Snowden has raked in $1m+ from speeches – and Uncle Sam wants its cut, specifically, absolutely all of it • The Register

Amazingly though having revoked his passport you’d think they also revoked his tax paying requirements with it

Fortnight Has Laid a Perfect Antitrust Trap for Apple and Google

Everyone is mad about Apple’s App Store guidelines right now, especially when it comes to cloud gaming services. Microsoft isn’t bringing Project xCloud to iOS. Google’s Stadia app can’t let iPhone users actually play games. Facebook also had to axe the ability to play games for its Facebook Gaming iOS app to be allowed in the App Store. And that doesn’t even take into account the number of smaller, non-gaming app developers who have had their apps kicked out of the App Store after seemingly arbitrary enforcement of Apple’s guidelines. But Fortnite developer Epic Games took a bold step toward telling Apple what it thinks of the company’s App Store policies, possibly attempting a loophole to get around things. Fortnite has now been kicked out of both Apple and Google’s stores, and Epic is now suing Apple.

Yesterday, Epic Games introduced the ability to pay the company directly for V-Bucks in the Fortnite app on the App Store and in Google Play store for Android, bypassing the in-app payment methods in both apps. On top of that, Epic Games is giving users a 20% discount for using the direct payment method. According to Apple, in a statement to the Verge, this is in violation of App Store guidelines, which states that apps offering in-game currency for real money cannot use a direct payment method.

[…]

Before removal, a screenshot of the Fornite app on iOS clearly showed that users have the option to either purchase V-bucks through the App Store or send a direct payment to Epic Games.

“Today, we’re also introducing a new way to pay on iOS and Android: Epic direct payment. When you choose to use Epic direct payments, you save up to 20% as Epic passes along payment processing savings to you,” Epic Games announced in a press release this morning.

Illustration for article titled Fortnite May Have Just Laid the Perfect Antitrust Trap for Apple—and They Fell For It [Another Update: Google Just Kicked Fortnite Out of Its App Store, Too]
Image: Epic Games

Google’s policies also seem to prevent developers from using anything but an in-app payment system.

[…]

Epic Games pointed out that both Apple and Google collect a 30% fee, and that if users choose to pay through either store’s app they will not benefit from the 20% discount—hence the lower price on the direct payment option.

“If Apple or Google lower their fees on payments in the future, Epic will pass along the savings to you.”

Damn, Epic. Shots fired.

[…]

The problem for Apple is that both it and Google have policies related to purchases that are consumed outside of their respective app stores. Both allow users to make payments outside of the app.

[…]

Fortnite is available on multiple platforms: PC, Mac, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo Switch, Android, and iOS, and users can link their profiles together so they can play with the same account across all platforms. This means that someone could purchase V-Bucks through the Android and iOS apps and spend them at a later date from their console or PC. So technically those users appear to be purchasing “goods or services” that can be consumed outside of the app.

[…]

Epic has taken legal action to end Apple’s anti-competitive restrictions on mobile device marketplaces. The papers are available to read here.

From the legal filing: “Rather than tolerate this healthy competition and compete on the merits of its offering, Apple responded by removing Fortnite from sale on the App Store, which means that new users cannot download the app, and users who have already downloaded prior versions of the app from the App Store cannot update it to the latest version. This also means that Fortnite players who downloaded their app from the App Store will not receive updates to Fortnite through the App Store, either automatically or by searching the App Store for the update. Apple’s removal of Fortnite is yet another example of Apple flexing its enormous power in order to impose unreasonable restraints and unlawfully maintain its 100% monopoly over the iOS In-App Payment Processing Market.”

Source: Fortnight Has Laid a Perfect Antitrust Trap for Apple

And the fallout has been some compelling entertainment in these quarantine times: Apple swiftly kicked Fortnite from its store, then Epic struck back with a lawsuit and arranged an in-game event to screen a video satirizing Apple’s iconic 1984 commercial to mobilize its fanbase against the company, throwing in a #FreeFortnite hashtag to boot.

[…]

ust as it did with Apple, Epic Games has now filed a lawsuit against Google over alleged antitrust violations just hours after Fortnite was dropped from the Play Store. The suit alleges that Google’s stipulations about in-app purchases constitute a monopoly in clear violation of both the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act.

Epic’s complaint is nearly identical to the lawsuit against Apple that it filed earlier today following Fortnite’s removal from the company’s app store. Only the lawsuit’s introductions differ significantly, with the one against Apple referencing its aforementioned 1984 ad and the one against Google recalling the infamous “Don’t Be Evil” mantra the company was founded upon.

“Twenty-two years later, Google has relegated its motto to nearly an afterthought, and is using its size to do evil upon competitors, innovators, customers, and users in a slew of markets it has grown to monopolize,” the suit argues.

Source: Fortnite Booted from Google’s App Store Too [Update: Now Epic’s Suing Google Along With Apple]

Russia’s antitrust watchdog finds Apple abused App Store ‘dominance’

Following a year-long investigation into the company, Reuters reports Russia’s Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) has found the iPhone-maker abused its dominant position in the mobile app marketplace and will order Apple to resolve multiple regulatory breaches.

The agency started investigating the tech giant after developer Kaspersky Lab filed a complaint over the rejection of its Safe Kids app from the App Store. At the time, Apple said the software put “user’s safety and privacy at risk.” The agency ruled Apple forces developers to distribute to their apps through the App Store and then unlawfully blocks them. A spokesperson for Apple told Reuters the company plans to appeal the ruling.

The decision comes as Apple faces increasing scrutiny over its gatekeeping of the App Store in both the US and EU. When Tim Cook testified before the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee at the end of July, lawmakers asked the executive about the company’s decisions to block some competitors from its digital marketplace. Cook was also asked about the ongoing 30 percent cut the company takes from third-party app sales, a rate many developers argue is too high. Apple was again in the spotlight earlier this month after it said it would not allow Microsoft’s Project xCloud on iOS since its App Store guidelines require developers to submit games individually for review.

Source: Russia’s antitrust watchdog finds Apple abused App Store ‘dominance’ | Engadget

Trump says TikTok will be banned if not sold by Sept. 15, demands cut of sale fee because he made the deal possible. Extortion much?

President Trump said Monday that TikTok will be shut down in the U.S. if it hasn’t been bought by Microsoft or another company by Sept. 15, and argued — without elaborating — that the U.S. Treasury should get “a very substantial portion” of the sale fee.

Why it matters: Trump appears to have backed off his threat to immediately ban TikTok after speaking with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, who said Sunday that the company will pursue discussions with TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance to purchase the app in the U.S.

The big picture: TikTok has come under intense scrutiny in the U.S. due to concerns that the vast amounts of data it collects could be accessed by the Chinese government, potentially posing a national security threat.

  • Negotiations between TikTok and Microsoft will be overseen by a special government panel called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), Reuters reports.

What he’s saying: Trump appeared to suggest on Monday that Microsoft would have to pay the U.S. government in order to complete the deal, but did not explain the precedent for such an action. He also argued that Microsoft should buy all of TikTok, not just 30% of the company.

  • “I don’t mind if, whether it’s Microsoft or somebody else, a big company, a secure company, a very American company, buy it. It’s probably easier to buy the whole thing than to buy 30% of it. How do you do 30%? Who’s going to get the name? The name is hot, the brand is hot,” Trump said.
  • “A very substantial portion of that price is going to have to come into the Treasury of the United States. Because we’re making it possible for this deal to happen. Right now they don’t have any rights, unless we give it to them. So if we’re going to give them the rights, it has to come into this country. It’s a little bit like the landlord/tenant,” he added.

Our thought bubble, via Axios’ Dan Primack: Trump’s inexplicable claim that part of Microsoft’s purchase price would have to go to the Treasury is skating very close to announcing extortion.

Source: Trump says TikTok will be banned if not sold by Sept. 15, demands cut of sale fee – Axios

New York unveils landmark antitrust bill that makes it easier to sue tech giants

New York state is introducing a bill that would make it easier to sue big tech companies for alleged abuses of their monopoly powers.

New York is America’s financial center and one of its most important tech hubs. If successfully passed, the law could serve as a model for future legislation across the country. It also comes as a federal committee is conducting an anti-trust investigation into tech giants amid concerns that their unmatched market power is suppressing competition.

Bill S8700A, now being discussed by New York’s senate consumer protection committee, would update New York’s antiquated antitrust laws for the 21st century, said the bill’s sponsor, Senator Mike Gianaris.

“Their power has grown to dangerous levels and we need to start reining them in,” he said.

New York’s antitrust laws currently require two players to collaborate in a conspiracy to conduct anticompetitive behavior such as price setting. In other cases companies may underprice products to the point where they are even incurring a loss just to drive others out of the market – anticompetitive behavior that New York’s laws would currently struggle to prosecute.

“Our laws on antitrust in New York are a century old and they were built for a completely different economy,” said Gianaris. “Much of the problem today in the 21st century is unilateral action by some of these behemoth tech companies and this bill would allow, for the first time, New York to engage in antitrust enforcement for unilateral action.”

The bill will probably be discussed when New York’s senate returns to work in August but is unlikely to pass before next year. It has the support of New York’s attorney general, Letitia James.

Source: New York unveils landmark antitrust bill that makes it easier to sue tech giants | Technology | The Guardian

NRA riddled with Fraud. Investigation Moves NY AG To Seek Group’s Dissolution

The attorney general of New York took action Thursday to dissolve the National Rifle Association following an 18-month investigation that found evidence the powerful gun rights group is “fraught with fraud and abuse.”

Attorney General Letitia James claims in a lawsuit filed Thursday that she found financial misconduct in the millions of dollars and that it contributed to a loss of more than $64 million over a three-year period.

The suit alleges that top NRA executives misused charitable funds for personal gain, awarded contracts to friends and family members, and provided contracts to former employees to ensure loyalty.

Seeking to dissolve the NRA is the most aggressive sanction James could have sought against the not-for-profit organization, which James has jurisdiction over because it is registered in New York. James has a wide range of authorities relating to nonprofits in the state, including the authority to force organizations to cease operations or dissolve. The NRA is all but certain to contest it.

The NRA said in a statement that the legal action was political, calling it a “baseless premeditated attack on our organization and the Second Amendment freedoms it fights to defend… we not only will not shrink from this fight – we will confront it and prevail.”

“The NRA’s influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets,” James said in a statement. “The NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse, which is why, today, we seek to dissolve the NRA, because no organization is above the law.”

James’ complaint names the National Rifle Association as a whole but also names four current and former NRA executives: Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, general counsel John Frazer, former Chief Financial Officer Woody Phillips and former chief of staff Joshua Powell.

Source: NRA Lawsuit: Fraud Investigation Moves New York AG To Seek Group’s Dissolution : NPR

Well, my thoughts and prayers go out to you, NRA and all your gun nut psycho killer friends.

Spotify CEO Daniel Ek says working musicians may no longer be able to release music only “once every three to four years” – they will have to work just like the rest of us

Spotify CEO Daniel Ek discussed streaming and sustainability in a recent interview with Music Ally published on Thursday. Ek denied criticisms that Spotify pays insufficient royalties to artists, and insisted that the role of the musician had changed in today’s “future landscape.”

Ek claimed that a “narrative fallacy” had been created and caused music fans to believe that Spotify doesn’t pay musicians enough for streams of their music. “Some artists that used to do well in the past may not do well in this future landscape,” Ek said, “where you can’t record music once every three to four years and think that’s going to be enough.”

What is required from successful musicians, Ek insisted, is a deeper, more consistent, and prolonged commitment than in the past. “The artists today that are making it realize that it’s about creating a continuous engagement with their fans. It is about putting the work in, about the storytelling around the album, and about keeping a continuous dialogue with your fans.”

Source: Spotify CEO Daniel Ek says working musicians may no longer be able to release music only “once every three to four years” | The FADER

A business model where you work a few weeks a year untill you can just coast along on royalties is wrong on so many levels.

YouTube threatens to remove music videos in Denmark over songwriter royalty fallout

YouTube is embroiled in a very public spat with songwriters and music publishers in Denmark, via local collection society Koda.

According to Koda – Denmark’s equivalent of ASCAP/BMI (US) or PRS For Music (UK) – YouTube has threatened to remove “Danish music content” (ie. music written by Danish songwriters) from its service.

The cause of this threat is a disagreement between the two parties over the remuneration of songwriters and publishers in the market.

YouTube and Koda’s last multi-year licensing deal expired in April. Since then, the two parties have been operating under a temporary license agreement.

At the same time, Polaris, the umbrella body for collection societies in the Nordics, has been negotiating with YouTube over a new Scandinavia-wide licensing agreement.

But in a statement to media today (July 31), Koda claims YouTube is insisting that – in order to extend its temporary deal in Denmark – Koda must now agree to a near-70% reduction in payments to composers and songwriters.

YouTube has fired back at this claim, suggesting that under its existing temporary deal with Koda (which expires today), the body “earned back less than half of the guarantee payments” handed over by the service.

[…] wait – how on earth does a guarantee payment relate to the amount you renumerate people?

In response to Koda’s refusal to agree to YouTube’s proposed deal, Koda claims that “on the evening of Thursday 30 July, Google announced that they will soon remove all Danish music content on YouTube”.

Reports out of Denmark suggest YouTube may pull the plug on this content as soon as this Saturday.

[…]

“While we’ve had productive conversations we have been unable to secure a fair and equitable agreement before our existing one expired. They are asking for substantially more than what we pay our other partners. This is not only unfair to our other YouTube partners and creators, it is unhealthy for the wider economics of our industry.

“Without a new license, we’re unable to make their content available in Denmark.  Our doors remain open to Koda to bring their content back to YouTube.”

YouTube added in a statement to MBW: “We take copyright law very seriously. As our license expires today and since we have been unable to secure an agreement we will remove identified Koda content from the platform.”

Koda says it “cannot accept” YouTube’s terms, and that as a result “Google have now unilaterally decided that Koda’s members cannot have their content shown on YouTube”.

[…]

Koda’s media director, Kaare Struve, said: “Google have always taken an ‘our way or the highway’ approach, but even for Google, this is a low point.

“Of course, Google know that they can create enormous frustration among our members by denying them access to YouTube – and among the many Danes who use YouTube every day.

“We can only suppose that by doing so, YouTube hope to be able to push through an agreement, one where they alone dictate all terms.”

Koda says that ever since its first agreement with YouTube was signed in 2013, “the level of payments received from YouTube has been significantly lower than the level of payment [distributed] by subscription-based services”.

Koda’s CEO, Gorm Arildsen, said: “It is no secret that our members have been very dissatisfied with the level of payment received for the use of their music on YouTube for many years now. And it’s no secret that we at Koda have actively advocated putting an end to the tech giants’ free-ride approach and underpayment for artistic content in connection with the EU’s new Copyright Directive.

“The fact that Google now demands that the payments due from them should be reduced by almost 70% in connection with a temporary contract extension seems quite bizarre.”

[…]

Source: YouTube threatens to remove music videos in Denmark over songwriter royalty fallout – Music Business Worldwide

Well guys, I reccommend you move over to Vimeo. At least that way you’re helping to break the monopoly. Not that I believe in the slightest that Koda is working in the best interests of artists as much as it’s filling its’ own pockets, but there you go.

Telegram hits out at Apple’s app store ‘tax’ in latest EU antitrust complaint

Apple has another antitrust charge on its plate. Messaging app Telegram has joined Spotify in filing a formal complaint against the iOS App Store in Europe — adding its voice to a growing number of developers willing to publicly rail against what they decry as Apple’s app “tax”.

A spokesperson for Telegram confirmed the complaint to TechCrunch, pointing us to this public Telegram post where founder, Pavel Durov, sets out seven reasons why he thinks iPhone users should be concerned about the company’s behavior.

These range from the contention that Apple’s 30% fee on app developers leads to higher prices for iPhone users; to censorship concerns, given Apple controls what’s allowed (and not allowed) on its store; to criticism of delays to app updates that flow from Apple’s app review process; to the claim that the app store structure is inherently hostile to user privacy, given that Apple gets full visibility of which apps users are downloading and engaging with.

This week Durov also published a blog post in which he takes aim at a number of “myths” he says Apple uses to try to justify the 30% app fee — such as a claim that iOS faces plenty of competition for developers; or that developers can choose not to develop for iOS and instead only publish apps for Android.

“Try to imagine Telegram or TikTok as Android -only apps and you will quickly understand why avoiding Apple is impossible,” he writes. “You can’t just exclude iPhone users. As for the iPhone users, the costs for consumers to switch from an iPhone to an Android is so high that it qualifies as a monopolistic lock-in” — citing a study done by Yale University to bolster that claim.

“Now that anti-monopoly investigations against Apple have started in the EU and the US, I expect Apple to double down on spreading such myths,” Durov adds. “We shouldn’t sit idly and let Apple’s lobbyists and PR agents do their thing. At the end of the day, it is up to us – consumers and creators – to defend our rights and to stop monopolists from stealing our money. They may think they have tricked us into a deadlock, because we’ve already bought a critical mass of their devices and created a critical mass of apps for them. But we shouldn’t be giving them a free ride any longer.”

Source: Telegram hits out at Apple’s app store ‘tax’ in latest EU antitrust complaint | TechCrunch

Top antitrust Democrat: There’s a case to break up Facebook – The guys were rambling, the women clear. Apple dodges most bullets, CEOs acting like confused guilty schoolboys

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), who ended Wednesday’s hearing by saying some Big Tech companies need to be broken up, told Axios that Facebook in particular lacks significant competitors and should not have been allowed to buy Instagram and WhatsApp.

Why it matters: Cicilline chairs the antitrust subcommittee, which has been looking into competition issues in the digital space.

“Mr. Zuckerberg acknowledged in this hearing that his acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram were part of a plan to both buy a competitor and also maintain his money, power, or his dominance. That’s classic monopoly behavior.”

— Cicilline said on the “Axios Re:Cap” podcastCicilline’s criticisms weren’t limited to Facebook, pointing to the power Google and Amazon also hold in their respective markets.

  • “I think what we saw today was confirmation that these large technology platforms have enduring monopoly power,” he said in the interview with Axios’ Dan Primack.

The big picture: A key issue remains whether existing antitrust law is broad enough to address the modern tech industry, especially companies that provide their products at no direct charge to consumers.

  • “Congress is going to have to ‘think outside the box’ in a comprehensive way about what antitrust laws should look like in the 21st century,” Neguse told Axios’ Ashley Gold after the hearing.

What’s next: The committee plans to develop a set of recommendations and issue them in a final report as soon as late August, according to Cicilline.

You can listen to the podcast here.

Source: Top antitrust Democrat: There’s a case to break up Facebook – Axios

The antitrust session was quite bizarre – the CEOs were running with canned lines which made no sense in their context, they were stumbling, they refused to answer questions, even those which were favorible to their cause. Only one senator was clearly in the pocket of the big tech, the rest were firmly against. One male senator thought Google was targetting him personally and one male couldn’t understand why fake news sites didn’t get high search rankings and were banned by Facebook. It was a laugh if these companies didn’t wield such power. They raised almost all the points I raised in my talk last year.

Google offers refunds after North smart glasses stop working or why cloud sucks and you want things running locally

Smart glasses company North has told customers that their $600 (£460) purchases will stop working in a few days’ time.

The Canadian company, recently purchased by Google, says its Focals glasses will cease functioning on Friday.

From then, owners will not be able to use “any features” of the glasses, or connect to the companion app.

But the company has also said it will automatically refund all customers.

It promised to send the purchase price back to the original payment method, and to contact those customers whose refunds it could not process.

At the end of June, North announced it was being acquired by Google, and would not release a planned second-generation device.

It also said it would “wind down” its first generation smart glasses, released last year.

Customers found out that meant the smart glasses would be rendered “dumb” through a statement published on the company’s website and by email.

The Focals glasses, however, come with prescription lenses as an option, meaning they can function as everyday prescription eyewear. The bulky frames, housing a laser, battery, and other kit will no longer do anything that regular spectacles cannot do.

Ben Wood, chief analyst at CCS Insight, said the pulling of features from cloud-powered hardware is not uncommon – and something that has happened to him before.

“If you want to be an early adopter and have some fun new tech that an ambitious start-up has created, there’s always a risk that they won’t be able to make the business plan stack up,” he warned.

“That could either mean the service stops working or you end up finding you have to pay additional charges to maintain service continuity.”

Source: Google offers refunds after smart glasses stop working – BBC News

When a Customer Gets Refunded For a Paid App, Apple Doesn’t Refund the 30% Cut They Took From The Developer

When a customer gets refunded for an app they purchased, Apple doesn’t refund the 30% cut they took from the developer, says developer Simeon Saens of Two Lives Left. While [online] payment processors generally don’t refund fees on refunded payments, “the App Store doesn’t position itself as a payments processor the way Stripe does, so it sounds really weird that they would act like one,” writes HN user chadlavi. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney says in a tweet: This is a critical consideration in these 30% store fees. They come off the top, before funding any developer costs. As a result, Apple and Google make more profit from most developers’ games than the developers themselves. That is terribly unfair and exploitative. “If the app store took a 3% chunk and never refunded it regardless of the ongoing status of the transaction, that would put them right in line with other payment processors,” adds chadlavi. “It would also still net them billions of dollars, I think!”

Source: When a Customer Gets Refunded For a Paid App, Apple Doesn’t Refund the 30% Cut They Took From The Developer – Slashdot

Aside from that, 30% is an insane amount of cut to steal off someone with no other option but to use your marketplace.

Microsoft raised Apple’s app store with US house antitrust group

A US House antitrust committee is getting set to grill tech’s biggest CEOs, but Microsoft wants them to focus on one in particular: Apple’s Tim Cook. Microsoft President Brad Smith met with the committee several weeks ago and relayed concerns about how Apple manages its App Store, according to the The Information (via Bloomberg).

Smith complained specifically about Apple’s arbitrary App Store approval policy which recently caused a ruckus over the rejection of Basecamp’s Hey email app. He also railed against Apple’s payment requirement that allows it to take as much as a 30 percent cut of developers’ revenue. That policy is currently the subject of an EU antitrust investigation launched at the behest of Spotify.

The antitrust committee originally called Smith to get Microsoft’s take on the current antitrust climate, given that the company was the subject of US investigations in the 2000s. Smith said that Apple’s App Store rules impede competition to a much higher degree than Microsoft did with Windows when it was found guilty of antitrust violations two decades ago. Smith didn’t criticize other tech companies during the interview.

Apple has largely avoided the privacy-related investigations faced by Google and Facebook, but now finds itself in the middle of antitrust probes on both sides of the Atlantic. With its old frenemy Microsoft adding to the complaints, Apple could face a lot of heat when the House Judiciary Antitrust hearings kick off next Monday on July 27th.

Source: Microsoft raised Apple’s app store with US house antitrust group | Engadget

After talking about this since early 2019 it’s nice to see stuff actually happening

Epic Games CEO speaks out against Apple, Google app store monopoly

Tim Sweeney, CEO of Fortnite developer Epic Games, criticized Apple and Google for having an “absolute monopoly” on app stores in a Friday interview with CNBC. There aren’t many viable options for distributing mobile software outside the Apple App Store and the Google Play Store, and Sweeney chides both for taking a 30 percent fee from in-app purchases.

Epic Games launched the Epic Games Store in late 2018 for Windows and Mac computers, and only charges other publishers a 12 percent fee on in-app purchases. The Epic Games Store hasn’t made it to the App Store because of Apple’s strict guidelines against competing software stores.

“They [Apple] are preventing an entire category of businesses and applications from being engulfed in their ecosystem by virtue of excluding competitors from each aspect of their business that they’re protecting,” Sweeney said.

Epic previously made Fortnite available to Android devices not by offering it on the Google Play Store, but instead through a launcher on the Fortnite website that downloaded the game. This allowed Epic to sidestep the 30 percent fee from Google. But the download process was too involved for many users, so Fortnite eventually launched on Google Play earlier this year. Sweeney said the company still plans to bring the Epic Games Store to Android. “Google essentially intentionally stifles competing stores by having user interface barriers and obstruction,” Sweeney said.

Epic isn’t the first company to speak out against Apple and Google’s 30 percent fee. In March of last year, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek filed an unfair competition complaint against Apple with the European Commission, citing the fee as forcing them to artificially inflate the price of its Spotify Premium membership. Last July, Tinder introduced a default payment process into its Android app meant to bypass the Google Play Store fee.

Source: Epic Games CEO speaks out against Apple, Google app store ‘monopoly’ | Engadget

I have been talking about the growing monopoly of the tech giants since beginning of 2019

Ex-boss of ICANN shifts from ‘advisor’ to co-CEO of private equity biz that tried to buy .org for $1bn

The former head of DNS regulator ICANN has been named as co-CEO of a company that launched a controversial attempt to purchase the .org internet registry earlier this year. The news has again raised concerns over the revolving doors between regulators and those who need regulation.

In the past week, the website of Ethos Capital, the private equity firm that offered $1.13bn to take control of the popular .org registry, was updated to list ex-ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade as its joint head.

The change is significant because it was Chehade’s involvement in the attempted .org purchase that first alerted internet users that the deal deserved closer scrutiny.

The sale was ultimately vetoed several months later by ICANN, but only after the Attorney General of California got involved and sent a last-minute letter to LA-based ICANN telling it not to approve the deal in part due to the “lack of transparency” on Ethos Capital.

Part of that lack of transparency was who would actually own the .org registry after the sale: behind Ethos was a complex structure of no less than four shell companies that were all registered on the same day in Delaware with the prefix “Purpose Domains.” Ethos Capital refused to divulge who all the directors of those companies actually were despite repeat requests, including from ICANN, which had the power to refuse the sale.

Chehade’s close link to the proposed sale was only noticed because he had registered Ethos Capital’s .org domain name, EthosCapital.org, under his own name on May 7, 2019. The company Ethos Capital LLC was registered in Delaware one week later, on May 14, 2019.

All in the timing

That date is significant because May 13, 2019, the day before Ethos Capital was established, was the deadline for ICANN staff to publish a report on the controversial lifting of price caps on .org domains.

For the previous 20 years, the price of .org domains had been strictly limited by ICANN to a specific annual percentage increase. However, under reforms Chehade made as CEO of ICANN, prior to his departure in 2016, registries were allowed to request the caps be removed altogether when their current contract expired.

The company that runs .org, the Internet-Society-owned Public Internet Registry (PIR), had made that request for its contract expiring June 30, 2019, sparking a furious backlash from the internet community. ICANN public comment periods typically attract between five and 50 comments but when it came to the lifting of price caps on .org domains, there were over 3,200 responses of which more than 98 per cent were opposed to the idea.

That staff report of the comment period, due on May 13, was supposed to be an objective review of what the internet community has said; the internet community meanwhile, has long complained that ICANN’s staff frequently skew such reports to fit with a predetermined outcome.

The .org price cap issue was no exception, and despite overwhelming opposition, the staff report gave equal weight to the few comments in favor of the change as to the thousands opposed to it. It was clear that ICANN’s staff would recommend their board approve lifting the .org price caps: a decision that was potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of the new ten-year contract.

There are just over 10 million .org domains, and the registry is one of the oldest and most stable in the market. In 2019, PIR reported [PDF] a 78.2 per cent renewal rate, meaning that the vast majority of existing domain holders automatically renewed their names for another year (you can register domains for multiple years but roughly 70 per cent of people renew a domain every year). To put it into hard numbers, there were 6.9 million .org renewals in 2019.

License to print money

That extraordinary loyalty rate, believed to be the highest in the domain industry, is what makes .org so valuable. Many organizations have built their websites and online reputation on .org domains for a decade or more, and domain names are incredibly cheap (roughly $10 a year) when compared to the enormous costs associated with moving to a different online home.

That makes the .org registry home to over eight million domain registrants who would likely pay many multiples of the current annual cost to keep their name. Even if PIR doubled its price from $10 to $20, the renewal rate would be unlikely to fall very much, resulting in an additional $69m in revenue, or thereabouts, just for that one year. In short, the .org registry without price caps was a money-printing machine.

Chehade was clearly following the issue closely, and the day after the staff report deadline, Ethos Capital – the private equity outfit that would a few months later approach the owner of the .org registry, the Internet Society – was registered in Delaware.

What makes this timeline all the more peculiar is that it isn’t clear that the staff report was actually published on Monday, May 13, 2019. Due to the volume of comments, ICANN’s staff asked for, and were granted, an extension. And so the final report that those outside the domain industry saw for the first time was published [PDF] three weeks later on June 3, 2019.

Did the former CEO of ICANN use his many connections with staff, many of whom he had hired and promoted, to get an early copy of the staff report? And is that why when Ethos Capital was named as the company trying to buy the .org registry there was no mention of Chehade’s close connection?

Despite the evidence and repeat requests, Ethos Capital refused to acknowledge Chehade’s involvement, even when he was spotted at the PIR offices, shortly after the deal was announced, with Ethos Capital CEO Erik Brooks, a former business partner, to discuss the acquisition.

Oh, that Chehade?

Eventually, Ethos Capital admitted its relationship with Chehade several months later in January in response to very specific questions posed by ICANN about the deal. On page 25 of a 27-page response [PDF] from Ethos, it answered a request that it name “former directors, officers or employees of ICANN that are or have been involved in, have advised on or otherwise have an interest in the transaction.”

And it named Nora Abusitta-Ouri, Chehade’s former personal assistant who had worked with him at previous companies; Allen Grogan, whom Chehade had hired to be ICANN’s head of compliance, and Fadi Chehade himself. They were “acting as advisors to Ethos Capital,” the company insisted, and provided no more details. Grogan, incidentally, is now listed as an Ethos Capital “executive partner” on its website.

It’s possible that Chehade’s connections with the CEOs of PIR, Jon Nevett, and the Internet Society, Andrew Sullivan, that made the dot-org takeover even remotely possible. It was always going to be a hard sell – as was made clear from the response when the deal, which had been green-lit in secret and in record time by the Internet Society and PIR boards, was announced.

When the Internet Society revealed that it was not only selling .org to a private equity firm but would also change PIR’s status from a non-profit organization to a for-profit one as part of the deal, the internet community and .org registrants were stunned. And then outraged.

Chehade had had plenty of time to work out the details and he knew the key person, PIR CEO Jonathon Nevett, extremely well. Nevett was co-founder of registry operator Donuts and had been a persistent presence in the domain name industry for years, many of them when Chehade was head of the industry’s regulator. The connection continued after Chehade left ICANN.

When Nevett sold Donuts in 2018 to Abry Partners, it was in a deal that was brokered by… Fadi Chehade and Erik Brooks. Within a few months, Nevett became CEO of PIR. And his position at Donuts was taken by another long-term Chehade business associate Akram Atallah, who had taken over as interim CEO of ICANN after Chehade left.

Contractual terms

As for the also-new CEO of the Internet Society, Andrew Sullivan, he had previously worked at Afilias, which runs the technical back-end of .org for the Internet Society’s PIR, and was the person responsible more than any other of helping the Internet Society win the contract to run .org 20 years previously. More than 80 per cent of the Internet Society’s annual revenue comes from the sale of .org domains.

Chehade was the connection between all these men who pushed through a proposal that the internet community, .org registrants, the internet society chapters, not to mention a former CEO and the former chair of ICANN, and US senators all condemned in the strongest terms.

Eventually it took the Attorney General of California, and an explicit threat to audit the notoriously secretive non-profit organization based in Los Angeles, to push ICANN off the .org sell-off and refuse it.

As for why Chehade persisted in only being an advisor to Ethos Capital when he almost certainly helped establish the company, filled it with his old staff, and was the point person for the entire deal, the answer to that may be in responses to questions put to the Internet Society and PIR about when they were first approached about a possible sale of .org.

“The Internet Society was first approached by Ethos Capital in September,” the organization told us in an official statement in response to our questions about interactions and timing of the deal. When PIR was asked the same question, its CEO Jon Nevett answered that he had no knowledge of any planned sale to Ethos Capital when he took over the CEO job in December 2018, or when his organization decided to formally ask for pricing caps to be lifted.

But of course, Ethos Capital only formally existed in May 2019. And Fadi Chehade was not a representative of Ethos Capital, merely an advisor, until last week when he suddenly became co-CEO. As to conversations Chehade may have had with his former staff to smooth the path of the billion-dollar sale, ICANN continues to refuse to supply records of staff or board communications, citing confidentiality.

Source: Ex-boss of ICANN shifts from ‘advisor’ to co-CEO of private equity biz that tried to buy .org for $1bn+ • The Register

Microsoft’s Doing the Monopoly Thing Again, Slack Says

Workplace messaging software company Slack is accusing Microsoft of monopoly behavior in an antitrust complaint filed today to European Union regulators. Unsurprisingly, the accusations hinge on the same practice that helped make Microsoft rich in the first place.

Bill Gates, Windows, innovation, yes, yes, OK—undoubtedly Microsoft had a lot to contribute to the early years of home computing. But what helped it grow to mammoth scale was software bundling: specifically, the practice of getting its products pre-installed on brand new machines built by third parties—and making it hard to delete those programs and replace them with competitors.

You might remember this refrain from such hits as United States v. Microsoft Corporation, and Microsoft Corp. vs. Commission, the latter of which eventually cost the company over a billion dollars after it became “the first company in 50 years of EU competition policy that the Commission has had to fine for failure to comply with an antitrust decision,” according to the European Commission’s then-Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes.

Kind of makes you wonder how Apple still gets away with setting Safari as the default browser on iOS devices, but I digress…

While those early cases against Microsoft focused on software like Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player, Slack’s new legal salvo concerns the company’s bundling of competing chat app Teams with its ubiquitous productivity suite Microsoft Office. In a press release, Slack accused its rival of “force installing it for millions, blocking its removal, and hiding the true cost to enterprise customers,” which Slack believes to be an “illegal and anti-competitive practice.”

“We’re confident that we win on the merits of our product, but we can’t ignore illegal behavior that deprives customers of access to the tools and solutions they want,” said Jonathan Prince, vice president of communications and policy at Slack. “Slack threatens Microsoft’s hold on business email, the cornerstone of Office, which means Slack threatens Microsoft’s lock on enterprise software.”

Reached for comment, a Microsoft spokesperson sniped that “we created Teams to combine the ability to collaborate with the ability to connect via video, because that’s what people want. With COVID-19, the market has embraced Teams in record numbers while Slack suffered from its absence of video-conferencing. We’re committed to offering customers not only the best of new innovation, but a wide variety of choice in how they purchase and use the product.”

The merits of the case will be decided by the Commission, but the existence of the suit is a smart play for Slack, which has seen its stock slip recently, perhaps as a result of Teams’s encroachment on its market share. The EU has consistently had a greater appetite to pursue antitrust concerns compared to the U.S., where both companies are headquartered, making it a doubly clever play for the considerably smaller and more vulnerable party.

Source: Microsoft’s Doing the Monopoly Thing Again, Slack Says

Amazon Met With Startups About Investing, Then Launched Competing Products

When Amazon.com’s venture-capital fund invested in DefinedCrowd, it gained access to the technology startup’s finances and other confidential information. Nearly four years later, in April, Amazon’s cloud-computing unit launched an artificial-intelligence product that does almost exactly what DefinedCrowd does, said DefinedCrowd founder and Chief Executive Daniela Braga. The new offering from Amazon Web Services, called A2I, competes directly “with one of our bread-and-butter foundational products” that collects and labels data, said Ms. Braga. After seeing the A2I announcement, Ms. Braga limited the Amazon fundâ(TM)s access to her company’s data and diluted its stake by 90% by raising more capital. Ms. Braga is one of more than two dozen entrepreneurs, investors and deal advisers interviewed by The Wall Street Journal who said Amazon appeared to use the investment and deal-making process to help develop competing products.

In some cases, Amazon’s decision to launch a competing product devastated the business in which it invested. In other cases, it met with startups about potential takeovers, sought to understand how their technology works, then declined to invest and later introduced similar Amazon-branded products, according to some of the entrepreneurs and investors. An Amazon spokesman said the company doesn’t use confidential information that companies share with it to build competing products. Dealing with Amazon is often a double-edged sword for entrepreneurs. Amazon’s size and presence in many industries, including cloud-computing, electronic devices and logistics, can make it beneficial to work with. But revealing too much information could expose companies to competitive risks.

Source: Amazon Met With Startups About Investing, Then Launched Competing Products – Slashdot

I have been talking about the vast market powers of the monopolists and exactly this case with Amazon since early 2019

Google aims at Amazon and fires: List your products on Google Shopping for free

we’re advancing our plans to make it free for merchants to sell on Google. Beginning next week, search results on the Google Shopping tab will consist primarily of free listings, helping merchants better connect with consumers, regardless of whether they advertise on Google. With hundreds of millions of shopping searches on Google each day, we know that many retailers have the items people need in stock and ready to ship, but are less discoverable online.

For retailers, this change means free exposure to millions of people who come to Google every day for their shopping needs. For shoppers, it means more products from more stores, discoverable through the Google Shopping tab. For advertisers, this means paid campaigns can now be augmented with free listings. If you’re an existing user of Merchant Center and Shopping ads, you don’t have to do anything to take advantage of the free listings, and for new users of Merchant Center, we’ll continue working to streamline the onboarding process over the coming weeks and months.

These changes will take effect in the U.S. before the end of April, and we aim to expand this globally before the end of the year. Our help center has more details on how to participate in free product listings and Shopping ads.

We’re also kicking off a new partnership with PayPal to allow merchants to link their accounts. This will speed up our onboarding process and ensure we’re surfacing the highest quality results for our users. And we’re continuing to work closely with many of our existing partners that help merchants manage their products and inventory, including Shopify, WooCommerce, and BigCommerce, to make digital commerce more accessible for businesses of all sizes.

Source: List your products on Google Shopping for free – The Keyword