Tag Archives: proposals

Australians Could Soon Download iPhone Apps from External App Stores Under New Federal Government Proposals

Posted on by
Reply

Soon, Australians will have the opportunity to download apps from sources outside the Apple App Store and circumvent additional fees on iPhone purchases, thanks to a proposal from the federal government. However, tech companies have expressed concerns that competition regulations similar to those in the EU might jeopardize security and adversely affect competition.

Currently, Australian users can’t subscribe to services like Netflix or Spotify through the iOS app. Additionally, Google imposes a premium for YouTube subscriptions via the App Store, while Amazon does not permit Kindle users to buy e-books through the app.

The reason for this is that Apple imposes a fee of up to 30% on in-app purchases, significantly impacting high-grossing apps. Due to Apple’s policies, companies are restricted from guiding customers on alternative purchase methods.

In released papers last November, the government proposed to “designate” digital platforms like the Apple App Store.

This would compel these platforms to meet obligations aimed at mitigating what the government perceives as anti-competitive practices.

The document underscores Apple’s preferred in-app payment structure as an example of behaviors that regulatory entities could target. This would facilitate users downloading apps from outside the official app store, a process known as sideloading.

In response to the proposal, Apple cautioned that the government should refrain from adopting the EU digital market as a “blueprint” for its strategy.


Apple stated, “DMA demands adjustments to Apple’s ecosystem, which may elevate privacy and security threats to users, create opportunities for malware, fraud, and expose users to illegal or harmful content.”

The company asserted that the 30% fee applies only to the highest-grossing apps, emphasizing that about 90% of transactions on iOS apps do not incur Apple’s cut. Many developers reported being charged a lower fee of 15%.

Apple has also expressed concerns about sideloading apps, highlighting security issues that could arise if users install apps without any vetting process. The EU indicated that such apps could include explicit content or tools for copyright violations.

This process would enable users to download apps on MacBooks and other conventional computing devices. Conversely, the Android platform accommodates sideloading apps and third-party transactions outside the Google Play Store.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Apple has also indicated that the DMA is responsible for delaying the rollout of its AI features.

Foad Fadaghi, managing director and principal analyst at Telsyte, mentioned that while opening the Apple platform could benefit some users, the majority are unlikely to alter their usage of the iPhone.

“Users may have concerns about enhancing security and privacy with Apple devices. In many cases, we select lockdown mode as the default,” he noted.

Australia isn’t isolated in this regard; Apple faces restrictions and legal challenges surrounding its App Store controls in Asia, Europe, and the US. The company adheres to local regulations but resists pressure to maintain uniform App Store practices globally. Apple previously modified its hardware worldwide to comply with EU regulations mandating a USB-C connector.

The government has yet to announce the next steps in this process, and the Ministry of Finance has not yet released submissions to the paper.

The federal court ruling regarding Epic Games’ lawsuit against Google concerning App Store practices is still pending nearly a year after the hearing concluded.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa Join Forces to Challenge Starmer’s AI Copyright Proposals

Posted on by
Reply

Numerous prominent figures and organizations from the UK’s creative sector, such as Coldplay, Paul McCartney, Dua Lipa, Ian McKellen, and the Royal Shakespeare Company, have called on the Prime Minister to safeguard artists’ copyright rather than cater to Big Tech’s interests.

In an open letter addressed to Keir Starmer, many notable artists express that their creative livelihoods are at risk. This concern arises from ongoing discussions regarding a government initiative that would permit artificial intelligence companies to utilize copyrighted works without consent.

The letter characterizes copyright as the “lifeline” of their profession, cautioning in a highlighted message that the proposed legislative change may jeopardize the UK’s status as a key player in the creative industry.

“Catering to a select few dominant foreign tech firms risks undermining our growth potential, as it threatens our future income, our position as a creative leader, and diminishes the value and legal standards we hold dear,” the letter asserts.

The letter encourages the government to accept amendments to the data bill suggested by crossbench peers and prominent advocate Beavan Kidron. Kidron, who spearheaded the artists’ letter, is advocating for changes that would necessitate AI firms to disclose the copyrighted works they incorporate into their models.

A united call to lawmakers across the political spectrum in both houses is made to push for reform: “We urge you to vote in favor of the UK’s creative sector. Supporting our creators is crucial for future generations. Our creations are not for your appropriation.”

With representation spanning music, theater, film, literature, art, and media, over 400 signatories include notable names like Elton John, the Isiglo River, Annie Lennox, Rachel Whitehead, Janet Winterson, the National Theatre, and the News Media Association.

The proposed Kidron amendment is set for Senate voting on Monday, yet the government has already declared its opposition, asserting that the current consultation process is adequate for discussing modifications to copyright law aimed at protecting creators’ rights.

Under current government proposals, AI companies are permitted to utilize copyrighted materials without authorization unless copyright holders actively “opt out” by demonstrating their refusal to allow their work to be utilized without proper compensation.

Giles Martin, a music producer and son of Beatles producer George Martin, mentioned to the Guardian that the opt-out proposal may be impractical for emerging artists.

“When Paul McCartney wrote ‘Yesterday’, his first thought was about ‘how to record this,’ not ‘how to prevent people from stealing it,'” Martin remarked.

Kidron pointed out that the letter’s signatories are advocating to secure a positive future for the upcoming generation of creators and innovators.

Supporters of the Kidron Amendment argue that this change will ensure that creatives receive fair compensation for the use of their work in training AI models through licensing agreements.

Generation AI models refer to the technology powering robust tools like ChatGPT and SUNO music creation tools, which require extensive data training to produce outputs. The primary sources of this data encompass online platforms, including Wikipedia, YouTube, newspaper articles, and digital book archives.

The government has introduced an amendment to the data bill that will commit to conducting economic impact assessments regarding the proposal. A source close to technology secretary Peter Kyle indicated to the Guardian that the opt-out system is no longer his preferred approach.

The official site is evaluating four options. The other three alternatives to the “opt-out” scenario include requiring AI companies to obtain licenses for using copyrighted works and enabling AI firms to utilize such works without creators or individuals needing to opt out.

A spokesperson for the government stated: “Uncertainty surrounding the copyright framework is hindering the growth of the AI and creative sectors. This cannot continue, but it’s evident that changes will not be considered unless they thoroughly benefit creators.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Google’s Chief Warns That Breakup Proposals Could Be Challenging for Business

Posted on by
Reply

On Wednesday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai addressed a federal judge, stating that the government’s plan to dissolve the company would significantly obstruct its operations as it seeks to implement changes to remedy alleged illegal monopolies in online search.

Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled last year that Google had violated laws to sustain its search monopoly. This month, he held a hearing to establish a remedy for addressing these unlawful practices.

As the company’s second witness, Pichai argued against aggressive governmental solutions, including the sale of Google’s widely-used Chrome web browser and mandates to share data with competitors. He expressed concern that such proposals would force the company to scale back on investments in new technologies in order to redistribute profits to rivals with minimal fees.

“No combination of bailouts can replace what we have invested in R&D over the past three decades and our ongoing innovation to enhance Google search,” he stated, referring to research and development.

Pichai is expected to testify throughout a landmark three-week hearing. The tech industry is currently racing to develop internet products powered by artificial intelligence, and new restrictions on Google’s business could energize its competitors and hinder its own progress.

This case against Google marks the first substantial examination of the U.S. government’s efforts to rein in the extensive power held by commercial entities in the online information landscape. Recently, a federal judge in Virginia concluded that Google also holds a monopoly over various online advertising technologies.

The Federal Trade Commission is engaged in a legal battle with Meta, scrutinizing whether the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp unlawfully diminished competition. Additional federal antitrust actions against Apple and Amazon are anticipated in the coming years.

The Justice Department initiated a lawsuit against Google regarding search practices during President Trump’s first term in 2020.

At the 2023 trial, government attorneys contended that Google has effectively highjacked other search engines by compensating companies like Apple, Samsung, and Mozilla to ensure that its search engine appears as the default on browsers and smartphones. Evidence submitted indicated that this amounted to $26.3 billion in payments in 2021.

In August, Judge Mehta expressed opposition towards the company. Last week, he conducted a three-week hearing aimed at determining an appropriate relief strategy.

The Department of Justice’s suggestions are extensive. The government has asserted that Google must divest Chrome since user queries are automatically directed to its search engine.

During approximately 90 minutes of testimony, Pichai emphasized the company’s significant investments in Chrome, citing its effectiveness in safeguarding users against cyber threats. When government attorneys probed whether future browser owners would manage cybersecurity, Pichai responded assertively, drawing on his deep knowledge of the field.

“Based on my extensive expertise and the understanding of other companies’ capabilities regarding web security, I can confidently discuss this,” he noted.

The government also desires that Google provide search result data to its rivals, a move that would grant other search engines access to information about user searches and clicked websites.

Pichai criticized the proposal for mandatory data sharing, suggesting it effectively threatens the company’s intellectual property, enabling others to reverse-engineer its comprehensive technology stack.

In contrast, Google’s proposal is more limited. He stated that the company should be permitted to continue compensating other businesses for search engine placements, with some arrangements open for annual renegotiation. He also emphasized that smartphone manufacturers should have greater autonomy in selecting which Google applications to install on their devices.

Judge Mehta inquired how other search engines might compete with Google.

“We can hardly rely on the notion that ‘the best product wins,'” Pichai later remarked.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Trump refuses Medicare proposals to include Wegovy and other medications for obesity

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration rejected the Biden plan on Friday, which proposed Medicare and Medicaid covering obesity drugs and increasing access to millions of people.

The Biden administration’s proposal aimed to circumvent the ban on Medicare paying for weight loss drugs by claiming they would treat diseases related to obesity.

Expanding drug coverage would cost the federal government billions of dollars, with an estimated cost of around $35 billion over a decade according to the Congressional Budget Office Estimates.

The decision was part of a larger set of regulations contained in a 438-page document aimed at updating Medicare benefits and private insurance plans used by about half of Medicare beneficiaries.

Catherine Howden, a spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, stated that the agency did not believe it was appropriate at the time to approve the Biden plan.

Medicare currently covers a limited set of weight loss medications for individuals with specific health conditions, such as diabetes and heart problems.

The Biden plan aimed to extend coverage to obese patients without these specific diseases, with an estimated 3.4 million people potentially benefiting from the policy.

Popular weight loss pills like Wegovy by Eli Lilly and other related products are now available at reduced prices to patients paying out of pocket.

Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk offer discounts for their products to patients paying out of pocket instead of through insurance, significantly reducing the cost for individuals.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. criticized weight loss pills, advocating for a diet of healthy foods instead.

Clinical trials have shown benefits of weight loss drugs beyond just weight loss, including preventing heart attacks and strokes.

Supporters of expanded drug coverage argue that the long-term health benefits will outweigh the costs, potentially reducing overall medical expenses. However, the realization of such savings remains uncertain.

States’ Medicaid programs now have the option to decide whether to cover obesity drugs or not, with some already opting to provide coverage. If the Biden policy had been implemented, all states would have been required to provide coverage.

The exact cost of obesity drugs for Medicare and Medicaid patients is undisclosed, but it is estimated to be several hundred dollars per patient per month.

Many employers and private health insurance plans do not cover weight loss drugs, leading some to discontinue coverage due to high costs.

Patients without insurance often rely on cheaper generic versions of drugs created through compounding, costing less than $200 a month. However, regulators are phasing out this option due to improved supply of branded products.

Congressional Republicans have shown some interest in urging Medicare to cover weight loss drugs, although this is not a current priority. Negotiations with Novo Nordisk for lower drug prices under a 2022 law have been initiated, with reduced prices scheduled to start in 2027 for eligible individuals.

Source: www.nytimes.com