- Microsoft released a set of 10 app store principles designed to ensure fairness and healthy competition in Windows 10 and the Microsoft Store.
- While these principles won’t require much change for the company, they are significant because they are aimed at sending a message to Apple, which has been repeatedly criticized for anti-competitive and unfair practices in its app store.
- This makes Microsoft the largest company to go after the Apple app store, as it joins the likes of Spotify and Epic Games, which are already members of the Coalition For App Fairness. Microsoft’s 10 principles are very similar to principles that the coalition has laid out.
- Apple has defended itself, claiming that its app store is fair and competitive, and adding that it created an open marketplace for app developers.
Microsoft’s New Principles
In an apparent shot at Apple, Microsoft released a set of principles for its app store on Thursday, calling for app stores everywhere to be more competitive and fair.
“For software developers, app stores have become a critical gateway to some of the world’s most popular digital platforms,” Rima Alaily, Microsoft’s Vice President and Deputy General Counsel wrote in a blog post. “We and others have raised questions and, at times, expressed concerns about app stores on other digital platforms. However, we recognize that we should practice what we preach.”
The post went on to list 10 principles aimed to promote choice, fairness, and innovation on Windows 10 and in the Microsoft store. Those principles include Microsoft not blocking competing app stores on Windows, not blocking an app based on a developer’s business model or how it delivers content, not blocking apps based on the payment system a developer uses for in-app purchases, and giving developers access to information about the interoperability interfaces used on Windows.
These first four principles are designed to preserve freedom of choice and keep competition alive on Windows 10 in third party app stores. Alaily wrote that this offers different pricing options and distribution choices to developers as they distribute their apps across the internet.
The remaining principles are meant to ensure that developers are all subject to the same standards and prevent Microsoft from favoring itself. This includes holding developers equally accountable for safety and privacy, not forcing developers to sell anything on their app they do not want to, allowing developers to communicate with their users on business terms, and making sure Microsoft does not use private data to compete with developers.
These rules will not apply to the Xbox Store. According to Alaily, game consoles are specialised and run on a different ecosystem and business model than PCs or phones. Therefore, these principles would not be practical for Xbox.
Apple’s Anti-competitive Behavior
These principles will not require massive changes at Microsoft because Windows 10 is already an open platform, but constant references in the blog post to “other app stores” show that these rules are a clear nudge to Apple, which has been repeatedly criticized for anti-competitive behavior on its app store.
Earlier this week, a House subcommittee released a report accusing Apple and other major tech companies, notably not Microsoft, of abusing monopoly powers and engaging in anti-competitive tactics. When it came to Apple, the report’s findings largely had to do with its app store. The report said that while Apple’s ecosystem has significant benefits for both app developers and customers, the company still functions on an extreme and controlling bias.
The subcommittee wrote that this control over the app store creates barriers for competition and allows Apple to discriminate against rivals so they can instead promote their own apps.
“Apple also uses its power to exploit app developers through misappropriation of competitively sensitive information and to charge app developers supra-competitive prices within the App Store,” the report said. “Apple has maintained its dominance due to the presence of network effects, high barriers to entry, and high switching costs in the mobile operating system market.”
The report also noted that Apple, along with Google, charges developers a 30% commission on paid apps. While Apple claims this is an industry-standard, according to the report, this standard was actually established by Apple back in 2009.
Coalition For App Fairness
Microsoft is far from the first tech company to go after Apple’s app store practices, but it is the largest. The principles the company laid out borrow from policies laid out by The Coalition for App Fairness, whose members include Spotify, Epic Games, and Match Group. On its website, the coalition says that the tech giant is ruled by anti-competitive practices.
“Apple uses its control of the iOS operating system to favor itself by controlling the products and features that are available to consumers,” the group says. “Apple requires equipment manufacturers to limit options, forces developers to sell through its App Store, and even steals ideas from competitors.”
The coalition also says that the 30% app tax forces developers to drive up their prices, making it impossible to compete with similar apps made by Apple that can get away with charging much less. Because of this, the group believes Apple is cutting into consumer purchasing power and freedom.
Tensions between tech groups in this coalition and Apple are nothing new. Over the summer, Epic Games slapped Apple with a lawsuit over its app store policies. Epic Games CEO thanked Microsoft for joining efforts to limit their powers.
“It’s wonderful to see Microsoft formally codify its long-held principles in Windows as an open platform and a fair market for all developers and consumers,” he wrote.
He was not the only one to praise Microsoft. Spotify spokesman Adam Grossberg released a statement in support of the company’s move.
“By embracing these principles, Microsoft will help create a level playing field for developers both large and small, provide consumers with greater choice, and hopefully encourage other platforms to do the same,” he said.
For its part, Apple has defended its practices within the app store. After the House released their report, the company put out a statement condemning its findings.
“We have always said that scrutiny is reasonable and appropriate but we vehemently disagree with the conclusions reached in this staff report with respect to Apple,” the statement said. “Our company does not have a dominant market share in any category where we do business.”
“We’ve built the App Store to be a safe and trusted place for users to discover and download apps and a supportive way for developers to create and sell apps globally.”
See what others are saying: (Axios) (The Verge) (The New York Times)
Facebook Is Reviewing More Than 2,200 Hours of Footage for Next-Gen AI
The project, which could prove to be revolutionary, is already raising some big privacy concerns.
Facebook’s Next-Gen AI
Facebook announced Thursday that it has captured more than 2,200 hours of first-person video that it will use to train next-gen AI models.
The company said it aims to make the AI, called Ego4D, capable of understanding and identifying both real and virtual objects through a first-person perspective using smart glasses or VR headsets. In effect, that could potentially help users do everything from remembering where they placed forgotten items to recording others in secret.
Facebook listed five key scenarios the project aims to tackle and gave real-world examples of how each may look for people who will eventually use the AI.
- “What happened when?” With that scenario, Facebook gave the example, “Where did I leave my keys?”
- “What am I likely to do next?” There, Facebook gave the example, “Wait, you’ve already added salt to this recipe.”
- “What am I doing?” For example, “What was the main topic during class?”
- “Who said what when?” For example, “What was the main topic during class?”
- “Who is interacting with whom?” For example, “Help me better hear the person talking to me at this noisy restaurant.”
Facebook said the amount of footage it has collected is 20 times greater than any other data set used by the company.
In the wake of recent controversy surrounding Facebook, it’s important to note that the footage wasn’t reaped from users. Instead, the company said it, and 13 university partners, compiled the footage from more than 700 participants around the world.
Still, that hasn’t alleviated all privacy concerns.
In an article titled, “Facebook is researching AI systems that see, hear, and remember everything you do,” The Verge writer James Vincent said that although the project’s guidelines seem practical, “the company’s interest in this area will worry many.”
Vincent pointe out that the AI announcement doesn’t mention anything in the way of privacy or removing data for people who may not want to be recorded.
A Facebook spokesperson later assured Vincent that privacy safeguards will be introduced to the public in the future.
“For example, before AR glasses can enhance someone’s voice, there could be a protocol in place that they follow to ask someone else’s glasses for permission, or they could limit the range of the device so it can only pick up sounds from the people with whom I am already having a conversation or who are in my immediate vicinity,” the spokesperson said.
Among positive reception, some believe the tech could be revolutionary for helping people around the house, as well as for teaching robots to more rapidly learn about their surroundings.
FDA Issues Its First E-Cigarette Authorization Ever
The authorization only applies to tobacco-flavored products, as the FDA simultaneously rejected several sweet and fruit-flavored e-cigarette cartridges.
FDA Approves E-Cigarette
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an e-cigarette pen sold under the brand name Vuse on Tuesday, as well as two tobacco-flavored cartridges that can be used with the pen.
This marks the first time the FDA has ever authorized the use of vaping products. In a news release, the agency said it made the decision because “the authorized products’ aerosols are significantly less toxic than combusted cigarettes based on available data.”
“The manufacturer’s data demonstrates its tobacco-flavored products could benefit addicted adult smokers who switch to these products — either completely or with a significant reduction in cigarette consumption — by reducing their exposure to harmful chemicals,” the agency added.
The company that owns Vuse, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, also submitted several sweet and fruit-flavored pods for review; however, those were all rejected. While the FDA did not specify which flavors it rejected, it did note that it has yet to make a decision on whether to allow menthol-flavored e-cigarettes, including ones sold under Vuse.
FDA Is Reviewing All Vape Products Still on the Market
In January 2020, the FDA banned pre-filled pods with sweet and fruity flavors from being sold. While other e-cigarette related products, including some forms of flavored vapes, were allowed to stay on the market for the time being, they were only able to do so if they were submitted for FDA review.
The FDA’s primary issue with fruity cartridges stems from statistics showing that those pods more easily hook new smokers, particularly underage smokers.
In fact, in its approval of the Vuse products, the FDA said it only authorized them because it “determined that the potential benefit to smokers who switch completely or significantly reduce their cigarette use, would outweigh the risk to youth, provided the applicant follows post-marketing requirements aimed at reducing youth exposure and access to the products.”
While some have cheered the FDA’s decision, not everyone was enthusiastic. Many critics cited a joint FDA-CDC study in which nearly 11% of teens who said they vape also indicated regularly using Vuse products.
See what others are saying: (Business Insider) (Wall Street Journal) (The Washington Post)
Kaiser Permanente Health Workers Vote To Authorize Strike Over Pay, Staffing, and Safety
The vote could inspire unioned Kaiser workers in other states to eventually approve strikes of their own.
Workers Approve Strike
Over 24,000 unioned nurses and other healthcare workers at Kaiser Permanente hospitals voted Monday to authorize strikes against the company in California and Oregon.
The tens of thousands of workers who cast a ballot make up 86% of the Kaiser-based healthcare professionals represented by either the United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals (UNAC/UHCP) or the Oregon Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals. An overwhelming 96% voted to approve the strike.
According to both unions, the list of workers includes nurses, pharmacists, midwives, and physical therapists.
The vote itself does not automatically initiate a strike; rather, it gives the unions the power to call a strike amid stalled contract negotiations between Kaiser and the unions. If the unions ultimately tell their members to begin striking, they will need to give a 10-day warning.
The California and Oregon contracts expired Sep. 30, but several more Kaiser-based union contracts are rapidly approaching their expiration dates as well. That includes contracts for more than 50,000 workers in Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Virginia, Washington state, and D.C. Notably, the demands from those workers echo many of the demands made by California and Oregon’s union members.
At the center of this potential strike are three issues: staffing problems, safety concerns, and proposed revisions to Kaiser’s payment system. For months, nurses have been publicly complaining about long shifts spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic, staffing shortages, and an over-reliance on contract nurses.
Because of that, they’re seeking to force Kaiser to commit to hiring more staff, as well as boost retention.
But the main catalyst for any looming strikes is pay. According to UNAC/UHCP, Kaiser wants to implement a two-tier payment system, which would decrease earnings by 26% to 39% for employees hired from 2023 onward. On top of that, those new employees would see fewer health protections.
The unions and their members worry such a system could lead to an increased feeling of resentment among workers since they would be paid different rates for performing the same job. They also worry it could exacerbate retention and hiring issues already faced by the hospital system.
Additionally, the workers want to secure 4% raises for each of the next three years, but Kaiser’s currently only willing to give 1%, citing a need to reduce labor costs to remain competitive.