category where we do business. what motivates us is that timeless drive to build new things that we are proud to show our users. we focus relentlessly on those innovations, with core principles like privacy and security and creating new features. in 2008 we introduced a new feature of the iphone called the app store, with 500 apps will seem like a look at the time. the app store provided a safe and trusted way for users to get more out of their phone. when you distribution options for softwa re you distribution options for software developers at the time didn't work well, brick and mortar stores charged high fees and have a limited reach, physical media like cds had to be shipped and were hard to be updated. from the beginning the app store was a revolutionary alternative. app store developers set prices for their apps, and never paid for shelf space. we provide every developer with cutting edge tools like compilers and programming languages and more than 150,000 essential software building blocks called apis, the app store guidelines ensure a secure user experience, they are transparent and apply equally to every developer and for the vast majority of apps developers keep an hundred % of the money they make. the only apps that are subject to commission are those where the developer acquires a customer on an apple device and ready features or services would be experienced and consumed on an apple device. in the app store's more than ten year history we have never raised the commission or added a single fee. in fact we have reduced it for subscriptions and exempted additional categories for the apps. iam here additional categories for the apps. i am here today because scrutiny is reasonable and appropriate. we approach this process with respect and humility. but we make no concession on the facts. what began as 500 apps is now more than 1.7 million. 0nly as 500 apps is now more than 1.7 million. only 60 of which are apple software. if apple is a gatekeeper what we have done is open the gate wider. we want to get every app we can on the store, not keep them off. the app store economic contributions are significant. the ecosystem is responsible for 1.9 millionjobs in all states and it facilitated 138 billion of commerce in the us in 201911. i'm sure the committee does not believe that competition promotes innovation, that it makes space for the next great idea and that it gives consumers more choices. since apple was founded, these things have defined us. the first new app what opportunity and possibility into the phone, the ipad help musicians and artists share creations and be paid fairly for it. this legacy does more than make us proud, it inspires us to work tirelessly to make sure that tomorrow will be even better than today. thank you very much. i look forward to responding to your questions. thank you, mr cook. mr zuckerberg is now recognised for five minutes. thank you. before i begini five minutes. thank you. before i begin i want to add my voice to those honouring congressmanjohn lewis and his service to our country. america has lost a real hero who never stop fighting for the rights of every person. chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. the tech industry is an american success story. the products we don't have change the world and improve peoples lives. our industry is one of the ways that america shares its values with the world ahead of our greatest economic and cultural exports. facebook is part of the story. it started with an idea, to give people the power to share and connect. we have built services that billions of people find useful. i am proud that we have given people who have never had a voice before the opportunity to be heard and given small businesses access to tools that only the largest players used to have. since covid emerged, i'm proud that people use our services to stay in touch with friends and family, they cannot be within person and to keep those small businesses running online in physical stores are closed. i believe that facebook and the us tech industry are a force for innovation and empowering people. i recognise that there are concerns about the size and power of tech companies. our services are about connection and our business model is advertising and media face intense competition in both. many of oui’ intense competition in both. many of our competitors have hundreds of millions or billions of users. some are upstarts but others are gatekeepers with the power to decide if you can even release apps in their absence to compete with them. in many areas we are behind our competitors. the most popular messaging service in the us is eyeing message. the fastest app is tiktok, the far most popular apple video is youtube, there are as platform is google, and for every dollar spent on advertising in the us, less than 10 cents is spent with us. we are here to talk about online platforms but the true nature of competition is much broader. when google bought youtube they could compete against the dominant player in the video industry and when amazon put both of those they could compete against walmart and on facebook but was that they could compete against telecoms companies who could charge 10 cents a text message but not any more, and now you can send private messages and get groceries delivered for free. that's competition. new companies are created all the time all over the world, and history shows that if we don't keep innovating someone will replace every company here today. that change can open up faster than you expect. of the ten most valuable companies a decade ago, only three still make that list today, and if you look at where the top technology companies come from, a decade ago the vast majority were american. today, almost half of chinese. aside from competition there are other serious issues related to the internet including questions about elections, harmful content and privacy and whilst these are an anti—trust issues are not specifically the topic of today's hearing i recognise that we are often at the centre of these discussions. we build platforms for sharing ideas and important debates play out across our services. i believe this leads to more progress but it means we often find ourselves in the middle of deep disagreements about social issues in high—stakes elections. i personally don't believe that private companies should be making so many decisions about these issues by themselves. that's my last year i made the case that there needs to be a new regulation for the internet. facebook stands for a set of basic transpose. giving people a voice and economic opportunity, keeping people safe, upholding democratic traditions like freedom of expression and voting and enabling the open and competitive marketplace. these are fundamental values for most of us but not for eve ryo ne values for most of us but not for everyone in the world, not for every company we compete with other countries they represent and as global competition increases, there is no guarantee that our values will win out. i am proud of the services that we build and how they improve peoples lives. we compete hard, we compete fairly, we try to give our best. that is what i was taught matters in this country and when we succeed, it is because we deliver great experiences that people love. thank you and i look forward to answering your questions. thank you andi answering your questions. thank you and i thank the witnesses for your opening statements. before i begin recognising members were questioning with a five minute rule i'm going to enter documents and exhibits which members will be referencing. these have been distributed to the witnesses and myself for five minutes. mr peach i, 85% of online services go through google, and every com pa ny services go through google, and every company in the us depends on google to reach users. a business could sink or swim based on google decisions alone. numerous online businesses told us that google steals their content and privileges its own sites in ways that profit google backlash everyone else. most businesses asked to stay anonymous toissues businesses asked to stay anonymous to issues that google could retaliate against them. one business owner said that his website was thriving until google stole his content and after that his website traffic dropped 80% and he had to lower half a star. he told us, "if someone came to you with an idea for a website or web service i will tell them to run, as far away from the web as possible. watch a lawn care dog grooming business something that google cannot take away as soon as he or she is thriving so my question to mr peach is, why does he still content honest businesses? —— my question to you mr pichai. content honest businesses? —— my question to you mr pichailj disagree with that characterisation. today we support 1.4 million small businesses. supporting over 385 billion dollars of economic activity. we see many businesses try, during the pandemic, businesses, an example, in texas which spells kettle bells...|j businesses, an example, in texas which spells kettle bells... i have a limited time, my question is very specific. we have our throughout this investigation that google has stolen content to build your own business. these are consistent reports, and so, you testimony that that doesn't happen is inconsistent with what we have learned in the course of the investigation and i will put on the line to a new question. most americans believe that when they enter a search query that when they enter a search query that what google shows are the most releva nt that what google shows are the most relevant results but increasingly google just shows whatever is the most profitable for google, google ads, and google's own sites, so my question to mr pichai is, is there a fundamental conflict of interest between serving unique users who wa nt to between serving unique users who want to access the best and most releva nt want to access the best and most relevant information at the double business model which incentivises google to sell as an keep users on google's own sites? we are always focused on providing users with the most relevant information and we rely on that trust for users to come back to google every day. in fact, the vast majority, we don't show ads at all. we show ads only for a small subset of companies, were the intent from users is highly commercial, for example there may be looking for something like the base —— tv sets 01’ so on. something like the base —— tv sets or so on. what is the value of the pa rt or so on. what is the value of the part that you use the google ads for? it is an essential part of your business. 200 billion, 300 billion? in terms of revenue it is around 100 plus billion dollars. that is a lot of money, mr pichai. let me move on. it isa of money, mr pichai. let me move on. it is a google's business model that is the problem. our documents showed google evolved from a turnstile to the rest of the web to a world garden that increasingly keeps users within its size. e—mail showed that over a decade ago google started to fear competition from certain websites that can divert traffic from google, and google staff discussed the proliferating threat is how it was described that these web pages posed to google and any traffic lost to other sites was a loss in revenue. 0ne traffic lost to other sites was a loss in revenue. one of google's members observed that certain websites were getting "too much traffic" so google decided to put an end to that. i do, you have been acting since 2004, were you involved in these discussions about the threat? without knowing the specifics, i am threat? without knowing the specifics, iam not threat? without knowing the specifics, i am not fully clear of the context, but definitely, when you look at search as it validates the competition bc. when users, looking to shop online, independent study show that over 55% of product searches originate with amazon and 70% originate with the major e—commerce companies and and if you categories which are commercial in nature we see vigorous competition, we travel or real estate and we are working hard dodo to let me ask specifically, the evidence that we collect to show that google pursued a multipronged attack, first google would still other web pages' content, for example in 2010 google stole restaurant reviews from yelp to put pressure on the local research business. when yelp asked you to stop stealing your reviews, how did you respond m27 our research shows that your response was to threaten to delist yelp entirely, and the treasury gave as let us steal your content or effectively disappearfrom steal your content or effectively disappear from the web. . steal your content or effectively disappearfrom the web. . pretty, isn't that anti—competitive? congressmen, when i run the company i'm focused giving users what they want, to the highest standards, i'm not sure i can answer your questions further. did you ever use surveillance to identify competitive threats? just like other businesses we tried to understand trends from data which we can see and we used to improve our products for our users. we are focused on improving our products... i appreciate that. google's owner documents and interviews with companies showed google did just that which is very disturbing and anti—competitive. you also began to privilege its own sites, and investigative report showing 63% of web searches that start on google also end somewhere i'm google's own website and it shows an increasingly wild garden that keeps users on google sites. my time is running out, but missed a bit shy, thank you, the evidence seems clear to me, that google became the gateway to the internet it began to abuse its power, used to surveillance over web traffic to identify competitive threats and crush them for step
Related Keywords
United States , Americans , America , ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.