Page:Intel, Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook - Observations on Antitrust and the High-Tech Sector.pdf/21

 Right now we are seeing firms respond to this need to balance in very different ways. On the one hand, you have firms like Google that pride themselves on maintaining an open platform. This means that any app developer that wants to get on the Android platform or any smartphone developer that wants to use the Android operating system is free to do so. This may mean that consumer data is handled more loosely than some would like, but it also means that there is competition along many different axes that we might not otherwise see. In contrast, there are firms like Apple that pride themselves on a closed platform not only because it allows them to control the quality of the operating system and content better, but also because it gives them much greater control over users’ privacy. The issue here, of course, may be that the claim of privacy protection itself may become a barrier to entry in the sense that Apple may be able to leverage its power over iPhone, iPad, and other devices (and its sole control over user data) to eliminate competition in things like mobile advertising or app development.

To be clear, I am not saying Google is clearly good here or Apple is somehow bad. Rather, I am simply noting that an issue we will likely face on the horizon is what to do when high tech firms start using the need to protect consumers’ privacy as a defense to an antitrust claim. I don’t know what the answer is, but the question is looming on the horizon. More generally, I am thankful that I have the benefit of parsing through these very difficult issues at the FTC, where we have the benefit of both antitrust and consumer protection (and by that I mean, privacy) expertise. Stay tuned to see what happens next.