After 100 Years As A Bullying Gatekeeper, AT&T Pivots To Whining Unironically About Bullying Gatekeepers

from the comes-around-goes-around dept

For decades, incumbent broadband and television giants like Comcast and AT&T enjoyed life from a comfortable position of monopoly dominance. If you want to subscribe to broadband, such companies are often your only option. If you wanted to subscribe to television service, you were required to rent a locked down, highly proprietary cable box courtesy of the industry's cable hardware monopoly. Are you a broadcaster and want to have your cable channel in a conspicuous position in the lineup? Expect headaches. Want to use their utility poles to build a decent competitor? Expect a lot of bullshit.

Natural monopolies are a pain in the ass. Telecom monopolies like AT&T, whose domination spans the better part of a century, are a very particular type of pain in the ass. But with cord cutting and the rise of streaming changing at least part of their business equations, it's interesting to watch how these giants of yesterday are now struggling to adapt to a new era in which they not only no longer dominate, but often have to collaborate.

Case in point. Before its 2015 merger with DirecTV and 2018 merger with Time Warner, AT&T -- a company with a thirty year track record of obvious, documented, monopolistic behavior -- told anybody who'd listen that there was simply no way that the company would use the greater scale from its merger ambitions to behave badly.

While U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon bought into that nonsense, AT&T quickly set about proving to everybody that critics were right to worry. It set about abusing its broadband monopoly to thwart streaming competitors, drove up TV prices on consumers and competitors alike, and began withholding HBO content from competitors. All things it swore to the courts it wouldn't do, and all while its lobbyists set about dismantling consumer protections (like net neutrality rules) designed specifically to thwart this kind of behavior.

As AT&T attempts (poorly) to pivot toward the cord cutting generation, the company is suddenly finding itself in an alien predicament: it has to innovate, collaborate, and compete. But with companies like Roku and Amazon now dominating the streaming hardware space, AT&T's been having a hard time bullying them into carrying its streaming platform. In turn, AT&T has gotten a bit pouty as it tries to explain why, despite all this bullying, posturing, bullshit, and market domination, it still managed to lose nearly 1 million TV subscribers last quarter and nearly four million subscribers in just the last few years:

"AT&T’s chief executive, John Stankey, had some harsh words for Amazon on the earnings call after the report. “We’ve tried repeatedly to make HBO Max available” on Amazon, he said. “Unfortunately, Amazon has taken an approach of treating HBO Max and its customers differently than how they’ve chosen to treat other services and their customers."

Not that intellectual consistency is a thing we do anymore in the United States, but some observers justifiably found AT&T's whining a bit ironic:

Maybe it's just me, but a 30 year natural monopoly gatekeeper that just got done lobbying to kill net neutrality rules (designed to ensure AT&T couldn't abuse its broadband monopoly) pivoting unironically to complaining about unfair treatment is... kind of funny?

The truth is that while Stankey tries to blame Amazon for its predicament, most of AT&T's wounds are self-inflicted. Despite the company getting a $42 billion tax break from the Trump administration in exchange for doing less than nothing, and despite billions more in Trump administration regulatory favors designed to protect AT&T's dominance (like neutering the FCC from within or killing broadband privacy rules), and despite spending $150 billion on megamergers to dominate the sector... AT&T's still losing pay TV subscribers hand over fist.

Why? One, because AT&T's streaming market entry strategy was such a confusing branding mess, it wound up confusing even the company's own employees. Two, because the bullying strategies that work in the uncompetitive broadband sector, don't work in a sector with actual competition, and a need for innovation and collaboration. Three, because AT&T spent $150 billion on mergers, then tried to extract that money from its customers in the form of rate hikes, seemingly oblivious that the entire point of "cord cutting" and streaming for the end users is greater flexibility at lower costs.

The lion's share of AT&T's troubles right now are self-inflicted, yet a natural monopoly whining about being treated unfairly does at least bring some much needed entertainment value during these dark times.

Filed Under: competition, gatekeeper, hbo max, john stankey, streaming, streaming tv
Companies: amazon, at&t

Apple Pulls Popular Weed-Growing Game From App Store, Ignores All The Unpopular Ones

from the consistent-inconsistency dept

It should be clear by now that Apple sees most of us as the proverbial unwashed masses and is on something of a mission to immolate immoral thought patterns by trying to put everyone's head in the collective sand. That seems to be the only explanation for their app store censoring process, which has in the past removed historical context from games, the human body from consideration, comic books it deems to be immoral, and literature. All, mind you, in the name of a corporate moral code that probably wouldn't hold up under closer scrutiny.

But even if Apple wants to play the morality card, it presents the problem of consistency. Moral stances, after all, don't allow for picking and choosing due to outside factors. Yet that appears to be exactly what is occurring with the latest app store nixing of a popular game about growing marijuana, called Weed Firm.

As you might have noticed the game is no longer available on the Apple App Store. This was entirely Apple's decision, not ours. We guess the problem was that the game was just too good and got to number one in All Categories, since there are certainly a great number of weed based apps still available, as well as games promoting other so-called 'illegal activities' such as shooting people, crashing cars and throwing birds at buildings...If we let hypocrites determine what content is suitable for us we will soon all be watching teletubbies instead of Breaking Bad and playing... oh I don't know… nothing good comes to mind, without some form of 'illegal activity' or other really.

A couple of things to note. First, for those of us that are older than, say, fifteen, the rapid decriminalization of all things marijuana in this country is on a pace that can be described as no less than staggering. If you simply chart out what's gone on over the past decade and extrapolate into the next, it isn't off base to expect marijuana to go the way of tobacco and alcohol within that time. So the morality play is on shaky ground to begin with. Add to that, as Kotaku does, that the only thing consistent about Apple's app removal standards is its astounding inconsistency, and we should probably all begin asking ourselves exactly what the point of any of this is.

You can find places to buy weed on the app store. You can rate different strains of weed. You can download apps that teach you more about marijuana, or get apps that will give you various cosmetic weed changes to your phone. You can even roll fake joints. You can't, however, download a game where you grow marijuana. Other games, such as Weed Farmer and Weed Tycoon, remain active on the app store for now—but these games weren't as popular or as well-rated as Weed Firm was.

What, on the face of it, might have appeared to be a genuine, if misplaced, attempt to apply some kind of moral code suddenly dissolves into a PR response. As long as the marijuana-related games are generating money without being popular enough to draw any kind of wider attention, Apple's moral qualms go by the wayside. They either don't have the interest or the actual capacity to actively police all such offending games. Either answer renders the morality play moot to begin with: either you can enforce your strict guidelines in general or you can't. Apple, in the case of games revolving around marijuana, clearly can't. So what are we all doing here?

Well, we're suffering under Apple's delusion that we're children, of course. Children in need of a firm hand and the guidance of our parents, which apparently somehow became Apple. I suppose it isn't all that different from the old AOL walled-internet days, which I happily note went the hell away over a decade ago when the internet and its average denizen grew up. Maybe it's time now for Apple to stop it with the whole Puritan routine and start trusting their customers a bit more?

Filed Under: app store, apps, arbitrary, drugs, gatekeeper, itunes, morality, weed
Companies: apple

Newspapers Finally Realizing They Don't Have To Use Apple's High Priced Payment Offering, Or Locked Down App Store

from the hello,-html-5 dept

For quite some time now, we've been pointing out that for all the folks pissed off about Apple's very closed nature when it comes to the App Store, combined with it's ridiculously high 30% cut demanded on any in-app content purchases, there would be a growing trend to route around Apple as a gatekeeper, using HTML5 web apps. While such apps can't provide all the features of native apps, they can provide an awful lot. And, to be honest, a large percentage of native apps are really HTML5/javascript/CSS web apps wrapped up and compiled. But as Apple puts more and more conditions on things, people are going to route around the gatekeeper, and it's nice to see some big names realizing this. First up is the Financial Times, which has created an HTML5 web app that can be used on the iPhone/iPad without having to go through Apple's purchase process and without having to deal with Apple's restrictive rules.

It may be limited right now, but more and more companies are going to recognize they don't need to go through the gatekeeper here. And as alternative means of distribution and discovery become more popular, the key advantage of the official App Store begin to fade away. I would imagine that over time, Apple may be forced to back down on some of its more ridiculous conditions and pricing, as more players realize that they don't have to go that route.

Filed Under: app store, apps, control, financial times, gatekeeper, html4, locked
Companies: apple, financial times

Google As Benevolent Dictator: The Gatekeeper And The Data Collector

from the are-you-scared-yet? dept

Two separate stories in the NY Times provide fodder for those who view Google as the new scary borg. The first, looks at Google's sometimes slippery slope role as a "gatekeeper" of information within certain countries. For example, it looks at Google's agreement to help block access to certain YouTube videos in Thailand and similar decisions in other countries. The article plays up Google's reluctance to be involved in making these sorts of decisions (and highlights how the company hopes that more countries learn to accept free speech a bit more), but it still leaves you with this questionable feeling of Google as quasi-government censor. No matter how well-meaning the people may be who are making the decisions, it still feels questionable.

The second article isn't just about Google, but talks about how, with various online services, many people are effectively giving up their privacy. This is hardly a new topic, and it's one that's been discussed repeatedly -- often with a nod to the famous Scott McNealy quote from almost a decade ago: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." The article touches on a lot more than just Google, but does mention the fact that Google seems to have access to all sorts of data that, when clumped together, could be seen as a violation of privacy for some.

Between the two stories, you can see why there's a growing sense of worry among some about how Google could become dangerous. It has access to all sorts of data about you -- and has the power to make decisions about what you can access, often with no explanation or recourse. Put that together, and you get this picture of Google as the benevolent dictator of the internet -- where it may be using its powers (mostly) for good, but there's plenty of potential that eventually it could turn evil. And, to some extent, it's worth highlighting these issues, so that people don't become complacent about Google's actions. But, there's an undercurrent to these stories that seem to miss out on a few things: if Google really does start abusing either of these "powers," unlike with a dictator, people have pretty easy choices to go elsewhere. Furthermore, as more concerns are raised about any potential abuse, people are rapidly working on technologies that solve both issues -- allowing people to surf the internet much more anonymously, while also routing around censorship. So, while it's not problematic to highlight these potential issues with Google, that doesn't mean that there aren't necessary checks and balances in place.

Filed Under: censorship, data collector, gatekeeper, privacy
Companies: google

But Why Does Apple Wants To Take On The Role Of Content Gatekeeper?

from the how-does-this-benefit-anyone? dept

Following the recent post we had about Apple taking down popular games from its App store, the latest buzz in on Apple denying a comic book reader entrance to its iPhone app store because the primary comic book being offered was too violent. This has created quite an uproar -- though, again, Apple has been upfront about the fact that this is a closed system from the beginning. So, it's not entirely clear why people are pissed off at Apple. It hasn't mislead anyone about the fact that it will block and censor content and apps.

Still, it does make you wonder why Apple is bothering? All it seems to do is piss off people. It takes extra work and effort on Apple's part and it's hard to see who benefits. Plenty of other systems out there allow anyone to develop apps and content, and they get by just fine, often using user feedback systems to make sure that "bad" content and apps get weeded out fast, without any complaints from users. Having Apple set itself up as the ultimate gatekeeper isn't "censorship" -- it's just pointless.

Filed Under: comic, content, gatekeeper, iphone, murderdrome

AP: The News Gatekeeper is Dead! Long Live The News Gatekeeper!

from the let's-try-this-again... dept

The CEO of the Associated Press, Tom Curley, gave a speech yesterday to a group of news executives supposedly calling on them to drop their antiquated ways, learn to embrace the new opportunities of the internet and, most importantly, ditch the mindset of being the gatekeepers of the news. At least, that's what the Associated Press's own writeup on his speech suggests. It's powerful stuff, but it seems a little odd. After all, isn't this the same Associate Press that less than a month ago sued Moreover for linking to AP articles? Isn't this the same Associated Press that pressured Google to pay for the same thing? That doesn't sound like an organization that's trying to stop being a gatekeeper and embracing the new opportunities of the internet. It sounds like the opposite.

So, let's go to the details. Thankfully, the AP also published the full text of Curley's speech so we can dig into the details a bit. While the AP reporter's coverage of his speech definitely does capture the gist of it, it leaves out some of the key (and somewhat contradictory) details. So, while Curley says: "Our focus must be on becoming the very best at filling people’s 24-hour news needs. That's a huge shift from the we-know-best, gatekeeper thinking" his own plan doesn't seem to agree with that. He later says: "we're coupling those initiatives with strong new efforts to protect news web sites from unauthorized scraping through tighter site protocols and content tagging." Sorry, but it's those protections against scraping that is part of the gatekeeper thinking. He also says: "Enforcement, too, must be a part. What we do comes at great cost and sacrifice, even death. We believe content should have wide distribution. We intend to be compensated for it." and "We have the power to control how our content flows on the Web. We must use that power...." In other words, we're going to restrict access to what we do in order to create artificial scarcity in order to charge for it. Restricting access is what might also be called gatekeeping. It seems like Curley's big wake up call to newspaper execs is really "say goodbye to the old gatekeeper, and say hello to the new gatekeeper."

There are plenty of business models that make sense for the Associated Press, but it's pretty amusing for the CEO of that organization to call for getting rid of the old way of thinking and then outline what's basically the same old thinking.

Filed Under: business models, gatekeeper, newspapers
Companies: associated press