评论
打印
This is THE INDICATOR FROM PLANET MONEY. I'm Adrian Ma. And I'm Wailin Wong.
这里是THE INDICATOR FROM PLANET MONEY。我是Adrian Ma。我是Wailin Wong。
This week, Apple did something that it does every year around this time - it announced a new iPhone. But this year there are legal clouds hanging over Apple and the iPhone.
本周，苹果做了一件每年这个时候都会做的事情——它发布了一款新iPhone。但今年，苹果和iPhone上空笼罩着法律阴云。
For one thing, the day after the announcement, the European Union's top court ordered the company to pay about $14 billion in back taxes to Ireland. That's where Apple's European headquarters are.
首先，在发布消息的第二天，欧盟最高法院命令该公司向爱尔兰补缴约140亿美元的税款。那是苹果的欧洲总部所在地。
And here in the U.S., federal regulators have this outstanding lawsuit against Apple for allegedly violating antitrust laws.
而在美国，联邦监管机构正在对苹果提起诉讼，指控其违反反垄断法。
Today on the show, we're going to focus on that - why the DOJ brought this suit and why it matters for the millions of people who have a smartphone.
今天在节目中，我们将重点关注这一点——司法部为何提起这起诉讼，以及这对数百万拥有智能手机的人来说为何重要。
Rebecca Haw Allensworth is a professor at Vanderbilt Law School, where she teaches antitrust law.
丽贝卡·霍·艾伦斯沃思（Rebecca Haw Allensworth）是范德堡大学法学院的教授，教授反垄断法。
She says when the Department of Justice initially brought its lawsuit against Apple in March of this year, it didn't just come out of nowhere.
她说，今年3月，司法部首次对苹果提起诉讼，这并非无缘无故。
The DOJ and the FTC, the enforcers of antitrust under the Biden administration, have been pretty explicit that they want to pursue cases against these big tech monopolies. And often they're identified as the GAFA, the Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple.
拜登政府的反垄断执法机构——司法部（DOJ）和联邦贸易委员会（FTC）明确表示，他们希望对这些大型科技垄断企业提起诉讼。这些企业通常被称为 GAFA，即谷歌（Google）、亚马逊（Amazon）、脸书（Facebook）和苹果（Apple）。
Oh, I actually have not heard that acronym. Oh, yeah. Well, now we need to call it GAMA, I guess, because Facebook became Meta.
我其实没听过这个缩写。哦，是的。我想现在我们需要称它为GAMA，因为Facebook变成了Meta。
Over the past couple of years, federal regulators have sued Google, Amazon and Facebook's parent company, Meta, for allegedly violating antitrust law.
过去几年，联邦监管机构起诉了谷歌、亚马逊和脸书的母公司Meta，指控他们违反了反垄断法。
And then I guess they figured, well, we need to complete the set, and so they filed this lawsuit against Apple.
我想他们认为需要完成这一整套，所以他们向苹果提起了诉讼。
Got to collect them all. Yeah. And I say that a little cynically, but, I mean, I actually think this suit is - it's not frivolous. Right.
必须集齐对GAMA的诉讼。是的。我说这话有点愤世嫉俗，但我真的认为这起诉讼不是无足轻重的。对。
But yeah, I think the idea behind these suits was that the tech companies have gotten really powerful. They've stopped innovating as much as we would want them to. And, you know, antitrust can do something about that.
但是我认为这些诉讼背后的想法是科技公司已经变得非常强大。他们已经停止了我们希望他们做的创新。而且反垄断可以对此做些什么。
In a nutshell, the DOJ accuses Apple of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act by, quote, "monopolizing smartphone markets," end quote. And how, supposedly, has it been doing that?
简而言之，司法部指控苹果违反了《谢尔曼反托拉斯法》，“垄断智能手机市场”。据说它是如何做到这一点的？
Well, the iPhone has been around since 2007, and ever since it debuted, Apple has designed a whole suite of products and services to work with the iPhone.
iPhone自2007年以来一直存在，自首次亮相以来，苹果设计了一整套与iPhone配合使用的产品和服务。
I'm talking MacBooks, Apple Watches, apps like iMessage and a whole App Store full of games. The classic metaphor for this carefully curated ecosystem is a walled garden.
我说的是MacBook、Apple Watch、iMessage等应用程序以及整个充满游戏的App Store。这个精心策划的生态系统的经典比喻是围墙花园。
Yeah, but according to the DOJ's lawsuit, Apple has constructed its garden in such a way that it effectively locks users in.
但根据司法部的诉讼，苹果以一种有效地将用户锁定的方式建造了它的花园。
One example it gives has to do with smartwatches. So, if you have an Apple Watch, it's designed to really only work with the iPhone.
它给出的一个例子与智能手表有关。如果你有一块Apple Watch，它实际上只能与iPhone配合使用。
Conversely, if you have a smartwatch made by some other company, like a Fitbit or a Samsung watch, it can work with iPhone, but the DOJ asserts that Apple purposely limits how well those other watches work on the iPhone.
相反，如果你有一块由其他公司生产的智能手表，比如Fitbit或三星手表，它可以与iPhone配合使用，但美国司法部声称，苹果故意限制了其他手表在iPhone上的运行效果。
They're making it harder to switch. So what we would call this an antitrust is, like, barriers to entry.
他们让用户更难更换。所以我们称之为反垄断，就像进入壁垒一样。
And, you know, if there's something I don't like about the iPhone, it's very, very difficult for me to, essentially, it feels like, up-end my life and switch ecosystems.
如果我不喜欢iPhone的某些方面，我就会觉得很难，就像要颠覆我的生活并更换生态系统一样。
That idea that it's hard for consumers to switch fortifies Apple's monopoly power, says the government. And they have actually taken specific steps, according to the government, to make it harder for me to switch.
政府表示，消费者很难更换的想法加强了苹果的垄断权力。据政府称，他们实际上已经采取了具体措施，让我更难更换。
Another way Apple has allegedly made it harder for users to switch has to do with these things many iPhone users might not be familiar with - super apps and cloud-based gaming apps.
据称，苹果让用户更难更换的另一种方式与许多iPhone用户可能不熟悉的这些东西有关——超级应用程序和云端游戏应用程序。
Basically, super apps combine multiple functions into one app. So imagine an app that lets you text, post videos, order food and transfer money, all in one.
基本上，超级应用将多种功能整合到一个应用中。想象一下，一款应用可以让你发短信、发布视频、订餐和转账，所有功能都集于一身。
That sounds delightful because I never want to stop using my smartphone. You're like, just press a button. It's like, now it's making me French fries. Now it's doing my laundry.
这听起来很令人愉快，因为我永远都不想停止使用我的智能手机。你只需按一下按钮。就像现在它正在为我做炸薯条。现在它正在帮我洗衣服。
Yes. This sounds delightful in a sort of dystopian way. But it's not just super apps. The DOJ also points to these cloud-based gaming apps, which let users stream video games to their phones, sort of like you would stream a movie.
这听起来有点反乌托邦，但很令人愉快。但这不仅仅是超级应用。司法部还指出了这些云端游戏应用，这些应用允许用户将视频游戏传输到手机上，就像你传输电影一样。
For both these kinds of apps, the DOJ says Apple has historically stifled their rollout in the App Store.
对于这两种应用，司法部表示，苹果历来都在App Store中限制它们的推出。
And both of these claims are that consumers, if they really started living not in the Apple ecosystem but in the ecosystem of these apps or in the ecosystem of these clouds, that the hardware becomes kind of irrelevant.
这两种说法都是，如果消费者真的开始生活在这些应用的生态系统或云端生态系统中，而不是苹果的生态系统中，那么硬件就变得无关紧要了。
Yeah, I mean, think about it. If you could run these sorts of apps on any old phone, you might not shell out 1,000 bucks for the latest iPhone.
如果你能在任何旧手机上运行这些类型的应用程序，你可能不会花1000美元购买最新的iPhone。
Yeah, I'm going to do it on my rotary phone. That I would love to see, how you play "Angry Birds" on a rotary phone. Yeah, like five hours later, I did it. I launched one bird.
我要在我的旋转手机上玩。我很想看看你如何在旋转手机上玩“愤怒的小鸟”。大约五个小时后，我做到了。我放飞了一只鸟。
We reached out to Apple. They said, basically, the DOJ is wrong - they do have super apps like WeChat on iPhone. And when it comes to cloud gaming services, they do have them in the App Store, although it's worth noting that's a more recent development.
我们联系了苹果公司。他们说，基本上，司法部错了——他们确实有像微信这样的超级应用在iPhone上。至于云游戏服务，他们确实在App Store中提供，尽管值得注意的是，这是最近才有的。
Now, one more thing that the DOJ points to as evidence of Apple's allegedly anticompetitive conduct is the fact that text messaging between iPhones and Androids has always been a little wonky.
现在，司法部指出的苹果涉嫌反竞争行为的另一个证据是，iPhone和安卓之间的短信一直有点不稳定。
Like, if you have an iPhone, you know when somebody's texting you from an Android because it appears in, like, a little green bubble instead of a blue one or, like, the way that when somebody sends you a picture or a video, it looks all shrunken and grainy.
比如，如果你有一部iPhone，你会知道有人用安卓给你发短信，因为它会显示在一个绿色的小气泡中，而不是蓝色的气泡中，或者，当有人给你发送图片或视频时，它看起来会缩小，颗粒感很强。
Yeah, it 's like you never know what the quality is going to be. Yeah. To somebody who's in the Apple ecosystem, Android looks pretty bad, and the idea is that that's an artificial thing that Apple's doing. So to summarize the DOJ's case against Apple...
你永远不知道质量会怎么样。对于苹果生态系统中的人来说，安卓看起来很糟糕，而这个想法是苹果人为的。因此，总结一下司法部对苹果的指控……
What the DOJ is sort of arguing is that it's one thing if Apple constructed a really beautiful walled garden, and it says, don't you love it in here? Isn't it great?
司法部认为，如果苹果建造了一个非常漂亮的围墙花园，并说，你不喜欢这里吗？这不是很棒吗？
But in addition, what it's doing in constructing this walled garden is keeping other potentially nice things out and making stuff outside the garden seem worse than it really is.
但除此之外，它建造这个围墙花园的做法是将其他可能很好的东西挡在外面，让花园外的东西看起来比实际情况更糟糕。
Exactly. And it's not just about keeping the stuff out, but it's also keeping you in. You know, when it's time for a new phone, it's an opportunity maybe for you to think about getting out of that garden and finding a new one.
没错。这不仅仅是把东西挡在外面，还把你挡在里面。当你需要买一部新手机的时候，这也许是你考虑离开花园、寻找一部新手机的机会。
But if they've built up the walls so high that you're not actually making a real choice, that's antitrust harm right there.
但如果他们把墙建得太高，让你无法真正做出选择，这就是反垄断损害。
Apple says the DOJ is wrong on the facts and the law. It says the suit will threaten Apple's ability to keep making products that consumers love in a highly competitive smartphone market.
苹果表示，司法部在事实和法律上都是错误的。它表示，这起诉讼将威胁到苹果在竞争激烈的智能手机市场继续生产消费者喜爱的产品的能力。
Maybe worth noting here that iPhone sales have not been stellar overseas in recent months, especially in China.
也许值得注意的是，近几个月来，iPhone在海外的销量并不理想，尤其是在中国。
Well, I saw, didn't the Chinese company reveal this tri-fold phone? I mean, that's pretty cool. I haven't seen anything like that here. Not from Apple.
我看到了，这家中国公司不是发布了这款三折手机吗？这很酷。我在这里没见过类似的东西。不是苹果的。
Just saying. Rebecca, for her part, thinks the DOJ has a strong case, but she's hesitant to call it a slam dunk. Do you see any weaknesses in the Department of Justice's case? Oh, yeah. Lots of weaknesses.
只是说说而已。丽贝卡认为司法部的案子很有说服力，但她不太愿意称其为稳操胜券。你认为司法部的案子有什么弱点吗？很多弱点。
One challenge will be proving that all these alleged tactics by Apple translate into actual monopoly power.
一个挑战是证明苹果所有这些所谓的策略都转化为实际的垄断权力。
According to the DOJ, iPhones account for about 65 to 70% of the U.S. smartphone market. Is that enough to say that Apple has a monopoly market share?
根据美国司法部的数据，iPhone约占美国智能手机市场的65%至70%。这足以说明苹果拥有垄断市场份额吗？
Rebecca says it's debatable. Apple says that number is inflated because the DOJ is basing it on revenue rather than the number of phones.
丽贝卡说这是有争议的。苹果公司表示，这一数字被夸大了，因为司法部是根据收入而不是手机数量来计算的。
And from Apple's point of view, the better view of its market power is global sales. Worldwide, sales of Android phones far exceed iPhone sales, and iPhones only make up about 20% of smartphones.
从苹果公司的角度来看，全球销量更能体现其市场实力。在全球范围内，安卓手机的销量远远超过iPhone，而iPhone仅占智能手机的20%左右。
So both sides of this case are clearly digging in for some protracted litigation, and you got to wonder, by the end of it, what is the government hoping to accomplish?
这起案件的双方显然都在为一场旷日持久的诉讼而苦苦挣扎，你不禁会想，到最后，政府希望实现什么目标？
So we put that question to Jonathan Kanter. He's assistant attorney general who heads up antitrust litigation at the DOJ.
因此，我们向乔纳森·坎特提出了这个问题。他是司法部负责反垄断诉讼的助理司法部长。
I can't speak to the specific lawsuit because that is live litigation, and we don't talk about live cases, but I can tell you more broadly that the remedy in an antitrust case really depends on the nature of the violation.
我无法谈论具体的诉讼，因为还在进行中，我们不会谈论正在进行的案件，但我可以更宽泛地告诉你，反垄断案件的补救措施实际上取决于违法行为的性质。
And ultimately, our goal is to make sure that we're prying open competition because we believe that when competition is alive and well, it doesn't just make the smaller companies challenging the monopoly better. The competitive spirit is what drives innovation.
最终，我们的目标是确保我们能够促进公开竞争，因为我们相信，当竞争活跃且良好时，它不仅会让小公司更好地挑战垄断。竞争精神是推动创新的动力。
In the case of U.S. versus Apple, it could take a very long time before we see a final resolution, long enough even that we might sooner see another iPhone 17 or 18.
就美国与苹果的案件而言，我们可能需要很长时间才能看到最终解决方案，甚至可能很快就会看到另一款iPhone 17或18。
Or a 19 or a 20. Should we just keep counting? Look at us, counting higher and higher.
或者19或20。我们应该继续数下去吗？看看我们，数得越来越高。
