前几天，有媒体报道称，在日本，"苹果税"（佣金）也降了，App内购调整至10-21%，同时放开了侧 载，也就是允许第三方应用市场，且对第三方应用市场的App仅收5%的核心技术费，还允许第三方支 付。 至此，可以说全球主要国家和地区，苹果税都进行了调整，就只有中国最高了。 如上图所示，这是某媒体整理的数据，我也不知道正确不正确，大家可以自行去搜索求证一下，特别是 其中美国均为0%，我觉得不可能，因为我查到的数据，美国是标准企业27%、小型企业12%，而不是都 是0%。 从上表可以看到，欧盟、美国、俄罗斯、韩国、日本都调低了，并且允许应用外第三方支付，开放侧 载，只有中国，一切都不行，交着最高30%、15%的佣金，享受着苹果"最尊贵"的服务，不能侧载，不 能使用第三方支付…… 另外，苹果在中国也没有经营实体，如果消费者想起诉苹果，往往需赴美国或爱尔兰，这个很麻烦，成 本也非常高。 目前，国内的消费者，更多的是向国家市场监管总局投诉，要求调查苹果的垄断行为，但进展也较为缓 慢。 但我想，当欧盟、日本都刚赢了苹果，连美国都对苹果进行了各种限制，在韩国、俄罗斯，苹果的佣金 也在调整后，中国没有理由不调整。 这已经不只是 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of antitrust enforcement in maintaining fair competition and protecting the rights of consumers, highlighting the efforts made by the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) in addressing monopolistic practices in various sectors, particularly in the pharmaceutical and public utility industries [1][2]. Pharmaceutical Sector - Over the past three years, SAMR has investigated 12 cases of monopolistic agreements and abuse of market dominance in the pharmaceutical sector, resulting in fines exceeding 2.4 billion yuan [1]. - The average penalty for these cases was 5% of the previous year's sales revenue, with an average fine of over 200 million yuan [1]. - Specific cases, such as the monopolistic behavior related to the drug "甲硫酸新斯的明注射液," resulted in a maximum penalty of 10% of the previous year's sales revenue, demonstrating a strict enforcement approach [2]. Public Utilities - The public utility sector has been a significant focus, with 16 cases of monopolistic practices leading to fines totaling 183 million yuan [2]. - The investigation into the bottled liquefied gas market in Nanjing revealed a collusion among 10 companies to fix prices, resulting in a penalty of 8.27 million yuan [2]. - SAMR aims to restore fair competition in public utilities, which are characterized by natural monopolies, thereby reducing living costs for consumers [3]. Platform Economy - SAMR has addressed monopolistic practices in the platform economy, including cases of "二选一" (choose one of two) and algorithmic pricing disparities, indicating a need for improved compliance awareness among platform enterprises [3][4]. - The introduction of the "Internet Platform Antitrust Compliance Guidelines" aims to identify and mitigate new forms of monopolistic risks, such as algorithm collusion and below-cost sales [4]. - SAMR encourages platforms to develop transparent algorithms to protect the interests of merchants and consumers [4]. Innovative Enforcement Measures - In addition to strict penalties, SAMR is exploring innovative "soft measures" for antitrust enforcement, such as the "Three Letters and One Letter" system, which includes notifications and reminders to encourage compliance [4]. - Recent actions, such as the public interview with the company "货拉拉," highlight SAMR's proactive approach to ensuring compliance with antitrust laws and protecting the interests of stakeholders [4].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the competitive tension between YingShi Innovation Technology Co., Ltd. and DJI, highlighting the supply chain exclusivity and sales channel conflicts that YingShi faces due to DJI's market dominance [4][5][7]. Supply Chain Exclusivity - YingShi has been facing increasing pressure from suppliers to not collaborate with them, as many suppliers are coerced into exclusive agreements with DJI, leading to a significant impact on YingShi's ability to source essential components [4][6][8]. - The exclusivity has escalated over the past five years, with suppliers being explicitly instructed to cease cooperation with YingShi, particularly as the launch of YingShi's drone brand "Antigravity" approaches [10][12][14]. - Key components affected include optical lens modules, structural parts, and electronic components, with suppliers reporting that they are unable to fulfill orders for YingShi due to these exclusivity agreements [13][15][20]. Sales Channel Conflicts - The article details incidents where YingShi's sales efforts have been undermined by DJI's influence, such as the forced removal of YingShi's store signage in a photography equipment market due to a directive from DJI's distributors [24][28][30]. - The competitive landscape has shifted from product specifications to aggressive tactics in retail spaces, with DJI leveraging its market power to restrict YingShi's access to key sales channels [29][31]. - YingShi's sales team has reported multiple instances of distributors being pressured to choose between selling DJI or YingShi products, indicating a growing trend of exclusivity in retail partnerships [30][32]. Supplier Concerns - Suppliers are caught in a dilemma, as many rely heavily on DJI for their revenue, making it difficult to risk losing that business by working with YingShi [18][20][22]. - The article notes that while some suppliers are exploring alternative arrangements to support YingShi, the overarching pressure from DJI remains a significant barrier [15][34]. - The competitive dynamics in the supply chain are further complicated by the relatively low technical barriers in the optical lens module industry, which makes it challenging for suppliers to justify taking risks with new partnerships [20][22]. Market Dynamics and Future Outlook - The ongoing conflict between YingShi and DJI is expected to shape the future of the drone market, with potential implications for market share and supplier relationships as the industry evolves [18][34]. - YingShi is adapting its strategy by diversifying its supplier base and seeking partnerships with those willing to collaborate, indicating a proactive approach to mitigate the impact of exclusivity [34][35]. - The article raises questions about the legality and ethics of such exclusivity practices in the context of antitrust laws, suggesting that the situation may prompt regulatory scrutiny in the future [35].

Core Viewpoint - Apple Inc. has faced a setback in its legal battle against a ruling that found it in contempt of court, but it has gained an opportunity to defend its practice of charging developers fees for transactions outside the App Store [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - A federal appeals court upheld a previous ruling that Apple had willfully disobeyed a judge's order regarding its monopolistic practices under California law [1][2]. - The court indicated that the lower court had overstepped by prohibiting all commissions, suggesting that Apple is entitled to some compensation for the use of its intellectual property by developers [1][2]. Group 2: Financial Implications - Apple generates billions annually from digital sales commissions in its App Store, with estimates suggesting it earned $10 billion from its U.S. App Store in 2024 [2]. - The company has facilitated over $400 billion in developer sales in 2024, although it does not separately report App Store revenue [2]. Group 3: Ongoing Disputes - The legal dispute, initiated by Epic Games over competition in the App Store, has been ongoing for over five years, with Apple previously allowing developers to direct users to cheaper payment options but imposing a new 27% commission on such transactions [2][3].

Core Viewpoint - A group of 55 Chinese consumers has submitted a complaint to the State Administration for Market Regulation, accusing Apple Inc. of abusing its market dominance in China through various monopolistic practices that harm consumer rights [1][2]. Group 1: Allegations Against Apple - The complaint alleges that Apple forces Chinese consumers to use its In-App Purchase (IAP) system for digital goods and services, prohibits developers from directing consumers to alternative payment methods, and imposes unfairly high commissions of up to 30% [5][7]. - The core demands include an investigation into Apple's alleged illegal activities and a mandate to allow third-party payment channels and app stores in China [3][4]. Group 2: Specific Requests for Action - The consumers request that Apple be ordered to open third-party payment channels, allowing developers to guide consumers to external platforms without incurring any commission [8]. - They also demand that Apple permit access to iOS applications outside of the App Store, including third-party app stores and sideloading options, without charging any fees [9]. - Additionally, the complaint calls for a reduction in the commission rate for in-app purchases to be lower than the most favorable rates in other countries [10]. Group 3: Comparative Analysis - The complaint highlights that Chinese consumers face "country-specific discrimination," as they are unable to access third-party payment options and are subjected to the highest commission rates globally [11][13]. - It cites recent legal developments in the U.S. and EU, where courts have mandated Apple to provide payment options and reduce commission rates, contrasting this with the situation in China [12][14]. Group 4: Financial Impact on Consumers - In 2024, Chinese consumers are projected to pay $6.44 billion in "Apple tax," second only to the U.S. at $14.8 billion, and surpassing Europe at $4.8 billion [15][30]. - The complaint calculates that the "Apple tax" constitutes 10% of Apple's revenue in China, compared to 8.8% in the U.S. and 4.6% in Europe, indicating a heavier burden on Chinese consumers [15][30]. Group 5: Global Legal Actions - The complaint notes that over ten countries, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia, have initiated legal actions against Apple for similar monopolistic practices [18][31]. - Japan's Fair Trade Commission has announced plans to force Apple to open third-party transaction models by December 2025, marking a significant shift in the Asian market [19][31].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential implications of the "choose one from two" (二选一) accusation against Ctrip, highlighting the risks of monopolistic behavior in the OTA (Online Travel Agency) sector and its impact on market dynamics [4][5][19]. Group 1: Market Dynamics and Competition - Ctrip is currently facing scrutiny after being questioned by the Zhengzhou Market Supervision Bureau, with media focusing on its pricing strategies and potential monopolistic practices [5][19]. - The OTA industry is more complex than the food delivery sector, involving higher consumer decision costs and a longer supply chain, which could lead to greater risks if monopolistic behavior is established [9][10]. - Ctrip's market dominance is significant, with projections indicating it will hold a 56% market share in 2024, far surpassing competitors like Tongcheng (15%) and Meituan (13%) [16][18]. Group 2: Pricing Strategies and Merchant Impact - Ctrip's commission structure places significant financial pressure on hotel merchants, with basic commissions ranging from 12% to 15%, and total costs potentially nearing 30% [11][12][13]. - Merchants have reported that Ctrip's "price adjustment assistant" and "golden card" system may effectively force them into a "choose one from two" scenario, limiting their pricing autonomy and market choices [22][34]. - The article suggests that Ctrip's operational strategies may create a closed market where it dictates terms, impacting the competitive landscape for merchants [34][35].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the significant increase in egg prices in the U.S. due to a supply shortage primarily caused by avian influenza, leading to a historical high in egg prices and raising concerns about inflation and potential monopolistic practices in the industry [2][6][12]. Group 1: Price Increase and Supply Shortage - The wholesale price of eggs in the U.S. has surged by 255% over the past four months, with the average price reaching $4.95 per dozen, a record high [2][6]. - Approximately 15% of the laying hens in the U.S. have been culled due to avian influenza, contributing to the supply crisis [6][8]. - The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that 30.3 million chickens have died due to avian influenza since the beginning of 2025, with significant losses occurring in several states [8][9]. Group 2: Government Response and Market Dynamics - The USDA is considering importing more eggs and has announced a $1 billion investment to combat the crisis and stabilize prices [3][9]. - Analysts suggest that the high prices may suppress demand, but it will take months for producers to fill the supply gap [10]. - The upcoming Easter holiday may exacerbate supply issues as consumers continue to stockpile eggs [11]. Group 3: Monopolistic Concerns and Industry Dynamics - The U.S. Department of Justice has initiated an investigation into potential monopolistic behavior among large egg producers, examining whether they have colluded to raise prices [12][13]. - The egg industry has seen significant consolidation, with Cal-Maine Foods controlling about 20% of the market and reporting a 342% increase in sales due to rising egg prices [15]. - Critics argue that the losses from avian influenza are relatively small compared to the profits being made by producers, suggesting possible exploitation of the situation [14][15].