关于大型科技企业与数字监管的议题，有时似乎与普通选民的日常生活相去甚远。然而，少数全球科技巨头对我们生活的影响力，其实远远超出了大多数人的认知。
ebates around big tech and digital regulation can sometimes feel distant from the everyday concerns of voters. But the power that a small number of global tech companies hold over our lives goes far beyond what most people realise.
作为议会科学、创新与技术委员会主席，多年来我一直在呼吁关注这一问题：从科技巨头收集的用户数据、为我们构建的数字“替身”，到决定孩子们能看到什么内容的算法，种种现象都令人担忧。
As chair of the parliamentary science, innovation and technology committee, I have spent years raising concerns about this: from the data they harvest and the digital “twins” they build of us, to the algorithms that decide what our children see.
不过，这种权力失衡现象还有一个更为隐蔽的例子，几乎每个英国智能手机用户都深受其影响——那就是“应用税”。苹果与谷歌掌控着两个应用商店，英国几乎所有的移动应用都通过它们触达用户。凭借这一垄断地位，这两家公司向应用开发者提出了绝大多数企业绝不会接受的条款。如今，只要通过这两个应用商店销售订阅服务、游戏或软件，无论产品性质如何、开发成本多低，两家公司都会对应用内交易收取最高达30%的佣金。由于没有其他替代平台可供选择，开发者们只能被迫接受硅谷巨头制定的规则。
But there’s a much less visible example of this imbalance of power sitting in the pocket of almost every smartphone user in Britain: the app tax. Apple and Google control the two app stores through which almost every mobile app in this country reaches its customers, and that position lets them set terms for app developers that most businesses would never accept from a supplier. Sell a subscription, game or piece of software through either app store and both companies now charge a commission of up to 30% on purchases made inside apps regardless of what the product is or what it costs to make. With no alternative platforms, developers simply have to accept the terms set by Silicon Valley.
此外，苹果与谷歌还禁止开发者向用户透露其他渠道存在更便宜的同类产品，这一限制同样是为了维护自身的利益。对于那些难以承担高额成本的英国小型开发者而言，这一规定可能直接决定他们能否雇佣下一名工程师、能否推出新产品，甚至决定他们的企业是继续在英国发展，还是不得不远赴海外另谋出路。
Developers are also prevented from telling users that a cheaper option exists elsewhere, known as “steering”. That restriction is enforced by Apple and Google to protect their own profits. For small British developers who might struggle to absorb the cost, that could be the difference between hiring their next engineer or not, investing in a new product or shelving it, or growing their business here or uprooting and building overseas instead.
消费者同样为此付出代价。据《每日邮报》报道，由“应用公平联盟”委托进行的一项研究显示：英国消费者每年需向苹果和谷歌支付约7亿英镑，这一数额比这两家公司去年在英国缴纳的企业税总和还要多出2.32亿英镑。对于拥有四名智能手机用户的家庭而言，这一费用相当于每年需多支出约55英镑。这笔费用早已被计入产品价格之中，虽然在任何收据上都看不到相关明细，但它更多体现的是对市场的控制以及企业利润的提升，而非这两家公司通过实际努力所应得的回报。
Consumers pay the price, too. Research commissioned by the Coalition for App Fairness, as reported in the Daily Mail, indicated that British consumers pay approximately £700m per year to Apple and Google, a full £232m more than the companies paid in UK corporation tax last year combined. This is equivalent to around £55 annually for a household with four smartphone users. It is a cost built into the price of the product, invisible on any receipt, that has far more to do with market control and bolstering profits than anything the companies actually did to earn it.
在进入议会工作前，我曾在通信市场监管机构Ofcom任职。我的职责是评估市场的竞争程度，因为唯有通过竞争，消费者才能拥有更多选择。英国竞争与市场管理局（CMA）发现，苹果与谷歌的移动平台实际上形成了双寡头垄断局面：英国至少90%的移动设备均运行在这两家公司的平台上。应用开发者别无选择，只能通过苹果应用商店或谷歌应用商店发布自己的产品。
My last job before coming into parliament was with Ofcom, the regulator for communications markets. I was responsible for assessing the competitiveness of markets, because it is through competition that consumers get choice. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has found that Apple and Google’s mobile platforms hold an effective duopoly, with at least 90% of UK mobile devices running on their mobile platforms. App developers have no choice but to distribute their product through the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store.
倘若某开发者不满苹果的条款且市场上存在其他应用商店，他们自然会带着应用及用户转投他处，产品价格也会随之下降。然而，iPhone上根本不存在其他应用商店，安卓用户也几乎没有脱离谷歌应用商店使用的可行途径。苹果与谷歌就这样毫无阻碍地制定着行业规则。
If a developer happened to dislike Apple’s terms and another app store existed, they would take their app, and their customers, elsewhere, and the price would fall. But there is no alternative app store on an iPhone, and no practical route for Android users outside Google Play either. Apple and Google set the rules unchallenged.
2024年，议会获得跨党派支持，通过了《数字市场、竞争与消费者法案》（DMCCA），正是预见到了上述问题。该法案赋予CMA切实的权力，可强制占据市场主导地位的平台改变其行为模式。但截至目前，CMA仍仅要求苹果与谷歌做出一些软性的、自愿性的承诺，并未强制实施任何具有法律约束力的规定。
Parliament anticipated this problem when, in 2024, it passed the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA) with cross-party support, giving the CMA genuine powers to force dominant platforms to change their behaviour. But, so far, the CMA has resorted to weak, voluntary commitments from Apple and Google rather than requirements it is actually obliged to enforce.
关于“引导机制”的公众咨询现已结束，该机制最终将允许开发者向用户推荐其他价格更实惠的服务选项。相关决定预计很快便会作出。许多人担忧此举最终只会沦为一种自愿遵守的倡议，而非具有强制约束力的规则，这种担忧不无道理。
Its consultation on “steering”, which would finally let developers point users to cheaper options elsewhere, has now closed and a decision is due soon. Many are rightly nervous that this could end up with another voluntary gesture, rather than a binding rule, deemed acceptable.
然而，这一时刻也蕴含着机遇。这将是本届政府针对大型科技企业作出的首批重要决策之一，很可能决定其在此问题上的政策走向。首相在入主唐宁街前后都明确表示，实现技术主权意味着降低英国对少数海外科技平台的依赖。我希望这种理念能体现在此类决策之中。
But this moment also represents an opportunity. It will be one of the first serious decisions this government makes on big tech, and will likely determine the direction it takes on this issue. The prime minister has been clear, both before and since entering Downing Street, that tech sovereignty means reducing our dependence on a handful of overseas platforms. I want to see that instinct applied to decisions such as this.
这并非反对技术或阻碍发展，而是关乎英国消费者、开发者以及监管机构能否决定技术在本国市场的运作方式及其对社会产生的影响。我恳请竞争与市场管理局切实运用我们赋予它的权力，也恳请政府同僚们予以全力支持。
This is not about being anti-technology or anti-growth. It is about whether British consumers, British developers and British regulators are able to shape the terms on which technology operates in our own market and influences our society. I urge the CMA to use the powers we gave it, and I urge my colleagues in government to back it in doing so.
奇·昂武拉是纽卡斯尔中央与西部选区的工党议员，同时担任议会科学、创新与技术委员会主席。
Chi Onwurah is the Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West and chair of the parliamentary science, innovation and technology committee