Download The Commission Purchase Agreement: Fill & Download for Free

The EU's rules on competition are designed to ensure fair and equal conditions for businesses, while leaving space for innovation, unified standards, and the development of small businesses.Under EU rules, businesses cannot:fix prices or carve up markets amongst themselvesabuse a dominant position in a particular market to squeeze out smaller competitorsmerge –if doing so would put them in a position to control the market.In practice this rule only prevents a small number of mergers going ahead. Larger companies that do a lot of business in the EU cannot merge without prior approval from the European Commission – even if they are based outside the EU.Protection for small firmsLarge firms are barred from using their bargaining power to impose conditions that would make it difficult for their suppliers or customers to do business with their competitors. The Commission can (and does) fine companies for this practice, because it leads to higher prices and/or less choice for consumers.EU investigations into anti-competitive practices cover not only goods but also professions (doctors, lawyers, etc.) and services – including financial services, such as retail banking and credit cards.Flexible rulesThese rules are applied with common sense and flexibility. The main consideration is whether consumers will benefit or other businesses will be harmed. For example, governments are allowed to help firms in difficulty – or new ventures – if they have a real chance of eventually being profitable, and so saving, even creating, jobs. What is not allowed is help for ailing businesses that have no hope of being viable.Other exceptions to the general rules include:companies working together on a single technical standard for the market as a wholesmaller companies cooperating, so they can compete better with larger onesresearch and innovation initiativesregional development projectsChecks and balancesThe Commission's extensive powers to investigate and halt violations of EU competition rules are subject to a number of internal checks and balances, as well as full judicial review by the European Courts. Companies and EU governments regularly lodge appeals against Commission decisions, which are sometimes successful.Antitrust: Commission fines Google €4.34 billion for illegal practices regarding Android mobile devices to strengthen dominance of Google's search engineBrussels, 18 July 2018The European Commission has fined Google €4.34 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules. Since 2011, Google has imposed illegal restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators to cement its dominant position in general internet search.Google must now bring the conduct effectively to an end within 90 days or face penalty payments of up to 5% of the average daily worldwide turnover of Alphabet, Google's parent company.Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, said: "Today, mobile internet makes up more than half of global internet traffic. It has changed the lives of millions of Europeans. Our case is about three types of restrictions that Google has imposed on Android device manufacturers and network operators to ensure that traffic on Android devices goes to the Google search engine. In this way, Google has used Android as a vehicle to cement the dominance of its search engine. These practices have denied rivals the chance to innovate and compete on the merits. They have denied European consumers the benefits of effective competition in the important mobile sphere. This is illegal under EU antitrust rules."In particular, Google:has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store);made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; andhas prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").Google's strategy and the scope of the Commission investigationGoogle obtains the vast majority of its revenues via its flagship product, the Google search engine. The company understood early on that the shift from desktop PCs to mobile internet, which started in the mid-2000s, would be a fundamental change for Google Search. So, Google developed a strategy to anticipate the effects of this shift, and to make sure that users would continue to use Google Search also on their mobile devices.In 2005, Google bought the original developer of the Android mobile operating system and has continued to develop Android ever since. Today, about 80% of smart mobile devices in Europe, and worldwide, run on Android.When Google develops a new version of Android it publishes the source code online. This in principle allows third parties to download and modify this code to create Android forks. The openly accessible Android source code covers basic features of a smart mobile operating system but not Google's proprietary Android apps and services. Device manufacturers who wish to obtain Google's proprietary Android apps and services need to enter into contracts with Google, as part of which Google imposes a number of restrictions. Google also entered into contracts and applied some of these restrictions to certain large mobile network operators, who can also determine which apps and services are installed on devices sold to end users.The Commission decision concerns three specific types of contractual restrictions that Google has imposed on device manufacturers and mobile network operators. These have enabled Google to use Android as a vehicle to cement the dominance of its search engine. In other words, the Commission decision does not question the open source model or the Android operating system as such.Google's dominanceThe Commission decision concludes that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system.General search servicesGoogle is dominant in the national markets for general internet search throughout the European Economic Area (EEA), i.e. in all 31 EEA Member States. Google has shares of more than 90% in most EEA Member States. There are high barriers to enter these markets. This has also been concluded in the Google Shopping decision of June 2017.Smart mobile operating systems available for licenceAndroid is a licensable smart mobile operating system. This means that third party manufacturers of smart mobile devices can license and run Android on their devices.Through its control over Android, Google is dominant in the worldwide market (excluding China) for licensable smart mobile operating systems, with a market share of more than 95%. There are high barriers to entry in part due to network effects: the more users use a smart mobile operating system, the more developers write apps for that system – which in turn attracts more users. Furthermore, significant resources are required to develop a successful licensable smart mobile operating system.As a licensable operating system, Android is different from operating systems exclusively used by vertically integrated developers (like Apple iOS or Blackberry). Those are not part of the same market because they are not available for licence by third party device manufacturers.Nevertheless, the Commission investigated to what extent competition for end users (downstream), in particular between Apple and Android devices, could indirectly constrain Google's market power for the licensing of Android to device manufacturers (upstream). The Commission found that this competition does not sufficiently constrain Google upstream for a number of reasons, including:end user purchasing decisions are influenced by a variety of factors (such as hardware features or device brand), which are independent from the mobile operating system;Apple devices are typically priced higher than Android devices and may therefore not be accessible to a large part of the Android device user base;Android device users face switching costs when switching to Apple devices, such as losing their apps, data and contacts, and having to learn how to use a new operating system; andeven if end users were to switch from Android to Apple devices, this would have limited impact on Google's core business. That's because Google Search is set as the default search engine on Apple devices and Apple users are therefore likely to continue using Google Search for their queries.App stores for the Android mobile operating systemGoogle is dominant in the worldwide market (excluding China) for app stores for the Android mobile operating system. Google's app store, the Play Store, accounts for more than 90% of apps downloaded on Android devices. This market is also characterised by high barriers to entry. For similar reasons to those already listed above, Google's app store dominance is not constrained by Apple's App Store, which is only available on iOS devices.Breach of EU antitrust rulesMarket dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets.Google has engaged in three separate types of practices, which all had the aim of cementing Google's dominant position in general internet search.1) Illegal tying of Google's search and browser appsGoogle offers its mobile apps and services to device manufacturers as a bundle, which includes the Google Play Store, the Google Search app and the Google Chrome browser. Google's licensing conditions make it impossible for manufacturers to pre-install some apps but not others.As part of the Commission investigation, device manufacturers confirmed that the Play Store is a "must-have" app, as users expect to find it pre-installed on their devices (not least because they cannot lawfully download it themselves).The Commission decision has concluded that Google has engaged in two instances of illegal tying:First, the tying of the Google Search app. As a result, Google has ensured that its Google Search app is pre-installed on practically all Android devices sold in the EEA. Search apps represent an important entry point for search queries on mobile devices. The Commission has found this tying conduct to be illegal as of 2011, which is the date Google became dominant in the market for app stores for the Android mobile operating system.Second, the tying of the Google Chrome browser. As a result, Google has ensured that its mobile browser is pre-installed on practically all Android devices sold in the EEA. Browsers also represent an important entry point for search queries on mobile devices and Google Search is the default search engine on Google Chrome. The Commission found this tying conduct to be illegal as of 2012, which is the date from which Google has included the Chrome browser in its app bundle.Pre-installation can create a status quo bias. Users who find search and browser apps pre-installed on their devices are likely to stick to these apps. For example, the Commission has found evidence that the Google Search app is consistently used more on Android devices, where it is pre-installed, than on Windows Mobile devices, where users must download it. This also shows that users do not download competing apps in numbers that can offset the significant commercial advantage derived through pre-installation. For example, in 2016:on Android devices (with Google Search and Chrome pre-installed) more than 95% of all search queries were made via Google Search; andon Windows Mobile devices (Google Search and Chrome are not pre-installed) less than 25% of all search queries were made via Google Search. More than 75% of search queries happened on Microsoft's Bing search engine, which is pre-installed on Windows Mobile devices.Google's practice has therefore reduced the incentives of manufacturers to pre-install competing search and browser apps, as well as the incentives of users to download such apps. This reduced the ability of rivals to compete effectively with Google.The Commission also assessed in detail Google's arguments that the tying of the Google Search app and Chrome browser were necessary, in particular to allow Google to monetise its investment in Android, and concluded that these arguments were not well founded. Google achieves billions of dollars in annual revenues with the Google Play Store alone, it collects a lot of data that is valuable to Google's search and advertising business from Android devices, and it would still have benefitted from a significant stream of revenue from search advertising without the restrictions.2) Illegal payments conditional on exclusive pre-installation of Google SearchGoogle granted significant financial incentives to some of the largest device manufacturers as well as mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed Google Search across their entire portfolio of Android devices. This harmed competition by significantly reducing their incentives to pre-install competing search apps.The Commission's investigation showed that a rival search engine would have been unable to compensate a device manufacturer or mobile network operator for the loss of the revenue share payments from Google and still make profits. That is because, even if the rival search engine was pre-installed on only some devices, they would have to compensate the device manufacturer or mobile network operator for a loss of revenue share from Google across all devices.In line with the recent EU court ruling in Intel, the Commission has considered, amongst other factors, the conditions under which the incentives were granted, their amount, the share of the market covered by these agreements and their duration.On this basis, the Commission found Google's conduct to be illegal between 2011 and 2014. In 2013 (after the Commission started to look into this issue), Google started to gradually lift the requirement. The illegal practice effectively ceased as of 2014.The Commission also assessed in detail Google's arguments that the granting of financial incentives for exclusive pre-installation of Google Search across the entire portfolio of Android devices was necessary. In this regard, the Commission dismissed Google's claim that payments based on exclusivity were necessary to convince device manufacturers and mobile network operators to produce devices for the Android ecosystem.3) Illegal obstruction of development and distribution of competing Android operating systemsGoogle has prevented device manufacturers from using any alternative version of Android that was not approved by Google (Android forks). In order to be able to pre-install on their devices Google's proprietary apps, including the Play Store and Google Search, manufacturers had to commit not to develop or sell even a single device running on an Android fork. The Commission found that this conduct was abusive as of 2011, which is the date Google became dominant in the market for app stores for the Android mobile operating system.This practice reduced the opportunity for devices running on Android forks to be developed and sold. For example, the Commission has found evidence that Google's conduct prevented a number of large manufacturers from developing and selling devices based on Amazon's Android fork called "Fire OS".In doing so, Google has also closed off an important channel for competitors to introduce apps and services, in particular general search services, which could be pre-installed on Android forks. Therefore, Google's conduct has had a direct impact on users, denying them access to further innovation and smart mobile devices based on alternative versions of the Android operating system. In other words, as a result of this practice, it was Google – and not users, app developers and the market – that effectively determined which operating systems could prosper.The Commission also assessed in detail Google's arguments that these restrictions were necessary to prevent a "fragmentation" of the Android ecosystem, and concluded that these were not well founded. First, Google could have ensured that Android devices using Google proprietary apps and services were compliant with Google's technical requirements, without preventing the emergence of Android forks. Second, Google did not provide any credible evidence that Android forks would be affected by technical failures or fail to support apps.The effects of Google's illegal practicesThe Commission decision concludes that these three types of abuse form part of an overall strategy by Google to cement its dominance in general internet search, at a time when the importance of mobile internet was growing significantly.First, Google's practices have denied rival search engines the possibility to compete on the merits. The tying practices ensured the pre-installation of Google's search engine and browser on practically all Google Android devices and the exclusivity payments strongly reduced the incentive to pre-install competing search engines. Google also obstructed the development of Android forks, which could have provided a platform for rival search engines to gain traffic. Google's strategy has also prevented rival search engines from collecting more data from smart mobile devices, including search and mobile location data, which helped Google to cement its dominance as a search engine.Furthermore, Google's practices also harmed competition and further innovation in the wider mobile space, beyond just internet search. That's because they prevented other mobile browsers from competing effectively with the pre-installed Google Chrome browser. Finally, Google obstructed the development of Android forks, which could have provided a platform also for other app developers to thrive.Consequences of the decisionThe Commission's fine of €4 342 865 000 takes account of the duration and gravity of the infringement. In accordance with the Commission's 2006 Guidelines on fines (see press release and MEMO - Fines for breaking EU Competition law), the fine has been calculated on the basis of the value of Google's revenue from search advertising services on Android devices in the EEA.The Commission decision requires Google to bring its illegal conduct to an end in an effective manner within 90 days of the decision.At a minimum, Google has to stop and to not re-engage in any of the three types of practices. The decision also requires Google to refrain from any measure that has the same or an equivalent object or effect as these practices.The decision does not prevent Google from putting in place a reasonable, fair and objective system to ensure the correct functioning of Android devices using Google proprietary apps and services, without however affecting device manufacturers' freedom to produce devices based on Android forks.It is Google's sole responsibility to ensure compliance with the Commission decision. The Commission will monitor Google's compliance closely and Google is under an obligation to keep the Commission informed of how it will comply with its obligations.If Google fails to ensure compliance with the Commission decision, itwould be liable for non-compliance payments of up to 5% of the average daily worldwide turnover of Alphabet, Google's parent company. The Commission would have to determine such non-compliance in a separate decision, with any payment backdated to when the non-compliance started.Finally, Google is also liable to face civil actions for damages that can be brought before the courts of the Member States by any person or business affected by its anti-competitive behaviour. The new EU Antitrust Damages Directive makes it easier for victims of anti-competitive practices to obtain damages.Other Google casesIn June 2017, the Commission fined Google €2.42 billion for abusing its dominance as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to Google's own comparison shopping service. The Commission is currently actively monitoring Google's compliance with that decision.The Commission also continues to investigate restrictions that Google has placed on the ability of certain third party websites to display search advertisements from Google's competitors (the AdSense case). In July 2016, the Commission came to the preliminary conclusion that Google has abused its dominant position in a case concerning AdSense.BackgroundToday's decision is addressed to Google LLC (previously Google Inc.) and Alphabet Inc., Google's parent company. The Commission opened proceedings concerning Google's conduct as regards the Android operating system and applications in April 2015 and sent a Statement of Objections to Google in April 2016.Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement prohibit abuse of a dominant position.More information on this investigation is available on the Commission's competition website, in the public case register under the case number 40099 (Case search - Competition - European Commission).

Fortnite introduced an in app purchase system which directly circumvents the existingCustomer -> App Store -> developer chronology.This is against the rules of the App Store.[1]Besides, Epic provided a cheaper option to the in app purchase which violates the App Store regulations. It’s a direct violation of the terms and conditions agreement that the developer is expected to say “I agree” to, at the time of uploading the app to App Store, if he wants to publish the app at all.Fortnite accusing Apple for themselves violating the terms they agreed to is the equivalent of a gamer outraging for being banned from the game after caught using hacks. There is a clause in the T&C of the game which requires you to never use unfair means. If you have, the platform will take suitable action, and so has Apple App Store and google play store, via Fortnite’s removal.Apple side :Epic pushed this feature via an In app update, the likes of which are frequently used to download extra assets to the game (like maps on PUBG, for reference) and thus Apple wasn’t able to review and thus, stop the feature from reaching the customers.Such a method of “sneaking in” the feature to circumvent the usual procedure further weakens Fortnite case — if they were confident it was a fair and justifiable method, why sneak. If not, then it’s clearly something which could get them in trouble, and eventually did.As a term of the agreement had been violated, there were appropriate measures mentioned in the T&C agreement, for situations where a developer’s app violate the terms, then what should happen to them. And exactly that has happened. Should Fortnite agree to delete the feature and restore the usual method of payment, the app may be restored.Since Fortnite is using apple’s platform, ie App Store to deploy its app, they must also abide by the rules dictated by the platform (When in rome, do as the romans do) for whatever reasons — they had already agreed to the terms, and now that they have violated the terms, consequences were unavoidable.Fortnite side :Apple App Store and google play store have a fixed commision on every paid app or in app purchase. According to what the companies state, it’s for maintaining the app stores, and for providing a platform to the app developer to distribute their app.Fortnite, like some other companies in the past (like Spotify) do not seem impressed whenever Apple and google pocket a part of their revenue, everytime a customer makes a purchase.Epic states that Apple business mode for the App Store grants too much power to them to control the App Store “monopoly” and that the commission cut is greed. They have backed the addition of the “path B of purchase” as a way of breaking the monopoly, and providing customers a value for money product.Where Apple is correct :Since Apple has had the commission clause since the inception of the App Store, Epic should’ve either:Not accepted the T&C agreement[2] in the first place and never launched an app on the App Store if they were uncomfortable with the rules or,Should not have attempted to violate a legal agreement that they already signed. Doing so gives Apple the right to take action as prescribed in the same T&C agreement. They should not cry over spilt milk.Apple’s commission is justified because it’s not only App Store, but also Steam, Google Play store, and literally any other app distribution platform which takes commissions.So no single person is greedy, everyone is equally.Their reasons of collecting it also seems justified since there is a whole Dev team for App Store, an editorial board which writes “Editors choice” under app names, not to mention hosting the App Store servers also costing real money.Where Fortnite is correct :Any developer can feel, especially in a freemium business model, that every penny lost is their hard work being undervalued.30% is quite a lot for commision, especially considering the total users on the App Store and the fact that App Store, in general, has generated more profit via in app purchases and paid apps, than google play. This warrants flak from devs who feel App Store rules causing them losses worth millions.This itself roots from the fact that majority of android sales come from mid range and low range smartphones.The buyers of these are much less likely to pay for an app or in app purchase, especially in relatively lower Per capita GDP countries of Asia, Europe and Africa, than someone in USA or western EU countries using an iPhone or iPad.[3]So it’s natural that Epic would be more aggressive towards Apple and not google. App Store is where their maximum profits come from, too.[4]I’m not taking any sides because I’m not a stakeholder in this fiasco. Neither do I play Fortnite — and would try to defend them, nor do I run the App Store, and thus my opinion as to how Tim should run it, doesn’t matter. There are things me and you aren’t aware of.I however will agree, that 30% is indeed a lot, as well as the fact that Epic is more pious either — they have violated terms and the consequences for doing so were either underestimated by Epic or they forget that less profit is better than no profit.Footnotes[1] Fortnite removed from App Store after Epic Games added direct payment option - 9to5Mac[2] App Store Review Guidelines[3] App Revenue Statistics (2019)[4] Infographic: Apple Users More Willing to Pay for Apps

Ways to Make Money Online With ClickbankClickBank is an excellent website for a newbie to start with affiliate marketing. It has all the information that an affiliate marketer needs to be successful. But often, when someone first starts with affiliate marketing or ClickBank as their first website, they will tell you that to make money from affiliate marketing or ClickBank, you are going to have to create a website!As a newbie in the world of internet marketing, this is one of the biggest mistakes you can make. If you want to be successful and learn how to make money online, you are not going to build a website that will be of interest to you. This is because the only reason someone would visit your site is if they found a link to your affiliate program. So when you have to build your website or blog that offers relevant information, you have found the path to success!But building a website or blog is not necessary. You can still make money from home with ClickBank. All you have to do is join Clickbank, set up your account and start promoting products from that Clickbank affiliate program. The best way to build your site is to use a free website builder tool such as WordPress.What's Clickbank?Many people consider Clickbank just another affiliate network.But unlike traditional affiliate platforms, Clickbank functions as a marketplace for the two people who create goods and affiliates, so they can earn money together without complicated paperwork or agreements.How Does This Work?In other words, Clickbank is the middleman between founders of electronic goods, like ebooks, video, music and so on, and individuals who can market these products, i.e. affiliate marketers.Depending on which party of this market would be you, Clickbank fulfils one of the two purposes:As an affiliate marketer, you can jump right in, create your unique affiliate links for thousands of products (more on that later) and start to drive traffic immediately to begin earning money. You'll also see your earnings in real-time.It's free to join, and there is no screening process. No cap or complex metrics. It's basically a simplified affiliate system, open to anybody that wants to give it a shot.If you happen to want to give it a try, only register in their site.As an affiliate marketer, you may ask yourself, why market ebooks and online courses from unknown producers, if you're able to sign up with say CJ or Amazon Associates and promote reliable products.Firstly, online instruction is a massive marketplace and Clickbank itself creates close to some million billion dollars in sales revenue every year.Secondly, there is a beauty to electronic products. That beauty is the most significant margins possible. Because to make a replica of a movie and market, it costs nothing.100% of the revenue can be considered that the gain (out of marketing costs).High gains = massive affiliate commissions. And Clickbank pays up to 75%.Pros & Cons Of ClickBankI love ClickBank, and I think it's a beautiful spot for new affiliate marketers to get started and make money online without the hassle of advanced affiliate programs.There's no cap, you do not have to get approved for 90% of those offers, and you can begin selling straight away.Trust me, that is a big plus when you get started and have no track record to show to all those big affiliate networks.Here is a brief list of the pros & cons of the platform:Step-By-Step: How To Make Money With ClickbankTo generate money with Clickbank, you need to adhere to the same formulation as any successful enterprise.You want a reliable product that customers want and create a funnel to convert the visitors, to begin with. Then you develop your traffic, optimize your funnel, and once you know that you're rewarding (i.e. you convert $ more than you spend), you climb the entire thing.90% of affiliate earnings come from 10 percent of affiliates, so put your very best work in.Let us begin with the product.NOTE:- FOR MORE INFORMATION TO LEARN ABOUT AFFILIATE MARKETING - MESSAGE ME IN WHATSAPPHow To Pick The Ideal Product To PromoteOne of the most significant ways to make money on Clickbank is to start as an affiliate, boosting pages that have already been optimized, to construct your sales funnels.Similar to keyword research for SEO, choosing the right product to market on ClickBank is extremely important. However great you're at boosting if you drive traffic to a sales page which does not sell, you won't make much money.What Is A Great Product To BoostScreening offers a big part of understanding how to make money with Clickbank.Low-cost initial offer with around three upsales.Video revenue pages &"native" earnings pages (pages that feel like articles )Products with good reviews online (low refunds = more cash and less list burnout)Gravity above 20 (signifies that the webpage works reasonably well)How Everyone Tries To Make Money From ClickBankShould you read on other affiliate marketing sites, you will see a ton of"strategies" on how to earn money with ClickBank. A number of them work, and some of them clearly don't work.The problem most of these tactics have, apart from the previous one, is that they have very limited preselling.Folks are thrown to sales pages without understanding why they are there or who is this guy trying to sell them an information product.You need to give folks legitimate reasons why they ought to buy the product, and if you can be that 3rd party offering a recommendation, your conversion rates will 5-10x very often.Furthermore, repeat exposure to the offer does very well for us. More on that later though.Direct Linking / BannersThis is the most common and very often less rewarding.The tactic is simple.Find a somewhat related article on your website and slap a banner on the sidebar or in the centre of the guide, with no form of preselling the product mainly.In-Content LinksIn content, hyperlinks are usually in line recommendations that are embedded right in the text.The advice often comes from the voice of the author, and if they've done a fantastic job building trust throughout the article/post, the conversion rates will probably be adequate.ReviewsThis is one strategy we still use to this day and for a good reason: it works! Inspection traffic is extremely targeted and individuals landing on your webpage have a very high opportunity to purchase.If your review does not look entirely biased, there's a good chance they'll trust you click via your affiliate link to obtain the item.Email MarketingThis is where things begin to become fun. Rather than people attempting to throw visitors to a sales page and then don't have an opportunity to see those visitors again, you've got their contact details!Note: If you don't have an email advertising service, however, I recommend Getresponse for affiliate marketers, it is far superior to Aweber and provides excellent automation for the specific same price and contains a free trial for one to see whether you like it.This means you can expose them to the offer again in case they didn't purchase and take your time to convince them that it's what they need (and you know it is because they downloaded the associated guide magnet).NOTE:- FOR MORE INFORMATION TO LEARN ABOUT AFFILIATE MARKETING - MESSAGE ME IN WHATSAPP