Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

SIPA USA/PA Images

Explainer: TikTok is on the block but why has Donald Trump given Microsoft 45 days to make a bid?

A September deadline looms for the blockbuster acquisition.

TEENAGERS LOVE IT and the US authorities hate it but there’s no doubting the impact that social media platform TikTok has had during the pandemic.

Owned by Chinese company ByteDance, the app had been hot property since its international rollout in 2018 but in 2020, its popularity has soared thanks to lockdown-related boredom, idle hands and, crucially, feet.

But after US President Donald Trump threatened to ban TikTok last Friday, many of its most prominent users took the weekend to say goodbye to the beloved app, home of viral lockdown dance phenomena like the Blinding Lights and Think about Things challenges.

Simultaneously, it emerged last Friday that software giant Microsoft had been engaged in talks with ByteDance for a number of weeks to buy TikTok’s American and international operation, headquartered in Los Angeles.

Why does Microsoft want to buy TikTok?

Well, it’s no secret that TikTok has been one of the undisputed winners of the pandemic.

In the first quarter of the year, the app was downloaded a whopping 315 million times across Apple and Android phones, smashing records in the process.

By May, TikTok had been downloaded 2 billion times cumulatively, with 40% of users aged between 16 and 24, an incredibly valuable market segment for any would-be buyers.

That’s a lot of precious consumer data for Microsoft to sink its teeth into to help integrate and improve its product offerings.

Having moved away from consumer products in recent years towards cloud computing and enterprise software, a takeover of TikTok would also allow Microsoft to compete directly with the likes of Facebook, Twitter and, crucially, Google-owned video giant YouTube.

But it won’t come cheap.

Its parent company, ByteDance, is currently valued at between $75 and $100 billion and TikTok itself has been price-tagged at anywhere between $5 billion and $10 billion.

So what’s Trump’s issue with TikTok?

In the past few months, Trump and his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, have repeatedly painted TikTok as a threat to American national security, citing the app’s Chinese ownership and suspicions over its data processing protocols.

On 7 July, Pompeo told Fox News that the administration was considering an outright ban on the app.

This, he said, was because China’s national intelligence laws could compel TikTok’s Bejing-anchored parent company, ByteDance, to hand over user data whenever it wants. 

For its part, TikTok has roundly denied ever handing American data over to the Chinese government. 

In a statement released after Pompeo’s comments, the company said, “TikTok is led by an American CEO, with hundreds of employees and key leaders across safety, security, product, and public policy here in the US.

“We have no higher priority than promoting a safe and secure app experience for our users. We have never provided user data to the Chinese government, nor would we do so if asked.”

It maintains that all American data is handled and processed in the US itself.

What’s the context?

It’s worth noting that the campaign against TikTok — which, at the moment, is still based on “suspicions, not legal complaints” — is being waged against the background of a huge upsurge in anti-China sentiment in the US.

According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Centre, a US think-tank, 73% of Americans have an unfavourable opinion of China, a historically high reading and up 26 percentage points since 2018 alone.

It’s perhaps no surprise given the explosive language used by Trump about China and Chinese companies since his arrival on the political scene.

But it’s not just Trump and the Republicans who are at it.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden has himself criticised the US president for being too soft on China in recent weeks and plenty of his party colleagues have weighed in on the TikTok debacle as well.

But US and China have been locked in a trade war for the better part of Trump’s presidency and in May, the president threatened to “cut off [America's] whole relationship” with China in order to save the US economy $500 billion.

A truce was negotiated between the two governments earlier this year but the coronavirus outbreak has done nothing to help relations.

Recently, Trump went as far as to infer that Bejing actually allowed Covid-19 to spread to damage his reelection bid. 

Chinese officials have publicly stated their belief that Trump is just using rhetoric to fire up his base and that for all his bombast, the president’s ‘crackdown’ has been mostly cosmetic.

But the row over TikTok, a symptom of US political and economic enmity towards all things China at the moment, threatened to become very real last Friday with what seemed like a final threat from Trump.

“As far as TikTok is concerned,” he said, “we’re banning them from the United States.”

He added he would take action as soon as Saturday using emergency economic power or an executive order.

Can Trump actually ban TikTok?

This is a thorny issue but the short answer is that he could certainly give it a bash.

Other Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE have been on the receiving end of punitive measures from the current US administration through the Committee on Foreign Investments (CFIU) in the United States.

The committee is also notorious for ordering a Chinese company to sell its stake in gay dating app Grindr last year.

TikTok is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the CFIU, which the Trump administration could weaponise in its fight against TikTok.

The CFIU could make life extremely difficult for TikTok by sanctioning it but to actually ban the app by placing it on the US Commerce Department’s ‘entity list’ would, according to one legal expert, be “extreme, unusual, and legally dubious“.

In fact, some Trump advisors believed that the ensuing legal and political wrangle would be so messy that instead, according to The New York Times, they convinced the US president to park his plans to ban the app.

Over the weekend, the paper reported that advisors asked Trump to consider the political fallout, particularly with younger voters, if he tried to outright prohibit TikTok.

This is where Microsoft entered the frame.

So what happened over the weekend?

Parallel to Trump’s bombastic statement on Friday, it was reported in the US that Microsoft had been involved in advanced talks to purchase TikTok for a number of weeks.

Those talks reportedly stalled after the US president’s announcement but over the weekend, they started up again.

Microsoft confirmed on Sunday that “following a conversation between Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and President Donald J Trump, Microsoft is prepared to continue discussions to explore a purchase of TikTok in the United States”.

In a statement on the company website, Microsoft said, “Among other measures, Microsoft would ensure that all private data of TikTok’s American users is transferred to and remains in the United States.

“To the extent that any such data is currently stored or backed-up outside the United States, Microsoft would ensure that this data is deleted from servers outside the country after it is transferred.”

What changed?

After being persuaded in private to pump the brakes on his plan to outlaw the app, Trump performed a very public about-turn on Monday, opening the door for the divestment of TikTok’s American business to a US company.

Speaking at the White House, Trump said TikTok would “close down on 15 September unless Microsoft or somebody else is able to buy it and work out an appropriate deal”.

“It’s got to be an American company… it’s got to be owned here,” Trump said. “We don’t want to have any problem with security.” 

In a surprising twist, he said he had warned Microsoft that the US government would have to get its slice of the pie “because we’re making it possible for this deal to happen. Right now they don’t have any rights, unless we give it to them”. 

How exactly the Trump administration plans to take its chunk of the money is unclear and the legal ramifications of the US president’s comments are still being picked over.

— Additional reporting by AFP

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

View 13 comments
Close
13 Comments
This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic. Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy here before taking part.
Leave a Comment
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Niall Power
    Favourite Niall Power
    Report
    Oct 17th 2022, 4:08 PM

    Have they found a way to blame Sinn Féin yet?

    255
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Shaun Gallagher
    Favourite Shaun Gallagher
    Report
    Oct 17th 2022, 5:57 PM

    @Niall Power: Only Monday yet

    54
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Celtic Eagle
    Favourite Celtic Eagle
    Report
    Oct 17th 2022, 4:43 PM

    It’s not surprising Fine Gael, the party of the rich, want to increase house prices for first time buyers.

    129
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Sean
    Favourite Sean
    Report
    Oct 17th 2022, 4:33 PM

    We allowed banks to self regulate then the taxpayer had to bail them out, we allowed the insurance industry to self-regulate then the taxpayer had to bail them out and we allowed the construction industry to self regulate and now the taxpayer has to bail them out. There was a cosy relationship between construction and recent governments but trust has been permanently damaged. Not just mica but fire safety. Corners cut everywhere and no one accountable. If it adds 4K to the cost of a new house to build it in a manner that means it won’t crack and crumble into the ground within ten years then that is a cost worth paying.

    91
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Gert McNulty
    Favourite Gert McNulty
    Report
    Oct 17th 2022, 5:39 PM

    @Sean: how long have you had a house Sean?

    21
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute John Mulligan
    Favourite John Mulligan
    Report
    Oct 17th 2022, 5:48 PM

    @Sean: that 4k figure is an absolute myth, based on figures that nobody thought to check.

    23
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute John Smith
    Favourite John Smith
    Report
    Oct 17th 2022, 6:49 PM

    This will be a great excuse for FF to pull the rug out from under Lord Veradader before his coronation in December.

    27
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mick Hyland
    Favourite Mick Hyland
    Report
    Oct 17th 2022, 5:41 PM

    The builders will get the maximum price they can for a house. The price they get will be determined by supply and demand. So the builder or developer will be the ones paying for the levy. The suggestion that if you put a levy on concrete the builder will just add it on to the price of the house is just simplistic.

    22
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paolo Fandango
    Favourite Paolo Fandango
    Report
    Oct 17th 2022, 6:58 PM

    @Mick Hyland: In simple terms this is correct.

    But if a developer has input costs that increase by say 1%. Then 99 houses get built instead of 100. So it’ll still affect supply.

    13
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Mick Hyland
    Favourite Mick Hyland
    Report
    Oct 17th 2022, 11:57 PM

    @Paolo Fandango: Why would only 99 houses get built if the developer’s input costs increase by 1%? The developer is not operating with a fixed pot of money; as long as he’s making an attractive return on capital he will continue to build more houses.

    1
    See 1 more reply ▾
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paolo Fandango
    Favourite Paolo Fandango
    Report
    Oct 18th 2022, 4:08 PM

    @Mick Hyland: the 1% is being absorbed by the developer. Fixed pot or not, it’s still less net income which reduces the amount of assets they can build.

    The 1% cost doesn’t just disappear

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Ang
    Favourite Ang
    Report
    Oct 18th 2022, 9:11 AM

    So this is to offset the cost of mica redress scheme (which I believe impacted over 7000 homes). Am I miss understanding something here, but why is the whole Country now being forced to pay and contribute to a concrete levy (which we know will be permanent)? I know they are raising funds to offset, but this seems the complete wrong way to do it! Building material costs are already excessive.

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paolo Fandango
    Favourite Paolo Fandango
    Report
    Oct 17th 2022, 6:57 PM

    I’m simple terms this is correct.

    But if a developer has input costs that increase by say 1%. Then 99 houses get built instead of 100. So it’ll still affect supply.

    2
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Paolo Fandango
    Favourite Paolo Fandango
    Report
    Oct 17th 2022, 6:59 PM

    @Paolo Fandango: this was supposed to be a response to mick above.

    2
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.

Leave a commentcancel

 
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds