Europe Is Going After Google Hard, and Google May Not Win(wired.com)
wired.com
Europe Is Going After Google Hard, and Google May Not Win
http://www.wired.com/2016/07/europe-going-google-hard-google-may-not-win/
93 comments
>> "Are Europeans not upset"
I'm happy the regulators are not allowing a huge multi-national business to abuse its power. I'm happy that, to some extent, regulators are trying to make sure large foreign tech companies respect my privacy. If that means we lose Google I think you're overestimating how big of a deal that would be. I use DDG for search, iCloud for email/calendar/contacts, Safari as my desktop browser, BBC for my news, Amazon for my shopping. I don't need Google - it needs me.
I'm happy the regulators are not allowing a huge multi-national business to abuse its power. I'm happy that, to some extent, regulators are trying to make sure large foreign tech companies respect my privacy. If that means we lose Google I think you're overestimating how big of a deal that would be. I use DDG for search, iCloud for email/calendar/contacts, Safari as my desktop browser, BBC for my news, Amazon for my shopping. I don't need Google - it needs me.
Are you also happy having to pay for services like Google Maps, which everyone else can get for free - because some French Maps company thinks it's unfair they can't make as much money as Google can?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/feb/03/google-fi...
If so, enjoy getting nickled and dimed for literally everything in the future.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/feb/03/google-fi...
If so, enjoy getting nickled and dimed for literally everything in the future.
1. That ruling actually makes sense. If we don't prevent price wars smaller companies don't have any possibility of competing with larger companies and consumers lose in the end due to lack of competition.
>> "If so, enjoy getting nickled and dimed for literally everything in the future."
2. Since when did having to pay for something you use become 'getting nickled and dimed'??
Edit:
3. Look at it this way. Were you fine with Microsoft giving IE away with Windows? Other browser developers couldn't compete because Microsoft used its dominance in OS and the fact it didn't need to charge for a browser to put other browser developers out of business and we as consumers suffered. This is the same thing. Google is the dominant search engine. When I search for an address they should me a map on the right of the screen. They promote their maps with a link at the top of the search. And their product is free. Seems pretty similar the MS in the 90's to me.
>> "If so, enjoy getting nickled and dimed for literally everything in the future."
2. Since when did having to pay for something you use become 'getting nickled and dimed'??
Edit:
3. Look at it this way. Were you fine with Microsoft giving IE away with Windows? Other browser developers couldn't compete because Microsoft used its dominance in OS and the fact it didn't need to charge for a browser to put other browser developers out of business and we as consumers suffered. This is the same thing. Google is the dominant search engine. When I search for an address they should me a map on the right of the screen. They promote their maps with a link at the top of the search. And their product is free. Seems pretty similar the MS in the 90's to me.
OpenStreetMap is at parity with Google Maps.
EDIT: Don't make it sound like we should allow for-profit companies to hold us hostage.
EDIT: Don't make it sound like we should allow for-profit companies to hold us hostage.
>> not allowing a huge multi-national business to abuse its power.
And yet you use iCloud and Amazon?
And yet you use iCloud and Amazon?
Could you make your point more clearly? Google is potentially breaking laws and being investigated for that. If Amazon or Apple are suspected of breaking those laws they should also be investigated.
Do you think that abuses of power which result in the violation of laws are the only kinds of abuses of power that matter?
Of course not. I didn't imply that anywhere. I stated that Google is potentially breaking the law so should be investigated and offered some alternatives I use which suit my needs better.
Maybe the initial point you meant to make was related more to 'breaking the law' rather than 'abusing their power', but the phrasing you used focused on the abuse of power rather than the law. This can be taken to imply that you care about the abuse of power itself (rather than merely possible violations of law)
Apple and Amazon (like most companies their size) have well established histories of abusing their power, so I found it odd that you would explicitly mention their products as alternatives in the very same sentence in which you appear to criticise the abuse of power.
Apple and Amazon (like most companies their size) have well established histories of abusing their power, so I found it odd that you would explicitly mention their products as alternatives in the very same sentence in which you appear to criticise the abuse of power.
I meant 'abusing their power' in the sense of a monopoly using their power to kill competition before it has a chance.
Wait you don't use google for searching?!?!?! Or gmail? I am in awe.
I'm always amazed by people with your perspective! I hated Gmail from the beginning, it works terribly with IMAP, and it's generally slow compared to a good native app.
Google search is still occasionally better than DDG, but it's never more than an !g away if I'm unhappy with DDG.
What are all these services Google provides people feel are irreplaceable? I don't get it. They're an advertising company with big bags of money to let smart people noodle around on their pet projects. Nice company to work for (if you aren't morally opposed to advertising), but I've never found the products appealing.
Google search is still occasionally better than DDG, but it's never more than an !g away if I'm unhappy with DDG.
What are all these services Google provides people feel are irreplaceable? I don't get it. They're an advertising company with big bags of money to let smart people noodle around on their pet projects. Nice company to work for (if you aren't morally opposed to advertising), but I've never found the products appealing.
As far as gmail goes, I don't know if it is now widespread, but one day my gmail suddenly had different tabs for primary, social media, promotions, updates, and forums, and it changed my life. I hate using other mail apps that don't do that. Can't ever find anything.
I think they introduced that 3 or 4 years ago. There are multiple inbox views you can select from in the settings menus. I do like that system but it's not very valuable to me. I get quite a lot of email but I tend to deal with it all as soon as it arrives.
I understand, but before that was implemented I was really bad about answering emails because so many of them were garbage. Now I only have to look at the garbage if I want to (because I am addicted to massdrop)
Have you tried Inbox?
I'll be honest. Google Search is better for certain things. For example it's nice getting those little boxes at the top of the page that answer your question without you even needing to follow a link but I can afford the extra few seconds it takes to click a link every now and then in exchange for better privacy and results that aren't manipulated based on data the search engine holds on me.
As for Gmail that was a recent switch. I'm currently forwarding all mail to my iCloud account and using that. As I rarely use the Gmail web app (I only use desktop/mobile apps to access mail) the switch has been seamless.
For me the final straw was looking at my 'activity' page on Google. Despite having turned it off web history was on. I presume they asked me to click something someday and I wasn't careful enough but that was very annoying. They've also changed the web history interface to make it pretty complicated to figure out how to delete everything. I then noticed they had location tracking on (which I also specifically disabled in the past). I couldn't find a way to delete all of that and had to delete each record individually.
Google wants to do some cool stuff with all this data but it certainly isn't doing anything that makes it worth it for me to give up my privacy.
As for Gmail that was a recent switch. I'm currently forwarding all mail to my iCloud account and using that. As I rarely use the Gmail web app (I only use desktop/mobile apps to access mail) the switch has been seamless.
For me the final straw was looking at my 'activity' page on Google. Despite having turned it off web history was on. I presume they asked me to click something someday and I wasn't careful enough but that was very annoying. They've also changed the web history interface to make it pretty complicated to figure out how to delete everything. I then noticed they had location tracking on (which I also specifically disabled in the past). I couldn't find a way to delete all of that and had to delete each record individually.
Google wants to do some cool stuff with all this data but it certainly isn't doing anything that makes it worth it for me to give up my privacy.
GMail is super easy to replace. I use FastMail and love it.
Google search is a bit harder. I use DDG by default but will still use Google sometimes.
Google search is a bit harder. I use DDG by default but will still use Google sometimes.
Have you given startpage a try?
Google is still the best search engine, but in my opinion gmail isn't that big of a deal anymore. They were revolutionary in their time and are still very good, but there are great alternatives by now.
The road to hell is paved with great web search results.
What could gmail possibly give me that a server with postfix, dovecot and roundcube can not?
I'm honestly not sure if you're being sarcastic :(
I'm serious. I have a gmail account for spam signups, and i log in sometimes, but I didn't find anything that it gives me over my setup.
The only thing I can think of is the initial setup I had to do to get everything done, but that's a few hours of work and it's here now. Using it for years without having to do anything. Some friends of mine use it, and my family, and nobody complains. Ever.
The only thing I can think of is the initial setup I had to do to get everything done, but that's a few hours of work and it's here now. Using it for years without having to do anything. Some friends of mine use it, and my family, and nobody complains. Ever.
> Are Europeans not upset that they're being forced into sub-standard foreign technology by their government
Oh you're so funny. As opposed to the US where people overpay for sub-standard local technology?
People in the US still use cheques. And they have to pay (a lot) to print those.
Chip cards? No, let's use our fraud-prone magnetic stripe cards.
It's cheaper for me to call the US using an MVNO from Europe than picking up a phone and calling the US from within with a pre-paid cell phone there.
Talent flight? Sure let me wait for an H1-B (that you might not get after all). Meanwhile a non-EU worker visa takes about a month to process (sometimes less).
Oh you're so funny. As opposed to the US where people overpay for sub-standard local technology?
People in the US still use cheques. And they have to pay (a lot) to print those.
Chip cards? No, let's use our fraud-prone magnetic stripe cards.
It's cheaper for me to call the US using an MVNO from Europe than picking up a phone and calling the US from within with a pre-paid cell phone there.
Talent flight? Sure let me wait for an H1-B (that you might not get after all). Meanwhile a non-EU worker visa takes about a month to process (sometimes less).
Wait wut?
First my cheques are free, and the only time I really use them is when somebody needs by account info on file.
Second I have a chip card and I hate it.
Third, you're right. US telecom blows.
Fourth I hate to break it to you but talent really does flock to the US from europe and elsewhere and many of our greatest scientists and entrepreneurs are from abroad. Hell, Elon Musk is South African. That is the result of an extremely innovation friendly investment community, and the best higher education (UK is a distant second), in the world.
First my cheques are free, and the only time I really use them is when somebody needs by account info on file.
Second I have a chip card and I hate it.
Third, you're right. US telecom blows.
Fourth I hate to break it to you but talent really does flock to the US from europe and elsewhere and many of our greatest scientists and entrepreneurs are from abroad. Hell, Elon Musk is South African. That is the result of an extremely innovation friendly investment community, and the best higher education (UK is a distant second), in the world.
>> Second I have a chip card and I hate it."
Why? A bit more info would be useful.
Why? A bit more info would be useful.
Probably because it's slightly slower to use than magnetic strips (at least in the US), and since we're in a transition period you kind of never know whether a given store supports chip inserts.
Good points but that's not really a problem with the chip and pin tech. The parents comments sounded like he had a specific issue with that. Regarding speed I'm not too familiar with magnetic strip cards but don't you have to sign the receipt? If so that seems like it would take as long as entering a PIN. Also, do magnetic strips support contactless payments? The chip and PIN cards in the UK do which makes payments almost instant (up to £30).
We didn't do Chip+PIN in the US, we did Chip+Sign for everything but debit cards (which still use signatures in most cases as a lot of stores don't have support for the US Common Debit AID, yet). No, virtually nobody supports contactless on cards themselves, if you want that you're stuck with Apple Pay / Android Pay / Microsoft Wallet and having to use your phone or watch.
Our EMV rollout in the US was awful, the software running on card terminals is abysmally slow to authenticate transactions (taking upwards of 15 seconds in some cases), while traditional magnetic strips took maybe 2 or 3 to authorize. This is fixable, and multiple vendors in the chain have been providing fixes that drop the authentication+authorization time back down to the 3 second window, but it's going to take a while for it to get rolled out now that it's almost a full year after the big switch.
Our EMV rollout in the US was awful, the software running on card terminals is abysmally slow to authenticate transactions (taking upwards of 15 seconds in some cases), while traditional magnetic strips took maybe 2 or 3 to authorize. This is fixable, and multiple vendors in the chain have been providing fixes that drop the authentication+authorization time back down to the 3 second window, but it's going to take a while for it to get rolled out now that it's almost a full year after the big switch.
That sounds pretty terrible. In terms to auth speed we get that occasionally in very small stores (newsagents) but when you have to type in your PIN most stores handle it all in a few seconds now. The 15 second auth time was common here until about 5 years ago. In the last year I've also seen massive improvements, largely due to stores upgrading terminals to support contactless payments which I use almost everywhere now. I regularly leave home without my wallet as I can be quite certain I'll be able to use Apple Pay via the contactless terminal.
With a magnetic strip you swipe and put it in your pocket. You can even do that while the cashier is scanning your items - meaning it doesn't cost you any time at all.
With chip you have to put it in the machine and leave it there until the transaction is finished, including signing. Only then can you take it out, exactly at the moment when you should be grabbing your bags.
It's much slower.
With chip you have to put it in the machine and leave it there until the transaction is finished, including signing. Only then can you take it out, exactly at the moment when you should be grabbing your bags.
It's much slower.
They don't work everywhere (just give 'declined' when swiped which can be embarrassing) and they're definitely slower, as they contact the mother ship on every transaction.
Everybody in the comments correctly guessed my gripes. My least favorite thing is that I can't swipe if there is an option to use the chip.
> People in the US still use cheques. And they have to pay (a lot) to print those.
Chip cards? No, let's use our fraud-prone magnetic stripe cards.
There's a fascinating lack of awareness here. These are examples of Americans forced into sub-standard technology by government overregulation. At least the chip cards are being fixed.
There's a fascinating lack of awareness here. These are examples of Americans forced into sub-standard technology by government overregulation. At least the chip cards are being fixed.
<rant>
Checks are the most annoying part of paying my rent in the US. In Europe it was just a few clicks online. Here it sometimes takes two weeks until the landlord clears the check.
</rant>
So glad my landlord is awesome, she banks with Chase, I bank with Wells Fargo - since both banks support clearXchange under their own brand (Chase QuickPay, Wells Fargo SurePay) I can just send my rent payment to her email address through online banking and it is in her account within 2 days, makes life easy for me and she loves not needing to wait for a check in the mail or having to cash it.
Even that is slow I really don't get why banks are allowed to keep your money for 2 days for online payments. Here I transfer money it is in the other persons account in a few min.
Dwolla!
About chip cards: Do you know why the US hasn't cared much about chip cards? The fraud rate is low enough that credit card companies don't need to push it. Chip+pin or chip+sign slows down the process and adds extra barriers to payments.
Plus, you (as a consumer) are only liable for up to $50 of fraudulent charges in the US (it's higher if you are slow to report). But most credit card companies don't make you pay anything when fraud happens.
So until the Target hack happened, there wasn't any motivation for anyone in the payment stack (from consumers to card networks) to move to different tech.
Plus, you (as a consumer) are only liable for up to $50 of fraudulent charges in the US (it's higher if you are slow to report). But most credit card companies don't make you pay anything when fraud happens.
So until the Target hack happened, there wasn't any motivation for anyone in the payment stack (from consumers to card networks) to move to different tech.
To me Chip cards are a much bigger issue for debit cards. I have fraud protection on my bank account, but it can still take the bank up to a month or more if they want before putting stolen money back in my account. Once everyone rolls out EMV-enabled ATM's and POS terminals someone can steal my magstripe data all they want, they won't be able to draw money from my checking account. Of course, this is why I use credit cards for 99% of my purchases, and I typically go into a branch if I need to withdraw money (assuming they are open), but it's a really annoying threat to have to be on the lookout for.
> People in the US still use cheques. And they have to pay (a lot) to print those.
US citizen, and I haven't used a single cheque in over a decade.
The actual costs of printing cheque are negligible, and every bank and CU I've used gives them to customers for free.
US citizen, and I haven't used a single cheque in over a decade.
The actual costs of printing cheque are negligible, and every bank and CU I've used gives them to customers for free.
Printing is cheap, but processing the cheques at the other end is expensive; about 70 cents each and that was with a system that scanned them at point of receipt and converted it to ACH.
>Oh you're so funny. As opposed to the US where people overpay for sub-standard local technology?
That's so cute. Does your high income tax pay for all of that above standard local technology?
>People in the US still use cheques. And they have to pay (a lot) to print those.
Anecdotal, but I've rarely seen anyone pay by cheque.
>Chip cards? No, let's use our fraud-prone magnetic stripe cards.
Yes, because chip cards are so infallible.
>It's cheaper for me to call the US using an MVNO from Europe than picking up a phone and calling the US from within with a pre-paid cell phone there.
Surprising. Care to list some prices?
That's so cute. Does your high income tax pay for all of that above standard local technology?
>People in the US still use cheques. And they have to pay (a lot) to print those.
Anecdotal, but I've rarely seen anyone pay by cheque.
>Chip cards? No, let's use our fraud-prone magnetic stripe cards.
Yes, because chip cards are so infallible.
>It's cheaper for me to call the US using an MVNO from Europe than picking up a phone and calling the US from within with a pre-paid cell phone there.
Surprising. Care to list some prices?
> Does your high income tax pay for all of that above standard local technology?
GSM is an example.
My beef with cheques is not that they are barely used, but that they're the only solution sometimes, like some B2B payments, or high ticket purchases.
And I pay 1c per minute + .15c for a call to the US. And 5€ per month gets me 5Gb
GSM is an example.
My beef with cheques is not that they are barely used, but that they're the only solution sometimes, like some B2B payments, or high ticket purchases.
And I pay 1c per minute + .15c for a call to the US. And 5€ per month gets me 5Gb
...and at the end of the day it still doesn't produce Google scale companies.
"Are Europeans not upset that they're being forced into sub-standard foreign technology by their government for which they have no superior domestic alternative, also suppressing domestic innovation as innovators seek greener regulatory pasture, all in the name of today's tax revenue?"
No (of course I only can speak for myself).
Are Americans not upset that the absence of regulations creates the conditions for corporations to be above the law, where individuals rights are trampled in the name of corporate profit ?
I guess not, and I'm fine with it, to each his own.
No (of course I only can speak for myself).
Are Americans not upset that the absence of regulations creates the conditions for corporations to be above the law, where individuals rights are trampled in the name of corporate profit ?
I guess not, and I'm fine with it, to each his own.
> Are Europeans not upset that they're being forced into sub-standard foreign technology by their government for which they have no superior domestic alternative, also suppressing domestic innovation as innovators seek greener regulatory pasture, all in the name of today's tax revenue?
Not really, Europeans usually understand the problems of allowing an incumbent in one market to use its position to get control of another market. If the price to pay is slightly less 'innovation' (Whatever that means in this context), that's a price to pay.
Not really, Europeans usually understand the problems of allowing an incumbent in one market to use its position to get control of another market. If the price to pay is slightly less 'innovation' (Whatever that means in this context), that's a price to pay.
As a European (though not a EU citizen), I'm not sad that companies have to follow the rule of law.
Personally I'm not sure that Google has been abusing the monopoly, but I don't have the code they use to rank search results. If they indeed abuse their position they should pay the price like everyone else.
As a side note, the initial complaint against Google was filed by Microsoft. Microsoft is a US company.
> "Are Europeans not upset that they're being forced into sub-standard foreign technology by their government for which they have no superior domestic alternative, also suppressing domestic innovation as innovators seek greener regulatory pasture, all in the name of today's tax revenue?"
European here, the exact opposite actually: we are upset that the US is trying to sneak in less regulation through TTIP and similar deals.
European here, the exact opposite actually: we are upset that the US is trying to sneak in less regulation through TTIP and similar deals.
Are you European? In that case you'd know European corporations and businesses don't have a preferential treatment at all.
You should see how the European Union treats European telcos for example.
You should see how the European Union treats European telcos for example.
Don't gloss over the healthy number of Europeans who are (rightfully) concerned about the societal impact. I'm not arguing that there aren't a large number of wealthy and powerful interested parties doing much as you say, but they're aided by normal people interested in shaping a healthy society. It's the same problem in the US; we just don't have as large of a socialism bent.
Regardless, the effect is the same. With policies like "Right to be forgotten" and publicized attacks on the posterchild for innovation, "the next Google" certainly won't be European.
Regardless, the effect is the same. With policies like "Right to be forgotten" and publicized attacks on the posterchild for innovation, "the next Google" certainly won't be European.
> Is anyone surprised that Google didn't come from Europe, and the next one isn't either?
Disruptive/innovative startups require an "ask for forgiveness" mentality, and not a "ask for permission" mentality which Europe tries so hard to cultivate.
Disruptive/innovative startups require an "ask for forgiveness" mentality, and not a "ask for permission" mentality which Europe tries so hard to cultivate.
Comparing how regulators are acting towards Google now vs. How they would act when Google was a startup is ridiculous. The investigations are largely based on Google abusing power, you can't do that when you're a couple of people. We need to stop looking at Facebook/Google etc. as innovative little startups. They're behemoths that can afford to ask for permission.
The nature of a Competition Commission case often requires more than just disruptive/innovative startup status. That's their starting point in this case as well: with Google's often cited 90% market share of European searches, they're liable to not abuse their dominant position. A disruptive/innovative startup won't attract this kind of attention from the Competition Commission until it has achieved similar monopoly status. It's interesting that even Thiel laid out the playbook for defending the "we're not actually a monopoly position in his 'Zero To One'." Google seems to be taking exactly that defensive tactic as their base. The three billy goats defense.
If you go into the case files, you can see the logic which is central to their findings. They're in no way as general as they're made out to be in a lot of the press on the case. And Google is much less public about the case so it's hard to get a sense of what their perspective is on it.
EU Competition Commission's Google Search case: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cf...
Edit: ...and their new case, focusing on AdSense: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cf...
If you go into the case files, you can see the logic which is central to their findings. They're in no way as general as they're made out to be in a lot of the press on the case. And Google is much less public about the case so it's hard to get a sense of what their perspective is on it.
EU Competition Commission's Google Search case: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cf...
Edit: ...and their new case, focusing on AdSense: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cf...
Perhaps it's also got something to do with the fact that we don't have people shooting each other every other day around here, or the fact that we don't have people dying all around us for lack of public health treatment, or the fact that we can be sure that our kids will have a proper education.
See, we like regulation, we like for the people to be forced to contribute to a better society since we know that if we just let people be greedy, they WILL be greedy and we will end up with a de-humanizing society as you have in the USA.
If you don't like our rules, it's simple, just don't come here, we will and always have found an alternative even if it takes us a bit longer.
See, we like regulation, we like for the people to be forced to contribute to a better society since we know that if we just let people be greedy, they WILL be greedy and we will end up with a de-humanizing society as you have in the USA.
If you don't like our rules, it's simple, just don't come here, we will and always have found an alternative even if it takes us a bit longer.
Which sub-standard technology are we being forced into?
The EU claims that Google with its >90% search market share bundles/prefers its own sub-standard comparison shopping service to displace better ones.
I can't say I know enough about the matter to tell if the allegations are true. But the EU's case has nothing to do with forcing sub-standard technologies on anyone. On the contrary.
The EU claims that Google with its >90% search market share bundles/prefers its own sub-standard comparison shopping service to displace better ones.
I can't say I know enough about the matter to tell if the allegations are true. But the EU's case has nothing to do with forcing sub-standard technologies on anyone. On the contrary.
> Are Europeans not upset that they're being forced into sub-standard foreign technology by their government for which they have no superior domestic alternative, also suppressing domestic innovation as innovators seek greener regulatory pasture, all in the name of today's tax revenue?
A regulatory race to the bottom benefits nobody [1]. Europe has plenty of experience with monopolies and cartels abusing their political and economic power.
I frankly would be more worried about US antitrust law abandoning competition as its guiding principle [2]. Which doesn't mean that everything in Europe is hunky-dory, but Google primary trouble stems from allegations that it is abusing a dominant market position. If that is true, then the EU is completely in the right to smack it down; the short-term benefits of allowing such behavior to persist are more than offset by the long-term downsides.
Keep also in mind that Google – or other American companies – are not being singled out here. European giants such as Siemens and Phillips had to eat major antitrust fines as well.
[1] I am not counting local stupidities such as ancillary copyright laws in Germany and Spain. That wasn't regulators running wild, that was legislatures enacting broken domestic laws at the behest of lobbyists.
[2] https://newrepublic.com/article/131412/important-2016-issue-...
A regulatory race to the bottom benefits nobody [1]. Europe has plenty of experience with monopolies and cartels abusing their political and economic power.
I frankly would be more worried about US antitrust law abandoning competition as its guiding principle [2]. Which doesn't mean that everything in Europe is hunky-dory, but Google primary trouble stems from allegations that it is abusing a dominant market position. If that is true, then the EU is completely in the right to smack it down; the short-term benefits of allowing such behavior to persist are more than offset by the long-term downsides.
Keep also in mind that Google – or other American companies – are not being singled out here. European giants such as Siemens and Phillips had to eat major antitrust fines as well.
[1] I am not counting local stupidities such as ancillary copyright laws in Germany and Spain. That wasn't regulators running wild, that was legislatures enacting broken domestic laws at the behest of lobbyists.
[2] https://newrepublic.com/article/131412/important-2016-issue-...
No, I am upset that Europe is so dependent on foreign technology, region limited from US companies on online content and we are forced to make more data available than we should.
Does it really matter that much? Nobody thinks that searching online is a "foreign technology", even if it is, who cares?
I think there's a bit of a selection bias at play here. US media likes to report on cases involving US companies. That's only natural.
But it means that you're not getting the full picture when it comes to the actions of EU competition authorities. How do you know whether or not US conglomerates are specifically targetted if you know next to nothing about their other rulings?
That said, I also think that competition policy is mostly misguided (and not just in Europe). It's ineffective and they often try to fix things that fix themselves over time anyway. Browser choice on Windows? Was that really something that needed regulators to step in? I don't think so.
But there are other areas where I think Europe is right to take a harder line. Privacy is one of those things. I actually want services that only work if they can spy on everyone completely unimpeded to be sub-standard.
But it means that you're not getting the full picture when it comes to the actions of EU competition authorities. How do you know whether or not US conglomerates are specifically targetted if you know next to nothing about their other rulings?
That said, I also think that competition policy is mostly misguided (and not just in Europe). It's ineffective and they often try to fix things that fix themselves over time anyway. Browser choice on Windows? Was that really something that needed regulators to step in? I don't think so.
But there are other areas where I think Europe is right to take a harder line. Privacy is one of those things. I actually want services that only work if they can spy on everyone completely unimpeded to be sub-standard.
I don't think Europeans care or have to care. If it looks different, there will be other StartUps/innovations for the missing pieces.
Here are many sub-search sites which doesn't deliver like Google, but are famous because they are more ethical. The question is: Is it real innovation or just an addiction for everything new and shiny.
Here are many sub-search sites which doesn't deliver like Google, but are famous because they are more ethical. The question is: Is it real innovation or just an addiction for everything new and shiny.
My comment is troll level? I consider European regulators behavior to be "troll level", asking for the troll tax :)
Guess it's all about perspective.
Guess it's all about perspective.
Of course it's about perspective, I just don't think you have a very broad one. That Google didn't come from Europe has little to do with the current situation. Europe doesn't lack innovation at all, in fact the reason that startups aren't very popular is that there are many other interesting engineering companies to work for. Talent flight is not particularly significant, especially with the US visa rules.
European startups often out innovate companies like Google, but there's no way you can win when Google owns the platform. We already have sub-standard foreign technology when US companies don't roll out features in European countries. Yet, again you can't win because who's going to fund a company that any minute can be crushed by a much larger US competitor.
Being able to compete with US companies is very much a problem for European startups, not because of talent flight or innovation but because they have such strong market positions that they don't mind taking advantage of.
The funny thing is of course that a decade ago no one in the US cared about Europe, but now with all the shit going on in the US you constantly see shallow argument how horrible Europe is. I see that as a good sign.
European startups often out innovate companies like Google, but there's no way you can win when Google owns the platform. We already have sub-standard foreign technology when US companies don't roll out features in European countries. Yet, again you can't win because who's going to fund a company that any minute can be crushed by a much larger US competitor.
Being able to compete with US companies is very much a problem for European startups, not because of talent flight or innovation but because they have such strong market positions that they don't mind taking advantage of.
The funny thing is of course that a decade ago no one in the US cared about Europe, but now with all the shit going on in the US you constantly see shallow argument how horrible Europe is. I see that as a good sign.
"The funny thing is of course that a decade ago no one in the US cared about Europe, but now with all the shit going on in the US you constantly see shallow argument how horrible Europe is. I see that as a good sign."
Your entire post is full of the "troll level" ignorance that you claim mine is, but this right here is the ignorant cherry on top.
Thank you for demonstrating that you embody the criticism that you level on others.
P.S. Americans complained about European regulation, inability to compete in less regulated capitalism, laggy adoption of technology, and lack of innovation 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago...
P.S.S If the only reason Google didn't come from Europe is that Google has a giant market to use against competitors, how did Google get to its position? Why didn't the first Google come from Europe? Or Facebook? Or Twitter? Or ANYTHING? It's a chicken/egg problem for you to blame Google's dominance on its size, since it didn't always have this size, and there was ample opportunity prior!
Your entire post is full of the "troll level" ignorance that you claim mine is, but this right here is the ignorant cherry on top.
Thank you for demonstrating that you embody the criticism that you level on others.
P.S. Americans complained about European regulation, inability to compete in less regulated capitalism, laggy adoption of technology, and lack of innovation 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago...
P.S.S If the only reason Google didn't come from Europe is that Google has a giant market to use against competitors, how did Google get to its position? Why didn't the first Google come from Europe? Or Facebook? Or Twitter? Or ANYTHING? It's a chicken/egg problem for you to blame Google's dominance on its size, since it didn't always have this size, and there was ample opportunity prior!
If my post is so full of ignorance it should be easy for you to formulate an argument against it, like I did against your comment. Yet, you seemingly can't.
Europe has been far better at adopting technology than the US has. Everything from Internet connection speeds and traffic prices to digital payments and identification. Europe has many successful technology companies and technologies, why they don't grow into the next big company is in part because they get acquired by US companies with offshore funds. The growth of silicon valley in the first place wasn't exactly a demonstration in free market capitalism if that's what you're claiming.
Edit: Of course none of this matters since your original comment gathered so many responses that the article got caught in the flame war filter (more comment than points over 40 points).
Europe has been far better at adopting technology than the US has. Everything from Internet connection speeds and traffic prices to digital payments and identification. Europe has many successful technology companies and technologies, why they don't grow into the next big company is in part because they get acquired by US companies with offshore funds. The growth of silicon valley in the first place wasn't exactly a demonstration in free market capitalism if that's what you're claiming.
Edit: Of course none of this matters since your original comment gathered so many responses that the article got caught in the flame war filter (more comment than points over 40 points).
> Are Europeans not upset that they're being forced into sub-standard foreign technology
Personally I am really happy that we have someone watching over our privacy, and that the use of our personal data is regulated.
Personally I am really happy that we have someone watching over our privacy, and that the use of our personal data is regulated.
all in the name of today's tax revenue?
The article doesn't mention tax.
The article doesn't mention tax.
Yeah, this is an antitrust case. There are some European countries with active tax-related investigations of Google, but those are completely separate from this case.
We already have "sub-standard foreign technology" from US companies. China that has excluded much US companies are doing much better than Europe in term of domestic services. Other than that your comment is troll level.
There is definitely a strong case that technological acceleration could result in certain countries pulling so far ahead that others can never catch up. The tools of one generation build the next generation. If business owners and society don't have access to those tools they don't get to participate in creating the new stuff.
I'm not sure the Google issue is the best example of Europe's regulatory issues.
- To some extant at least a little of the aggressiveness, or at least the political will and approval, relates to the US implementing and enforcing US regulations on Europe's banking sector. This was not a small nor inconsequential.
- I personally thought Google was going to get hit by fairly big US regulatory anti-trust actions back in 2008-09 but it never happened. I never bought Google stock specifically because of this and I was completely wrong - so I could be very wrong about other conclusions I am making now.
- Ben Edelman provided convincing evidence that not only was Google hard coding certain results for their own products in their favor but explicitly lying about it publicly. There are a few analogies for this, but it basically involves consumer deception which is as bad or worse than not labelling ads or sponsored content because of the monopoly position Google holds. Kind of like if a company owned a GPS 90% of cars used and redirecting directions to businesses they owned. http://www.benedelman.org/hardcoding/
- No evidence but I am fairly confident that the Alphabet corporate reorganization was a pre-emptive action to losing an EU anti-trust case. Google will split apart a "Google Europe" entity which follows whatever rules the EU tells them. It is plausible it could be 3 or 4 entities depending on what the EU finally decides - Goole Search Europe, Google Ads Europe, Youtube Europe, etc. I don't know anything about the legal aspects of this, but it is similar to re-arranging assets while anticipating a future bankruptcy.
- A good example of everyone being way behind the curb is Google News mobile switching to favoring AMP and basically usurping all previous ad revenue sources news organizations had.
- There is a lot of discussion of price discovery and market discovery, but much of tech's innovation in recent years has involved regulatory discovery. The EU stuff absolutely could have occurred 5 years ago. The amount of money Google made by ignoring potential regulatory action likely far offsets the end punishment thanks to compounding growth. Regulators in all countries should think really hard about the line between really bad stuff and shades of grey because tech entrepreneurs are watching Google, Uber, and AirBNB and are behaving accordingly.
I'm not sure the Google issue is the best example of Europe's regulatory issues.
- To some extant at least a little of the aggressiveness, or at least the political will and approval, relates to the US implementing and enforcing US regulations on Europe's banking sector. This was not a small nor inconsequential.
- I personally thought Google was going to get hit by fairly big US regulatory anti-trust actions back in 2008-09 but it never happened. I never bought Google stock specifically because of this and I was completely wrong - so I could be very wrong about other conclusions I am making now.
- Ben Edelman provided convincing evidence that not only was Google hard coding certain results for their own products in their favor but explicitly lying about it publicly. There are a few analogies for this, but it basically involves consumer deception which is as bad or worse than not labelling ads or sponsored content because of the monopoly position Google holds. Kind of like if a company owned a GPS 90% of cars used and redirecting directions to businesses they owned. http://www.benedelman.org/hardcoding/
- No evidence but I am fairly confident that the Alphabet corporate reorganization was a pre-emptive action to losing an EU anti-trust case. Google will split apart a "Google Europe" entity which follows whatever rules the EU tells them. It is plausible it could be 3 or 4 entities depending on what the EU finally decides - Goole Search Europe, Google Ads Europe, Youtube Europe, etc. I don't know anything about the legal aspects of this, but it is similar to re-arranging assets while anticipating a future bankruptcy.
- A good example of everyone being way behind the curb is Google News mobile switching to favoring AMP and basically usurping all previous ad revenue sources news organizations had.
- There is a lot of discussion of price discovery and market discovery, but much of tech's innovation in recent years has involved regulatory discovery. The EU stuff absolutely could have occurred 5 years ago. The amount of money Google made by ignoring potential regulatory action likely far offsets the end punishment thanks to compounding growth. Regulators in all countries should think really hard about the line between really bad stuff and shades of grey because tech entrepreneurs are watching Google, Uber, and AirBNB and are behaving accordingly.
they already killed small startups with the disarmonized VAT rules :/
From my experience at cloudron.io this is hardly true. I feel there is lots of misinformation spread about the new VAT rules. I don't know how the situation is outside of Germany, but the process here is super straightforwards. In fact it is easier to report taxes in other EU countries as it is in Germany itself. Using the Mini One Stop Shop system you have a central entity to report them and the provided webinterface to do so is simple.
Just look at this [1] list of the biggest tech/internet companies. They are all from USA and China. The only 2 reasons not all big companies are from USA is (1) Chinese versions are much better (Alibaba vs. Amazon/eBay; Uber vs. Didi) or (2) US websites are banned (Baidu vs. Google; Tencent vs. Facebook).
None of them are or (most likely) will be from EU. Europe has a declining population, too much bureaucracy, hostile business environment and many other problems. This investigation is an attempt to get some money from Google (combined with raid in France & Spain over taxes) and fund the bureaucrats in Brussels.
[1] http://www.statista.com/statistics/277483/market-value-of-th...
None of them are or (most likely) will be from EU. Europe has a declining population, too much bureaucracy, hostile business environment and many other problems. This investigation is an attempt to get some money from Google (combined with raid in France & Spain over taxes) and fund the bureaucrats in Brussels.
[1] http://www.statista.com/statistics/277483/market-value-of-th...
I feel like all large companies run into this wall eventually. The 'head' loves to talk about welcoming competition and capitalism and all that, but the 'body' acts as-if it hates a level playing field. They tie unrelated products, predatory pricing, bundle their browser into random installers to trick people into installing it, pay other companies for preferential treatment, lock you into their platform, act like a bully, and do everything except letting individual products succeed or fail on their own merits in a free market.
As it should be. I wonder why the EU isn't putting more scrutiny on the app store.
Apple's market share is too low. There's no doubt that the world would be a better place if we stood up against abuse of power on all fronts, but the laws as they stand allow apple to abuse their power with impugnity.
At least these cases seem a little more reasonable than the Microsoft case. Windows N was the dumbest product ever. No consumer wanted that. No consumer benefited from it's existence. Complete waste of time and effort.
Eliminating Google's stranglehold on search would be good for consumers I think. I'm not quite sure about the others. None of the write-ups seem to do a particularly good job summarizing the complaints. So I can't tell what the precise complaint is or what the improved consumer situation is speculated to be.
Eliminating Google's stranglehold on search would be good for consumers I think. I'm not quite sure about the others. None of the write-ups seem to do a particularly good job summarizing the complaints. So I can't tell what the precise complaint is or what the improved consumer situation is speculated to be.
"Europe" isn't doing anything of the sort. The EU is. Europe is a continent on the western part of Eurasia. The EU is a corrupt, anti-democractic bloated bureaucracy where the wheels are continually greased by the interests and demands of multi-billion dollar lobbying organisations. It's good to see the article allude to this in the first paragraph. It's just a shame that it doesn't come under much scrutiny in general, as it's of huge importance to people living in Europe in areas under the control of the EU.
I am not a fan of the "Right to be forgotten" but I am an even less happy with the idea that just because they are so good are providing searching that somehow they aren't allowed to favor their own interests. Are we to treat them as a utility or such simply because they spent the time and effort to become so good?
With great power comes great responsibility, right? If you're not operating ethically and it affects billions of people, I don't think it's out of the question to expect some accountability for your actions.
The problem is that they say the results are organic, while they are not. So this fraud.
In antitrust law pretty much everywhere, including the US, achieving a certain degree of dominance in a market makes anticompetitive actions which would otherwise be legal become illegal for you in order to prevent leverage dominance in one market to prevent free competition in another market. The details vary by jurisdiction, of course, but this, in broad outline, is not a difference between the US and EU.
Framing it that way ignores that Google has always presented its rankings as fair. If they had always been up front about giving an unfair advantage to their own sites then that would have possibly changed history and opened up space for a competitor who did nothing but search. But Google has always presented itself as benign and benevolent. That misrepresentation is a real issue.
It is such a strange argument from the EU. The strongest form of Tall Poppy syndrome.
[deleted]
"Don't be evil." -- Google, early 2000's [1]
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
Edit: Despite the strong HN bias I will keep this comment.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil
Edit: Despite the strong HN bias I will keep this comment.
Are people just downvoting this because they think Europe is in the wrong?
Mostly because it's known, obvious, and doesn't add to the discussion. We know it had that idea, and we know what followed. If the OP wants to make an actual point/statement, then they could do that instead.
Quoting something everyone in this community already knows adds nothing to the discussion. Its interesting that the commenter appears to think the downvotes are a result of some other kind of bias.
Good for Europe. Go out there and extract that pound of flesh from the foreign company and show domestics what a powerful government regulator looks like, show them that their business is better started in another country.
Is what it is. Hope the tax revenue offsets the lack of innovation and talent flight.
But I think Google News and Spain demonstrate the reality of this situation, that regulators are dogs chasing cars who are praying they never catch it.
" In the end, Google in Europe could wind up as a very different thing than Google at home."
Are Europeans not upset that they're being forced into sub-standard foreign technology by their government for which they have no superior domestic alternative, also suppressing domestic innovation as innovators seek greener regulatory pasture, all in the name of today's tax revenue?