Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s $6B Miscalculation on the EU

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 187 posts

Re: Google’s $6B Miscalculation on the EU

#161

Post by doomsells »

guelo wrote: post #3

If you look at what has happened in China after Google left, how they were able to quickly grow massive web companies, protectionism seems like a no-brainer for every slightly advanced country. Silicon Valley sees the huge first-mover advantages and is moving as fast as possible to move into every liberalized market. But it makes no sense for a country to allow Silicon Valley to take these industries for themselves.…

Europe is not equipped to go toe to toe with the Americans. Europe has found a great niche in glomming on to US power and will have a precipitous fall if their actions try to match their rhetoric.

Re: Google’s $6B Miscalculation on the EU

#162

Post by JoshTriplett »

MaysonL wrote: post #157
JoshTriplett wrote: post #2

> “Dominant companies can’t abuse their dominant position to create advantage in related markets,” she said bluntly, formally accusing Google of exploiting its supremacy in general search to dominate the market for online product searches It seems completely ridiculous to call those two different markets. Finding the most relevant X on the web is fundamentally part of the same market no matter what X is. Now, if they…

* Finding the most relevant X on the web is fundamentally part of the same market no matter what X is.* The thing is, if what Google displays as "the most relevant X" is always or predominantly or even merely often a Google site, rather than what is actually the most relevant X, then Google is abusing their dominant position to create advantage in related markets . I do agree that the failed 2014 deal was a piece of…

If Google disproportionately biased their search results, that would be one thing. However, that's not what we're talking about here. People don't want a link to a map, they want a map. People don't want a link to run the same search on an image search site, they want the image they were looking for. It's not even remotely sensible to demand that Google provide the same level of integration with random third-party sites, many of which don't even offer that level of integration at all.

I fundamentally don't believe the rules should suddenly become different when you become sufficiently successful. There's no size threshold above which you ought to have to listen when everyone wants a cut. Now, if you're colluding to suppress other products that are actually better, that's a different matter; that's wrong no matter how big or small you are. But that's not what we're talking about here.

And I say that as someone who uses DDG for search, and voluntarily chose to switch for a variety of reasons.

Re: Google’s $6B Miscalculation on the EU

#163

Post by Riesling »

weddpros wrote: post #139
parasubvert wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free trade unfortunately also leads to what is called a "branch plant economy" where policy decisions are made by foreigners with much less interest in your national or regional success. Trade makes everyone better off, in general, but is risky, because policies can change. Free trade in particular gets even riskier as it means the populace has fewer levers of influence against the corporations. Canada is experiencin…

How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants. When Europe says "we'll fix what's wrong with Google", do they want to convert the last 10%? If not, then it has nothing to do with the people. You think democracy is what protects people against companies? How strange. If there's no demand for a lousy french dropbox-like service, and people use Dropbox instead, it's becaus…

> How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants.

Regulations are not trying to fix "what is wrong with google". They are trying to keep the competition going, which ideally results in a better product for the consumers.

Re: Google’s $6B Miscalculation on the EU

#164

Post by Dylan16807 »

Kankuro wrote: post #123
Dylan16807 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, countries have generally decided you can't copyright factual information, and they did that for a reason.

In the EU, it is illegal to copy a database of another entity even if it contains factual information (you can copy individual facts, but not a DB). Source: I realized that when I wondered if it was possible to copy names from Wikipedia into OpenStreetmap. The Wikimedia foundation ("owner" of the DB) is unlikely to sue OSM.

Sometimes. Apparently it's not actually enforced fully in all of the countries? And it's a pretty new law.

Re: Google’s $6B Miscalculation on the EU

#165

Post by JoshTriplett »

levosmetalo wrote: post #61
icebraining wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as the price / performance is not totally off, I'd always rather pay a bit more for a slightly worse service if I know VAT money will stay in my city, tax will be paid in my state, salaries would be paid in the same job market where I am, and the profit would be invested in my neighborhood. Nobody prevents you from buying local right now, so that's a red herring. If you want to force others to do the same, yo…

> Nobody prevents you from buying local right now, so that's a red herring. If you want to force others to do the same, you should pay their increase as well. Are you prepared to do that? That's what governments and elections are for. People vote, government make it more complicated for foreign companies to compete on the local market. People pay a bit more for for a bit worse service, and tax rate for everyone gets…

> That's what governments and elections are for.

Forcing others who disagree with you to go along, yes. That's a very big hammer, and should not be applied lightly. (I'm not saying it should never be applied at all; there are fundamental aspects of society that only seem to work with that pressure applied.)

> People pay a bit more for for a bit worse service, and tax rate for everyone gets lower because of reduced unemployment benefits and increased tax income. Everyone locally gets it a bit better.

"a bit worse" is downplaying it quite a bit; sometimes the result is quite a lot worse. And when you're talking about services with network effects, sometimes the result is "fundamentally not the same service at all". If you're stopping people from participating in the same Internet as everyone else, you could just as easily be slowing your own local economy and breaking opportunities for them to create the next service that'll actually be the best for everyone. And unless you're prepared to make your country completely self-sufficient with no reliance on the outside world, "increased tax income" isn't going to help you when it turns out the services people actually want aren't made in your country and never can be.

As an alternative to dragging others down, if you really want to spend a pile of money boosting your local economy, and you want to do that via government, how about supporting local businesses as they improve, and encouraging them to compete with services provided elsewhere? "Keep up" is always better than "wait up".

Re: Google’s $6B Miscalculation on the EU

#166

Post by BenoitEssiambre »

guelo wrote: post #3

If you look at what has happened in China after Google left, how they were able to quickly grow massive web companies, protectionism seems like a no-brainer for every slightly advanced country. Silicon Valley sees the huge first-mover advantages and is moving as fast as possible to move into every liberalized market. But it makes no sense for a country to allow Silicon Valley to take these industries for themselves.…

That's a double edge sword. I live in Canada and I've been in a position where rules which I suspect were meant to slow down american companies moving in too fast into Canada actually prevented me from having access to markets to sell into.

For example, during the mobile apps gold rush. I had a finished Android app ready to go for almost a year waiting for the "Android Market" (Now the "Play Store") to allow Canadian sellers. I could not sell even in my own country (at least not with any visibility) while my American competitors could accumulate a huge head start. I had to wait for Google to jump through the Canadian regulatory hoops to allow Canadian sellers into their store. It was frustrating as hell.

The other problem is that new technologies often evolve from an ecosystem of other new technologies. If we only have late access to Netflix or Uber or self driving cars, it becomes difficult to be competitive in the technologies surrounding these technological shifts. If you're last to experience newer technologies on a daily basis, you're also last in a position to evaluate and predict where they are going which gives you a significant business disadvantage.

In order to build on top of the leading edge you have to have good access to the leading edge wherever it may originate from.

Re: Google’s $6B Miscalculation on the EU

#167

Post by gaius »

rtpg wrote: post #31
biokoda wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short term expense of the citizens. Nurturing local business is a long term benefit strategy. Protectionism is how every nation on the planet developed. Why are Americans driving South Korean/Japanese cars and not the other way around? Because the south koreans and the japanese imposed large tariffs on car imports and the US did not. Their car companies had free range on their own turf. Which gave them time and money…

The US practices a huge amount of protectionism as well. The reason that the Americans are driving Japanese cars is that they were built in the US (which happens because of the protectionism). Ford doesn't build cars in Japan. The end result is good for most people (consumers get more choice, jobs are still in the country).

Indeed, also see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KC-X&redirect=n...

Re: Google’s $6B Miscalculation on the EU

#168

Post by weddpros »

Riesling wrote: post #163
weddpros wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants. When Europe says "we'll fix what's wrong with Google", do they want to convert the last 10%? If not, then it has nothing to do with the people. You think democracy is what protects people against companies? How strange. If there's no demand for a lousy french dropbox-like service, and people use Dropbox instead, it's becaus…

> How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants. Regulations are not trying to fix "what is wrong with google". They are trying to keep the competition going, which ideally results in a better product for the consumers.

When dealing with privacy, they're definitely saying what's wrong. Right to be forgotten. Retribution of newspapers for headlines... That's not about competition. Not at all.

Also, Google is not a monopoly. There are plenty of alternatives (Yahoo/Bing/etc). Google is not even trying to buy them.

Re: Google’s $6B Miscalculation on the EU

#169

Post by Riesling »

weddpros wrote: post #168
Riesling wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants. Regulations are not trying to fix "what is wrong with google". They are trying to keep the competition going, which ideally results in a better product for the consumers.

When dealing with privacy, they're definitely saying what's wrong. Right to be forgotten. Retribution of newspapers for headlines... That's not about competition. Not at all. Also, Google is not a monopoly. There are plenty of alternatives (Yahoo/Bing/etc). Google is not even trying to buy them.

Well, regarding privacy, google is in the wrong! They are collecting all the data they possible can and then transfer them to the U.S. where Europeans do not enjoy any right to privacy (which is considered a basic human right here). This is just trying to make a foreign company comply with European laws. I do not see a problem here. If the process was totally transparent (where does the data go, who uses the data) European citizens could make an informed decision. But this is not the case. It is totally intransparent. Who knows what the data is used for? The EU has the duty to protect its citizens.

As for the retribution of newspaper headlines. This might be some form of protectionism.

Calling Bing and Yahoo an alternative to google honors them. Just try them both exclusively for one week and see if you would really call them that.

Re: Google’s $6B Miscalculation on the EU

#170

Post by parasubvert »

weddpros wrote: post #139
parasubvert wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free trade unfortunately also leads to what is called a "branch plant economy" where policy decisions are made by foreigners with much less interest in your national or regional success. Trade makes everyone better off, in general, but is risky, because policies can change. Free trade in particular gets even riskier as it means the populace has fewer levers of influence against the corporations. Canada is experiencin…

How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants. When Europe says "we'll fix what's wrong with Google", do they want to convert the last 10%? If not, then it has nothing to do with the people. You think democracy is what protects people against companies? How strange. If there's no demand for a lousy french dropbox-like service, and people use Dropbox instead, it's becaus…

"How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants."

No, that's not democracy, that's a free market. There's a big difference: democracy is about electing representatives to pursue your preferred policy goals. These goals may or may not support personal or economic freedom. One might want to use a service on the free market and at the same time want their elected representatives to constrain its competitive strength to enable local competition. Mainly this should be done in the interest of consumers or it gets too distortionary. I'm not claiming Google harms consumers, I'm just saying that (for example) Google has massive negative implications on privacy which are concerning.

"Now pass a "democratic" law to ban Dropbox because it's not hosted in France, and all we're left with is the opposite of democracy. "

Actually, no. What you're left with is a democratically elected government that is closing their trade market somewhat in favor of other interests.

Note, nowhere did I suggest it was a good idea to ban a company from trading with a country. That would be a bad policy unless there was a very strong reason and popular support. Constraining behavior, on the other hand, might or might not be a bad policy. Hard to know.

"It's just a matter of performance... until the law comes into play, in less than democratic ways, to cut competition."

I agree the free market and free enterprise is all about performance and results, and the law doesn't care about such things. But that's why democracy exists - sometimes efficiency and performance is NOT what the populace wants. They want change and competition to be slowed by laws and regulations. People do not respond to change as quickly as the markets sometimes want them to.

All of this are just policy differences between laissez-faire free market and more socialist policies. They have their tradeoffs but are both legitimate (one is not more "democratic" than the other).

Post reply on HN