31–40 of 199 posts
For Google this is just like parking tickets to UPS. A cost of doing business in town.
Yep. If a train ticket costs 100 euro and the fine for freeloading is 5 euro, you'd be a fool to buy a ticket. Don't blame Google for pushing boundaries. That's what people (and corpos) do in any competitive activity. Do blame our politicians for being incompetent and ill-meaning.
For Google this is just like parking tickets to UPS. A cost of doing business in town.
The maximum fine the EU can impose with the DMA is "10 % of its total worldwide turnover in the preceding financial year". I think this would hurt even Google. And I think a billion dollars is not nothing.
EU regulatory apparatus is maybe only part of the EU which is operates without obsequiousness to the US; on the one hand, this is necessary assertion of sovereignty, on the other you fear for the wider collateral damage which will inevitably ensue. Trump gonna respond to this with an escalation for sure
That's one read. For me it feels like practically (ASML, ARM, SAP not withstanding) their only "contribution" to tech is fines and exporting regulation. Sometimes this works out well (usb-c on iPhone), but most of the time it feels like if they want software, hardware, or the web to operate the way they want, perhaps they should try to actually produce some of it instead of being wholly reliant on others while also t…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this comment always comes up and it's _wrong_. The goal of the regulation is to get the operators to comply, which they usually do after fines (EDIT: and litigations and whining, of course), because the costs of infractions are increased if they don't comply.
The cost increases, but given the revenue Google generates how is that not just a tax? I've never received a dollar from the EU as a victim. If the fines are moderate and big co keeps paying that's steady revenue for the EU institutions.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this comment always comes up and it's _wrong_. The goal of the regulation is to get the operators to comply, which they usually do after fines (EDIT: and litigations and whining, of course), because the costs of infractions are increased if they don't comply.
The cost increases, but given the revenue Google generates how is that not just a tax? I've never received a dollar from the EU as a victim. If the fines are moderate and big co keeps paying that's steady revenue for the EU institutions.
These companies do, in fact, change behaviour in response to such actions; they may hire lawyers to find and exploit as many loopholes as they can, but they do ultimately comply. Even X ultimately complied in response to Brazil, and the EU is a much more important market for Google than Brazil ever was for X.
(Why would you expect to get dollars from an EU settlement?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump has tariffed Canada 50% allegedly because of wildfires. He acts randomly, your actions don't matter either way.
The Supreme Court has already said that blanket tariffs aren't allowed, so it's all bluster, as per usual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump has tariffed Canada 50% allegedly because of wildfires. He acts randomly, your actions don't matter either way.
[flagged]
"Once you pay the Danegeld, you'll never get rid of the Dane."