3 ms·

Microsoft and Google have agreed to stop going after eachother: http://recode.net/2016/04/22/microsoft-google-agree-to-stop-complaining-to-regulators-about-each

by kyrra 11y ago

Microsoft and Google have agreed to stop going after eachother: http://recode.net/2016/04/22/microsoft-google-agree-to-stop-complaining-to-regulators-about-each-other/ http://recode.net/2016/04/22/microsoft-google-agree-to-stop-... Though, Microsoft originally made their complaints against Google in the EU back in 2011: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-google-idUSTRE72U1IN20110331 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-google-idUSTRE72... And Obama calls the EU out as saying the EU is engaging in protectionism: http://recode.net/2015/02/17/europeans-dismiss-president-obamas-remarks-about-protectionism/ http://recode.net/2015/02/17/europeans-dismiss-president-oba... The opinions stated here are my own, not necessarily those of Google.

crdoconnor 11y ago
>And Obama calls the EU out as saying the EU is engaging in protectionism Ironically that's not even protectionism - it's cracking down on tax evasion. When Obama slapped a 30% tax on Chinese solar panel imports to aid the US oil/gas/utility industries - that's protectionism.
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  The actual reason for those subsidies is to protect the US solar panel industry. China's panels are artificially cheap because China massively subsidizes their manufacture. These are known as "countervailing duties" [1]. The likely alternative to that is allowing China's subsidized panels to undercut domestic producers, we have cheap panels until our industry goes entirely out of business, and then have prices get jacked up because the competition is gone. EDIT: If you want to stop aiding the US oil/gas/utility industries, there are plenty of direct subsidies and tax breaks that could be removed instead of the tariffs on Chinese PV panels. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_duties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_duties
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    No, that was the sales pitch. US solar companies contribute very little to political campaigns. Their lobbying power is very limited. Their influence is comparable (or less, even) to the US steel industry which has faced dumping and basically been told to go fuck themselves. The utilities industry, on the other hand, contributes a lot of cash to political campaigns, and has already been caught trying to influence legislators in an attempt to kill domestic solar demand (lobbying vociferously through back channels to eliminate the FIT). This is exactly what they want. That was enough to make me suspicious enough to read a large chunk of the very dull document by the US dept of state that tried to justify characterizing China's solar exports as dumping. Many of the things in the document were clutching at straws (e.g. complaining about 'free publicity' given by the local government by listing the solar companies on their website).
    - wlesieutre 11y ago
      > Their influence is comparable (or less, even) to the US steel industry which has faced dumping and basically been told to go fuck themselves. I don't know if there's a particular type of steel you have in mind, but cold rolled steel from China has a huge 227.29% CVD as of last December. https://agmetalminer.com/2015/12/17/75783/ https://agmetalminer.com/2015/12/17/75783/
  - kuschku 11y ago
    > The actual reason for those subsidies is to protect the US solar panel industry. China's panels are artificially cheap because China massively subsidizes their manufacture. These are known as "countervailing duties" [1]. > The likely alternative to that is allowing China's subsidized panels to undercut domestic producers, we have cheap panels until our industry goes entirely out of business, and then have prices get jacked up because the competition is gone. Isn’t that what half of Silicon Valley is doing? Let’s look at Google. Undercut competitors in niche markets, financed with Search revenue, then increase prices or kill it completely (Google Apps for Work, etc). Let’s look at Uber. Undercut competitors financed with investment money, making losses, then increase prices. Are you sure you are making a case pro-Google?
    - wlesieutre 11y ago
      I wasn't making any case on Google, but since you've brought it up: no, I don't buy that argument. Manufacturing, especially for something like photovoltaics, isn't something you can ramp back up easily. Google jacks their Apps for Work prices by 500%? Switch to Office 365, or buy a server and hire a sysadmin. Similar for Uber. Prices go way up? Somebody else can buy a car and drive people around. Existing taxi companies can get on board with smartphone apps like Arro in NYC. Obviously I'm oversimplifying things a bit, but these things are easier than spinning up a semiconductor factory or R&D group. Industries with higher barriers to entry (both time and cost) are more vulnerable to that kind of predatory underpricing.
pessimizer 11y ago
> Microsoft and Google have agreed to stop going after each other: http://recode.net/2016/04/22/microsoft-google-agree-to-stop-.. http://recode.net/2016/04/22/microsoft-google-agree-to-stop-.... It's good that they decided that the pie was big enough for both of them. Now they can concentrate on attacking startups and small businesses.

by kyrra 11y ago

crdoconnor 11y ago

>And Obama calls the EU out as saying the EU is engaging in protectionism Ironically that's not even protectionism - it's cracking down on tax evasion. When Obama slapped a 30% tax on Chinese solar panel imports to aid the US oil/gas/utility industries - that's protectionism.

wlesieutre 11y ago
The actual reason for those subsidies is to protect the US solar panel industry. China's panels are artificially cheap because China massively subsidizes their manufacture. These are known as "countervailing duties" [1]. The likely alternative to that is allowing China's subsidized panels to undercut domestic producers, we have cheap panels until our industry goes entirely out of business, and then have prices get jacked up because the competition is gone. EDIT: If you want to stop aiding the US oil/gas/utility industries, there are plenty of direct subsidies and tax breaks that could be removed instead of the tariffs on Chinese PV panels. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_duties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_duties
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  No, that was the sales pitch. US solar companies contribute very little to political campaigns. Their lobbying power is very limited. Their influence is comparable (or less, even) to the US steel industry which has faced dumping and basically been told to go fuck themselves. The utilities industry, on the other hand, contributes a lot of cash to political campaigns, and has already been caught trying to influence legislators in an attempt to kill domestic solar demand (lobbying vociferously through back channels to eliminate the FIT). This is exactly what they want. That was enough to make me suspicious enough to read a large chunk of the very dull document by the US dept of state that tried to justify characterizing China's solar exports as dumping. Many of the things in the document were clutching at straws (e.g. complaining about 'free publicity' given by the local government by listing the solar companies on their website).
  - wlesieutre 11y ago
    > Their influence is comparable (or less, even) to the US steel industry which has faced dumping and basically been told to go fuck themselves. I don't know if there's a particular type of steel you have in mind, but cold rolled steel from China has a huge 227.29% CVD as of last December. https://agmetalminer.com/2015/12/17/75783/ https://agmetalminer.com/2015/12/17/75783/
- kuschku 11y ago
  > The actual reason for those subsidies is to protect the US solar panel industry. China's panels are artificially cheap because China massively subsidizes their manufacture. These are known as "countervailing duties" [1]. > The likely alternative to that is allowing China's subsidized panels to undercut domestic producers, we have cheap panels until our industry goes entirely out of business, and then have prices get jacked up because the competition is gone. Isn’t that what half of Silicon Valley is doing? Let’s look at Google. Undercut competitors in niche markets, financed with Search revenue, then increase prices or kill it completely (Google Apps for Work, etc). Let’s look at Uber. Undercut competitors financed with investment money, making losses, then increase prices. Are you sure you are making a case pro-Google?
  - wlesieutre 11y ago
    I wasn't making any case on Google, but since you've brought it up: no, I don't buy that argument. Manufacturing, especially for something like photovoltaics, isn't something you can ramp back up easily. Google jacks their Apps for Work prices by 500%? Switch to Office 365, or buy a server and hire a sysadmin. Similar for Uber. Prices go way up? Somebody else can buy a car and drive people around. Existing taxi companies can get on board with smartphone apps like Arro in NYC. Obviously I'm oversimplifying things a bit, but these things are easier than spinning up a semiconductor factory or R&D group. Industries with higher barriers to entry (both time and cost) are more vulnerable to that kind of predatory underpricing.

pessimizer 11y ago

> Microsoft and Google have agreed to stop going after each other: http://recode.net/2016/04/22/microsoft-google-agree-to-stop-.. http://recode.net/2016/04/22/microsoft-google-agree-to-stop-.... It's good that they decided that the pie was big enough for both of them. Now they can concentrate on attacking startups and small businesses.