4 ms·

You do understand that nobody, including politicians and FF users want to remove Chrome, Edge or Safari? You do understand that doing that would probably cost

You do understand that nobody, including politicians and FF users want to remove Chrome, Edge or Safari? You do understand that doing that would probably cost those companies (and everyone else) a lot more? We only want a level playing field. Giving companies a real fine is just a way to make sure the board and the shareholders actually gets the message ;-)

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> You do understand that nobody, including politicians and FF users want to remove Chrome, Edge or Safari? It's punishment. If somebody wants it then somebody has a perverse incentive. > You do understand that doing that would probably cost those companies (and everyone else) a lot more? Exactly. You actually punish them, in the way directly contrary the the goal they were trying to achieve with their bad behavior, without suspiciously enriching yourselves in a way that calls your true motives into question. > We only want a level playing field. Giving companies a real fine is just a way to make sure the board and the shareholders actually gets the message ;-) But what message are they getting? It's not as if there is a clear roadmap for how to avoid this sort of thing. Antitrust laws are super vague and prohibit a wide variety of common business practices, to make it effective to use them against powerful nefarious entities with many lawyers. The theory is that the government will only use them against bad actors. But if the government considers you a bad actor just because you're a foreign company, what are you supposed to do then?
- reitanqild 8y ago
  > just because you're a foreign company, what are you supposed to do then? Most foreign companies aren't considered bad actors. We are talking about 1) the old Microsoft here - definitely a bad actor - getting rid of it seems to have been refreshing even for Microsoft shareholders. - 2) Google, a company we many of us loved at some point but who might now be in need of some refreshing at least in some areas.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Most foreign companies aren't considered bad actors. Google wasn't considered a bad actor until then they were. > the old Microsoft here - definitely a bad actor - getting rid of it seems to have been refreshing even for Microsoft shareholders. The old Microsoft deserved everything they got and then some. But even then, it would have been nice for the penalties to be more "actually effective in increasing competition in PC desktop operating systems" and less "suspiciously convenient transfer of large sums of money."
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      > Google wasn't considered a bad actor until then they were. The alternative (where they are considered a bad actor before they were) seems a lot worse ;-) I think EU might even have cut them a good slack here based on their previous status as good guys. > and less "suspiciously convenient transfer of large sums of money." In a EU perspective I think we'll find this doesn't matter much to them.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> You do understand that nobody, including politicians and FF users want to remove Chrome, Edge or Safari? It's punishment. If somebody wants it then somebody has a perverse incentive. > You do understand that doing that would probably cost those companies (and everyone else) a lot more? Exactly. You actually punish them, in the way directly contrary the the goal they were trying to achieve with their bad behavior, without suspiciously enriching yourselves in a way that calls your true motives into question. > We only want a level playing field. Giving companies a real fine is just a way to make sure the board and the shareholders actually gets the message ;-) But what message are they getting? It's not as if there is a clear roadmap for how to avoid this sort of thing. Antitrust laws are super vague and prohibit a wide variety of common business practices, to make it effective to use them against powerful nefarious entities with many lawyers. The theory is that the government will only use them against bad actors. But if the government considers you a bad actor just because you're a foreign company, what are you supposed to do then?

reitanqild 8y ago
> just because you're a foreign company, what are you supposed to do then? Most foreign companies aren't considered bad actors. We are talking about 1) the old Microsoft here - definitely a bad actor - getting rid of it seems to have been refreshing even for Microsoft shareholders. - 2) Google, a company we many of us loved at some point but who might now be in need of some refreshing at least in some areas.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Most foreign companies aren't considered bad actors. Google wasn't considered a bad actor until then they were. > the old Microsoft here - definitely a bad actor - getting rid of it seems to have been refreshing even for Microsoft shareholders. The old Microsoft deserved everything they got and then some. But even then, it would have been nice for the penalties to be more "actually effective in increasing competition in PC desktop operating systems" and less "suspiciously convenient transfer of large sums of money."
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    > Google wasn't considered a bad actor until then they were. The alternative (where they are considered a bad actor before they were) seems a lot worse ;-) I think EU might even have cut them a good slack here based on their previous status as good guys. > and less "suspiciously convenient transfer of large sums of money." In a EU perspective I think we'll find this doesn't matter much to them.