4 ms·
Microsoft acted pretty sleazy (IMHO) on the Australian law situation but it's rich for Google to attack them since they caved first and paid. I'm all for taxing
by aemreunal 6y ago
Microsoft acted pretty sleazy (IMHO) on the Australian law situation but it's rich for Google to attack them since they caved first and paid. I'm all for taxing companies (tech or otherwise) in sensible ways but the Australian news law was far from sensible.
Not to mention AMP and whatnot.
- markdown 6y ago> the Australian news law was far from sensible. For those out of the loop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqj2z3QaRyU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqj2z3QaRyU
- PoignardAzur 6y agoHonestly, I'm with Google on that one. I'm disappointed they caved in and paid the danegeld, but the way Microsoft went "We fully support the extraction from the danegeld, and if Google happens to lose any market share due to its refusal to pay it, we would be more than happy to have these customers use Bing instead. We fully support this law that has no effect on us and actively harms our main competitor" is just disgusting.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoThey would be fine with it as long as they aren't subject to it. If they were subject to it, it would make it very difficult to operate Bing. Unless they just aren't doing algorithm changes very often, it would present a significant burden to be required to report out such changes weeks before deployment. Of course the forced "arbitration" for "fair" payment to news organizations would also be onerous for them. But fortunately for MS the law is highly selective in which companies it targets.
- Foe 6y agoStrangely, Microsoft is supporting a similar law in the USA where they would be affected by it.
- ehsankia 6y agoGoogle's move was clever because they were in a lose-lose situation where they had to pay anyways. By doing a deal with News Corp, they showed that the whole thing was a blackmail and will the Australian government look bad.