6 ms·

It's so easy to destroy a sector when you have nothing to lose.

by naoqj 5y ago

giorgioz 5y ago
Can you clarify in this instance what is - the sector - who has nothing to lose - and what could be lost I think I understand who/what you imply but I don't want to misunderstand you.
- naoqj 5y ago
  * Tech sector * The EU * Tech sector
  - giorgioz 5y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. >Included in the rules' scope will be platforms with a market capitalization of €75 billion or turnover in the European Economic Area equal to or above €7.5 billion So the rules are meant to target only the TOP part of the Tech Sector. Not the Whole Tech Sector. There could be backfires on everyone though. I do feel though that the Apple/Facebook/Microsoft/Google/Amazon are innovating less and less and are going into cash squeeze mode. There has been a lot of talk on Hacker News on how Google search quality is decreasing. All the privacy laws containing Facebook push them to bet on something new Meta/Oculus. So I think here the effort is to allow smaller tech to thrive and grow.
    - postingawayonhn 5y ago
      > There has been a lot of talk on Hacker News on how Google search quality is decreasing. I have a lot more faith in a viable competitor coming out of California than I do in EU regulations improving search results.
      - giorgioz 5y ago
        Me too...not sure where you are going with this...
  - psd1 5y ago
    If poor little Google can't adapt to a changing landscape, it should die. That will not plunge the world into the dark ages.
    - giorgioz 5y ago
      Yes indeed if Google can't adapt it should die instead of being a monopole and just staying alive by abusing the dominant position. No innovation and abuse of the dominant position will lead to the dark ages, Google dying because not adapting will actually let other smaller companies to thrive and innovate in it's place.
ckastner 5y ago
> It's so easy to destroy a sector when you have nothing to lose. The EU is choosing to favor acting on behalf of their people, rather than some sector. If that sector can't make money in ways that are not immoral with regards to the people, so be it. For example: Why shouldn't a 30%-fee walled garden be destroyed?
- naoqj 5y ago
  Because it's their corporation and they can do whatever they want with it, and because it's far from a monopoly since there are alternatives.
  - Hamcha 5y ago
    The scope at which those alternatives exist are different than where the monopoly is established. Ie. The App Store has a monopoly on iOS, but iOS does not have a monopoly in the mobile space. This is like saying a state-mandated ISP/Gas company wouldn't be a monopoly since you can just move to another country. You might wanna push the argument that nobody is forcing you to use iOS, but I think the problem runs deeper. In many fields and even just everyday life, you are now required to run a modern phone OS (eg. the option for not having the official COVID green pass app here in Italy is to find an authorized place that will print you a green pass on paper, and it's hard to find one, let alone schedule everything and get there without a pre-existing pass) and we're barely lucky that Google is playing by laxer rules than Apple is. If not punishing existing bad actors, these rules are a nice framework to prevent them for taking over in the future.
    - Rayhem 5y ago
      > the option for not having the official COVID green pass app here in Italy is to find an authorized place that will print you a green pass on paper, and it's hard to find one, let alone schedule everything and get there without a pre-existing pass Apple's pseudomonopoly does not strike me as the root cause issue here, developing processes and using tech to solve a people problem does.
amelius 5y ago
EU has tech (Linux, ASML), they just chose to not screw their real users, a costly but morally better decision.

It's so easy to destroy a sector when you have nothing to lose.

by naoqj 5y ago

It's so easy to destroy a sector when you have nothing to lose.

Can you clarify in this instance what is - the sector - who has nothing to lose - and what could be lost I think I understand who/what you imply but I don't want to misunderstand you.

naoqj 5y ago
* Tech sector * The EU * Tech sector
- giorgioz 5y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. >Included in the rules' scope will be platforms with a market capitalization of €75 billion or turnover in the European Economic Area equal to or above €7.5 billion So the rules are meant to target only the TOP part of the Tech Sector. Not the Whole Tech Sector. There could be backfires on everyone though. I do feel though that the Apple/Facebook/Microsoft/Google/Amazon are innovating less and less and are going into cash squeeze mode. There has been a lot of talk on Hacker News on how Google search quality is decreasing. All the privacy laws containing Facebook push them to bet on something new Meta/Oculus. So I think here the effort is to allow smaller tech to thrive and grow.
  - postingawayonhn 5y ago
    > There has been a lot of talk on Hacker News on how Google search quality is decreasing. I have a lot more faith in a viable competitor coming out of California than I do in EU regulations improving search results.
    - giorgioz 5y ago
      Me too...not sure where you are going with this...
- psd1 5y ago
  If poor little Google can't adapt to a changing landscape, it should die. That will not plunge the world into the dark ages.
  - giorgioz 5y ago
    Yes indeed if Google can't adapt it should die instead of being a monopole and just staying alive by abusing the dominant position. No innovation and abuse of the dominant position will lead to the dark ages, Google dying because not adapting will actually let other smaller companies to thrive and innovate in it's place.

ckastner 5y ago

> It's so easy to destroy a sector when you have nothing to lose. The EU is choosing to favor acting on behalf of their people, rather than some sector. If that sector can't make money in ways that are not immoral with regards to the people, so be it. For example: Why shouldn't a 30%-fee walled garden be destroyed?

naoqj 5y ago
Because it's their corporation and they can do whatever they want with it, and because it's far from a monopoly since there are alternatives.
- Hamcha 5y ago
  The scope at which those alternatives exist are different than where the monopoly is established. Ie. The App Store has a monopoly on iOS, but iOS does not have a monopoly in the mobile space. This is like saying a state-mandated ISP/Gas company wouldn't be a monopoly since you can just move to another country. You might wanna push the argument that nobody is forcing you to use iOS, but I think the problem runs deeper. In many fields and even just everyday life, you are now required to run a modern phone OS (eg. the option for not having the official COVID green pass app here in Italy is to find an authorized place that will print you a green pass on paper, and it's hard to find one, let alone schedule everything and get there without a pre-existing pass) and we're barely lucky that Google is playing by laxer rules than Apple is. If not punishing existing bad actors, these rules are a nice framework to prevent them for taking over in the future.
  - Rayhem 5y ago
    > the option for not having the official COVID green pass app here in Italy is to find an authorized place that will print you a green pass on paper, and it's hard to find one, let alone schedule everything and get there without a pre-existing pass Apple's pseudomonopoly does not strike me as the root cause issue here, developing processes and using tech to solve a people problem does.

amelius 5y ago

EU has tech (Linux, ASML), they just chose to not screw their real users, a costly but morally better decision.