4 ms·

> I'm also annoyed that the EU produces effectively 0 innovative tech, and subsequently has very suppressed tech salaries, but is so ready to regulate the Ameri

> I'm also annoyed that the EU produces effectively 0 innovative tech, and subsequently has very suppressed tech salaries, but is so ready to regulate the American companies that make the world go 'round Because its almost impossible to compete? These companies have so many resources, its impossible for any local competitor to compete. Amazon can just crash the prices till the competition dies, Google can just not allow YouTube on it, Facebook will exist because of the network it has. What the EU is doing is what is needed to happen long ago. These companies are not currently successful because they offer the best experience or the best innovativtion, they are successful because they crush anyone else. For example WhatsApp has many many better alternatives, which have better features and better privacy, but it still the #1 because of the monopoly it has on communication. What the EU did here is smart, they didn't outright ban WhatsApp, or funded a direct competitor. They forced them to play fair, to stop the monopolistic behavior and force them to compete on features, rather than succeeding only because my familly is on WhatsApp. The same thing applies to Apple, which forces to everyone to use its crappy, intentionally handicapped browser engine. And also forcing everyone to use its payment services while taking percentage of the profits and not even allowing you to increase the prices to cover their percentage!, this is absolutely outreagous and finally something is being done about it.

a4a4a4a4 4y ago
> Because its almost impossible to compete? Explain the number of American unicorns and the (almost) complete lack of European unicorns then? Somehow American companies and startups find ways to compete and be relevant, and it just does not happen in Europe. If you could snap your fingers and force Apple and Google to implement this today, these new markets (app stores and browsers for iOS) would be 99% filled by American companies.
- unity1001 4y ago
  Uncontrolled amounts of dollars entering the stock market and the financial system thanks to dollar having been used as a reserve currency for mainly trading oil? Allowing fractional reserve lending from private banks to awash the economy with cash? Leading to EXTREME bloat in the stock market in 'valuations' that go over, what, 700 times the actual near-term revenue of corporations? Based on 'future revenue' that is supposed to materialize, but not visible into the next decade? Ending up in the investment space being able to dump insane amounts of money on hundreds of startups at a time by calculating that even if 99 of them fail at any given time, just one of them turning into an over-valued 'unicorn' would end up flushing the investor with 'value'? Which came down crashing the moment a few countries started trading oil and other resources with non-dollar currencies? So much that now all those unicorns all the way to Twitter and Facebook are in hot water because of their overvalued shares compared to their actual profits? ... Give any country free, non-devaluing money, and anyone will be able to do anything.
n8cpdx 4y ago
The parent comment was being unfair. There is one market where Europeans dominate both in sheer volume and in innovation: excuses. Excusing business, excusing governments; an international pastime of the Europeans, apparently. Europeans did in fact exist before all of the listed examples came into being, and so could have outcompeted any of them even if they are now dominant. But I still think Europeans _could_ compete, even if culturally they are not prepared to be competitive. Amazon is only a fraction of retail sales and has huge weaknesses; Europeans who know their markets better could compete if they wanted to (especially with the huge amount of protectionism national governments are willing to engage in). LINE exists in Japan, presumably a smaller market than Europe that has managed to produce a viable WhatsApp competitor. Facebook was unstoppable until TikTok ate their lunch. Again, I’m astounded by the European affinity for excusing uncompetitive businesses.
- fariszr 4y ago
  > Europeans who know their markets better could compete if they wanted to This is not realistic. When amazon noticed diapers.com, they were basically forced to sell out. because amazon was already selling diapers at a loss and was ready to drive the price "down to zero". No body can compete with that. https://slate.com/technology/2013/10/amazon-book-how-jeff-bezos-went-thermonuclear-on-diapers-com.html https://slate.com/technology/2013/10/amazon-book-how-jeff-be...
  - n8cpdx 4y ago
    Americans seemingly can. Walmart and Target do healthy business, despite facing the big and fearsome Amazon. So does Shopify and Shopify’s merchant partners. So does my local book store (the French say it is impossible for bookstores to compete with Amazon without absurd anti-consumer protections). Before Amazon was ascendant, I think it was Walmart that was the dominant player making sure a small company like Amazon could never grow to become competitive. I don’t understand the European culture of making excuses for uncompetitive business when time after time the Americans, and increasingly the Chinese, show that it is actually possible to innovate and disrupt entrenched competitors.
- unity1001 4y ago
danjoredd 4y ago
Sounds like pure copium to me.
- fariszr 4y ago
  Well its happening anyway, and companies can face fines up to 20% of worldwide revenue if they don't comply.
  - bagacrap 4y ago
    you seem oddly excited about the prospect of an EU with no smartphones
    - fariszr 4y ago
      No I'm excited about a world where I can use one chat app for all of my contacts, a world where I don't have to deal with Safari's shortcomings, and many other improvements.
      - bagacrap 4y ago
        But you can, it's the sms app. Signal is not a $75B company so it doesn't have to interop with Whatsapp (nor do I think this makes any sense, as the encryption story is different across apps)
        fariszr 4y ago
        I didn't mention signal in my comment, because I knew it didn't break the limits. Also no body uses SMS outside the US, and the rule requires to keep encryption, yes its probably not going to be E2EE, unless the app is translating the message to another protocol locally. But its still better than SMS.
    - unity1001 4y ago
      Yeaaaah. Its only US tech monopolies who make smartphones. Nobody else does.
rad_gruchalski 4y ago
> For example WhatsApp has many many better alternatives, which have better features and better privacy, but it still the #1 because of the monopoly it has on communication. No, it’s because users don’t feel the need to switch. I have uninstalled WhatsApp 4 years ago, same time when I deleted my Facebook account. Haven’t had a single regret. When people ask me to contact them via WhatsApp, I tell them I don’t use it. Anyone can do that.
viktorcode 4y ago
Well, at one point of history it was "impossible to compete" against Nokia on mobile market. I find statements that we are living at the point of the market where competition is no longer possible to be very naive.

a4a4a4a4 4y ago

> Because its almost impossible to compete? Explain the number of American unicorns and the (almost) complete lack of European unicorns then? Somehow American companies and startups find ways to compete and be relevant, and it just does not happen in Europe. If you could snap your fingers and force Apple and Google to implement this today, these new markets (app stores and browsers for iOS) would be 99% filled by American companies.

unity1001 4y ago
Uncontrolled amounts of dollars entering the stock market and the financial system thanks to dollar having been used as a reserve currency for mainly trading oil? Allowing fractional reserve lending from private banks to awash the economy with cash? Leading to EXTREME bloat in the stock market in 'valuations' that go over, what, 700 times the actual near-term revenue of corporations? Based on 'future revenue' that is supposed to materialize, but not visible into the next decade? Ending up in the investment space being able to dump insane amounts of money on hundreds of startups at a time by calculating that even if 99 of them fail at any given time, just one of them turning into an over-valued 'unicorn' would end up flushing the investor with 'value'? Which came down crashing the moment a few countries started trading oil and other resources with non-dollar currencies? So much that now all those unicorns all the way to Twitter and Facebook are in hot water because of their overvalued shares compared to their actual profits? ... Give any country free, non-devaluing money, and anyone will be able to do anything.

n8cpdx 4y ago

The parent comment was being unfair. There is one market where Europeans dominate both in sheer volume and in innovation: excuses. Excusing business, excusing governments; an international pastime of the Europeans, apparently. Europeans did in fact exist before all of the listed examples came into being, and so could have outcompeted any of them even if they are now dominant. But I still think Europeans _could_ compete, even if culturally they are not prepared to be competitive. Amazon is only a fraction of retail sales and has huge weaknesses; Europeans who know their markets better could compete if they wanted to (especially with the huge amount of protectionism national governments are willing to engage in). LINE exists in Japan, presumably a smaller market than Europe that has managed to produce a viable WhatsApp competitor. Facebook was unstoppable until TikTok ate their lunch. Again, I’m astounded by the European affinity for excusing uncompetitive businesses.

fariszr 4y ago
> Europeans who know their markets better could compete if they wanted to This is not realistic. When amazon noticed diapers.com, they were basically forced to sell out. because amazon was already selling diapers at a loss and was ready to drive the price "down to zero". No body can compete with that. https://slate.com/technology/2013/10/amazon-book-how-jeff-bezos-went-thermonuclear-on-diapers-com.html https://slate.com/technology/2013/10/amazon-book-how-jeff-be...
- n8cpdx 4y ago
  Americans seemingly can. Walmart and Target do healthy business, despite facing the big and fearsome Amazon. So does Shopify and Shopify’s merchant partners. So does my local book store (the French say it is impossible for bookstores to compete with Amazon without absurd anti-consumer protections). Before Amazon was ascendant, I think it was Walmart that was the dominant player making sure a small company like Amazon could never grow to become competitive. I don’t understand the European culture of making excuses for uncompetitive business when time after time the Americans, and increasingly the Chinese, show that it is actually possible to innovate and disrupt entrenched competitors.
unity1001 4y ago

danjoredd 4y ago

Sounds like pure copium to me.

fariszr 4y ago
Well its happening anyway, and companies can face fines up to 20% of worldwide revenue if they don't comply.
- bagacrap 4y ago
  you seem oddly excited about the prospect of an EU with no smartphones
  - fariszr 4y ago
    No I'm excited about a world where I can use one chat app for all of my contacts, a world where I don't have to deal with Safari's shortcomings, and many other improvements.
    - bagacrap 4y ago
      But you can, it's the sms app. Signal is not a $75B company so it doesn't have to interop with Whatsapp (nor do I think this makes any sense, as the encryption story is different across apps)
      - fariszr 4y ago
        I didn't mention signal in my comment, because I knew it didn't break the limits. Also no body uses SMS outside the US, and the rule requires to keep encryption, yes its probably not going to be E2EE, unless the app is translating the message to another protocol locally. But its still better than SMS.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    Yeaaaah. Its only US tech monopolies who make smartphones. Nobody else does.

rad_gruchalski 4y ago

> For example WhatsApp has many many better alternatives, which have better features and better privacy, but it still the #1 because of the monopoly it has on communication. No, it’s because users don’t feel the need to switch. I have uninstalled WhatsApp 4 years ago, same time when I deleted my Facebook account. Haven’t had a single regret. When people ask me to contact them via WhatsApp, I tell them I don’t use it. Anyone can do that.

viktorcode 4y ago

Well, at one point of history it was "impossible to compete" against Nokia on mobile market. I find statements that we are living at the point of the market where competition is no longer possible to be very naive.