4 ms·

Because they are US companies. Which is the main reason the US won't regulate them. EU is all about being anti-competitive, look at Airbus, InBev or LVMH.

by adrr 4y ago

Because they are US companies. Which is the main reason the US won't regulate them. EU is all about being anti-competitive, look at Airbus, InBev or LVMH. As long as it's their own companies being anti-competitive. Apple isn't even the market leader in EU, and EU is going to regulate them. That is anti-competitive. Let's go regulate the 2nd place company.

ls15 4y ago
> Apple isn't even the market leader in EU, and EU is going to regulate them. They have a monopoly on iphones.
- seneca 4y ago
  By this logic every company is a monopoly, as they have a monopoly on their own product.
  - ls15 4y ago
    Most other products cannot run apps. There is no alternative supplier of iOS devices so that people can run the apps that they bought from other companies via the Appstore.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power. > Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
closewith 4y ago
When I read comments like this on HN, I honestly wonder if the commenter believes this to be true, or if it's rhetoric or maybe trolling.
- onepointsixC 4y ago
  It's blatantly true. Just compare the fines of VW who explicitly systematically cheated emissions tests on diesel vehicles to EU fines on Google... for recommending google products on google websites. Services are the one piece of trade between the US and EU which the US is a net exporter. Considering the number of fines and taxes which explicitly target those it's pretty clear what's going on.
  - closewith 4y ago
    Do you believe the EU is more protectionist than the US? If so, you are too biased to have a meaningful conversation with.
    - safety1st 4y ago
      Wait what? The US runs a massive trade deficit with the world because it's extremely open about giving other countries access to its markets. The EU doesn't, in some years it actually runs a surplus. They're not ultra protectionist like China but I was certainly under the impression that they were more so than the US.
      - safety1st 4y ago
        See "Free Trade Rankings, 2019" here: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040115/which-countries-have-highest-tariffs.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040115/which-countr...
      - closewith 4y ago
        A trade surplus is not evidence of protectionism. The most common metric to measure protectionism (in as far as it can be measured statistically) is the Weighted Mean Tariff Rate. Compare the EU at 1.48% to the US at 1.52% - the EU is slightly lower and both are among the lowest in the world, certainly of the large economies. It's literal misinformation to say that the EU is more protectionist than the US. It was a Trump talking point, and never based in fact. EU: https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/tariff-rate-applied-weighted-mean-all-products-percent-wb-data.html https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/tariff-rate-appl... US: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/tariff-rate-applied-weighted-mean-all-products-percent-wb-data.html https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/tariff-rate-appli...
distantsounds 4y ago
ah yes "anti-competitive" and not "pro consumer" nice choice of words
- adrr 4y ago
  They are different things. Product dumping to get rid of your competition is anti-competitive even though lower priced is pro-consumer.
HWR_14 4y ago
What difference does them being a US company make? They're listed on the NASDAQ? The CEO lives in the US? Seriously, what does it mean to be a US company? > look at Airbus, InBev or LVMH. I did. Google's EU division had more revenue than any of those companies worldwide. It seems like Google's EU division (which is an EU company owned entirely by Google) is a bigger EU company than any of those three.
- hpkuarg 4y ago
  > what does it mean to be a US company? Easy enough question to answer by looking at the beneficial owners of a company's stock. I'd wager every "US company" as commonly understood is, in addition to being listed on US stock exchanges, headquartered in the US, and having significant operations in the US, is also majority-owned by American citizens.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Interesting distinction. I'm not sure it's possible to confirm this, but I would be interested in the different firms that were listed. Specifically, I don't know about AirBus and LVMH, but InBev seems to be primarily owned by American based mutual funds.
the_cramer 4y ago
How does Tesla fit in this, building a factory in Brandenburg against "some" public resistance? This case did not seem anti-competitive at all.

by adrr 4y ago

ls15 4y ago

> Apple isn't even the market leader in EU, and EU is going to regulate them. They have a monopoly on iphones.

seneca 4y ago
By this logic every company is a monopoly, as they have a monopoly on their own product.
- ls15 4y ago
  Most other products cannot run apps. There is no alternative supplier of iOS devices so that people can run the apps that they bought from other companies via the Appstore.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power. > Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

closewith 4y ago

When I read comments like this on HN, I honestly wonder if the commenter believes this to be true, or if it's rhetoric or maybe trolling.

onepointsixC 4y ago
It's blatantly true. Just compare the fines of VW who explicitly systematically cheated emissions tests on diesel vehicles to EU fines on Google... for recommending google products on google websites. Services are the one piece of trade between the US and EU which the US is a net exporter. Considering the number of fines and taxes which explicitly target those it's pretty clear what's going on.
- closewith 4y ago
  Do you believe the EU is more protectionist than the US? If so, you are too biased to have a meaningful conversation with.
  - safety1st 4y ago
    Wait what? The US runs a massive trade deficit with the world because it's extremely open about giving other countries access to its markets. The EU doesn't, in some years it actually runs a surplus. They're not ultra protectionist like China but I was certainly under the impression that they were more so than the US.
    - safety1st 4y ago
      See "Free Trade Rankings, 2019" here: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040115/which-countries-have-highest-tariffs.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040115/which-countr...
    - closewith 4y ago
      A trade surplus is not evidence of protectionism. The most common metric to measure protectionism (in as far as it can be measured statistically) is the Weighted Mean Tariff Rate. Compare the EU at 1.48% to the US at 1.52% - the EU is slightly lower and both are among the lowest in the world, certainly of the large economies. It's literal misinformation to say that the EU is more protectionist than the US. It was a Trump talking point, and never based in fact. EU: https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/tariff-rate-applied-weighted-mean-all-products-percent-wb-data.html https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/tariff-rate-appl... US: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/tariff-rate-applied-weighted-mean-all-products-percent-wb-data.html https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/tariff-rate-appli...

distantsounds 4y ago

ah yes "anti-competitive" and not "pro consumer" nice choice of words

adrr 4y ago
They are different things. Product dumping to get rid of your competition is anti-competitive even though lower priced is pro-consumer.

HWR_14 4y ago

What difference does them being a US company make? They're listed on the NASDAQ? The CEO lives in the US? Seriously, what does it mean to be a US company? > look at Airbus, InBev or LVMH. I did. Google's EU division had more revenue than any of those companies worldwide. It seems like Google's EU division (which is an EU company owned entirely by Google) is a bigger EU company than any of those three.

hpkuarg 4y ago
> what does it mean to be a US company? Easy enough question to answer by looking at the beneficial owners of a company's stock. I'd wager every "US company" as commonly understood is, in addition to being listed on US stock exchanges, headquartered in the US, and having significant operations in the US, is also majority-owned by American citizens.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Interesting distinction. I'm not sure it's possible to confirm this, but I would be interested in the different firms that were listed. Specifically, I don't know about AirBus and LVMH, but InBev seems to be primarily owned by American based mutual funds.

the_cramer 4y ago

How does Tesla fit in this, building a factory in Brandenburg against "some" public resistance? This case did not seem anti-competitive at all.