8 ms·

I know some people on here don't like the EU "over regulating/sanctionning" tech companies telling them what to do when they misbehave and refuses to play nicel

by nolok 3y ago

I know some people on here don't like the EU "over regulating/sanctionning" tech companies telling them what to do when they misbehave and refuses to play nicely (eg Apple usb-c, to take one that was clearly controversial on HN), but I really really hope some massive case is coming against the clear monopolistic walled garden abuse that is reappearing lately on the web, it's like the early 2000 all over again. Google breaking stuff for Firefox, Microsoft breaking stuff for Chrome, ... There is a difference between not bothering to ensure full compatibility and showing a warning, and limiting to your own market. We can keep pretending smart phones are not two different markets but one unified so apple and google are free to abuse users, but not computers and the web.

veave 3y ago
And what exactly is the monopoly here, AI chatbots, or Edge as a browser used to access them?
- nolok 3y ago
  I think monopoly is not the right term, but I don't know the correct one. They control a huge share of one market, and they use it to force their way into another in an unfair way (Microsoft: windows to push edge and keep making it default and making it harder and harder and scarier to switch, and now using edge to push their own web services; Google: gmail & co to push chrome, ...). One would argue "if it's not a monopoly is it not legal ?" but that's sort of my point, if it's illegal it should be punished, if it's currently legal it should be regulated. We cannot keep treating browsers like a regular piece of software when they're becoming more and more like an utility. I sort of feel the same way toward OSes, but browsers are even more important.
  - princevegeta89 3y ago
    "Free will and abuse of power"
  - yard2010 3y ago
    I think the term here is centralization or lack of diversity
  - veave 3y ago
    They only have 5.31% of browser market share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
    - nolok 3y ago
      Which mean there is still time to stop their abuse in Windows, unlike last time with internet explorer when we reacted too late. Changing browsers went from a simple and smooth experience in 7/8, to one with roadblocks and warning in 10, to one that's absurdely abusive in 11, all to push Edge forward.
      - ztrww 3y ago
        what you’re advocating would only increase chrome’s dominance to 95%+. there artificial limitations imposed by Apple and MS are the only things that are keeping the browser market marginally competitive.
        nolok 3y ago
        Yes and no. I'm this thread's OP and like I said in the main post I believe they should go against google/chrome too to impose some rules.
        ztrww 3y ago
        > some rules like what? and why do you think they could help? They’d have to somehow explicitly target Chrome to give it’s competitors a chance. IE did not go to down because of some EU regulations or the bundling ban because Mozilla and Google simply released better browser.
  - ztrww 3y ago
    Only realistic outcome from this would be Google/Chrome becoming even more dominant since there would be no reason for anyone to use any other browser.
  - jefftk 3y ago
    In this case Microsoft is using Bing Chat to promote Edge use, but Bing Chat doesn't have anything close to a dominant position so it's hard for me to see an argument that this isn't allowed under US anti-trust (or that it should be prohibited).
- mort96 3y ago
  There are forms of anti-competitive practices which don't involve abusing an absolute monopoly.
DoingIsLearning 3y ago
My issue as an EU citizen is how "lobby permeable" the regulations are. US tech is lobbying the EU too now. Proposals start out strong and become PR operations after the watering down. - Implement net neutrality but give data exemptions to mobile data operators if the traffic is from Facebook or Whatsapp. - Implement ban on single use plastics but add so many exemptions that Nestle, Coca-Cola, Unilever, continue business as usual - Implement Green New Deal but add a metric tonne of taxpayers money to support Hidrogen because Shell says so - Start a Ban on ICEs but then push it back another 15 years because Exxon says so Etc.
- nolok 3y ago
  I don't disagree with you but an insufficient regulation is still better than none though.
  - DoingIsLearning 3y ago
    Indeed but for all the plutocracy criticism we make of the US system we are pretty toothless at addressing conflict of interest and quid pro quos at EC level.
  - monopoliessuck 3y ago
    This isn't necessarily true. Regulations that create exceptions for key big players entrench them further and their poor business practices against competitors that wish to usurp their market dominance. New entrants have to play by the rules, but established ones get preferential treatment.
- Topfi 3y ago
  That is a fair point, regulation often gets watered down as it undergoes revision after revision, though in fairness, most cases can not be solely blamed on US tech. The stricter timetable for an ICE ban, to use something mentioned, was mainly changed due to pressure from European business interests, including in part Poland, Germany, Austria, etc. Essentially countries with a significant Auto industry that hasn't pivoted to EVs in the same way as e.g. France. I did not hear of Exxon lobbying to that extent in this case, but maybe I just missed that. Basically, whilst US concerns definitely have their lobbying efforts in Brussels and Strasbourg, we need to be aware that European business is just as able and willing to engage in the same. The lack of interest in European politics compared to the national level tends to make this more frictionless and effective too, though that is a bit of a chicken/egg problem. People won't engage much with EU politics if the EU is seen as overly bureaucratic and lead by lobbyists, but there is little incentive to change without public interest. Still feel that regulators can do tremendous good if motivated. The US has shown their abilities during Dieselgate, the EU in data protection. We, the public, need to tune in. Writing letters and calling does make a difference, as hard as that can be to believe.
somenameforme 3y ago
We're so far beyond the 2000s in terms of bad behavior that it's not even funny. Remember that the case United States vs Microsoft [1] was about, literally, nothing but Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows! That was seen as (and is) anticompetitive behavior detrimental to competition from other browsers. And Microsoft lost that case, initially leading to the potential breakup of the entire company! Though they [obviously] managed to get a lesser penalty on appeal. Now companies package all sorts of random crap, often make it impossible to remove or in many cases even disable, prevent users from getting apps except from their own walled in app-stores (where they take a huge cut of revenue), phone home endlessly for opaque purposes, forcibly impose updates which regularly reset user preferences to the benefit of companies, artificially promote their products in every single way (such as by being the automatically selected 'default' selection in every aspect of a system, knowing full well that changing the default is too onerous for the average user), and much much more. The problem is not a lack of regulations or rules, but a lack of enforcement. As soon as all of these big tech companies started "lobbying" politicians, let alone becoming deeply intertwined with our intelligence agencies [2], it's like any concern whatsoever about antitrust just disappeared, or at least set to a practically unreachable level of villainy. All the rules in the world don't matter if they're simply not enforced for certain companies. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM#Companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM#Companies
- veave 3y ago
  United States v. Microsoft Corp. happened because Windows stood at 95%+ market share. It hasn't happened again because no platform has risen to that level of market share.
  - nolok 3y ago
    Monopoly is not a necessary condition for antitrust case.
    - orra 3y ago
varispeed 3y ago
While EU regulations like the GDPR aim to limit big tech's power, they can unintentionally solidify it. These rules increase costs and bureaucracy, creating barriers for startups while major corporations absorb these burdens easily. The GDPR also legalises data trade, as users now routinely consent without understanding implications. This essentially gives companies the right to repackage and sell data, where before GDPR it was a gray area. Also, penalties for violations, although significant, may merely be seen as a cost of doing business for these giants. So, we must scrutinise whether these regulations genuinely promote competition or inadvertently strengthen the monopolies they're designed to control.
- nolok 3y ago
  As the owner and operator of small (<25 employees each) companies in the EU directly affected by the GDPR, I disagree with you. Implementing it has required work but mostly due to the need to change habits, it didn't add any real burden in day to day life, it promoted a much healthier and safer environnement for our customers, it allowed us to push something we believe in without disadvantaging us compared to our competitors, and it gave us a direct marketing advantage in that customers trust us much more than "web giants" to keep our words about this in the experience I have. YMMV but the GDPR has been a massive gain on every front for me, both as a user, as a citizen and as a small business owner and operator.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  >users now routinely consent This is a weakness of the regulation, not an issue with the concept of regulation. There should be a much clearer ban on applying these dark patterns to trick people into consenting.
  - marginalia_nu 3y ago
    It's arguably a problem with the enforcement not keeping up. Many of these practices are in pretty clear violation of the GDPR. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but time and time again these practices have been deemed illegal, in no small part due to the legal hijinx of Max Schrems.
  - 3y ago
RektBoy 3y ago
And yet muricans are suing each other and companies over every small thing possible. Their government just milk them for money, aka healthcare. And somebody doesn't like EU regulating tech companies on their own soil? Clowns...
j33zusjuice 3y ago
I actually can see the MS perspective of not allowing applications to directly modify the default application for a given purpose. If apps can never do it, it removes some amount of vulnerability from OS. Applying fixes to block applications that work around the OS’s safety features seems valid to me. In this case, I don’t think I could reasonably claim this was MS’s concern/intent in breaking Chrome’s default app button, I’m only saying that I can imagine legitimate reasons to do purposefully do that.
lopkeny12ko 3y ago
You assume malicious intent. At work, developers are exclusively given Macs as corporate laptops, and all our internal developer tools, guidelines, and acceptance tests run on Chrome. The side effect of this is that stuff is broken in Firefox all the time. And if you're using Firefox on anything other than a Mac, good luck getting anyone here to fix your issue.
- thx-2718 3y ago
  Wouldn't that be an inefficiency of your organization? i.e. not following defined standards and verifying interoperability? Standards are made for a reason, I expect professionals to be informed of them and put effort into adhering to them.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  Remind me where you work so I can avoid whatever it is your company makes.
  - lopkeny12ko 3y ago
    Doesn't matter. I've worked at a lot of "top 100" Internet properties over the years, many of which you probably use at least once a month. You would be surprised how many companies don't test their product on anything other than Macs and Chrome.
varelse 3y ago
[dead]
hospitalJail 3y ago
>walled garden this is marketing jargon. Say 'curated' or 'controlled'. Heck pick any word that doesnt have roses and delicious fruits involved.
gunapologist99 3y ago
Yep. Back in the day, Outlook Web Access (OWA) in Exchange used to check to see if you were on IE and block if you were on any chrome browser, and then (mostly) work fine if you just spoofed user agent, leading to things like owa-user-agent. Same story, different day. Google and Apple exert unbelievable levels of control over the entire Internet simply with their two app stores, even forcing various social media to censor legal speech.

by nolok 3y ago

veave 3y ago

And what exactly is the monopoly here, AI chatbots, or Edge as a browser used to access them?

nolok 3y ago
I think monopoly is not the right term, but I don't know the correct one. They control a huge share of one market, and they use it to force their way into another in an unfair way (Microsoft: windows to push edge and keep making it default and making it harder and harder and scarier to switch, and now using edge to push their own web services; Google: gmail & co to push chrome, ...). One would argue "if it's not a monopoly is it not legal ?" but that's sort of my point, if it's illegal it should be punished, if it's currently legal it should be regulated. We cannot keep treating browsers like a regular piece of software when they're becoming more and more like an utility. I sort of feel the same way toward OSes, but browsers are even more important.
- princevegeta89 3y ago
  "Free will and abuse of power"
- yard2010 3y ago
  I think the term here is centralization or lack of diversity
- veave 3y ago
  They only have 5.31% of browser market share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
  - nolok 3y ago
    Which mean there is still time to stop their abuse in Windows, unlike last time with internet explorer when we reacted too late. Changing browsers went from a simple and smooth experience in 7/8, to one with roadblocks and warning in 10, to one that's absurdely abusive in 11, all to push Edge forward.
    - ztrww 3y ago
      what you’re advocating would only increase chrome’s dominance to 95%+. there artificial limitations imposed by Apple and MS are the only things that are keeping the browser market marginally competitive.
      - nolok 3y ago
        Yes and no. I'm this thread's OP and like I said in the main post I believe they should go against google/chrome too to impose some rules.
        ztrww 3y ago
        > some rules like what? and why do you think they could help? They’d have to somehow explicitly target Chrome to give it’s competitors a chance. IE did not go to down because of some EU regulations or the bundling ban because Mozilla and Google simply released better browser.
- ztrww 3y ago
  Only realistic outcome from this would be Google/Chrome becoming even more dominant since there would be no reason for anyone to use any other browser.
- jefftk 3y ago
  In this case Microsoft is using Bing Chat to promote Edge use, but Bing Chat doesn't have anything close to a dominant position so it's hard for me to see an argument that this isn't allowed under US anti-trust (or that it should be prohibited).
mort96 3y ago
There are forms of anti-competitive practices which don't involve abusing an absolute monopoly.

DoingIsLearning 3y ago

My issue as an EU citizen is how "lobby permeable" the regulations are. US tech is lobbying the EU too now. Proposals start out strong and become PR operations after the watering down. - Implement net neutrality but give data exemptions to mobile data operators if the traffic is from Facebook or Whatsapp. - Implement ban on single use plastics but add so many exemptions that Nestle, Coca-Cola, Unilever, continue business as usual - Implement Green New Deal but add a metric tonne of taxpayers money to support Hidrogen because Shell says so - Start a Ban on ICEs but then push it back another 15 years because Exxon says so Etc.

nolok 3y ago
I don't disagree with you but an insufficient regulation is still better than none though.
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago
  Indeed but for all the plutocracy criticism we make of the US system we are pretty toothless at addressing conflict of interest and quid pro quos at EC level.
- monopoliessuck 3y ago
  This isn't necessarily true. Regulations that create exceptions for key big players entrench them further and their poor business practices against competitors that wish to usurp their market dominance. New entrants have to play by the rules, but established ones get preferential treatment.
Topfi 3y ago
That is a fair point, regulation often gets watered down as it undergoes revision after revision, though in fairness, most cases can not be solely blamed on US tech. The stricter timetable for an ICE ban, to use something mentioned, was mainly changed due to pressure from European business interests, including in part Poland, Germany, Austria, etc. Essentially countries with a significant Auto industry that hasn't pivoted to EVs in the same way as e.g. France. I did not hear of Exxon lobbying to that extent in this case, but maybe I just missed that. Basically, whilst US concerns definitely have their lobbying efforts in Brussels and Strasbourg, we need to be aware that European business is just as able and willing to engage in the same. The lack of interest in European politics compared to the national level tends to make this more frictionless and effective too, though that is a bit of a chicken/egg problem. People won't engage much with EU politics if the EU is seen as overly bureaucratic and lead by lobbyists, but there is little incentive to change without public interest. Still feel that regulators can do tremendous good if motivated. The US has shown their abilities during Dieselgate, the EU in data protection. We, the public, need to tune in. Writing letters and calling does make a difference, as hard as that can be to believe.

somenameforme 3y ago

We're so far beyond the 2000s in terms of bad behavior that it's not even funny. Remember that the case United States vs Microsoft [1] was about, literally, nothing but Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows! That was seen as (and is) anticompetitive behavior detrimental to competition from other browsers. And Microsoft lost that case, initially leading to the potential breakup of the entire company! Though they [obviously] managed to get a lesser penalty on appeal. Now companies package all sorts of random crap, often make it impossible to remove or in many cases even disable, prevent users from getting apps except from their own walled in app-stores (where they take a huge cut of revenue), phone home endlessly for opaque purposes, forcibly impose updates which regularly reset user preferences to the benefit of companies, artificially promote their products in every single way (such as by being the automatically selected 'default' selection in every aspect of a system, knowing full well that changing the default is too onerous for the average user), and much much more. The problem is not a lack of regulations or rules, but a lack of enforcement. As soon as all of these big tech companies started "lobbying" politicians, let alone becoming deeply intertwined with our intelligence agencies [2], it's like any concern whatsoever about antitrust just disappeared, or at least set to a practically unreachable level of villainy. All the rules in the world don't matter if they're simply not enforced for certain companies. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM#Companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM#Companies

veave 3y ago
United States v. Microsoft Corp. happened because Windows stood at 95%+ market share. It hasn't happened again because no platform has risen to that level of market share.
- nolok 3y ago
  Monopoly is not a necessary condition for antitrust case.
  - orra 3y ago

varispeed 3y ago

While EU regulations like the GDPR aim to limit big tech's power, they can unintentionally solidify it. These rules increase costs and bureaucracy, creating barriers for startups while major corporations absorb these burdens easily. The GDPR also legalises data trade, as users now routinely consent without understanding implications. This essentially gives companies the right to repackage and sell data, where before GDPR it was a gray area. Also, penalties for violations, although significant, may merely be seen as a cost of doing business for these giants. So, we must scrutinise whether these regulations genuinely promote competition or inadvertently strengthen the monopolies they're designed to control.

nolok 3y ago
As the owner and operator of small (<25 employees each) companies in the EU directly affected by the GDPR, I disagree with you. Implementing it has required work but mostly due to the need to change habits, it didn't add any real burden in day to day life, it promoted a much healthier and safer environnement for our customers, it allowed us to push something we believe in without disadvantaging us compared to our competitors, and it gave us a direct marketing advantage in that customers trust us much more than "web giants" to keep our words about this in the experience I have. YMMV but the GDPR has been a massive gain on every front for me, both as a user, as a citizen and as a small business owner and operator.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
>users now routinely consent This is a weakness of the regulation, not an issue with the concept of regulation. There should be a much clearer ban on applying these dark patterns to trick people into consenting.
- marginalia_nu 3y ago
  It's arguably a problem with the enforcement not keeping up. Many of these practices are in pretty clear violation of the GDPR. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but time and time again these practices have been deemed illegal, in no small part due to the legal hijinx of Max Schrems.
- 3y ago

RektBoy 3y ago

And yet muricans are suing each other and companies over every small thing possible. Their government just milk them for money, aka healthcare. And somebody doesn't like EU regulating tech companies on their own soil? Clowns...

j33zusjuice 3y ago

I actually can see the MS perspective of not allowing applications to directly modify the default application for a given purpose. If apps can never do it, it removes some amount of vulnerability from OS. Applying fixes to block applications that work around the OS’s safety features seems valid to me. In this case, I don’t think I could reasonably claim this was MS’s concern/intent in breaking Chrome’s default app button, I’m only saying that I can imagine legitimate reasons to do purposefully do that.

lopkeny12ko 3y ago

You assume malicious intent. At work, developers are exclusively given Macs as corporate laptops, and all our internal developer tools, guidelines, and acceptance tests run on Chrome. The side effect of this is that stuff is broken in Firefox all the time. And if you're using Firefox on anything other than a Mac, good luck getting anyone here to fix your issue.

thx-2718 3y ago
Wouldn't that be an inefficiency of your organization? i.e. not following defined standards and verifying interoperability? Standards are made for a reason, I expect professionals to be informed of them and put effort into adhering to them.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
Remind me where you work so I can avoid whatever it is your company makes.
- lopkeny12ko 3y ago
  Doesn't matter. I've worked at a lot of "top 100" Internet properties over the years, many of which you probably use at least once a month. You would be surprised how many companies don't test their product on anything other than Macs and Chrome.

varelse 3y ago

[dead]

hospitalJail 3y ago

>walled garden this is marketing jargon. Say 'curated' or 'controlled'. Heck pick any word that doesnt have roses and delicious fruits involved.

gunapologist99 3y ago

Yep. Back in the day, Outlook Web Access (OWA) in Exchange used to check to see if you were on IE and block if you were on any chrome browser, and then (mostly) work fine if you just spoofed user agent, leading to things like owa-user-agent. Same story, different day. Google and Apple exert unbelievable levels of control over the entire Internet simply with their two app stores, even forcing various social media to censor legal speech.