5 ms·
They can fine them or forbid them to do business until it happens. Big tech does a lot of revenue there, i’m sure they wont abandon europe just because of this
by tacker2000 1y ago
They can fine them or forbid them to do business until it happens.
Big tech does a lot of revenue there, i’m sure they wont abandon europe just because of this.
See the Apple USB-C case.
- dgfitz 1y agoEurope has been basically begging the US to abandon them for the past few months. Why wouldn’t the US oblige?
- tacker2000 1y agoWhat are you talking about? If you mean the current US administration, what does that have to do with Big Tech?
- dgfitz 1y ago[flagged]
- i80and 1y agoYour point is a perfectly good one -- you don't need to wrap it in that nasty sandwich.
- tacker2000 1y agoNot sure why you are being so hostile and rude. Big tech is about revenue. They are not going to give up a large chunk because europe begs them or trump says they should get out of there. So no, i still dont see any overlap between the motivations of big tech and the us administration.
- usushik 1y agoWhat about this path: the current US administration plays to the "put America first" slogan, including taking steps to protect the American big tech companies from regulation and/or unpleasantness elsewhere. It is perfectly willing to inflict overall global pain to do so (see tariffs and how lowering them was also conditioned on regulatory concessions for big tech -- when negotiating with the UK or the EU)
- marginalia_nu 1y agoIf Europe wants their own tech companies on par with the American ones, it should first and foremost fix a business climate that caters to such companies emerging. If we drive the American businesses out of Europe without doing so first, we'll more than likely end up even further in the direction of turning the EU into the second coming of the DDR.
- madaxe_again 1y agoThe problem runs deeper than business climate - it’s cultural. Across most of Europe (not all - the Baltic states have produced quite a few unicorns) there’s a pervasive attitude that technology is… icky. Struggling to come up with a better way of putting it, but at best entrepreneurship in tech is met with blank incomprehension, and at worst sneering contempt. People use it, unthinkingly, but to be interested in it, to invest in it, seems to fall into the category of “we must have world peace before we spend money on space exploration”. Yes, this is hand-wavy, but in my experience as a tech entrepreneur in Europe, if you want investment, you talk to the Americans. If you want a growth market, you target the Americans. If you don’t want to be justifying your price tag 20 times a day… you get the picture. Of course there exist incubators, funds, and so-forth, but the money on the table is a pittance compared to the U.S., and again, the culture here is like “why don’t you get a real job, train as a lawyer, a doctor, or a banker, and stop playing video games?” when you’re running a profitable technical startup.
- sofixa 1y ago> Across most of Europe (not all - the Baltic states have produced quite a few unicorns) there’s a pervasive attitude that technology is… icky. Struggling to come up with a better way of putting it, but at best entrepreneurship in tech is met with blank incomprehension, and at worst sneering contempt. People use it, unthinkingly, but to be interested in it, to invest in it, seems to fall into the category of “we must have world peace before we spend money on space exploration”. Generalising a whole continent with such nonsense is... bold. Any data to back this up? Surveys? Anything? There are tons of people in tech, and tech startups all around various European countries. Most don't become unicorns, or get bought out by American giants. But that doesn't mean that people generally find them "icky". Or did you only talk to 80+ year olds in some rural areas in Belarus?
- fastball 1y agoThe Apple USB-C case is requiring a corporation to comply with regulations. Breaking up a company means a subset is being separated from the parent company, in a way where the parent company is no longer deriving value from the (former) subsidiary. In that context, why would Apple say "sure we will sever part of our business to be fully independent" rather than "ok we will no longer operate in Europe"? They lose the business either way, but the first scenario sets a bad precedent for them and encourages other countries/leagues/unions to try the same.