As a general rule, when trillion-dollar companies don’t like regulation, it simply means they’re admitting the rules are good for their customers.
“Changes to our Search results may send more traffic to large intermediaries and aggregators, and less traffic to direct suppliers like hotels, airlines, merchants and restaurants,” Bethell wrote.
This is exactly what is happening right now. Every time I search for some random stuff on Google, I get eMag links (eMag is basically the biggest online retailer in my country. Kinda like Amazon).
They usually sound like:
Looking for [query]? Choose from the eMag offer
And then I get redirected to their search page if I click on it.
When we were trying to book a hotel, my partner clicked on the top link of a Google search, which was of course a sponsored link and took her to some completely off-brand intermediary whose website was designed to mimic the appearance of the hotel’s. She completed the booking there before ever realizing it wasn’t the hotel itself, and when I quoted the same stay directly with the hotel it wound up being some $100-$200 cheaper.
I had to have a lengthy phone call with their customer support and exchange a few emails before they finally agreed to refund us. I suppose we’re lucky they even had a reachable customer service, but I was and remain infuriated by the conditions that created the situation in the first place.
Found the Romanian! 😁
Apple speaks like overprotective parents that don’t want their kids to leave home alone.
They don’t want their “kids” to leave the beautiful walled garden where everyone pays a fee to be there :P
More like over-controlling parents.
At its heart, the DMA requires more interoperability than ever, making it harder for gatekeepers to favor their own services or block other businesses from reaching consumers on their platforms.
Wow Google/Apple/etc. will actually have to compete instead of just having a de facto monopoly? But how could they ever earn money under such conditions /s
I predict layoffs coming, along with PR campaigns blaming regulation, and pat-yourself-on-the-back bonuses for executives to follow shortly thereafter.
Corporarions should be forced to calculate C level pay based on total employee pay divided by a factor. They cut jobs they lose their own income
I feel like only being able to pay say 10 times the lowest paid employee or contractor would be more effective. If the janitor makes 40k, the boss can make up to 400k. That way you wouldn’t have situations where there is a high average pay, but that’s all in the highest levels of management and maybe a few key personnel while everyone else struggles to make rent.
Using average comes with the trouble that if Jeff Bezos walks into the room, everyone in that room is on average a billionaire even if all by one is hundreds of thousands in dept.
I’ve considered this myself. A sort of “maximum allowable wealth disparity” limit. The only trouble is enforcing it. There are all sorts of ways to shuffle wealth around that might not count as “pay.” You’d need to plug all of those loopholes.
The quickest and simplest way of doing it is to simply regulate for all assets to be valued/revalued and tax paid appropriately any time it changes ownership, and “changes of ownership” is given a definition that includes a corporation giving it to the CEO, a CEO moving it to a trust or holding company, etc. It would do away with the bullshit “our CEO doesn’t get paid” when really he got millions in stock options instead. The stock options changed hands, therefore they have to be professionally and independently valued, and then taxed.
Yep, make it 10x salary, they can pay everyone in the company half as much, and the C-suite gets the difference in options or straight-out vesting.
I agree, your proposal is better
Knowing them, they’ll just say the equivalent of “Hey, we pay our already filthy rich CEOs $1 an hour! We cannot afford to pay them less!” while those same CEOs are out committing tax evasion and fraud.
…warning of potentially burdensome restrictions possibly hampering innovation and distorting competition.
Oh yeah, when I think of innovation now I think Google and Microsoft. Seriously what has been innovated in the last 10 years by either of them? Most products by big tech over the last 10 years are knockoffs of competitor products or things they captured by buying out a startup. They’re big lumbering slow corporate behemoths who are just maintaining their power status.
True innovation is what will come out of this. If they can’t hoard users and be anti-competitive… then they actually might have to innovate.
It’s difficult to innovate when most (or all) of what used to go to R&D is instead given to shareholders.
Feature not a bug
Oh, come on, in that time period Google’s made several dozen copies of the same service! And some of them even lasted longer than a year before being killed!
And Microsoft has been steadily rewriting the book on naming schemes in a valiant effort to confuse you no matter which of their product lines/ services you need, and all while graciously providing Candy Crush and telemetry free of charge!
I love going to Entra (azure), the authentication manager (admin, legacy and Entra), the defender dashboard for DLP, wait no compliance, and then uh, what license do I need for this? It’s a NIGHTMARE navigating their depreciated shit. Absolutely unreal
I’m in the middle of integrating (ugh) Entra, and 99% of the documentation is marketing bullshit in a circlejerk about how proud they are that they… changed the name.
Feels like everything’s written in that self-congratulatory treacly voice these days. Most products are the equivalent of the little McDonald’s hamburger with reconstituted onions and two anemic pickle slices but sold as though they have Michelin stars.
Yes that’s the exact feeling I have. Fast food.
We’ve been moving from a lot of best-in-class services to Microsoft ones and this is exactly it. They’re always just good enough to be passable but never great at what they do. The only real benefit they have is that a lot of stuff is “free” with other things (how Teams is killing slack despite being piss-poor) and that everything integrates better with Windows. And they’re always behind the competition, like Intune was much much worse than the competing MDMs when we had to use it, and they’ve only kinda caught up by now.
It’s a smart move because even if you do have an AAA product sooner or later some smartass manager is going to be looking to make a name for themselves and cut costs with something that’s ‘free’.
It’s not even the compliance portal any more it’s purview.
Only if you have an E5 license! If you have an E3 it’s still compliance and you can trial purview features
Of course the name changes if you pay for a different license lmao.
Ihatethemihatethemihatethem
EntraID is pretty much the only time a MS rebranding actually makes sense because Azure Active Directory was confusing as hell.
All the other ones, like Lync -> Skype, Yammer -> Viva, Intune -> MEM were just marketing running wild for the sake of it and putting their customers up with the burden. And CoPilot is a disaster because they’re dumping a whole load of different products under the same labeling and nobody knows what the hell is what anymore, even experts.
It’s insane. The documentation is often times half accurate and feels like navigating a minefield of half truths, depreciations and context clues to find the solution to problems.
I guess they’re going to be replacing their lobbyists because the last batch didn’t do their job well enough.
Or, the EU recognizes bribery that the US hides behind the euphemism called ‘lobbying’.
I am skeptical of how long that’s going to last. There’s too much money at stake.
That’s definitely a concern. But at least for now, the EU isn’t a pretend-democracy like the US is, with the actual shots being called by rich billionaires and corporations.
There’s many EU commissioners pushing for commercial projects already, like Thierry Breton and his ever present “digital everything” initiatives that nobody asked for except the companies that are implementing it. Like eIDAS and the recent digital ID thing. The EU is very receptive to commercial interests but mostly ones originating from the EU.
It is true that we do have a very different outlook on privacy but that should not be mistaken for a lack of commercial interests.
I didn’t know Direct Memory Access was still so controversial! (I feel old now).
As a general rule, when trillion-dollar companies don’t like regulation, it simply means they’re admitting the rules are good for their customers.
We’re not their customers. That’s the root cause of this problem.
So sometimes there is good news and we can smile a little
