MEUS follow-up: Google is evil!

21 Apr 2015 in Digitalisation on Model EU

Google Android mascot: looking cute on purpose.

© Flickr/.RGB. CC Attribution License

This is a follow-up comment for my dear friends that have been discussing with me the Proposal for the EU Data Protection Regulation. In our parliament simulation, we had the honour to welcome a very strong participant representing a Google lobbyist that was hard to deal with (hi Lois ).

In my candidature, I chose the lobbyist role as my second choice, but I was eventually chosen to represent a British Conservatives politician in the ECR faction¹. In this role, I mostly agreed with the Google lobbyists.

However, I’m a bit worried that some other participants might have been hoodwinked and really think that Google might be a honourable company that fights for freedom of expression and wants all the best for the Internet users.

Of course, there are cases where Google is doing a good job. One example might be the acquisition of the VP8 codec from On2 Technologies to release their intellectual property (in this case: source code) under a free software license publicly accompanied with a irrevocable patent promise. Until today, this is part of the most efficient widespread video file format that serves a free exchange of videos and thus a more open internet.

Unfortunately, this is not the end of the story. Last week, the EU commissioner “Margrethe Vestager unveiled a formal complaint against Google, marking the most significant tech case since Brussels took on Microsoft a decade ago” (source: Financial Times).

This can only be a first step. It has been a while that I’m waiting for Brussels to make a case to put the smart phone operating systems and their respective application stores in question, as its close bundling prevents successfully competition in this domain that gets every day more important. This has yet to be done.

To make it even more clear: Back in the PC area, everyone could sell software that could be installed on Microsoft Windows PC without the need to ask for permission. Nowadays, it is actually very difficult to allow consumers to install an application that was not accepted by the Google or Apple play store. Useless to say that the selection process seems to be arbitrary to the outside and cannot be challenged. So this is clearly a step backwards.

I consider this behaviour indeed to be evil. There are some other movements of Google that support this impression:

Google urges indie music artists to accept unacceptable conditions on Youtube due to coupling with their Music Streaming services. Read the Artist’s Blog or the Guardian.
Google makes it hard to open alternative App stores.
Google started Android as open source, but moves silently back to closed source.
Google Search is penalising legal content to support entertainment industries.

It might be not the most easiest to read or understand, but give it a try. Smart phones are part of our daily life and the economy and policy behind it should be picked out as a central theme in schools already. For most of you, this is already to late. I ask you therefore to read it nevertheless—as it were homework .

PS: Facebook isn’t better. This is for another time.

That is the “European Conservatives and Reformists” with e.g. 20 Tories from the UK, and 7 deputies for the “Alternative for Germany”. ↩︎

Comments

Benji wrote on April 21, 2015

Quite frankly that's a bit too wishy-washy and too one-sided.

Although it's perfectly legitimate to assess a commercial enterprise from a sociological point of view, (or even the notion of a somewhat bigger purpose, such as the promotion of freedom of speech etc.), there is also the *fact* that there are economic requirements to make services available at all, AND that society usually fails to support these companies to develop their business in a way that supports these bigger political ideas.

In terms of business you should understand that OEM/OSMs have to deal with high costs when unapt software is used on their devices, platforms etc., or software is inadequately used. Unfortunately, customers tend to lack the ability to distinguish who's responsbile in case of any convenience, but they are quick to accuse the facturer. Thus, there are both, real and opportuntiy costs for companies just because consumers prefer convenience over responsibilty, costs which you are not even charged directly for.

Thus there is a certain sense in closing software markets (such as the play store) and excluding external points of entry. Technically, you can install apps on your android device, even from outside, but it requires you to overcome your convenience. It's not Google's, or an other's duty to compensate for your convenience.

I absolutely understand that we are at times afraid of too much power for private enterprises, such as Google and others. But before blaming them, we must understand that entrepreneurship is key to the growth and promotion of technological advance and all the benefits we associate with it. I do not understand how you can call Google "evil" for doing something that you even do benefit from, but at the same time require them to give up everything that pays for the services you benefit from.

No, I do not have any shares in Google, I do not receive any money from them, but I think they are doing a great job, even though there are issues to be solved indeed. Yet none of your four points actually is one of these.

Robert Riemann wrote on April 21, 2015

I get a security warning when I install any 3rd party app store on my phone, even though it might be a very secure app store. Google is biased. Back at MS Windows times, I did not got the impression to risk more when installing non-microsoft software (e.g. Adobe). It's a simplification of course, but that's how it is presented to the customer.

Did you read the blog post from the indie artist? I would be interested to learn if you don't need to agree that this is just evil. :p

Benji wrote on April 22, 2015

Security warnings are disclaimers to inform you that the software you are about to install is either itself, or potentially supports software that does harm to your device or system. Thus, it perfectly makes sense that it pops up when you install a third party app store. This is not biased. Even my printer informs me, that the cartridge I use is not a OEM part, which is against the warranty agreement we have. Microsoft is no different in this regard: If you download software from the internet, it will inform you that this might be potentially harmful to your system. Where is the bias in this? As long as you expect warranty and certain level of responsibility from Google, you should grant them to expect them same from you.

Concerning the artist's article, I am not inclined to feel any pitty for her. She, as an artist and business person acknowledged that distributing her contents on YouTube is beneficial for her business, or at least her publicity. That's why she is using it at all. She thus benefits from work she hasn't done herself, i.e. the coding, hosting, surveillance, maintenance, promotion etc. of YouTube. How do you think they make this happen? Right, by finding business modells to monetize this whole thing. If she does not want to support their business, why should they? I mean she's clear about that herself:

"This is the important part: it is my decision to make.
Is such control too much for an artist to ask for in 2015? It’s one thing for individuals to upload all my music for free listening (it doesn’t bother me). It’s another thing entirely for a major corporation to force me to. I was encouraged to participate and now, after I’m invested, I’m being pressured into something I don’t want to do."

My answer is: That's life. I am forced to pay taxes, which I don't wanna do but I do wanna benefit from the numerous services the state provides us through them. She's free to leave the whole thing and good she would be. She, however, decided to reject any business responsibility while using the services of others. I don't think that's "fair" either. Yet I would not call her evil, because I understand her motifs and motivation, took.

I guess the big drama we are living in is that we try to implemnt our "ideals" into reality. Sometimes these ideals, however, turn out to be very unfair, because they eventually expect others to pay for it.

Robert Riemann wrote on April 22, 2015

We have social welfare. That's an ideal and may seem unfair to certain people. However, we made it reality and people can expect others paying for them.

In Europe, we have the concept of keeping a vivid market with competition. This is why recently the deal between the supermarkets Edeka and Kaiser's Tengelmann was denied. How can this happen? So there is actually an interest of the public that is once in a while enforced. So why should we expect the situation in the case of Youtube.

Next: I have to admit, that it is a very long time ago, but I think it is possible to install Adobe software on a Windows computer without getting security warnings (because the Adobe certificate might be trusted or so).

The artist is representing a minority. Most artists are probably either not commercial or a contracted with big labels. To keep the diversity, there is an interest to support alternative business models and if a monopolist can rule them out, some measures should be put in place to protect them. This might eventually depend on the econmic system, but at least in the EU it should be like this.

Pretty sure you are aware of the Microsoft Browser-Bundle case that have been treated in Brussels. Why do you think Brussels could finally expect the unbundling of the Microsoft Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Benji wrote on April 22, 2015

Social welfare is the worst starting point you could got off from. SW is possible because ways have been to "finance" it, for instance, by a compulsory social security insurance and taxes, which neither you nor I can opt-out from. To cut a long matter short, there is a calculated business modell behind it, even if it is paid from loans. If that model fails (as it usually does), social welfare will no more be available, as you might learn in Greece soon or even from your history book when you look back to what Hartz IV for instance meant as opposed to what we had before.

The difference between the state having a business model and private companies is that former eventually turns out to be a tyrant that dictates the size, rules and outcome. Unlinke a state, a company cannot default its loans, nor force additional payments upon their clients or simply close a "competitor" that became inconvenient in a certain field. That's however, what states do, regularily.

Now, since you talk about competetive markets, I do agree but want to make sure that you understand the dynamics of markets. At times companies create markets that have not existed before, or in a not relevant size. Some of the markets are virtually of no use even if it appears to you like that. If Google &c. closes no one will starve or die. That my be entirely different when grocery stores, public transportation, or to cut it short: physical providers close because they have been competed to death.

What EU is doing now is attacking software companies because they learn that the convenience of people started to rest upon their products. If Google, Microsoft and what their names are, stop their business right now, that might be inconvenient. But there will be, admittely worse other solutions. You still can use MyVideo rather than YouTube, DuckDuckGo rather than Google search. If I ask you "Why the heck are you using services you deem to be evil" and your answer is "because everyone does", than you should better think about the foolishness of people rather than of discrediting companies that did and do a good job in terms of their technology.

The Microsoft Browser-Bundle case was much more complex than this, although there are similarities to Google/Android/SmartPhone. The key term is license blackmailing and the wilful mixture of OS/user software branches. Technically there differences, because Google learned from Microsoft.

Benji wrote on April 22, 2015

Oh, they have a somewhat longer list of Google's "unfairness"
http://www.contaxe.com/

Roman Heine wrote on April 22, 2015

Dear guys. Thanks for the Link to your diskussion. I enjoyed following it and have finally build my own opinion on this. I am probably lacking background information but even if I also know and even use alternatives to google and youtube, I can't accept Bennys "use it or not" as a general principle. Given that google, youtube, android, facebook, Skype and whatsoever have become so crucial in communication and everyday consumption to everybody of us and that those companys (in fact facebook, google, microsoft) are so big, wealthy and therefore powerful, they must simply be controlled! I clearly see parallels to the Edeka/Tengelmann case. And opposite to what has been said earlier, to me there are also parallels to states rather that to ordinary companies. Their monopoly position gives those companys powers that even go beyond state competences, such as the right to collect personal data (In Germany protected by Art. 12 - unternehmerische Freiheit - and Art. 5 - Informationsfreiheit - Grundgesetz) while official services such as the BND are accused by doing so, because they have to respect fundamental rights. Companys don't have to do so. They are simply bound by simple laws which are quite liberal. That's why I agree to european initiatives heading for cutting down on google's wide spread range of economical powers that prevent competitors from entering markets in order to enable them to simply compete. It's the same with VW, BASF, SAP, Gazprom etc. Companys as big as them, as successful as they are, rather prevent markets from developping instead of fueling development. Licences are to protect development and to assure income to the inventors, but too many licences in the hands of monopoly economic actors make progress stopp and make prices increase. I don't accuse any company for being successful but it's a simple matter of fact that functioning market-places need regulation. Even so, Google is truely not "evil" because they don't have to care for moral standards. This is rather up to the society.

Benji wrote on April 22, 2015

Well, just to clarify my position: I am neither advocating to leave any company uncontrolled, nor do I deny that Google has issues that need to be tackled, for instance, data protection et al. (that's why my initial post concluded with "I think they are doing a great job, even though there are issues to be solved indeed. Yet none of your four points actually is one of these").

My interest is to raise awareness for the challenges of entrepreneurship, which corporations and especially it-companies are facing when developing services that enable users to do something, they couldn't do before. Far too often we assume that the big money which big companies make would compensate for everything. In fact, it compensates for them. But it does not compensate for discouragement it brings to smaller enterprises which "dream" of once following Google in its footsteps to a certain extent.

By carelessly accusing the big companies, one also discourages smaller enterprises from trying to compete with them at all, because they, i.e. we, fear being sued for the same trivia (such as placing one's own offers first etc.) Such a cast of mind will ultimately lead to less competitiveness on the web services market, there will be less competitors and more power for the big ones. I don't think that is something anyone of us wants. The most effective way to "tame" big companies always was disruptive innovation. By persecuting innovative technologies the opposite will be true.

A good night everyone.

MEUS follow-up: Google is evil!

~rriemann

Error

Templates (for web app):

Error