Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't understand what you feel is "protectionist" about this? I would say that the US pressuring the EU on behalf of big corporations is arguably "protectionist", but I don't think that's what you mean.

But even if policies make companies less "capable" and less "competitive": that completely ignores what effect they have on society. I bet that a company that was given a free pass to use slavery would be very capable and very competitive -- but is that what we want for our society?



The only "feel" is pretending that these rules don't have a protectionist outcome. It's -widely- observed by economists, and even the EU's own statements include language that infers protection of local industry.

The EU rules also require a fair deal of transparency about these matters, so sticking one's fingers in their ears is not an option. Here for example you can view Spotify's very active schedule with the EU parliament:

https://www.lobbyfacts.eu/datacard/spotify?rid=365747616583-... (which includes various click-throughs to the official EU publishings.) That's an outsized representation for a business of their revenue and service model. It's on par with significantly larger businesses such as pharmaceutical companies and banks.

In matters concerning the app store, the EU met with Spotify not less than 65 times, prior to fining Apple for app store practices. In that same window of time Spotify has increased their prices when competitors did not, all while introducing no features (not even those which were promised), while all major competitors introduced a steady stream of innovation and near-unanimously froze prices.

With this you are directly observing the aforementioned symptoms of protected businesses: prices go up and the product doesn't improve. Meanwhile competitors not receiving those benefits are offering a more competitive product.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: