The EU issued a large fine for Google to impose a fine of 4.34 billion euros in violation of antitrust rules. Previously, the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), which had already entered into force in the EU, provided super strict protection of personal data. It has a fundamental impact on the development of the global Internet industry, but now people still do not know whether the EU's approach is good or bad.
The European Union has determined that Google has abused the status of the Android (Android) operating system, and installed Google search by default in the system, thereby strengthening its dominant position in search engines. Many years ago, Microsoft also fell into a similar monopoly lawsuit in the United States and Europe. Allegations of abuse of the status of the Windows operating system, bundled IE browser in the system.
After many years, the two cases have changed a lot. One difference is that Google provides Android for all vendors and users for free. In the past, Microsoft used to get revenue from the Windows s operating system. The second difference is that Google search has already It is the dominant business in the market, and Microsoft is clearly trying to get the advantage that it does not have through bundling.
The bigger difference is that Microsoft was an exclusive bundle, and Google is pre-installed and defaulted, no exclusive, users can not use or delete. The EU's position is unique, it believes that pre-installation and defaults 'restrict consumers' The choice of '. Technically understands the EU's position, because the vast majority of users will use pre-installed and default applications, they can indeed install other search engines themselves, but few will do so.
The problem is that with such logic, the result is: On the one hand, pre-installation and default may violate the monopoly rules. Apple's operating system pre-installed more of its own applications, obviously will be the next goal; on the other hand, Getting users for free and then implementing business benefits in other ways may not be feasible. It is generally believed that in the mobile Internet era, Google is getting users with Android and then continues to earn revenue through its search advertising model.
That is to say, in the EU's anti-monopoly penalties against Google, two common Internet industry practices are challenged: First, providing a variety of ancillary products to make their systems more attractive, which may be problematic, you provide Complementary products may be suspected of abusing monopoly status. The Microsoft monopoly case many years ago has made 'bundling' no longer viable, and the EU's penalties for Google may make pre-installation and default not feasible. Second, provide a certain product for free, Then provide another product to achieve commercial realization, and the free value-added model of income may also become problematic. When you extend the advantage of A product to B product, you may have to prove that you have not abused the monopoly position and did not crowd out other competitors. After the announcement of the European Union, Google CEO believes that this may lead to the end of the free way to provide Android operating system.
The EU's protection of consumers is on the limit, pre-installing and defaulting as a signal to limit consumer choice, the previous data protection regulations are another signal. This regulation allows consumers to have more discourse on their own data. Right, and it is implemented uniformly in EU countries. The global Internet industry often crosses borders. Many companies may consider following the strictest rules to reduce the troubles in operation. This kind of trouble is very realistic, for example, if one Products in the EU adopt strict privacy data protection rules, while in another country to adopt less strict, then users in another country may think that their rights have been violated.
Broadly speaking, the protection of consumers' data rights and privacy rights must be the right direction, but the debate around the EU data protection regulations is, is it overly strict? For example, also from a very realistic point of view, if a company collects User data, algorithmically recommending content and advertising to it, to comply with the strictest privacy rules of the European Union, is the existing algorithm recommended practices become non-compliant, or with the reduction of data , the algorithm becomes less effective?
To a certain extent, I even think that the EU may be a negative reference for the development of emerging industries such as the Internet in China: it is not to welcome new technologies, but to strengthen the old rules. Good technology is to increase the user's choice, while the EU The practice actually leaves the user with no access to new technical possibilities. The seemingly perfect protection may not be true protection, but rather reduce the choice: When there is no option to choose from, is it important to have the option? ?