The Bezos Bulldozer Could Stalls in a Nuclear Fuel Pool
November 11, 2024
Sorry to disappoint you, but this blog post is written by a dumb humanoid. The art? We used MidJourney.
Microsoft is going to flip a switch and one of Three Mile Islands’ nuclear units will blink on. Yeah. Google is investing in small nuclear power unit. But one, haul it to the data center of your choice, and plug it in. Shades of Tesla thinking. Amazon has also be fascinated by Cherenkov radiation which is blue like Jack Benny’s eyes.
A physics amateur learned about 880 volts by reading books on his Kindle. Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough.
Are these PR-tinged information nuggets for real? Sure, absolutely. The big tech outfits are able to do anything, maybe not well, but everything. Almost.
The “trusted” real news outfit (Thomson Reuters) published “US Regulators Reject Amended Interconnect for Agreement for Amazon Data Center.” The story reports as allegedly accurate information:
U.S. energy regulators rejected an amended interconnection agreement for an Amazon data center connected directly to a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, a filing showed on Friday. Members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said the agreement to increase the capacity of the data center located on the site of Talen Energy’s Susquehanna nuclear generating facility could raise power bills for the public and affect the grid’s reliability.
Amazon was not inventing a function modular nuclear reactor using the better option thorium. No. Amazon just wanted to fun a few of those innocuous high voltage transmission line, plug in a converter readily available from one of Amazon’s third party merchants, and let a data center chock full of dolphin loving servers, storage devices, and other gizmos. What’s the big deal?
The write up does not explain what “reliability” and “national security” mean. Let’s just accept these as words which roughly translate to “unlikely.”
Is this an issue that will go away? My view is, “No.” Nuclear engineers are not widely represented among the technical professionals engaged in selling third-party vendors’ products, figuring out how to make Alexa into a barn burner of a product, or forcing Kindle users to smash their devices in frustration when trying to figure out what’s on their Kindle and what’s in Amazon’s increasingly bizarro cloud system.
Can these companies become nuclear adepts? Sure. Will that happen quickly? Nope. Why? Nuclear is specialized field and involves a number of quite specific scientific disciplines. But Amazon can always ask Alexa and point to its Ring door bell system as the solution to security concerns. The approach will impress regulatory authorities.
Stephen E Arnold, November 11, 2024
Hey, US Government, Listen Up. Now!
November 5, 2024
This post is the work of a dinobaby. If there is art, accept the reality of our using smart art generators. We view it as a form of amusement.
Microsoft on the Issues published “AI for Startups.” The write is authored by a dream team of individuals deeply concerned about the welfare of their stakeholders, themselves, and their corporate interests. The sensitivity is on display. Who wrote the 1,400 word essay? Setting aside the lawyers, PR people, and advisors, the authors are:
- Satya Nadella, Chairman and CEO, Microsoft
- Brad Smith, Vice-Chair and President, Microsoft
- Marc Andreessen, Cofounder and General Partner, Andreessen Horowitz
- Ben Horowitz, Cofounder and General Partner, Andreessen Horowitz
Let me highlight a couple of passages from essay (polemic?) which I found interesting.
In the era of trustbusters, some of the captains of industry had firm ideas about the place government professionals should occupy. Look at the railroads. Look at cyber security. Look at the folks living under expressway overpasses. Tumultuous times? That’s on the money. Thanks, MidJourney. A good enough illustration.
Here’s the first snippet:
Artificial intelligence is the most consequential innovation we have seen in a generation, with the transformative power to address society’s most complex problems and create a whole new economy—much like what we saw with the advent of the printing press, electricity, and the internet.
This is a bold statement of the thesis for these intellectual captains of the smart software revolution. I am curious about how one gets from hallucinating software to “the transformative power to address society’s most complex problems and cerate a whole new economy.” Furthermore, is smart software like printing, electricity, and the Internet? A fact or two might be appropriate. Heck, I would be happy with a nifty Excel chart of some supporting data. But why? This is the first sentence, so back off, you ignorant dinobaby.
The second snippet is:
Ensuring that companies large and small have a seat at the table will better serve the public and will accelerate American innovation. We offer the following policy ideas for AI startups so they can thrive, collaborate, and compete.
Ah, companies large and small and a seat at the table, just possibly down the hall from where the real meetings take place behind closed doors. And the hosts of the real meeting? Big companies like us. As the essay says, “that only a Big Tech company with our scope and size can afford, creating a platform that is affordable and easily accessible to everyone, including startups and small firms.”
The policy “opportunity” for AI startups includes many glittering generalities. The one I like is “help people thrive in an AI-enabled world.” Does that mean universal basic income as smart software “enhances” jobs with McKinsey-like efficiency. Hey, it worked for opioids. It will work for AI.
And what’s a policy statement without a variation on “May live in interesting times”? The Microsoft a2z twist is, “We obviously live in a tumultuous time.” That’s why the US Department of Justice, the European Union, and a few other Luddites who don’t grok certain behaviors are interested in the big firms which can do smart software right.
Translation: Get out of our way and leave us alone.
Stephen E Arnold, November 5, 2024
Enter the Dragon: America Is Unhealthy
November 4, 2024
Written by a humanoid dinobaby. No AI except the illustration.
The YouTube video “A Genius Girl Who Is Passionate about Repairing Machines” presents a simple story in a 38 minute video. The idea is that a young woman with no help fixes a broken motorcycles with basic hand tools outside in what looks like a hoarder’s backyard. The message is: Wow, she is smart and capable. Don’t you wish you knew person like this who could repair your broken motorcycle.
This video is from @vutvtgamming and not much information is provided. After watching this and similar videos like “Genius Girl Restored The 280mm Lathe From 50 Years Ago And Made It Look Like”, I feel pretty stupid for an America dinobaby. I don’t think I can recall meeting a person with similar mechanical skills when I worked at Keystone Steel, Halliburton Nuclear, or Booz, Allen & Hamilton’s Design & Development division. The message I carried away was: I was stupid as were many people with whom I associated.
Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough. (I slipped a put down through your filters. Imagine that!)
I picked up a similar vibe when I read “Today’s AI Ecosystem Is Unsustainable for Most Everyone But Nvidia, Warns Top Scholar.” On the surface, the ZDNet write up is an interview with the “scholar” Kai-Fu Lee, who, according to the article:
served as founding director of Microsoft Research Asia before working at Google and Apple, founded his current company, Sinovation Ventures, to fund startups such as 01.AI, which makes a generative AI search engine called BeaGo.
I am not sure how “scholar” correlates with commercial work for US companies and running an investment firm with a keen interest in Chinese start ups. I would not use the word “scholar.” My hunch is that the intent of Kai-Fu Lee is to present as simple and obvious something that US companies don’t understand. The interview is a different approach to explaining how advanced Kai-Fu Lee’s expertise is. He is, via this interview, sharing an opinion that the US is creating a problem and overlooking the simple solution. Just like the young woman able to repair a motorcycle or the lass fixing up a broken industrial lathe alone, the American approach does not get the job done.
What does ZDNet present as Kai-Fu Lee’s message. Here are a couple of examples:
“The ecosystem is incredibly unhealthy,” said Kai-Fu Lee in a private discussion forum earlier this month. Lee was referring to the profit disparity between, on the one hand, makers of AI infrastructure, including Nvidia and Google, and, on the other hand, the application developers and companies that are supposed to use AI to reinvent their operations.
Interesting. I wonder if the “healthy” ecosystem might be China’s approach of pragmatism and nuts-and-bolts evidenced in the referenced videos. The unhealthy versus healthy is a not-so-subtle message about digging one’s own grave in my opinion. The “economics” of AI are unhealthy, which seems to say, “America’s approach to smart software is going to kill it. A more healthy approach is the one in which government and business work to create applications.” Translating: China, healthy; America, sick as a dog.
Here’s another statement:
Today’s AI ecosystem, according to Lee, consists of Nvidia, and, to a lesser extent, other chip makers such as Intel and Advanced Micro Devices. Collectively, the chip makers rake in $75 billion in annual chip sales from AI processing. “The infrastructure is making $10 billion, and apps, $5 billion,” said Lee. “If we continue in this inverse pyramid, it’s going to be a problem,” he said.
Who will flip the pyramid? Uganda, Lao PDR, Greece? Nope, nope, nope. The flip will take an outfit with a strong mind and body. A healthy entity is needed to flip the pyramid. I wonder if that strong entity is China.
Here’s Kai-Fu kung fu move:
He recommended that companies build their own vertically integrated tech stack the way Apple did with the iPhone, in order to dramatically lower the cost of generative AI. Lee’s striking assertion is that the most successful companies will be those that build most of the generative AI components — including the chips — themselves, rather than relying on Nvidia. He cited how Apple’s Steve Jobs pushed his teams to build all the parts of the iPhone, rather than waiting for technology to come down in price.
In the write up Kai-Fu Lee refers to “we”. Who is included in that we? Excluded will be the “unhealthy.” Who is left? I would suggest that the pragmatic and application focused will be the winners. The reason? The “we” includes the healthy entities. Once again I am thinking of China’s approach to smart software.
What’s the correct outcome? Kai-Fu Lee allegedly said:
What should result, he said, is “a smaller, leaner group of leaders who are not just hiring people to solve problems, but delegating to smart enterprise AI for particular functions — that’s when this will make the biggest deal.”
That sounds like the Chinese approach to a number of technical, social, and political challenges. Healthy? Absolutely.
Several observations:
- I wonder if ZDNet checked on the background of the “scholar” interviewed at length?
- Did ZDNet think about the “healthy” versus “unhealthy” theme in the write up?
- Did ZDNet question the “scholar’s” purpose in explaining what’s wrong with the US approach to smart software?
I think I know the answer. The ZDNet outfit and the creators of this unusual private interview believe that the young women rebuilt complicated devices without any assistance. Smart China; dumb America. I understand the message which seems to have not been internalized by ZDNet. But I am a dumb dinobaby. What do I know? Exactly. Unhealthy that American approach to AI.
Stephen E Arnold, October 30, 2024
Fake Defined? Next Up Trust, Ethics, and Truth
October 28, 2024
Another post from a dinobaby. No smart software required except for the illustration.
This is a snappy headline: “You Can Now Get Fined $51,744 for Writing a Fake Review Online.” The write up states:
This mandate includes AI-generated reviews (which have recently invaded Amazon) and also encompasses dishonest celebrity endorsements as well as testimonials posted by a company’s employees, relatives, or friends, unless they include an explicit disclaimer. The rule also prohibits brands from offering any sort of incentive to prompt such an action. Suppressing negative reviews is no longer allowed, nor is promoting reviews that a company knows or should know are fake.
So, what does “fake” mean? The word appears more than 160 times in the US government document.
My hunch is that the intrepid US Federal government does not want companies to hype their products with “fake” reviews. But I don’t see a definition of “fake.” On page 10 of the government document “Use of Consumer Reviews”, I noted:
“…the deceptive or unfair commercial acts or practices involving reviews or other endorsement.”
That’s a definition of sort. Other words getting at what I would call a definition are:
- buying reviews (these can be non fake or fake it seems)
- deceptive
- false
- manipulated
- misleading
- unfair
On page 23 of the government document, A. 465. – Definitions appears. Alas, the word “fake” is not defined.
The document is 163 pages long and strikes me as a summary of standard public relations, marketing, content marketing, and social media practices. Toss in smart software and Telegram-type BotFather capability and one has described the information environment which buzzes, zaps, and swirls 24×7 around anyone with access to any type of electronic communication / receiving device.
Look what You.com generated. A high school instructor teaching a debate class about a foundational principle.
On page 119, the authors of the government document arrive at a key question, apparently raised by some of the individuals sufficiently informed to ask “killer” questions; for example:
Several commenters raised concerns about the meaning of the term “fake” in the context of indicators of social media influence. A trade association asked, “Does ‘fake’ only mean that the likes and followers were created by bots or through fake accounts? If a social media influencer were to recommend that their followers also follow another business’ social media account, would that also be ‘procuring’ of ‘fake’ indicators of social media influence? . . . If the FTC means to capture a specific category of ‘likes,’ ‘follows,’ or other metrics that do not reflect any real opinions, findings, or experiences with the marketer or its products or services, it should make that intention more clear.”
Alas, no definition is provided. “Fake” exists in a cloud of unknowing.
What if the US government prosecutors find themselves in the position of a luminary who allegedly said: “Porn. I know it when I see it.” That posture might be more acceptable than trying to explain that an artificial intelligence content generator produced a generic negative review of an Italian restaurant. A competitor uses the output via a messaging service like Telegram Messenger and creates a script to plug in the name, location, and date for 1,000 Italian restaurants. The individual then lets the script rip. When investigators look into this defamation of Italian restaurants, the trail leads back to a virtual assert service provider crime as a service operation in Lao PDR. The owner of that enterprise resides in Cambodia and has multiple cyber operations supporting the industrialized crime as a service operation. Okay, then what?
In this example, “fake” becomes secondary to a problem as large or larger than bogus reviews on US social media sites.
What’s being done when actual criminal enterprises are involved in “fake” related work. According the the United Nations, in certain nation states, law enforcement is hampered and in some cases prevented from pursuing a bad actor.
Several observations:
- As most high school debaters learn on Day One of class: Define your terms. Present these in plain English, not a series of anecdotes and opinions.
- Keep the focus sharp. If reviews designed to damage something are the problem, focus on that. Avoid the hand waving.
- The issue exists due to a US government policy of looking the other way with regard to the large social media and online services companies. Why not become a bit more proactive? Decades of non-regulation cannot be buried under 160 page plus documents with footnotes.
Net net: “Fake,” like other glittering generalities cannot be defined. That’s why we have some interesting challenges in today’s world. Fuzzy is good enough.
PS. If you have money, the $50,000 fine won’t make any difference. Jail time will.
Stephen E Arnold, October 28, 2024
Apple: The Company Follows Its Rules Consistently, Right Mr. Putin
October 14, 2024
Just a humanoid processing information related to online services and information access.
Russia is tightening regulations on Internet privacy and monitoring. In other words, it wants more control of the Internet and its citizens. Money Control reports the following: “Apple Removes Multiple VPN Apps From The App Store In Russia, Here’s Why.”
While Apple reduced its services in Russia because of the latter’s war on Ukraine, the App Store still runs. Other countries criticize Apple for continuing to offer its goods and services in Russia and comply with its mandates. It is debatable about why Apple did the following:
“The App Censorship Project found that more than 60 apps, including some of the best VPN (Virtual Private Network) services on the market, were silently removed by Apple between early July and September 18, 2024. Another investigation from anti-censorship advocacy group GreatFire reveals, that Apple has barred over 20% of known VPN apps from being available in Russia.”
The amount of VPN removals exceeds the 25 the Roskomnadzor reported on in June 2024. VPNs are still permissible in Russia, but the loss of many privacy options demonstrate that the country wants to crack down and control how its citizens use the Internet.
Apple probably removed the VPNs to comply with Russian authorities, like Google had to do last year with YouTube. Apple also complies with China’s VPN and messenger ban.
Authoritarian governments are horrible but they also present big business opportunities. Apple and other Big Tech companies are happy to comply with regulations as long as they continue to rake in money.
Whitney Grace, October 14, 2024
Social Media: A Glimpse of What Ignorance Fosters
September 27, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The US Federal Trade Commission has published a free report. “A Look Behind the Screens Examining the Data Practices of Social Media and Video Streaming Services” is about 80 pages comprising the actual report. The document covers:
- A legal framework for social media and streaming services
- Some basic information about the companies mentioned in the report
- The data “practices” of the companies (I would have preferred the phrase “procedures and exploitation”)
- Advertising practices (my suggestion is to name the section “revenue generation and maximization”)
- Algorithms, Data Analytics, or AI
- Children and teens
The document includes comments about competition (er, what?), some conclusions, and FTC staff recommendations.
From the git-go, the document uses an acronym: SMVSSs which represents Social Media and Video Streaming Services. The section headings summarize the scope of the document. The findings are ones which struck me as fairly obvious; specifically:
- People have no idea how much data are collected, analyzed, and monetized
- Revenue is generated by selling ad which hook to the user data
- Lots of software (dumb and smart) are required to make the cost of operations as efficient as possible
- Children’s system use and their data are part of the game plan.
The report presents assorted “should do” and “must do.” These too are obvious; for example, “Companies should implement policies that would ensure greater protection of children and teens.”
I am a dinobaby. Commercial enterprises are going to do what produces revenue and market reach. “Should” and “would” are nice verbs. Without rules and regulations the companies just do what companies do. Consequences were needed more than two decades ago. Now the idea of “fixing up” social media is an idea which begs for reasonable solutions. Some countries just block US social media outfits; others infiltrate the organizations and use them and the data as an extension of a regime’s capabilities. A few countries think that revenue and growth are just dandy. Do you live in one of these nation states?
Net net: Worth reading. I want a T shirt that says SMVSSs.
Stephen E Arnold, September 27, 2024
The Zuck: Limited by Regulation. Is This a Surprise?
September 25, 2024
Privacy laws in the EU are having an effect on Meta’s actions in that region. That’s great. But what about the rest of the world? When pressed by Australian senators, a the company’s global privacy director Melinda Claybaugh fessed up. “Facebook Admits to Scraping Every Australian Adult User’s Public Photos and Posts to Train AI, with No Opt-Out Option,” reports ABC News. Journalist Jake Evans writes:
“Labor senator Tony Sheldon asked whether Meta had used Australian posts from as far back as 2007 to feed its AI products, to which Ms Claybaugh responded ‘we have not done that’. But that was quickly challenged by Greens senator David Shoebridge. Shoebridge: ‘The truth of the matter is that unless you have consciously set those posts to private since 2007, Meta has just decided that you will scrape all of the photos and all of the texts from every public post on Instagram or Facebook since 2007, unless there was a conscious decision to set them on private. That’s the reality, isn’t it? Claybaugh: ‘Correct.’ Ms Claybaugh added that accounts of people under 18 were not scraped, but when asked by Senator Sheldon whether public photos of his own children on his account would be scraped, Ms Claybaugh acknowledged they would. The Facebook representative could not answer whether the company scraped data from previous years of users who were now adults, but were under 18 when they created their accounts.”
Why do users in Australia not receive the same opt-out courtesy those in the EU enjoy? Simple, responds Ms. Claybaugh—their government has not required it. Not yet, anyway. But Privacy Act reforms are in the works there, a response to a 2020 review that found laws to be outdated. The updated legislation is expected to be announced in August—four years after the review was completed. Ah, the glacial pace of bureaucracy. Better late than never, one supposes.
Cynthia Murrell, September 25, 2024
Consistency Manifested by Mr. Musk and the Delightfully Named X.com
September 25, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
You know how to build credibility: Be consistent, be sort of nice, be organized. I found a great example of what might be called anti-credibility in “Elon Rehires lawyers in Brazil, Removes Accounts He Insisted He Wouldn’t Remove.” The write up says:
Elon Musk fought the Brazilian law, and it looks like the Brazilian law won. After making a big show of how he was supposedly standing up for free speech, Elon caved yet again.
The article interprets the show of inconsistency and the abrupt about face this way:
So, all of this sounds like Elon potentially realizing that he did his “oh, look at me, I’m a free speech absolutist” schtick, it caused ExTwitter to lose a large chunk of its userbase, and now he’s back to playing ball again. Because, like so much that he’s done since taking over Twitter, he had no actual plan to deal with these kinds of demands from countries.
I agree, but I think the action illustrates a very significant point about Mr. Musk and possibly sheds light on how other US tech giants who get in regulatory trouble and lose customers will behave. Specifically, they knock off the master of the universe attitude and adopt the “scratch my belly” demeanor of a French bulldog wanting to be liked.
The failure to apply sanctions on companies which willfully violate a nation state’s laws has been one key to the rise of the alleged monopolies spawned in the US. Once a country takes action, the trilling from the French bulldog signals a behavioral change.
Now flip this around. Why do some regulators have an active dislike for some US high technology firms? The lack of respect for the law and the attitude of US super moguls might help answer the question.
I am certain many government officials find the delightfully named X.com and the mercurial Mr. Musk a topic of conversation. No wonder some folks love X.com so darned much. The approach used in Brazil and France hopefully signals consequences for those outfits who believe no mere nation state can do anything significant.
Stephen E Arnold, September 25, 2024
Why Governments May Not Adore Mr. Musk and Mr. Zuck
September 18, 2024
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
When I was in grade school, my family lived in Campinas, Brazil. Today, Campinas is a quasi suburb of São Paulo. In the 1950s, not too many non-Brazilians called the small city home. I remember messages painted on the stucco walls surrounding our house. Most of them were saying, “Yanqui, vá para casa.” We had a few caricatures of Uncle Sam too. My father arranged for the walls to be repainted every two weeks, but the message was clear. Whatever the US was up to in the 1950s, some of the residents of Campinas were not too happy my family had arrived.
Two self-important young professionals find themselves excluded from a party with many important people in attendance. Neither can understand why the people throwing the party from Australia, Brazil, and the UK did not invite them. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
What do American companies do to engender such negative responses. There may be some clues
Flash forward to today, the sentiment of some Brazilians is unchanged. In fact, a group of Brazilian judges effectively kicked Mr. Elon Musk’s companies out of the country. The decision was adjusted to enable Mr. Musk to pay some fines. I don’t think he will be trying to hit the beach in Guaruja for some time. I learned that Mr. Musk is unhappy with Australia. “Elon Musk Outraged by Australia’s Proposed Misinformation Law” reports:
Musk dubs the Australian government ‘fascist’ for proposing a law that would require all social media platforms to comply with stricter content moderation rules.
My thought is that Mr. Musk may find that some Australians in positions of authority in the government may determine that Mr. Musk is a person who perceives himself as above the law in the country. My few experiences with the Australian government left me with the understanding that one should not kick a sleeping kangaroo.
But it is not just Mr. Musk taking actions which create pushback for the US.
Consider Mark Zuckerberg or in my lingo Mr. Zuck.
Smart software and disinformation are of concern in many countries. In some countries, one can end up in a very unpleasant rehabilitation program or just dead for creating unauthorized or off-the-reservation disinformation. “Meta Hides ‘AI Info’ Labels for Edited Content on Facebook, Instagram” reports:
Meta is reducing the visibility of "AI Info" labels on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Starting next week, for content modified or edited using AI tools, the label will be found in the post’s menu, the company announced in an updated blog post on Thursday. This means the labels won’t be quite as visible as before. The revised policy only applies to AI-edited content, the company says. For content generated using an AI tool, Meta will continue to display the "AI Info" label under the username and share whether media is labeled "because of industry-shared signals or because someone self-disclosed." Once the update rolls out, to check whether the content was altered using AI, users will have to tap the menu button at the top right of a post and pick "AI Info."
My thought is that this policy is likely to be scrutinized by governments in a number of other countries. Even thought Mr. Zuck is in active dialog with the EU and the UK, this policy may raise some eyebrows. In nation states assumed to be allies of the US, social disorder is evident. Thus, a service which might spark more unrest is not likely to be viewed as a net positive social good. But Mr. Zuck has his own vision, and it does not linger too long on some rules or what I would call common sense actions.
What do these two high-technology leaders think about other countries’ laws?
I would suggest that these two example illustrate behaviors which are likely to be viewed as contentious. Let’s assume the citizens of the countries with annoyed regulators rebel and protest? The answer is some strong sentiment for and against the US, its ability to control commercial enterprises operating in America may increase the likelihood of anti-US feelings.
Net net: One will have to present some solid evidence that taking actions which either directly or indirectly go against the laws in many countries is a good thing. I do know that if these behaviors escalate, the sale of spray paint will go up and America will not be among the most popular countries in some nation states. Do Mr. Musk or Mr. Zuck care? I don’t think so, but that is just my opinion.
Stephen E Arnold, September 18, 2024
Pay Up Time for Low Glow Apple
September 16, 2024
![green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]](https://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t1.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_t[1]")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Who noticed the flip side of Apple’s big AI event? CNBC did. “Apple Loses EU Court Battle over 13 Billion Euro Tax Bill in Ireland” makes clear that the EU regulators were not awed by snappy colors, “to be” AI, and Apple’s push to be the big noise in hearing aids. Nope. The write up reported:
Europe’s top court on Tuesday ruled against Apple in the tech giant’s 10-year court battle over its tax affairs in Ireland. The pronouncement from the European Court of Justice comes hours after Apple unveiled a swathe of new product offerings, looking to revitalize its iPhone, Apple Watch and Air Pod line-ups.
Those new products will need to generate some additional revenue. The monetary penalty ascends to $14 billion. Packaged as illegal tax benefits, Apple will go through the appeal drill, the PR drill, and the apology drill. The drills may not stop the EU’s desire to scrutinize the behaviors of US high technology companies. It seems that the EU is on a crusade to hold the Big Dogs by their collars, slip on choke chains, and bring the beasts to heel.
An EU official hits a big rock and finds money inside. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough.
I have worked in a couple of EU countries. I recall numerous comments from my clients and colleagues in Europe who suggested US companies were operating as if they were countries. From these individuals’ points of view, their observations about US high technology outfits were understandable. The US, according to some, refused to hold these firms accountable for what some perceived as ignoring user privacy and outright illegal behavior of one sort or another.
What does the decision suggest?
- Big fines, recoveries, and judgments are likely to become more common
- Regulations to create market space for European start ups and technologies are likely to be forthcoming
- The Wild West behavior, tolerated by US regulators, will not be tolerated.
There is one other possible consequence of this $14 billion number. The penalty is big, even for a high tech money machine like Apple. The size of the number may encourage other countries’ regulators to think big as well. It is conceivable that after years of inaction, even US regulators may be tempted to jump into the big money when judgments go against the high technology outfits.
With Google on the spot for alleged monopolistic activities in the online advertising market, those YouTube ads are going to become more plentiful. Some Googlers may have an opportunity to find their future elsewhere as Xooglers (former Google employees). Freebies may be further curtailed in the Great Chain of Being hierarchy which guides Google’s organizational set up.
I found the timing of the news about the $14 billion number interesting. As the US quivered from the excitement of more AI in candy bar devices in rainbow colors, the EU was looking under the rock. The EU found nerve and a possible pile of money.
Stephen E Arnold, September 16, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
