WebProNews

Tag: Europe

  • Russia Is Turning Off the Gas to Europe

    Russia Is Turning Off the Gas to Europe

    After months of sanctions, Russia says it is cutting off the gas to Europe in a move that could have serious repercussions.

    Europe relies heavily on Russia for its energy needs. In spite of that, the bloc has the international community in levying sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. Russia is now blaming those sanctions for cutting off gas to Europe, saying they have led to maintenance issues of the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, according to Forbes.

    Despite the pipeline closure, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said gas exports would resume if the sanctions were lifted, saying the sanction have “brought the situation to what we see now.”

    According to Forbes, Europe’s gas reserves currently sit at 81.55%. The bloc set a goal of having its reserves at 80% by November 1, putting it ever slow slightly ahead of its target. With Russia cutting off supplies, however, it’s unclear if Europe will need to tap into those reserves immediately, lowering them below the target threshold going into winter.

  • Intel Announces Plans to Invest Up to $80 Billion in EU Chip-Making

    Intel Announces Plans to Invest Up to $80 Billion in EU Chip-Making

    Intel has announced its latest expansion effort, planning to spend up to $80 billion in chip-making in Europe.

    Intel has been expanding at a record pace, announcing new factories and foundries in multiple US locations. The company is now taking that expansion to Europe in an effort to help insulate the EU from chip shortages over the next decade.

    “Our planned investments are a major step both for Intel and for Europe,” said Pat Gelsinger, CEO of Intel. “The EU Chips Act will empower private companies and governments to work together to drastically advance Europe’s position in the semiconductor sector. This broad initiative will boost Europe’s R&D innovation and bring leading-edge manufacturing to the region for the benefit of our customers and partners around the world. We are committed to playing an essential role in shaping Europe’s digital future for decades to come.”

    The expansion will begin with a $19 billion (17 billion euro) investment that will include a “semiconductor fab mega-site in Germany, to create a new R&D and design hub in France, and to invest in R&D, manufacturing and foundry services in Ireland, Italy, Poland and Spain. “

    The initial investment will create 7,000 construction jobs and 3,000 permanent jobs at Intel. In addition, tens of thousands of jobs will be created from the supporting companies and industries that will spring up to support the new factories.

  • Ericsson Predicts 190 Million 5G Users By End of 2020

    Ericsson Predicts 190 Million 5G Users By End of 2020

    Ericsson has released the June 2020 installment of its Ericsson Mobility Report, and it contains good news for the 5G industry.

    According to the report, Ericsson has increased its estimates for 5G adoption, thanks in large part to China, expecting some 190 million 5G subscriptions by the end of 2020. This is despite slower adoption in both North America and Europe. In fact, Ericsson is projecting that North American and European 5G subscriber growth for 2020 and 2021 will be less than originally anticipated, although the long-term 2025 target is still on track.

    This would indicate that once 5G adoption begins in earnest, it will rapidly pick up speed. Similarly, Ericsson believes that nearly half, or 45%, of mobile data will be handled by 5G networks by 2025.

    Overall, the speed of 5G adoption is far outpacing LTE, thanks to China’s fast adoption and multiple vendors releasing 5G-compatible devices.

    Interestingly, as ubiquitous as LTE has become, its days are clearly numbered. Ericsson believes the number of LTE subscribers will peak in 2022, then begin to decline as 5G becomes dominant.

    The entire report is over 30 pages and well worth a read, shining light on a number of trends within the wireless industry.

  • Huawei Spending €200 Million to Build Plant in Europe

    Huawei Spending €200 Million to Build Plant in Europe

    Huawei has announced it is preparing to spend €200 million to build a factory in Europe.

    Amid ongoing concerns its equipment opens governments and corporations up to spying by Beijing, Huawei likely hopes that manufacturing equipment locally for the European market will help alleviate those concerns. The €200 million budget is for the land, construction and equipment necessary to establish the factory.

    “The wireless communications equipment produced by this plant will be mainly used in Europe,” read the company statement. “With this plant, Huawei states that it will be able to cover every link along its value chain and drive local industries forward, both upstream and downstream. These links include R&D, sales, procurement, production, logistics, service, and talent development. The plant will also be one of Huawei’s first implementations of its advanced manufacturing technologies in Europe. This will drive the technical competitiveness of European industry and boost the resilience of local supply chains and infrastructure.

    “It is estimated that this project will generate 1 billion euros worth of products annually and directly create 500 jobs. Huawei has operated in Europe for 20 years, directly employing over 12,000 employees. Huawei has directly and indirectly created approximately 170,000 jobs in Europe as a result. Moving forward, Huawei is committed to operating ‘in Europe, for Europe’, remaining open and collaborative, and continuing to contribute to Europe.”

    As Huawei continues to struggle with increasing U.S. pressure, this announcement shows the length the company is willing to go to address concerns.

  • Apple Opening First iOS App Dev Center in Europe

    Apple Opening First iOS App Dev Center in Europe

    Apple announced that it will open its first European iOS app development center. It’s to be located at partner institution in Naples, Italy.

    The center gives where students can acquire skills and training pertaining to the development of iOS applications. It will support teachers and provide a specialized curriculum geared toward the growth of Apple’s developer ecosystem.

    Apple itself will work with partners throughout the country on curriculum development and additional student opportunities. Eventually, the company will expand the program to other countries.

    CEO Tim Cook said, “Europe is home to some of the most creative developers in the world and we’re thrilled to be helping the next generation of entrepreneurs in Italy get the skills they need for success. The phenomenal success of the App Store is one of the driving forces behind the more than 1.4 million jobs Apple has created in Europe and presents unlimited opportunities for people of all ages and businesses of all sizes across the continent.”

    “Thousands of companies are expanding because of their work with Apple, which supports hundreds of thousands of jobs in communities large and small across Europe,” Apple says. “Milan-based Laboratorio Elettrofisico makes some of the most sophisticated magnetization equipment in the world and their technology enables some of the industry-leading magnetic features found in Apple products. Apple also works with Europe’s leading manufacturers of Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems, which create tiny components that power some of the incredible sensor and audio technologies found in iOS devices.”

    Apple says the App Store has helped developers in Europe earn over €10.2 billion from selling their apps around the world. 75,000 jobs in Italy alone are attributable to the App Store, the company says.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Google ‘Right To Be Forgotten’ Appeal Shut Down

    Google ‘Right To Be Forgotten’ Appeal Shut Down

    In June, French regulators ordered Google to extend its “Right to be Forgotten” search engine delistings to its sites around the world rather than only in Europe. From their perspective, Google leaving such listings available in other versions of its search engine (such as the American Google.com) lets people easily get around the delistings in localized, European versions of Google. They’re not wrong about that.

    On the other side of the coin, however, Google argues that by complying with this, it would effectively be enabling one regulator to to have control over what happens around the entire world.

    Google appealed in July, but news is out now that its appeal has been blocked, and Google now finds itself at the stage where it has no more course for appeal before facing impending fines. CNIL sasy the appeal has been rejected for the following reasons:

    Geographical extensions are only paths giving access to the processing operation. Once delisting is accepted by the search engine, it must be implemented on all extensions, in accordance with the judgment of the ECJ.

    If this right was limited to some extensions, it could be easily circumvented: in order to find the delisted result, it would be sufficient to search on another extension (e.g. searching in France using google.com) , namely to use another form of access to the processing. This would equate stripping away the efficiency of this right, and applying variable rights to individuals depending on the internet user who queries the search engine and not on the data subject.

    In any case, the right to delisting never leads to deletion of the information on the internet; it merely prevents some results to be displayed following a search made on the sole basis of a person’s name. Thus, the information remains directly accessible on the source website or through a search using other terms. For instance, it is impossible to delist an event.

    In addition, this right is not absolute: it has to be reconciled with the public’s right to information, in particular when the data subject is a public person, under the double supervision of the CNIL and of the court.
    Finally, contrary to what Google has stated, this decision does not show any willingness on the part of the CNIL to apply French law extraterritorially. It simply requests full observance of European legislation by non European players offering their services in Europe.

    You can read CNIL’s whole announcement about the rejection here.

    The Guardian shares quotes from both CNIL (the French regulator) and Google:

    CNIL said in a statement: “Contrary to what Google has stated, this decision does not show any willingness on the part of the CNIL to apply French law extraterritorially. It simply requests full observance of European legislation by non European players offering their services in Europe.”

    …

    A Google spokesman said: “We’ve worked hard to implement the ‘right to be forgotten’ ruling thoughtfully and comprehensively in Europe, and we’ll continue to do so. But as a matter of principle, we respectfully disagree with the idea that one national data protection authority can assert global authority to control the content that people can access around the world.”

    According to the report, Google faces a fine around €300,000 if it doesn’t comply, but that could increase to between 2% and 5% of global operating costs. The company will reportedly then be able to appeal the fine with the he Conseil d’Etat, which serves as the supreme court in France.

    Image via Google

  • Facebook Must Allow Fake Names, Says German Regulator

    Facebook’s real name policy, which prevents people from using the service with pseudonyms, has pissed off a lot of people – especially as of late. Facebook’s policy has drawn the ire of the transgender community, domestic violence victim, privacy advocates, and Native American groups. But in the States, the policy hasn’t gained any regulatory attention.

    Not the case overseas, where German regulators have struck the policy down.

    The Hamburg data protection authority has ruled that Facebook cannot force users to use their real names, and they also cannot require users to produce an official ID in order to access their accounts.

    From Reuters:

    A woman had complained to the Hamburg watchdog after Facebook blocked her account for using a pseudonym, requested a copy of her ID and unilaterally changed her username into her real name.

     

    The Hamburg Data Protection Authority said the woman did not want to use her real name to avoid being contacted through it for business matters.

     

    Forcing users to stick to their real names violated their privacy rights, it said.

    Facebook’s response is that the policy actually protects user safety and privacy – plus German regulations shouldn’t affect it as its European headquarters is located in Ireland. This is an argument we’ve heard from Facebook on many occasions.

    Not only that, but Facebook says that in the past, German courts have sided with it on this matter.

    And Facebook’s not wrong there. Years ago, Facebook won a battle over its real name policy. In December of 2012, German data protection office Unabhaengiges Landeszentrum fuer Datenschutz (ULD) issued a ruling against Facebook’s real names policy, claiming that it infringed upon citizen’s rights to free speech and anonymity online. Facebook appealing the ruling, and a few months later an administrative court approved Facebook’s request to suspend the ruling. The reason? Facebook was only beholden to Irish data protection laws, since their European offices are located there.

    Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently spoke out about the policy.

    “It helps keep people safe,” he said in a Q&A session. “We know that people are much less likely to try to act abusively towards other members of our community when they’re using their real names. There are plenty of cases — for example, a woman leaving an abusive relationship and trying to avoid her violent ex-husband — where preventing the ex-husband from creating profiles with fake names and harassing her is important. As long as he’s using his real name, she can easily block him.”

    “Second, real names help make the service easier to use. People use Facebook to look up friends and people they meet all the time. This is easy because you can just type their name into search and find them. This becomes much harder if people don’t use their real names.”

  • The iWatch Doesn’t Exist, But Apple’s Getting Sued Over It

    Apple is getting sued over its iWatch.

    You may have not noticed anything wrong with that sentence, and to be honest it’s hard to fault you if you didn’t. Apple’s smartwatch is actually called the Apple Watch, but hey – it should’ve been the iWatch, right?

    Anyway, the iWatch doesn’t exist. But Apple is still facing legal action over it.

    Probendi, an Irish software firm has filed legal documents against Apple claiming its use of the term iWatch in Google ads is a violation of trademark.

    “Apple has systematically used iWatch wording on Google search engine in order to direct customers to its own website, advertising Apple Watch,” says Probendi.

    In other words, Probendi is miffed that Google searches for “iWatch’ return results for the Apple Watch. Of course, companies buying ads that direct customers to their products when related queries are entered is nothing new.

    Here’s what Probendi has to say on its website:

    The recent public announcement of “Apple Watch”, the new wrist wearable device/smart watch by Apple Inc., has been preceded and followed by persistent rumors identifying said product with the name “iWatch”.

     

    Probendi Limited hereby informs to be the exclusive holder of the Community trademark “iWatch” No. EU007125347, registered for computers and software effective as of August 3, 2008.

     

    Consequently, Probendi Limited is the sole entity lawfully entitled to use the name “iWatch” for products such as “Apple Watch” within the European Union, and will promptly take all appropriate legal actions to oppose any unauthorized use of “iWatch” by whomever for that kind of products.

    According to Bloomberg, Probendi is currently working on a product called the iWatch, but it doesn’t exist yet. The company has held the iWatch trademark since 2008, and according to an audit commissioned by Probendi that trademark is worth nearly $100 million.

  • Facebook’s New App Isn’t Available in Europe Thanks to Facial Recognition Fears

    Earlier this week, Facebook launched yet another standalone app. It’s called Moments, and it lets friends easily sync photos with each other.

    Here’s how product manager Will Ruben describes the app:

    “Syncing photos with the Moments app is a private way to give photos to friends and get the photos you didn’t take. Moments groups the photos on your phone based on when they were taken and, using facial recognition technology, which friends are in them. You can then privately sync those photos quickly and easily with specific friends, and they can choose to sync their photos with you as well. Now, you and your friends have all the photos you took together.”

    “Moments also keeps all of your synced photos organized and even lets you search them to find the ones that you or specific friends are in. Moments uses facial recognition technology to group your photos based on the friends who are in them. This is the same technology that powers tag suggestions on Facebook. You can control tag suggestions in your Settings.”

    Sounds pretty harmless, as long as you don’t have any photos of questionable content to hide. But that whole “facial recognition” thing, well, it’s a sore subject in Europe.

    According to Richard Allan, Facebook’s policy head in Europe, it’s this technology that it currently keeping Moments from launching in Europe.

    “Regulators have told us we have to offer an opt-in choice to people to do this,” Allan told the Wall Street Journal. “We don’t have an opt-in mechanism so it is turned off until we develop one.”

    The spat between European regulators and Facebook over facial recognition goes back years, as Facebook was forced to abandon its “tag suggestion” feature in 2012.

    Of course, the feature is alive and well in the States.

    According to Allan, there’s no timetable for when the app will launch in Europe. It does seem odd that Facebook wouldn’t have been ready for this, given the history.

  • More European Regulatory Interest In Search Emerges

    Google has been under investigation by the EU for five years, and last week, the European Commission sent a Statement of Objections to Google alleging it has abused its dominant position in the market for general internet search services by favoring its own comparison shopping product in general search pages. It also announced a probe into the company’s Android business.

    In addition to all of this, regulators appear to be growing more and more interested in the business of Internet search, and are now reportedly taking a closer look at the industry as a whole, beyond Google’s dominance. Reuters is reporting that European regulators are preparing a “widespread inquiry” looking at not only Google, but also at Microsoft and Yahoo, aimed at determining if they’re transparent enough about how they display search results.

    This inquiry will reportedly explore the dominance of U.S. tech companies, and seek to determine if there is a level playing field for European companies. The report says:

    In a draft of the Commission’s strategy for creating a digital single market, seen by Reuters, it says it will “carry out a comprehensive investigation and consultation on the role of platforms, including the growth of the sharing economy.” The investigation, expected to be carried out next year, will look into the transparency of search results – involving paid for links and advertisements – and how platforms use the information they acquire.

    …

    The inquiry will also look at how platforms compensate rights-holders for showing copyrighted material and limits on the ability of individuals and businesses to move from one platform to another.

    The inquiry is expected to be announced on May 6. Meanwhile, the French government is looking at requiring search engines to display at least three rivals on their homepages and to “reveal the workings of their search ranking algorithms to ensure they deliver fair and non-discriminatory results,” reports TechCrunch.

    This may or may not actually become law, but if it does, search engines like Google would reportedly have to pay a penalty of 10% of gross revenues if it doesn’t comply.

    Image via Google

  • Should Google Be Slapped With Antitrust Action?

    After a five-year long investigation, the European Commissioned announced it has sent a Statement of Objections to Google alleging it has abused its dominant position in the markets for general internet search services by favoring its own comparison shopping product in general search pages.

    The commission says this infringes on EU antitrust rules because “it stifles competition and harms consumers”. The commission notes that sending a Statement of Objections does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

    Do you believe Google’s practices harm consumers or stifle competition? Let us know in the comments.

    But that’s only part of the news as the commission has also launched a formal investigation into Google’s Android business. We’ll get to that later. First things first.

    Search

    EU Commissioner in charge of competition policy Margrethe Vestager said: “The Commission’s objective is to apply EU antitrust rules to ensure that companies operating in Europe, wherever they may be based, do not artificially deny European consumers as wide a choice as possible or stifle innovation”.

    “In the case of Google I am concerned that the company has given an unfair advantage to its own comparison shopping service, in breach of EU antitrust rules. Google now has the opportunity to convince the Commission to the contrary. However, if the investigation confirmed our concerns, Google would have to face the legal consequences and change the way it does business in Europe.”

    Let the convincing commence. Google has already posted an article to its official blog called “The Search for Harm“.

    In that, Amit Singhal, Senior Vice President, Google Search writes, “In the summer of 2010, Google announced plans to acquire the flight search provider, ITA. As we said at the time, while many people buy their airline tickets online, finding the right flight at the best price can be a real hassle. Today Google Flight Search has made that much easier. Search for ‘Flight CDG to SFO’ and you get the different options right there on the results page. It’s a great example of Google’s increasing ability to answer queries directly, saving people a lot of time and effort — because as Larry Page said over a decade ago ‘the perfect search engine should understand exactly what you mean and give you back exactly what you want’.”

    “At the time of the ITA acquisition, several online travel companies–Expedia, Kayak, and Travelocity–unsuccessfully lobbied regulators in the US and the European Union to block the deal, arguing that our ability to show flight options directly would siphon off their traffic and harm competition online. Four years later it’s clear their allegations of harm turned out to be untrue. As the Washington Post recently pointed out (in an article headed ‘Google Flight Search, four years in: not the competition-killer critics feared’) Expedia, Orbitz, Priceline and Travelocity account for 95% of the US online travel market today.”

    Noting a “similar situation in Europe,” he shares this graph looking at travel sites in Germany:

    Later in the posts, he shows similar graphs for shopping sites in Germany, France, and the UK, each of which show Google Shopping being trounced by other sites like Amazon, eBay, and others.

    According to Singhal, people have more choice than ever before. For search, they have Bing, Yahoo, Quora, DuckDuckGo, and “a new wave of search assistants” including Apple’s Siri and Microsoft’s Cortana. For specialized search, he names Amazon, Idealo, Le Guide, Expedia and eBay. For social sites, which he says people are increasingly using to find recommendations, he names Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter for finding things like where to eat, which ovies to watch, or how to decorate their homes. For news, he says people often go directly to their favorite sites.

    “Of course mobile is changing things as well,” he writes. “Today 7 out of every 8 minutes on mobile devices is spent within apps — in other words consumers are going to whichever websites or apps serve them best. And they face no friction or costs in switching between them. Yelp, for example, has told investors they get over 40% of their traffic direct from their mobile app. So while in many ways it’s flattering to be described as a gatekeeper, the facts don’t actually bear that out. ”

    He continues, “Which brings me to the competition. Companies like Axel Springer, Expedia, TripAdvisor, and Yelp (all vociferous complainants in this process) have alleged that Google’s practice of including our specialized results (Flight Search, Maps, Local results, etc.) in search has significantly harmed their businesses. But their traffic, revenues and profits (as well as the pitch they make to investors) tell a very different story.”

    “Yelp calls itself the ‘de facto local search engine’ and has seen revenue growth of over 350% in the last four years. TripAdvisor claims to be the Web’s largest travel brand and has nearly doubled its revenues in the last four years. Expedia has grown its revenues by more than 67% over the same period.”

    He even quotes something Expedia allegedly told investors, noting that it’s “remarkable” given their complaints: “We’re seeing increased traffic coming through Google Hotel Finder. It is ­clearly getting more exposure. And in general … the product continues to improve. And Google has invested in it, we’ll continue to invest in it … From our standpoint, we’re happy to play in any market that Google puts out there and over a long period of time, we have proven an ability to get our fair share in the Google marketplaces.”

    Yeah, that one’s a bit of a head scratcher.

    Axel Springer, Singhal notes, “continues to invest in search, including the French search engine Qwant, because as the company told investors, ‘there is a lot of innovation on the search market‘.”

    He concludes the whole post by saying, “Any economist would say that you typically do not see a ton of innovation, new entrants or investment in sectors where competition is stagnating — or dominated by one player. Yet that is exactly what’s happening in our world. Zalando, the German shopping site, went public in 2014 in one of Europe’s biggest-ever tech IPOs. Companies like Facebook, Pinterest and Amazon have been investing in their own search services and search engines like Quixey, DuckDuckGo and Qwant have attracted new funding. We’re seeing innovation in voice search and the rise of search assistants — with even more to come. It’s why we respectfully but strongly disagree with the need to issue a Statement of Objections and look forward to making our case over the weeks ahead.”

    The Commission, which says it’s concerned users don’t necessarily see the most relevant results in response to queries “to the detriment of consumers and rival comparison shopping services” and that it’s “stifling innovation,” has put out a fact sheet about its Statement of Objections to Google. It goes on to name the following points as its preliminary conclusions (emphasis from the Commission):

    Google systematically positions and prominently displays its comparison shopping service in its general search results pages, irrespective of its merits. This conduct started in 2008.

    Google does not apply to its own comparison shopping service the system of penalties, which it applies to other comparison shopping services on the basis of defined parameters, and which can lead to the lowering of the rank in which they appear in Google’s general search results pages.

    Froogle, Google’s first comparison shopping service, did not benefit from any favourable treatment, and performed poorly.

    As a result of Google’s systematic favouring of its subsequent comparison shopping services “Google Product Search” and “Google Shopping”, both experienced higher rates of growth, to the detriment of rival comparison shopping services.

    Google’s conduct has a negative impact on consumers and innovation. It means that users do not necessarily see the most relevant comparison shopping results in response to their queries, and that incentives to innovate from rivals are lowered as they know that however good their product, they will not benefit from the same prominence as Google’s product.

    The Commission says to “remedy the conduct,” Google should “treat its own comparison shopping service and those of rivals in the same way.” It adds, “This would not interfere with either the algorithms Google applies or how it designs its search results pages. It would, however, mean that when Google shows comparison shopping services in response to a user’s query, the most relevant service or services would be selected to appear in Google’s search results pages.”

    The Statement of Objections gives Google a chance to make its case and seek an oral hearing to present its comments. The Commission says it will carefully consider Google’s comments before taking a decision. It also points out that the Statement of Objections only relates to the first of four concerns the Commission has outlined in the past, and that it continues to investigate Google’s conduct with regards to the others.

    The FairSearch Coalition, a group of complaining Google competitors, said, “The Commission’s actions are significant steps toward ending Google’s anti-competitive practices, which have harmed innovation and consumer choice. More than 30 companies and consumer organizations filed complaints concerning Google’s abuse of its dominance in search. Google’s abuses have devastated rivals, from mapping to video search to product price comparison. While the Commission’s action concerning the search practices of Google is very significant, it has previously identified other problematic areas that are not covered, and we look forward to those being addressed in due course.”

    Android

    As mentioned, the commission has opened a new investigation into Android, even as reports are circulating that Apple sold more of its smart watches on the first day of sales than manufacturers sold Android smart watches throughout all of last year.

    “Since 2005, Google has led development of the Android mobile operating system,” the Commission says. “Android is an open-source system, meaning that it can be freely used and developed by anyone. The majority of smartphone and tablet manufacturers use the Android operating system in combination with a range of Google’s proprietary applications and services. These manufacturers enter into agreements with Google to obtain the right to install Google’s applications on their Android devices. The Commission’s in-depth investigation will focus on whether Google has breached EU antitrust rules by hindering the development and market access of rival mobile operating systems, applications and services to the detriment of consumers and developers of innovative services and products.”

    “Smartphones, tablets and similar devices play an increasing role in many people’s daily lives and I want to make sure the markets in this area can flourish without anticompetitive constraints imposed by any company,” said Vestager

    The investigation will focus on three main allegations (again, emphasis is the Commission’s):

    1. whether Google has illegally hindered the development and market access of rival mobile applications or services by requiring or incentivising smartphone and tablet manufacturers to exclusively pre-install Google’s own applications or services;

    2. whether Google has prevented smartphone and tablet manufacturers who wish to install Google’s applications and services on some of their Android devices from developing and marketing modified and potentially competing versions of Android (so-called “Android forks”) on other devices, thereby illegally hindering the development and market access of rival mobile operating systems and mobile applications or services;

    3. whether Google has illegally hindered the development and market access of rival applications and services by tying or bundling certain Google applications and services distributed on Android devices with other Google applications, services and/or application programming interfaces of Google.

    FairSearch weighed in on that too: “The Commission’s determination to investigate this is important because Google Android has used its dominance to move from an open system to a closed one, so it can exclude competitors to the benefit of its own businesses.”

    Google has already responded to the Android allegations as well with a post called “Android has helped create more choice and innovation on mobile than ever before“.

    This time it’s Hiroshi Lockheimer, VP of Engineering, Android making the argument: “The pace of mobile innovation has never been greater. Smartphones are being adopted globally at an increasingly fast pace, with over hundreds of millions shipped each quarter, and the average smartphone price fell 23% between 2012 and 2014. It’s now possible to purchase a powerful smartphone, without subsidies or contracts, for under $100. And the app ecosystem has exploded, giving consumers more choice than ever before. Android has been a key player in spurring this competition and choice, lowering prices and increasing choice for everyone (there are over 18,000 different devices available today).”

    He continues, “It’s an open-source operating system that can be used free-of-charge by anyone—that’s right, literally anyone. And it’s not just phones. Today people are building almost anything with Android—including tablets, watches, TVs, cars, and more. Some Android devices use Google services, and others do not. Our Google Play store contains over one million apps and we paid out over $7 billion in revenue over the past year to developers and content publishers. Apps that compete directly with Google such as Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft Office, and Expedia are easily available to Android users. Indeed many of these apps come pre-loaded onto Android devices in addition to Google apps. The recent Samsung S6 is a great example of this, including pre-installed apps from Facebook, Microsoft, and Google. Developers have a choice of platforms and over 80% of developers are building apps for several different mobile operating systems.”

    “The European Commission has asked questions about our partner agreements. It’s important to remember that these are voluntary—again, you can use Android without Google—but provide real benefits to Android users, developers and the broader ecosystem.”

    He concludes by making the point that Android’s success isn’t just about benefiting Google, but that it has helped manufacturers compete with one another with their own offerings while helping developers increase their audiences.

    Should Google be penalized either for search or for Android practices? Neither? Both? Tell us what you think.

    Images via Google

  • Google Is Reportedly About To Be Hit With Antitrust Charges In Europe

    Earlier this month, we heard that the European Commission was about to “move against” Google, “setting the stage for charges” against the search giant after a five-year-long investigation and several attempts by Google to settle. Now, the WSJ is reporting again that Europe’s antitrust regulator has indeed decided to file formal charges.

    This will be the EU’s largest antitrust case since the famous one against Microsoft.

    According to the report, new antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager made the decision on Tuesday after consulting with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. She is expected to inform the other EU commissioners at a Wednesday meeting. Google could reportedly face fines in excess of $6 billion (10% of its annual revenues based on last year).

    Even with formal charges, settlement discussions can reportedly still take place, and but if unproductive, Google may face major penalties.

    If the case goes to court, the whole thing could play out for a much longer period of time.

    Earlier this month, reports came out that the commission has been asking companies who have filed complaints against the search giant for permission to publish info they submitted as confidential. These include those in the shopping, local, and travel industries.

    Obviously we’ll learn more as the Commission makes a formal announcement.

    Image via Google

  • Should Europe’s Search Law Apply To The World?

    Late last year, EU regulators in Brussels said they wanted the controversial “Right to be Forgotten” ruling applied to search results on a global basis rather than just in its own jurisdiction as it stands today. In other words, if someone is successfully able to get Google (or other search engines) to remove search results about them from its index in Europe, regulators want the search engine to remove the results from all of its localized versions, including Google.com.

    Do you think results should be removed all over the world or should it be limited to Europe? Let us know what you think.

    Obviously this is a tricky subject since it leads to censorship of results in other countries with different laws.

    The Google Advisory Council on the Right to be Forgotten weighed in on the subject in a report. This is who the council is made up of (you can click the image to be taken to the official site, where you can read each person’s bio):

    The report looks at an overview of the ruling, the criteria for assessing delisting requests, and procedural elements. One section deals specificalliy with the geographic scope issue. Here’s what that part says:

    A difficult question that arose throughout our meetings concerned the appropriate geographic scope for processing a delisting. Many search engines operate different versions that are targeted to users in a particular country, such as google.de for German users or google.fr for French users. The Ruling is not precise about which versions of search a delisting must be applied to. Google has chosen to implement these removals from all its European-directed search services, citing the CJEU’s authority across Europe as its guidance.

    The Council understands that it is a general practice that users in Europe, when typing in www.google.com to their browser, are automatically redirected to a local version of Google’s search engine. Google has told us that over 95% of all queries originating in Europe are on local versions of the search engine. Given this background, we believe that delistings applied to the European versions of search will, as a general rule, protect the rights of the data subject adequately in the current state of affairs and technology.

    In considering whether to apply a deslistng to versions of search targeted at users outside of Europe, including globally, we acknowledge that doing so may ensure more absolute protection of a data subject’s rights. However, it is the conclusion of the majority that there are competing interests that outweigh the additional protection afforded to the data subject. There is a competing interest on the part of users outside of Europe to access information via name-based search in accordance with the laws of their country, which may be in conflict with the deslistings afforded by this Ruling. These considerations are bolstered by the legal principle of proportionality and extraterritoriality in application of European law.

    There is also a competing interest on the pat of users within Europe to access versions of search other than their own. The Council heard evidence about the technical possibility to prevent Internet users in Europe from accessing search results that have been delisted under European law. The Council has concerns about the precedent set by such measures, particularly if repressive regimes point to such a precedent in an effort to ‘lock’ their users into heavily censored versions of search results. It is also unclear whether such measures would be meaningfully more effective than Google’s existing model, given the widespread availability of tools to circumvent such blocks.

    The Council supports effective measures to protect the rights of data subjects. Given concerns of proportionality and practical effectiveness, it concludes that removal from nationally directed versions of Google’s search services within the EU is the appropriate means to implement the Ruling at this stage.

    In other words, with the overwhelming majority of Google users in Europe using localized versions of Google, it wouldn’t really be all that more effective in hiding results in question by removing them from other versions of Google outside of Europe. By doing so, search results would be unnecessarily censored in parts of the world (like the U.S.) where laws cater to open access of public information and media reports.

    Here’s the full report:

    Do you agree with the Council that the right to be forgotten should only apply to the European-based versions of Google and other search engines or do you think results should be removed from search engines on a global basis? Let us know in the comments.

  • Netflix Eyes Expansion In Europe, Asia

    Netflix Eyes Expansion In Europe, Asia

    Netflix expanded into new European markets last year, and appears to have additional ones on its roadmap, as well as some Asian countries and those where Arabic is widely spoken.

    A research note from Citibank analyst Mark May has drawn some attention after he pointed out a LinkedIn job posting from Netflix seeking people fluent in Arabic, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Polish and Vietnamese. Bloomberg reports:

    Todd Yellin, Netflix’s vice president of innovation, told reporters today at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas that the company, based in Los Gatos, California, has plans to enter more markets, without giving specifics on when or where.

    The job posting calls for candidates to use language skills to “provide localization for the Netflix experience, which includes translating content materials and customizing marketing for target markets.”

    Bloomberg quotes Netflix spokesman Cliff Edwards: “We’ve been very clear about our intention to become a global Internet television provider. We have nothing to share at this time on additional territory launches. We’re focused, as you know, on delivering service in March to Australia and New Zealand.”

    In November, Netflix announced that it will launch in Australia and New Zealand in March. That’s just in time for a couple of its new original shows, Bloodline and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. Daredevil will debut the following month.

    Image via Netflix

  • Is The Right To Be Forgotten Dangerous?

    Google has released its latest Transparency Report, which as of earlier this year, now looks at URL removal requests from the highly-publicized Right to be Forgotten ruling in Europe. The inventor of the World Wide Web recently spoke out against the ruling, calling it dangerous. Meanwhile, the requests continue to roll in, and other parts of the world may start being affected.

    Do you agree that the Right to be Forgotten is a dangerous thing, or do you think it’s the right way for the Internet to work? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Back in October, when Google first revealed its Right to be Forgotten removal request data in the Transparency report, it said it had evaluated 497,695 URLs for removal and received a total of 144,954 requests.

    The latest data has the numbers at 684,419 URLs evaluated and a total of 189,238 requests.

    On the Transparency Report site, Google also gives examples of requests it encounters. One involves a woman that requested Google remove a decades-old article about her husband’s murder, which included her name. The page has been removed for search results for her name.

    In another example, a financial professional in Switzerland asked Google to remove over 10 links to pages reporting on his arrest and conviction for financial crimes. Google did not remove pages from search results in those cases.

    A rape victim in Germany asked Google to remove a link to a newspaper article about the crime, which Google did in search results for the person’s name.

    According to the company, the sites that are most impacted by the URL removals are Facebook, ProfileEngine, YouTube, Badoo, Google Groups, Yasni.de, Wherevent.com, 192.com, yasni.fr, and yatedo.fr.

    One of the latest to speak out against the situation was none other than Tim Berners-Lee, the guy responsible for the World Wide Web. Via CNET:

    “This right to be forgotten — at the moment, it seems to be dangerous,” Berners-Lee said Wednesday, speaking here at the LeWeb conference. “The right to access history is important.”

    …

    In a wide-ranging discussion at the conference, Berners-Lee said it’s appropriate that false information should be deleted. Information that’s true, though, is important for reasons of free speech and history, he said. A better approach to the challenge would be rules that protect people from inappropriate use of older information. An employer could be prohibited from taking into account a person’s juvenile crimes or minor crimes more than 10 years old, for example.

    The EU recently put forth some guidelines for the Right to be Forgotten, for search engines to work with, though they don’t go very far in terms of quelling the biggest concerns many have with the ruling, such as Berners-Lee’s.

    The Right to be Forgotten appears to be creeping out of Europe, and into other parts of the world. Consider this from earlier this month from Japan Times:

    Yes. In a possible first in Japan, the Tokyo District Court in October issued an injunction ordering Google to remove the titles and snippets to websites revealing the name of a man who claimed his privacy rights were violated due to articles hinting at past criminal activity.

    Tomohiro Kanda, who represented the man, said the judges clearly had the European court’s ruling in mind when they ordered Google to take down the site titles and snippets. Google has since deleted search results deemed by the court as infringing on the man’s privacy, Kanda said.

    But generally speaking, Japanese judges have yet to reach a consensus on how to balance the right to privacy and the freedom of expression and of information.

    Regulators in Europe have also been calling to have URLs removed from Google’s search engines worldwide rather than just from the European versions of Google.

    Are you concerned with the Right to be Forgotten? Let us know in the comments.

  • Google Commissions Study To Show How Competitive The Mobile Market Is In Europe

    As you probably know, Google is currently embroiled in a years-long antitrust investigation in Europe, as authorities continue to look into its search business. The process was recently prolonged further by a change in leadership, with commissioner Joaquin Almunia stepping away, and Margrethe Vestager replacing him.

    She has said she will take her time with the investigation.

    Recently, Google’s Android business has come under some scrutiny as well.

    Meanwhile, Google continues to try to convince Europeans that the market is a competitive one. Today, Google shared some findings from a study it commissioned from The Boston Consulting Group. It’s conclusion: Competition drives Europe’s mobile market.

    “The mobile Internet economy in the Europe’s five largest economies generates annual revenue of EUR92 billion — encompassing sales of devices, access, advertising, and everything you do on the mobile web,” it says. “This slice of the economy has also created 250,000 jobs in Germany, the UK, France, Italy, and Spain.”

    According to the study, mobile revenue in these five countries will have more than doubled to about EUR230 billion by 2017. That would be an annual growth rate of more than 25%.

    “Importantly, BCG found competition occurring ‘at every layer of the mobile ecosystem – among service providers, enablement platforms and companies providing apps, content and services,’” Google relays. “Competition is particularly intense among phone manufacturers and operating systems. As recently as 2010, the BlackBerry and Symbian platforms accounted for almost half of smartphone sales; today they represent less than five percent. Apple’s iOS, Google’s Android, and Microsoft’s Windows are locked in fierce competition, while new entrants include Amazon’s Fire, Xiamo MIUI, Firefox OS, and Tizen.”

    The findings of the study, which you can find here, were presented at a Lisbon Council event.

    Image via Google

  • ‘Right To Be Forgotten’ Dangerous, According To Web’s Inventor

    A lot of people (especially those not trying to hide information about themselves) agree that the Right to Be Forgotten in Europe is problematic for a variety of reasons, including the censorship of information.

    The latest to speak out against the current situation is none other than Tim Berners-Lee, the guy responsible for the World Wide Web. Via CNET:

    “This right to be forgotten — at the moment, it seems to be dangerous,” Berners-Lee said Wednesday, speaking here at the LeWeb conference. “The right to access history is important.”

    …

    In a wide-ranging discussion at the conference, Berners-Lee said it’s appropriate that false information should be deleted. Information that’s true, though, is important for reasons of free speech and history, he said. A better approach to the challenge would be rules that protect people from inappropriate use of older information. An employer could be prohibited from taking into account a person’s juvenile crimes or minor crimes more than 10 years old, for example.

    The EU recently put forth some guidelines for the right to be forgotten, for search engines to work with, though they don’t go very far in terms of quelling the biggest concerns many have with the ruling, such as Berners-Lee’s.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Google Has Some Right To Be Forgotten Guidelines To Work With

    As we here in the U.S. were entering holiday mode last week, official “Right to Be Forgotten” guidelines made their way to the public over in Europe. These come from the Article 29 Working Party, which is made up of data protection officials from throughout the European Union.

    In case you haven’t been keeping up, the Right to Be Forgotten came as the result of a ruling a few months ago. It enables people to request that search results about them be removed from search engines. Search engines like Google have been tasked with determining whether or not requests are legitimate as well as which ones to act upon. Search engines obviously don’t like removing results because it’s a form of censorship.

    Now, at least the engines have some guidelines to use as criteria for their evaluations rather than just kind of wining it as Google has been doing so far. The search engine, for the record, has been discussing approaches with various experts around the world.

    The new guidelines are as follows:

    Does the search result relate to a natural person – i.e. an individual? And does the search result come up against a search on the data subject’s name?

    Does the data subject play a role in public life? Is the data subject a public figure?

    Is the data subject a minor?

    Is the data accurate?

    Is the data relevant and not excessive?

    Is the information sensitive within the meaning of Article 8 of the Directive 95/46/EC?

    Is the data up to date? Is the data being made available for longer than is necessary for the purpose of the processing?

    Is the data processing causing prejudice to the data subject? Does the data have a disproportionately negative privacy impact on the data subject?

    Does the search result link to information that puts the data subject at risk?

    In what context was the information published?

    Was the original content published in the context of journalistic purposes?

    Does the publisher of the data have a legal power – or a legal obligation– to make the personal data publicly available?

    Does the data relate to a criminal offence?

    Here’s the full document, which elaborates on each of these, courtesy of Search Engine Land (or you can find it on the government website here):

    The blog also points to some findings from Forget.me including that Bing has only received about seven hundred requests to Google’s one hundred and sixty thousands.

    Image via Google

  • Google Breakup Approved By European Parliament

    As previously reported, the European Parliament was considering a proposal to call for a breakup of Google. More specifically, it wants to separate the company’s search business from the rest of its offerings.

    When the subject came up for a vote, the proposal was approved. Don’t get too excited just yet though. The Parliament doesn’t exactly have the authority to act on the Google breakup. Rather, it’s just moving forward with this position in hopes of convincing regulators that do have this authority – the European Commission, which has been embroiled in an antitrust probe of Google for years.

    The Wall Street Journal reports:

    In a vote in Strasbourg, 384 legislators voted in favor of the controversial initiative, with 174 against and 56 abstentions. Lawmakers rejected a last-minute amendment by the liberal party bloc that would have dropped a key clause calling for a possible “unbundling” of search engines from other services they may offer.

    As The New York Times recently pointed out, one member of the Parliament – Andreas Schwab – was credited with drafting the breakup proposal, and also has a direct interest in Google’s business practices in that he is “of counsel” at CMS Hasche Sigle, a German law firm. This firm has represented German publishers, which have been battling Google. According to the report, Schwab claimed the proposal was a “purely political issue”.

    Joaquin Almunia, the European Commission’s former competition chief, left office a month ago, as Margrethe Vestager stepped into the position. Vestager has indicated she will take her time with the antitrust investigation. Parliament’s call for a breakup should at this point only be considered as a suggestion to be weighed along with all other related comments from various parties.

    Image via Google

  • Regulators Want ‘Right To Be Forgotten’ Extended To Google.com

    As reported last week, a French court ordered Google to pay fines of €1,000 unless links to a “defamatory” article are removed from its global network. This prompted many to wonder if Google would start removing links taken out of specific European search results as a result of the Right to Be Forgotten ruling, from its search engines all over the world.

    Now, regulators in Brussels have said they want links removed under the ruling to be extended worldwide, which means removing the links from Google’s other search engines including Google.com. This would apply to other search engines like Yahoo and Bing as well, but Google is obviously the top dog and gets most of the focus. Via International Business Times:

    Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, chairwoman of the Article 29 Working Group that issued Wednesday’s opinion, and who is also head of France’s data-protection regulator, said:

    “Huge social expectations have been created by this ruling. We believe Google, like other search engines, has been surprised by the ruling because they have new obligations to follow now. But the rules are not new; the obligations have applied to websites since 1995. The difference is that it now applies to search engines.”

    Falque-Pierrotin added: “The court says the delisting decision has to be effective. These decisions should not be easily circumvented by anybody.”

    The group issued a press release on the matter, which you can read here.

    Google has indicated that it will study the group’s guidelines carefully, but hasn’t offered much else in the way of comment.

    In semi-related news, Google also reached a settlement to remove defaming links from its search engine in a case not connected to the Right to Be Forgotten ruling.

    The company also has additional trouble in Europe as a potential break-up of the company is being weighed.

    Image via Google

  • Should Google Be Broken Up?

    As reported late last week, the European Parliament is considering a call to break up Google. This would specifically involve breaking the search business away from the rest of the business.

    Do you think a break-up of Google is a good idea? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    According to those with understanding of European law, they don’t actually have the authority to require this, but the European Commission, which has been probing Google over antitrust matters for years, and has just come under new leadership, does.

    Parliament is said to be putting pressure on the EC to go the break-up route, and it’s seen largely as a political move. The U.S., which essentially cleared Google of any antitrust violations, is warning against the break-up proposal. The Wall Street Journal reports:

    In an unusual move, the U.S. mission to the EU said Tuesday in an email that it had “noted with concern” the Parliament’s draft resolution. “It is important that the process of identifying competitive harms and potential remedies be based on objective and impartial findings and not be politicized,” the email said.

    Legal experts expressed similar concerns, describing the Parliament’s move as highly unusual and warning it risked setting a dangerous precedent. “It is a very bad signal,” said Mario Mariniello, a former antitrust official who now works for Brussels-based think tank Bruegel. “Politicization is now getting to an extreme.”

    The New York Times points out that one member of the European Parliament credited with drafting the breakup proposal has a direct interest in Google’s business practices. It reports:

    Andreas Schwab, a German member of the European Parliament, has been making headlines in the last week after drafting a resolution that calls for the breakup of Google.

    But Mr. Schwab is not just a legislator, he is also “of counsel” at the German law firm CMS Hasche Sigle, which has represented some of the German publishing interests that have been most eager to declaw Google. He earns roughly $15,000 to $75,000 annually from the firm, according to a disclosure filing. The firm’s website lists his expertise as competition policy.

    The report later says Schwab claimed to not have discussed the resolution with the law firm, and called it a “purely political issue.”

    EU competition chief Joaquin Almunia left office at the beginning of the month with Margrethe Vestager stepping in. Earlier in the year, it looked like a resolution was near, but with the change in leadership, the time this probe is taking continues into the indefinite.

    Vestager reportedly said she will “take her time” with the investigation. Meanwhile, Google’s competitors and opponents will no doubt continue to distribute their messages about how bad Google is hurting competition.

    The FairSearch Coalition, which is made up of companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Nokia, TripAdvisor, Expedia, and others, has been among the loudest of these voices, as has Yelp.

    FairSearch is currently promoting what it calls “The Google Playbook,” which is billed as a document showing “how Google really works to build and protect its dominance,” and is summed up as “Open. Dominate. Close.”

    “Consumers – not search engines – should choose winners in the marketplace,” FairSearch says. “Consumers benefit from more choices in the search marketplace competing to win users, innovating to improve products and displaying results transparently. When search providers engage in search discrimination – manipulating search results to promote a favored product and demote competitors – consumers pay the price.”

    Yelp’s most recent attack against Google was with a coalition also comprised of Google critics/competitors Consumer Watchdog, Jameda, HolidayCheck, TripAdvisor, and Fight for the Future. The group launched a tool aimed at showing Google search bias, called Focus on the User, a play on Google’s frequently-used mantra.

    The weeks and months ahead should be interesting ones for Google and for European antitrust law at large. It’s unclear just how damaging a break-up of Google would actually be the company, and how it would ultimately benefit competitors.

    Unsurprisingly, Google hasn’t had much to say on the record about any of this so far, but reports have indicated the company is furious with the break-up talk. Again, no surprise there.

    For now, we’re just going to have to wait and see how it all plays out.

    Should Google be broken up? Let us know what you think in the comments.

    Image via Google