EU considers tariffs on digital services Big Tech
EU considers tariffs on digital services Big Tech
www.techzine.eu
EU considers tariffs on digital services Big Tech
您正在查看单个对话串。
136 评论
-
Don’t use tariffs. Legalize jailbreaking and adversarial interop instead. Disregard American DRM.
-
The real money is in AWS, azure,GCP. No one cares about your iPad. Tariff the big 3 hosting providers and see how quickly shit hits the fan.
-
Put a tariff on the companies that was pro-Trump, and who was at his inauguration.
-
Would probably end the Internet faster than China can cut intercontinental cables. I'm here for it but the fallout would be positively insane.
-
From the ashes maybe a better internet will emerge then. The current one is very dogshit and only going worse.
-
Where do I sign up for newgrounds 2.0?
-
-
There are plenty of providers, this is a little reactionary. I've worked with a local data center for hosting in every state I've lived in.
-
It's not about the providers, it's about the move. Companies will need to migrate their infrastructure to another platform which (let's be honest) likely will not have the bandwidth / rack space / hardware to support the influx of users. Companies will self host? Okay sure: time to spin up internal clusters, train employees, provision additional bandwidth / connections. And naturally - this will all go off without a hitch. Like flipping a switch.
And we need to remember that many of these services rely on each other so one goes down: they take each other out.
-
inertia is a thing, but just by having new EU projects avoid the big three you'd already have done a world of good to the IT ecosystem.
-
100%
Germany is providing an open source solution to gsuite (which I haven't looked at yet) but am told it's pretty good. More open and more choice is great.
-
-
This is why you give notice; this isn't an overnight thing. If anything, this would help strengthen and decentralize hosting platforms while giving a huge amount of business to companies to help them migrate. I think the real shake is going to be those locked into provide IP like Redshift or Fargate.
-
Notice or not any infrastructure change is brutal - even if you go like for like.
I'm not saying I'm against the idea: I loathe all the centralization and robber barons running around in this era. But switches like these rarely go as planned. If haste is required even less so.
-
Oh I get it. We made the jump from Google Cloud to AWS, and I'm sure there are companies that are even more vendor locked. But a good example of what people can do when they don't have a choice is the new PCI 4.0 roll out that has cost companies millions they wouldn't spend unless made to do so. Will it be a mountain to climb and cost a ton, yeah, but change in the right direction isn't always easy.
I'm with you, it will be hard, and they need a good system for extensions and the like, with a reasonable time line. But this is good change IMO, even if it's painful.
-
-
-
I'd double my mortgage just to see microsoft365 crumble.
-
But you love teams right?! (get the gas can - I'll get the matches)
-
I love to wish it on my worst enemies.
-
There is no feature that is simpler than gsuite. So much duplication and needless services and apps.
I hate google and microsoft for making me appreciate their product.
-
-
-
Or they'll just pay the extra money and avoid all that.
-
That is pretty much how the VMware situation shook out.
-
Yeah, we've got on-prem cloud hosting at a university, and moving away from VMware is an ongoing process. Still. Two, three years after the writing was on the wall. They'd rather pay the Danegeld.
-
-
-
That entirely depends on who deeply they've locked themselves into a single-vendor set of services. If they used an abstraction tool to hide vendor-specific implementation detail, and were moderately smart, it'd take little besides minor config changes, redeployment and some regression testing.
Source: I've done it.
-
were moderately smart
This is mostly the problem in a lot of cases. A lot of companies don't pay you to be smart... they pay you to be "efficient" which normally means cheap.
Good and skilled people may be in a lot of these companies... but their hands may be tied in terms of choices.
-
-
-
-
Of course it would not.
-
-
Bonus: It might make some companies move to non-US hosters, making their data way safer.
-
I've switched to Hetzner and I'm super happy. Fuck DigitalOcean and their ever increasing prices.
-
I'm at Hetzner für 10-15 years now.
-
-
-
-
Don’t just legalise jailbreak (which was never illegal anyway 😂), but force device manufacturers to unlock root as soon as they end support for the device.
-
How about not letting Google have exclusive rights to the drivers for all the phone hardware? I would like to be able to install Linux on any phone I buy. I don't want Google monopolizing phone operating systems. #FOSS #Linux #FuckGoogle #Monopoly #deGoogle
-
How about not letting Google have exclusive rights to the drivers for all the phone hardware?
What exactly do you mean by that? Google is one of the few companies that let you easily unlock their phones so you can do whatever you want with them.
-
Unlock so you can use whatever phone service provider you want but Google controls the Android operating system. If you don't want Android on your phone and would rather use Linux or another FOSS operating system, it's very difficult, because Google doesn't give up control of the drivers for a lot of phones. If you just want to remove Google apps from a phone that comes with Android, you have to jailbreak it which voids the warranty and jailbreaking can't be done to every phone.
-
No, unlock as in: You can install whatever operating system you want. No need for "jailbreaking" on Google phones. They officially support unlocking the bootloader (and re-locking it later as well!). There are many things not to like about Google, but how they handle their phones when it comes to openness is certainly not one of them. Pretty much all other phone vendors are much worse than that (except for maybe a few small ones like Fairphone).
-
You are talking about phones made by Google. I am talking about ALL the phones using Android and how difficult or sometimes impossible it is to use anything but Android. I am talking about (oranges) a monopoly on phone operating systems. And you are saying what great (apples) phones Google produces.
-
You are talking about phones made by Google. I am talking about ALL the phones using Android and how difficult or sometimes impossible it is to use anything but Android.
That's not what you were saying. You were explicitly talking about Google. Also, implying it is Google's fault that other manufacturers don't let you install other operating systems easily is pretty bizarre. If you want to complain about that, at least complain about the right companies. Those are usually the phone manufacturers and/or the SoC manufacturers. The SoC manufacturers often times are particularily problematic, since they often do not publish open source drivers at all or in a very limited fashion.
-
The manufacturers don't have to provide open source drivers, They could offer the drivers to other companies besides Google though. Why do you suppose they don't?
-
I'm not sure why you think manufactuers of SoCs (or entire phones) - which aren't used by Google directly (as in: used by Google in their own products or sold by Google as their own product) - provide drivers to Google. They don't, because there is no point in doing that. This is not how the Android eco-system works or the business of selling those SoCs for that matter.
SoC manufactuers sell their SoCs to companies who want to build Android phones (or they build their own like Samsung). With those SoCs they provide a BSP (board support package) that includes all the bits needed to bring up a system running on that partricular SoC. Google has pretty much nothing to do with this, except that Google recommends a certain Linux kernel version (with a bunch of Android-specific patches) for a given Android version, which SoC makers often (but not always) use as the base for their customized kernels.
It is not like Google provides the operating system including all device specific drivers to the device manufacturers. They don't care about that at all. They provide AOSP (which is open source, so anyone can get that) as well as their proprietary stuff like Google Play etc. That's pretty much it.
There is a lot not to like about many Android phones (or rather smartphones in general), when it comes to their openness in regards to software. And it is perfectly fine to criticize those involved, but you should direct your criticism at the correct parties. Google isn't the bad guy in this instance.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Agree 100%
-
-
Why not force them to unlock root from the start?
-
Because people are stupid, will fuck up their device/s, and then complain to the manufacturer about how their device was ruined.
It's an incredibly stupid argument, but it's their argument nonetheless. Something something "for your safety/protection/security/etc"....i.e. "Trust us".
I think root privileges should be available as well, but in a way that 1) only someone who knows what the fuck they're doing can access, and 2) can be done entirely locally, without calling to a server controlled by the manufacturer.
-
Rooting a device shouldn't be any more complicated than having a sticker saying "warranty void if removed".
-
I don't disagree, however, there needs to be some form of security so the average Joe (or their kid) doesn't accidentally press the wrong button and
rm -rfthe entire device (exaggerating of course, but you get the idea).-
my apologies, I was actually thinking of "unlocking the bootloader", rooting a device without an unlocked bootloader didn't even occur to me. And since unlocking a bootloader is non-trivial by design, that would prevent any such accidents.
-
-
-
Absolutely anyone can follow a guide to root a phone, I am an idiot and I have done it. The manufacturer should not be liable for me using the phone in a manner not intended and then breaking it, but they should absolutely have to make it available to do. It should only require signing away liability in a tick box.
-
Exactly, and this also ties into my first point that the people who know, know what to look for.
I've rooted/jailbroken every single phone and tablet I've owned over the last 15 years. I wouldn't have it any other way. I cannot stand the artificial "security" blocks out in place simply because a company thinks rooted users are somehow cheating or committing fraud or what have you - the people who do that are gonna do it no matter what.
-
-
-
Yes, of course, but I think, like I wrote it, it is more likely to happen in reality 😁 but of course, I would prefer from the start as well
Like just hide it in developer settings which as well are hidden. No noob should accidentally go there, but a malicious being may lead a noob there…
-
-
Then they will offer shit support to avoid doing so. Simpler and safer to just make unlocking legit from the start.
-
-
You know jailbreaking isn't illegal right? It's the same is removing one of those void if removed stickers, you won't get tech support anymore but who cares about Apple tech support?
-
Those stickers have no legal weight anyway, at least in the United States. The manufacturer has to prove that you damaged the device, whether the sticker is there or not. They can not refuse service just because a sticker is missing.
-
It's not illegal but manufacturers are making it harder to impossible. That must be illegal.
-
Isn't it sometimes? Like if involved breaking something encrypted, I thought it was. And possibly other cases as well. At least in the US thanks to the DMCA and others.
-
-
There's also patent invalidation on pharmaceuticals
-
And legalize piracy of US-created media content such as movies and TV series.
-
Yeah, let's have a go with the ACI (anti-coercion instrument) and see if we can't make their patents free game. Playing to Trump's tune is unlikely to work out well
-
136 评论