
Google's Monopoly-Based Foreign Policy - DeusExMachina
https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/googles-dangerous-monopoly-based
======
qtplatypus
I’ve just read the Reuters story that is linked. The Turkish government said
that they were not legally permitted to sell phones with the current contract;
so Google stopped selling an illegal product until they could resolve the
issue.

If Google kept selling the phones without resolving the issue then they would
be subject to fines. How is complying with local laws a Dangerous Foreign
Policy act?

~~~
Kalium
> “We’ve informed our business partners that we will not be able to work with
> them on new Android phones to be released for the Turkish market,” the
> Google statement said.

The article also says that Google won't be working with their business
partners on new phones. The article spins this as demanding to "work with"
Turkey, which strikes me as an overstatement in service of the argument that
Google is discriminating against smaller countries.

The author does seem to believe that Google should be compelled to do a
maximum amount of business in every possible market until the State Department
steps in. It's the authors contention that doing less than this is a Dangerous
Foreign Policy Act.

------
owlninja
Perhaps I am not understanding the implications, but is Google supposed to be
forced to make its phones available in Turkey?

~~~
matthewdgreen
Google is perfectly capable of untying their search from Android via a
software update, because that’s the remedy they already developed and use in
Russia. Turkey is asking them to turn on the same capability. Google is saying
they could but that they won’t, because Turkey isn’t a big enough country to
make them.

And yes, if Google is breaking US and international anti-trust laws, “forcing”
people to do things is generally the remedy of last resort.

~~~
tssva
Or perhaps the Russian market was large enough that the return on continued
investment in it despite the required changes justified remaining in it and
the Turkish market isn't large enough to justify continuing to invest in it.

~~~
matthewdgreen
What investment? Google already develops Android, they already developed the
“untying” feature for Russia. What’s left? Turkish Localization? I find it
hard to believe that even a 50% mobile search share in Turkey won’t pay those
incremental costs.

I find it much more believable that this is a simple pressure play.

~~~
Longlius
Ongoing support for the Turkish market. Technical support staff who can speak
Turkish, documentation in the Turkish language, and a team of developers to
handle Turkish-specific i18n bugs. None of these are 'incremental' costs.

~~~
matthewdgreen
My thinking is that if this argument is true, Google should be the one making
it. They don’t need HN to “reverse engineer” a defense for them, particularly
one that may not be factually correct.

~~~
sangnoir
Please don't shift goalposts - you asked a question (on HN!), got an answer
here (based on conjecture), and you now want an official Google response that
breaks down the reasons?

~~~
matthewdgreen
My point is simply that the conjecture seems difficult to believe on the face
of it, but that I would be willing to revisit my beliefs if Google actually
made the claim. The fact that Google has made no such claim makes it more
difficult to take seriously.

Edited to be more substantive.

------
netwanderer3
On paper, this is not really wrong. You can't force a shop owner to sell his
products to you if he doesn't want to. Similarly, I just don't have the rights
in forcing you to sell your house to me. I'm sure services like Netflix or
Disney Plus are probably still not available in some countries. If you visit
their website from those places, you would likely get a service denial
message. It's within Google's rights to offer/withdraw their services to any
places they wish.

Having said that, maybe there was a better solution they could have
implemented instead. Something like this should only be the very last choice
on the list after exhausting all other options.

~~~
lucb1e
> You can't force a shop owner to sell his products to you if he doesn't want
> to.

The very first article of the Dutch constitution actually says that people
have to be treated equally in equal cases. If you live in a country with a
similar principle, do you know how this works with someone refusing to do
business with you? If they sell to your peer, wouldn't they have to have a
reason for not selling to you (i.e. to indicate that the case is unequal)?

A reason like creditworthiness or "looking like you won't pay the bill" may or
may not be sufficient, I'm not questioning which reasons may be used. I'm just
wondering if it's true that a shop can indeed refuse someone for no reason at
all.

For those who are curious about the phrasing, source (in Dutch unfortunately):
[https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840/2018-12-21](https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840/2018-12-21)

~~~
pdonis
_> The very first article of the Dutch constitution actually says that people
have to be treated equally in equal cases._

Is that supposed to apply to the Dutch government? Or to everyone?
Constitutions normally say what the government can and can't do; they don't
normally directly tell ordinary citizens what they can and can't do.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
Are you sure what is normative for Constitutions? I suppose in this case
normally just means in most cases.

~~~
labawi
Not sure if even most. Just checked our constitution. While in most articles
it doesn't order or forbid people to do specific things, there are dozens of
rules and rights, which apply to .. I guess anyone in scope, many of which
seem quite pointless if they only applied to the government.

~~~
pdonis
_> there are dozens of rules and rights_

The US Constitution has a Bill of Rights, which applies to everyone in the
sense that everyone has those rights, but which only applies to the government
in the sense that the government is the one the Constitution says can't
violate those rights. For example, the 1st Amendment says the government can't
infringe freedom of speech. It does not say that everyone is guaranteed the
same platform to speak from, nor does it require particular private entities
to provide a speaking platform to anyone who asks for it.

Saying "people have to be treated equally in equal cases" sounds like the same
kind of thing: if the US Constitution had such a provision, I would expect it
to work the same as the 1st Amendment, i.e., requiring the government to treat
people equally in equal cases, not requiring private entities to do so. But
the Dutch Constitution might work differently, which is why I asked.

------
bradj
I don't see how this is a controversy. Turkey made a legal judgement, and
Google decided the cost of compliance was too high so instead of thwarting the
law and risk legal liability they retreated from the country.

The threat of Monopoly by Google in Turkey is gone - so congrats? You
shouldn't force a company to provide you the opportunity to by their product
(outside of certain circumstances regarding protected classes in the US).

------
Jonnax
This story is about Google not wanting to have a browser choice screen for the
bundled Chrome application to give a choice of either Yandex or Google
search???

It doesn't sound that's all there is here.

Perhaps a Yandex app store? Or perhaps this is about data residency?

But also the author here is arguing that Android is a state asset and the
choice to restrict usage to a country is the job of the government.

Seems like a silly idea to me.

------
baybal2
The giant still has legs of clay.

China still has an overwhelming edge in manufacturing, with Vietnam and
Thailand being years away from reaching even 10% of its capacity.

They can easily legally mandate everybody to use "Huaweidroid" and make sure
that chipmakers bake in their key fingerprints, so the firmware can't be
changed outside of China.

With anything like that unfolding, there will simply be no way out of this for
Google, unless they commit to a truly herculean task of starting own
manufacturing somewhere else. But even in this case, they will have to commit
to competition with now much cheaper "Huaweidroid" based phones

------
atlasunshrugged
I'm generally pro competition but I feel like there's probably more to this
story (just remembering how eBay also left Turkey). Aren't there some issues
with how the data is supposed to be stored in Turkey (a place where many
people including journalists are jailed and does not rank highly as a
Democratic country) that would also make Google more likely to just up and
leave or outright negotiate with the government over the laws rather than
directly give in? Of course, I get the argument for how Google is too powerful
with their system, I don't disagree, but I'm skeptical in general of trying to
do fair business with Russia and Turkey given their track records

~~~
bayindirh
> just remembering how eBay also left Turkey

eBay didn't leave Turkey. They've bought
[http://www.gittigidiyor.com](http://www.gittigidiyor.com) and continuing to
operate.

They're still here, just under a different brand. They've bought their
fiercest local competitor.

~~~
atlasunshrugged
Sorry, you're absolutely right, I meant PayPal and obviously they haven't been
the same company for quite some time!
[https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/31/paypal-to-halt-
operations-...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/31/paypal-to-halt-operations-
in-turkey-after-losing-license-impacts-hundreds-of-thousands/)

------
pmlnr
> The regulator had asked Google to change all its software distribution
> agreements to allow consumers to choose different search engines in its
> Android mobile operating system.

Hang on a second... why does the MS regulation to offer browser choice on
first run apply to this already?

~~~
ptah
Turkey is not in the EU yet

------
notSupplied
Microsoft eventually caved, and put a "Browser Choice" popup in Windows. This
was because the US was too big for MS to ignore. Here, we have a similar
choice: Turkey wants Google to give users "Search Engine Choice", and because
Turkey is relatively small of a market compared to Google's TAM, they decided
they'd rather ignore than market than compromise, even though a compromise is
probably the best outcome for users, for fair competition.

I think the author is not talking about what Google has a right to do or not
do, nor do any moral obligation to play in which field. The problem being
highlighted here is that size simply matters too much.

------
KirinDave
If ever there was a moment where a good open source phone OS as GUI toolkit
could break onto the market, that time is now.

------
amb23
> Google said it was willing to ‘work with’ Turkey, but as a partner and not
> as a corporation working within a sovereign nation. It simply said it
> doesn’t like Turkey’s law, and so it will stop providing Android phones for
> an entire country. In other words, Google has a private sanctions regime
> against smaller countries.

The fact that Google even has the leverage to blackout an entire country like
this--and that it's legally allowed to do so--is the best reason I've seen so
far to break up Big Tech. They're playing with fire and undermining the U.S.
diplomatic community by mixing public and private interests in a way that
supersedes national policy. Both Android and Chrome need to be spun out--at
this point they are basically public utilities.

~~~
bilekas
> -and that it's legally allowed to do so--is the best reason I've seen so far
> to break up Big Tech.

Of course it is legal.. Nobody can tell a company who they _HAVE_ to sell
their product to.. But you want to break it up and what then exactly.. ?

> Both Android and Chrome need to be spun out--at this point they are
> basically public utilities

No, they're not.. And they're not a fundamental right either.

~~~
jessaustin
_Nobody can tell a company who they HAVE to sell their product to._

Lots of court cases have forced merchants to sell to minorities to whom they
would rather have not sold.

~~~
bilekas
Could you share on some references to products and not services forced to be
sold ?

Also policy based and not discriminatory based..

------
delfinom
Yea there's alot of emotional bickering that comes up when a company says "we
won't do business with X".

>In other words, Google has a private sanctions regime against smaller
countries.

With this stupid statement, my company must have a private sanctions regime
agaisnt half the world

~~~
phjesusthatguy3
Your company probably isn't as important to the world as Google.

To the point, though: go read the Reuters article[0] linked from TFA. They're
not pulling out of Turkey; they're refusing to license software to "business
partners" making products for Turkey unless those partners lock search to
Google.

Is your company really boycotting half the countries of the world because they
have rules in place regarding your business practices?

[0][https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-google/google-
warn...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-google/google-warns-
turkish-partners-over-new-android-phones-amid-dispute-idUSKBN1YK0QR)

~~~
pathseeker
> Your company probably isn't as important to the world as Google.

Google isn't that important to the world. China gets by just fine without it
and not having access is mainly a mild inconvenience.

------
whack
TLDR: Turkey wanted to regulate Google's activities in the Turkish market, and
so, Google decided to exit the Turkish market entirely.

I'm all in favor of vigorous anti-trust enforcement, and I think the Turkish
regulators did the right thing. American/European regulators can probably take
some pages out of their playbook. But it seems ridiculous to blame a company
for choosing which markets it wants to do business in.

------
steelframe
Ah, it's so nice to have my morning coffee with my daily fresh anti-Google
story on the front page of Hacker News. Our lives just wouldn't be the same
without it.

~~~
ggambetta
Yeah, I don't get it. FB is being openly evil with the political ads thing,
but Google is the devil somehow? I suspect a smear campaign.

~~~
kevingadd
Two things can be different and still both be bad.

Are you claiming everyone on HN loves FB and hates Google? Because that is a
pretty strong claim to make. Same goes for the tech press in general, it's not
hard to find negative articles about FB and Google on the same website or from
the same source.

If you type "matt stoller facebook" into Google Search (the devil's search
engine) one of the top results on the first page is a criticism of Facebook...
by Matt Stoller:

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/22/restru...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/22/restructure-
facebook-ftc-regulate-9-steps-now)

If you're going to suspect a smear campaign or conspiracy that's fine, but
please at least make a basic effort to validate your theory before posting it
on HN

~~~
gundmc
OP was talking about what gets upvoted to the front page of HN, not
necessarily what gets written by the source.

Try searching "Matt Stoller Facebook" and then "Matt Stoller Google" on HN.

------
seunosewa
The article was masterfully framed to make us feel outraged by Google’s
exercise of its right to chose where it does business. When Google pulls out
of a country, it loses a lot, and so does the country. This is a strong
incentive for both parties to be reasonable. Forcing Google to obey every
government in the world doesn’t seem fair; many countries have unreasonable or
evil laws.

~~~
black_puppydog
OTOH: forcing every country in the world to obey google is no better.

~~~
dahfizz
Google doesn't have armies and police forces. It can't "force" anyone to do
anything, unlike governments.

Deciding not to provide its services is not a use of force from google.

~~~
umvi
Many believe internet access is a basic human right. [1]

Thus, many believe that pulling out of a country where your device is one of
the sole affordable ways of reaching the internet is tantamount to a human
rights violation.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access)

~~~
brycesbeard
Many people believe abortion is murder. That doesn’t make it so.

~~~
dang
" _Don 't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to
say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents._"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
jessaustin
Google also operate in USA. USA has more people in prison than Turkey has.
Recently journalist Max Blumenthal was jailed on false charges.

~~~
jacquesm
> Google also operate in USA.

They're based there, in case you didn't notice.

> USA has more people in prison than Turkey has.

And is substantially larger, and tends to not lock up everybody that _might_
be against dear leader. For now.

> Recently journalist Max Blumenthal was jailed on false charges.

Definitely not a very good moment in the history of the USA but there are
plenty of worse examples and besides the case was dropped.

You _really_ can not compare Turkey and the United States in this way.

~~~
DSingularity
Why not? Turkey survived a coup. We can critique the governments handling all
day but can we at least all agree that when a democracy barely survives a coup
it ought to institute policies to solidify the rule of law and endurance of
its institutions?

~~~
jupp0r
Your premise of democracy is wrong. Turkey is an authoritarian dictatorship at
this point.

~~~
eeZah7Ux
...and the US is shockingly close to being one.

~~~
colejohnson66
How? Genuine question. Is it because Trump? Because while Trump and many of
his supporters may be authoritarian, he was still duly elected, and if he had
lost, Hillary would be President. In a dictatorship, Obama would have chosen
his successor (generally).

~~~
jacquesm
Let's wait for the next election before we call this one.

------
jdkee
Google should be broken up like the Bell system was in the 80s.

~~~
bilekas
Why ?

Maybe some proper regulation written by people who know what they're talking
about would be a better start no ?

The nuclear option of : 'Oh break them up, they're out of control' is such a
fallacy.

Maybe if lawmakers were clued in on what large companies like Facebook, Google
actually did, they might just set better rules.

~~~
banads
Fair point, but, I think we all can agree "proper regulation written by people
who know what they're talking about" is extremely unlikely to happen.

