I hear what you’re saying here, and sure, she had an agenda, but, she was a commissioner, one of many so the question is, how can a single commissioner become that powerful? She must have had support from her peers and the folks she reports into, or is there something else?
When you're after money and/or power, and it looks like you've got a shot at bringing it in, support tends to happen.
Selective enforcement is not a core principle of democracies.
True, but it's a core reality. In the U.S., we have 'sanctuary cities.' This sort of defiance of law can be found to varying degrees on both the Left and the Right. People may talk about 'democracy' (as long as they think their side is favored) and the 'rule of law' (law they like), but actions speak louder than words and all too often, they actions say what they really value is getting their way.
If it isn’t political at all, why the heck are they waiting for “political direction”? Who cares who is in office or not, let alone who is in office in another country to do your job properly?
It shouldn’t matter, it should be continued to be executed as designed, blind and dutiful. Justice is blind as they want to say…
But your boss is not.
The implications of that statement alone amount to politics in a microcosm.
They didn‘t have an important computing platform and didn’t impose a 30% tax on transactions on it.
So the EU is opposed to high tax rates?
I know there's more to it. The irony was just too much.
- Letting duopolies emerge in important supply or platform markets (such as the one for mobile operating systems and application stores AND
- allowing duopolists to impose their charges and business terms on tens of thousands of businesses that depend on them AND ALSO
- letting them leverage their monopoly and platform power anticompetitively to gain advantages in other, related markets (e.g. media streaming)
…is not „letting everyone compete“.
This is a fascinating topic also under consideration in the U.S. as the Dept. of Justice butts heads with Google, controversies erupt over allowing proposed corporate mergers, people rail against Amazon and 'big box stores' (e.g.: Walmart's the poster child) and their effects on small businesses, etc... The supply chain economies of scale and marketing efficiencies, vast selection, rapid service nearly anywhere in the U.S., convenience (even online product reviews and ratings) vs. various other concerns, including 'more competition.'
Are the people served better by a smaller number of companies with immense resources to drive innovation (e.g.: Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet/Google, Meta, Intel/AMD) and a limited number of heavily supported platforms (e.g.: iOS and Android, Mac/Windows/Linux)?
Or would they by government interference in the market creating a Balkanized patchwork of more numerous brands/companies/standards?
I think sometimes the market and user interest favors consolidation. There have long been multiple web browsers, but a handful hold the big majority of the world market, and web designers don't need the hassle of having to support 15 different browsers. There've been many word processors over time, but it's easy to just go with MS Word. Most people pick Windows or Mac for personal and business computer use - Linux is out there. Software companies produce for Windows, MacOS, iOS and/or Android - who wants the OS market to fragment further?
In software, we have a good model. Look at the Apple Ap. Store. There are a huge number of 'no name' vendors, and some make some money. But who is on anywhere near an even footing with Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, Google, various major anti-virus programs, etc...? It's not a duopoly situation, but a modest number of vendors dominate the major genres.
Finally, in terms of major platforms like operating systems, what are the European countries producing today that has any kind of comparable footing with U.S. companies? Honest question - I don't know.
