[ad_1]
TThe biggest economic threat Europe faces is desperately falling behind the US and China in adopting the next generation of technology. This is what many European industrial and financial sectors are thinking, surprisingly watching the indirect battle between the US and Chinese administrations on behalf of their technology giants.
The businessmen from Dublin to Warsaw are speechless – less in the face of the often odd standoff between the two parties than on the fact that these economic blocs can claim almost all the world's tech giants.
Some say the European Commissioner for Competition, Margrethe Vestager, that billionaires in the technology sector now consider as one of their few real enemies. That 's it that forced Apple to pay 13 billion euros in tax arrears after it decided that its tax deal with the Irish government amounted to illegal state aid. . Vestager also took Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft and forced them to pay heavy fines or repairs.
Last week, the former Danish MEP said that she wanted to look "very closely" at whether Amazon's business practices violated the EU's antitrust rules. . This is a separate investigation of the review of the dominance of eBooks by Amazon. It is now targeting Amazon's treatment of third-party vendors, which generate about 58 percent of sales. An investigation into Apple's dominance of music streaming, triggered by a Spotify complaint, is expected to take place soon.
Donald Trump says Vestager is motivated by a hatred of the United States. And some Britons believe that this list of lawsuits hampers the adoption of digital commerce.
Evidence for one or the other view is meager. Rather than being "the EU that takes a hard line" against US tech companies, Washington seems to have forgotten how to enforce its own antitrust laws.
There was a time when Congress was trying to limit the power of corporations. The last race of anti-trust activists was probably the dismemberment of telecommunications giant AT & T in the 1980s.
The House of Representatives recently became aware of the problem of technological power, and last week a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee interviewed senior officials from Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google.
But while the House controlled by the Democrats is active, there are few signs that the Senate or the White House does not like repression.
This leaves the EU as the only body with the power to examine the influence of an army of technology companies that manage an increasing number of commercial transactions and to store and manipulate data in order to increase their dominance. a way that few people understand.
In an interview with this newspaper in 2017, Vestager denied that the purpose of his investigations was to harmonize tax rules in the context of a European superstate or to stifle technological advances. "We do it because people are unhappy with tax evasion," she said. The thought was, "Let's try to do something different in the system we have."
If the UK were to leave the EU, Vestager's questions about market dominance and data confidentiality would be missed. Britain will simply not have enough weight to attack US giants, even in the unlikely event that a Conservative government seeks to protect its citizens from what is preparing for failure. the most colossal digital commerce market.
With regard to the failure of Europe to develop its own large technology companies or even a robust and ultra-fast digital infrastructure, Vestager, who has been promoted to the rank of one of the two alternates The new President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, will find herself confronting the economy and creating digital businesses as quickly as limiting the power of cunning foreign invaders.
Ashley and the bad kind of shopping spree
Mike Ashley's acquisition strategy at Sports Direct is disconcerting. This seems to involve bidding for all major street chains struggling to stay afloat, from Evans Cycles to sofa.com to House of Fraser. Now, the listeners of Sports Direct also seem confused. Grant Thornton wants more time to complete the audit of the year-end figures for April.
The figures should be published soon, regardless of the "complexities" created by the integration of House of Fraser. Sports Direct is given until August 23rd. But non-Ashley shareholders will want to see more than the numbers.
First, they will want a plan for HoF beyond the pride of turning it into "the Harrods of the high street". What investment will it take to invest, in addition to the £ 90 million paid out to buy the chain of department stores last year? Does Ashley know how many stores are viable in the medium term? And, since help from homeowners and councils has been described as crucial, has it been provided? For now, the financial projections for HoF are a mystery.
Secondly, Sports Direct should show that it has the ability to manage its empire, now very extensive. Karen Byers, a key lieutenant for 28 years, has left. Will it be replaced? One of the fears of investors is that Ashley's obsession with new adventures in the retail business leaves exposed the main activity of Sports Direct. JD Sports is now a FTSE 100 company; The creation of Ashley is not.
Third, does the HoF purchase mark the end of big business? It should. Ashley's track record as acquiring stakes in other people's businesses is awful. The attempt to buy Debenhams involved the cancellation of 150 million pounds sterling, a financial disaster that would have cost its work to other CEOs. This will not happen, of course, because Ashley owns 62% of Sports Direct. However, it still has the duty to demonstrate to other shareholders that it will not waste more money on speculative contracts.
Google brings Viagogo to the heel
Regardless of the length of the queue to condemn Viagogo, the controversial ticket resale site continues, unscathed and seemingly insensitive to criticism.
He twice refused to appear at the restricted committee hearings, rejected calls for a boycott from the digital minister and even sued the management team of world pop superstar Ed Sheeran. This week she condemned the Competition and Market Authority and accused the regulator, who is suing the company, for not being able to judge whether it complies with consumer law.
But Viagogo may have finally met his match. In the world of nebulous and seemingly inexplicable Web entities, Google is really the alpha.
Viagogo has thrived largely thanks to its use of the Google AdWords service, which allows companies to pay to appear in ads at the top of search results.
Nonchalant fans, desperate to see their idols, often click on the first link they see, without questioning the choice of their buyers – often a professional who loads a lot.
At present, Google has responded to the concerns voiced by the company by suspending the ads of Viagogo, what the activists have been asking for a long time.
As a result, the ticket sales site that appears to have reduced the list of search results, making potential customers far less likely to find it among its competitors.
This represents a clear and present danger for Viagogo's business model. Swiss law allows the Geneva company to keep its accounts secret, so the effect on its turnover will probably never be known.
But his shy response to Google – a few brief lines offering to work with the search engine giant to solve his problems – contrasted sharply with the unbearable challenge he has answered to everyone.
It tells his own story.
Source link
