 Canada. Hope you're doing well today, Canada. Is it Canada Day or something? Well, no. July 2nd is Canada Day, I believe. Is that right? Oh, Canada. Cold and frozen land. True patriot love in all thy sons command. Hockey scores along monthly shores. I don't know that Roger's singing the actual words. It may be really what are the actual. Who gets to decide what the actual words are? I mean, we all have biases about everything. So we all have our own conception of what's truth. There is no truth. Everything is permitted. All right, including starting early. Yes, that's true. We're going to be the we're going to follow the code of the acesim and start the show early. Are you guys ready? Yes, I think personally, I was born ready, but I can't speak. That's true. That's true. It is a well established fact. I mean, granted, we all have our opinions, but there are certain things that are just established facts, and that's one of them. Right. All right. Here we go. Press the wrong button. All right. What's that? You want to give back some value for the value you get out of Daily Tech News Show? No problem. Just head to Daily Tech News Show dot com slash support to find out how. This is the Daily Tech News for June 27th, 2017. I'm Tom Merritt, Patrick Beja, alongside celebrating 27th of June, whatever it's about. I'm I'm sure it's many people's birthdays, but personally, I'm celebrating the fact that I'm going to get hopefully five full hours of sleep before I have to take a plane that will take me to another plane that will take me to Salt Lake City for Nerdtacular 2017. And you'll be back on the show on Friday. So so that'll be fun. And it'll be excellent. We you'll be we will not be doing a show on July 4th. There'll be something in the feed like usual, but it won't be a full show. So there won't be a Patrick on next Tuesday because we're celebrating France's assisting us in rebelling against the monarchy of England. So you should. Yeah. So we're giving Patrick the day off as well. We are going to talk about Google being assessed a two point four two billion dollar euro, I'm sorry, dollar billion euro fine by the European Commission for abusing its market dominance as a search engine. In regards to shopping links, there are two other European Commission investigation still going on around AdSense and around Android. But today they got a two billion dollar fine for shopping links. But let's start with a few other tech things you should know. Google has officially ended Google talk, you probably call it G chat. Anyway, and who had been using the G chat app got a switch. You can't use it anymore. Got to use the Hangouts app if you want to keep chatting. One in the many, many applications or services that Google has shuttered. I guess it's good. They're spring cleaning, I suppose. Yeah, it's good to simplify. Pandora CEO Tim Westergren, Westergren, Westergren announced he is stepping down as CEO as soon as a replacement is found. President Mike Herring and marketing chief Nick Bartol are also leaving. Pandora added former MTV MySpace and Sling Media executive Jason Hirshhorn to fill an empty board seat. I would expect Pandora doesn't last too much longer as an independent entity is what I'm going to guess. So so I know we this is short, very quick mentions, but you were interested in this piece of news. We don't really it's Pandora is not very big here. Do you see this as a sign that? Well, yeah, as you were saying, Pandora is not doing too well. And this doesn't look good. I don't know if it doesn't look good or if it's just, hey, you know what, guys, Pandora is never going to become Spotify. So let's just admit Spotify wins and let's go find a partner to buy us and fund us. I don't think they're in trouble of going bankrupt or anything. Tim Westergren has been fighting the good fight for a long time and he's laying down his arms. Or his legs, I don't know. A new ransomware attack emerged in Ukraine and spread fast. This is not that funny. Systems at Ukraine Central Bank, Key of Metro, one of the local key of airports, the main local key of airport, power company, Ukraine. All reportedly affected. No electricity supply problems, just systems getting locked up. They need shipping for Maersk. Also reported systems down at multiple sites. Other reports include Russia's oil company Rosnacht, pharmaceutical company Merck, Pittsburgh area Hospital, the law offices of DLA Piper and on and on and on. Now, it doesn't seem to be as big as want to cry, but it shares a lot of similarities. At first, people thought it was a piece of malware that's been kicking around for a few months called Petia. But Kaspersky Lab now believes that this strain is a different strain than Petia. So Kaspersky is calling it not Petia because they originally thought it was. I have issues with that naming convention. I certainly hope it doesn't catch on. Wired reports several security experts believe the malware takes advantage of the eternal blue vulnerability Kaspersky among them. That is the same vulnerability that was used by the want to cry ransomware, which was patched by Microsoft in March. So if companies are falling to this because they didn't have a properly patched system, not Petia demands $300. And the Verge notes that blockchain records as of now that we're recording the show show 30 payments total, about $7,500 sent to the virus's Bitcoin address. So many things to say. And at the same time, you know, we said many of those during the want to cry in the back hole. Yeah, sure. I guess the one thing to add is why haven't people patched the things? I understand that some systems are, you know, operation critical and it's a whole affair to stop the system and patch. And it might mean some other things stop working as well. And that that's what you get. So patch all the things even more, even more than want to cry. The question is, wait, and you still didn't patch it? Of course. I mean, but this is the early moments. Like this just started happening this morning. We may find that there is some part of this malware that can even infect certain patch machines in certain situations. That's not an impossibility, but it doesn't. It does seem like it's just systems that weren't patched. Yeah. Apple acquired the dirt. Oh, you wanted to follow up? No. All right. So I will. Apple acquired the German computer vision company Sensomotorik instruments. Sensomotorik's assets include eye tracking glasses, which do real time tracking with sampling at 120 Hertz. Sensomotorik has also developed the VR eye tracking to help prevent motion sickness. Yeah. So I mean, we know Apple's into AR and VR. We talked about ARK yesterday on the show with Sean Hollister. But this is this is intriguing because it's a company that does a particular type of thing. And man, if Apple comes out with a VR headset that doesn't give make you motion sick for the people who get motion sick, that could be a big advantage. Well, that's certainly one of the issues that VR is having. You know, it's not anecdotal, depending on the the way the software is designed and the headset, you might get motion sick. And many people do. It's not, you know, about some people are immune to it and some people get it. It's everyone gets it in different conditions. So this is interesting because it's really dedicated to VR. So it might indicate that they're not just thinking about it, but they are they are probably serious about it. And we've seen some of the applications of the AR kit. Demos, some of the demos are showing a lot of virtual stuff on screen to the point that it's not impossible that if you do get a glass like device, you could use it for AR as well as VR potentially. Yeah. And it also gives me an opportunity to mention something about what you discussed yesterday when you were talking about the incredible applications that we're seeing with the AR kit already with the iOS 11 beta, which are indeed very interesting. I didn't want to say, however, that I don't think this is going to be very useful on the phone beyond the novelty that we've seen in the past. It's more precise. It's all of those things. But you didn't mention the fact that really this is this might become an interesting product if they come out with a specific hardware. And in that context, I think the demos we're trying we're starting to see now are a lot more appealing because with dedicated hardware, it can actually be useful. That's a fair point. I think what's impressive to me and to the people who are getting, you know, excited about measuring tape is you didn't need extra hardware. And that has been one of the things keeping people who otherwise might want to try VR or AR in this case. From doing so is I don't want to have to get special hardware. I don't want to buy a project Tango phone. I don't want to have to buy a case to put my Samsung Galaxy S8 in. I, you know, I might try it otherwise. And this is that might try it otherwise. Now, both of these points may work together where there's just enough novelty or fun or mildly useful like the measuring thing, AR, that doesn't need the extra hardware that it gets people to understand the benefits of it to the point where they say, ah, well, I would like to buy perhaps a case or hardware or something like that. Could happen. By the way, Whistle pointed out in a chat room, just going back to the malware for a moment that want to cry was able to infect patched machines once it got inside of a network because it, you know, once it's got access to a particular system, it could start using other vectors. And that is likely to be true of not petia as well. So that that is not how it's spreading from system to system, necessarily, but it is how it could lock down large amounts of systems. So are you saying that basically it's good to patch or vaccinate the entire population in order to not create? I just, yeah, herd immunity. Yeah, you need your Windows machines to have herd immunity. That one XP machine out there, actually XP is the best example. But that one on patch machine. Yeah, yeah, gets everybody else rubella. Mark Zuckerberg posted Tuesday that Facebook now has two billion monthly users. That keeps it as the largest social app in terms of logged in users ahead of YouTube's 1.5 billion and we chats 889 million. Facebook's user count grew 17 percent. That's the fastest for any year since 2012. A large amount of that growth is coming from outside Europe and North America. They break it down into four categories. Europe, US and Canada, Asia Pacific and everybody else. And all the all the growths coming from Asia Pacific and everybody else. You know, every time now for the past few months or a couple of years that we talk about Facebook and something new they're doing. I'm saying this and I don't think I'll ever get tired of repeating it. I don't think we're commending Mark Zuckerberg's Zuckerberg's business acumen enough because it's sort of become accepted that Facebook is the biggest social network. But it really when the history books are written at every turn of the history of that company, he could have made, you know, a different decisions and every time he made the right decision to keep growing his company and to have, you know, even if he missed something he knew before everyone else that he needed to put the money on the table to get the company that didn't miss it and get that company into the fold. So and the fact that he's continuing to grow the company, it's I just want to point it out because we're it's unimpressive now. Facebook is just here, but it continues to be incredibly impressive. Yeah. I mean, first of all, best decision you ever made was hiring Cheryl Sandberg. You know, she deserves a lot of this credit too. But he made the move to say, yes, I will take this person's advice. So that's good. Also remember when it was like, well, you know what the next Facebook is going to be? Or, you know, when Facebook finally goes away, well, Facebook isn't popular in the Philippines. Oh, wait, now it is. Oh, well, Facebook isn't popular. Well, wait, now it is like that's the other part of this is we forget that there is this has not always been the case. Like you said, Facebook has not always been at war with East Asia. It was it was pretty much, you know, assumed that Facebook would go under like Myspace and Friendster did at one point and it hasn't to the point that even without operating in China, which is a significant handicap, it's a significant disadvantage. Facebook has a quarter of the Earth's population using it every month. Yeah, it's and I mean, it's it has to do with business decisions and it has to do with, you know, technical decisions on the back end. And it has to do with UI decisions. I mean, Facebook has not changed as much in the past few years as it has before, but it keeps adding stuff. It keeps adding, you know, the things that we need. It's not the same Facebook from two years ago. Most recently, it's live video and these kinds of things and just video period. And it's I think there is a really there would be a really interesting well, I'm sure there will be really interesting books written not just about the dominance and the scary aspects of Facebook, which there certainly are, but also the way Zuckerberg shepherd the ship. Yeah, and it is frightening to have one company that has that many users worldwide and and it deserves scrutiny. I don't want to brush that under the rug, but it's also impressive that any company could could hit that mark with as many mistakes as it's made over the years, with as many people. I mean, it does seem to me that people have gone from saying, I don't use Facebook to I don't use Facebook very much, you know, it's gone from like, I never look at Facebook to I only look at Facebook for this one thing. Like, yeah, there's something you can't not use Facebook. You can't. I mean, if you want to, yeah, yeah, it is a problem. But all I'm saying is Zuckerberg 2020. It's a sound decision about 2020. But maybe I don't think he really wants to be president yet. Well, one change coming to iOS 11 in September that hasn't gotten a lot of notice is a blue bar that will show up any time an app is using location in the background, even if the app is said to always use location. Previously, this only happened with apps set to use location only while using the app. Well, that's the other thing they mentioned at WWDC is iOS 11 will now give you the option to say only while using the app on every app. The app developer won't be able to eliminate that option. But yeah, if you have it always on, if the app says we need to always be tracking your location, we promise we will only do it when it's necessary, but we need to be able to do it. This blue bar will tell you when it's actually doing it. And this is really, you know, I mean, it might be a little bit of a problem because it's going to shine a light on some things that apps do that isn't, you know, nefarious in any way. Some apps do need to use your location all the time in order to function and you might want them to, and that makes it look suspicious. The fact that it's always saying, hey, so-and-so app is using your location. It makes it seem a little bit nefarious. But for many of the other apps and some of the, you know, developers or companies that might have had not as a consumer facing policies or honest policies, this will also shine a light on them. And I think this is one of, you know, all OSs are interesting in different ways. And all OSs and all companies have different interests. And I think that this is something that really can only be done by the company that has, well, its own interest at heart first, but also it's trying to protect its users' privacy as much as possible, which, again, I don't want to, you know, make it seem like I'm defending Apple because they're the good guy. It's their business interest. But the fact that they have such a big control over iOS makes this possible. And I think it's going to push the industry in a good direction. So it gives them the confidence to say, you're going to use the App Store developer, whether we do this or not. And we think this is going to give us an advantage in the marketplace when people are comparing the way things work. So we're going to do it. And it's a pretty big thing. I mean, I don't think anyone would have thought that this anyone would do this. Apple can, because they don't care about anyone other than Apple. But it's pretty big. And I wouldn't be surprised if, you know, Google followed suit at some point if they can go so deep into the, you know, the decision they make about the OS. So let's talk about Google. First, if you want to get all the tech headlines each day, about five minutes, you can keep up. You I give you permission to not listen to Daily Tech News Show every single day. If you fall behind, if you're traveling, it's a lot. We get it. That's why we do Daily Tech headlines. It's only five. Just listen to Tuesdays. And then they always listen to Tuesdays, that's bad. But yeah, you can subscribe at DailyTechHeadlines.com. That keeps you in the know. And you can also get it as an Amazon Echo flash briefing or on the anchor app and get lots of cool calls on the anchor app at anchor.fm. That is look at our top stories. All right. European Commission announced it will find Google 2.42 billion euros for abusing its market dominance as a search engine by, quote, giving an illegal advantage to another Google product, its comparison shopping service. So the EU report states that Google search algorithm often not only preferred its own shopping service at the top of results, but demoted rival commerce results lower down in search results, which combined with Google search dominance in all EU countries constituted abuse. Google has 90 days to stop the practice and, quote, give equal treatment to rival comparison shopping services. Now, Google said it disagrees with the decision, no surprise there, and is considering an appeal. The EU has two other investigations into Google going on, one into Google's advertising search practices, which is the deals they make with companies to place Google ads outside of Google. These are the adsense ads that show up on other people's sites. Google used to ask for exclusivity. They've stopped doing that as of 2009. EU is still investigating to see whether the agreements they make people come to are abusive of their market dominance. The other is Android and bundling in Gmail search, etc. And say you have to take these apps if you want to install our version of Android. Those two are underway, but this one is done. And they say you owe us 2.7 billion euros. They I'm sorry, 2.42 billion euros. 2.7 billion dollars. That's right. 2.4 billion euros. Why don't I write it two different ways? I just confused myself doing that. Margaret Vestiger, who is the competition commissioner who led this investigation, said, we do not find that Google shopping is in competition with Amazon and eBay. That's the argument Google's been making. They're just saying, look, people go look for shopping results. They go to Amazon, they go to eBay. And so we're trying to compete with them. Vestiger says the reason is because they are different in Amazon and eBay. You can search within Amazon and eBay's universe of different retailers. Amazon, however, could be a customer of Google shopping. They could have and do have Amazon search results show up as a part of the paid placement of Google shopping. But another comparison shopping service cannot be a customer of Google shopping. You can't say I run, you know, this other comparison shopping service. Let me buy placement at the top of your ads. Google Google say you can buy AdSense ads, but you can't place your comparison shopping results here. So how do you feel about this, Patrick? Because it's kind of hard for me to even wrap my head around what what the EU is saying is Google, you are so dominant that when you put shopping results at the top of your page, it inevitably pushes other comparison shopping services down in your search results and is unfair to them. Right, exactly. And there are a couple of elements to really understand here. What the EU is saying is, as you mentioned, the Google shopping is one of those, you know, little UI elements on top of the search results, right? So it is given a prominent placement on the page. It is separated and it is presented more clearly than the regular results that you get for your search. So mechanically, it is factual that the other results for your search for products are pushed down and they go into a number of, you know, pieces of reasoning why this creates an unfair advantage for Google service, which, again, I think is pretty obvious for everyone. What Google is saying essentially is, yeah, but we do it really well, you know, in their opposing views like the other side of the story. It's not exactly what they're saying, but what they're saying is they're serving the customer so much better because their results are a lot better. And this is also true, but it's kind of answering a question that wasn't asked of them, right? Because the real problem is not that they have a great product, which they do in many, many ways, including shopping. The problem is, and it's not that so much that it's being problematic for the others, the problem is they have one product, which has total market dominance in the EU. That's the search engine. And they're using that product to promote another of their products, thus hurting the competition. And that's the real issue. The competition is skewed. And you want, I think everyone would agree, everyone who's a little bit, you know, for the market economy, you want healthy competition in order for the market to be healthy as well. And they're not saying Google is, you know, bad because they have a better service. They're saying they're stifling competition. And Google, in their answer, isn't really addressing this. They're talking about Amazon and eBay, but it's not the same service. So my reaction to this is, well, yeah, all of this is pretty clear cut. They do have a dominant position. Remember that they have what, 90 percent market share in most of the European Union. In all 31 European economic area countries, they have dominance and they have 90 percent in most of them. Yeah. Exactly. So they have dominant market share dominance for search engine. Basically, if you go to search for something on the web, unlike in the U.S. where you might use Bing, maybe, or Yahoo, I suppose, you will be using Google. And the rules aren't saying that you can't have market dominance. It's fine to have market dominance. However, you can't use it to promote another one of your businesses. And it's the responsibility of the company that has market dominance to make sure that doesn't happen. And we're getting into opinion land here. But I think that's a fair rule, and I think it's pretty clear that Google circumvented that. Well, maybe not willingly, but they're not circumventing. That's not the right word, but going against the rule. I have a couple of problems with that. Mostly, mostly, that's right. You've laid out the reasoning correctly. And it's hard for people in the U.S. to understand that because we don't have 90 percent market share of Google. There are people using Bing and Yahoo. It's not as dominant. Google oddly, although very dominant, not as dominant in the United States. So you have to wrap your head around the idea that if a company gets that much dominance, it's hard for other companies to unseat it, right? And that's my first question is, OK, in the world of steel manufacturing, you know, if somebody locks up 90 percent of the steel manufacturing, it's really hard for a new steel manufacturer to get started because they can't make the money to get started to get out there. Is it the same with search engines? Is it is it a harder barrier of entry for someone to compete with Google as a search engine? And the EU saying yes. And I'm like, OK, I think that is a question that could be debated. But let's let's go with that and say, but you know what? The fact is Google has been dominant for a while now, so nobody has. Then it becomes, are they abusing that dominant market position? Are they saying, well, basically, we've made it really difficult for anyone else to come up with another search engine. So since we're the only search engine out here, we can sway other areas. And what the accusation here is, is that Google not even intentionally. Actually, the EU finding says we don't think Google did this on purpose, but they are guilty nonetheless of swaying comparison shopping, the comparison shopping business to Google. I don't know where the evidence of that is. Comparison shopping may not be a very good business because it's just not a very good business. I don't see evidence that Google's comparison shopping engine is used by a lot of people. I I know that on paper, Google saying, but people use Amazon and eBay is apples and oranges, but people use Amazon and eBay. They don't they don't apple and oranges. They don't use the Google shopping engine because it's just not a very good business. And if Google is preferring its own really bad business, how can you tell if they're keeping others out of it or not? And at which point, I'm like, you know what, maybe comparison shopping just isn't an industry. I think the problem you're posing here is that is one that cannot really be answered. Do other comparison shopping search engines, did they not develop because of Google or just because? No, because what what the EU did was no, they they they spent all their time determining whether pushing someone's link down on a page, reduce the clicks. And we all know that's true. They didn't need to do that much due diligence on that. They decided paper. They didn't say they didn't do it to prove that it provided of unfair advantage. They they went through. You can't just say it. What? No, you could cite other research that has been done and say, yes, that that shows that that's true. You didn't have to replicate the research yourself. What they didn't do was evaluate. Does comparison shopping actually generate a significant business and and and does it outweigh these other businesses? Now, I'm not saying they didn't address that they did. But to my satisfaction, I don't think they did enough research into that. I don't think this is the best question, though. I don't think this is the best example of Google abusing market dominance. I don't see Google abusing market dominance here. I really don't. Google is putting something that most people don't use at the top of a search result. OK, you know what Google is abusing market dominance with? Having people sign exclusive agreements, saying you can't use another ad company that and that is also being investigated. And I think that's worth investigating. What Google might be abusing market dominance with is maps, putting maps at the top, and maybe that will be investigated. But I just I don't I don't find this to be the abuse of market dominance that the EU did. I'm I'm not sure how to answer your concerns because you danced around the actual issue so much that, you know, everything you said is not untrue. But the what you're saying is central issues. Did they abuse market dominance and I don't see that they could have? Well, yes, we they could because they have a dominant position and they're offering only this service. And if they put pictures, you know, selling pictures of them, if they put their fairy picture search at the top, would you say, ah, they've abused their market dominance for searching for fairy pictures? Like, no, I think you're being hyperbolic. And that doesn't really hold as an argument. I'm just saying not everything that they put at the top of their page is an abuse of market dominance. Of course. But maybe comparison shopping is. And we don't know if there would have been a market for other search engine comparison search engines because they were killed before they could even develop. I mean, you can look at the United States where there's not as much market dominance and say use that as a test case. And guess what? There aren't any. Is sure there aren't any in the US, but maybe there would have been in Europe. OK, I'm just saying here you've got you've got a test case where like, hey, they didn't have as much market dominance. Did these comparison shopping services arise? No. So are you saying that this is you have, you know, your opinion should supersede the one of the European? Yes, I'm saying that I am so much smarter than the entire European. No, no, I'm just saying this is my opinion. I'm saying, Tom, is that my opinion is that I don't I don't see this to be what they see. But I'm not sure that maybe this is an example of Americans being distrustful of government. But I'm guessing now you're just tagging me with something that may or may not be true about me. But I don't think anything about what I'm saying implies that. Well, if you let me finish what I'm what I'm saying is I'm guessing that they did the research and they did study it specifically to determine whether or not this is a serious problem. And I'm guessing I don't I didn't look into it enough. But I'm guessing that they got complaints and given the fact that many companies are, you know, it's always easy to jump on Google when something bad happens to them. But I'm pretty sure they got complaints about this specifically. They did. Yeah, absolutely. And and and they I trust them to have studied this enough to determine that it was a something worth actually acting on. Oh, yeah. No, I don't I don't disagree with any of that. I just haven't said maybe it's there and I just didn't run across it today because they haven't issued all the details. But I did not see any evaluation that this is the kind of business where a company abusing the market dominance really would have an effect. Yes, they had companies complain. But that's, you know, that doesn't mean that the complaint is valid just because a company did complain. Yeah, you don't know that the complaint is valid. But do you know that they didn't do the due diligence to determine whether or not it's valid? That's kind of pulling out an argument out of a hat. I don't understand. Do you have any evidence that it's not valid? I think the complaint was worth investigating. But from what they have said today, I don't see the justification for saying this is an abuse of market dominance. I don't see that that this is an industry that be abused. And maybe tomorrow someone will send us an email and they probably will saying, here, here is the proof. Here is the investigation. Here's the data. I'm yeah. OK, so maybe the market wasn't really worth it. But would you agree that they promoted their business comparison show shopping using their surchanging market dominance? Well, that's a tautology, you know, they have a market dominance. So anything they promote is by by definition using their market dominance. So yeah, of course, I don't think that that tells us much. It doesn't tell us whether they're abusing it or not. The other thing about the shopping results at the top is they are single product. And Google said people usually prefer links that take them directly to the products, not to websites where they have to repeat their searches. So in Google's mind, this is just them selling a better service. We agree. They're just they're just selling ads. They're saying these are ads. These are a different kind of ads. And the EU is like, well, OK, maybe. But it also looks a lot like what this guy over here is doing. I mean, would you say that Google is abusing its market dominance by putting ads on its page? It depends what the ad is. They certainly are abusing their market dominance when they're promoting other services like when you mentioned maps, you know, when you all of the different things that you can access news to potentially Google news is abuse, abusing market dominance. Certainly. And those are things that you very obviously see people taking advantage of. Yeah, see people using regularly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So OK, maybe the search and the product search engine is not the biggest, you know, market there has ever been. My argument is we will never know because Google is abusing their market dominance. But that kind of OK, I will sort of join you and be afraid for what it means next. Because as certain as I am that this is actually a serious issue, I don't care so much as most people apparently about comparison shopping. I very much do care about maps, image search, all of those services that Google is providing. And I love the fact that it's so convenient. So I wouldn't want the EU to go and mess with that. I think that they might have to. I think that what the EU is doing here and this is the part that I think is getting left out a lot of the headlines. It's not about the amount of the fine. Google's got 13 billion in the bank, they can afford the fine. What it's about is Marguerite Bestiger and the Commission establishing you have market dominance. And so anything that you do could be an abuse of that. And we are going to be looking over your shoulder. The other thing we didn't talk about yet is they didn't tell Google what to do to fix this problem. They said, it's up to you. You need to hear. Here's what you're doing. You're you're you're causing an unequal display. And so you need to fix it. You decide how. Don't forget, Google has proposed three different remedies to this that were all rejected by the EU. So the EU is taking a hard line here. And I think it's because they want to use this to establish that Google has market dominance and can abuse it so they can go after them for other things. Listen, I love Google. I use Google all the time. I use all of their services. I have sold my life to Google. And I think they are an incredible, amazing company that does incredible products. I do think, however, that there are situations where a company can become too dominant in the market. We just talked about Facebook. This is another example. And I don't think that's good for the free market. And even if we want to get a little bit philosophical for a society. So I'm just kind of glad. However, logically, you want to turn it. I am glad that someone is pushing back. Thank you. Not because I like Google. Yeah, not because I don't like Google. I love them. And I know you said that's exactly what Miss Vestiger said today, which oh, Google's great. We love Google. They do great stuff, but they broke the law. And I don't think this is the best example of them breaking the law. I do think that the ad sets case where Google requires exclusivity or requires third parties to take a minimum number of search ads in order to get their ad business. That looks very much like abuse to me. I think Google demanding that people if they want to take their version of Android, they have to take the Google apps could be an abuse if there weren't an open source version that there is absolutely no friction to adopting. And also, there are other carriers on the mobile OS market. Yeah. So I mean, that that what I think will play out a little differently. But yeah, it's this this ain't over and put it that way. Hey, thanks to everybody who participates in our subreddit. You can spit stories of vote on on the Daily Tech News Show dot reddit.com. Before we get out of here, got a few things to check in on. First of all, Big Jim has a new tech in trade episode out. You can check that out at the trade nerd.com, the tech in trade podcast. Now, here's the here's the problem is that I didn't actually add that to my little iPad here. So it trends as we were by the Google. Yeah. So we're going to see just how fast Tom is at being able to add this to the sound board. And here you go. Hey, thanks, Tom, on this next tech in trade, we're going to talk about autonomy on the high season. What does it mean? That means we're talking about autonomous vessels sailing the ocean ships. And what happens when you have a boat that's on autopilot and it collides with another boat? Well, we had that happen just two weeks ago. And unfortunately, seven US Navy sailors lost their lives. So what does that mean for the future? Come join us and find out. You can find tech in trade on Stitcher, iTunes and on Google Play music. Back to you, Tom. Thank you, Jim. And of course, Jim definitely interested in following Merisk being affected by this ransomware as well. We move on to the next thing that Tom forgot to add to the sound board, which I was hoping you'd have more to say about tech in trade. But I guess. Oh, I apologize. No, no, I said. I think Big Jim is an awesome human being. And he certainly does not abuse his market dominance on kindness. Now, we have a call from Jake Bulls. He's the morning news anchor at KFDI. He has a question for us about smart speakers. Hey, Tom and Patrick, looking forward to hearing your discussion today about the EU slapping that huge fine on Google. But I've got a different question. Here at work, we just started doing flash briefings every few hours. We're the first in our local news market to do a flash briefing that isn't read by in text to speech program, and it's pretty cool so far. It's still hard for me to tell, though, if it's a fad or if the flash briefings and echo devices in general are going to have the same kind of staying power as podcasts. Since we're just starting this last week, we don't have the numbers on how many people are listening. But based on your experience with Daily Tech headlines or the flash briefings you listen to, do you think they're here to stay or are they going to pod fade or echo fade or flash fade? There we go. Thanks. Patrick, what do you think? So, well, first, Jake, incredible radio voice. I wish I had that voice. Second, I'm not sure what a flash briefing is. On the Amazon echo, you can say play my flash briefing and it will play whatever you've selected to be your flash briefing. So in the US, you can choose NPR or the BBC or Daily Tech headlines. There's a bunch of different options that it will it will play you whatever the most recently updated version of them is. I really like that. And it's usually pretty quick, I imagine. Yeah, they have to be less than five minutes. And they prefer that they be at least once a day so that they're kept fresh. Yeah, no, I think it's it's pretty cool. It fits with the with the the context of these, you know, the Amazon Echo and these kinds of devices. I suspect that they will be around as long as those are around. Yeah, I think it will be around for a while. Yeah, I think smart speakers won't always be around, though. Though they'll sort of permeate into your other devices somehow. You'll always need speakers, though. And they'll always be smart, is my guess. So maybe. Finally, Tinas in Cape Town wrote in regards to connectivity in Africa. We talked about the study yesterday that said that you can't just do connectivity, have to do other things if you really want to get people to take advantage of the connectivity. Tinas said connectivity is such a loaded word in this instance. Connectivity in Africa is driven by mobile because of the lack of fixed line. Both of that connectivity is 2G and 3G capable devices because 4G devices are too expensive for the bulk of Africans. So if you want to understand as to why being connected does not magically dawn the age of digital creation, it is because it is still a choice between being able to eat and being connected for the majority of Africans. Yeah, I mean, it is still a choice. I'm guessing I'm not 100 percent sure, but I'm guessing that it was a lot more expensive before. And, you know, that increase in connectivity is bringing slowly, too slowly, but it's bringing the prices down. So it doesn't happen overnight, but it might be one of those, you know, the famous saying that technologists tend to overestimate what can happen in two years and underestimate what can happen in 10. Maybe we're still at two. Yeah, no, it's a really good point. And I would amend what Tennis wrote. He said it's a choice between being able to eat and being connected, apparently not as much because the study said, hey, connectivity has spread. It's everywhere. Is digital content creation also spreading? And so it may be that like, yeah, I can afford to be connected. I can't afford to spend time creating content because I got to eat, right? And I think that's still a fair point either way. Thank you, Patrick Beige, Frenchspin.com, the place to go to find out what Patrick is up to. What have you been doing there lately? I guess I would point people to the Filet S Club, which is a show where I get people from different countries, different parts of the world. And we discuss what's been happening in this year world on our planet. And we get different opinions, different ideas, different views on the things that have been happening. And this time we talked about, well, President Trump and you might be surprised by the nature of our conversation, as well as the representation of women and some, well, different things, including Wonder Woman and how people consider that movie. It was a really interesting conversation. I encourage you to go listen to that show. It's called the Filet S Club. It's available on Frenchspin.com. And in every excellent podcast app you are using right now. I really liked it when your guest, Owen J.J. Stone, called his daughter over to ask her about Wonder Woman. That was that was an excellent moment in Filet S Club history. It was very cool. I was, you know, a little bit disappointed that she didn't love it. That was one of the twists. Yeah, but it's the way she answered that's that you got to check out. So check it out Frenchspin.com. Hey, thanks to everybody who gives a little value back to this show for the value they get for it. That's how we work. We don't take ads and and we just say if you're enjoying the show, we just ask you give a little bit of that value back. Eddie Vassallo, Daryl Wright, Angelique C. Murray all have done that. Thank you to them and every single person who supports us at patreon.com slash DTNS. Programming note this Friday's episode will be an hour earlier. If you listen live, we'll be doing it from Nerdtacular in Salt Lake City. So this Friday, 3 30 Eastern 1930 UTC. Our email addresses feedback at daily tech news show dot com. We're live tomorrow and normally at 4 30 Eastern 2030 UTC at alpha geek radio dot com and diamond club dot TV. We're at facebook dot com slash daily tech news show and our website is daily tech news show dot com back tomorrow with Scott Johnson and special guest Rob Reed. Talk to you then show is part of the frog pants network. Get more at frog pants dot com. Bob hopes you have enjoyed this program. Oh, also the Philias Club. Why the Netherlands doesn't need a government. They'll be fine. They'll be fine. It's like 14 people anyway, right? Well, if you only count Holland. All right. Roger is balancing Ellie and trying to get his mic back on. So we'll start to get into the showbot dot TV headlines. Patrick, you should go to sleep though. Yeah, I'm going to. Thank you very much. That was awesome and get some sleep. And I'll see you on Thursday in a couple of days. Yeah. All right, then. Tom speaks Patrick Flales arms. I wasn't watching the video close enough. I guess. Can you hear me? Nothing. Yeah, I can hear you. Yeah. OK. Where are you going? Europe want to cry patch all the things. Nixon may have gone to China, but Zuckerberg doesn't need it. We are getting into opinion. Then Patrick disagrees with Tom's disagreement. I got to like that one. Apple comes to censor modic. Where's the Google? There's Google takes takes Google off of Google. EU says Google can't prefer Google services on Google. EU shopping for a solution. The EU doesn't trust to Google. Digital herd immunity. Two hosts enter one host leaves. I like Patrick says the EU is right. Tom disagrees. That one's pretty good too. OK. I agree with you, Tom, if that makes you feel better. Well, no, I'm not settled on that one. I'm still looking. It's not Petia. It's not Petia. No, no, I mean, I agree that you disagree with Patrick. Oh, I agree with your disagree. Oh, I see. I see what you're saying. I don't want to relitigate that case, but Patrick had had really good points. No, he did. I mean, part of it is a perspective. Yeah, issue. He did play the American card on me. I never played the French card in them. I'm just saying you should. You should play dirty. I played it before. I'm not saying I'm above it. I'm just saying I didn't this time. I don't believe I'm above anything. I just believe that one should maintain the level of discourse at which things don't go crazy. I just don't find the shopping thing. And I was having a hard time really expressing it properly. I just don't find that the shopping thing is it's not compelling enough. I mean, how many comparisons, first of all, I mean, and we didn't really get into this side of it. Is it Google's job to promote other search engines, too? I mean, when you search for Bing, when you search search engine, what do you get on on Google? Let's see, search engine. Let's try using what we're using. Duck, duck, go. I don't know. I mean, it's not the best argument, but I just I just don't think this is this is just to me. It feels the gut feeling is this is how the Internet works, right? You have if you're going to have ads, you're going to have ads for individual products. And if you're going to have ads for individual products, you want them to show up well, and you want them to show up next to product searches. That's just the way it works. And this doesn't this seems typical for a way a search engine should work, not a separate product. Agree. I guess that's where I was trying to get is like, I don't think a comparison search service is a separate product. It's just a competing product. Right. I would be back in 30 seconds. OK, yeah, go. Yeah, the whole purpose of a search engine is find things on the Internet. From my observation point, Patrick started to say that the EU wasn't right in its approach, but then Tom backed him into a defensive stance. Well, that happens a lot too. And that's way more interesting than that's just agreeing the whole time. But we didn't make up our positions. I honestly don't think the EU has ever really understood the way the Internet works as dark redeemer. That is not unusual governments. That's not an EU thing. Governments generally don't really internalize how Internet works. Your. What are you, a baby? Are you talking to your baby? Yeah. Just chew the apple. I'm sorry. What Roger is trying to say is when Apple comes out with a new operating system, improve it, you need to chew over it and understand what they're trying to do. Maybe I should have cut the pieces smaller. Ah, he's saying if there were more market segments, we wouldn't have this abusive dominance problem. I like this. I like this. Roger talks to his child and Tom turns it into analysis. This could be our new show. Good. Just eat the pieces. That's true. We're like, I understand. You just have it in your mouth. I don't want you to choke on it. No, of course not. Oh, another programming note for you live people. Rich Strathilino will be hosting the show on Thursday while I'm traveling. And then I'll be back to host the show from Nerticular on Friday. And then next week, Monday is likely to be a casual episode with Roger and I. A lot of the US has the day off, including Veronica. Tuesday will be no regular episode. It will be headlines only of some sort. And then Wednesday will be back to normal for the foreseeable future. Oh, and also on Friday when you're from Nertac, this can be an hour sooner. Is it not? Yeah, I mentioned that in the main show, but it's worth repeating. It'll be at 1230 Pacific, 330 Eastern, 1930 UTC on Friday. No Justin Robert Young on Thursday. Justin Robert Young, however, will be from Nertacular on Friday. So you get Patrick and Justin and Scott. Scott will be doing double duty this week on Friday from Nertacular. And then also, that's going to be our analysts' hangout. We're going to do the DTNS on Friday at Nertacular. It's a 90 minute panel segment, though. So as soon as we're done with DTNS, which we'll probably try to keep around 30 minutes, we will then go into the quarterly analysts hangout, which we do once a quarter. Once upon a quarter. And yeah, we're going to try to get Len in there. It's always a matter of getting the technology to work. We've been able to get the technology to work in the past, so fingers crossed. Beatmaster says, internet companies don't get laws. I think they get laws just fine. They just, I'm quibbling with what you're saying, because I agree with what you're trying to say. They get the laws. They just try to find ways around them. It's not like it's a different thing. The government, I just don't think, gets, they're looking at it as, well, that's a product, and that's a product, and that's a product, and that's just not the way the internet. Well, they look at that model. Whereas the internet companies know perfectly well what the law is. They're just trying to sneak around. Push it. Yeah. Try to push. Do, do, do, do. Oh, wait, can't do that. Push it real good. That was fair use. The internet companies reject your laws and substitute their own, so it's T2T2, yeah. Exactly, they work under the MythBusters framework. And he said sometimes, fair enough, not all internet companies always trying to get around the law. So, you know, I think sometimes we like to beat up governments for not getting it, but frankly, if you're not working in technology all the time, it isn't obvious what the stuff is. I mean, think about the first time you heard about Twitter or Facebook and whether you immediately got it. Now imagine the entire world doing that, and you're not living with it. You're not working with it all the time. It's hard. It's hard to keep up. However, it's their job to keep up, so I'm not going to let them off the hook. I'm just saying, this is not something that's natural. You shouldn't say, like, oh, just living, you should know that, and you need to work at it. And they need to work at it. They should. I don't even think they're not making an effort to work at it. Just doesn't always work. I think there needs to be more partnership and understanding these things. There is. I mean, what's interesting is it's not just technology. And I mean, you can pick, I mean, there's a multitude of issues out there. Very good point. Like, any specialized industry, how many of us understand the intricacies of logistics and shipping? We probably think we understand more than we do, but then every time I talk to Jim Thatcher, I realize that there's way more that I don't understand. I mean, health is health. Like, the medical industry is a huge one. Education is another. I mean, there's just a lot of, you know, everyone assumes they understand it because they view their particular slice of their experience with whatever that industry is as all of it. That's not often the case. Even areas of technology, those of us who work with technology, I don't understand exactly how transit and the backbones work. I have a very rough understanding, but I rely on a particularly good friend of mine to explain that stuff to me. Sometimes he sends me things and he's like, this is really important. And I'm like, good. I'm glad you said that because I'm not sure that I could have determined that on my own. So it's, you need to rely on the expertise of people who are in those venues, which is why I love our audience because we have people who are willing to say, oh yeah, you know what, I work in that area. So let me tell you why it works that way. All right, folks, well, that is it for today's episode. Thank you so much for joining us. And like I said, we'll be back tomorrow with Scott Johnson and Rob Reed. See you then.