China Smart US Dumb: An AI Content Marketing Push?
December 1, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I have been monitoring the China Smart, US Dumb campaign for some time. Most of the methods are below the radar; for example, YouTube videos featuring industrious people who seem to be similar to the owner of the Chinese restaurant not far from my office or posts on social media that remind me of the number of Chinese patents achieved each year. Sometimes influencers tout the wonders of a China-developed electric vehicle. None of these sticks out like a semi mainstream media push.
Thanks, Venice.ai, not exactly the hutong I had in mind but close enough for chicken kung pao in Kentucky.
However, that background “China Smart, US Dumb” messaging may be cranking up. I don’t know for sure, but this NBC News (not the Miss Now news) report caught my attention. Here’s the title:
The subtitle is snappier than Girl Fixes Generator, but you judge for yourself:
AI Startups Are Seeing Record Valuations, But Many Are Building on a Foundation of Cheap, Free-to-Download Chinese AI Models.
The write up states:
Surveying the state of America’s artificial intelligence landscape earlier this year, Misha Laskin was concerned. Laskin, a theoretical physicist and machine learning engineer who helped create some of Google’s most powerful AI models, saw a growing embrace among American AI companies of free, customizable and increasingly powerful “open” AI models.
We have a Xoogler who is concerned. What troubles the wizardly Misha Laskin? NBC News intones in a Stone Phillips’ tone:
Over the past year, a growing share of America’s hottest AI startups have turned to open Chinese AI models that increasingly rival, and sometimes replace, expensive U.S. systems as the foundation for American AI products.
Ever cautious, NBC News asserts:
The growing embrace could pose a problem for the U.S. AI industry. Investors have staked tens of billions on OpenAI and Anthropic, wagering that leading American artificial intelligence companies will dominate the world’s AI market. But the increasing use of free Chinese models by American companies raises questions about how exceptional those models actually are — and whether America’s pursuit of closed models might be misguided altogether.
Bingo! The theme is China smart and the US “misguided.” And not just misguided, but “misguided altogether.”
NBC News slams the point home with more force that the generator repairing Asian female closes the generator’s housing:
in the past year, Chinese companies like Deepseek and Alibaba have made huge technological advancements. Their open-source products now closely approach or even match the performance of leading closed American models in many domains, according to metrics tracked by Artificial Analysis, an independent AI benchmarking company.
I know from personal conversations that most of the people with whom I interreact don’t care. Most just accept the belief that the US is chugging along. Not doing great. Not doing terribly. Just moving along. Therefore, I don’t expect you, gentle reader, to think much of this NBC News report.
That’s why the China Smart, US Dumb messaging is effective. But this single example raises the question, “What’s the next major messaging outlet to cover this story?”
Stephen E Arnold, December 1, 2025
AI ASICs: China May Have Plans for AI Software and AI Hardware
December 1, 2025
Another dinobaby original. If there is what passes for art, you bet your bippy, that I used smart software. I am a grandpa but not a Grandma Moses.
I try to avoid wild and crazy generalizations, but I want to step back from the US-centric AI craziness and ask a question, “Why is the solution to anticipated AI growth more data centers?” Data centers seem like a trivial part of the broader AI challenge to some of the venture firms, BAIT (big AI technology) companies, and some online pundits. Building a data center is a cheap building filled with racks of computers, some specialized gizmos, a connection to the local power company, and a handful of network engineers. Bingo. You are good to go.
But what happens if the compute is provided by Application-Specific Integrated Circuits or ASICs? When ASICs became available for crypto currency mining, the individual or small-scale miner was no longer attractive. What happened is that large, industrialized crypto mining farms pushed out the individual miners or mom-and-pop data centers.
The Ghana ASIC roll out appears to have overwhelmed the person taking orders. Demand for cheap AI compute is strong. Is that person in the blue suit from Nvidia? Thanks, MidJourney. Good enough, the mark of excellence today.
Amazon, Google, and probably other BAIT outfits want to design their own AI chips. The problem is similar to moving silos of corn to a processing plant with a couple of pick up trucks. Capacity at chip fabrication facilities is constrained. Big chip ideas today may not be possible on the time scale set by the team designing NFL arena size data centers in Rhode Island- or Mississippi-type locations.
A Chinese startup founded by a former Google engineer claims to have created a new ultra-efficient and relatively low cost AI chip using older manufacturing techniques. Meanwhile, Google itself is now reportedly considering whether to make its own specialized AI chips available to buy. Together, these chips could represent the start of a new processing paradigm which could do for the AI industry what ASICs did for bitcoin mining.
What those ASICs did for crypto mining was shift calculations from individuals to large, centralized data centers. Yep, centralization is definitely better. Big is a positive as well.
The write up adds:
The Chinese startup is Zhonghao Xinying. Its Ghana chip is claimed to offer 1.5 times the performance of Nvidia’s A100 AI GPU while reducing power consumption by 75%. And it does that courtesy of a domestic Chinese chip manufacturing process that the company says is "an order of magnitude lower than that of leading overseas GPU chips." By "an order or magnitude lower," the assumption is that means well behind in technological terms given China’s home-grown chip manufacturing is probably a couple of generations behind the best that TSMC in Taiwan can offer and behind even what the likes of Intel and Samsung can offer, too.
The idea is that if these chips become widely available, they won’t be very good. Probably like the first Chinese BYD electric vehicles. But after some iterative engineering, the Chinese chips are likely to improve. If these improvements coincide with the turn on of the massive data centers the BAIT outfits are building, there might be rethinking required by the Silicon Valley wizards.
Several observations will be offered but these are probably not warranted by anyone other than myself:
- China might subsidize its home grown chips. The Googler is not the only person in the Middle Kingdom trying to find a way around the US approach to smart software. Cheap wins or is disruptive until neutralized in some way.
- New data centers based on the Chinese chips might find customers interested in stepping away from dependence on a technology that most AI companies are using for “me too”, imitative AI services. Competition is good, says Silicon Valley, until it impinges on our business. At that point, touch-to-predict actions come into play.
- Nvidia and other AI-centric companies might find themselves trapped in AI strategies that are comparable to a large US aircraft carrier. These ships are impressive, but it takes time to slow them down, turn them, and steam in a new direction. If Chinese AI ASICs hit the market and improve rapidly, the captains of the US-flagged Transformer vessels will have their hands full and financial officers clamoring for the leaderships’ attention.
Net net: Ponder this question: What is Ghana gonna do?
Stephen E Arnold, December 1, 2025
Has Big Tech Taught the EU to Be Flexible?
November 26, 2025
![green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]](https://www.arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/green-dino_thumb_thumb3-2.gif "green-dino_thumb_thumb[3]")
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
Here’s a question that arose in a lunch meeting today (November 19, 2025): Has Big Tech brought the European Union to heel? What’s your answer?
The “trust” outfit Thomson Reuters published “EU Eases AI, Privacy Rules As Critics Warn of Caving to Big Tech.”
European Union regulators demonstrate their willingness to be flexible. These exercises are performed in the privacy of a conference room in Brussels. The class is taught by those big tech leaders who have demonstrated their ability to chart a course and keep it. Thanks, Venice.ai. How about your interface? Yep, good enough I think.
The write up reported:
The EU Commission’s “Digital Omnibus”, which faces debate and votes from European countries, proposed to delay stricter rules on use of AI in “high-risk” areas until late 2027, ease rules around cookies and enable more use of data.
Ah, back peddling seems to be the new Zen moment for the European Union.
The “trust” outfit explains why, sort of:
Europe is scrabbling to balance tough rules with not losing more ground in the global tech race, where companies in the United States and Asia are streaking ahead in artificial intelligence and chips.
Several factors are causing this rethink. I am not going to walk the well-worn path called “Privacy Lane.” The reason for the softening is not a warm summer day. The EU is concerned about:
- Losing traction in the slippery world of smart software
- Failing to cultivate AI start ups with more than a snowball’s chance of surviving in the Dante’s inferno of the competitive market
- Keeping AI whiz kids from bailing out of European mathematics, computer science, and physics research centers for some work in Sillycon Valley or delightful Z Valley (Zhongguancun, China, in case you did not know).
From my vantage point in rural Kentucky, it certainly appears that the European Union is fearful of missing out on either the boom or the bust associated with smart software.
Several observations are warranted:
- BAITers are likely to win. (BAIT means Big AI Tech in my lingo.) Why? Money and FOMO
- Other governments are likely to adapt to the needs of the BAITers. Why? Money and FOMO
- The BAIT outfits will be ruthless and interpret the EU’s new flexibility as weakness.
Net net: Worth watching. What do you think? Money? Fear? A combo?
Stephen E Arnold, November 26, 2025
Tim Apple, Granny Scarfs, and Snooping
November 24, 2025
Another dinobaby post. No AI unless it is an image. This dinobaby is not Grandma Moses, just Grandpa Arnold.
I spotted a write in a source I usually ignore. I don’t know if the write up is 100 percent on the money. Let’s assume for the purpose of my dinobaby persona that it indeed is. The write up is “Apple to Pay $95 Million Settle Suit Accusing Siri Of Snoopy Eavesdropping.” Like Apple’s incessant pop ups about my not logging into Facetime, iMessage, and iCloud, Siri being in snoop mode is not surprising to me. Tim Apple, it seems, is winding down. The pace of innovation, in my opinion, is tortoise like. I haven’t nothing against turtle like creatures, but a granny scarf for an iPhone. That’s innovation, almost as cutting edge as the candy colored orange iPhone. Stunning indeed.
Is Frederick the Great wearing an Apple Granny Scarf? Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
What does the write up say about this $95 million sad smile?
Apple has agreed to pay $95 million to settle a lawsuit accusing the privacy-minded company of deploying its virtual assistant Siri to eavesdrop on people using its iPhone and other trendy devices. The proposed settlement filed Tuesday in an Oakland, California, federal court would resolve a 5-year-old lawsuit revolving around allegations that Apple surreptitiously activated Siri to record conversations through iPhones and other devices equipped with the virtual assistant for more than a decade.
Apple has managed to work the legal process for five years. Good work, legal eagles. Billable hours and legal moves generate income if my understanding is correct. Also, the notion of “surreptitiously” fascinates me. Why do the crazy screen nagging? Just activate what you want and remove the users’ options to disable the function. If you want to be surreptitious, the basic concept as I understand it is to operate so others don’t know what you are doing. Good try, but you failed to implement appropriate secretive operational methods. Better luck next time or just enable what you want and prevent users from turning off the data vacuum cleaner.
The write up notes:
Apple isn’t acknowledging any wrongdoing in the settlement, which still must be approved by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White. Lawyers in the case have proposed scheduling a Feb. 14 court hearing in Oakland to review the terms.
I interpreted this passage to mean that the Judge has to do something. I assume that lawyers will do something. Whoever brought the litigation will do something. It strikes me that Apple will not be writing a check any time soon, nor will the fine change how Tim Apple has set up that outstanding Apple entity to harvest money, data, and good vibes.
I have several questions:
- Will Apple offer a complementary Granny Scarf to each of its attorneys working this case?
- Will Apple’s methods of harvesting data be revealed in a white paper written by either [a] Apple, [b] an unhappy Apple employee, or [c] a researcher laboring in the vineyards of Stanford University or San Jose State?
- Will regulatory authorities and the US judicial folks take steps to curtail the “we do what we want” approach to privacy and security?
I have answers for each of these questions. Here we go:
- No. Granny Scarfs are sold out
- No. No one wants to be hassled endlessly by Apple’s legions of legal eagles
- No. As the recent Meta decision about WhatsApp makes clear, green light, tech bros. Move fast, break things. Just do it.
Stephen E Arnold, November 24, 2025
Danes May Ban Social Media for Kids
November 17, 2025
Australia’s ban on social media for kids under 16 goes into effect December 10. Now another country is pursuing a similar approach. Euro News reports, “Denmark Wants to Ban Access to Social Media for Children Under 15.” We learn:
“The move, led by the Ministry of Digitalisation, would set the age limit for access to social media but give some parents – after a specific assessment – the right to give consent to let their children access social media from age 13. Such a measure would be among the most sweeping steps yet by a European Union government to address concerns about the use of social media among teens and younger children, which has drawn concerns in many parts of an increasingly online world. … The Danish digitalisation ministry statement said the age minimum of 15 would be introduced for ‘certain’ social media, though it did not specify which ones.”
If the Danes follow Australia’s example, those platforms could include TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, X, Instagram, and YouTube. The write-up describes the motivation behind the push:
“A coalition of lawmakers from the political right, left and centre ‘are making it clear that children should not be left alone in a digital world where harmful content and commercial interests are too much a part of shaping their everyday lives and childhoods,’ the ministry said. ‘Children and young people have their sleep disrupted, lose their peace and concentration, and experience increasing pressure from digital relationships where adults are not always present,’ it said. ‘This is a development that no parent, teacher, or educator can stop alone’.”
That may be true. And it is certainly true that social media poses certain dangers to children and teens. But how would the ban be enforced? The statement does not say. Teens, after all, famously find ways to get around security measures. If only there had been a way for platforms to know about these risks sooner.
Cynthia Murrell, November 17, 2025
Despite Assurances, AI Firms’ Future May Depend on Replacing Human Labor
November 17, 2025
For centuries, the market economy has been powered by workers. Human ones. Sure, they have tended to get the raw end of any deal, but at least their participation has been necessary. Now one industry has a powerful incentive to change that. Futurism reports, “The AI Industry Can’t Profit Unless It Replaces Human Jobs, Warns Man Who Helped Create It.” Writer Joe Wilkins tells us:
“According to Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton — often called ‘the godfather of AI’ for his contributions to the tech — the future for AI in its current form is likely to be an economic dystopia. ‘I think the big companies are betting on it causing massive job replacement by AI, because that’s where the big money is going to be,’ he warned in a recent interview with Bloomberg. Hinton was commenting on enormous investments in the AI industry, despite a total lack of profit so far. By typical investment standards, AI should be a pariah.”
As an illustration, Wilkins notes OpenAI alone lost $11.5 billion in revenue just last quarter. The write-up continues:
“Asked by Bloomberg whether these jaw dropping investments could ever pay off without eviscerating the job market, Hinton’s reply was telling. ‘I believe that it can’t,’ he said. ‘I believe that to make money you’re going to have to replace human labor.’ For many who study labor and economics, it’s not a statement to be made lightly. Since it first emerged out of feudalism centuries ago, the market economy has relied on the exploitation of human labor — looms, steel mills, and automobile plants straight up can’t run without it.”
Until now, apparently. Or soon. In the Bloomberg interview, Hinton observes the fate of workers depends on “how we organize society.” Will the out-of-work masses starve? Or will society meet everyone’s basic needs, freeing us to live fulfilling lives? And who gets to make those decisions?
Cynthia Murrell, November 14, 2025
US Government Procurement Changes: Like Silicon Valley, Really? I Mean For Sure?
November 12, 2025
Another short essay from a real and still-alive dinobaby. If you see an image, we used AI. The dinobaby is not an artist like Grandma Moses.
I learned about the US Department of War overhaul of its procurement processes by reading “The Department of War Just Shot the Accountants and Opted for Speed.” Rumblings of procurement hassles have been reaching me for years. The cherished methods of capture planning, statement of work consulting, proposal writing, and evaluating bids consumes many billable hours by consultants. The processes involve thousands of government professionals: Lawyers, financial analysts, technical specialists, administrative professionals, and consultants. I can’t omit the consultants.
According to the essay written by Steve Blank (a person unfamiliar to me):
Last week the Department of War finally killed the last vestiges of Robert McNamara’s 1962 Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS). The DoW has pivoted from optimizing cost and performance to delivering advanced weapons at speed.
The write up provides some of the history of the procurement process enshrined in such documents as FAR or the Federal Acquisition Regulations. If you want the details, Mr. Blank provides I urge you to read his essay in full.
I want to highlight what I think is an important point to the recent changes. Mr. Bloom writes:
The war in Ukraine showed that even a small country could produce millions of drones a year while continually iterating on their design to match changes on the battlefield. (Something we couldn’t do.) Meanwhile, commercial technology from startups and scaleups (fueled by an immense pool of private capital) has created off-the-shelf products, many unmatched by our federal research development centers or primes, that can be delivered at a fraction of the cost/time. But the DoW acquisition system was impenetrable to startups. Our Acquisition system was paralyzed by our own impossible risk thresholds, its focus on process not outcomes, and became risk averse and immoveable.
Based on my experience, much of it working as a consultant on different US government projects, the horrific “special operation” delivered a number of important lessons about modern warfare. Reading between the lines of the passage cited above, two important items of information emerged from what I view as an illegal international event:
- Under certain conditions human creativity can blossom and then grow into major business operations. I would suggest that Ukraine’s innovations in the use of drones, how the drones are deployed in battle conditions, and how the basic “drone idea” reduce the effectiveness of certain traditional methods of warfare
- Despite disruptions to transportation and certain third-party products, Ukraine demonstrated that just-in-time production facilities can be made operational in weeks, sometimes days.
- The combination of innovative ideas, battlefield testing, and right-sized manufacturing demonstrated that a relatively small country can become a world-class leader in modern warfighting equipment, software, and systems.
Russia, with its ponderous planning and procurement process, has become the fall guy to a president who was a stand up comedian. Who is laughing now? It is not the perpetrators of the “special operation.” The joke, as some might say, is on individuals who created the “special operation.”
Mr. Blank states about the new procurement system:
To cut through the individual acquisition silos, the services are creating Portfolio Acquisition Executives (PAEs). Each Portfolio Acquisition Executive (PAE) is responsible for the entire end-to-process of the different Acquisition functions: Capability Gaps/Requirements, System Centers, Programming, Acquisition, Testing, Contracting and Sustainment. PAEs are empowered to take calculated risks in pursuit of rapidly delivering innovative solutions.
My view of this type of streamlining is that it will become less flexible over time. I am not sure when the ossification will commence, but bureaucratic systems, no matter how well designed, morph and become traditional bureaucratic systems. I am not going to trot out the academic studies about the impact of process, auditing, and legal oversight on any efficient process. I will plainly state that the bureaucracies to which I have been exposed in the US, Europe, and Asia are fundamentally the same.
Can the smart software helping enable the Silicon Valley approach to procurement handle the load and keep the humanoids happy? Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
Ukraine is an outlier when it comes to the organization of its warfighting technology. Perhaps other countries if subjected to a similar type of “special operation” would behave as the Ukraine has. Whether I was giving lectures for the Japanese government or dealing with issues related to materials science for an entity on Clarendon Terrace, the approach, rules, regulations, special considerations, etc. were generally the same.
The question becomes, “Can a new procurement system in an environment not at risk of extinction demonstrate the speed, creativity, agility, and productivity of the Ukrainian model?”
My answer is, “No.”
Mr. Blank writes before he digs into the new organizational structure:
The DoW is being redesigned to now operate at the speed of Silicon Valley, delivering more, better, and faster. Our warfighters will benefit from the innovation and lower cost of commercial technology, and the nation will once again get a military second to none.
This is an important phrase: Silicon Valley. It is the model for making the US Department of War into a more flexible and speedy entity, particularly with regard to procurement, the use of smart software (artificial intelligence), and management methods honed since Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard sparked the garage myth.
Silicon Valley has been an model for many organizations and countries. However, who thinks much about the Silicon Fen? I sure don’t. I would wager a slice of cheese that many readers of this blog post have never, ever heard of Sophia Antipolis. Everyone wants to be a Silicon Valley and high-technology, move fast and break things outfit.
But we have but one Silicon Valley. Now the question is, “Will the US government be a successful Silicon Valley, or will it fizzle out?” Based on my experience, I want to go out on a very narrow limb and suggest:
- Cronyism was important to Silicon Valley, particularly for funding and lawyering. The “new” approach to Department of War procurement is going to follow a similar path.
- As the stakes go up, growth becomes more important than fiscal considerations. As a result, the cost of becoming bigger, faster, cheaper spikes. Costs for the majority of Silicon Valley companies kill off most start ups. The failure rate is high, and it is exacerbated by the need of the winners to continue to win.
- Silicon Valley management styles produce some negative consequences. Often overlooked are such modern management methods as [a] a lack of common sense, [b] decisions based on entitlement or short term gains, and [c] a general indifference to the social consequences of an innovation, a product, or a service.
If I look forward based on my deeply flawed understanding of this Silicon Valley revolution I see monopolistic behavior emerging. Bureaucracies will emerge because people working for other people create rules, procedures, and processes to minimize the craziness of doing the go fast and break things activities. Workers create bureaucracies to deal with chaos, not cause chaos.
Mr. Blank’s essay strikes me as generally supportive of this reinvention of the Federal procurement process. He concludes with:
Let’s hope these changes stick.
My personal view is that they won’t. Ukraine’s created a wartime Silicon Valley in a real-time, shoot-and-survive conflict. The urgency is not parked in a giant building in Washington, DC, or a Silicon Valley dream world. A more pragmatic approach is to partition procurement methods. Apply Silicon Valley thinking in certain classes of procurement; modify the FAR to streamline certain processes; and leave some of the procedures unchanged.
AI is a go fast and break things technology. It also hallucinates. Drones from Silicon Valley companies don’t work in Ukraine. I know because someone with first hand information told me. What will the new methods of procurement deliver? Answer: Drones that won’t work in a modern asymmetric conflict. With decisions involving AI, I sure don’t want to find myself in a situation about which smart software makes stuff up or operates on digital mushrooms.
Stephen E Arnold, November 12, 2025
Myanmar Direct Action: Online Cyber Crime Meets Kinetics
November 7, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I read “Stragglers from Myanmar Scam Center Raided by Army Cross into Thailand As Buildings Are Blown Up.” In August 2024, France took Pavel Durov at a Paris airport. The direct action worked. Telegram has been wobbling. Myanmar, perhaps learning from the French decision to arrest the Mr. Durov, shut down an online fraud operation. The Associated Press reported on October 28, 2025: “The KK Park site, identified by Thai officials and independent experts as housing a major cybercrime operation, was raided by Myanmar’s army in mid-October as part of operations starting in early September to suppress cross-border online scams and illegal gambling.”
News reports and white papers from the United Nations make clear that sites like KK Park are more like industrial estates. Dormitories, office space, and eating facilities are provided. “Workers” or captives remain within the defined area. The Golden Triangle region strikes me as a Wild West for a range of cyber crimes, including pig butchering and industrial-scale phishing.
The geographic names and the details of the different groups in an area with competing political groups can be confusing. However, what is clear is that Myanmar’s military assaulted the militia groups protecting the facilities. Reports of explosions and people fleeing the area have become public. The cited news report says that Myanmar has been a location known to be tolerant or indifferent to certain activities within its borders.
Will Myanmar take action against other facilities believed to be involved in cyber crime? KK Park is just one industrial campus from which threat actors conduct their activities. Is Myanmar’s response a signal that law enforcement is fed up with certain criminal activity and moving with directed prejudice at certain operations? Will other countries follow the French and Myanmar method?
The big question is, “What caused Myanmar to focus on KK Park?” Will Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Thailand follow French view that enough is enough and advance to physical engagement?
Stephen E Arnold, November 7, 2025
Google Needs Help from a Higher Power
October 17, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
In my opinion, there should be one digital online service. This means one search system, one place to get apps, one place to obtain real time “real” news, and one place to buy and sell advertising. Wouldn’t that make life much easier for the company who owned the “one place.” If the information in “US Supreme Court Allows Order Forcing Google to Make App Store Reforms” is accurate, Google’s dream of becoming that “one place” has been interrupted.
The write up from a trusted source reports:
The declined on Monday [October 6, 2025] to halt key parts of a judge’s order requiring Alphabet’s, Google to make major changes to its app store Play, as the company prepares to appeal a decision in a lawsuit brought by “Fortnite” maker Epic Games. The justices turned down Google’s request to temporarily freeze parts of the injunction won by Epic in its lawsuit accusing the tech giant of monopolizing how consumers access apps on Android devices and pay for transactions within apps.
Imagine the nerve of this outfit. These highly trained, respected legal professionals did not agree with Google’s rock-solid, diamond-hard arguments. Imagine a maker of electronic games screwing up one of the modules in the Google money and data machine. The nerve.
Thanks, MidJourney, good enough.
The write up adds:
Google in its Supreme Court filing said the changes would have enormous consequences for more than 100 million U.S. Android users and 500,000 developers. Google said it plans to file a full appeal to the Supreme Court by October 27, which could allow the justices to take up the case during their nine-month term that began on Monday.
The fact that the government is shut down will not halt, impair, derail, or otherwise inhibit Google’s quest for the justice it deserves. If the case can be extended, it is possible the government legal eagles will seek new opportunities in commercial enterprises or just resign due to the intellectual demands of their jobs.
The news story points out:
Google faces other lawsuits from government, consumer and commercial plaintiffs challenging its search and advertising business practices.
It is difficult to believe that a firm with such a rock solid approach to business can find itself swatting knowledge gnats. Onward to the “one service.” Is that on a Google T shirt yet?
Stephen E Arnold, October 17, 2025
The Ka-Ching Game: The EU Rings the Big Tech Cash Register Tactic
October 14, 2025
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
The unusually tinted Financial Times published another “they will pay up and change, really” write up. The article is “Meta and Apple Close to Settling EU Cases.” [Note: You have to pay to read the FT’s orange write up.] The main idea is that these U S big technology outfits are cutting deals. The objective is to show that these two firms are interested in making friends with European Commission professionals. The combination of nice talk and multi-million euro payments should do the trick. That’s the hope.
Thanks, Venice.ai. Good enough.
The cute penalty method the EU crafted involved daily financial penalties for assorted alleged business practices. The penalties had an escalator feature. If the U S big tech outfits did not comply or pretend to comply, then the EU could send an invoice for up to five percent of the firm’s gross revenues. Could the E U collect? Well, that’s another issue. If Apple leaves the E U, the elected officials would have to use an Android mobile. If Meta departed, the elected officials would have to listen to their children’s complaints about their ruined social life. I think some grandmothers would be honked if the flow of grandchildren pictures were interrupted. (Who needs this? Take the money, Christina.)
Several observations:
- The EU will take money; the EU will cook up additional rules to make the Wild West outfits come to town but mostly behave
- The U S big tech companies will write a check, issue smarmy statements, and do exactly what they want to do. Decades of regulatory inefficacy creates certain opportunities. Some U S outfits spot those and figure out how to benefit from lack of action or ineptitude
- The efforts to curtail the U S big tech companies have historically been a rinse and repeat exercise. That won’t change.
The problem for the EU with regard to the U S is different from the other challenges it faces. In my opinion, the E U like other countries is:
- Unprepared for the new services in development by U S firms. I address these in a series of lectures I am doing for some government types in Colorado. Attendance at the talks is restricted, so I can’t provide any details about these five new services hurtling toward the online markets in the U S and elsewhere
- Unable to break its cycle of clever laws, U S company behavior, and accept money. More is needed. A good example of how one country addressed a problem online took place in France. That was a positive, decisive action and will interrupt the flow of cash from fines. Perhaps more E U countries should consider this French approach?
- The Big Tech outfits are not constrained by geographic borders. In case you have not caught up with some of the ideas of Silicon Valley, may I suggest you read the enervating and somewhat weird writings of a fellow named René Gerard?
Net net: Yep, a deal. No big surprise. Will it work? Nope.
Stephen E Arnold, October 15, 2025
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
