US tech companies can't afford to lose 450 million users, of which the majority are high-earning individuals, compared to the rest of the World.
Financially, it is not viable to the US nor politically, because it would make Europe create better ties with China, as we are seeing in other areas outside of tech, and that would go against US foreign policy.
As mentioned, that only matters if the person with the finger on the button cares about that. This reasoning doesn't work in two instances:
- The person who can trigger this has enough power and enough lack of perspective or desire to gain from it, he will do it anyway (or on a whim).
- Europe and the US get into a very high level of conflict where gaining an advantage would be so massively decisive that it would be worth the cost.
The two are unlikely but not impossible, especially with the probability increasing due to the recent political shift. Also, risk management deals with likelihood X impact, and in that case, the impact is doomsday for us.
On top of that, even without going all in, such deep dependencies make any strong-arming during any negotiation easier.
So, the reason for solving this is the same reason we have the nuclear bomb, really. Not to be at the mercy of a nation that can turn on us at any moment.
Excellent article! I've already had this debate with a colleague. Given how much we depend on the US for digital services, we can't get into a conflict with them. Now, I can build on this article. :)
China moved to in-house technologies (RiskV chips, government Linux, cloud services on China land). Can't tell how long did it take and how much did it cost. If this is a matter of national security, then IMO government should lead this movement.
US tech companies can't afford to lose 450 million users, of which the majority are high-earning individuals, compared to the rest of the World.
Financially, it is not viable to the US nor politically, because it would make Europe create better ties with China, as we are seeing in other areas outside of tech, and that would go against US foreign policy.
As mentioned, that only matters if the person with the finger on the button cares about that. This reasoning doesn't work in two instances:
- The person who can trigger this has enough power and enough lack of perspective or desire to gain from it, he will do it anyway (or on a whim).
- Europe and the US get into a very high level of conflict where gaining an advantage would be so massively decisive that it would be worth the cost.
The two are unlikely but not impossible, especially with the probability increasing due to the recent political shift. Also, risk management deals with likelihood X impact, and in that case, the impact is doomsday for us.
On top of that, even without going all in, such deep dependencies make any strong-arming during any negotiation easier.
So, the reason for solving this is the same reason we have the nuclear bomb, really. Not to be at the mercy of a nation that can turn on us at any moment.
I'm not denying that alternatives are needed, but it would not be the first time when the "man in charge" reversed his decision 180 degrees.
At the end of the day, money talks, and Europe is a big marketplace.
Sure, I certainly don't hope for it, but I'm convinced being prepared should be on the radar.
Thanks for the great article. Now I also believe we should concern the situation.
Excellent article! I've already had this debate with a colleague. Given how much we depend on the US for digital services, we can't get into a conflict with them. Now, I can build on this article. :)
The best article I saw in years. Thank you, really.
China moved to in-house technologies (RiskV chips, government Linux, cloud services on China land). Can't tell how long did it take and how much did it cost. If this is a matter of national security, then IMO government should lead this movement.