Google To Suspend Mobile Phone Launch In China

in Japan... by FuckingNickName · 2010-01-19 02:01 · Score: 1, Offtopic

40 years ago, "made in Japan" meant a cheap, cheerful, somewhat unreliable clone. They had the technology to manufacture, but not the skill to manufacture reliably, nor the smarts to create. Then they became the cloning heroes, making faithful and reliable Western designs... and today, they innovate.

China is currently at stage 2.5, building whatever the West can throw at it, and making gradual improvements. What do you think will happen when they develop an intellectual property economy to rival the West?

Enjoy your hubris, Google, as Microsoft once enjoyed its level of control.

Re:in Japan... by AliasMarlowe · 2010-01-19 02:04 · Score: 1

...as Microsoft once enjoyed its level of control.
Jumping the gun a little, there.
We're not exactly out of Microsoft's clammy clutches yet.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Re:in Japan... by FuckingNickName · 2010-01-19 02:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Pointing out the strength of the Chinese in the world economy and making comparisons to other far Eastern nations in recent history is not off topic. This isn't a question of withdrawing from some random authoritarian state which needs Google investment and expertise, this is about getting into a spat with the largest manufacturing centre in the world, without which we wouldn't all have the cheap PCs and mobile devices that give Google such a market.
Consider where China could be in the next 20 or 30 years if it starts to adopt Western discipline in intellectual property. It has already got this far without abandoning many of its restrictive principles. Moreover, great advancement has been achieved in many centralised states... never mind, this would be implying that the Google capitalistic hero of the day is not inevitably going to win for life, so I'm fighting a losing battle.
Re:in Japan... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-19 02:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Missed a step: US invasion and installation of democratic government.
The PRC will certainly be a major player in the years to come, but unless they can work out their human rights abuses and their stance on things like Tibet they're only setting themselves up to pop like the USSR (or worse).
You can't expect to educate AND oppress the plebs at the same time.
Re:in Japan... by jeffmeden · 2010-01-19 03:12 · Score: 1

What happens when they build an intellectual property economy based on nothing but stolen intellectual property, you ask? It is inevitable, but that doesn't mean Google has to like it. They are smart to keep their treasure to themselves; the more they expose by doing business in China, the more will just get stolen and used against them. China has expressed no interest in protecting IP rights, why should Google just roll over and say 'well it will happen eventually, why not sacrifice all my IP in the mean time?'
Re:in Japan... by FuckingNickName · 2010-01-19 03:22 · Score: 1

Are you even reading the same site as me? Read through 100 random well-moderated Slashdot posts to see whether they are "balanced". Each comment exists to make a particular point, not to present a balanced summary of all views.
Everyone agrees that China egregiously abuses environmental, human, intellectual property and business rights, but you don't need to shout "also, Satan is evil!" everytime you are discussing Satan, as if respecting some sort of religious protocol. The point is that "Satan" is becoming ever more powerful, and would carry on just fine without one particular gorilla. Big businesses familiar with Chinese political culture have been doing business in China since before Page and Brin were born.
(And appreciate the sentiment, AC. It appears I have "excellent" karma, probably because I normally do not start new discussions but get involved in long threads where people are less interested in moderating and more in discussing.)
Re:in Japan... by javilon · 2010-01-19 03:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

We're not exactly out of Microsoft's clammy clutches yet.
Not indeed. And I think a most important part of this story is Microsoft shutting up and taking it from the Chinese goverment, happily.
That means that now when you use hotmail, or office live or msn, or any of the Microsoft web properties, there is a chance that not only the NSA and the US courts can access your data, but also unelected and corrupt Chinese officials.

--

When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Re:in Japan... by Dishevel · 2010-01-19 03:43 · Score: 1

It was offtopic. China dose not foster a climate in which innovation will thrive. Japan != China. What if I said "Google better watch out. A long time ago Mars had water!" WTF? One has nothing to do with the other. Just like Japans situation has nothing to do with Chinas.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:in Japan... by Runaway1956 · 2010-01-19 03:50 · Score: 1

"China is currently at stage 2.5, building whatever the West can throw at it, and making gradual improvements. "
Citations? What have they improved? Examples, or it ain't so. There is NOTHING that China makes that I can't buy "Made in" India, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, Pakistan, Italy, Germany, France, Canada, Brazil, or SOMEPLACE, better made. The ONLY thing China seems to have the corner on is CHEAP LABOR, and CHEAP PRODUCTS. They've not improved one damned thing that has been handed to them.
Why do people make such idiot comments, and launch me into yet another rant?
China has 1/4 the world's population, and I think they have the largest land mass of any country in the world. But, all of it together is worth about as much as the frigging Rhine Valley, or maybe the Missourri River Valley, or - I quit. Figure it out for yourself.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:in Japan... by FuckingNickName · 2010-01-19 03:50 · Score: 1

At the risk of repeating myself:

What do you think will happen when they develop an intellectual property economy to rival the West?
China could simply do that... and on its own terms, because of its clout thanks to manufacturing capability and owed $.
I mean, it is quite trivial to argue that a US style notion of intellectual property is not necessary for innovation. China could just enforce the GPL as the only form of intellectual property right, for example - I'm not going to provide an argument for the GPL as a good foundation for innovation, because it has been provided thousands of times over the past two decades on the Internet.
Actually, I'm not even asserting that the GPL alone is satisfactory, merely illustrating to you that there is nothing off topic about suggesting that China can build its own notion of intellectual property. It needs "Western discipline" in applying whatever notion it chooses, i.e. it needs the rule of law, but it does not need Western notions. Indeed, the founding Fathers did not even believe in the notion of intellectual property: knowledge and the expression of knowledge was something naturally without ownership, but to which authors were granted temporary monopoly for the advancement of sciences and the useful arts. The United States was in fact very late in adopting the Berne Convention, the clear dividing line between a constitutional approach towards intellectual creativity and one based on the idea of ideas and expressions as property.
Re:in Japan... by FuckingNickName · 2010-01-19 04:00 · Score: 1

I think you misunderstand capitalism. The aim is to produce something sufficiently good at a price that enough people can afford. The fact that there is probably a manufacturer in the United States able to build absolutely anything you want at arbitrarily good quality providing you are prepared to pay enough does not mean that every other country in the world is irrelevant.
As for those gradual improvements, do you have some romantic image of the wise white men visiting a village of peasants with tools and precise layouts and firmware, and suddenly Foxconn is born? Just as with Japan up to the '80s, the improvements in China are in manufacturing process and firmware.
Re:in Japan... by orlanz · 2010-01-19 04:13 · Score: 1

...also unelected and corrupt Chinese officials.
Who apparently are far far worse than unelected and corrupt TSA, FBI, and boarder crossing personnel.
Re:in Japan... by Arthur+Grumbine · 2010-01-19 04:56 · Score: 1

I don't know why this is currently modded OT. Although I believe that China's socio-politico-economic situation is very different (and less conducive to capitalism and the innovation that comes with some form of intellectual property protection) from Japan's circa 1970, I still find your observation about the similarity in the stages of each of their industrial/commercial progress to be interesting. Hopefully some mods will come along to rectify your current moderation and consequently encourage discussion.

--
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
Re:in Japan... by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-01-19 05:25 · Score: 1

The PRC will certainly be a major player in the years to come, but unless they can work out their human rights abuses and their stance on things like Tibet they're only setting themselves up to pop like the USSR (or worse).
Downfall of the USSR was caused by major economic problems due to strictly planned economy not scaling well, not because of political oppression (which was already relatively mild comparing to many other dictatorial regimes out there by 60s and beyond).
China seems to have learned that lesson very well.
Re:in Japan... by NotBornYesterday · 2010-01-19 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Chinese have one big advantage over the US: their government doesn't need to lie to anyone.

What? They lie all the time, and do so in grandiose fashion. Just because they openly censor and spy on their own people does not mean that they are an honest regime. In fact, that itself is the problem ... by censoring information, they seek to rewrite history in terms favorable to their propaganda, which is by definition lying.

--
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Re:in Japan... by NotBornYesterday · 2010-01-19 05:41 · Score: 1

Not fucking likely. ;)

--
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Re:in Japan... by nimid · 2010-01-19 06:29 · Score: 1

That's almost the same situation the Europeans airlines have with the American government, except of course that the Americans aren't Chinese...

...yet.

--
A hundred and twenty characters ought to be enough for anyone...
Re:in Japan... by Dishevel · 2010-01-19 07:55 · Score: 1

Do not care what they do with IP laws over there. The problem with China is that they do not have an environment that fosters creativity and risk taking. To come up with new ideas. Japan did have that. It makes all the difference in the world.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:in Japan... by mgblst · 2010-01-19 10:53 · Score: 1

Sorry, I am confused. Are you talking about the US or China?
Re:in Japan... by FuckingNickName · 2010-01-19 11:08 · Score: 1

When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first send the Marines!
We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,
What do we do? We send the Marines!
For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
O we hate that expression.
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!
Re:in Japan... by tftp · 2010-01-19 15:21 · Score: 1

To add to shutdown's comment:
The PRC will certainly be a major player in the years to come, but unless they can work out their human rights abuses and their stance on things like Tibet they're only setting themselves up to pop [...]
The majority of population of any country can't possibly care less about "human rights abuses" unless it involves them personally. In 1938 Stalin had millions of regular people arrested, taken out of their beds at night and sent to Gulag - and even then "the masses" did nothing. So a government can safely abuse human rights of a small group of people, as long as the large group of people is OK with that, or just doesn't care.
And with regard to Tibet, it's something that Chinese and Tibetans will eventually work out. However from purely economic POV Tibet, being situated mostly in mountains, needs China more than China needs Tibet. Per Wikipedia, China invests a lot of money into the economy of Tibet - something that independent Tibet wouldn't be able to do (not without selling most of its mineral rights to foreigners, at least.) And from the military POV, one must be insane to think that China will let Tibet to go free, because the very next moment the new government of Tibet, properly bribed, allows some other, big and rich country to install missiles and other war machines right on Chinese border. Chinese government knows that well, having Taiwan as an example. That just isn't going to happen.
So none of these issues present any danger to the PRC's government. There is only one process that does - the economy. As long as China is getting richer, everyone is happy as a clam.
Re:in Japan... by twoHats · 2010-01-19 20:51 · Score: 1

Yes.

Backing themselves into corner by jimbolauski · 2010-01-19 02:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Google is positioning itself so that their only two options will be to tuck their tail between their legs and do China's bidding or pull out and lose all the invested capital. China will not back down they will never let themselves appear weak.

--
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make

Re:Backing themselves into corner by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-19 02:23 · Score: 1, Informative

They do have a third option.
The so called "great firewall" isn't all that great. It's pretty cobbled together, and distributed. The bulk of the censoring is temporary, achieved by inspecting packets and then spamming the end points with reset packets.
If you've ever used the internet in China, then you might have had a web page begin to load, but then stall. If you reload you get nothing, until around 10 min later when the RST spam stops, and the cycle repeats.
Google should switch on SSL for all Chinese traffic (including ad impressions). Google won't appear weak, and China will have to use the evil card and IP block. China has plenty of google loving geeks, and they will notice.
Re:Backing themselves into corner by DynaSoar · 2010-01-19 03:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google is positioning itself so that their only two options will be to tuck their tail between their legs and do China's bidding or pull out and lose all the invested capital. China will not back down they will never let themselves appear weak.
Google can afford to lose the investment. Until someone does make the sacrifice, everyone else is going to cave to China. When someone stands up to them, others will follow.
But not selling in China is no big deal. They're make and sell what we won't sell them, even if they have to build it from pirated plans. What will make the difference is when someone refuses to buy from China. China will respond by shuttering, which will only propagate the intended cut-off: If you won't buy from us, we won't sell to you. Who's to suffer? Walmart shoppers?
The marketplace, taken as a whole, has much more power than any government. If it decides to act as a whole, either they'll win, or everyone will lose with China losing far more.
If Google doesn't do this, it'll be a long time before anyone does, if ever. So fuck China. If Google does this I'm prepared to back them by buying stock.

--
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Re:Backing themselves into corner by Weezul · 2010-01-19 04:46 · Score: 1

China might never openly back down, but China also might not openly censer Google. If China merely blocks all undesirable sites that Google links, well that's how Google finds the list actually, then Chinese citizens see how much they're being censored, but Google also becomes a less useful search engine. To make their search most relevant, Google might minimize the number of blocked sites and/or report those sites as blocked down on the bottom of the page.

--
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell

"Don't be evil" is put to the test by goldaryn · 2010-01-19 02:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Google knew well that the decision to pull their search engine out of China would affect their other business interests there. They aren't dumb - they knew it well. Here they gave something up (some access the biggest potential market in the world) in order to stick to their guns. Their mantra is becoming more than just words.

Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by Tharsis · 2010-01-19 02:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

That really depends on your point of view. It's actually a pretty scary idea that google thinks it has enough power to change the governing policy of one of the biggest countries in the world. Sure, to our (western) point of view it makes a lot of sense to try to give citizens the freedom to express their opinion, but they ARE trying to infringe upon the sovereignty of a country. A country cannot work if they have to change their laws according to the wishes of a company.
I cannot vote for Google, so they do not rule.
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by krou · 2010-01-19 02:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, before we get on the love-Google bandwagon, it's equally possible that the threat of trade secrets/code being stolen, which could be passed on to a Chinese competitor, combined with Google's less than stellar market share in China, is a cost that far outweighs any possible gains by hanging on hoping the Chinese government throws them a few scraps. So, in order to turn a bad situation around, they state they're doing it because they object to the bad bad Chinese government, which helps in the PR department, and also applies pressure on Google's competitors like Bing/Yahoo etc. to do something similar.
China may have the potential to be the biggest market in the world, but they're inherently protectionist, and actively protect local industry first. Nothing is going to change that until China is the most powerful economy on earth, at which point they may adopt the "free market" because they'll be in a position of dominance to ensure they always win. The British did it this way, and so did the Americans, I don't see why China should behave any different.

--
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-19 02:46 · Score: 1, Insightful

The decision to stop censoring was a direct result of Gmail-breakins. Now, you may believe Google got upset because the accounts included human rights activists, but I'd be more inclined to believe they just don't want their users to stop trusting their services and are trying to coerce the Chinese: would you trust your company emails with someone who gets hacked by the Chinese government regularly?
In other words, I don't see anything that proves Googles position on the good-evil axis: just business as usual.
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by Gription · 2010-01-19 02:52 · Score: 1

If you look at the displayed behavior of corporations "the sort of market you want to perform business in" is defined as anywhere that they can make money. The fact that their only real goal is maximization of shareholder value is very clear, as it is required by law and constantly enforced by shareholder lawsuits.

I would suggest that an emerging industrial economy containing more then 1/6th of the worlds population and with an obvious needs for communication is a market where they could make money by the megatruckload.

I think that the assertion that this is an example of them sticking to their 'moral guns' is reasonably defensible.

[By definition corporations don't have morals as they do not have a conscience. Morals are specific to a human's thoughts, feelings, and actions but we can attempt to judge a corporation's actions against our own moral code.]
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by FlyingBishop · 2010-01-19 02:53 · Score: 1

When "business" means manufacturing phones as cheaply as possible, it's an excellent environment.
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by bhtooefr · 2010-01-19 02:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

A country cannot work if they have to change their laws according to the wishes of a company.
Which is why the US is in the decline it's in, but that's another story.
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by jrumney · 2010-01-19 03:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's actually a pretty scary idea that google thinks it has enough power to change the governing policy of one of the biggest countries in the world
In the words of an individual who did have enough power to change the governing policy of one of the biggest countries in the world in the past; Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by zwei2stein · 2010-01-19 03:39 · Score: 1

Google is advertizing company. Google business model only works when:
a) people pay then to advertize product.
b) people buy product as advertized and make money to a) people.
This does not work for China: Chinese company will pay to Baidu to advertize because it has highest market coverage. China does not import much, so Google can not make business with anyone else than Chinese companies (which will rather make business with Baidu which can actually give em customers.).
Simply, Google business model breaks when they have no customers (duh.). Their usual business partners have no *chance* making good deal in china with help of internet ads, and new ones will not work with them because they already have better option.
The fact that it has 1/6th world of population and market ripe for exploitation is irrelevant if you are not the one that can exploit it. I am that tampax would LOVE to sell their product to 1/2 of world population (men), but it is simply impossible.

--
-- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by pavon · 2010-01-19 04:12 · Score: 1

Android is open source. Some of Google's applications are closed, but they have had just as many problems with people in western countries including the applications in their custom firmware builds, as in China. Furthermore, China can reverse engineer the applications just as easily whether the phone is sold there or not. It is possible that Google had some Chinese employees working on localization who had access to the code, which would increase the chance of stolen code, but it is equally likely that the coding was all done in the states, and the localization teams in china just provided translations and testing.
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by orlanz · 2010-01-19 04:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's actually a pretty scary idea that google thinks it has enough power to change the governing policy of one of the biggest countries in the world.
Come on, is it really that scary? I mean we got the farm, auto, finance, telco, and security industries doing this every day over here and we are more scared of the mythical terrorist. Its about time one of our industries (search) starts poking at someone else left with a spine... even if they end up losing a finger.
I think we are all making this seem FAR bigger than it actually is. A company has reassessed the risk profile of an environment and found it to be not suitable to justify continuing operations. Said company is looking at mitigating some of the risk. If it doesn't work out, the company will revisit the _idea_ of discontinuing operations. Losing China will not be that big a deal to Google as the environment was against it in the first place.
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by Sheik+Yerbouti · 2010-01-19 04:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

This makes no sense they had like what 30% of search in China and 600MM a year in revenue. Yahoo Microsoft et al. have much much less than that and they see no need to walk away from China. They are the second largest search provider in China you don't walk away from that lightly and you don't run away when you are GAINING market share. So that's just tripe I can't see why people think this would be insightful at all.
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by orlanz · 2010-01-19 04:32 · Score: 1

No, that won't work. Imagine that tomorrow the US government just says to Microsoft to hand over all their user information for the purpose of filtering for terrorists. Here we have the whole IP, human rights, private industry lobbying and psychology efforts to stop that. BUT in China, Google doesn't have any of that with any real power. They would need to fall back on the US government and we know how far back it is willing to bend for a lender (foreign or domestic).
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by tlhIngan · 2010-01-19 04:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

This makes no sense they had like what 30% of search in China and 600MM a year in revenue. Yahoo Microsoft et al. have much much less than that and they see no need to walk away from China. They are the second largest search provider in China you don't walk away from that lightly and you don't run away when you are GAINING market share. So that's just tripe I can't see why people think this would be insightful at all.
Remember they want to pull out because they're being hacked, and private data has been accessed. Not necessarily Google's data, but user's data. Stuff like emails in GMail, documents in Google Docs, and who knows what other data they may have gotten.
Google feels that continuing operations in China would cost more (from the efforts in trying to secure the data) than simply pulling out and forgoing the revenue. Or, that if they continue, the continued hacking and theft of user's data would turn people off Google worldwide, hurting them even more. After all, would you continue to use Google if you knew your emails and documents are continually broken into and read by third parties? Now imaging you're using hosted apps by Google as a company - that Chinese competitor of yours might have an itchy finger for whatever emails and documents you have...
So by pulling out, they may forego a huge market, but if it lets them keep users in other markets, it's still a win.
It's less about search, and more about advertising. If people don't trust Google, they won't use Google. And this includes all those emails and documents on their servers.
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by KlomDark · 2010-01-19 04:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Makes no sense? Are you serious?
Yes, Matilda, there really ARE things more important than money... Societal survival, making sure your kids aren't enslaved, many things are more important than market share, and the inhumane corporations of the world are just starting to realize that.
Try not acting like a mindless virus (Breed & Eat, Breed & Eat, ..., until your environment is destroyed), instead act like a self-aware lifeform that knows the secret to longevity is to not consume all, but to maintain a balance.
Making money from bad people/governments leads to bad money in your pocket, sucking your lifeforce while you dive to the bottom of the abyss.
Wake up! Before it's too late. Do not worship money for money's sake, if you must worship it, then worship it for it's power to enable good things to happen when handled by the wise.
Did you exchange a walk-on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage? [Floyd]
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by phantomfive · 2010-01-19 06:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Or you could get past the 'faceless corporation' meme and investigate what the actual people in charge of the company were thinking. According to this article, Eric Schmidt (the CEO) was strongly in favor of doing business in China. He's primarily a businessman, he sees the monetary potential, and he argued they could do good there.

Sergey Brin, who was born in the former USSR, has more personal feelings about censorship and human rights issues. He was never entirely in favor of doing business in China, but went along with it. When this happened, he wanted to stop doing business in China.

Estimates are that Google makes $300 million to $600 million in China, so while it's not going to break the bank, they are taking a hit from this. If they wanted to do the financially intelligent thing, they would keep operations in China (if they really have concerns about intellectual property, they can keep all that in the US and segregate their employees in China from the US).

--
Qxe4
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by Hognoxious · 2010-01-19 06:15 · Score: 1

Their mantra is becoming more than just words.
Maybe. I'm more inclined to think they balanced possible profit on one side versus risk and the general pain in the ass factor on the other - and decided the game ain't worth the candle.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by BikeHelmet · 2010-01-19 10:52 · Score: 1

That really depends on your point of view. It's actually a pretty scary idea that google thinks it has enough power to change the governing policy of one of the biggest countries in the world. Sure, to our (western) point of view it makes a lot of sense to try to give citizens the freedom to express their opinion, but they ARE trying to infringe upon the sovereignty of a country. A country cannot work if they have to change their laws according to the wishes of a company.
I cannot vote for Google, so they do not rule.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!! ...
Do you live in the US? Many of your laws were lobbied for by multi-national corporations. Your copyright laws are the result of the big entertainment companies demanding extensions. Your oil companies control innovation of electric vehicles (They had electric cars decades ago, and companies like GM even sold some -_- ) and apparently some people feel they control city design too. And more and more over the counter drugs are becoming "dangerous medications". Down there you need a prescription to get two particularly strong painkillers, but up here (Canada) you can walk into any drug store and pick up a 300+ pill bottle, pay with cash, and they don't even need your name.
Recently I was watching a documentary on nutrition. It was detailing stuff like calcium absorption going down throughout your lifespan - but also that calcium sucks harmful stuff out of food, so is best taken with a meal. It went over the necessity of CoQ10 when taking many drugs, to avoid them leeching stuff out of your body. What I found most interesting was when it mentioned a lot of vitamin supplements are considered drugs in the US. What you can buy at a healthfood store here might require a doctor's prescription and expensive pills down there.
So yeah, the US is the posterchild for a country changing their laws according to the wishes of companies.
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by Macrat · 2010-01-19 13:56 · Score: 1

we are more scared of the mythical terrorist.
Dick Cheney isn't mythical.
Companies make a ton of money off this.
Remember those virtual stripping machines that wouldn't sell before the CIA set up the "underwear bomber" to get sales moving again?
Re:"Don't be evil" is put to the test by yuhong · 2010-01-26 09:23 · Score: 1

Yea, here is my Slashdot submission on this: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=8693016

Yoink!....No Google for you China by xgr3gx · 2010-01-19 02:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Google should just say sorry China - you get no google anymore.
Although it's hard to say no to market where 100 Million ad impressions is a slow day.

--
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel

Re:Yoink!....No Google for you China by dingen · 2010-01-19 02:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Although it's hard to say no to market where 100 Million ad impressions is a slow day.
That's exactly the problem right there. It boils down to this: Google needs China more than China needs Google. So China can do whatever they want and Google will always have to either accept it, or quit.

--
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Re:Yoink!....No Google for you China by v1 · 2010-01-19 02:26 · Score: 5, Interesting

Google needs China more than China needs Google.
But in reality, China doesn't need Google, and Google doesn't need China.
I for one am thankful to see anyone not tuck tail and say Thank You Sir May I Have Another when China kicks them in the balls.
Google's rep and their Do No Evil took a major hit recently with concessions to China, and Google had basically said this is IT this is as far as we will go, and China just continued to push it, and Google has finally had enough and is playing hardball. Good for them, have at it.
Someone needed to teach China that just because they're the biggest single market in the world doesn't mean they dictate the laws that the rest of the world has to follow. In that respect China is no better than a monopolistic company, that's abusing its monopoly position.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:Yoink!....No Google for you China by jimicus · 2010-01-19 02:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Someone needed to teach China that just because they're the biggest single market in the world doesn't mean they dictate the laws that the rest of the world has to follow. In that respect China is no better than a monopolistic company, that's abusing its monopoly position.
And when they've done with that, would they mind flying over to the US and teaching them the same thing?
Re:Yoink!....No Google for you China by furball · 2010-01-19 03:20 · Score: 1

China is the biggest growing market. They're not the biggest single market. A lot of people without resources to buy your stuff isn't terribly useful.
Re:Yoink!....No Google for you China by MrMarket · 2010-01-19 04:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

Step 1: Start a JV with a non-controlling stake in China Step 2: Hand over all of your intellectual property Step 3: ???? Step 4: Profit China is a red herring, because outsiders do not win. The companies that realize this sooner and move on to other markets like India and Brazil/South America will be better off in the long run.
Re:Yoink!....No Google for you China by Symbha · 2010-01-19 04:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Small correction:
China is not the biggest single market in the world.
The US is still the biggest market in the world.
The Chinese market is the biggest emerging market, but isn't close to the US market, per capita, or otherwise.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=compare+gdp+of+us+vs+china
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=compare+per+capita+gdp+of+us+vs+per+capita+gdp+of+china
Re:Yoink!....No Google for you China by Xest · 2010-01-19 20:44 · Score: 1

It's also relevant that yes, whilst China is big, it'd be stupid to ignore India.
Sure it'd be nice to have both, but if Google spends the additional effort it spent on China in somewhere like India instead I'd wager they could increase profits in India enough to mitigate any loss from pulling out of China.
The population of India is 1.14 billion, the population of China is 1.32 billion. Sure it's a 180 million person difference which is a lot, but when you scale down to those that have internet access rather than total population and so forth the amount decreases quite a bit. This is an even more pertinent point when you take into account the greater risk of operating in China in terms of having your IP stolen, your servers hacked and so on all state sponsored.
I'd imagine Google have just done the math and realised that China wont net them that much money compared to simply just refocussing that effort elsewhere. Sure there's 1.3 billion people in China, but there's also still 5.3 billion people elsewhere.

That'll teach those Commies a lesson by axl917 · 2010-01-19 02:07 · Score: 1

Surely this will bring about regime change if the Chinese are forced to, er, buy someone else's cellphone.

Yea. :/

Re:That'll teach those Commies a lesson by metlin · 2010-01-19 02:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

You underestimate the importance of MNCs and FDI if you think that this does not make a difference.
Countries clamor for investment from top firms, and go a long way to accommodating them. China may be big, but they are just as dependent on such investments. If it were cut and dry, they would have given Google the finger a long, long time ago.
If enough corporations started doing that, then other developing countries start looking ripe and interesting. It does not take much for a country to go from plum, juicy investment targets to stark and dangerous entities that no one would touch with a ten-foot pole.
Just under ten years ago, the Asian economies were all the rage -- and before that, Latin American countries. China could just as easily be an also-ran if they pushed too hard. After all, even the USSR fell, for all its (supposed) might, and that's in recent memory.
Re:That'll teach those Commies a lesson by Stumbles · 2010-01-19 02:32 · Score: 1

Those are some very good points. Regardless how important or self absorbed a country may think about its style of government... money and its sources has always been key roles. As you note, there is a lengthy list of also-ran countries that once thought their poo did not stink.

--
My karma is not a Chameleon.

Dumb question by Yvanhoe · 2010-01-19 02:11 · Score: 1

Are the android phones manufactured in China ?

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.

Re:Dumb question by Chrisq · 2010-01-19 02:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Most in Taiwan ... not China's favourite place
Re:Dumb question by indre1 · 2010-01-19 02:18 · Score: 1

Yes, new google phones are produced under the codename Eno Suxen and rebranded in the US.
Re:Dumb question by number17 · 2010-01-19 06:44 · Score: 1

So ya, they are built in China.

They have to be careful ... by Chrisq · 2010-01-19 02:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

They have to be careful. After all the android is open source and China certainly has the capability of making their own mobile phones. If they don't sell in China, China could just make its own Android, and use the economies of scale to export it to the West too. This threat is a bit like a Scotsman saying he won't sell his whiskey in Nashville

Re:They have to be careful ... by kannibal_klown · 2010-01-19 02:25 · Score: 1

They have to be careful. After all the android is open source and China certainly has the capability of making their own mobile phones. If they don't sell in China, China could just make its own Android, and use the economies of scale to export it to the West too. This threat is a bit like a Scotsman saying he won't sell his whiskey in Nashville
If China starts rolling out Android OS phones on their own, this won't hurt them directly.
Google isn't looking at making money hand over first through Nexus One sales.
They're looking at making Android OS a major player in the mobile device market, to replace Symbian and Windows Mobile and slow/stop the momentum of the iPhone OS.
Their big thing with rolling out the Nexus One is that they want to start setting a standard for what an Android phone should be: both in hardware and the configuration of the OS. Carriers and manufacturers are making short-sighted decisions with their Android configs in such a way that isn't making Google happy. They're making them hard / impossible to update the OS and varying configurations make apps run inconsistently.
Now if Chinese companies started making huge lines of horribly-configured Android phones then that would hurt Google, but would they really bother doing something financially unsound just to spite them a little all-the-while letting their presence in the mobile market increase?
Re:They have to be careful ... by jzhos · 2010-01-19 07:04 · Score: 1

Isn't that the whole point of open source? Anyone can have access to it, and the source is not fully controlled by a single company?

Gibson was right by Dr.Syshalt · 2010-01-19 02:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now we can see the first open conflict between private corporation and a government.

Just wait for the first armed one.

Re:Gibson was right by Yvanhoe · 2010-01-19 02:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

You may have missed a whole series of antitrust cases in EU and US...

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Re:Gibson was right by ThrowAwaySociety · 2010-01-19 04:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

You may have missed a whole series of antitrust cases in EU and US...
That's the point. In every other case of government-corporate head butting, the corporation may have complained loudly (sometimes in court) but never before has one just said, "No, we won't play by your rules."
Re:Gibson was right by Rich0 · 2010-01-19 04:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

A big part of that is not having a local presence - which you can get away with web-based apps (unless you take local advertising dollars - unless said dollars are paid directly to you overseas).
Suppose I provided a purely web-based service (news, search, something that involves nothing more than packets over the internet). I take payment in advance by some method which does not rely on infrastructure outside of my own country. Maybe I deposit checks, or maybe I use US credit cards (for a US company), or I take cash mailed in envelopes - whatever. My business is completely supported by my local government (it is legal, no politicians want to take extra-legal steps to shut me down, etc). Let's also assume that as the CEO/owner I never leave my own country.
If I operate this way, then there is nothing anybody can do about my business operating in their country, except try to block access or persecute their own citizens who are my customers. If my search page returns nazi images on wikipedia or whatever, the Germans can't do a thing about it. They can of course try me in absentia and find me guilty, but they have no power to punish me.
Now, they can do things like order local banks not to honor checks made out to me, or local credit card companies to deny payments to me. If they have the technical means they can try to firewall me. However, if one of their citizens opens a bank account in a foreign bank and uses it to pay me, there is not much they can do about it (except punish my customers).
In China's case, they have the great firewall, and punishing their own people is something that doesn't really give them concerns. So, in this case they can do something about it - but only inside their own borders. They can't touch Google itself at all, unless they convince the US government to play ball.
Re:Gibson was right by Hognoxious · 2010-01-19 05:00 · Score: 1

Corporations don't have armies.
Or rather, not yet.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Gibson was right by Yvanhoe · 2010-01-19 09:51 · Score: 1

Ok then, what about DeBoer and the blood diamonds ? Any oil company and any oil-rich African country ? Sometimes these companies waged armed war against a government. Don't get me right, Google is doing interesting things but don't blow it out of proportions either.

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.

An interesting fact by BhaKi · 2010-01-19 02:24 · Score: 1

I don't know if this is a new finding. I've noticed this today:

rms@susebox:~> geoiplookup www.google.cn

GeoIP Country Edition: US, United States

I expected it to be hosted in China.

--
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.

Re:An interesting fact by iamsolidsnk · 2010-01-19 02:39 · Score: 1

I believe the .cn site was hosted in Florida at the time of The Incident and supposed compromising of Gmail accounts.

--
Here I am, here I remain.
Re:An interesting fact by msu320 · 2010-01-19 02:41 · Score: 1

your probably missing the fact that google uses tech that changes the result of a dns query based on your IP. It's similar to the stuff akami uses, and it helps reduce the effect on latency. most likely the servers you're connecting to are mirrors.

--
New slashdot layout sucks.
Re:An interesting fact by BhaKi · 2010-01-19 02:57 · Score: 1

I'm from India. Assuming what you are saying is correct, the output implies that google.cn doesn't have a mirror in China, because geographically India is closer to China than to US.

--
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
Re:An interesting fact by petermgreen · 2010-01-19 05:42 · Score: 1

the output implies that google.cn doesn't have a mirror in China, because geographically India is closer to China than to US
Or it could mean that if no explicit handling is configured the fallback option is the US servers.
Also geographic closeness doesn't nessacerally imply good network connections between two points.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:An interesting fact by BhaKi · 2010-01-19 08:56 · Score: 1

I'm from India.
We'd already worked that out from the combination of being so often wrong, but yet so totally confident in your pontifications.
I'm certainly more confident than cowards like you. Now give me an instance where you think I was wrong.

--
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.

China is not the largest market in the world! by dublinclontarf · 2010-01-19 02:31 · Score: 1

Seriously, 1.3Billion seems like a lot, but 1/2 are peasants and most earn a pittence. See here http://my.telegraph.co.uk/dublinclontarf/blog/2010/01/15/china,_the_worlds_largest_market.

--
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/dublinclontarf

Re:China is not the largest market in the world! by alobar72 · 2010-01-19 03:02 · Score: 1

there is an interesting comment from a guy named sipu on this page. Basically stating, that china _is_ the worlds biggest market, _because_ of the poor, that do not have cellphones, cars, tvs and such by now, but will buy them in future, as soon as the have climed up the social ladder.
This of cause implies that china will continue to develop like it has done till now.
But: as the post said there are a few hundret million people there basically living in the 19th century.
So there is a small financial and intellectual elite and a large basis of 'others'
I believe, there is a probability, that china will face significant social eruptions on their way up.
Is it not so, that many societies with such an enourmouse gap between rich and poor ( or regarding the state of mind of the elite vs. that of 'the poor' ) faced revolutions that threw them back at least a dozend of years ?
Re:China is not the largest market in the world! by HeckRuler · 2010-01-19 03:27 · Score: 1

I agree with GP. China is not the worlds largest market.
It is the worlds largest market with the largest potential growth.

Europe and America are of course the largest markets. But those markets are guarded by very fat cats who will defend their turf. Entering those markets would be expensive. Entering China is cheaper, and has greater potential for insane profits, IF you play by their rules. Before the dragon woke, like maybe a decade ago, China played nicer with foreign corporations. The dragon is now awake and is flexing it's clout. Times have changed.

As for social unrest, I dunno. As long as the communist party can keep supplying jobs to it's people, and put bread in their bowl (and sustain growth), then I don't see an uprising happening.

Phones are life in China by adosch · 2010-01-19 02:35 · Score: 2, Informative

It's definitely a good thing that Google held off launch in China; Asian companies are the central hub for embedded technologies, although I think the U.S. gets the brunt of garbage technological imports, but the Chinese population long ago adopted and integrated cell phone usage into their daily lives bigtime. They've been power-using phones long before anyone in the U.S. started promoting it. PDA's where always a big thing, but until the iPhone and Blackberry craze of 2008-2009, we didn't see anything like that virally spread, phone wise. TFA is right; China probably has something total to their population and market that rival very well with the Android and why move away from that? It's not to say China's techies or phone enthusiasts would shy away from trying something new, but like I said, they've been integrating phone usage into their lives for a lot longer than we in the U.S. have nation-wide.

Re:Another interesting fact by EzInKy · 2010-01-19 02:36 · Score: 1

that relates to your sig is that open source rescues formats, protocols, specifications and standards.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

i don't understand by memnock · 2010-01-19 02:39 · Score: 1

why this is being referred to as a "censorship conflict". Google didn't care about censorship last year. conveniently enough, they get hacked by China, then they care.

--
"To stop the terrorists."

Re:i don't understand by Paradigm_Complex · 2010-01-19 04:41 · Score: 1

Oh they cared, just not enough to act. The hack was what put them over the top. It's disingenuous to try to make it seem as though before the hack Google was fine with the censorship before hand.

--
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Re:i don't understand by memnock · 2010-01-19 12:46 · Score: 1

it's disingenuous? how so? everyone, not least of all Google, knew of China's censorship. based on Google capabilities, it's possible they even assisted with it. i'm not aware of Google saying "yeh, we're sorry we're censoring the WWW in China." even if they did, i'd say their actions spoke pretty loudly, especially given their current policy.

--
"To stop the terrorists."

Re:Google is Bluffing by Yvanhoe · 2010-01-19 02:46 · Score: 1

I think that Google can't accept that their own offices in China are spied on by the government. It is this issue that makes them consider to get out of China but before living, they wanted to do a last PR shot by uncensoring their search results (btw, 48h later, google.cn was filtered from China). They acknowledge that the CCP will not accept the fact that any foreign company can make profits on their territory. Google is just pulling out. With style.

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.

More should follow their example. by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-01-19 02:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

The world worked fine before China got industrialised and made all of our stuff using cheap labour and materials by exploiting the oppressed workforce.

Let's go back to home-grown industry and leave China to destroy themselves. Our respective economies could do with the business.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/

Re:More should follow their example. by HeckRuler · 2010-01-19 03:17 · Score: 1

Wally will undercut you with cheaper goods built on the backs of an oppressed Chinese workforce and be called a champion of commerce for it.
Re:More should follow their example. by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-01-19 03:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Indeed. This idea works only if everyone is idealistic as me.

This is why I'm posting on /. and not aiming for a Management position; Too many morals.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:More should follow their example. by TorKlingberg · 2010-01-19 04:14 · Score: 1

If we are going to have China-bashing comments, could we at least have intelligent ones? That is, based on any kind of knowledge and not just xenophobia.
Re:More should follow their example. by gad_zuki! · 2010-01-19 04:19 · Score: 3, Informative

I call fallacy of idealizing the past here. China has been a manufacturing powerhouse since the 1970s. So 40 years now. So you are saying you want to bring back American factories and conditions from the 1960s? That time in manufacturing was best known for lawsuits, strikes, poor quality control, union corruption, and overall fucktardness.
The reality is our economy (or any for that matter) doesnt work if we paid factory workers 55k a year with benefits. As far as "exploiting" the workforce: Are you willing to pay 2 to 3x the price of your goods for the sake of a factory worker's wellbeing? Well, what do you expect to pay them? Their wages are competitive for the demand of their skills. The guy in the US making 10 dollars an hour on the lathe isnt too different than the guy making 2 dollars an hour in China, when you compare purchasing power of that money in those countries.
Look, Im not some super free-market guy, but using loaded language like "exploited" and pretending that manufacturing in the past was some kind of ideal job is just being disingenuous. The invisible hand of the market controls a lot of this and the largest part of that hand is you and me demanding cheap prices for good like cars, computers, phones, etc. The boogeyman is you and me, not necessarily some big government entity holding everyone down.
Re:More should follow their example. by Rich0 · 2010-01-19 04:41 · Score: 1

Indeed. This idea works only if everyone is idealistic as me.
Hey, how about this idea. We can all promise to buy products made in countries that have sane environmental laws and which do not exploit labor. Maybe we'll all agree that if we do have to buy something from such a country we'll pay some kind of a fine into a fund used to help compliant businesses. Since we can't trust that everybody will play ball maybe we can pay some guys to oversee enforcement.
We could formalize this agreement into something we can call a "social contract." Maybe the oversight body can be something we call a "government." Then a majority of people could agree that this stuff is a good idea and then we're all accountable to follow it. :)
Seriously, though, it is in the interest of every democratic nation to establish tariffs on goods from countries that do not have reasonable safety or environmental controls. While people in the US and EU love to focus on their differences regarding how many ppm of whatever can safely go in the air, the fact is that nobody in any of these nations really wants to see another Love Canal. Setting environmental and safety policies to protect our workers is just dumb if we don't ensure that foreign companies aren't able to take away all their jobs.
Note - I'm not advocating protectionism. These tariffs should not be applied to work simply because it happened in a different country. However, countries that have conditions that we would not tolerate in our own countries should not be able to use these conditions as a source of competitive advantage.
Re:More should follow their example. by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-01-19 05:37 · Score: 1

Are you willing to pay 2 to 3x the price of your goods for the sake of a factory worker's wellbeing?
Actually, yes, I am.

The invisible hand of the market controls a lot of this and the largest part of that hand is you and me demanding cheap prices for good like cars, computers, phones, etc. The boogeyman is you and me, not necessarily some big government entity holding everyone down.
It's true, but the problem here is that if one man stops buying cheap stuff, it doesn't really change anything so long as others keep doing so. The only way it can have an effect is when the majority, or at least a significant minority, do so. And, of course, people aren't willing to penalize themselves when they know this won't actually do anything useful, so everyone is waiting on everyone else.
And that is precisely why we have this thing called "government". If the majority of people can agree that buying cheap from countries where labor force is exploited (sorry, but this is a factual statement, and I see nothing wrong with using the word without quotes in this context) is evil, and that they wouldn't do that if they can be assured that no-one else would, so that this all would have some point, then those people vote for their representatives, and representatives put in place some regulations ensuring that. It could be straight regulating laws, it could be tariffs or fees to adjust the price ("unregulated labor fee" - how does that sound?) etc. So long as it gets the job done.
Re:More should follow their example. by gad_zuki! · 2010-01-19 06:20 · Score: 1

>Actually, yes, I am.
Bullshit. What kind of house or rental will you get for 1/3rd the price? What neighborhood? How can you afford health insurance at 3x the price? How can you afford gasoline at 3x the price? How can you afford food at 3x the price? How many jobs will artificial inflation of prices via wage subsidy cost?
Re:More should follow their example. by gad_zuki! · 2010-01-19 06:34 · Score: 1

Err, house/rental for 3x the price, not 1/3rd.
Point is, that even comfortable upper middle class people cant handle 3x change in price. For what? To subsidize jobs that can be gotten by high school drop outs? What incentive to go to school, innovate, and start a business, etc if you can make an easy 60k turning the lathe?
Re:More should follow their example. by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-01-19 06:47 · Score: 1

Bullshit. What kind of house or rental will you get for 1/3rd the price? How can you afford health insurance at 3x the price?
Where I live it's universal health care, and I don't see how its price would in any way be affected by what we're discussing. Most of the cost there is in labor, anyway, and that's already local. Also, how many medical supplies are being produced in China?
Houses/rentals would be affected somewhat because of material costs, but nowhere as significant as 1/3 of the price.

How can you afford gasoline at 3x the price
Yes, absolutely. I already pay less than that compared to Europeans, and they seem to be able to afford that.

How can you afford food at 3x the price?
I try to buy locally produced stuff as it is (helps that there are quite a few farms around here), or at least things grown in the same country. So either I already pay 3x (so the answer is "yes"), or the difference isn't actually anywhere near 3x (which seems to be the case, when I compare the prices for junk food vs the healthy stuff that I eat).
In any case, I doubt even junk food price would be significantly affected by cutting off China and the likes.

How many jobs will artificial inflation of prices via wage subsidy cost?
We aren't talking about wage subsidies. We're talking about market prices for local labor that is regulated to avoid unethical exploitation practices. It's not a subsidy, not anymore than mandatory minimum wage is.
Re:More should follow their example. by HeckRuler · 2010-01-20 06:51 · Score: 1

Well yes, you ARE advocating protectionism. Only your own slightly different flavor. Protectionism cuts us out of the benefits of globalism, and we drop from first world status.

And environmental policies protect everyone, not just the workers. Everyone who lives near the factory, everyone who lives down river, everyone who breaths the air. In most cases the benefits of the EPA are only locally realized, but it does have interstate and global impact as well.
Re:More should follow their example. by Rich0 · 2010-01-20 12:24 · Score: 1

And environmental policies protect everyone, not just the workers.
Agreed - all the more reason to tariff goods from nations that don't have sensible controls. Otherwise globalism is just one big race for the bottom.
What I advocate is really nothing more than holding other nations to the same standards that we hold ourselves.
Re:More should follow their example. by HeckRuler · 2010-01-21 11:14 · Score: 1

So would you apply that to the states as well? The at-will employment states could be considered barbaric corporate slavers when compared to states that have rules for letting people go. Should they put a tariff on at-will employment states? You know, to hold them to the same standards?

And before that sounds too much like a slipper slope argument; we don't have a real good defined standard here. Or even 50 of them. It's a hodge-podge of have, have-nots, lucky bastards, and poor-slobs, whose fate is only marginally tied to their ability. In China there's a ridiculous number of people willing to suck ash to get a job. If you have a system where the employer wants to cut corners and skip safety, and the employees desperately wants to appease the boss, then how are you going to keep BOTH of them from doing so?

And just who and how are these tariff's defined? How do you put a price on the smell of a paper factory? Or a 5% birth defect rate? And if you want politicians to determine this, then it's going to get political, that's their job.
Re:More should follow their example. by Rich0 · 2010-01-21 13:07 · Score: 1

So would you apply that to the states as well?
Nope - the constitution actually forbids that.
Should they put a tariff on at-will employment states?
Nope - I am not suggesting that every minor difference in public policy is worthy of balancing tariffs. Comparing Belgium and France is comparing shades of gray. On the other hand, comparing England and China is not.
And just who and how are these tariff's defined?
Like anything else - by national legislatures. It would be in the interest of progressive nations to work with each other to cooperate on this.
How do you put a price on the smell of a paper factory?
You look at how much money it is costing companies to comply with the laws in your own jurisdiction that don't exist elsewhere, and add 10-20% for good measure, and apply that to everything. Sure, it isn't exact, and it doesn't have to be.
And if you want politicians to determine this, then it's going to get political, that's their job.
Yup - pretty much. Hey, you won't see the politicians doing this anyway - they're too busy taking bribes from Walmart or whatever...

related topic: China ends Avatar showing by peter303 · 2010-01-19 02:52 · Score: 1

China ended Avatar's run today, the largest grossing film ever in China. The governemnt complained there were too many foreign films in China and not enough native ones.

Re:related topic: China ends Avatar showing by Primitive+Pete · 2010-01-19 03:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah, "not enough local movies" seems like a predictable outcome of suppressing free speech.
Re:related topic: China ends Avatar showing by euyis · 2010-01-19 04:39 · Score: 1

No, we have enough local movies. The problem is, nobody wants to watch them.
They are too fictitious - imagine a world full of good communists who make decisions that are always right, are so honest that they will not accept any bribe, always sacrifice themselves for the people, work so diligently even though being terminally ill and eventually die at their post...

Not really it doesn't. by oGMo · 2010-01-19 02:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's actually a pretty scary idea that google thinks it has enough power to change the governing policy of one of the biggest countries in the world.

This has not been shown to be the case. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Does Google put their foot down, or don't they? Do they give into the local laws and help oppress, or don't they? I don't see Google invading China with corporate armies, or hacking Chinese government systems, or subverting Chinese government employees here.

A country cannot work if they have to change their laws according to the wishes of a company.

No, but a company is made up of people, and in a democracy, those people have a say in how the country is run, along with every other citizen. Perhaps you don't live in a country with a democratic form of government, or you don't value the freedom of each voice being heard. However, in the United States, we do value these things.

But in the end it still comes down to one question: should Google support China's repressive government, or not? If you condemn them either way, you are a hypocrite. And you'll have to make a really, really good case for "should support repression" as being "not evil".

--

Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

Re:Not really it doesn't. by Tharsis · 2010-01-19 03:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's actually a pretty scary idea that google thinks it has enough power to change the governing policy of one of the biggest countries in the world.
This has not been shown to be the case. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Does Google put their foot down, or don't they? Do they give into the local laws and help oppress, or don't they? I don't see Google invading China with corporate armies, or hacking Chinese government systems, or subverting Chinese government employees here.
Well, I'm sorry, but if a company wants to operate in a country, it should abide by its laws, otherwise it's a criminal organization. It's not up to that company to change the government, it's up to the people that live in the country. There are more ways than those you mention for a company to force its wishes on a government (MS has used some).
I'm not saying I agree with what China is doing. But I also don't think it a good idea to force my ideas of freedom on them, if there's anything that causes chaos in a country it's sudden changes like that. I'd say China has been doing a pretty good job of slowly creating a more free country.

A country cannot work if they have to change their laws according to the wishes of a company.
No, but a company is made up of people, and in a democracy, those people have a say in how the country is run, along with every other citizen. Perhaps you don't live in a country with a democratic form of government, or you don't value the freedom of each voice being heard. However, in the United States, we do value these things.
I do value these things (and I do live in a democratic country) but I do not have the wisdom to say that it is better than all other forms of government, and neither do you unless you've lived in them. Basically what I'm saying is that it should be the people that change a country, not an outside company. Where's the democracy in an outside company forcing a change.

But in the end it still comes down to one question: should Google support China's repressive government, or not? If you condemn them either way, you are a hypocrite. And you'll have to make a really, really good case for "should support repression" as being "not evil".
Stop thinking so binary. Just because one is "evil" doesn't mean the other is "good". There are a lot more options than the ones you mention.
Re:Not really it doesn't. by yincrash · 2010-01-19 04:14 · Score: 1

I don't think "refusing to do business" equates to "changing the government"
Re:Not really it doesn't. by Rich0 · 2010-01-19 04:26 · Score: 1

Well, I'm sorry, but if a company wants to operate in a country, it should abide by its laws, otherwise it's a criminal organization.
A company that doesn't abide by a law is a criminal organization by definition.
However, in a country where the laws are evil, it is the moral duty of a citizen to be a criminal. Obviously there is a continuity between being a citizen of Utopia and a citizen of some genocidal militaristic totalitarianism. I'm not suggesting that it is purely black and white.
I do value these things (and I do live in a democratic country) but I do not have the wisdom to say that it is better than all other forms of government, and neither do you unless you've lived in them.
Ok, is democracy the best of any other form of government that could conceivably exist - who can say?
Is democracy a morally superior form of government when compared to a totalitarian oligarchy? I think that is a no-brainer. The only legitimacy the Chinese government has is its ability to suppress revolt efficiently. That is not a moral basis of government. Frankly, much of how they treat dissent would be immoral even if it were approved by a genuine majority vote. Even a democratic government does not have the right to suppress basic freedoms by those who have not committed something that would be universally accepted as a crime.
Stop thinking so binary. Just because one is "evil" doesn't mean the other is "good". There are a lot more options than the ones you mention.
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that assisting a regime with things like tracking down peaceful protesters so that they can be locked away and likely tortured is evil. There are lots of ethical dilemmas out there where I think people of good conscience can disagree, but that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as good or evil.
Re:Not really it doesn't. by TrekkieGod · 2010-01-19 04:53 · Score: 1

Well, I'm sorry, but if a company wants to operate in a country, it should abide by its laws, otherwise it's a criminal organization.
Isn't that what Google is doing? They're not threatening to invade China with an army of google-engineered robots unless demands are met. This particular event is not even the despicable "let's buy some politicians with campaign contributions" thing. They're saying, "we don't agree with your laws, and if you're not willing to change them, we'll no longer be willing to operate in your country". That's the only thing they've threatened to do: to stop doing business there.

--
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Re:Not really it doesn't. by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-01-19 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, I'm sorry, but if a company wants to operate in a country, it should abide by its laws, otherwise it's a criminal organization.

And Google is doing just that - since they decided that they cannot in good conscience (or business sense, depending on who you ask) abide by those laws, they have pulled out.

It's not up to that company to change the government, it's up to the people that live in the country.
Absolutely. But people who live in the country may want said company to operate in their country, and if that company refuses to operate under their laws, change the laws accordingly. I don't see anything wrong with that. By no means this is "company in charge of a country".
Re:Not really it doesn't. by metlin · 2010-01-19 05:40 · Score: 1

Did it ever strike you that what the Chinese government is doing is against their very own constitution?
No?
Re:Not really it doesn't. by frankxcid · 2010-01-19 06:31 · Score: 1

Google is consistent and not hypocritical. They are sticking to their guns. That being said, their decision is still wrong. History has shown that embargoes/boycotts rarely works towards the goals of making the powerful change their minds. However becoming involved is effective in changing minds. Why does china have quasi-capitalism? Because Hong Kong is now part of China
Re:Not really it doesn't. by Earthquake+Retrofit · 2010-01-19 07:56 · Score: 1

Google is consistent and not hypocritical. They are sticking to their guns. That being said, their decision is still wrong. History has shown that embargoes/boycotts rarely works towards the goals of making the powerful change their minds.
I would direct you to the history of South Africa. Our companies' boycotts did a lot to help towoard Nelson Mandella's goals. Steve

--
Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
Re:Not really it doesn't. by Xest · 2010-01-19 21:06 · Score: 1

Your argument depends on the premise that the majority of the people in the country support the government and the laws set by it.
That premise is quite possibly false.

Re: and lose intellectual property by js3 · 2010-01-19 02:57 · Score: 1

I live near alcatel, and about 90% of their workers are Indians or Chinese. China is digging their heels into large techie companies in the west.

--
did you forget to take your meds?

Android with no facebook/twitter by sam0737 · 2010-01-19 02:58 · Score: 1

Think of the GFW!
What's the point to have an Android if the facebook and twitter integration is not working? Like all Phone book, contact list, live photo uploading etc not working?
I think the price should be 50% cheaper without these!

I wonder when will proxy supports come in...I am living in China, and I have handful of proxies that let me go over the GFW. But is there a configuration hook for that?

Or could I do something like hack the /etc/hosts, and setup a Apache Proxy/Squid or whatsoever at somewhere to route the traffics? Were Android as open as that?
Until they have a configuration knob, or there is a plugin for that...I am not buying Android or subscribing 3G plan for that matter while I still live in Mainland China.

Re:Android with no facebook/twitter by euyis · 2010-01-19 04:54 · Score: 1

What's the point to have an Android if the facebook and twitter integration is not working?
Think of the China Unicom's iPhone 3G. It doesn't even have WiFi. No Youtube. No Twitter. No Everything.
But...

Re:Google is Bluffing by Yamata+no+Orochi · 2010-01-19 03:06 · Score: 1, Funny

Uncle Sam-urai?

Really?

Samurai aren't even Chinese. Where's the -1 Ignorant?

so this means Android is not an open OS? by darkeye · 2010-01-19 03:29 · Score: 1

I wonder why these companies need Google's approval to launch on these markets. After all, it's not Google but Motorola & Samsung launching these phones. Android is supposed to be an open OS that you can just use if you want to.

Is this some sort of Google censorship scheme?

Re:Off-topic, but let me explain by EzInKy · 2010-01-19 04:03 · Score: 1

Download the Linux kernel and take a look at the source. I recommend you start with the Documentation directory.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

hardball? by poached · 2010-01-19 04:06 · Score: 1

I read somewhere that google's china market accounts for 2% of their revenue. I was in Shanghai when the news broke and I read it in their papers. I don't think there is a big uproar about their departure. Most people can use baidu for search but maps and gmail will be harder to replace. Google actually has less market share than baidu in China, which is surprising. Maybe they are not used to playing catchup in their own business. Maybe the Chinese government is secretly (or not) favoring baidu and hacking google causing google to feel the market is a lost cause, and fighting an uphill battle with ball and chains tied around the ankles doesn't help. I think it's a bluff from google to tell the chinese government to stop the bullshit and let them operate equally. I don't think they are going to give up the market to Microsoft and others that easily.

This comes on top of Avatar in China by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-19 04:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Apparently, China is now extremely limiting the Avatar run in China. Depending on whose version you believe, it is either due to China saying that it competes too much with their local films, or it is too close to home with the protests against the gov. for taking land for commercial buildings. Basically, we have a trade war starting in which SOME companies are having enough of the Chinese gov running rough shod on them, while the Chinese gov. continues to ignore their legal agreements to get into the WTO, and then to stay in there as well.

Time to drop their MFN with America and hopefully with the west.

The Whole Taco by b4upoo · 2010-01-19 04:08 · Score: 1

Considering the Chinese government's horrid violations of basic human rights I feel that we should ban all commerce with China. We need an official stamp for such nations such as "Hater of Humanity". By applying an official stamp to such nations we could enlist other nations in total economic embargoes. That would surely slap China hard enough to get them to comply with modern nations sense of fairness to its citizens.

Not made in China? by flyingfsck · 2010-01-19 04:43 · Score: 1

Uhmmm, the Android phone is manufactured where?

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!

Re:Not made in China? by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-01-19 05:39 · Score: 1

Uhmmm, the Android phone is manufactured where?
If you mean Nexus One, then it's Taiwan.

Re:Google is Bluffing by BiggoronSword · 2010-01-19 04:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh, my! I'm sorry. My terrible pun offended you. Please forgive me. Thank you for pointing out this very insignificant mistake that really has nothing to do with my post. I have learned my lesson, and will never do it again.

--
interactive hologram, or it didn't happen.

Re:Off-topic, but let me explain by AlXtreme · 2010-01-19 05:13 · Score: 1

The most popular open-source file-systems, Ext2 and Ext3 don't have official specification of the on-disk data structures.

Check out Documentation/filesystems/ext2.txt and scroll down to the Specification-section. Nifty, ain't it?

Anyone with the source can write a specification, given enough effort. If you need to figure out how GFS works there's a whole implementation available. Probably anyone who would need a specification of a filesystem can figure out the source code and write one, although I agree that having both code and spec is best.

And now for the mods to push this whole thread down into the off-topic pit.

--
This sig is intentionally left blank

It's still made in China by richardkelleher · 2010-01-19 05:30 · Score: 1

Now if they would just move the manufacturing to another country.

Re:Google is Bluffing by KlomDark · 2010-01-19 05:40 · Score: 2

Yes, yes, yes, you fucking Asia-snob, Samurai are not Chinese, but it still works... STFU.

It still works cause most of our uneducated masses couldn't tell the difference between the two.

China? Yah, that's the capital of Japan.

Bottom line by jDeepbeep · 2010-01-19 06:27 · Score: 1

Any government that even attempts to compromise my servers... is not a government I want to cater to any longer.

--
Reply to That ||

Mod parent informative by BhaKi · 2010-01-19 06:54 · Score: 1

Also geographic closeness doesn't nessacerally imply good network connections between two points.

That explains it.

--
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.

Huh? by Gription · 2010-01-19 06:55 · Score: 1

I didn't realize the new Google phones were paid for by advertising!

Sarcasm aside...
Google has been generating advertising revenue in China. People have been using google.cn. A lot of foreign companies that advertise with Google get click-throughs from China.
BTW - Google makes money on a lot more things then just advertising.

Just because Google isn't a market leader isn't a reason for them not to apply themselves to China. China's internet access requires exactly what Google has mastered: Search engines. Making money on that works the same in China as elsewhere: click-throughs.

I guess I am missing the point where China isn't a market for them.

Re:Google is Bluffing by Yamata+no+Orochi · 2010-01-19 07:08 · Score: 1

One person's embarrassingly poor sense of humor is another person's pointlessly racist show of ignorance.

Glad to see the mods are in with you, though.

Re:Google is Bluffing by Yamata+no+Orochi · 2010-01-19 07:15 · Score: 1

Jesus Christ, are you kidding me?

Herp derp, Detroit's the capital of Africa, and Houston's part of Mexico, right?

What still "works," exactly? Just because some retard doesn't know any better doesn't suddenly make it "technically correct because I don't know any better."

Chinese Technology Imitation / Innovation. by djdavetrouble · 2010-01-19 07:52 · Score: 1

What if everything was not stolen?

--
music lover since 1969

Re:Google is Bluffing by KlomDark · 2010-01-19 10:26 · Score: 1

Ah, Mr Fake Chinaman, but you fail at the basics of being able to think down to your "competition's" level. Always you must keep that in your mind, if you are to communicate effectively and thus win the great game. // Zing! Pop! Whooooosssshhh!!!

I will support Google in any way i can now... by twoHats · 2010-01-19 20:48 · Score: 1

Google have taken a strong stance to reverse the bad rep they were starting to get. unlike Apple, which became the Evil Corporation Junior to M$, Google is becoming one of the few who will give up some profit to make a statement of conscience! I Salute them, which is a damn rare thing to get to do these days!

Slashdot Mirror

Google To Suspend Mobile Phone Launch In China

135 of 172 comments (clear)