Europe’s lead data watchdog opens Google GDPR investigation

Ireland’s data protection watchdog has kicked off a GDPR investigation into Google following a complaint from ad-free web browser Brave.

Although GDPR is approaching its first birthday, there is yet to be an example of the towering fines which were promised for non-compliance. Perhaps everyone is playing merrily by the rules, or it might be that they are very good at covering their tracks. Brave will be hoping to chalk up a victory over Google with this investigation however.

“The Irish Data Protection Commission’s action signals that now – nearly one year after the GDPR was introduced – a change is coming that goes beyond just Google,” said Johnny Ryan, Chief Policy Officer at Brave. “We need to reform online advertising to protect privacy, and to protect advertisers and publishers from legal risk under the GDPR.”

The complaint itself is directed at Google’s DoubleClick/Authorized Buyers advertising system. While giving evidence to the Data Protection Commission, Ryan has suggested the way in which data is processed through the system violates Article 5(1)(a), (b) and (f) of GDPR, as well as Section 110 of the Irish Data Protection Act.

DoubleClick/Authorized Buyers advertising system is active on 8.4 million websites, allowing the search giant to track users as they scour the web. This information is then broadcast to more than 2,000 companies who bid on the traffic to deliver more targeted and personalised ads.

This information can potentially be incredibly personal. Google has various different categories which internet users are neatly filed into, including ‘eating disorders’, ‘left-wing politics’, ‘Judaism’ and ‘male impotence’. The companies bidding on this data will also have access to geo-location information and the type of device which the user is on.

Under Article 5 (1)(f) of the GDPR, companies are only permitted to process personal information if it is tightly controlled. Brave suggests Google has no control over the data once it is broadcast and is therefore violating GDPR.

With the Irish watchdog, Europe’s lead for GDPR, investigating the system in Ireland, similar complaints have been filed the UK, Poland, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Should Google be found non-compliant, it would be forced to ditch the DoubleClick/Authorized Buyers advertising system and could face a fine as much as 4% of annual turnover. Based on 2018 revenues, that figure would be $5.4 billion.

“For too long, the AdTech industry has operated without due regard for the protection of consumer data,” said Ravi Naik of ITN Solicitors, who will be representing Brave for the complaint. “We are pleased that the Data Protection Commissioner has taken action. The industry must change.”

GDPR is supposed to be a suitable deterrent for the internet economy, but without enforcement and demonstrable consequences little will change. If GDPR is to work as designed, a monstrous fine will have to be directed at someone sooner or later. Could this be the first domino to fall?

Huawei CEO pressures US President Trump via Chinese media

Ren Zhengfei, Founder and CEO of besieged telecoms vendor Huawei, chose sympathetic Chinese media for his latest publicity initiative.

He invited the People’s Daily, CCTV and Xinhua News Agency, which are directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, as well as a bunch of other media not known for challenging the party line, for a bit of a chat at Huawei towers in Shenzhen. Conspicuously absent was the relatively neutral and objective South China Morning Post.

While the choice of media ensured a sympathetic line of questioning, Ren (pictured, photo taken from report) still served up some interesting answers. The current line from Huawei, in response to all the aggro it’s having to deal with from the US, seems to be to be as friendly as possible towards US companies, while at the same time demonising US politicians.

“What the US will do is out of our control,” said Ren. “I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the US companies that we work with. Over these 30 years, they have helped us to grow into what we are today. They have made many contributions to us. As you know, most of the companies that provide consulting services to Huawei are based in the US, including dozens of companies like IBM and Accenture.

“Second, we also have been receiving support from a large number of US component and part manufacturers over all these years. In the face of the recent crisis, I can feel these companies’ sense of justice and sympathy towards us.

“The US is a country ruled by law. US companies must abide by the laws, and so must the real economy. So you guys from the media should not always blame US companies. Instead, you should speak for them. The blame should rest with some US politicians.

“US politicians might have underestimated our strengths. I don’t want to say too much about this, because Ms. He Tingbo, President of HiSilicon, made all these issues very clear in her letter to employees. And all mainstream newspapers inside and outside of China have reported on this letter.”

Everything Ren said was accurate, but it’s intriguing that he made such a point of exonerating US companies from complicity in this whole affair. Huawei is, of course, a fully globalised company and relies heavily on good relationships with companies everywhere, so it makes sense to protect those relationships.

But looking under the surface of those comments two things spring to mind. Firstly it’s tactically sound to try to drive as much of a wedge as possible between the US private and public sectors. Presumably US companies like Google aren’t happy at being forced to stop doing business with one of the world’s largest technology companies and will be pressuring the US government to wind its neck in behind the scenes. They could yet be vital allies in Huawei’s bid to resolve this situation.

Secondly Ren seems to have scored a bit of an own-goal by conceding how powerless companies are to resist the will of politicians in their home countries. Since the central accusation levelled at Huawei by the US is that it is compelled to assist the Chinese state in espionage activities when asked, a call for private sector defiance may have been more cunning.

There was more talk of component autonomy but the Arm situation, which could scupper many of those plans, wasn’t directly addressed. Apparently Huawei was nearly sold to a US company in 2000 but it fell through at the last minute and they decided against trying to sell it to anyone else. Ren said Huawei has been preparing to ‘square off against the US’ ever since. The core message is that Huawei is fully prepared for this situation and will handle it just fine, but the Android situation was also conveniently avoided.

In response to a question about how long this current situation will last Ren replied “You are asking the wrong person; you should ask President Trump this question. I think there are two sides to this. Of course, we will be affected, but it will also inspire China to develop its electronics industry in a systematic and pragmatic manner.”

Hilariously the piece concludes with the statement “Huawei contributed to this story,” implying some degree of editorial veto. Nonetheless it’s worth reading the whole thing for the considerable insight it offers into the thinking behind the company. Huawei seems to have used this benign media gathering as an opportunity to put pressure on US politicians, or at least encourage US companies to do so. While this is a sound tactic there is currently little evidence of any progress being made in the geopolitical spat that Huawei has found itself in the middle of.

US suspends Huawei export ban for three months to help operators adapt

The US Department of Commerce has given Huawei a three month license to buy US goods in order to lessen the disruption to US companies.

The decision follows the news that a bunch of US companies, including Google, were going to stop doing business with Huawei. Not only would this do severe damage to the desirability of Huawei Android smartphones sold outside of China, but would have caused major disruption to any US companies that rely on working with Huawei.

The DoC therefore decided to grant a temporary licence allowing Huawei and US companies to buy stuff from each other for 90 days starting 20 May. Any US operator that use Huawei gear now effectively have three months to swap it out for equipment not made by anyone on the US shitlist. Any still flogging Huawei smartphones might want to take that time to return them to their source too.

“The Temporary General License grants operators time to make other arrangements and the Department space to determine the appropriate long term measures for Americans and foreign telecommunications providers that currently rely on Huawei equipment for critical services,” said Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. “In short, this license will allow operations to continue for existing Huawei mobile phone users and rural broadband networks.”

Huawei responded with its now familiar defiance, telling Chinese media that none of this is remotely surprising and that it doesn’t even need the temporary license because it saw all this stuff coming ages ago. Additionally a UK Huawei exec told the beeb he reckons Huawei is just collateral damage in the broader trade war between the US and China, which is hard to argue with.

If you’re really into that sort of thing you can read the full temporary license decision here. This doesn’t seem to represent any softening of the US position, just an attempt to cushion the blow for US companies and consumers. It may, however, also represent a diplomatic window for US and China to try to resolve their differences and prevent the ban kicking in on 19 August. Time will tell but further escalation seems more likely than a truce at this point.

Google has another run at the AR world

Google is taking another crack at the growing augmented reality segment with the launch of Glass Enterprise Edition 2.

While the first enterprise product has seemingly trundled along without fanfare, Google will be hoping the segment is ripe enough to make the desired millions. Although this is a technology area which promises huge prospects in the future, sceptics will suggest society, networks and the supporting ecosystem isn’t quite ready to make this dream a reality.

“Over the past two years at X, Alphabet’s moonshot factory, we’ve collaborated with our partners to provide solutions that improve workplace productivity for a growing number of customers – including AGCO, Deutsche Post DHL Group, Sutter Health, and H.B. Fuller,” said Jay Kothari Project, Lead for Glass. “We’ve been inspired by the ways businesses like these have been using Glass Enterprise Edition.

“X, which is designed to be a protected space for long-term thinking and experimentation, has been a great environment in which to learn and refine the Glass product. Now, in order to meet the demands of the growing market for wearables in the workplace and to better scale our enterprise efforts, the Glass team has moved from X to Google.”

This is a massive step for any Google idea. Graduating from the moonshot labs to be listed as a genuine brand in the Google family is a sign executives think there are profits to be made now, not in the future. Over the last couple of months, we’ve seen the likes of Loon and Fi make their way into the real world, and now it is time for Glass to hit the big time.

Google Glass was first brought to the market in 2013, though this wasn’t exactly a riveting success. Perhaps it was just a sign of the ecosystem and society at the time; people just weren’t ready for this type of innovation. However, Google is a company which often demonstrates innovation leadership and it was never going to completely give up on this idea. The products were taken back to the labs and refined.

What you have now is an enterprise orientated product which has the potential to run into the mass market. This makes sense for two reasons; firstly, there are more immediate usecases for the enterprise world, and secondly, businesses have more money to spend on these types of products than the consumer.

What remains to be seen is whether Google has any long-term interest in the hardware space or whether this is a game-plan to generate momentum in an embryonic segment.

When you look at the smart speaker segment, Google was always set to make more money in software and services than the hardware space. As soon as the traditional audio brands got the idea, its products were going to come up short. However, selling the hardware cheap to gain consumer buy-in while simultaneously demonstrating market appetite to the traditional brands was an excellent move.

Now there are more mainstream brands starting to develop their own smart speakers, Google can create partnerships to ensure its virtual assistance is exposed to the consumer and make money through means which are embedded in its corporate DNA; third-party relationships and online advertising.

Google might well have ambitions to take a leadership position in the AR glasses space, but you can also guarantee it has bigger plans to make profits through the supporting software and services ecosystem.

US supply ban threatens to cripple Huawei’s global business

Another day, another escalation as Google heads a stampede of US companies apparently refusing to do business with Huawei.

As escalations go, however, this is a pretty big one. Reuters was the first report that Google has suspended some business with Huawei in response to the company being put on the US ‘entity list’, which means US companies need explicit permission from the US state before they’re allowed to sell anything to them. It seems that permission has been denied.

For Google this means denying access to those bits of Android Google licenses – mainly the Play Store and Google’s own mobile products such as the Gmail and Maps apps. Huawei can still access the core Android operating system as that has an open source license but, as companies such as Amazon have discovered, that’s pretty useless without all the other Google goodies.

We recently wrote that Huawei’s addition to the entity list is the most significant consequence of Trump’s executive order and here we have an immediate illustration of that. It looks like pretty much all other US companies are also rushing to comply with the new regulations, with Bloomberg reporting that Qualcomm and Intel are among others cutting of business with Huawei and others will presumably follow. Nikkei even reckons German chip-maker Infineon has joined the stampede.

Huawei already has an extensive chip-making operation of its own, so arguably it can cope without the likes of Qualcomm, but what about the millions of other bits and bobs that get crammed into a smartphone such as screens, cameras, memory, sensors, etc? A lot of these could be supplied by non-US companies like Samsung and, of course, Chinese ones, but there must surely be some areas in which Huawei is entirely reliant on the US supply chain.

But Google’s licensed mobile products and services are unique. An Android phone that doesn’t provide access to the Play store is massively diminished in its utility to the end user and Google Maps is the market leader. Google also has a near monopoly with YouTube and millions of people are reliant on things like Gmail, Google Pay, Play Movies. When there are so many great alternative Android smartphone vendors, why would anyone now buy a de-featured Huawei one?

In response to these reports Android moved to stress that it will continue to support existing Huawei Android phones in the following tweet.

Meanwhile Huawei issued the following statement. “Huawei has made substantial contributions to the development and growth of Android around the world. As one of Android’s key global partners, we have worked closely with their open-source platform to develop an ecosystem that has benefitted both users and the industry.

“Huawei will continue to provide security updates and after sales services to all existing Huawei and Honor smartphone and tablet products covering those have been sold or still in stock globally. We will continue to build a safe and sustainable software ecosystem, in order to provide the best experience for all users globally.”

Huawei has reportedly been working on its own smartphone OS in anticipation of this sort of thing happening but, as Microsoft, Samsung and others have found, there seems to be little public appetite for alternative to Android and iOS. Huawei may be able to sell a proprietary platform in China, where the Play Store is restricted anyway, but internationally this move will surely see Huawei smartphone sales fall off a cliff.

“If the US ban is permanent, we predict Huawei’s global smartphone shipments will tumble -25% in 2019,” Neil Mawston of Strategy Analytics told Telecoms.com. “If Huawei cannot offer Android’s wildly popular apps, like Maps or Gmail, Huawei’s smartphone demand outside China will collapse.

“If the US ban is temporary, and lifted within weeks, Huawei’s global smartphone growth will return to positive growth fairly swiftly. Huawei offers good smartphone models at decent prices through an extensive retail network, and it should recover reasonably well if it is allowed to compete.”

“We still don’t have a clear understanding of what Google has told Huawei and what elements of the Android operating system may be restricted, so it remains unclear what the ramifications will be,” said Ben Wood of CCS Insight. “However, any disruption in getting updates to the software or the associated applications would have considerable implications for Huawei’s consumer device business.”

There have been very few official statements on the matter from US companies, so Wood is right to tread carefully at this stage, but it’s hard to see this news as anything other than catastrophic for Huawei. Its consumer business, which is the most successful unit in the company, relies largely on Android to run its products and will surely be severely diminished by the Google move.

And there’s no reason to assume the damage will be contained there. Last year Huawei’s contemporary ZTE was almost driven out of business by a ban on US companies doing business with it. Huawei may have hedged its position regarding networking components suppliers more effectively than ZTE but it will presumably suffer greatly once those companies follow suit.

Huawei is one of the biggest companies in the world and has become so in spite of being largely excluded from the US market. The Chinese state will do everything it can to support Huawei, but at least some of its US suppliers offer unique products. At the very least this puts Huawei in a weak negotiating position with potential replacement partners and international customers, but the implications of this latest development are potentially existential.

Google goes back to ad-supported model for its YouTube Originals

Google seems to come a cropper when it comes to its YouTube content ambitions, announcing all of its Original content will now be available for ‘free’.

As part of the evolution of YouTube, Google attempted something which could have been viewed as quite drastic; it introduced a paywall. For $11.99 a month, users could access ad-free content, Google’s library of music and also its Original content. For a platform which has a reputation for free content, it was a strategy which flew in the face of logic.

However, it would appear this strategy has been less than successful. This is not to say it is dead, but more work needs to be done on the foundations before the palace can be built. Starting at some point this year, YouTube Original content will be available for ‘free’, with adverts, on the YouTube platform for all to view.

“Today, we announced that all new YouTube Original series and specials will soon be available for fans around the world to watch for free with ads — just like they enjoy other content on the platform,” YouTube said in a blog entry.

The paywall business model might be attractive in the long-run, but Google is still a business with investors; it has to make money now as well.

“Presumably YouTube’s gargantuan global audience means its more lucrative to use advertising rather than subs to monetise those shows [YouTube Originals],” said Ed Barton, Chief Analyst at Ovum.

“YouTube has huge audiences in many countries which don’t have much propensity to subscribe to online video services so focusing on advertising presumably unlocks a lot of value in those markets.”

Perhaps this is what we should take away from this move; Google tried to do something new, it didn’t reap the rewards, and now the team is going back to the tried and tested ad-supported model. It was too much self-disruption to stomach is a single sitting.

The content conundrum

Despite content being one of the biggest discussions in the tech world over the last few years, the question of how to make money still remains.

On one side of the fence, you have the paywall business model. There are numerous benefits here, recurring revenues and brand stickiness being the most obvious, though it does also create a sense of authority in the field. This premium perception will be attractive to the content creators, and it does also simplify the process of paying the creators themselves.

However, a paywall does make it more difficult to scale viewing figures and does mean you have to justify the cost to consumers. Dud content is punishable through the trials of social media meaning more attention (and money) much be spent on creating original content.

Looking at the ad-supported model, the practice which drove Google to the behemoth it is today, content is much more accessible and simpler to scale. You also have the advantage of not being punished for suspect-quality content as consumers are being entertained for ‘free’.

But there is also the downside, which mirrors the paywall approach almost perfectly. Content creators will be afraid of de-valuing their work, while there is also the complicated matter of getting paid. Consumers are not necessarily guaranteed to come back, and when you have created a reputation for a free-content provider, shifting users towards premium products becomes much more difficult.

Google’s long-term ambitions

The ad-supported business model has fuelled Google’s growth over the last decade, though it would be stupid to ignore the trends which are in the market.

“Google and YouTube should certainly have an eye on over-arching trends in the content space,” said Paolo Pescatore of PP Foresight.

“Traditional content creators are gradually moving towards the world of OTT, and YouTube is the most popular streaming platform on the planet. It has to figure out how to change its perception in the eyes of the consumer, ushering the masses behind the paywall.”

As Pescatore points out, consumers view YouTube as a platform for free content. This engrained perception will present challenges in driving adoption of the premium products, however offering the Original programming for free might work as somewhat of a teaser to justify the expense of a subscription.

YouTube is a platform which can survive by solely focusing on the ad-supported model, however it will be leaving money on the table. Premium streaming services are certainly gaining more traction, creating more value throughout the entire digital ecosystem. Why would Google want to ignore this potential boost to revenues?

Diversification is key for every business, not just the ones who are under financial pressures. Google has consistently shown it is an organization which consistently strives for the new and is not afraid of setbacks.

The movement towards a paywall on the YouTube platform might not have worked for the moment, but there are simply too many gains to ignore. Releasing YouTube Originals as free content might be a smart way to alter the perception of YouTube, demonstrating the value of what is behind the paywall to consumers, and also proving content creators their pride and joy would not be devalued on the platform.

For the moment, Google executives seem to have decided that there is more money in ad-supported revenues than the paywall for YouTube Originals. This might not help long-term ambitions of making the paywall model work, but perhaps it was too much of a drastic step away from the traditional Google business model.

This is a minor set-back, but the YouTube paywall is far from destroyed.

Google introduces auto-delete

Privacy is proving to be one of the long-standing themes of 2019 and Google latest move perhaps should be considered an industry standard.

Starting with its Search and Maps products, Google will introduce an auto-delete option for users in the privacy settings. While users will be able to continue to manually delete location and search data held by the internet giant, a new option will soon be available which will automatically delete data after three or 18 months.

“You should always be able to manage your data in a way that works best for you and we’re committed to giving you the best controls to make that happen,” the team said in a blog post.

This is certainly an interesting approach, which could satisfy numerous concerns from all corners of digital society.

Firstly, for the privacy conscious, Google is offering different options for the user to regain control of their personal data. The idea looks simple enough, and relatively transparent. Sceptics will be hunting for a loophole, and quite rightly so, the technology industry has lost the right to credibility when it comes to privacy matters.

Secondly, the retention of data for a short-period of time ensures the Google products can work better. Although popular opinion is turning against hyper-scale personalisation, the advertising machines are making personalisation a dirty word, it is what makes Google’s search engine and mapping product so successful. If Google wasn’t able to train these products to be individualised, they would be pretty generic and awful.

Finally, it still affords Google the opportunity to make money. Privacy concerns aside for the moment, Google still has to be given the opportunity to make money otherwise the products which we have become so reliant on over the last decade will cease to exist. Google is not a registered charity, if it isn’t making money it will no-longer be.

Perhaps the most important factor in this update is the reasonable nature of it. Google is offering terms to the value exchange. It is placing a time limit on its ability to make money from personal data in exchange for offering free services. Admittedly, time constraints are supposedly included in GDPR, though such is the complex and confusing nature of the rules, there are plenty of loopholes and grey areas to expose.

As far as we’re concerned, this is a good move for Google and the digital society on the whole. Yes, Google is perhaps making the best of a difficult situation, claiming PR points by appearing to voluntarily promote privacy in the face of regulatory reform, but it would be nice to see such approaches as industry standard.

On the surface, its reasonable, transparent and fulfils the promise of the digital economy, where Google offers services in exchange for data. Here’s hoping more of the internet giants follow suit.

YouTube censorship contributes to disappointing Google numbers

Google holding company Alphabet saw its share price fall by 8% after it announced disappointing Q1 numbers.

The company was fairly elusive about the reasons for a deceleration in its revenue growth on the subsequent revenue call, but many commentators picked up on comments around YouTube as significant.

“YouTube’s top priority is responsibility,” said Google CEO Sundar Pichai. “As one example, earlier this year YouTube announced changes that reduce recommendations of content that comes close to violating our guidelines or that misinforms in harmful ways.”

“…while YouTube Clicks continue to grow at a substantial pace in the first quarter, the rate of YouTube Click growth decelerated versus what was a strong Q1 last year reflecting changes that we made in early 2018, which we believe are overall additive to the user and advertiser experience,” said CFO Ruth Porat.

At least one analyst on the call expressed frustration at the lack of further clarity on the reasons why Google’s revenues aren’t what they expected them to be, but the YouTube stuff seems fairly self-explanatory. Pichai made it clear that YouTube is all about reducing perceived harmful content on the platform, while Porat referred to changes made at YouTube in early 2018.

So what were those changes? To YouTubers they were one of many wholesale restrictions on the types of content that are monetised (i.e. have ads served on them), broadly referred to as ‘adpocalypse’. Every now and then a big brand found its ads served against content it disapproved of, resulting in it pulling its ads from YouTube entirely. In the resulting commercial panic YouTube moved to demonetize broad swathes of content.

While this is an understandable immediate reaction to a clear business threat, it also undermines the central concept of YouTube, which is to provide a platform for anyone to publish video. On top of that YouTube increasingly censors its platform, including closing comments, tweaking the recommendation algorithm and sometimes even banning entire channels. These restrictions must surely have contributed to the amount of ad revenue coming in, but Google seems to have decided it’s worth it to keep the big brands sweet.

Here’s some further analysis from prominent YouTuber Tim Pool followed by an example of just the kind of indie creativity YouTube has built its success on (which, to be fair, doesn’t seem to have been demonetised this time). A move towards favouring big corporates over independent producers is a much bigger risk than you might imagine for YouTube, as Google’s disappointing Q1 numbers imply.

 

Apple under more antitrust scrutiny in Europe

The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has launched an investigation into whether Apple is abusing its power through the App Store, favouring its own apps over rivals.

The Dutch regulator has reported back after receiving several complaints regarding Apple’s behaviour surrounding the App Store, suggesting there might be some foul play afoot. The initial foray has led the ACM into a larger investigation to understand whether Apple, and Google for that matter, are abusing dominant positions in the app economy to drive more favourable positions for their own apps and services.

“To a large degree, app providers depend on Apple and Google for offering apps to users. In the market study, ACM has received indications from app providers, which seem to indicate that Apple abuses its position in the App Store,” said Henk Don, an ACM board member. “That is why ACM sees sufficient reason for launching a follow-up investigation, on the basis of competition law.”

The news will not be welcomed by Apple, which is also under investigation at European level following disagreement with music streaming app Spotify. Spotify is suggesting Apple deliberately disadvantages other app developers, and while the complaint lodged with the European Commission is confidential, it has created a website listed the five ways Apple does not play fair in the app economy:

  1. The 30% fee which is applied to in-app purchases
  2. Apple won’t allow developers to communicate deals and promotions directly to customers
  3. Users cannot upgrade to premium services in app
  4. Apple rejects app enhancements for unknown reasons
  5. Spotify cannot be installed on all devices in the Apple portfolio

Some of the reasons might sounds a little moany but Apple does not seem to be laying the same rules on its own apps and services. For example, Spotify cannot be played on the Homepod, but iTunes can. This point might be of interest to the Dutch authorities.

While the original complaints received by the Dutch regulator have mainly been directed towards Apple and the App Store, the ACM also notes the dominant position Google is currently in for the Android app ecosystem. This investigation will be wide enough to assess the position of both companies and their knock-on activities in the developing ecosystem.

The initial investigation, which the ACM admits has not been in-depth enough, has uncovered some worrying elements of the business, we can’t imagine it will be difficult to dig up much more dirt on the pair.

Although both the App Store and Play Store are critical gateways in connecting developers to millions of consumers, that doesn’t mean developers need to be happy about the terms. Many are becoming increasingly frustrated with conditions, notably the 30% commission, with the larger developers looking to avoid working with the pair entirely.

There are few titles which have the brand recognition to achieve success without the reach of the App Store or Play Store, but Fortnite is one. Last August, Fortnite announced it would only offer downloads through its own website as opposed to the app stores. Estimates suggest it would save the firm $50 million in commission paid to Apple and Google.

The ACM has been keen to point out it has not come to a conclusion, despite some worrying findings in the initial investigation, and it may well find no antitrust violations. Despite pleas of impartiality, Apple and Google should certainly be worried; Europe has been pretty hot on antitrust cases recently.

Google starts droning on about home delivery

Another one of Google’s bright ideas is starting to bear fruit as subsidiary Wing starts testing an air delivery service in North Canberra, Australia.

Almost every company on the planet searches for the diversification holy grail, but few have the patience, investor confidence and bank accounts to see through the quest. Google is one of the rare exceptions. A company which seems to revel in investing in the preposterous, giving every idea as much capital as necessary to ensure it can be a success, should the conditions be right. Wing is another example of this.

“Today, we are excited to be launching our first air delivery service in North Canberra,” the Wing team wrote in a Medium blog. “Our service allows customers to order a range of items such as fresh food, hot coffee or over-the-counter chemist items on our mobile app and have them delivered directly to their homes by drone in minutes.”

The initial service will only be available to a limited set of eligible homes in the suburbs of Crace, Palmerston and Franklin for the moment, but the ambition is clear; drones can disrupt the logistics and delivery segments.

The first partners of the service will be Kickstart Expresso, Capital Chemist, Pure Gelato, Jasper + Myrtle, Bakers Delight, Guzman Y Gomez, and Drummond Golf, allowing customers to choose from a range of goods, though Wing has stated it is open to new ideas.

Starting in 2014, Wing has been working to realise the drone delivery dream in Australia. Live trials started 18 months ago, delivering food, small household items and over the counter chemist products to more than 3,000 times to Australian homes in Fernleigh Park, Royalla and Bonython. Progress might have been slow, but that never seems to bother the Googlers.

The pursuit of disruption is becoming somewhat of a speciality for Google, either through acquisition or nurturing ideas in the Moonshot labs. Loon is another idea few companies would have thought realistic, but in signing a partnership with Telkom Kenya, Google is proving the delivery of connectivity through balloons is a perfectly reasonable business plan.

This is not to say every Google idea turns out to be a raving success. Google Fiber started off well but soon got canned as the search giant realised fixed line connectivity was much harder than it first seemed.

This is of course not the only attempt at monetizing drone technology through home delivery. AT&T has been creeping forward with its own drone programme in the US, while Amazon has been conducting trials in the UK, and Vodafone delivered an iPhone to a customer in New Zealand. All of these trials would have been deemed successful, though you have to wonder whether they are commercially viable.

For Amazon, the idea of drone delivery makes sense. Having drones to deliver goods from fulfilment centres to remote locations answers a difficult logistics issue, while AT&T and Vodafone might be able to craft a connectivity offering, but Google has something which many of these companies do not; existing relationships with numerous businesses, irrelevant as to whether they are large or small.

Almost every business in the developed markets will have a relationship with Google, such is the power, influence and simplicity of the platform. This extends from listings in the search engine, the Maps products or through to the YouTube platform. This offers an incredible opportunity to leverage relationships and make an idea which might not be considered commercially viable profitable.

Once again this demonstrates the power of the internet and new technology. Through a simple app, customers will be able to do more without leaving the flat, while businesses will be able to expand the perimeter of their operations.

Of course, you have to consider whether local and national governments are ready to foster this kind of entrepreneurship, but that has never stopped the internet giants before. Google is showing its pedigree for innovation again, taking an idea which seems ridiculous and potentially making it work.