Pendant des années, « souveraineté numérique » était le leitmotiv des discours à Bruxelles. Les chiffres viennent de rattraper les mots : près d'un Français sur deux se dit désormais prêt à payer un peu plus cher pour s'en approcher.
Un Français sur deux serait prêt à payer plus cher pour une alternative souveraine
près d’un Français sur deux se dit désormais prêt à payer un peu plus cher
83% des Français pensent que l’UE devrait réduire ses dépendances numériques vis-à-vis des pays tiers
le marché mondial du cloud reste très largement dominé par des acteurs américains : AWS, Microsoft Azure et Google Cloud en tête
49% des sondés se déclarent prêts à basculer vers un fournisseur de services numériques basé en Europe, même si cela coûte un peu plus cher
Nuance à ne pas effacer : le sondage précise que le surcoût envisagé reste léger, pas un chèque en blanc, et il s’agit d’une intention déclarée, pas forcément d’un comportement d’achat. C’est quand même le genre de chiffre que les institutions européennes vont citer dans leurs discours pendant la prochaine décennie.
By the way, “basculer vers un fournisseur” does explicitly mean they currently pay for something, but that they’re ready to move to something else. And “surcout” does explicitly mean an increase of cost compared to the cost they currently pay. And so does “payer plus cher” (the “pay MORE” that I’ve been underlining for you over and over since the start).
I don’t understand how you could possibly be dumb enough to read this any other way.
I don’t know what the fuck you think you’re trying to do here.
Excellent, you’re making an effort now! Progress! Now, let’s go and fix what’s actually wrong. At the start, we said:
…So, a full third want a domestic alternative, but not to pay for it?
Pay more
I mean, yes, that’s what I said, but […]
And then I clarify:
[…] not willing to pay for a service to be domestic
and
[…] They are willing to pay for the service itself, but not to have it be domestic
So, not that they’re not willing to pay at all, but that, in their mind, kicking out the Yanks is a “nice to have”, not an actual selling point they would pay for specifically. Once again, to clarify, the “it” in “pay for it” is specifically the local nature of the service, not the service itself.
Then, you slide in with “I don’t understand why you think it should be more expensive if it’s locally made.”, and I genuinely don’t know where you got that from. I’m not saying it should, or even would cost more, I’m saying thatI’m actually not saying anything, the article is saying that if it did, 50% (well, 51%) would not pay for it, and presumably opt for a cheaper, foreign option. And because this is the conversation it is, I am hereby clarifying that “cheaper” can also mean “free”.
I don’t understand how you could possibly be dumb enough to read this any other way.
Well, my French may be exceedingly rusty, but the thing I’d read here is that “surcout”, “plus cher”, and “basculer vers un fournisseur” all refer to the 49% who would pay. The 83% response is to the question about the EU.
Then, you slide in with “I don’t understand why you think it should be more expensive if it’s locally made.”, and I genuinely don’t know where you got that from.
You literally said it was “worse” that they’re willing to pay, but not more, for a local version?? That is a judgement call you made about the people’s answer, those fabulous 33%, the weirdos who “can’t be bothered enough to be willing to pay for it.” If “not paying more” is worse, then how are you not, in fact, saying that they should be paying more??
Well, my French may be exceedingly rusty, but the thing I’d read here is that “surcout”, “plus cher”, and “basculer vers un fournisseur” all refer to the 49% who would pay. The 83% response is to the question about the EU.
I still don’t understand what you’re reading wrong here. 100% of the people they asked are paying something, they’re all using the EU’s services, which is currently not deGAAFed enough. 49 of them are ready to pay more if the EU goes local. The other 51 are not ready to pay more for the EU services they already pay. Everyone has a fournisseur / provider, everyone uses EU services, everyone pays for them. 83% of all the people they asked think it should be local, and 49% of all the same people would pay more to make it happen.
Does it help in any way if I point out that there was a stink up not long ago about French health services storing data on Microsoft clouds? About the DGSI (national security stuff) having a contract with Palantir ? (which they dropped fortunately) Google, Microsoft, Amazon, are everywhere, in France, in the EU - in things that we pay for right now, through taxes for France and for the EU, and then there’s the other stuff like Internet providers that we individually pay for, some of whom do or did use stuff like Amazon’s services. And the general sentiment is that they should fuck off, and half of the people would be willing to pay more. This is what it’s about.
You literally said it was “worse” that they’re willing to pay, but not more, for a local version?? That is a judgement call you made about the people’s answer, those fabulous 33%, […]
Correct. Making the leap from “free” to “paid” is a big one, mentally. A stance of “I would like an EU service, but not enough to go through the hassle of actually setting up a paid tier of service” is a lot easier to understand than "I already pay the Yanks, and would like an EU service, but I just don’t wanna spend any additional money.
weirdos who “can’t be bothered enough to be willing to pay for it.”
Ah, no, not “can’t be bothered” - “they’re not bothered enough”. They are bothered, as in, it upsets them that the service is foreign, but not enough to get them to do something about it. And I’m not saying they should pay more. I just think it’s funny that they aren’t willing to, especially what’s explicitly a “nominal surcharge”. Kinda how when everyone says they want to eat healthy, and then keep eating pizza.
100% of the people they asked are paying something, they’re all using the EU’s services, which is currently not deGAAFed enough.
Aaah, you’re talking about paying taxes for government services. Now you’re making sense.
No, you are reading that wrong.
Fine, quote me the article part where it mentions paying for cloud services.
The title is “one in two would pay MORE” and “83% want an alternative.”
No one is saying that the 33% difference don’t want to pay. You are claiming that. You prove it.
…I said the article, not the title. Go read the article.
By the way, “basculer vers un fournisseur” does explicitly mean they currently pay for something, but that they’re ready to move to something else. And “surcout” does explicitly mean an increase of cost compared to the cost they currently pay. And so does “payer plus cher” (the “pay MORE” that I’ve been underlining for you over and over since the start).
I don’t understand how you could possibly be dumb enough to read this any other way.
I don’t know what the fuck you think you’re trying to do here.
Excellent, you’re making an effort now! Progress! Now, let’s go and fix what’s actually wrong. At the start, we said:
And then I clarify:
and
So, not that they’re not willing to pay at all, but that, in their mind, kicking out the Yanks is a “nice to have”, not an actual selling point they would pay for specifically. Once again, to clarify, the “it” in “pay for it” is specifically the local nature of the service, not the service itself.
Then, you slide in with “I don’t understand why you think it should be more expensive if it’s locally made.”, and I genuinely don’t know where you got that from. I’m not saying it should, or even would cost more,
I’m saying thatI’m actually not saying anything, the article is saying that if it did, 50% (well, 51%) would not pay for it, and presumably opt for a cheaper, foreign option. And because this is the conversation it is, I am hereby clarifying that “cheaper” can also mean “free”.Well, my French may be exceedingly rusty, but the thing I’d read here is that “surcout”, “plus cher”, and “basculer vers un fournisseur” all refer to the 49% who would pay. The 83% response is to the question about the EU.
You literally said it was “worse” that they’re willing to pay, but not more, for a local version?? That is a judgement call you made about the people’s answer, those fabulous 33%, the weirdos who “can’t be bothered enough to be willing to pay for it.” If “not paying more” is worse, then how are you not, in fact, saying that they should be paying more??
I still don’t understand what you’re reading wrong here. 100% of the people they asked are paying something, they’re all using the EU’s services, which is currently not deGAAFed enough. 49 of them are ready to pay more if the EU goes local. The other 51 are not ready to pay more for the EU services they already pay. Everyone has a fournisseur / provider, everyone uses EU services, everyone pays for them. 83% of all the people they asked think it should be local, and 49% of all the same people would pay more to make it happen.
Does it help in any way if I point out that there was a stink up not long ago about French health services storing data on Microsoft clouds? About the DGSI (national security stuff) having a contract with Palantir ? (which they dropped fortunately) Google, Microsoft, Amazon, are everywhere, in France, in the EU - in things that we pay for right now, through taxes for France and for the EU, and then there’s the other stuff like Internet providers that we individually pay for, some of whom do or did use stuff like Amazon’s services. And the general sentiment is that they should fuck off, and half of the people would be willing to pay more. This is what it’s about.
Correct. Making the leap from “free” to “paid” is a big one, mentally. A stance of “I would like an EU service, but not enough to go through the hassle of actually setting up a paid tier of service” is a lot easier to understand than "I already pay the Yanks, and would like an EU service, but I just don’t wanna spend any additional money.
Ah, no, not “can’t be bothered” - “they’re not bothered enough”. They are bothered, as in, it upsets them that the service is foreign, but not enough to get them to do something about it. And I’m not saying they should pay more. I just think it’s funny that they aren’t willing to, especially what’s explicitly a “nominal surcharge”. Kinda how when everyone says they want to eat healthy, and then keep eating pizza.
Aaah, you’re talking about paying taxes for government services. Now you’re making sense.