Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's response to the European Commission fine

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 237 posts

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#131

Post by _Codemonkeyism »

jasode wrote: post #92
_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have replied to the wrong comment. I've read through the other thread, I couldn't find a comment that agrees with "connecting our users with thousands of advertisers, large and small, in ways that are useful for both."

To me, the comment from theBobBob agrees with the convenience of Google search connecting users to advertisers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644022

It could be just me, but could you point out where the comment says he likes to be connected to advertisers?

    The thing is, personally I prefer getting integrated results from Google's   
    other search services when I do a Google search. I like getting Google Maps 
    results when I search for a location, I like getting Google Flights results 
    etc. When I do a Google search I am not just using it as a simple website 
    search. I want it to use it to search the whole Google suite of services. 
    If they are forced to stop doing this it will make my search experience 
    worse for me.

    Random, maybe silly idea. Maybe they could start providing two search 
    streams. One would just be a simpler website search while the other would 
    be a more involved google services search as well as a general website 
    search. This way search users could explicitly say that they want to see 
    direct integrated results from the whole Google ecosystem.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#132

Post by xg15 »

weberc2 wrote: post #71
TeMPOraL wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP wasn't complaining about product issues (which were discussed in the other thread), but about the doublespeak used in Google's response.

Doesn't doublespeak imply a self-contradiction? At any rate, I thought the OP was complaining about "spin", in which case the reply is valid, as it isn't spin; there's just multiple valid ways of interpreting Google's behaviors, and which interpretation you choose depends largely on how satisfied you are with their business model.

I take deliberately leaving out crucial facts - such as that Google's "beneficial for both sides" product ads are paid by one side - as a pretty creative way of "interpreting".

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#133

Post by icebraining »

fixermark wrote: post #120
geodel wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So either EU is grossly incompetent to stop such thing at EU members level or they just think acting against individual companies will generate more fireworks and public support.

It's more that the EU doesn't have the political will to do what is perceived as the common good here. Ireland has a selfish interest in attracting tech companies, and the rest of the EU can't bring enough political leverage against them to change the legal structures that make Ireland preferable for headquartering.

No political will? What about the EC's order for Apple to pay 13B € in unpaid taxes?

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#134

Post by dontnotice »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #122
dontnotice wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Court? the problem is that these fines don't go through any court.

So just like FCC decisions in the US then.

The FCC isn't the right equivalent here, the FTC or the DoJ are, and they have to successfully sue in federal court for their fines to stick.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#135

Post by jasode »

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #131
jasode wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, the comment from theBobBob agrees with the convenience of Google search connecting users to advertisers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644022

It could be just me, but could you point out where the comment says he likes to be connected to advertisers? The thing is, personally I prefer getting integrated results from Google's other search services when I do a Google search. I like getting Google Maps results when I search for a location, I like getting Google Flights results etc. When I do a Google search I am not just using it as a simple website search. I…

Maybe you're not seeing it because you're looking for literal exact words. Instead, look for meaning ... such as the one embedded in this sentence:

>I prefer getting integrated results from Google's other search services when I do a Google search.

One example of "other search services" is Google Shopping. It's the retail advertisers that sponsor their ecommerce buying links to Google Shopping. Hence, the "advertisers connection to users".

Btw, there are also other posters making similar comments about the convenience of Google "connecting users to advertisers". Like the previous example, you won't see it if you're looking for that exact phrasing.

E.g. another comment by cyxxon: "Currently Google's services just so damned conveniently integrated": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14644100

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#136

Post by eli_gottlieb »

autokad wrote: post #83
hoorayimhelping wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd encourage you (and everyone) to read the comments in the other thread happening today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 You'll see people baffled by this decision and generally happy with the service and products google offers. It's just a reminder to remember that what doesn't work for you may be pure bliss for other people.

I'm going to get down voted out the wazoo for saying it, but I will voice my opinion anyways. The EU has long used 'anti trust fines' as a way of levying tariffs against US companies.

Well, if the USA isn't going to enforce its own antitrust laws...

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#137

Post by icebraining »

dontnotice wrote: post #68
walterstucco wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure EU court have based its decision on a number of different factors. The letter from Oracle is just one of them.

Court? the problem is that these fines don't go through any court.

The fines are applied by the Commission, but the companies can appeal to the EU's general court and then to the CJEU.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#138

Post by TeMPOraL »

icebraining wrote: post #133
fixermark wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more that the EU doesn't have the political will to do what is perceived as the common good here. Ireland has a selfish interest in attracting tech companies, and the rest of the EU can't bring enough political leverage against them to change the legal structures that make Ireland preferable for headquartering.

No political will? What about the EC's order for Apple to pay 13B € in unpaid taxes?

Ordering an US corporation to do something is entirely different from making a member state change their laws.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#139

Post by Brockenstein »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #100
mattmanser wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, like that pesky Netscape that totally screwed over MS and almost stopped the golden age of web browsers between 2001 and 2006. /s

Hey, I had a 'best viewed with any browser' icon on my sites at the time (in fact http://dougal.sourceforge.net/ still boasts one ...). Doesn't alter the fact that Netscape was incapable of competing with Microsoft (in fact I think you sort of made my point, there) once the latter got their arses into gear. Edited : Wow! The "Viewable With Any Browser" campaign site is still up, in 2017. I wonder if they're keeping i…

You keep using that word. But I don't it means what you think it means.

Netscape could compete with IE. Netscape couldn't compete with the entire MS empire being dedicated to destroying them.

MS played hardball and were willing to do anything to gain nearly complete dominance in the market. A lot of their strategy was clearly anti-competitive and anti-consumer. It's not even a debate. See U.S. v Microsoft. Netscape couldn't compete with that sort of scorched earth strategy. And it took Google and Mozilla years to make a dent in that and MS had to help by letting their market dominance stagnate for over half a decade and causing endless irritation for a generation of developers who are always going to treat an MS browser as a second class citizen.

So yeah, great for MS, they beat Netscape. But they couldn't beat Google or Mozilla and that's the most recent battle, so the one that actually matters.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#140

Post by _Codemonkeyism »

jasode wrote: post #135
_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be just me, but could you point out where the comment says he likes to be connected to advertisers? The thing is, personally I prefer getting integrated results from Google's other search services when I do a Google search. I like getting Google Maps results when I search for a location, I like getting Google Flights results etc. When I do a Google search I am not just using it as a simple website search. I…

Maybe you're not seeing it because you're looking for literal exact words. Instead, look for meaning ... such as the one embedded in this sentence: >I prefer getting integrated results from Google's other search services when I do a Google search. One example of "other search services" is Google Shopping. It's the retail advertisers that sponsor their ecommerce buying links to Google Shopping. Hence, the "advertisers…

Ah, "the words are what I mean them to be". Can't argue anymore then.
Post reply on HN