Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising • Hacker News Board

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#331

Post by Youden » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #239

throwaway9d0291 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not really. Basically the way the EU sees it, Google has a monopoly in a market: mobile operating systems. That is, if you're an OEM and you want to sell a device with an operating system, Google is currently the only place you can really turn. Apple exists but since it doesn't sell its operating system, it's not a participant in this market. So the EU saw Google saying to OEMs "you can have Android but you have…

As far as I know, Android is open source and any OEM is free to use it without asking permission. The licensing program is for the right to install proprietary Google apps like the Play Store or Google Maps. There are plenty of Chinese OEMs who aren't licensed and sell phones without the Play store.

The code is open source but "Android" is trademarked. You can't call it an "Android" phone unless Google lets you.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#332

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

Veelox wrote: post #312

gamblor956 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally just provided the example. Product A: dominant search product Product B: non-dominant advertising product. If you want to use product A, you need to also use product B. That alone is sufficient to create an antitrust violation. It's almost literally the textbook example of an antitrust violation. But Google didn't stop there--they required exclusivity for product B for several years, and even after that…

It might be that I don't see how what you classify as Product A and Product B are different products. I see Product B as the monetization feature of Product A. If I "squint" I can see how they are different products but I am not convinced.

Product A is the search engine, so you're paying for search results placement, which is how Google monetizes search.

Product B is display ads, which are displayed on other (almost always non-Google) websites. No searching involved...

I don't see how they're even remotely the same product. They're similar in the sense that their forms of advertising, but they're very different forms of advertising. Search placement is intentional advertising (in the sense of targeting prospective customer's "intent" to use/buy) while display ads are awareness advertising. The proof is in the very different rates: search engine placement terms can cost several dollars per search. That same amount could buy hundreds or even millions of display impressions.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#333

Post by heavenlyblue » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #293

squaresmile wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the press release [1] did a good job of detailing the specific activity that was over the line: > Starting in 2006, Google included exclusivity clauses in its contracts. This meant that publishers were prohibited from placing any search adverts from competitors on their search results pages. The decision concerns publishers whose agreements with Google required such exclusivity for all their websites. Even if…

> Even if the search result and some ads were provided by Google, requiring exclusivity for search adverts was too much. Which completely ignores why ad networks have those restrictions. At one point it was common for crummy web pages to sign up for every ad network. All of them. Because every one you signed up for was more money. Then the whole side of the page would be ads from different networks. The obvious probl…

I believe Google makes enough cash to hire people who could take care of those spammy websites.

Instead, they consciously choose themselves to be a monopoly.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#334

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 7:19 PM UTC

heavenlyblue wrote: post #333

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if the search result and some ads were provided by Google, requiring exclusivity for search adverts was too much. Which completely ignores why ad networks have those restrictions. At one point it was common for crummy web pages to sign up for every ad network. All of them. Because every one you signed up for was more money. Then the whole side of the page would be ads from different networks. The obvious probl…

I believe Google makes enough cash to hire people who could take care of those spammy websites. Instead, they consciously choose themselves to be a monopoly.

What do you mean "take care of them"? If they're not allowed to restrict you from displaying their ads next to ads from other networks, that's the exact thing the spammy websites were doing.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#335

Post by ABCLAW » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 7:30 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #293

squaresmile wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the press release [1] did a good job of detailing the specific activity that was over the line: > Starting in 2006, Google included exclusivity clauses in its contracts. This meant that publishers were prohibited from placing any search adverts from competitors on their search results pages. The decision concerns publishers whose agreements with Google required such exclusivity for all their websites. Even if…

> Even if the search result and some ads were provided by Google, requiring exclusivity for search adverts was too much. Which completely ignores why ad networks have those restrictions. At one point it was common for crummy web pages to sign up for every ad network. All of them. Because every one you signed up for was more money. Then the whole side of the page would be ads from different networks. The obvious probl…

If an ad network wants to put restrictions on the volume of ad space in comparison with content on the page, they can do so, but requiring exclusivity isn't the same thing as that.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#336

Post by ABCLAW » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #326

utopcell wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood the argument (it wasn't that complicated to make.) By this reasoning, Google Ads is a different product from Google Search and as such gets preferential treatment by being the only one presented in Google's search results. It's not hard to see these line of fines against Google for what they are: Money-grabbing attacks. With no knowledge on the matter, as an external observer, I wish this doesn't lead Go…

By this reasoning, Google Ads is a different product from Google Search and as such gets preferential treatment by being the only one presented in Google's search results. I'm not sure what reasoning you're using, but it appears you aren't grasping the complexity of the argument. For starters, Google search placement is a fundamental part of the search product, and is a wholly different product from Google Ads (which…

Your posts in this thread have been accurate wrt competition law.

It's interesting to see how many people are shocked abuse of dominant market position remedies. I think enforcement has been so lax that many people casually assume anti-competitive behavior is the de-facto norm.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#337

Post by leesalminen » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 7:39 PM UTC

wnevets wrote: post #263

leesalminen wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of like how we could implement the death penalty for marijuana possession?

It's not like there aren't countries where that exist.

Right, but should we? Probably not. That’s what I’m getting at.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#338

Post by leesalminen » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

ionised wrote: post #298

vnnkov wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we can't close corporations for a rules violation.

We can, we just chose not to.

We chose not to because it’s a bad idea. That’s what I’m getting at here. “Killing” a company for a rules violation is also probably a bad idea.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#339

Post by wnevets » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 7:47 PM UTC

leesalminen wrote: post #337

wnevets wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like there aren't countries where that exist.

Right, but should we? Probably not. That’s what I’m getting at.

If we really cared about stopping marijuana possession, a death penalty that was objectively and consistently applied would probably work very well.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#340

Post by mfoy_ » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 7:50 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #322

mfoy_ wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is indexed, just not to the damages, but to the revenue of the guilty party. Other countries in the EU do this as well, even in personal matters. For instance, a speeding ticket is based off a percentage of your annual income. Why? Because if you make $200k a year, a $50 fine isn't a big deal, at all, but if you barely scrape by, $50 could break your budget for the month.

Google isn't a single person. They're already more likely violate some laws and regulations just because they're so big. You can't double dip by treating every small infraction like it's a huge company-wide problem.

Too Big To Be Accountable ??????