31–40 of 135 posts
> PriceRunner is considered to have suffered damage as a result of Google having illegally favoured its price comparison service for many years Why would Google NOT favor it's own service at it's own product? How is that illegal?
So Google is allowed to favour their own price comparison in, say, Hangouts, but not in Search.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
something something monopoly. Even US has laws about this, currently not enforced though.
Sure, but if I’m understanding this (maybe I’m not), a company could make a service competitive to an Alphabet product, then sue them for not using it? For instance, if a company started up an ad business, are they going to sue and win, because Google uses their own ad service in Search instead of this new competitor? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
A company can create a new search engine and Google Search isn't obligated to even mention it.
The issue is when achieving market dominance and new service is integrated into the dominant product.
You clearly haven't been around long enough to have caught a lot of discussions on this topic over a decade ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO the fines do have an effect - Google now withholds a lot of launches from the EU, sometimes temporarily until they have time to have lawyers check them against DMA requirements, but mostly permanently. Ironically the part of Google most likely to persist in launching for the EU is Ads, since money is at stake. All the free, consumer-benefiting services are most likely to be curtailed in the face of aggressive reg…
All of the free services are just part of the ad sales funnel. Never forget, the consumer never benefits, they are only the cattle to be fattened up. Them not launching in Europe gives the local market a chance to build up its own players. China was very successful in this thanks to the Great Firewall.
> PriceRunner is considered to have suffered damage as a result of Google having illegally favoured its price comparison service for many years Why would Google NOT favor it's own service at it's own product? How is that illegal?
It is now illegal as laws have been introduced with the aim to prevent this from happening again. The effectiveness of these laws, with regards to how well they fit the current era, is a different matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Swedish courts NOT favor their own national economic interests? How is that illegal?
Well if the Swedish courts stomp on Google in the name of national interest, maybe the US will stomp on Sweden in the name of national interest. Now consider where Klarna gets the most of their money from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Swedish courts NOT favor their own national economic interests? How is that illegal?
Well if the Swedish courts stomp on Google in the name of national interest, maybe the US will stomp on Sweden in the name of national interest. Now consider where Klarna gets the most of their money from.
Considering Klarna essentially boils down to a lending service for people who want to buy stuff they aren't able to afford in the moment, I don't think this is the dunk you think it is.
$1.5B is significant, but the bigger question is whether this actually changes how dominant platforms rank their own services. Is this real accountability for anti-competitive behaviour, or just another cost of doing business for Big Tech? My cynicism is tell me that unfortunately it is the latter.
Vouched, I feel similarly. (I can’t possibly understand this being downvoted. The downvote button isn’t an “I disagree” button.)