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

121–130 of 237 posts

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#121

Post by izacus »

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.

I find comments like yours baffling. The basic tenement of capitalism, as worshipped in US, is that it needs competition to function. If a monopolist prevents competition from functioning (either by hiding their products on the largest search engine on earth, lowering prices under profitable margins or other tactics used by such entities) capitalism degenerates into socialism led by a corporation instead of state. It ceases to function and benefit anyone.

So why the heck would you not support an action that stops a giant corporation from stiffling the most important mechanism of capitalism?

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#122

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

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.

So just like FCC decisions in the US then.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#123

Post by callumlocke »

pweissbrod wrote: post #118
callumlocke wrote: post #114

It's true that these integrations are convenient for users, but it's also true that they harm market competition. Google's press release seems to avoid addressing the latter point. The closest they come is pointing out that Amazon also has a monopoly advantage, which doesn't seem like a strong argument.

If youve been in this business long enough you could see how this comment around "convenient integrations" could be applied to Microsoft/IE on the start menu 20 years' back. Seems to be a thin line between "convenient integrations" and big players reducing choice/competition. I realize I'm not the average consumer but I'll clamor for choice/competition every single time.

I don't think it's just a thin line, I think it's an overlap, that's the problem. Monopolies can be genuinely convenient/useful for consumers. Sometimes regulators have to make things less convenient/useful in the short term to prevent monopoly and stagnation in the long term.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#124

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

IshKebab wrote: post #119
ko27 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are really twisting the commissions ruling to enact sympathy. "The commission said it did not object to the design of Google's generic search algorithms or to demotions as such, nor to the way that Google displays or organises its search results pages: "It objects to the fact that Google has leveraged its market dominance in general internet search into a separate market, comparison shopping."

So we can expect a similar decision against Apple bundling their own apps in iOS, or Microsoft promoting OneCloud in Windows, or Amazon not selling Google Chrome & heavily promoting their Firestick, or Bing doing exactly the same thing as Google (the only difference I see is the placement)? I think it would be better if Google made it clearer that the shopping search was all adverts, but otherwise this seems idiotic.…

We have seen similar action against Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple in the EU... So, yes.

> this seems idiotic. Every large tech company leverages its dominance in one area to compete in a different market.

Then they will continue to be fined for anti-competitive behaviour. Which is also illegal in the US, the US just doesn't enforce their existing laws.

It is "idiotic" that the US fails to enforce existing US law. It isn't "idiotic" that the EU does.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#125

Post by xg15 »

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #41
andrepd wrote: post #14

> (...) connecting our users with thousands of advertisers, large and small, in ways that are useful for both . We truly live in the age of spinning, of euphemisms, where words lose all their meaning. All-pervasive advertising, the most insidious technique of consumer capitalism, is now an idealistic connecting of people (why, rather than fining us indeed they should be thanking thanking us for that, they seem to say…

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.

How many belong to the first and how many to the second category?

Saying "yes, but in this particular edge-case, my actions will be beneficial to society" is a pretty old way to do spins.

Also, as I've said in a different thread, the main problem is not with google's users but the amount of control Google has over 3rd parties (in the case price comparison sites). Of course it's convenient for the users, but's that not the point.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#126

Post by JorgeGT »

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #40
pdog wrote: post #3

European commissioners should read a couple of Paul Graham's essays. No wonder the EU doesn't have the equivalent of a Silicon Valley. "How to Be Silicon Valley": http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html "Why Startups Condense In America": http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html

I think these articles make really good points. But they seem completely off-topic. Nothing in there makes the connection between antitrust laws and a Silicon Valley economy.

Not from the US so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the US had (and exercised) solid antitrust laws way before Silicon Valley developed? The case of Standard Oil in the early 20th century comes to mind.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#127

Post by coldtea »

jimmywanger wrote: post #108
coldtea wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's weird that someone commenting here never read corporate PR before You seem to confuse having never read PR releases with still being outraged by their BS. Something being familiar doesn't make it right -- or means that only people that have never seen it would ever be enraged by it. For pointing out "nonsensical" stuff this was a very nonsensical argument. Not even wrong.

> You seem to confuse having never read PR releases with still being outraged by their BS. You seem to confuse having valid concerns vs. making assumptions. Calling a PR release BS without any fact is illogical at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Google wants to give the best search results possible, and it obviously has hooks into it's own shopping database that allow it to show targeted results. A logica…

>Google wants to give the best search results possible

Citation needed. Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns (e.g. manipulating tests results to boost paid advertisers or its own properties) as it has been known to do?

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#128

Post by xg15 »

izacus wrote: post #121
autokad wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find comments like yours baffling. The basic tenement of capitalism, as worshipped in US, is that it needs competition to function. If a monopolist prevents competition from functioning (either by hiding their products on the largest search engine on earth, lowering prices under profitable margins or other tactics used by such entities) capitalism degenerates into socialism led by a corporation instead of state. It…

I'm always amazed by that thinking as well.

I think at some point in the discussion, some people have tried to redefine "monopoly" as "state-sanctioned monopoly" and declare everything else fair game as long as the evil government is not involved... Apparently you can get surprisingly far before the logic breaks down.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#129

Post by Ajedi32 »

larma wrote: post #26

> our data show that people usually prefer links that take them directly to the products they want, not to websites where they have to repeat their searches. If you would link them correctly, there wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site with their (usually better) results. Also, considering that product search results are sponsored, usually the top results at product sear…

> If you would link them correctly, there wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site with their (usually better) results.

If I wanted to search Amazon, I would have searched Amazon, not Google. The last thing I want is to search for some product on Google and get a list of search results pages from other companies as a response instead of a listing of the products I'm actually searching for. It'd be like if I searched for some random bit of information on Google and the top result was a link to the same search results page on Yahoo.

> usually the top results at product search are crap

According to the line from Google you quoted above, most of their users disagree with you on that. I'm one such user. I don't typically use Google's shopping results as the _only_ source of product information for me, but I do occasionally use them as one source.

You also seem to be misunderstanding what the links they show actually link to. Buyer feedback and product information for individual products are available on the landing page (from a third party site, I might add) you get to when you click on a link to a product. The main difference is that you get to the product page directly rather than having to go through _another_ search results page from a third party to find what you're looking for.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#130

Post by CaptainZapp »

JorgeGT wrote: post #126
_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think these articles make really good points. But they seem completely off-topic. Nothing in there makes the connection between antitrust laws and a Silicon Valley economy.

Not from the US so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the US had (and exercised) solid antitrust laws way before Silicon Valley developed? The case of Standard Oil in the early 20th century comes to mind.

Neither an historian nor an economist.

But yes, they certainly did.

Appart from Standard Oil AT&T and - in theory - Microsoft come to mind.

Now US antitrust efforts seem to be pretty much non-existent, even though they may be needed more than ever. I don't see that happening anytime soon in the current climate.

So, the EU hiting companies, which behave badly regardless where such companies are located is a very good thing in my book.

Post reply on HN