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

European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 702 posts

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#181

Post by amelius »

HelloNurse wrote: post #169
amelius wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But as far as I understand, AMP is just an open technology, i.e. open for any (search) company to implement. Google is just the company proposing the standard (and coincidentally benefiting most from it).

AMP is open to implement (or copy) for anybody with Google-scale datacenters, not for any company. From the official site: "The Google AMP Cache is a proxy-based content delivery network for delivering all valid AMP documents." In other words, you are welcome to tie yourself to Google infrastructure, not merely to a proprietary software platform that you can at least use on your own (like Windows etc. in the Microsof…

> AMP is open to implement (or copy) for anybody with Google-scale datacenters, not for any company.

But doesn't it hold for any market, that as technology advances, the barriers to entry become larger?

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#182

Post by fauigerzigerk »

theBobBob wrote: post #72

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…

I think the right way to do what you're asking is to serve Google specific content to users that are logged in to their Google account. This should be easy to justify legally as well.

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#183

Post by devoply »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #126
devoply wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say that this is true. Google can only use its own data from its own browser to improve the web and penalizes everyone who is not using their browser. The result is the same. Google has a monopoly on your experience of the web... because it is optimized for users of its browser.

> Say that this is true. Google can only use its own data from its own browser to improve the web and penalizes everyone who is not using their browser. No, it also works on other browsers. I know because I exclusively use Safari and I encounter this one-click-captcha thing regularly. The thing is it only works on browsers you use regularly. It looks like they are analysing/tracking the behaviour of your browser (usi…

Okay say that this is true, then if you want any sort of decent user experience you MUST let Google track you and analyze your behavior. So many ways for Google to win. So many ways for the user to lose. I do run a bunch of stuff on my Firefox to prevent that, perhaps that's a reasonable explanation as to why.

Google owns the server, Google owns the client, Google owns DNS, Google owns domains, Google even owns > 50% of mobile. It's way too much ownership under one roof.

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#184

Post by thg »

I wonder how many competitors and established providers were driven out of the market because of Google's practice.

This fine isn't nearly enough, as Google will have earned much more than that and stands to earn a lot more in the future, simply because they used their overwhelming market share to kill off competitors. They'll just do it again and again because in the long term it profits them way more than playing fair.

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#185

Post by andmarios »

vegancap wrote: post #117
matthewmacleod wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have absolutely no framework for understanding this attitude. I've got to assume you're aware of things like unfair competition, antitrust laws, market distortions and so on. The idea is that a disproportionately influential market participant can cause the market to become less free by virtue of inhibiting competition – competition being a vital part of a free market. Rules against abusing a dominant market positi…

Unless I've misunderstood what the fine was for. Fining a private business €2.4bn for promoting its own affiliates over other networks, how is that in any way an abnormal business practice? I'm not trying to be controversial, I just don't understand how that warrants such a hefty fine.

According to the press release, Google went into the product comparison sector and took about 80% of the pie without competing with other product comparison engines, instead they just used their dominant position in search.

If they had competed and won this share fairly, they wouldn't get a fine.

Remember that EU, during these years was consistently the largest, or the second largest, depending on year, economy of the world, so this 80% is huge and justifies the size of the fine.

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#186

Post by patrickaljord »

catdog wrote: post #162
patrickaljord wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically the EU protecting other corporations even if most of the populations benefit from Google's current practices. Corporatism at its worse.

I wouldn't be so sure if they benefit. Not every Google service which is pushed upwards by their tight integration is top notch.Also the better ones may have room for improvement and innovation which we might not see from a monopoly in a comfortable position.

If they didn't benefit, if using those services were a net loss, then people wouldn't be using them.

Also, I like to draw a line between monopolies imposed by force (eg taxi offering horrible services making competitors illegal through licensing) and those used by people voluntarily because they enjoy the services. Google is used voluntarily, because people enjoy it, like Microsoft during the 90's. As I read elsewhere, Microsoft lost relevance to tech because OSS took servers, web took applications and mobile took the client. Antitrust didn't do much.

With Google, the only thing the EU is doing right now is forcing Google to offer a lower quality service. What should make Google less useful should be innovators making them less relevant and ubiquitous like the web, OSS and mobile did to Microsoft. iOS and Siri already made Google Search much less relevant on mobile, I'm sure there will be more in the future. Monopolies used voluntarily usually don't last long unless they keep innovating, but if they do keep innovating then forcing them to offer lower quality services seems really bad and it doesn't motivate other people to out-innovate them if the government will just help make Google worse, we all lose. Innovation should be bottom up, not top down.

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#187

Post by dustinmoris »

distances wrote: post #160
patrickaljord wrote: post #103

I wonder if that's payback for the US gov fining VW so hard: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/04/21/volkswa... It's almost the same amount, US$2.8B. It's like the EU telling the US "F with our corporations and we'll F with yours".

That's a very cynical view. As an European citizen I expect my representatives not to engage in such childish schemes even if it's about considerable sums. I think the provided explanation is clear and the punishment reasonable.

Are you sure? This is the company who initiated the lawsuit: http://www.foundem.co.uk/

By looking at the website do you think they were disadvantaged in Google search because of Google's monopoly or perhaps for MANY other reasons? I mean it doesn't even render on mobile...

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#188

Post by HerraBRE »

sweden wrote: post #115
HerraBRE wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually feel it's misleading and wrong at a very fundamental level; this was the only thing I disagreed with in the whole press release! Consumers "pay" for Google's services by giving ads attention so the ads have value and Google can sell them. All the data harvesting is a means to a end: to make the ads more appealing so you'll click. Google don't profit from the data directly; in fact all the data harvesting a…

But in order to make the advertising business very profitable (this is, in order to give a reason for other businesses to use Google Ads to advertise themselves), Google needs to know all about you: who you are, where you are, what you like, what you don't like, what you like at certain times, what are your needs, etc, etc. The real value of advertising is in showing the right advertisement at the right time at the r…

It's still a means to an end. You don't pay with your data, you "pay" by interacting with ads.

Consider that Google actually became super profitable well before all the detailed tracking started. You grossly underestimate the synergy of "people searching for products" and "displaying ads". Everything else is an optimization.

You're describing Facebook... which is no where near as profitable as Google, in spite of much more invasive tracking.

If you never click an ad and use an adblocker so you never even see them, your traffic and your data just cost Google money. They may be able to extract some small amount of value by observing your behaviour and using those insights to improve their products, but they don't make any money until someone pays for an ad.

I agree the café analogy isn't perfect. I was just pointing out that outsiders who don't understand what's going on may fundamentally misunderstand the transaction. You can still provide value to the café by sitting in their chairs if you liven up the place and give them feedback on how to make the place nicer.

But if customers never buy anything, the café goes broke. And people stop interacting with ads on Google, Google does too.

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#189

Post by TeMPOraL »

clarry wrote: post #25
skrebbel wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I'm not sure you get it. It's not about being big, it's about using a monopoly position in one field to gain entry to another. If you're big but not a monopolist, and you do the exact same thing, then way less of a problem. Hence Apple could bundle Safari with iOS but Microsoft couldn't bundle IE with Windows XP in the exact same way.

I avoided the word "monopoly" for a reason. The internet isn't a finite natural resource, Google doesn't own it, there are other players in the field, and nothing stops new players fron entering. You're also interpreting the word "big" perhaps too literally. In your example, Apple is not big in the sense I mean. Microsoft might be, but that doesn't mean I agree with the judgement against them. If people like your pro…

You're still missing what 'skrebbel wrote:

> it's about using a monopoly position in one field to gain entry to another.

It's not about Google dominating the search market. It's about Google leveraging their dominant position on the search market to promote their comparison shopping service, which is a different product for different market.

Think of the competition laws as nerfing your ability to leverage domination of one market into immediate domination of other markets. Companies don't have natural rights, there are only the arbitrary rules of the market game, that are intended to promote general prosperity in the society.

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#190

Post by jcranberry »

Tomis02 wrote: post #67

Google giving an advantage to its shopping service is peanuts. The way Chrome was promoted (not only through search, but other Google services as well) is the real abuse.

If that's the case then they way Microsoft promoted IE before Chrome was the work of Satan himself.
Post reply on HN