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

221–230 of 237 posts

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#221

Post by coldtea »

waqf wrote: post #218
coldtea wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Competitive? In social media (e.g. against FB, maybe), but what competition does Google have for search? Neither Bing nor anything like DDG matter.

In what sense do Bing and DDG not matter in search? They have less market share, true, because Google has a better product. Your argument seems to be that Google doesn't bother to have a better product (in search), because Google has all the market share, because Google has a better product.

No, my premises are:

(a) Google has a better product (in search) to which they had no real competitor for 17+ years.

(b) it remains better than those non-competitors even though Google has decreased its quality over time (worse results and more ads and BS)

(c) whether it copies/embeds third party stuff or not plays little into it. Nobody would switch to Bing just for those , after comparing the respective search quality, which is still better for Google.

So my argument is:

Google doesn't bother improving its search results -- on the contrary it lets them somewhat decline over time too -- because it has all the market share and better results than the competition.

If you are 80 points (fictional unit for illustrative purposes) better than the competition, you can let it slip to 70 or even 40 points better, and people will still use you.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#222

Post by xtracto »

I have no sympathy for Google. They take on their hands the role of policing the world removing some kind of ads that some guys in India think are not "good enough" for people all the way into other countries (Mexico in my case), without understanding the context of the country and the product in that country. And this, for products that are not only legal in the country but are even being promoted by the government.

But when they are abusing their power for greed reasons and the government punishes them, then they whine. Hypocrites.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#223

Post by ksk »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #219
ksk wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google was not fined for displaying ads, but for promoting its services, illegally, via product tying. Google search should be responding to a query with relevant web pages that their crawler indexed. Instead, they insert a popup that links to their shopping service and try to make a buck off of that. This is the first complaint, the second is that they demoted rival shopping services from their search results.

I can't really speak to the second complaint, since I'm not privy to the internal workings of Google's ranking algorithms (though I have anecdotal evidence that the overall quality of Google's search results in these situations is just fine), but as for the first one: as a consumer I very much like Google's integrations between search and their other services. Those integrations are one of the main things that makes…

>Being able to search for a nearby business and immediately see whether it's open, with a link to get directions to it on Google Maps, is incredibly useful. Same goes for the product results being discussed here, and for other services like Google's built-in calculator, dictionary, image search, etc.

A lot of that is not a service provided by Google. They simply scrap data others have created and insert their ads. Its a sophisticated form of rent seeking. If you tried to do that with THEIR services they'd shut you down ASAP - e.g. If you ran a meta search engine which collected search results from all other search engines, google will immediately block your access once you got popular.

I'm totally for this fine, and hope that Google mends their ways. They do have a good search product that I enjoy using but promoting their unsuccessful services by integrating it with a successful search product is wrong and harms competition. I want the web to stay open, and Google's promotion of their closed platforms is troublesome. Unfortunately, Google spends a lot on lobbying and cozying up with the government, so I doubt we will see such enforcement in the US.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#224

Post by julianmarq »

ksk wrote: post #223
Ajedi32 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't really speak to the second complaint, since I'm not privy to the internal workings of Google's ranking algorithms (though I have anecdotal evidence that the overall quality of Google's search results in these situations is just fine), but as for the first one: as a consumer I very much like Google's integrations between search and their other services. Those integrations are one of the main things that makes…

>Being able to search for a nearby business and immediately see whether it's open, with a link to get directions to it on Google Maps, is incredibly useful. Same goes for the product results being discussed here, and for other services like Google's built-in calculator, dictionary, image search, etc. A lot of that is not a service provided by Google. They simply scrap data others have created and insert their ads. It…

> A lot of that is not a service provided by Google. They simply scrap data others have created and insert their ads. Its a sophisticated form of rent seeking. If you tried to do that with THEIR services they'd shut you down ASAP - e.g. If you ran a meta search engine which collected search results from all other search engines, google will immediately block your access once you got popular.

You are aware that the opposite applies too, right? That whoever doesn't want Google scrapping results can block their crawlers?

No, you don't, you have mistaken Google for something other than a private company. Only you've made that mistake arbitrarily, as evidenced...

> I'm totally for this fine, and hope that Google mends their ways. They do have a good search product that I enjoy using but promoting their unsuccessful services by integrating it with a successful search product is wrong and harms competition. I want the web to stay open, and Google's promotion of their closed platforms is troublesome. Unfortunately, Google spends a lot on lobbying and cozying up with the government, so I doubt we will see such enforcement in the US.

... Here. You are aware that Google search itself is closed, right? You either aren't or your grandstanding regarding the "open web" is completely empty words.

Of all the arguments in favor of this ruling I've read, this one is by far the weirdest.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#225

Post by jimmywanger »

andrepd wrote: post #165
jimmywanger wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would Google want to give "the best search results possible" over other concerns Because that is what they claim, and to call somebody a liar requires evidence, not unfounded accusations.

I can't believe I'm reading this. I'm gonna suggest you read that again. I can't believe you can be that naive. "Trust corporations' PR because they wouldn't do such a thing as lie", that's some neat stuff. x) Besides, there's this something called burden of proof?

> "Trust corporations' PR because they wouldn't do such a thing as lie", that's some neat stuff. x) Besides, there's this something called burden of proof?

I suggest you read your own post again. Project much? Google's PR statement is somewhat based in fact. I'm saying that I generally believe public statements made that are decently substantiated.

When you're the one saying that I'm naive or just gaping in disbelief, the burden of proof is on YOU to give reasons why the statements are at fault and why their reasoning is wrong. This is truly projecting at its finest.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#226

Post by jimmywanger »

staltz wrote: post #163
jimmywanger wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This kind of rhetoric is coming often from tech giants, travestying words and claiming the exact opposite of what they do in practice. You have provided exactly zero (0) examples of this happening - just accusations. You accuse "tech giants" (whatever that means) of being abusive and deliberately confusing the common person, then you bring up Google's AI infrastructure as an "institution" dressed up in good causes.…

"Tech giants" mean very large tech companies, basically these: Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple. This term is found often in the media, and is quite unambiguous. Examples of rhetoric from those companies where they do the opposite of what they say: they often claim "you [the user] are in control". For instance 1. https://privacy.google.com/# ("put you in control") 2. https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info (…

> "Tech giants" mean very large tech companies, basically these: Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple. This term is found often in the media, and is quite unambiguous.

You're begging the question. Define tech company and giant. You're defining the term by itself, which is a great usage of circular logic.

> 1. https://privacy.google.com/# ("put you in control") 2. https://www.facebook.com/facebook/info ("make the world more open and connected")

Google allows you to control any information you decide to share with it, and gives you a dashboard where you can see what information it uses. It shutting down systems that it no longer deems profitable is not putting you out of control - you cannot control Google, and it's not required to give you alternatives to its systems. It does allow you to export all data you have uploaded into it.

> That is, arguably, Google in control.

That is arguably, not. You're debating semantics here and saying that you're the sole valid arbiter and true interpreter of Google's statements. I assert that you're not. Our arguments are equally valid.

> Cheaper and quicker solutions could be implemented simply with phones and P2P...

In your opinion. Facebook has a set of constraints - just because they're prioritizing certain other priorities or technical solutions to lack of connectivity and openness doesn't mean that they're lying about their priorities.

> I'd appreciate if no ad "hominen" comments are made, they just distract.

First, it's spelled hominem. Misspelling a logical fallacy is on the same order as misspelling idiotic - it makes it very difficult to take either your arguments or your point seriously.

Point out exactly one instance where I disparaged somebody's character or background as a reason for the invalidity of their argument, rather than a lack of logic in their discussion. Your introducing of an supposed ad hominem attack is baseless and a red herring, designed to distract from the basic weakness and invalidity of your argument.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#227

Post by ksk »

julianmarq wrote: post #224
ksk wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Being able to search for a nearby business and immediately see whether it's open, with a link to get directions to it on Google Maps, is incredibly useful. Same goes for the product results being discussed here, and for other services like Google's built-in calculator, dictionary, image search, etc. A lot of that is not a service provided by Google. They simply scrap data others have created and insert their ads. It…

> A lot of that is not a service provided by Google. They simply scrap data others have created and insert their ads. Its a sophisticated form of rent seeking. If you tried to do that with THEIR services they'd shut you down ASAP - e.g. If you ran a meta search engine which collected search results from all other search engines, google will immediately block your access once you got popular. You are aware that the op…

>You are aware that the opposite applies too, right? That whoever doesn't want Google scrapping results can block their crawlers?

The point was, 'whoever has the power, makes the rules'. Google skews search results whenever it wants to promote its services. Given Google's dominant position, this harms competition. The EU is addressing this.

>... Here. You are aware that Google search itself is closed, right? You either aren't or your grandstanding regarding the "open web" is completely empty words.

An open platform has absolutely nothing to do with the source code. For e.g. Linux would be an open platform even if you had no access to the source code. This is because you can run any software you want, poke at any and all bits in memory, call any API you want, extend the OS using documented APIs in any way you want, etc. OSX and Windows are open too, with some caveats relating to their app stores. iOS and Android are not open platforms.

Google is creating tightly integrated closed platforms where they control absolutely everything, and doing anything that is not "blessed" by them is automatically illegal and violates their TOS For e.g. If you came up with a better commenting system, you can't create an app that lets you watch youtube videos and comment using your own system. If you came up with a better stock ticker, you can't compete with google because typing 'apple stock quote' popups up their own service and there is no way to get that top spot. Such integrations combined with their dominant market position harms competition. Anyway, i've spent way too much time on this story so this will be my last comment. Need to get back to work ! :)

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#228

Post by merpnderp »

ionised wrote: post #168
merpnderp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've seen, salaries in EU tech hubs are significantly lower than in provincial markets in the US - where weeks are close to 40 hours and managers would laugh at paying for lunch or putting in cots so you can spend the night. Most Americans don't work in the tech hubs, yet still earn significantly more on average. FYI, anyone with a decent job in the US has access to some of the best health care in the world…

> FYI, anyone with a decent job in the US has access to some of the best health care in the world. And have the possibility of seeing their life savings evaporate and facing financial ruin when paying for this health care.

You must not be familiar with us health care. Max out of pockets are usually reasonable and certainly not life altering. Try looking up when the crappy plans in the aca.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#229

Post by merpnderp »

xtracto wrote: post #220
merpnderp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've seen, salaries in EU tech hubs are significantly lower than in provincial markets in the US - where weeks are close to 40 hours and managers would laugh at paying for lunch or putting in cots so you can spend the night. Most Americans don't work in the tech hubs, yet still earn significantly more on average. FYI, anyone with a decent job in the US has access to some of the best health care in the world…

>FYI, anyone with a decent job in the US has access to some of the best health care in the world This is so funny. IIRC what Republicans in the USA are arguing is that the new health care plan that they want to pass gives "access" to healthcare to everyone, as long as they are "willing" to pay for it. I have access to a space flight sure, the only thing stopping me is money.

Yeah if you want access to peoples' time they need to get paid. So yeah you can pay for it. The alternative is government healthcare which the U.S. provides for veterans who often die on waiting lists when the administrators shred requests for services. It's unlikely normal people will get tested better by our government.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#230

Post by teekert »

ErikHuisman wrote: post #209
mtrimpe wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just a sales pitch to have companies (proactively) push their current prices to Tweakers. Where do you see anything about paid listing there?

Any price not paid for is automatically removed after only 3! days. So effectively > 99.99% are being paid for but they still maintain the illusion that it is user generated content. "Om de Pricewatch actueel te houden vervallen handmatig toegevoegde prijzen na automatisch na drie dagen. Bedrijven met een Pricewatch Manager abonnement kunnen een onbeperkt aantal prijzen toevoegen."

Yeah but it is still sorted based on price and they have a lot of meta data on the products and the stores. I don't see any problem. In the end they link to the sites themselves so it's not like you pay more via Tweakers.
Post reply on HN