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

231–240 of 702 posts

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

#231

Post by ko27 »

clarry wrote: post #211
nothrabannosir wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Controversial way to look at this, but surprisingly close to the truth: markets exist for the people. Companies have only one purpose: to serve the people. Their profits are merely incidental. Any type of regulation (or lack thereof) can be traced back to this rule. Freedoms exist only to let companies thrive insofar as that then lets them sell goods that benefit the people. Once that stops, the freedoms stop. I'm be…

Integration of services and software could best serve the people. Promotion may do so too, especially when it comes to software that relies on network effects. If anything, punishing a big company for its potentially big effect on markets values 1) markets above people and 2) competitors' ability to participate on the market above the people. Banning integration or self-promotion could very well result in a worse pro…

The 3 statements you made here are completely illogical and foreign to me. Can you provide sources for why you believe this kind of monopoly is beneficial to the people?

For example this is my view and the view of most EU citizens:

"punishing a big company for its potentially big effect on markets values 1) people above markets and 2) competitors' ability to participate on the market which is to the benefit of costumers (people)"

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

#232

Post by skwirl »

IanCal wrote: post #217
mythz wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By following the rules & regulations set out, which Google will have been fully aware of. There was no previous ruling that indicated that displaying their own relevant content on their own Search pages was illegal. It's absurd to think displaying relevant content in the context of what the User is searching for is illegal, or that they should've been investing resources in helping their competitors get more exposu…

Are you suggesting the ruling is out of line with the regulations? Previous anti-trust rulings seem pretty similar to me. If microsoft gets into trouble for making IE a default browser or bundling windows media player, I'm really not surprised with the way this went. > It's absurd to think displaying relevant content in the context of what the User is searching for is illegal It's not absurd to think that using your…

Should Amazon be forced to show results for e-readers other than Kindle or audiobooks other than those on Audible? I don't think it's obvious at all where the line is.

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

#233

Post by dmix »

lvoudour wrote: post #57
andmarios wrote: post #20

The press release is well written. It explains why Google is fined in an easy way to understand, covering most aspects; what is the problematic behavior, why it is considered as problematic, which data lead to this decision, etc, whilst not painting the company in a negative light. Opinions on the decision will sure differ among readers, but I think the decision is in place with the majority of EU citizens' consensus…

I came to say exactly that. That's a very well written statement that clarifies the situation more than any news outlet I happened to read on the case. As for the decision, it may seem unfair for Google, but the European commission has to look at the bigger picture: its search dominance is so big that it gives Google an unfair advantage when competing in other business sectors, driving others out of competition even…

Google's search results have become more than just a directory of websites like it was in previous years.

It now integrates tons of specialized results such as embedded videos and smart answers to direct questions. It will only move further and further away from simple lists of sites as their AI improves.

I fear this fine will deter innovation here as any special results Google adds will be scrutinized heavily. It's also very possible the complex data they need for it's 'smart' results aren't available by integrating with other 3rd party services (at least not initially), which is likely why Google even created these competing services in the first place.

If Google was merely a Yellow Pages style service as it was previously then I'd be more sympathetic to the idea of distorted rankings favouring Google services but that's becoming less and less the typical user experience.

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

#234

Post by devoply »

sweden wrote: post #131
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…

Because it works for you, it doesn't mean it works for everyone else. Of all Google's services I don't care about: - Google Shopping, I never saw a reason to use it and I never did, I prefer to use local shops or Amazon - Google Maps, I actually prefer Open Street Maps. The amount of detail on OSM is staggering and in many ways, I think the data is much more complete than Google Maps - Google reviews about restaurant…

On operating systems you set preferences for which service/program to open when a certain extension is clicked. Similarly Google should be forced to allow you to set your preferences through your browser, i.e. not forcing you to login, on where you want to go when you type certain types of queries, like for instance directions or products. That would improve competition and give other service providers at least a good chance of their services being used instead of Google. And keep the system more competitive. Then Google can go and claim that this is what their users actually prefer.

This could work through cookies that the browser always makes available to certain or all sites that indicate preferences of the user.

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

#235

Post by msurekci »

Does anyone know where the €2.42B will be used?

Will it be used to compensate the rival companies? Will it be used to compensate European consumers? (And most importantly, it denied European consumers a genuine choice of services and the full benefits of innovation)

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

#237

Post by richardknop »

mrleiter wrote: post #4

If they do not comply within 90 days, they can be fined with 5% of the daily average revenue of Alphabet, Inc. For FY16, they had a revenue of approx. $90.27b, that leaves a fine of approx. $12.3m. *edit: forgot to divide by 365 (days). I apologise.

They could be fined 5% of their daily revenue every day until they comply! Big difference.

That would actually be a lot of money even for Google.

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

#238

Post by roblabla »

devoply wrote: post #213
tokenizerrr wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes that is pretty much the entire idea. If you don't let them track you, they don't have a reasonable assurance that you're a real legit non-malicious human being. So you get to fill out the actual captcha. Pretty sweet deal, yeah? 99% of the population gets an easy checkbox, and all the people who care just need to fill out some questions to prove they're not a bot. It's not like you're blocked from using the form.

99% of the population. Last time checked significant portion of the population uses various tools including ad-blockers, and other privacy tools to decrease their online foot print. So that point is wholly incorrect. You mean significant portion of the population who does not mind being tracked constantly by Google. Most likely the most unsavy masses. Not anyone that cares about their privacy.

I use an adblocker and various other privacy tool (uMatrix user here). I still get one-click checkbox most of the time. I'm logged into my google account.

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

#239

Post by tannhaeuser »

codeproject wrote: post #199

I beg everyone answer my question. The anti-trust laws are originated from USA. The anti-monopolies rules are much harsher in US than those of Europe. Why did not federal government pick this up? Since a lot of the companies that are disadvantaged by this Google practice are Us companies. Also I have to agree that this ruling is tough but fair. And the writing is very concise by easy to understand. it is good writing…

The US antitrust regulation that led Google's acquisition of DoubleClick and Facebook's acquisition of WhatsApp happen? That one?

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

#240

Post by IanCal »

skwirl wrote: post #232
IanCal wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting the ruling is out of line with the regulations? Previous anti-trust rulings seem pretty similar to me. If microsoft gets into trouble for making IE a default browser or bundling windows media player, I'm really not surprised with the way this went. > It's absurd to think displaying relevant content in the context of what the User is searching for is illegal It's not absurd to think that using your…

Should Amazon be forced to show results for e-readers other than Kindle or audiobooks other than those on Audible? I don't think it's obvious at all where the line is.

Do amazon treat the kindle differently from other ebook readers on their site? If, for example, kobo fits my search better and they demote it while putting kindle content right at the top. Does that kind of thing happen?

In which case, quite possibly, if

* amazon can be argued to have a very large position, with the vast majority of searches going through it

* it can be shown that people tend to click almost exclusively on the first or first few links

* they are treating their own, different, service more favourably than competitors (and remember when in the context of google, it's how people would find the competitors in the first place)

* you can see them having hugely increased sales for their own product after the introduction, and massively decreased sales for other people

But then my understanding of the regulations comes largely from the links here.

Fundamentally though, if you're big enough to be concerned about this you should be able to afford the legal teams to figure this out or approach the commission to discuss what is and is not within the regulations.

Post reply on HN