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

231–237 of 237 posts

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#231

Post by pulse7 »

debatem1 wrote: post #178
pulse7 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"patterns are harder to refute" -> there is also a pattern, how big US tech companies avoid tax payments in EU, it even has a name ("double irish sandwich")

...and as a result a hefty fine under an unrelated law should be levied? Europe is and should be a place where laws are more than just tools with which to punish disfavored parties. If the double Irish should be illegal, then make it so, and hold on tighter to the straight and narrow path.

Double Irish is treated illegal as "illegal state aid". Would it be legal in US, if Delaware decided to give some foreign company (registered in Delaware) only 0,1% tax on everything they earn in the US? I thing the federal court would rule such "state aid" as illegal...

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#232

Post by ErikHuisman »

teekert wrote: post #230
ErikHuisman wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no problem. It a great site! I prefer it over any other comparison site and google shopping big time.

The problem is the EU 'protecting' these commercial enterprises by fining Google 2.24b euro. A bit high and bit unfair because google at least discloses the links as sponsored unlike the sites being protected.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#233

Post by ionised »

merpnderp wrote: post #228
ionised wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Example.

Old articles, but I don't imagine it has changed all that much;

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/30/costs-of-delivering-babies-va...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31052665

That does not seem reasonable to me.

What seems reasonable for maternity stay is it being totally free.

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#234

Post by teekert »

ErikHuisman wrote: post #232
teekert wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no problem. It a great site! I prefer it over any other comparison site and google shopping big time. The problem is the EU 'protecting' these commercial enterprises by fining Google 2.24b euro. A bit high and bit unfair because google at least discloses the links as sponsored unlike the sites being protected.

Then we fully agree ;)

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#235

Post by duncan_bayne »

icebraining wrote: post #141
duncan_bayne wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... because Netscape couldn't compete with Microsoft, because Microsoft could give away a browser for free as in beer. Perhaps we're meaning different things by the word 'compete'?

Yeah, and I can win against Usain Bolt if I just shoot him first.

That's exactly how Netscape and others approached the problem of competing with Microsoft.

"We can't compete, let's make an anti-trust complaint"

"I can't run as fast as Bolt, so I'll shoot him"

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#236

Post by julianmarq »

ksk wrote: post #227
julianmarq wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 eith…

Heh, now you're complaining about a site having its own commenting system. And that Android isn't an open platform.

Your definition of open and closed is hilariously misguided, I see absolutely no reason or point in accepting it. And, as your entire argument hangs on that faulty definition...

Re: Google's response to the European Commission fine

#237

Post by skinnymuch »

jimmywanger wrote: post #225
andrepd wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No. Google put a claim up. They have to back it up. Not the person questioning it. That would make no sense. So either you or Google need to back yourselves up.
Post reply on HN