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

Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

repubblica.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 289 posts

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#231

Post by Barrin92 »

thegrimmest wrote: post #221
dalbasal wrote: post #26

The way antitrust is working in recent years is kind of ridiculous. Google in Europe is becoming a rich case study in antitrust meh. You find that adwords engages in a blatant "monopolistic abuse" in some specific sense. In the Adwords EU case for example, Google was both monopsonising (google search) and monopolising search advertising. But, the actual violations are specific, like exclusivity requirements and other…

> IMO, we need some way to declare a company "Big" and apply special rules to them. If those rules are onerous, that might create some organic pressure to split and/or help smaller incumbents compete. What do we win here? To me it seems that letting big companies get as big as they can allows them to use economies of scale to provide quality services cheaply to all of us. Search is a prime example here, only Google s…

>Isn't the benefit of cheap/free services far outweighed by whatever arbitrary "abuses" that are alleged to have been perpetrated?

No, because pluralism and a robust and diverse ecosystem is more important than cheap shit. Handing effectively entire control over what is visible on the internet to one company is anti-democratic madness. You're basically pulling a "but Mussolini made the trains run on time"

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#232

Post by jsmith45 »

dalbasal wrote: post #52
oblio wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMO, we need some way to declare a company "Big" and apply special rules to them. If those rules are onerous, that might create some organic pressure to split and/or help smaller incumbents compete. Past a point, they should be regulated like an utility.

IDK if it's "past a point," but in some cases maybe. I'm torn on that though. EG, what would it actually mean if FB or twitter became "regulated like utilities?" Interoperability? Portability? IMO, these are pretty finicky problems for a regulator. I think it would likely look like the mandated personal data dumps we have today. Some clunky feature that few use, and don't change the structure of the market. Useful tr…

> Court-like proceedings to confirm bans

The EU's initial proposed version of the "Digital Services Act", requires that when a service takes down information that they think is "illegal" or incompatible with the terms of service, They are required to provide the "facts and circumstances" used to arrive at that decision, as well as reference to the specific term of service they think is violated, and why they feel the information violates that.

Furthermore, they must provide an appeals mechanism for both information takedowns and any account suspensions/bans associated with them (and besides things like non-payment, I'd bet the majority of account suspensions/bans on online services are due to some posted content the company finds objectionable).

Lastly, if the internal appeals process fails to satisfy the user, the user initiate a what is basically an electronic binding arbitration process with a certified " out-of-court dispute settlement body" of the user's choosing, with this body having the power to overturn the companies decision.

That last part sound an awful lot like "Court-like proceedings to confirm bans".

I suspect the final law may not be as pro-consumer in these areas as the initial draft is (many big companies will not be happy about this part of the law and will try to kill it off).

If it does survive it would be much better then all too common: "We are banning you because we think you broke an unspecified part of the terms of service. We won't be more specific because we don't have to be, and are scared that people trying to break the rules could learn how they got caught. We won't even tell you that this was a fully automated process with no humans involved, that gets things wrong x% of the time. There is no appeal, unless you can get Twitter or the news media sufficiently riled up against us."

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#233

Post by jamescostian »

gverrilla wrote: post #200
jamescostian wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to help you see how to write more concise messages. Here's how I'd rewrite your entire message: "This is a very complex subject matter, and I don't know how to express my thoughts on it concisely. I don't want to get downvoted for my long-windedness." It's less than a 1/5 of characters, but conveys just as much of the on-topic and non-meta parts of your response.

Is this a joke?

No. Truly, the 2 sentences I provided were made of all the real meaning I could find in your paragraph that was relevant to oblio's messages you were replying to, even after re-reading your message several times.

Judging by the upvotes I have received, other readers also agree that my summary was a good summary of your comment. I'd encourage you to practice making that paragraph you wrote smaller, with a goal of reaching a length similar to my rewrite's length. It's something I've been doing more often to make my own messages more concise, and it has definitely helped.

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#234

Post by thegrimmest »

Barrin92 wrote: post #231
thegrimmest wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMO, we need some way to declare a company "Big" and apply special rules to them. If those rules are onerous, that might create some organic pressure to split and/or help smaller incumbents compete. What do we win here? To me it seems that letting big companies get as big as they can allows them to use economies of scale to provide quality services cheaply to all of us. Search is a prime example here, only Google s…

>Isn't the benefit of cheap/free services far outweighed by whatever arbitrary "abuses" that are alleged to have been perpetrated? No, because pluralism and a robust and diverse ecosystem is more important than cheap shit. Handing effectively entire control over what is visible on the internet to one company is anti-democratic madness. You're basically pulling a "but Mussolini made the trains run on time"

I'm not, I'm suggesting that an inclusive, permissive economy is the best way to fight scarcity. Scarcity, though you may not recall, was a big deal. Its opposite is "cheap shit" which is exactly what I'm advocating for as top priority. In this case, cheap (free) access to high quality internet services for everyone with an unfiltered connection.

Less permissive economic systems continue to fail spectacularly. No one is "handing" any control of anything, control is precariously maintained by staying ahead of competition.

Comparing Google to a dictator is ridiculous - who is Google murdering by deprioritizing someone's service on its platform?

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#235

Post by thegrimmest »

asddubs wrote: post #229
thegrimmest wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between who? And at the expense of cheap, readily available, quality services?

between regular people and companies. I don't think it has to come at the expense of those things, a company doesn't have to be the size and scope of google to be efficient.

Companies are made up of regular people, there is no clear distinction between the two. Efficiency is a spectrum, the more efficient a company, the more the poorest of us benefit from cheaper services. Capping efficiency punishes everyone.

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#236

Post by 908B64B197 »

icpmoles wrote: post #5

Quick summary: the biggest electricity provider in the country (ENEL) made an app (Juicepass) to find and manage their charging stations across the country. The Android Auto functionality of the app has been rejected by Google for non disclosed "security concerns while driving". The antitrust ruled out it was because Google wanted to sabotage competitor apps to the charging stations finder built-in in the Google Maps…

I'm on Google's side here.

I want Android Auto to know what type of plug I have and Google Maps to just show me all compatible chargers. And possibly handle payments. Like what Tesla has been doing for years [0].

Now there's some government developed app to duplicate that functionality but only for their special snowflake network and only in their jurisdiction. Just crossed the border from France to Italy? Install this app (is it in international app stores as well? Do I have to switch my phone to that country?). Ohh now it has it's own map but no navigation so I'm switching back and forth between that and Google Maps.

[0] https://youtu.be/hA_B7qPyUDA?t=1145

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#237

Post by Karunamon »

emn13 wrote: post #212
Karunamon wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be a hot take, but I have a problem with the way that first article equates "extremely overpriced" with "scam". A scam is when you've been deceived or defrauded. If you consent to pay $10 a week for an app that doesn't provide what it claims to, that's one thing, and that should be actionable. But if it does what it claims to, not liking the price does not equate to being a scam.

Except that you don't really get to pick to pay the price or not because of their monopoly position. At best you get to take your marbles and refuse to play entirely; which isn't exactly a reasonable long term strategy. There should be competition between app stores.

This subthread is about purchasing subscriptions to apps. There are multiple apps serving the same niche, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#238

Post by asddubs »

thegrimmest wrote: post #235
asddubs wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

between regular people and companies. I don't think it has to come at the expense of those things, a company doesn't have to be the size and scope of google to be efficient.

Companies are made up of regular people, there is no clear distinction between the two. Efficiency is a spectrum, the more efficient a company, the more the poorest of us benefit from cheaper services. Capping efficiency punishes everyone.

armies are also made up of regular people, that doesn't mean they're incapable of doing harm on a scale beyond the individual. you're also falsely equating size and efficiency

Re: Google fined €100M by Italian antitrust over Google Play abuse of dominance

#240

Post by thegrimmest »

asddubs wrote: post #238
thegrimmest wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies are made up of regular people, there is no clear distinction between the two. Efficiency is a spectrum, the more efficient a company, the more the poorest of us benefit from cheaper services. Capping efficiency punishes everyone.

armies are also made up of regular people, that doesn't mean they're incapable of doing harm on a scale beyond the individual. you're also falsely equating size and efficiency

And once these regular people decide in numbers that they are tired, miss their wives, and want to go home; it goes disastrously for the commanders who have planned otherwise. For a particularly famous example see Napoleon's retreat from Moscow.

I'm not equating size and efficiency. I'm saying a combination of the two represents the optimal outcome for everyone. In a permissive economy, large, inefficient companies are vulnerable to competition, and tend towards failure.

Post reply on HN