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

Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 414 posts

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#241

Post by eggy »

klmr wrote: post #191
eggy wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not as optimistic on the EU as you are. Reading 1984, before 1984, and growing up during the Cold War, definitely has shaped my thoughts on some of this, especially a single state or one-world government. A pan-European state, with one flag, it's own anthem, and the desire for a single army doesn't pass my sniff test of just being a multinational treaty cooperation, or a "democratically steered treaty union" as…

> Trotsky pushed for a communist, soviet united states of Europe in 1923. Right, but what does this have to do with anything? The only thing in common is that both have “Europe” in the name (and I’m not even sure that was part of Trotsky’s vision). If a union of states scares you, the USA must be your waking nightmare. If you’ve indeed read 1984 you’ll notice that there are literally no parallels between that scenari…

The zeitgeist of 1923 during Trotsky's statement, and the idea of unifying Europe, since 1923 was also the year that Paneuropa was published by Coudenhove-Kalergi. I don't read 1984 as a roadmap, or with literal parallels to the EU, but only as a cautionary tales against large super states. It is not too clear how the world arrives at this scenario in the book. Warring is a distraction to keep the public in line. I have lived in other countries, and the USA is not my waking nightmare, since in older age, I am more moderate in my response to things. I don't like labels, but I am more of a free-market anarchist than a socialist, and I am not someone who sees the formation of super states, no matter how you label them, optimistically. I guess living in the US, I would be part of Oceania, and not Eurasia anyway ;)

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#242

Post by [deleted] »

olalonde wrote: post #239
throwaway9d0291 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not really. Basically the way the EU sees it, Google has a monopoly in a market: mobile operating systems. That is, if you're an OEM and you want to sell a device with an operating system, Google is currently the only place you can really turn. Apple exists but since it doesn't sell its operating system, it's not a participant in this market. So the EU saw Google saying to OEMs "you can have Android but you have…

As far as I know, Android is open source and any OEM is free to use it without asking permission. The licensing program is for the right to install proprietary Google apps like the Play Store or Google Maps. There are plenty of Chinese OEMs who aren't licensed and sell phones without the Play store.

[deleted]

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#243

Post by hrktb »

hopler wrote: post #129
throwaway9d0291 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not really. Basically the way the EU sees it, Google has a monopoly in a market: mobile operating systems. That is, if you're an OEM and you want to sell a device with an operating system, Google is currently the only place you can really turn. Apple exists but since it doesn't sell its operating system, it's not a participant in this market. So the EU saw Google saying to OEMs "you can have Android but you have…

Google could satisfy EU by cancelling OEM Android licensing programming and reducing consumer choice to Google phones only, relegating OEMs to suppliers like "good" Apple, and putting most OEMs out of business. Good job, EU.

The reason android exists was to allow OEMs to compete with Apple.

Google could shut it down and only publish their own phones, but they don't have the chops to become a premier customer goods maker. The field would be free for Apple until Samsung catches up. In the end Google lose negotiation power in getting their search engine, browser and services on Apple's and Samsung phones.

Basically they would be the main loser in the move.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#244

Post by dmitriid »

VikingCoder wrote: post #218
utopcell wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually they are going to fine Google for showing only Google ads on Google's search page.

That kind of already happened: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/google-fined-e2-42bn-for-e...

As in: didn't happen, and Google was fined correctly:

"Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google’s search results, and others appear even further down. Google’s own comparison shopping service is not subject to Google’s generic search algorithms, including such demotions."

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#246

Post by mattmanser »

Scarblac wrote: post #134
mattmanser wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there was any prospect of war between the EU countries while the USSR was around, it seems folly to pin peace to an institution when it was a greater enemy that actually united us.

WW2 happened while the USSR was around.

Before they had a huge, modernized army that would easily win a land battle for Europe.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#247

Post by mattmanser »

freeflight wrote: post #182
mattmanser wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there was any prospect of war between the EU countries while the USSR was around, it seems folly to pin peace to an institution when it was a greater enemy that actually united us.

That's a bit misleading because the EU we know today wasn't actually around back when the USSR was still a thing. It only became fully realized with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, which was shortly after the fall of the USSR in 1991.

Was it responsible for the 45 years of peace after WW2 or not?

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#248

Post by jessriedel »

mfoy_ wrote: post #234
yeahitslikethat wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as the punishment for the crime is less than the crime itself, crime will perpetuate. If you steal 1.000,00€ from a bank, they don't fine you 1€. No. They send you to jail for years.

Not sure why you're being down-voted... without a punitive component to the fine, (i.e. if it were only damages) then Google would have absolutely zero incentive to even pretend to change their ways. They could just pay a small fine, laugh, and say "See you next year." EDIT: And now I'm getting down-voted too. Would you nay-sayers care to chime in with more than an e-frown?

The top-level commentator isn't arguing that fines should be capped at the damages, he's arguing that they should be indexed to the damages (say, proportional to them). If I steal $50, the punishment is larger than $50, but it's determined relative to that magnitude, and in particular does is not just picked to be a fraction of my income. A $100,000 fine would be excessive punishment for stealing $50 dollars, and the top-level commentator is wondering whether a €1.5B fine is excessive in light of the fact that the entire market third-party search is much smaller than that.

Re: Google hit with €1.5B fine from EU over advertising

#249

Post by Veelox »

Angostura wrote: post #231
Veelox wrote: post #205

Just trying to get the facts straight. Google provided the ability to search your site. They also allowed you to show ads/make money from these searches. If you wanted to use this, you had to only show Google ads. I don't understand how that is illegal.

Because, as I understand it, Google was saying that if you used it search service, you were prohibited from showing non-Google ads anywhere else on the site. You couldn't just use Google Search and accept ads in those search results a cost of use. This sounds rather like abuse of a dominant position in one area to squash competitors in another.

>you were prohibited from showing non-Google ads anywhere else on the site.

Can I get a link or a quote to support that? If that is the case then yes, it crosses a line but I didn't see any in the linked article to support that view.

Edit: I reread the article and I think you are wrong. It specifically says on search pages. From the article

>In 2006, Google started to include "exclusivity clauses" in contracts which stopped publishers from placing ads from Google rivals such as Microsoft and Yahoo on search pages, the Commission said.

>From 2009, Google started replacing the exclusivity clauses with "premium placement" clauses, which meant publishers had to keep the most profitable space on their search results pages for Google's adverts and they had to request a minimum number of Google adverts.

Post reply on HN