251–260 of 702 posts
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)
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…
http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/
"Staff concludes that Google's conduct has resulted - and will result - in real harm to consumers and to innovation in the online search and advertising markets. Google has strengthened its monopolies over search and search advertising through anticompetitive means..."
It went nowhere though:
"The staff recommended bringing a lawsuit challenging certain Google practices. The Commission ultimately voted, 5-0, not to bring charges against Google."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 goo…
Google should be forced to allow you to set your preferences through your browser, i.e. not forcing you to login ... I see how this is at least possible in Chrome, but how would this work in browsers Google doesn't control?
Not sure I get the logic here. Will they be fined next for showing the Google Maps embed (and street view) when you search for places nearby? What's the difference?
Microsoft had a dominant position in operating systems. Then they developed a web browser, and rather than compete against other web browsers, simply bundled it into the operating system. This meant they got an instant dominant position in web browsers. But they didn't get it by being better than other web browsers, they got it by being just good enough that people wouldn't bother going to the effort of evaluating other options, since their browser came with the operating system. This effectively ended the competitive market for web browsers.
Google has a dominant position in search. Then they developed a lot of other products and services, and rather than compete against other companies offering those products/services, they simply pushed their own versions to the top of search-result pages. This meant they could get an instant dominant position in the other markets. But not by being better than competitors; they could get it by being just good enough that people wouldn't bother going to the effort of tracking down other options, since Google's version was right there in front of them already. This could effectively end the competitive market for many types of products and services.
Any time a company uses a dominant position in one market to subvert or outright end competition in another market, that's bad. And in many places, including the US and the EU, is also illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Say that this is true. Google can only use its own data from its own browser to improve the web and penalizes everyone who is not using their browser. No, it also works on other browsers. I know because I exclusively use Safari and I encounter this one-click-captcha thing regularly. The thing is it only works on browsers you use regularly. It looks like they are analysing/tracking the behaviour of your browser (usi…
Okay say that this is true, then if you want any sort of decent user experience you MUST let Google track you and analyze your behavior. So many ways for Google to win. So many ways for the user to lose. I do run a bunch of stuff on my Firefox to prevent that, perhaps that's a reasonable explanation as to why. Google owns the server, Google owns the client, Google owns DNS, Google owns domains, Google even owns > 50%…
Google's flagship product is the Google search engine, which provides search results to consumers, who pay for the service with their data. anyone else finding the plainness of that last sentence to be staggering? ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very cynical view. As an European citizen I expect my representatives not to engage in such childish schemes even if it's about considerable sums. I think the provided explanation is clear and the punishment reasonable.
Are you sure? This is the company who initiated the lawsuit: http://www.foundem.co.uk/ By looking at the website do you think they were disadvantaged in Google search because of Google's monopoly or perhaps for MANY other reasons? I mean it doesn't even render on mobile...
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.
In what alternate reality ?