261–270 of 702 posts
I assume Google only needs to show pages complying with this order for requests originating from the EU, so the rest of us shouldn't see any difference from the European Protectorates' order.
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…
I use Google Shopping for price comparisons across mutliple retailers. (The service was originally named Froogle.) I originally used Pricewatch.com but switched to Froogle/GoogleShopping because it had better results.
Unfortunately, the local shops and Amazon don't offer the same breadth of comparisons. E.g. if I want to buy a new harddrive, Google Shopping tells me whether the lowest price is at Newegg, BHPhoto, or somewhere else.[1]
If there is a superior substitute to Google Shopping, I'd love to know about it.
[1] example: https://www.google.com/shopping/product/3954751729784172026?...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still a means to an end. You don't pay with your data, you "pay" by interacting with ads. Consider that Google actually became super profitable well before all the detailed tracking started. You grossly underestimate the synergy of "people searching for products" and "displaying ads". Everything else is an optimization. You're describing Facebook... which is no where near as profitable as Google, in spite of muc…
You are wrong that by stating that if we don't click on ads or use adblockers we are costing money to Google. Even if you don't use the ads or if simply ignore them, you still represent a group of interests that can be used to feed and train the machine. Google learns through the searches you make and through the videos you watch and your behaviour will be used to improve the accuracy of ads shown to other people. Th…
what's stopping google from shutting up shop in the EU. would they have to block EU access? how much revenue do they make from EU clients?
Business is what is stopping Google from not servicing Europe. Google makes huge part of its profit on search in Europe and pays almost no tax in Europe. If Google stopped servicing Europe, one or more European competitors would emerge in days or weeks and Google's dominance would be threatened worldwide within months. It would be a completely suicidal move.
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…
Take the money Google made by breaking the law and give it to non-profit foundations which are dedicated to developing free/libre alternatives to Google services. This will kill two birds with one stone--firstly it will correct the economic damage Google has caused by abusing their monopoly position. Secondly it will make it harder for them to maintain and abuse their monopoly in the future. The software industry tod…
Even better: Make Google pay them directly. I don't know if that is possible on European level, but here in Germany, fines are often paid directly from the criminal to the non-profit, which is usually chosen in a round-robin-like fashion from the local non-profits in the criminal's (or court's) region.
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)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I realise that. My question is how are they supposed to hold a monoply or dominance, when there is nothing but preference or lazyness stopping anyone from switching to a competing service?
> nothing but preference or lazyness Those two (but especially preference) are extremely strong motivators for humans to choose one product over the other. But even if it wasn't, the law is there the protect the citizens and their livelihoods, not one company's supposed right to hold a monopoly.
There probably needs to a category of consumer software where the argument "but you could always use an alternative" should not apply, when evaluating monopolies. Once you have network effects for example, you have the foundations for a monopoly. WhatsApp is probably a monopoly by now, for example: if all you're friends are using it, you don't really have a choice, even though there are alternatives.
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 tend to agree with the underlying judgment, yet the record-breaking fine seems disproportionate to the debatable degree of wrongdoing, compared to the Intel case, where the (obviously reprehensible) extortion of distributors etc. only led to a fine of about €1.06B.
Capitalism is like a competition that when you win you don't ever get to play again.