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

Google finally responds to Europe's antitrust charges

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: Google finally responds to Europe's antitrust charges

#31

Post by raldi »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #29
raldi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if I had an idea for a better social network, I could replace Facebook. Not necessarily. There are gigantic network effects propping Facebook up. A Facebook user who wants to try another social network needs to convince all their friends to move. And each of them has to convince their friends. But to try another search engine takes takes about five seconds. You could switch from Google to Bing immediately and n…

Well, um, that's exactly my point. It's not that I can switch to another service, it's that other people won't, unless they each have a strong reason to. So if I feel a ubiquitous web service maligns my business, I should be concerned about their power over the populace, not just me.

Do you believe that every company with a dominant market share -- even one gained by building a better mousetrap -- deserves to have that power disrupted by the government?

If not, could you name an example of such a company that you would leave alone?

Re: Google finally responds to Europe's antitrust charges

#32

Post by AnimalMuppet »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #3
avmich wrote: post #2

"Google argues that the commission's proposed remedies, which include obliging its website to display ads "sourced and ranked" by rival companies, would only have a legal basis if it were a monopoly provider of essential supplies such as gas or electricity." Interesting. So, Google isn't a monopoly or web search that it provides isn't essential supply. That means, as I understand, there are plenty of comparable rival…

Google is like a convenient highway that everyone takes to work: just because there are other routes (DuckDuckGo) it doesn't mean people will take them, and regulatory framework has to, in absence of a legitimate competitor (Japan prefers Yahoo! for some reason), treat Google as a functional monopoly. Standard Oil held down prices which was good in theory for customers, but it was devastating for competitors and thei…

> and regulatory framework has to, in absence of a legitimate competitor (Japan prefers Yahoo! for some reason), treat Google as a functional monopoly.

Yeah, well, there's this outfit called Microsoft. They have this service called Bing. You may have heard of it. I'm sure that they'd be pretty offended to be told that they're not "a legitimate competitor".

You can have a legitimate competitor, and still have the majority of people prefer one. That's not the same as a monopoly.

Re: Google finally responds to Europe's antitrust charges

#33

Post by AnimalMuppet »

avmich wrote: post #2

"Google argues that the commission's proposed remedies, which include obliging its website to display ads "sourced and ranked" by rival companies, would only have a legal basis if it were a monopoly provider of essential supplies such as gas or electricity." Interesting. So, Google isn't a monopoly or web search that it provides isn't essential supply. That means, as I understand, there are plenty of comparable rival…

Bing? Yahoo? Either of those ring a bell (pun not avoided)? Either of those active in Europe?

People can prefer Google without Google being a monopoly. There's competition, even though Google is ahead. (When multiple companies compete in a market, someone is almost always ahead.)

Google has effective competition. Winning against them does not make Google a monopoly.

Re: Google finally responds to Europe's antitrust charges

#34

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

raldi wrote: post #31
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, um, that's exactly my point. It's not that I can switch to another service, it's that other people won't, unless they each have a strong reason to. So if I feel a ubiquitous web service maligns my business, I should be concerned about their power over the populace, not just me.

Do you believe that every company with a dominant market share -- even one gained by building a better mousetrap -- deserves to have that power disrupted by the government? If not, could you name an example of such a company that you would leave alone?

The potential for abuse exists anywhere, even if the choice to abuse isn't made. Likewise, the government should have the potential to disrupt a company, just as it should not do so unless it has an excellent reason.

This is a question of place and values. All things considered I think Google's market position is O.K., but if I were a European I would probably think differently. Not everyone wants to live by everyone else's rules (or End User License Agreement). If Europeans believe in antitrust action against Google, even if it is economically disruptive, we should respect that. Just as we should expect them to let us live as we desire elsewhere.

Re: Google finally responds to Europe's antitrust charges

#35

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #32
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is like a convenient highway that everyone takes to work: just because there are other routes (DuckDuckGo) it doesn't mean people will take them, and regulatory framework has to, in absence of a legitimate competitor (Japan prefers Yahoo! for some reason), treat Google as a functional monopoly. Standard Oil held down prices which was good in theory for customers, but it was devastating for competitors and thei…

> and regulatory framework has to, in absence of a legitimate competitor (Japan prefers Yahoo! for some reason), treat Google as a functional monopoly. Yeah, well, there's this outfit called Microsoft. They have this service called Bing. You may have heard of it. I'm sure that they'd be pretty offended to be told that they're not "a legitimate competitor". You can have a legitimate competitor, and still have the majo…

Third "again" today, it doesn't matter that other options exist for me, it's that businesses and other institutions that rely on search can't expect other people to use anything but Google, thereby giving the company disproportionate influence.

Re: Google finally responds to Europe's antitrust charges

#36

Post by AnimalMuppet »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #35
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and regulatory framework has to, in absence of a legitimate competitor (Japan prefers Yahoo! for some reason), treat Google as a functional monopoly. Yeah, well, there's this outfit called Microsoft. They have this service called Bing. You may have heard of it. I'm sure that they'd be pretty offended to be told that they're not "a legitimate competitor". You can have a legitimate competitor, and still have the majo…

Third "again" today, it doesn't matter that other options exist for me , it's that businesses and other institutions that rely on search can't expect other people to use anything but Google, thereby giving the company disproportionate influence.

If you're a business, and you're advertising on Google, but not on Bing and not on Yahoo, you're probably being pretty stupid - unless the revenue per dollar spent is higher for Google than for Bing and Yahoo. If you can demonstrate that it is, then you might have a case.

I only said "might", because the question isn't whether Google is more effective per dollar. The question is whether advertising on Bing generates more revenue than it costs. If it does, then businesses would be stupid not to also advertize on Bing.

Re: Google finally responds to Europe's antitrust charges

#37

Post by happyscrappy »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #24
thedevil wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google is like a convenient highway" If I have an idea for a better highway and money to build it, I still can't just build the highway. If I have a better idea for a search engine, I could wipe out Google. Google is exposed to market forces, the highway isn't. Your analogy doesn't work at all.

And if I had an idea for a better social network, I could replace Facebook. Just because there exists the opportunity for a competitor doesn't mean one will emerge. Until then (if it even happens!) the courts of Europe will continue to view Google as a disproportionately powerful force. Because it's an American company backed and staffed by people who fundamentally see the Internet and global economy in a different l…

Europeans are free to self harm to their hearts content.

Re: Google finally responds to Europe's antitrust charges

#38

Post by Spivak »

thomasahle wrote: post #17
lilbarbarian wrote: post #7

It should be clear to anyone paying attention that Google is using their dominance in search to support their businesses at the expense of their competitors. Just do a search for "Chicago Hotel" on a desktop browser. Unless you have a gargantuan screen, you will not see a single organic result. You will be given a list of paid ads, and then links to Google's local results. Clicking one of those local results will tak…

I tried it: http://i.imgur.com/a45wZdf.png And while the top 'results' were not 'organic', they were not ads either. They were simply the top rated hotels on google maps near Chicago. When I clicked on 'More hotel', I was taken to google maps, which showed me top rated hotels as well as ads for hotels. In terms of giving me the most relevant results, I think this is pretty close.

You have an ad blocker.

This is what the actual results are on a 1080p screen.

http://i.imgur.com/5Te0gmG.png

Re: Google finally responds to Europe's antitrust charges

#39

Post by lilbarbarian »

raldi wrote: post #25
lilbarbarian wrote: post #7

It should be clear to anyone paying attention that Google is using their dominance in search to support their businesses at the expense of their competitors. Just do a search for "Chicago Hotel" on a desktop browser. Unless you have a gargantuan screen, you will not see a single organic result. You will be given a list of paid ads, and then links to Google's local results. Clicking one of those local results will tak…

If you ran a search engine, what would your search results page for "chicago hotel" look like, and why would that be better for users than Google's?

If I ran a search engine it'd probably look exactly like Google's. That's not the point I'm trying to make.

Was Microsost wrong to use their position as the dominant OS to kill Netscape by effectively banning it from Windows installations? Was Standard Oil wrong to force railroads to not only give them massive discounts but also force the railroads to hurt Standard competitors?

What Google is doing and what Microsoft or Standard Oil did are fantastically profitable tactics that insure their long-term success. The question is, should they be allowed to do that without any restrictions?

Re: Google finally responds to Europe's antitrust charges

#40

Post by raldi »

lilbarbarian wrote: post #39
raldi wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ran a search engine, what would your search results page for "chicago hotel" look like, and why would that be better for users than Google's?

If I ran a search engine it'd probably look exactly like Google's. That's not the point I'm trying to make. Was Microsost wrong to use their position as the dominant OS to kill Netscape by effectively banning it from Windows installations? Was Standard Oil wrong to force railroads to not only give them massive discounts but also force the railroads to hurt Standard competitors? What Google is doing and what Microsoft…

During Microsoft's heyday, if your company used Windows and you wanted to try some other OS, you were out of luck: It would be enormously expensive to transition to another one -- you'd have to buy or write all new software and retrain all your employees.

But if you're a Google user and you want to switch to some other search engine... you just switch. Instantly.

Post reply on HN