Live data from Hacker News

European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

europa.eu

301–310 of 702 posts

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America? I thought this was Google vs the EU?

Americans seem to think this is the US versus the EU.

As an American who wishes his government protected him as well as the EU is protecting their citizens, I kinda resent being grouped in here.

Google fans would like to make this about US vs. the EU, because it misdirects away from Google's illegal actions. But multiple US companies asked for and supported this investigation against Google. And I wish our government laid down the same charges against them here.

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#302
post #292

I might be in a minority here and I'll probably get down voted but this result scares me... and I used to be CTO one of those competing price comparison sites that show up lower in the results so if anyone should agree it should be me. While it made me angry when Google put their results above ours, I never questioned that they had a right to do that. It is their website. They are not a utility. At what point does a…

Once you gain a certain amount of market share you no longer have the right to engage in certain kinds of anti-competitive actions. There's nothing extreme about that; the laws have been in place for over a century.

The anti-competitive practices you're talking about is not being able to decide what content gets displayed on your own website, what relevant information you're allowed to show Users in response to their search results and being forced to give your competitors more prominence. AFAIK this has never been written into law or ruled illegal before.

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#303

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…

Anecdotal experience: I switched browsers on android because android's default browser kept opening map links in google map. Firefox mobile didn't seem to suffer from that issue. While google's tight integration lead to a positive experience for you, it lead to a very poor experience for myself or others who want to use something not google. I'm not asking for the EUC to fine google, I'm asking for choice.

Choice beyond using something other than Google?

If I buy all my tech at the Apple Store, am I still entitled to a choice among various manufacturers?

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#304
post #262
post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>- Google Shopping, I never saw a reason to use it and I never did, I prefer to use local shops or Amazon 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…

Those websites are primarily american, so I am assuming you live in America. In Europe, I would say Google Shopping is more bothersome than it is useful. Whatever point you were trying to make by highlighting the usefulness of the service in your region, you forgot to take into account the rest of the world.

Besides, if you like to use Google Shopping, no one is stopping you.

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#305
post #217
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By following the rules & regulations set out, which Google will have been fully aware of. There was no previous ruling that indicated that displaying their own relevant content on their own Search pages was illegal. It's absurd to think displaying relevant content in the context of what the User is searching for is illegal, or that they should've been investing resources in helping their competitors get more exposu…

Are you suggesting the ruling is out of line with the regulations? Previous anti-trust rulings seem pretty similar to me. If microsoft gets into trouble for making IE a default browser or bundling windows media player, I'm really not surprised with the way this went. > It's absurd to think displaying relevant content in the context of what the User is searching for is illegal It's not absurd to think that using your…

>Previous anti-trust rulings seem pretty similar to me. If microsoft gets into trouble for making IE a default browser or bundling windows media player, I'm really not surprised with the way this went.

Except this has created quite the slippery slope. What's stopping the EU from deciding it's unfair for a search engine to have it's own maps served prominently when searching an address? What's stopping the EU from deciding it's unfair for Google to provide reverse image search through it's webtool (you used to have to go to tineye if you wanted that)?

You can pretty much apply this ruling to every Google product that is not their basic, text, search engine. It seems like Google is on the edge of simply being classified a utility in the EU.

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#306
post #246
post #212

Visting google is 100% voloutary and there are alternatives. The EU should not interfere, its unnecessary and I think its an abuse of power from their side.

> Using Internet Explorer is 100% voloutary and there are alternatives. The US government should not interfere, its unnecessary and I think its an abuse of power from their side.

Hopefully you realize that a lot of people (in the US and elsewhere) actually felt that way, and that simply posting this does not constitute a very thoughtful rebuttal.

The application of antitrust law (in the US and elsewhere) tends to be rather controversial. Which is why it's interesting...

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#307
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the answer is that Google should be a utility. Search is obviously a natural monopoly.

Can you deign to explain why you think so, or is it so obvious that I should just be ashamed for not seeing it?

Perhaps obvious was not a good choice. Anyways:

I would say Google is as close to a natural monopoly as the Bell System was in 1956. If you came to me and said “Hey, I want to start a company to compete with Google in search,” I would say you’re out of your mind and don’t waste your energy or your time or your money, there’s just no way. Classic economics would say that if there’s a business in which there are 35 percent net margins, that would attract a huge amount of new capital to capture some of that, and none of that has happened. That tells you there’s something wrong.

From: https://promarket.org/google-close-natural-monopoly-bell-sys...

Water companies are a utility because there's a high cost to laying the pipes and the more pipes you lay, the more people you service, the more pipes you can afford to lay. It's near impossible for an upstart water company to come in and displace the incumbent.

Search companies should be a utility because there's a high cost to gathering the data needed to drive good results and the more data you gather, the better results you give, the more data you gather. It's near impossible for an upstart search company to come in and displace the incumbent.

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#308
post #304
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>- Google Shopping, I never saw a reason to use it and I never did, I prefer to use local shops or Amazon 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…

Those websites are primarily american, so I am assuming you live in America. In Europe, I would say Google Shopping is more bothersome than it is useful. Whatever point you were trying to make by highlighting the usefulness of the service in your region, you forgot to take into account the rest of the world. Besides, if you like to use Google Shopping, no one is stopping you.

>Besides, if you like to use Google Shopping, no one is stopping you.

I have no irrational loyalty to Google Shopping. I was genuinely asking for better price comparison alternatives. Not sure what prompted your petty sniping.

What's the superior European price comparison website you're using that should be ahead of Google Shopping results?

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#309
post #294

I might be in a minority here and I'll probably get down voted but this result scares me... and I used to be CTO one of those competing price comparison sites that show up lower in the results so if anyone should agree it should be me. While it made me angry when Google put their results above ours, I never questioned that they had a right to do that. It is their website. They are not a utility. At what point does a…

"While it made me angry when Google put their results above ours, I never questioned that they had a right to do that. It is their website." The website is theirs, but the content they scan through and link to is not theirs. Google Search is of incredible value (to us in form of service _and_ to Google in form of an asset), but it's been built on top other people's content. They took that content for free. Perhaps it…

> They took that content for free.

Because it was freely available. As I understand it, Google feed its database with robots surfing the web. Those robots don't steel anything. Moreover, if I'm not mistaken you can explicitly forbid access to those robots with a robots.txt file or something. If you don't, it arguably means you give away your data to everyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_exclusion_standard

Re: European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

#310
post #302
post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you gain a certain amount of market share you no longer have the right to engage in certain kinds of anti-competitive actions. There's nothing extreme about that; the laws have been in place for over a century.

The anti-competitive practices you're talking about is not being able to decide what content gets displayed on your own website, what relevant information you're allowed to show Users in response to their search results and being forced to give your competitors more prominence. AFAIK this has never been written into law or ruled illegal before.

The specifics are unimportant. What matters is that Google was using its dominance in one market to gain an advantage in a different market. That has been illegal for a long time.
Post reply on HN