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

European Commission fines Google €2.42B for abusing dominance

europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 702 posts

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

#421

Post by jpttsn »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #307
jpttsn wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 per…

What makes a natural monopoly different from a monopoly?

How did Google displace previous search engines?

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

#422

Post by bjl »

mythz wrote: post #363
bjl wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my knowledge it hasn't. But that's irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. There is no lock-in preventing you from visiting other Websites which are just a url or hyperlink away. When was Google Search ruled a website monopoly? What were the parameters? Who's defined the boundaries of what a search service can do and what relevant content they can provide? At what point should Google have known they've had to cede control of their own website and invest resources in…

If you have more than 50% market share in a given market you're considered a monopoly. Although practically, these type of actions aren't usually taken until around 75% market share.

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

#423

Post by telcodud »

watbe wrote: post #392
mythz wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you using Google then? Use a Service you can trust or you believe has your best interests at heart.

The answer to your question is given by the EC decision: > There are also high barriers to entry in these markets, in part because of network effects: the more consumers use a search engine, the more attractive it becomes to advertisers. The profits generated can then be used to attract even more consumers. Similarly, the data a search engine gathers about consumers can in turn be used to improve results. Simply put,…

Step 1: "the more consumers use a search engine" --> presumably because said consumers like the product (search engine)

Step 2: "more attractive to advertisers"

Step 3: "profits generated can then be used to attract even more consumers"

Wait, why were consumers attracted by the product (search engine) in the 1st step, but were convinced by the profits in the 3rd step?

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

#424

Post by justin66 »

yladiz wrote: post #406
justin66 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I know, my implicit argument is that this specific argument isn't really valid because these circumstances have happened before and I don't believe the decision against Microsoft is controversial in 2017. I do believe that something like Google, while obviously having alternatives, is often the place people search, so it is in many ways a monopoly and should be heavily scrutinized to ensure it's not using its positio…

> I don't believe the decision against Microsoft is controversial in 2017.

Well, in one sense that's obviously true: it's no longer a source of controversy. On the other hand, if there is a reason you believe the people who argued against the Microsoft antitrust action - or aspects thereof - in the late nineties would retract their opposition today, I wonder what it is. More to the point, I wonder if you have read any legal scholarship or punditry to the effect of "I was wrong, the Microsoft antitrust case was correctly decided." I don't recall ever seeing anything like that, and I'm interested in this stuff.

(plenty of us thought bundling IE was not an abuse of monopoly power twenty years ago, and still feel that way today)

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

#425

Post by dmix »

tgragnato wrote: post #366
dmix wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think an organization like EU can effectively fine or regulate their way to a more uniform market though? Google could partner with other companies to do integration in their search engine for those smart results but then they'd just be giving another company an unfair advantage. I don't see how you could stop this without crippling the type of answers Google provides. Besides maybe offering open tools they co…

> But regardless Google is a monopoly that we can't really do much about. Plenty of people have tried to compete and failed so there will be some consequences of that. The fine is focused on Google Shopping. I'd say the biggest competitors are Amazon and eBay. While I'm unsure if the EU can effectively do something about Google as a search engine monopoly, I'm pretty sure Google can be beaten in the e-commerce sector…

> Step by step, down the giants. Claiming the resolution of the matter in a single step is unrealistic.

My concern is that even one step like the fine here will significantly chill their innovation with their search service in every category. As they will see adding any special advanced listings in search results as a big risk of being fined.

We're stuck with this giant so I'm not sure why you want to down it when there won't be comparable alternatives popping up in it's place.

This isn't just Google shopping being pushed further down the results ranking but how the shopping subsite is deeply integrated into the search results.

Which is why I said the proposed solution is regressing search engines back to simple directories which harms customers for some neglible gain for other small companies.

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

#426

Post by tripzilch »

mythz wrote: post #403
watbe wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to your question is given by the EC decision: > There are also high barriers to entry in these markets, in part because of network effects: the more consumers use a search engine, the more attractive it becomes to advertisers. The profits generated can then be used to attract even more consumers. Similarly, the data a search engine gathers about consumers can in turn be used to improve results. Simply put,…

Sounds like they're punishing commercial success, i.e. the goals of most public corporations. Search has been Google's core competency since their inception, they were much smaller than the existing Search engines when they started out but were able to create a better product that users preferred and since that time they've been able to amass a wealth of knowledge, experience and resources. Of course any company is g…

"""Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets."""

It's not about "punishing" but it is about holding dominant companies responsible for handling the great power that comes with this dominance.

Companies don't usually do this by themselves because like you say, their goals are orthogonal to this.

Doesn't mean it's contrary to their goals (which would be "punishing", in a sense), but "commercial success" or profit just isn't a force that drives ethical behaviour and responsibility. It's not. Things would be so much easier if they were.

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

#427

Post by interfixus »

mattmanser wrote: post #156
interfixus wrote: post #74

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?

I suggest you read the wiki article[1], it's actually very good at answering your question. The whole article is worth reading, not just the section I linked answering your specific question. Dominance is reflected by the reality of market share, not by whether or not someone could theoretically switch search engine. In the EU they have a very dominant position (95% I think?). It's no different from saying MS had an…

It's no different from saying MS had an effective monopoly/dominance in the 2000s, even though you could theoretically install Linux

I not only could, I most certainly did.

The situation was different, though. Microsoft Windows had a kind of real monoply, since it was - and is - difficult to find a retail pc without the damned thing preinstalled and included in the price. No such mechanism exists concerning Google, as long as we politely keep Android out of the picture.

Mind you, my position back then was more or less the same with regard to EU vs MS as it is today, with Google taking over: I dislike both companies. I very much more intensely dislike the monolithic and terrifying EU throwing its weight around.

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

#428

Post by crdoconnor »

emidln wrote: post #383
crdoconnor wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They are not a utility. It actually seems to match the definition of public utility perfectly. The infrastructural cost of building another Google is incredibly high and people rely heavily upon it. You can "just build another google" the same way you can "just build an electricity network" for a large town.

You can build another shitty clone to Google search cheaply. Elasticsearch plus some bots crawling fed off a queue can give you an approximation of Google that is useful to a lot of people (albeit not cheap to keep running). I cannot build even a shitty fascimile of an electrical grid cheaply because I need permits for digging, to deal with existing infrastructure, and I need serious capital (an order of magnitude mo…

That's exactly what they're doing in Brooklyn:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/15/how-a-stre...

That would scale just about as well as your crappy elastic search thing would.

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

#430

Post by tripzilch »

mythz wrote: post #337
bjl wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When has this ever happened to a website before?

The EU doesn't do[0] Common Law (Case Law), like the US does, we have Civil Law here. It means precedence doesn't carry (as much) weight. It's a different legal system. It also means it has been written (codified) into law, unlike your previous comment states. You can read it in the article and links followed from there (it doesn't need to be written to specifically apply to websites).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Alternatives_to_com...

Be sure to also check out the coloured map at the top :)

[0] it's a bit more subtle, distinctions have blurred a little over time, either legal system adopted some parts of the other. see the wikipedia link for more details (especially the heading "Alternatives to Common Law systems")

Post reply on HN