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

451–460 of 702 posts

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

#451

Post by sgift »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #445
zdkl wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. This is an opinion which I don't feel the need to convert anyone to but I really don't understand the opposite view. Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU?

Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU? 1. Because it's in their long term best interest to have a customer for life (No political cycle) so they are more incentivized than a politician would be to support the interest of the consumer. 2. They have a more insight into user desires and actions on a day to day basis, meaning they can p…

re 2. Or one which only looks mutually beneficial, but only benefits Google in reality.

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

#452

Post by refulgentis »

Mahn wrote: post #387
zdkl wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. This is an opinion which I don't feel the need to convert anyone to but I really don't understand the opposite view. Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU?

Personally, as an EU citizen, I don't believe that Google is advancing my interests and rights, but I also don't believe that the EU commission dictating what Google can or cannot do based on who is lobbying and how much money is at stake has the consumer's best interests in mind. To me these fines seem motivated by money, not consumer rights.

+1. While adding billions to their coffers may not be the motivation, there's a ravenous appetite to figure out how to distribute wealth of this obscenely rich generation of multinationals. This reeks of an ineffectual political institution grasping for one of the few solutions it can implement.

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

#453

Post by oh_sigh »

zdkl wrote: post #367
Ajedi32 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it benefit the consumer though? I fail to see how showing links to search results pages from other companies in response to a product query is better for consumers than just showing them a listing of the products they actually searched for. [Google's response][1] to this ruling suggests they have data which confirms this: > While some comparison shopping sites naturally want Google to show them more prominently,…

As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. This is an opinion which I don't feel the need to convert anyone to but I really don't understand the opposite view. Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU?

At the very least you have no requirement to use Google. You don't have that option with the EU if you're in an EU country.

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

#454

Post by oh_sigh »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #448
stickfigure wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. The same people that brought you that idiotic cookies warning?

Yes, the cookie notices are a bad implementation of a good policy, (informing users that they're being tracked.)

Cookies don't imply tracking - that is just one use of them.

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

#455

Post by AndrewKemendo »

gpderetta wrote: post #242
briandear wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I visit rivalshoppingservice.com then I would expect to see that rival shopping service. When I visit google, I would expect to see google. Are the rivals going to be required to show google results now or is this really not about choice but about crippling google or is it about extracting an easy multi-billion dollar payday? When I go to the SNCF (French rail) website, are they showing me flight and bus options…

Except that Google is not a shopping service. Using a dominant position in one market to acquire one in a different market is not allowed.

Last I checked the Google group of services did in fact include a shopping service, and a mapping service etc... so I'm not sure what you mean.

They have a dominant position in many markets.

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

#456

Post by tripzilch »

dmix wrote: post #425
tgragnato wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

I actually found Google way better before it had all these integrated advanced features. It was technically never a "directory" though (like Yahoo ... Categories, or something?), it was a web search engine.

And it really sucks at web search today, compared to before (~10-15 years ago).

This is personal opinion of course but your argument depends on all this innovation always being an improvement to society. But Google innovates to improve its profits, which sometimes aligns with public interest, and sometimes not.

If it doesn't necessarily improve things for society, why would a company have a right to innovate despite everything else? Especially if you have to weigh it against the abuse of market dominance power to stifle competition (also deterring innovation, btw).

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

#457

Post by asr »

sweden wrote: post #131
theBobBob wrote: post #72

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…

Conversely, just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean everyone else feels it's broken. At the same time Google was introducing the shopping results that the Commission says were illegal, Microsoft was running advertisements with the slogan "Bing and Decide" that advertised how great a feature it is to do essentially the same thing.

So even if you don't believe Google, there's at least some evidence that a lot of people actually do like services showing up.

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

#458

Post by AndrewKemendo »

sgift wrote: post #451
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU? 1. Because it's in their long term best interest to have a customer for life (No political cycle) so they are more incentivized than a politician would be to support the interest of the consumer. 2. They have a more insight into user desires and actions on a day to day basis, meaning they can p…

re 2. Or one which only looks mutually beneficial, but only benefits Google in reality.

Can you give an unbiased concrete example (eg. tainted baby formula, collapsed bridge, corrupted hard drive from virus) of something that has benefited google to the direct harm of one of it's users?

The biggest argument I've seen is that people don't like that they aggregate the data you give to them.

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

#459

Post by Analemma_ »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #449
Analemma_ wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any evidence that my purchasing actions are positivity correlated to my desires either.

Just so I interpret this correctly, are you saying that you purchase things you don't want?

What I mean is I don't see my buying habits having any larger of an impact on the behavior of corporations than my voting habits do on the behavior of the government. The libertarian conviction that businesses will change their behavior to attract my dollars never seemed to have any empirical footing to me.

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

#460

Post by vegancap »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #174
vegancap wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that competition is vital for a free-market to function, unless Google gained power in this scenario through external influences such as government, then surely it has gained its position through market competition?

And if you invited people into your house, and they came of their free will, then you surely got them into your house legally? Yes, you did. And now you have the de-facto monopoly over the key for the front door. So, what could be wrong with asking for half their life savings if they want to be let out?

I don't think a shopping comparison channel, which actually doesn't command a particularly large share of price comparison sites, is comparable to life savings. Surely, you'd take these results with a pinch of salt and 'shop around'?
Post reply on HN