Slashdot Mirror
Google Could Face Heavy Antitrust Fines In the EU
SquarePixel writes "Europe's competition watchdog is considering formal proceedings against Google over antitrust complaints about the way it promotes its own services in search results, potentially exposing the company to a fine of 10 percent of its global turnover. Google is accused of using its search service to direct users to its own services and to reduce the visibility of competing websites and services. If the Commission found Google guilty of breaking E.U. competition rules, it could restrict Google's business activities in Europe and fine the company up to 10 percent of its annual global revenue (US$37.9 billion last year)."
No, it's because Apple has so many EU politicians in it's pocket. Look at the situation in France for example.
Can you give an example in relation to their promoting their own services through their search engine? The first thing I tried to test it was searching for "maps" on Google search and sure enough Google Maps came up first. But then I tried searching for "maps" on Bing and it also gave me Google maps first so maybe Google maps is just a good first result for that. I'm sure there must be other search terms that demonstrate a problem though, so what might be worth trying?
Seriously: is there some treaty, directive or other description on what such fine money can be used for?
Google+. It mixes with your results.
Even if Google does what they suggest, Why is it illegal for a company to promote itself over others on the services it provides for free. If you don't like Google, don't use their services. It's not a requirement.
If I use Google search to search for "search" then Google search comes up seventh (after Metasearch, Bing, Twitter seach, Dogpile and Yahoo(twice)), which sort of surprised me. But I suppose it makes sense because most people using Google to search for "search" are looking for something other than Google.
I worked out that a Europe wide 0.5% financial transaction tax would be enough to pay an unconditional base income of 400euro/month to every single person living in Europe with money to spare. ...just saying.
I searched for 'evil' and got google on google....
But do they have the option of 'mixing' results from other social networks? My impression (perhaps unfounded?) was that Facebook wouldn't let them have access to the equivalent information.
So the EU wants to fine Google for all of these supposedly malicious activities that happened completely outside of Europe and had not effect on Europe at all? Hrm.. if only this was the U.S. under a Republican President, then we could see about 500 posts on how the Imperialistic America is forcing its laws on people all over the world. However, since it's the EU then it's "consumer protection" to go after the Big Evil American company for it nefarious activities taking place in Burkina Faso and Papua New Guinea...
Do a search for any store, landmark, or address. For example, "empire state building".
Google bundles Google Maps right into the search results in a special way that no other mapping service can compete with.
You haven't seen google homepage in non-chrome browser. Your eyes also have missed google+ links on the search page.
Can you give an example in relation to their promoting their own services through their search engine? The first thing I tried to test it was searching for "maps" on Google search and sure enough Google Maps came up first. But then I tried searching for "maps" on Bing and it also gave me Google maps first so maybe Google maps is just a good first result for that. I'm sure there must be other search terms that demonstrate a problem though, so what might be worth trying?
So Google's services are the most used simply because they are the best, not because Google are a bunch of anti competitive corporate weasels just like all the other big tech corporations. Well then, by the same logic Microsoft Windows must be so widely used, simply because it is the best Desktop OS ever written.
This money is added to the central budget of the EU.
Bing does this as well, I do not think it is particularly fair to start fining people for doing something that has been going on and in the open since internet searches were first born.
Now if they wanted to created some regulations to protect internet searches to make them fair, well that would be a good start.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Please explain.
The article links to another article with a very different tone from July:
"Google and EU poised to settle antitrust investigation "
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/072412-google-and-eu-poised-to-261131.html
Which includes the line: "Schmidt's proposals addressed all of the concerns they had raised with Google, European officials told the Financial Times."
You haven't seen google homepage in non-chrome browser. Your eyes also have missed google+ links on the search page.
The home page in Firefox shows links along th top and side to various services. I don't think that can realistically be what you're objecting to - or if it is then why?
My eyes have indeed missed the google+ links. Can you give an example of a search term that should give me some?
What? There's still an EU?
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Exactly. Google couldn't get Facebook to play, so they took it upon themselves to provide a better user experience. In fact, facebook provided information to Microsoft which they integrated with Bing, so it was possible, but they chose not to do this for Google, so Google simply took it upon themselves to innovate. But some Europeans with a baguette in one hand and a shitty search engine/service in the other complain from their corner of the world. Oh no, their crappy subpar website is ruined by the evil Google with their superior service! Let's fine the innovators!
This is why Europe will never get a Google/Apple/Microsoft company that starts in Europe. Europe simply doesn't understand basic economics. If Google wanted to, they could make sure search results always favor them, but they don't, they go above and beyond many other companies who promote their own services.
And thank God. When I type <name of store>, City, State I want a map. Not a plug for MapQuest. Not a plug for Bing. And most certainly not iOS 6 telling me I'll have to charter a kayak, and, by the way, Gander Mountain has a great deal on paddles.
A related problem: My local Wal-Mart has a Subway inside the store. Why don't you go picket them? There's clearly no way other sandwich services can compete.
DATABASE WOW WOW
In my experience, the only people who complain to the EU are competitors trying to fiddle with Googles business model. I think people who sponsor that sort of activity should attract fines of their own.
People do not look for 'search' and then find google. People google it.
People will use 'search' if they want something else then google. They are already at google, so they will not select that.
Searches are related to what people search for and to what it is linked to. So to me it is logical that googleling for 'search' won't show google.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I doubt very much though that the EU will/can do very much here.
One part of the problem is that people are trusting Google more than almost any other company. Google often exercises restrain and good will and of course for most services doesn't charge anything (because its users are not its customers actually), so people are extremely forgiving.
I'm not sure about what will grow out of Google. I wouldn't be surprised though if Google were the first iteration of a more or less lenient super-AI of the future. If any of you have read the Culture novels by Iain M. Banks: The first Minds probably looked very similar to Google. If *this* will be the ultimate outcome, I'd say fuck the EU and hail Google.
Reality isn't a novel though...
Stupid European Communists. Employing regulation. ~
Obvious disclaimer is obvious. IAAE.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
They heavily promote Chrome with Google Earth, Youtube (especially to Windows XP users) and search, possibly Gmail and maps too.
But to me, this is akin to a restaurant being threatened with fines for not directing some of the customers to its competitors.
The search engine industry should advertise like everyone else, or offer superior service.
There are some interesting parallels here. Google is starting to look more and more like an operating system, with the menu bar at the top and the integration of a lot of their services into a desktop-like interface. And in a way, the "start menu" for this operating system is Google Search (it is after all the one at google.com). So the question then is, are they allowed to bundle other applications with this operating system, or should they allow others to compete with their own applications? In that sense it's similar to the whole Windows/IE bundling case. And in fact, Google could argue just like Microsoft did (although MS made some ridiculous claims about it being technically impossible to remove IE) that the embedded Maps is not a separate service at all, but that Search simply has an embedded viewer for search results that are geographical locations, which happens to be powered by the same technology as Maps.
Of course, what matters legally is the effect the thing has on the markets, not any kind of technical consideration. In that case, Google Search is a near-monopoly in the search market, and it's conceivable that its embedding of Google Maps to display results advantages Google Maps over other mapping services. I'm not sure how you would prove that (and have no idea what the standard of proof would be here), but if it turns out to be the case, then Google could remedy it by offering any other mapping services an open API that they can use to register their mapping service with Google, with Google then giving the user the option to choose a mapping service for showing embedded search results. That would be similar to the IE solution.
As for Google being evil, right now the EU is investigating if there is a crime at all. Antitrust law is a murky thing; there is no exact borderline where a market leader becomes a monopolist and where integrating services or products becomes too big a distortion of the market. So let's wait for the EU opinion first. Then, let's see how Google handles it. Will they work with the regulators to find an acceptable solution and implement it quickly, or will they try to lie, sue and lobby their way out of it like Microsoft did? I'd say that their reaction of a potential complaint constitutes a much better test of their character than just the fact that the EU has decided to investigate something.
I'm not saying you're from the US or anything, but the US does the same thing. We just use the term "patent infringement" rather than "antitrust." (note: that's an analogy, not a pair of synonyms)
I have been a captive in America my entire life. Everybody and everything uses customary units instead of metric.
Google could buy a very well armed and well trained East German team to level Brussels and kill any lingering thorns.
Where is the corprat EVIL? It would make fabulous headlines.
It would have been nice if they could have actually regulated them before hitting them with a $3.7 billion fine for putting an ad for their products on the side of their delivery trucks.
I.e., tell them they could be liable, and could you please stop that? Instead of the very first move being to make a massive hit on a foreign company (as also seen in the anti-Samsung verdicts in the US and Europe).
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Maybe Google should have simply posted up their own services as an Advertisement item in search. Instant First rank, no problem -- they could even have the department "pay" the rest of Google to do it (although I'm pretty sure they would have to be careful with accounting rules, taxes, and so forth).
you mean the thing which you can *turn off*?
As this comes directly from Microsoft and a couple of paid minions of them its pretty lame. Its so obvious who is behind this. What Google should try to do is to get any remedies they have to do be written down as much of it is applicable to Microsofts own promoting of MS Office inside Windows and its Server products etc.
When you cant compete, litigate. If everybody laughs at you for the sheer audacity, get a couple of toady minions to do your dirty work.
HTTP/1.1 400
You changed the scenario to fit your beliefs. I didn't say "type in , City, State"
For "Empire state building" Google embed their map right into the search. I wasn't looking for the address. I wasn't looking for a map. Google just shoved their map in there ... and no other service can do that. How can Maquest compete when Google is shoving their maps right into their monopoly search?
I'm sorry, but Slashdot seems overrun with Google shills.
This is getting old, the every couple days another story splashing the Evil Google name in the headlines with hardly any change from the previous round. There will be progress in the MS-EU-Google tussle over time but basically there's nothing to say until it's over and done with. And by then some of the wild accusations of exposure will magically have faded to something actually reasonable.
You don't have to be a "shill" to realize your scenario, as presented, is ridiculous. You don't want a map, but claim Google is unfairly depriving MapQuest their share of the "people who don't want a map" market?
Google is trying to put something useful in that spot. Search for "Keanu Reeves" and, instead of a map, you'll get a short bio. Search for "Pb" and you'll get it's periodic table entry.
Bing and Yahoo! could do something like that, but they'd rather fill that space with ads.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Quote
This is why Europe will never get a Google/Apple/Microsoft company that starts in Europe.
So in your opinion Google/Apple/Microsoft like companies don't start in Europe How little you know about Europe. Get your head from up your rear hole dude. Europe is all about freedom of choice. NOT being forced into being controlled by anyone.
When you've got Apple and MS suing everybody. All over the world to keep their monopolies, I notice Apple and MS don't sue Google they go after the small men who haven't the finances to fight back.
Then there is MS who is loosing millions of consumers to Free Open Source Operating Systems and Software world wide. So what have they done, They have forced systems manufactures to install Microsoft's UEFI system so only windows will run on computers,
I can't wait for the European competition watchdogs to get hold of that, for unfair competition practices, Microsoft trying to lock down every computer in the world to only run windows 8
Now they have come up with the idea of charging every consumer an annual end users license fee
of $99.00 to use office software, that's after they have bought it a $140.00. You may be a MS Zombie who likes being controlled
...levy fines against global corporations in a different currency, then convert to assets which belong to the Treasury.
Google: butthurt. Seriously butthurt.
Federal Reserve: butthurt. Although they'll just handicap to their masters in Zurich for a bailout. Not so butthurt.
Eurozone: laughing all the way to the... bank. Seriously, they just made nearly 400 billion US (see fractional reserve banking) and the public purse doesn't get to see penny one of it.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
bunch of anti-capitalists in the EU. Google is under no obligation to anyone to show any search results other than the ones Google wants to show. You don't like how their search works? Go use Bing. Go use any of the many other search providers. Vote with your feet. Stop trying to be nanny to everyone and assume they aren't capable of finding what they want in more than one way.
Google is accused of using its search service to direct users to its own services and to reduce the visibility of competing websites and services
Accused? They likely openly admit to doing such things, they are a business after all. It's what they are SUPPOSED to do.
Google should just tell the EU to fuck off and continue running things the way they have been. What? Are the Eurotrash governments going to start censoring peoples' internet connections to exclude the biggest and best search engine in the world?
I guess Samsung is a small man with no finances. Assuming you don't count billions in revenue and the largest slice of the tablet market. Or how about the lawsuits between Microsoft and Motorola.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
OK, go use Bing. Or Blekko. Or Dogpile. Or Ask. Or is that too hard for you to do? You don't like the way Google works so don't keep using it.
You can bet all of those complaints are from Microsoft's family of shill companies. They can't compete from a technology point of view so they complain to the EU about their incompetence. It's about time Google goes ballistic on Microsoft and exposes them for the dirt bag company they really are.
Uh... I was certain "patent infringement" and "antitrust" cases promote monopolization and competition respectively. I must have been wrong and will read on that.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Yep. And at the same time it would cut down on speculation in the financial markets and high speed trading arbitrage, which is why the investment banks and brokers in Wall Street and London are so dead set against it. It would cut into a major source of revenue for them, oh and probably help stabilize markets by reducing flash trading.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
You clearly don't know what anoperating system is. Hint: not a GUI nor a desktop environment.
No it would not because you are not taking into the account modification of behaviour.
If you do that, you'll simply end most of the financial transactions that can be taxed, some will find new homes and some will just disappear. Most of the smaller traders in the markets will disappear, for who 0.5% is definitely the game killer, they can't make a profit on average if that type of confiscatory tax is applied, and it is confiscatory in case of most traders.
---
(all of this sets aside the obvious issue of lack of morality of such behavior - confiscation of private property via income taxes)
MY OTHER COMMENTS
If the EU charges a fixed fraction of Google's global revenue per infraction, including a lot of revenue that's not part of the EU, then why should they get to keep all of it? Instead, this sounds like a protectionist scheme. The fee relative to the amount of business in the EU is much less for a company that does most or all of its business in the EU relative to a foreign company that does a small part in the EU.
For example, suppose I have two businesses each doing a billion euros of business. One is solely in the EU and the other does only ten per cent of its business in the EU. A fine scheme like the above has them paying the same fine for the same crime despite one business having far more business in the EU than the other. That means that the foreign business faces the same risk of fines on a tenth of the business that the other business has.
It's yet another way to block foreign businesses without (as of yet) provoking a response from the WTO or other treaties.
AFAIC it's very clear what Google should do. Either it has to play by their 'normal' rules and bribe the officials or they should hire a small army of mercs to remove a few high profile political targets that are pushing this agenda and put an end to this nonsense by setting the proper example. EU is trying to kill Google, it's about survival.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Read up on rules on monopolies. If you have a dominant position in one area and use that to gain an advantage in other areas, that's when you are in trouble. If no such rules were in place, the natural evolution would be that one company crushing all the others. Be thankful that that this is happening. It's good for you in the end.
Fully agree. However, when does one thing (search) become two things (search, maps), in which the one is used to abuse the other? Based on the suggestions here, the only thing that Google can do is provide an interface for customers to choose absolutely everything. However, where do you draw the line? What if I want my searching based on a specific algorithm - have google leveraged their ad presentation infrasstructure into the algorithm development business? What if I want them to use a different ad server? What if I want them to use a competitor's font - are the typesetters being disadvantaged here?
What if we parametricize this - are they extending search into restaurant reviews - should Yelp sue? What about the whitepages - should phone information services sue? Etc, etc.
There's an insidious aspect in that because Google's product is free, every aspect of their operation can be seen as another 'free service' that is connected (illegally?) to their search operation. Is Maps another service or just another way of showing search results?
I could see a clean break with a service like Mail - that has little to do (from a user's standpoint) with their core search business, though on the biz side of course they're both part of the ad business. So if they're popping up GMail on top when you search for Hotmail (they don't, btw), that would be one thing. But simply presenting search results on a map, or showing a map of a locality that is searched for, calling that anti-trust is brainless.
Two other things: 1) Companies shouldn't have to guess what can be construed as anti-trust under very creative definitions, they should be given notice first. 2) There's a clear conflict of interest when the body that fines you gets to keep the loot.
"Google just shoved their map in there ... and no other service can do that."
So if you go to Starbucks you want them to offer you coffee from the guys around the corner?
And they have to offer you that _first_?
Are you crazy?
It's a private company, not some Government Agency who has to be impartial.
They show you what they have, if you don't like that, don't go there.
"Hey, Google. (insert OP contents here)...unless a more...equitable...arrangement is agreed?"
Microsoft started donating hand-over-fist, This, combined with their philanthropy, largely dried up attacks by pontificating politicians around the world.
An outrageous statement? No, a prediction. Google will learn to play the game and start making many more political "donations".
And, to quasi-knowitalls, what part of prediction don't you guys understand?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
And 1% would give everybody a monthly income of 800. And why stop there? A 25% tax would give everybody 20,000 euro a MONTH and everybody will be filthy rich and nobody will have to work ever again. You, Sir, are a genius!
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Yes, Twitter and Facebook have the option of integrating with Google. However, that doesn't matter. Let me explain why:
1 - A social network (say, Twitter) has lots of data that it both it and Google find valuable.
2 - Google wants access to that data.
3 - Twitter refuses access unless it gets paid mucho deniro.
4 - Instead of paying up, Google decided to create it's own social network and integrate it right into it's monopoly search.
5 - Google says "hey Twitter... if you want to integrate with our search then you better give up your data."
So this is the illegal business practice - Google has now used its monopoly power to make an offer Twitter can't refuse. Either Twitter risks losing market share to G+, or it gives away it's precious data in order to also get special integration with Search.
How the hell is this "not evil"? Google is simply pushing people around by building competing products and integrating them in Search,
Do you not think that MapQuest would LOVE IT if Google would show MapQuest maps even when the user wasn't looking for them? Do you not think it would greatly help people know that MapQuest exists?
If including useful software is wrong, then why was bundling IE wrong? Nobody ever had to use it if they didn't want to - just like nobody ahs to click on Google's Maps.
Bing and (and probably Yahoo) also include "smart answers" to queries. Hell, Bing has a partnership with Wolfram|Alpha to provide smart answers atop queries.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about and yes, you clearly are a shill.
Of course MapQuest would be happy if Google wrote them a massive check for no reason. The question is how you managed to decide Google owes them money.
And fuck you. I'm not a shill; you're just some combination of retarded and European.
DATABASE WOW WOW
That is... the worst analogy ever.
Google is a public company, not a private one.
Starbucks is not a coffee monopoly who controls 80-90% of the world's coffee.
Your argument means that Microsoft should be free to integrate anything they want into Windows. Anything at all. And if you don't like it then don't buy a Windows PC.
It's very simple - Google controls a monopoly share of web searches. A monopoly share is legal as long as you don't use it in illegal ways (such as using it to push into new markets). Google is now bundling their own products right into their search while excluding competitors from getting the same privilege. This, quite obviously, gives their own products an advantage over competitors. This means that Google is using its search engine to push into new markets and quash competitors.
How is this in any way confusing? How could anyone agree that this is a legitimate business practice?
I spent the last 15 years seeing them rage against MS for illegal bundling practices that sucked their air out of the room for competitors, but when Google does it everything is hunky-dory It's funny how Slashdot has such massive double standards. It's like you're PROUD of it.
Company shows its own free products before those of the competition.
Film at 11.
And 1% would give everybody a monthly income of 800. And why stop there? A 25% tax would give everybody 20,000 euro a MONTH and everybody will be filthy rich and nobody will have to work ever again. You, Sir, are a genius!
Well, THAT sounds very reasonable to me!!
You Sir Mr. clarkkent09 (1104833) are a genius!
please let me elect you president of the world - PLEASE!!
Right now we're at the stage where a bunch of parasitic, piss poor vertical search companies in league with Microsoft and a posse of other sworn enemies, have filed 400 pages of *allegations*. I confidently predict between 390 and 400 of those pages are outright lies.
The EU tried to get Google to volunteer to punish themselves based on those *unproven* allegations. Google didn't bend over far enough and have essentially called their bluff. Now the EU needs to actually spend time and money proving there's a case to answer. This isn't going to end in a 10% fine, however often Fairsearch+MS+posse tell the world it will, it will most likely end with a very embarassed EU accepting the same offer Google already made but most important, the vertical search scum exposed for what they are.
Why not? There are countries in the EU which pay more than that in VAT.
" The first thing I tried to test it was searching for "maps" on Google search and sure enough Google Maps came up first."
I tried to search for "foot ball" and +"foot ball" and there was not a single match in the first dozen results, those were all for the dyslexic morons that Google expects us to be and just assumes we are searching for 'football' and don't know how it's spelled.
If I insist and ask for +"foot ball" -"football" the first link doesn't have the second search term, as expected, but also not the first.
It's just getting more and more tedious to use.
And that's just an example I cooked up where everything happens on the first results page, usually you have to wade through dozens of results pages, because Google just doesn't return what I ask for but what it thinks I want.
I want a fucking search engine, not a psychic.
6th result for "foot ball": "Amazon.com: Foot Rubz Foot Massage Ball Also Great for Backs ...", 9 and 10: "Foot Pain: Arch, Ball, Heel, and Toe Pain Causes and Treatments", "Roll the frozen golf ball under the foot, starting from the front and working your way back. ... Then, roll the ball back and forth over the entire foot."
But yes, this is a bad example, because what exactly would you be trying to find by terms "foot ball"? If it's about a part of the foot, then properly writing "ball of foot" gives you what you need.
Try a better example next time, you don't really make your case.
A related problem: My local Wal-Mart has a Subway inside the store. Why don't you go picket them? There's clearly no way other sandwich services can compete.
Yeah you obviously have no ability to comprehend this situation if you find that to be a 'related problem', just shut up before you make yourself look even more stupid. Wal-Mart doesn't own Subway and Wal-Mart doesn't have a monopoly.
Funny how Google doesn't, either.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Of course MapQuest would be happy if Google wrote them a massive check for no reason. The question is how you managed to decide Google owes them money.
It's just like Microsoft (another company with a monopoly) being forced to have the users make a choice on what browser they use on its operating system and not just be able to provide a default. Google has a monopoly with its search so it should be forced - just like Microsoft was with browsers - to make the user choose which mapping service they would like integrated in their search results, not just default to Google Maps in Google Search like Microsoft did with IE in Windows. But of course Google is worse, not only do they provide the default, but you can't even change the default, the user has no choice! It's a clear case monopoly abuse, Google Maps is given an unfair advantage thanks to Google Search which has a monopolistic position.
-a different AC
All this presupposes that Google has a "monopoly" in search, which is retarded beyond measure. You can make a much more compelling case that they have a monopoly in advertising, but that has nothing at all to do with poor MapQuest.
DATABASE WOW WOW
"Google just shoved their map in there ... and no other service can do that."
So if you go to Starbucks you want them to offer you coffee from the guys around the corner?
And they have to offer you that _first_?
Are you crazy?
It's a private company, not some Government Agency who has to be impartial.
They show you what they have, if you don't like that, don't go there.
Yep just like Microsoft! You don't like it? Don't buy a Windows PC!
There is a difference between integrating different browser in Windows install and integrating new features into a web service.
MS provides an OS, browser is completely independent of it, as are other programs (despite MS trying to make "it's too integrated!" argument in the hearings). All the programs can be installed and run in uniform way. After you bought Windows, MS is not aware and doesn't have to do anything to support different browsers.
Those data snippets in search, on the other hand, are completely dependent on implementation details both for snippet backends and for Google front end. I'm not aware about any open standards and APIs to allow inclusion of arbitrary relevant data snippets in search, do you? I'm sure you do, because you single out Google, so other search providers, like Bing, Baidu or Yandex surely let you freely choose what video services to give preferential treatment, which social networks, which online shops and which maps, right?
TL;DR: You're a moron who doesn't understand the implications of "choose your default provider of X on site Y" when compared to "choose your default program X in OS Y".
VAT is different. VAT gets refunded for the vast majority of payments.
Only the final sale to the consumer actually ends up having VAT. All the (hundreds) of purchases that preceded that final purchase have their VAT refunded.
Like removing the great Google Maps app for their own worthless version. If that is not anti-competitive then I don't know what it is. And please don't tell me that is because it's apple own device and they can do anything they want, because google services are on google servers and they should be able to do anything they want as well.
MS provides an OS, browser is completely independent of it, as are other programs (despite MS trying to make "it's too integrated!" argument in the hearings).
Yes, just as various maps services are independent of web search.
Those data snippets in search, on the other hand, are completely dependent on implementation details both for snippet backends and for Google front end.
Just like applications are completely dependent on the underlying operating system, but i suppose it comes as a surprise to you that Microsoft had to open up its APIs for 3rd party integration? Google should do the same.
I'm not aware about any open standards and APIs to allow inclusion of arbitrary relevant data snippets in search, do you?
Just as there are no open standards to interface with the Windows operating system. Microsoft had to expose those and Google should do the same with the way in which they integrate maps results in their search engine.
I'm sure you do, because you single out Google, so other search providers, like Bing, Baidu or Yandex surely let you freely choose what video services to give preferential treatment, which social networks, which online shops and which maps, right?
Wrong, I single out Google because Google has a monopoly position in search. How many people 'Bing it' or 'Baidu it' or 'Yandex it'? People 'Google it', yes there are alternatives just like there are in the desktop OS market, but in search Google holds the vast majority.
TL;DR: You're a moron who doesn't understand the implications of "choose your default provider of X on site Y" when compared to "choose your default program X in OS Y".
You just desperately want there to be a difference, there isn't. You're doing what Microsoft tried to do with their 'it's too integrated' defence.
I'm not particularly surprised that your flimsy argument just ended up resorting to pathetic name-calling, I doubt your response to this will differ.
I am seeing a huge number of Youtube results at the beginning of responses when I have not made any search entry for video. I find it very doubtful these would show up if were a competing video service.
Well, do go on showing what a moron you are.
Map services as map services are independent, sure, as is any service on the web. Ways to integrate web services are completely dependent on what site integrates what and where. Every site closely integrating some service has to write it in it's own way.
You still clearly don't understand the difference between separate services/programs and integrating one service/program as a component of another. IE could be easily replace as separate program. IE still can't be replaced as viewer in HTML help. In one case, it's independent (and you're as independent and free to visit maps.bing.com), in other, it's integrated and can't be easily replaced without a big rewrite of other programs.
Seriously though, show me a single web search that lets you integrate arbitrary third party search plugins. Or tell me, how do you imagine this API to look like? Tell us, what components would such API include, just in general terms? Here's some other ACs take on the subject, and it doesn't look pretty. So, do tell us, how do you propose to implement such an API? "I don't know, because I'm not an expert" is not acceptable. "X is monopolist, therefore they should think about it and implement unimplementable" is not an argument either.
'Google Executive Face Rendition, Arraignment and Death by Court Ordered Execution following their criminal acts against humanity'.
Now that is a title I will stand and solute.
8D
Seeing as most measures place Google at an ~80-85% market share of "internet search," I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that Google is not a de facto monopoly in the internet search space.
Now, the interesting thing is: there is nothing wrong with, or illegal about, being a natural monopoly. Sometimes, a company comes along that just does it better, faster, cheaper, and more desirably than the competition, and there's no getting around it.
The problem comes when you use your position of doing it "faster better cheaper" than your competitors - EVEN INADVERTENTLY - to start pushing your other products in unrelated categories. This is where anti-trust laws get involved - and if you're a monopoly (natural or not), sometimes you have to play by slightly different (stricter) rules than the other kids do to make sure you're not abusing your position of power.
If I search for "Subway Sandwiches, Podunk, Iowa," and Google returns a map... that's fine. But where's the ability to choose another map data provider (Mapquest? TomTom? Garmin? Apple Maps? Bing Maps? Open Maps?) Another review provider (Yelp)? Google could allow users to set these as preferences... but they don't, all you get is "whatever Google can scrape from the web, and a pack of Google ads alongside it." If you're an ad-supported service as well, then every time Google provides *all the data you would provide on your page,* before the user even clicks through, then this directly hampers their ability to stay operational.
I invite you to learn about the concept of "federated search."
Google already does it quite well. It shouldn't be that hard for them to allow other providers to return results in a standardized format via API calls. They could even demand that results be provided within a certain time frame by any external provider, or the provider's responses will be excluded.
TL;DR - you're an apologist and a shill for a company that is intent on abusing its monopoly position to enrich itself. Sadly, you don't see that this behavior is absolutely detrimental to you because it stifles competition and innovation.
Or, how about the "A faster way to browse the web - Install Google Chrome!" banner that shows up.
I'm sure if I refresh a hundred times, it'll offer me links to IE and Firefox and Opera as well, right?
See if you can spot the anticompetitive behavior:
1) Open browser. visit web site of #1 search provider in the world.
2) See ad for completely unrelated thing EVERY time I visit this website.
3) Completely unrelated thing is - surprise! - owned by Google.
Yes, just as various maps services are independent of web search.
You like some other maps? Go to their fucking site, moron. Your browser doesn't ONLY go to Google.
Just as there are no open standards to interface with the Windows operating system. Microsoft had to expose those and Google should do the same with the way in which they integrate maps results in their search engine.
Yeah, because there were no Win16/32 API's that tons of developers used for YEARS before the shit assed EU made big bad MS "open up dem der API's"
Wrong, I single out Google because Google has a monopoly position in search. How many people 'Bing it' or 'Baidu it' or 'Yandex it'? People 'Google it', yes there are alternatives just like there are in the desktop OS market, but in search Google holds the vast majority.
It's called.... wait for it, waaaaiiit for it.... competition. Google provides the search that people find to be the best on the market, if they didn't people would go to the better provider - and enough people do go to other to keep them in business. There is nothing stopping Bing, YourShittyEuroTrashSearchEngine.com or anyone else from 1: making a really good search engine, and 2: partnering with any of the map companies out there and providing the exact same fucking thing.
TL;DR version: You are a smelly, hairy Eurotrash hillbilly equivalent bridgedwelling retarded troll. Die in a fire 2240 times you dirty hippy fuck.
There is no "natural" monopoly in search, and switching to a competitor is so trivial it's sad. In America, at least, you have to do more than win a popularity contest to be a monopolist.
"But where's the ability to choose another map data provider?" you ask. It's in that bar, at the top of your browser. If anyone actually wanted Bing maps, bing.com is even shorter to type than google.com.
And if Google's spidering is "directly hampering"F a business' "ability to stay operational," they deserve to go bankrupt. Google respects robots.txt.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Google could allow users to set these as preferences... but they don't, all you get is "whatever Google can scrape from the web
Or, you know if you don't like google maps you could just stop being so fucking lazy and bookmark your preferred map providers website. They all have GASP ways of inputting address search terms into their pages as well *gasp, shock, AWE*
But wouldn't that be the purpose from the inception for a search engine provider to market its own services in the first place? Correct me if I'm wrong, but self-promotion is HOW MONEY IS MADE. And unless a competitor is offering Google more money than it would make from its own services in order to slant search results, I see this as pretty much a non-issue, in the same sense that you don't see one car dealership recommending the services of a competing dealership. That's now how this shit works in the real world. If this somehow upsets a competitor, then the competitor should be building a better product if they hope to compete and come out on top. If EU is actually going to so fine Google for promoting its own services... that it provides... FOR FREE... then perhaps they should also start going after companies that design products on store shelves that are too eye catching or colorful, and specifically targeting those companies AND corporations that allow these colorful, fancy (and sometimes superior quality) products to be placed at eye level in the supermarket.
It's a post from eurotrash, he meant to type "soccer" but was to stupid to remember the real name of the sport.
I'm seeing the implications here. I think a reasonable percent is 1250% tax on financial transactions. That would give everyone a million euro a MONTH. That should be enough for even the poor to live on.
Isn't this kind of like asking the concierge for a dinner suggestion and being referred to a restaurant in the hotel rather than outside? ... I have a pretty good idea in advance what they are going to say.
If I ask someone who runs a landscaping company who I should get to mow my lawn
Ouch
Most of the smaller traders in the markets will disappear,
Most small traders already pay a premium that is greater than 0.5%
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
If you are arguing that a financial transaction tax would crash the economy, then that is a stupid way to do it.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Google has a monopoly on user search data.
Search engines change according to user behavior. Google didn't create an algorithm and then not touch it. User data effects the rankings and changes rankings.
Since Google controls all the data, nobody can compete. It is impossible to create some artificial algorithm that is better than real-world user data.
Parent here.
1) I never said Google should cut MapQuest a check for no reason. You are putting words in my mouth.That was the second time you've done it, shill. Stop it.
2) The words you put in my mouth just further support my argument because they implicitly agree with my point. Why would inserting MapQuest maps into search results mean cutting a huge check to MapQuest? Simple - because Google has a monopoly on search and any map maker that gets specially bundled in Google's results is bound to reap the financial rewards. Since Google only allows their own products to be specially bundled, Google is thus using their search monopoly to push into new areas and kill of competitors.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Also, Slashdot now mods up comments that literally include "fuck you". It's funny to see how pathetic the site has become. Completely overrun by shills and fanboys. Nobody cares about actual technology or intelligent discource. I guess that's why Slashdot used to be so influential and now is just a small fish in a big pond.
It's not blocking foreign businesses. Don't do bad things and you don't get to pay fines.
How can Maquest compete when Google is shoving their maps right into their monopoly search?
Why would I care as a user? I want convenient search, and Google gives me just that.
[quote]There are some interesting parallels here. Google is starting to look more and more like an operating system, with the menu bar at the top and the integration of a lot of their services into a desktop-like interface. [/quote]
You are mistaken, operating systems do not offer anykind (I repeat, not anykind) user interface. Operating system is just a few hundred kilobytes to megabytes size software what allocates hardware resources for processes (every other software) and operates all of them so we can have more than just one program (process) running by CPU.
Google use Linux operating system (what is a monolithic operating system) in their products, from Android to their own servers and ChromeOS software system
You can download whole Linux operating system source codes from there and then compile it as you want. But notice, you need more than just operating system to get your computer work, as you need programs, what needs libraries etc. So you end up having a OS + system software + system programs + software platforms + application programs etc.
And no, you don't need to have software what gives you a user interface (shell like a Bash or graphical user interface like X11 + KDE) to get operating system working, but lots of softwares and especially YOU need such software to work with computer, operating system just runs all of them.
Wal-Mart isn't a monopoly. There are plenty of other stores at which to shop. However, Windows at one point was more or less the only option.
Now consider a situation where to buy most things, Wal-Mart is the only option. And to compound things even more, Subway sandwiches are given out for free with every Wal-Mart purchase. Even if there are sub sandwich shops outside of Wal-Marts, Subway and others alike, Subway is given a substantial advantage by having their sandwiches given out for free.
Want to talk about something dirty? What about cable providers who offer packages where phone service can be dirt cheap when bundled. So dirt cheap, it makes little sense to go with third party phone providers.
Should Google be able to self-advertise their own products to subsidize their free search service? And what is the E.U. anyway, a democracy or something else?
Did you miss the note?
It was an analogy, the US uses "patent infringements" to block out foreign companies and protect domestic (see good old American Apple vs that evil Korean Samsung) while the EU uses "antitrust" to protect small European firms from the big evil Americans delivering highly integrated products.
> It's not blocking foreign businesses. Don't do bad things and you don't get to pay fines. So if I own a restaurant I should promote the menu of the restaurant across the street to avoid antitrust cases?
Also, Slashdot now mods up comments that literally include "fuck you". It's funny to see how pathetic the site has become. Completely overrun by shills and fanboys. Nobody cares about actual technology or intelligent discource. I guess that's why Slashdot used to be so influential and now is just a small fish in a big pond.
Seconded!
As the curator of Greece is Goldman Sachs, I don't think any money will really go to Greece.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
They have complained about Google, shown that Google have 80%+ of the market and insisted they be investigated.
However, it's really, really, really hard to leverage a monopoly when the only power you have is being better than the competition.
You can be an illegal monopoly on 1% in theory. You need a hell of a lot of leverage (e.g. be government mandated), but no actual figure for how much of a market you need to be charged under abusive monopoly laws (though the EU has a guidline figure of 60%, this is explicitly stated as a guideline).
Analogies are a bad debating tool. They sometimes work but they are not often logically sound.
If you really want to have a restaurant analogy in this case you should frame it like this. A restaurant that has 95% of business already, already has you as an existing customer for an unrelated product requires you to walk through their restaurant to a small door in the back that allows you access to the town's other restaurants. Their undue weight is approaching monopoly in that their inertia allows them to obscure competitors.
If you're not engaged in monopolistic practises then of course you will not be deemed anti-competitive. A monopoly does not serve the consumer.
I never get used to these constant resurrections
Exactly. Google couldn't get Facebook to play, so they took it upon themselves to provide a better user experience.
Is that the new way to say "violate users' privacy even further"? Gotta love the euphemism.
I have a feeling Google is not going to like the EU very much in a couple of weeks from now, as another study is poised to come out (I've seen the drafts and they are ugly - and correct).
Because within a nation the governments power(within the limitations set by the population in case of democracies) is absolute, they can write pretty much whatever laws they want and thus impose whatever fines they want. As a company you can either choose to adhere to the rules and regulations set by the local government or you can choose to not do business within their borders. The EU is a pretty sizable market so everyone wants to do business there
Also the point of these fines is that they have to hurt more than what the corporation gain from breaking the regulations or they are powerless. Also your complaint about it being just another way to block foreign business simply isn't true, so far the biggest fines handed out to a corporation by the Commission was to a European based company and even by frequency the Commission fines a lot more European based corporations than it does foreign ones.
The original reason for fines being on the global revenue was so that the Commission could fine European countries for misbehaving when doing business elsewhere.
Personally I think it's entirely fair because foreign corporations can always choose not to do business within the EU and thus avoid the regulations if they don't like them, of course that would hurt more than paying the fines...
By EU standards Google don't need to have a monopoly to be covered by antitrust legislation, they just has to have a dominant market position(the lowest market share so far that has been found to be dominant was 39.7%) and Google certainly has at least that in search, thus they are required to follow EU antitrust legislation.
When said company main service is directing others to websites and also has monopoly of the market. Yes it is news and is against business rules in Europe.
Also the point of these fines is that they have to hurt more than what the corporation gain from breaking the regulations or they are powerless.
It's worth noting that it hurts the foreign company more than the local because there is less relevant business to absorb the fine. For example, if Google were solely an EU company, it might be worth it to pay the fine, keep doing business as usual, and just bribe the appropriate regulators to prevent the issue coming up in the future.
and even by frequency the Commission fines a lot more European based corporations than it does foreign ones.
Or further evidence that the policy helps exclude foreign businesses from the EU market.
If i want the best service, not google service that is important and as a user i do care.
You can argue that google is the best service but that is beyond the point, for me it might not be. Also I'm obscuring my competitor because i have monopoly on which streets everyone walks. That is not permitted in EU.
It happened with MS and IE, it will probably happen again against google.
I already noted that one can end up paying the same large fine even if one has only a small fraction of its business in the EU. That's a very effective block of foreign business.
Since when 95% of search market share isn't a monopoly?
You are wrong, Google most definitely have a dominant market share in search which is what matters in EU antitrust legislation.
Therefore Google is forbidden from using that advantage in other markets such as map services, advertisement or whatever else they can think of.
Let them slowly slide back into the 1950's. They've decided that the remedy for socialism is Stalinism. Fine. Go do that.
from the 'we hear you have a lot of money department'--when apple is the company with the highest market cap on earth? Should be from the 'planning to fight the last war dept'...
Thats not the issue, sure users can switch search engines of course but companies competing with Google cannot choose what search engines the users go to and hence they are competing at a disadvantage against Google if Google promotes it's competing service in the search and since Google has a dominant market share such a behavior is prohibited business behavior withing the EU.
No if Google tells the EU to fuck off then the EU is going to start seizing Google assets both within EU and wherever else they can get project influence and eventually start issuing international arrest warrants for top Google executives(and arrest any Google executives that enter EU), simply put they are going to make life VERY difficult for Google.
Except in this case, it is "allows you to walk through a small door in the back, if you're already in the restaurant". They aren't doing anything to prevent you from walking directly to the other restaurants.
I am confused as to what constitutes leveraging when it comes to associates products.
If google had included the mapping features from day 1, could it be argued that it is the same product as search rather than a separate product, or that google leveraged their non-monoply mapping product to get a monopoly on search?
They passed the law, if you do not like the laws there, don't do business there. This is a way to soak more money out of companies. They are looking for ways to fund the socialist failures. Something for the US to look forward to.
So what you're saying is that local company is pretty much forced to pay the fine, while a foreign company has leverage to avoid it if it's not worth it to their business, and so the fine is worst for the foreign? That makes no sense.
Dilbert RSS feed
I worked out that a Europe wide 0.5% financial transaction tax would be enough to pay an unconditional base income of 400euro/month to every single person living in Europe with money to spare. ...just saying.
More to the point, a 5% tax would let everyone have 4000 euros a month, which would be a comfortable income for most people.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If you do that, you'll simply end most of the financial transactions that can be taxed
You almost make it sound like that's a bad thing. The whole point is that most of the "trading" activity is socially and economically useless. Personally, I'd just go for punishingly high rates of tax (90%+) for anyone who basically makes money out of gambling
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
And 1% would give everybody a monthly income of 800. And why stop there? A 25% tax would give everybody 20,000 euro a MONTH and everybody will be filthy rich and nobody will have to work ever again. You, Sir, are a genius!
Sounds fair enough to me. Not all of us regard the redistribution of wealth as a bad thing.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
VAT is different. VAT gets refunded for the vast majority of payments.
Only the final sale to the consumer actually ends up having VAT. All the (hundreds) of purchases that preceded that final purchase have their VAT refunded.
VAT doesn't get refunded (at least in the UK) if you're offering VAT exempt financial service products.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Company shows its own free products before those of the competition.
Film at 11.
So Microsoft were fine pushing their free Internet Explorer in order to wipe out Netscape after all? Just checking.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
As the curator of Greece is Goldman Sachs, I don't think any money will really go to Greece.
Greece would be a lot better off now, and would have been a lot better off for the last sixty years, if the Germans had been forced to return all the wealth the Nazis looted from them in WW2.
Listen, don't mention the war. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I've never seen Coke plug Pepsi on their cans either! It's their product! of course they're not going to plug their competition! They're not some universal utility thing that everyone has a right to. Their search engine and advertising are 100% owned and created by them so they can remove their competition from it all they want.
More to the point, a 5% tax would let everyone have 4000 euros a month, which would be a comfortable income for most people.
4k a month will not be comfortable for the rich (where most of the taxes will come from, since they're bound to make more transactions). They'll raise prices on consumers (they'll charge as much as the market can bare, and when everybody has 4k a month, the market can bare more), then hide the revenue and avoid paying any taxes.
The rich might even move their money and business elsewhere (but maybe this is what the people want, as the often accusation is that the rich has bought off governments... but if the rich have bought off governments, then governments would never consider implementing this tax/4k a month thing in the first place)
I understand perfectly: the "free-matket" *snicker* USA is protecting monopolies while socialist EU is protecting free market. The USA fights for the giants, the EU fights for the little guys.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
I'll be a bit extreme here, but I can't see the problem when a company promotes its services better than those of the competition. I would go to such an extent to say it's my obligation to promote my offerings better than others'. I see two was to deal with this: i). force each ad every search provider to not promote their own services at all, or ii). let all search providers promore their own services as they see fit. For me both would be acceptable, but doing these investigations over and over again is just a waste of time and resources, and our [EU] taxes.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Not necessarily, for two reasons.
Firstly, you don't have a monopoly on a scale the EU cares about (usually cross-state, unless there's a really specific market).
Secondly, you're not (on the facts) abusing that position in an anti-competitive way.
In Google's case, the EC is arguing (or has found, can't remember what stage this is at and can't be bothered to RTFA, but did participate a lively discussion at the UK Parliament over this issue, and chatted with one of the people involved in the original complaint) that Google:
(a) has a dominant position in the search engine market in the EU (something like 90%; far higher than in the US, iirc).
(b) has abused this position to promote its other services (such as maps, shopping, videos etc.) by using a separate algorithm for ranking *its* services over other ones.
Thus you have an abuse of a dominant position, contrary to EU Competition law (assuming that the abuse is causing a negative effect on consumers; I have a feeling the EC's case might fall down there).
Whether or not the EC is right is another matter.
Some quotes from the article (emphasis mine):
"Europe's competition watchdog is considering formal proceedings against Google..."
"Talks with the Internet giant about concessions it will make to settle the case are still dragging on..."
"Google offered some concessions to the European Commission in July..."
This process has been going on for a couple of years now, with the EC investigating the matter, discussing things with Google (and the complainants), talking things over and so on. All they are doing now (according to the latest statement from the Commissioner) is finally considering bringing a case. They would still have to win the case to be able to fine Google. And that could take years (the MS investigation was launched in 1993, and there was another appeal judgment in June this year).
As for the Samsung verdicts; those are somewhat different due to being civil cases (brought mainly by Apple, rather than public cases brought by the EC). Out of interest, a quick check on Wikipedia suggests that the results so far are as follows:
Germany: Apple won 2 cases, Samsung won 2 more
The Netherlands: Apple won initially, but it seems Samsung won on appeal
England and Wales: Samsung won (pending appeal - Apple also lost its case against HTC, covering similar patents)
Australia: Apple won an interim injunction, which was overturned pending the full trial.
Japan: Samsung won
South Korea: Apple and Samsung both lost
Thats not the issue, sure users can switch search engines of course but companies competing with Google cannot choose what search engines the users go to and hence they are competing at a disadvantage against Google if Google promotes it's competing service in the search and since Google has a dominant market share such a behavior is prohibited business behavior withing the EU.
So since Google has earned a giant market share because they serve a superior product, they aren't allowed to advertise their own services using said product? Since they own the best tool for the job, they aren't allowed to use it? That doesn't sound silly and broken to you?
they should hire a small army of mercs to remove a few high profile political targets that are pushing this agenda and put an end to this nonsense by setting the proper example
You just said the other day (either under this or your regular roman_mir account) that it is not up to you to decide who lives or dies. Yet you just ordered the assassination of someone you disasgree with. Can't you just stay to one side of an issue? How do you plan to recruit more followers to your religion when you keep waffling on issues that you claim to be knowledgeable on?
Google is accused of using its search service to direct users to its own services and to reduce the visibility of competing websites and services.
So google is considered to be in the wrong because they don't promote their competition on their results. Tell me, do you typically see Burger King advertisements at McDonalds?
Did you think US is the only country that believes its laws apply worldwide and it knows no jurisdiction? Well, think again.
Seems mad. Google might want to advertise their services so they seek out the most successful on line advertiser which is hmmmm Google? So they place their adds with them self and charge the going rate for advertising your own products which is nothing; meanwhile the users are completely able to go use a different search because unlike the world of OS or proprietary office formats the users aren't locked in?
I don't get it unless members of the EU Commission all happen to be iPad users:-)
while a foreign company has leverage to avoid it if it's not worth it to their business
In other words, a means to chase foreign companies out of EU markets. The "leverage" to run like a whipped dog is not that advantageous to foreign firms.
Did you think US is the only country that believes its laws apply worldwide and it knows no jurisdiction?
Why would I think that? Maybe I'm not the one who needs to think again.
EU anticompetition laws are quite complex and powerful, and they work (as Microsoft about that), but I have little doubts that I can fully see Google's fault here. It's one thing to promote yourself ahead of your clients - it's not forbidden. There is one slippery slope though and it will be interesting to see result of this investigation, which I trust more than "IT analysists".
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!