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)."
I'm not clear as to how Google is a monopoly. It does not control the physical or electronic structure of the Internet. Web searching certainly cannot be considered a natural monopoly. It can't stop competing web services.
So how can Google maintain any kind of abusive monopoly.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Except that nobody's forcing anybody to use Google. In fact, the real monopolist still forces every computer you buy to come with Windows and default you to Bing for searching. And they make it pretty tricky to change. I know, I know. When it works, it's pretty easy to change, but I've never actually seen anybody change the default search engine - even those that still use Google by typing www.google.com into the location bar. And I've seen cases where the search engine choice website hasn't worked at all.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
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.
Remind me again why Microsoft is required to show alternate browsers, when IE is free?
(They've actually failed and the EU is back after them, but that's besides the point)
Moreover, a majority of "search" boxes default to Google, as opposed to a customer making a choice. (iOS, Android, FF, Chrome, Safari)
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
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.
The point is that with google there can be no lock-in, so they cannot abuse their monopoly in the same way e.g microsoft can because people are free to go to a competitor search engine at the drop of a hat. The moment google does something I don't like, I simply replace my default search engine with another, and off I go.
(And in fact, google did do something I didn't like, and off I did go).
No lockin + plenty of competitors = no abuse of monopoly, because people are totally free to leave
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.
Except that nobody's forcing anybody to use Google.
This is completely irrelevant. Whether you have monopoly influence because of a natural advantage (control the only source of something) or you've been granted it by a sovereign nation, or you simply outcompeted everyone else; what matters is what you do with the monopoly. With great power comes great responsibility. When you have this kind of power you can basically break capitalism, profiting from lack of innovation. This is bad for society, so we passed laws about what you can and can't do with that kind of power. If you still don't understand why, look at the history of antitrust law and the horrible abuses that gave rise to these laws.
In fact, the real monopolist still forces every computer you buy to come with Windows and default you to Bing for searching.
And the EU has taken several actions against MS for abuses of their desktop OS monopoly and hopefully will take more. How does that man they should not also take action against Google if it turns out Google is breaking those same laws?
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 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
The point is that with google there can be no lock-in, so they cannot abuse their monopoly in the same way e.g microsoft can because people are free to go to a competitor search engine at the drop of a hat.
That's not good enough. The point of antitrust law is to keep all markets competitive and driving innovation. For that to happen people have to be free to choose the best search engine for them and the best social network and the best maps, etc. It's not sufficient that they choose the best bundle of those together because it might mean that while we end up with real competition in one market, the other markets are abandoned by innovators because there is no realistic way a better product can win against something tied to the best search platform.
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.