Slashdot Mirror


European Commission Reopens Google Antitrust Investigation

An anonymous reader writes: Earlier this year, European Commission regulators finally agreed to a settlement in the organization's long-running antitrust investigation of Google's search and advertising business. Unfortunately for Google, it didn't stick. The EC said today they're reopening the investigation after a large number of "very negative" complaints about the settlement. "The key objection to the proposed settlement, which would have allowed rival services to buy spaces at the top of search results pages, was that it would not prevent Google from favoring its own services, and would divert money from the rivals to Google even if they received clickthroughs from the adverts — rather than the zero-cost solution if they were ranked highly in 'organic' search results, and Google was prevented from putting its own commercial services above those." The Commission is also looking into other parts of Google's business, including its influence over mobile devices through Android.

96 comments

  1. Again? by frikken+lazerz · · Score: 2, Informative

    If Google's rivals are being unfairly treated by Google's search results, then they should make their own search engines that are fair. Yes, I understand Google has an advantage by having a head start, but that hasn't stopped for example Facebook from overthrowing MySpace for social networking. A rival company with a better idea or better results could challenge or even defeat Google without getting even more government involvement in the internet. People voluntarily choose to use Google, at least on desktops (Bing is the default) and even if you have a search engine ballot like the EU loves to do, people still would choose Google, generally. Also remember that Google's results are from an algorithm. Googles products merely get high placement because Google is the most popular website in the internet. If the people think rival search engines are better, they will use them, but right now the simple truth is Google is the best. If you hate that, then build something better, but stop trying to abuse the legal system to get what you want.

    1. Re:Again? by bloodhawk · · Score: 2, Informative

      google doesn't just have a head start, they have a monopoly position, once you are a monopoly the rules of fairness change and it isn't enough to simply say someone can start their own business.

    2. Re:Again? by Cenan · · Score: 0

      Redundant comment in support of parent posts viewpoint. Moving on.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    3. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's for the courts to decide. As long as they're not abusing their monopoly for gains into other areas like Microsoft, it's not a problem. The real issue with google is that they're in this position because they're the only ones that got search right (even if it's getting worse year on year), no one else comes close, where rivals even resort to scraping google behind the scenes.

    4. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole point of this case is that they ARE ABUSING there monopoly position.

    5. Re:Again? by u38cg · · Score: 2
      Yes, but unlike traditional monopoly, there's no cost of switching and no cost of entry. If you are the only person selling burgers in the world, you can bully your suppliers not to sell to anyone else, you can price your competition out of business, you can buy up sites and not use.

      None of those things apply on the internet. If I found another search engine that worked better than Google, I'd switch tomorrow. So far, no dice.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    6. Re:Again? by Macthorpe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The trouble is in this instance, is that the people who have the decision making power (you, in this instance) aren't the same as the people who are being abused (the provider of the thing you're searching for). To say that it's okay because you have the power to change what you do, doesn't change the fact that you won't change because you're not the one being screwed.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    7. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that it doesn't work that way. Serving search results, indexing and caching needs servers. Servers has a cost. Google subsidizes that cost from their advertisement service.

    8. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "no cost of entry"

      Google is the only entity in the world that has the history of the web stored. Without this history, proper search result ranking is next to impossible.

      The "cost of entry" is astronomical.

    9. Re:Again? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Rubbish. What does a web page from ten years ago have to do with what I'm searching for now?

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    10. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, umm.. what are they doing wrong? The search results are from an algorithm. If your product doesn't show up it's not as important from the algorithms point of view. If I make a catalog that lists local businesses, and them some of them end up on the backpage because I have to sort them somehow what am I doing wrong? They can't all be the first.

    11. Re:Again? by Wootery · · Score: 2

      The "cost of entry" is astronomical.

      I think what u38cg meant was that there's no cost to a person using the search-engine, to switch search-engine.

      Of course it costs millions to start your own search-engine.

      Google is the only entity in the world that has the history of the web stored

      Wrong.

    12. Re: Again? by frikken+lazerz · · Score: 0

      It's not a monopoly. Switching search engines is free. It's not like Microsoft where it's (almost) impossible for you to buy a computer without it, and replacing windows is getting more difficult each passing year. And on desktops, Google is a voluntary choice, and even on android, you can change the default search engine, or simply set your home page to yahoo or bing if you'd like.

    13. Re:Again? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Oh, is it Opposite Day today? If by redundant you mean diametrically opposed, then yes the post is "redundant".

    14. Re:Again? by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      Relatively speaking - computing power is cheap these days. You can build a server with more computing power of Google's first server farm for a few thousand dollars. You can virtualize everything and rent CPU power from Amazon or Rackspace or Microsoft. If you're working out of your garage you can start up a new search engine for a couple tens of thousands of dollars which, really, is hardly anything these days.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    15. Re:Again? by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "the simple truth is Google is the best. "

      That's some time ago. Nowadays I have to enclose every fucking word between quotes or it is ignored.

      I want them to show me what I typed, not what they think I might mean.

      I really do have "mangy boils", no I did not mean to purchase "angry oils".

    16. Re: Again? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      It's not a monopoly. Switching search engines is free.

      Netscape was free too, and it was easy to switch from IE for anyone who wanted to... And yet MS was rightly convicted.

      Never overerestimate the inability of ordinary people from doing the most basic things. You may think it's trivial to switch search engines, but for most people it isn't. And antitrust is all about bringing about a good outcome for most people, not for people like you or me who can take care of ourselves.

      So no, switching search engines isn't easy for most people, and therefore it's right to force monopolies to go out of their way to make it easier. The market is made up of ordinary people, and giving them more choices improves the market.

    17. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you or the other commenters really know this area. I have worked on web search engines for many years, also in Google.

      archive.org has nothing. Google is to archive.org as archive.org is to my browser cache. Even if archive.org had something, it's not available to a new entrant.

      A search engine is not so much about sifting through large sets of data quickly, but which signals you can use to score and rank the hits. When there is a monopoly on these signals, there is no amount of capital, financial or human that can make up for the lack of data.

    18. Re: Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you are searching, switching search engines is free.

      When you are being searched, switching search engines is not generally possible.

      This case is about being searched.

    19. Re:Again? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Have you tried Ring the Fing A? Or just the summary? They insert ads for their own services above your search results, leading us into using them rather than a rival who may or may not be just as good.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    20. Re:Again? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Google's first server farm would not compete with Google's current server farm, as it would be incapable of indexing enough of the internet.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    21. Re:Again? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      I was talking about the user, but actually, the startup cost of a new search engine is pretty low. There is very little cost to running your own web spider, basically a few bucks a day for several million pages. Of course you have to buy the expertise to run and tune it but in startup terms these are not exactly ridiculous. Google obviously has a depth of expertise that would be difficult to match but I don't think it's impossible to compete with them if you're sufficiently determined.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    22. Re: Again? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Not everyone would agree the conviction was wise or necessary. IE's share was trending down long before that point. For those people who don't even know what search engine they are using, there's no point giving them a choice or forcing a choice (or random selection) on them, because they are clearly not experiencing sufficient detriment to know or care there's an issue. They can switch from MySpace when they want to, so suggesting they need someone to hold their hands to switch search engine is patronising.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    23. Re:Again? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      Um, aren't literally all of their search ads above the search results? Why should they exclude their services from advertising in the same exact spot as everyone else who would be buying ads?

    24. Re: Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other search engines are crap. Google works because they invest massive amounts of money and time into making it harder to game their search results. Even then they don't necessarily seem to be winning that battle. For example, a lot of web dev terms will give you results from W3Fools instead of actually useful resources such as MDN, MSDN, Apple Developers, Stack Overflow, the actual WHATWG (or even W3C) spec, etc. It's so bad that I have a browser extension installed just to delete W3Schools garbage from my Google results.

    25. Re: Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could it possibly be hard? Instead of going to www.google.com, you go to www.startpage.com, or www.mynewawesomesearch.com.

      There's nothing to "do" beyond what you do every day to visit a web page. That's the whole point of the web.

    26. Re:Again? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "archive.org has nothing."

      Which is why I can find my old geocities pages and even download some of the old files from my page, eh?

      Google's cached content can't even do that half of the time.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    27. Re:Again? by StormReaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No matter what one thinks of Yelp, they were one of the first few place review services around. Then Google tried to buy them and, when that failed, copied their business model and turned it into Google Places which held top place in any location search.

      I'm failing to see the problem. That is how competition is supposed to work: doing something better than someone else.

      Did Google threaten anyone, or did Google just provided a better service/experience?

      Did Google conspire with other companies to put Yelp out of business?

      Did Google somehow leverage a monopoly position in search to gain a monopoly position in reviewing stuff?

      As far as I know, Google is just a better competitor.

    28. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had never heard of Google Flights before, so I tried your search. Orbitz came before Google Flights. So much for market power.

    29. Re: Again? by StormReaver · · Score: 2

      Netscape was free too, and it was easy to switch from IE for anyone who wanted to...

      Netscape wasn't free until Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer (IE) into Windows, which had (and still has) a (what should be illegal) monopoly on desktop operating systems. At that point, no one could charge for a browser. That was leveraging a monopoly in one area to gain a monopoly in another area, which is a felony (for which Microsoft was rightly convicted).

      Switching from IE to anything else was almost impossible for most people, because Microsoft's browser dominance was so thorough that a huge number of web sites was created to fully work only with IE. Phoenix/Firefox broke Microsoft's stranglehold only through a rare convergence of events.

    30. Re:Again? by Sergey23 · · Score: 1

      Only ads come up before Google Flights so odds are you were seeing an ad instead of a search result. Furthermore, Google Flights places all the data you would need without needing to go to any other site. It pre-empts clicking on anything else.

    31. Re:Again? by mrjatsun · · Score: 2

      Not sure if I support the EU here (don't know enough about the details).

      But this doesn't apply to you using Google to search or your ability to create a new search engine or switch search engines.

      Google is the dominant search engine. The complaint is about how Google leverages it "monopoly" in search to position itself more favorably against other people/companies search results. e.g. Let's say Google sold watches, and always listed it's watches more favorably over other companies who sold watches. It would not be acceptable to say the watch company should just start it's own search engine so that it could compete with Google when selling watches (assuming Google is a monopoly in search).

    32. Re:Again? by Cenan · · Score: 1

      That is not what redundant means though.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    33. Re:Again? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      I do not see these other people as having a right to have their stuff shoved in front of my face to the exclusion of Google.

      They can pay for ad space, maybe Google puts Google ads up there, too. Otherwise fight for page rankings like everyone else.

      If Google is claiming fair rankings and bitchslapping competitors down in the normal (not paid) search results, that's fraud.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    34. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And global warming doesn't exist because today it was really cold.

      Do you seriously think finding a few old geocities pages on archive.org refutes what I'm saying?

      You know what, I can find an old slashdot page in my web browser cache.

    35. Re:Again? by Sergey23 · · Score: 1

      I'm failing to see the problem. That is how competition is supposed to work: doing something better than someone else.

      Except that Google Places was not better. Google utilized its (well-deserved) virtual monopoly in search to promote its own service above everyone else. Plus the services was integrated into Google Maps. Even then it took at least a year before they got everything working right.

      Did Google threaten anyone, or did Google just provided a better service/experience?

      I doubt they threatened anyone. They did *not*, however, provide a better experience. In fact, their review services were pretty unreliable which is one of the main reasons why they bought Zagat. They've been using their search monopoly to promote their service and, when the service failed to deliver, they used their cash reserves to buy similar companies to better the experience. Nothing wrong with the latter but the former (placing Google Places results over everything else even if the quality of the result is questionable) does strike me as being anti-competitive.

      Did Google conspire with other companies to put Yelp out of business?

      No they didn't and I fail to see where I claimed that. Google tends not to conspire. It just buys whatever it can't reproduce. Remember, before they bought Zagat they tried to buy Yelp themselves.

      Did Google somehow leverage a monopoly position in search to gain a monopoly position in reviewing stuff?

      Yes they did. I don't understand the reason for saying "somehow", however. Look up any local restaurant, for example. Google not only places its service above all other results but it also takes up the entire sidebar to give you information about the restaurant. It utilizes its own monopoly to market its other services. This is the same case for Google Flights which places itself above all organic search results (as opposed to sponsored search results).

      As far as I know, Google is just a better competitor.

      They are a lot better now. It took a few years, however, and during the entire time they've been promoting their service on their search results pages over all other services - not because of quality but because it's a Google service.

    36. Re: Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are still folks out there who think the internet is the big blue e, lol. These dumb fucks use bing lmfao.

    37. Re: Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? The parent and the reply disagree with each other last time I checked.

    38. Re:Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just as bad if you search for "travel site"! Sure the first listing is kayak.com but google flights is listed....wait...bah, google flights isn't listed at all on that page. It's almost as if "nyc to toronto" gives no indication that you're searching travel sites to find plane tickets.

    39. Re:Again? by TemporalBeing · · Score: 2

      My bet is that it's the same people complaining - you know, those Microsoft Partners that are getting kick backs for causing trouble for Google.

      I wonder how long it will be before EU investigates Microsoft over that...

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    40. Re: Again? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Netscape was free too, and it was easy to switch from IE for anyone who wanted to... And yet MS was rightly convicted.

      For most parts, IE4+ was better than Netscape and people would have chosen it even when given a fair choice.
      In fact, Microsoft may have played dirty but they still had the overall best browser. Only with Firefox we started to have serious competition. Opera was very good too but it wasn't free at the time.

      And now, the IE market-share is declining and I don't think it is because of some stupid ballot screen (it started earlier). It is just that there are now better alternatives.

      Competition work well in this field : Google didn't need regulations to take over the search engine business and Facebook didn't need regulations to take over the social network business.

    41. Re:Again? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Except this is not just an ad. It's not a few lines inside a beige box marked "sponsored results". Go to Google and type in "map of Europe" or "map of China" or whatever place on Earth you want. Before any traditional search results, you will see a big box showing the Google Maps map of your chosen location. The complaint is that they've embedded their webapps inside the search engine, leveraging their monopolistic position in search to get users onto Google apps instead of competitors' offerings.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    42. Re:Again? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      There is a massive cost of entry and a massive cost of switching, we aren't talking about web users who can switch search engines, we are talking about businesses that need to advertise their services, switching to another service means they don't get the exposure and advertising they need to survive as google has a monopoly on the advertising industry, building your own service would cost billions as you need to gain a foothold to make your advertising have some value, to do so would likely cost 10's of billions in free advertising to attract enough customers to make your advertising business viable.

    43. Re:Again? by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously think finding a few old geocities pages on archive.org refutes what I'm saying?

      Well, yes, because it sounds like Khyber chose an arbitrary, non-remarkable website, looked it up on archive.org, and it was there. Not conclusive, by any means, but it certainly counts for something.

    44. Re:Again? by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Google obviously has a depth of expertise that would be difficult to match but I don't think it's impossible to compete with them if you're sufficiently determined.

      This isn't hypothetical: see Bing, and Baidu.

      According to Bing, Bing is at least as good as Google in blind-tests. Whether that's really true, I don't know. I admit I don't use Bing - the reason is that unless Bing is really better than Google, why switch? That said, it costs me nothing to switch. Maybe it's just a matter of 'trust'.

  2. Gotta get the money to pay back Germany somewhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    why not get it from Teh Goog!e

  3. Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't really understand - it's googles product (phones, search, etc) why can't they do what they like with it? I'm sure people would go elsewhere if other products were any good?

    1. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by Macthorpe · · Score: 2

      I don't really understand - it's googles product (phones, search, etc) why can't they do what they like with it? I'm sure people would go elsewhere if other products were any good?

      Because it doesn't affect the person searching if Google's results don't show correctly the most popular results, it affects the company being pushed down the rankings - and the person searching is the person with decision-making power.

      - Person A searches for "maps", either on the site, on the phone or on Chrome.
      - Google promotes their own maps to the top regardless of whether they're the best choice, ahead of company B's solution, whether that solution is better or not.
      - Person A sees that Google Maps is top and assumes they're better than company B, as you would when looking at a link in the #1 spot.

      Company B's previous recourse was basically, to live with it - Google have control over the entire stack, top to bottom. Companies can't go elsewhere because Google index them, not the other way around, and Google keep how they calculate popularity hidden, so SEO for them is a combination of guesswork and research (costs which Google don't have to pay, incidentally). It's therefore up to the searchers to go elsewhere to get search results, but because Google are trusted to provide the correct answers, why would people do that? It's not the user's fault that Google dishonestly reports their results as the best even if others are better, it's Google's.

      Anyway, in Europe it's against the law for Google to act in that way considering their position as provider of 66% of searches, so it was challenged. Google's solution in response to that legal action was to allow companies to pay Google to be promoted to top spot, but companies (naturally) thought that it was unfair that they would have to pay for equal consideration when Google do it to themselves for free. Now they have to come up with another idea.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    2. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      - Google promotes their own maps to the top regardless of whether they're the best choice, ahead of company B's solution, whether that solution is better or not.

      I'm curious - is there any evidence that Google does this?

      Seriously, I've not been paying too much attention to the Google antitrust cases, so I've no clue whether Google is an Evil Monster (tm) or a Wronged Giant (tm)....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by EasyTarget · · Score: 1

      so SEO for them is a combination of guesswork and research (costs which Google don't have to pay, incidentally).

      Are you for real; SEO is a wankers activity that directly harms consumers. The more 'Expensive' Google make it, the better, 'cos I wont shed any tears if the whole SEO crowd end up homeless.
      As for the rest of your drivel; google maps comes top of the list because it is the most popular destination for Google users. Which part of that is too hard for you to understand?

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    4. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      I access from the UK so I can't tell if they do or don't now. I know they used to, but things have changed a bit since then.

      We'll have to see the results of the new investigation, I imagine.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    5. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      Maps was an example rather than the only definitive place that it happens. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

      I don't have a strong opinion on SEO either way, but it's clear that companies believe it helps and are willing to invest in it, where Google doesn't need to as they control the results and the algorithm. Regardless if SEO was paid for or not, I can see why companies wouldn't consider the current situation ideal.

      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    6. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by HJED · · Score: 1

      Which companies? As far as I can tell the only companies that are complaining about this are other search engines or other people who compete directly with google in another area (e.g. maps).
      In the case of search engines if you search for "search" Google isn't even the top result (Yahoo is...), Google is third. If you search for maps Google Maps comes first (which makes sense as it is probably the one most people link to on websites), followed immediately by whereis. As far as I can tell Google isn't intentionally manipulating the results there products are just more popular so get more links and are hence ranked higher (which is fair, this is how Google ranks everything. It is their core product.)
      So in this case they appear to be in the right.

      --
      null
    7. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is evidence of this. But it may not be illegal.

      Part of the reason is a network effect. As Google brings in more and more information, it gets better at sorting it and finding connections. In the above example, Google knew people were wanting to search on maps so it bought a map outfit and started pouring data in. As it gets better at integrating various sets of data, the better it gets, the more people visit it, the more money it makes, the more data it can buy, and the virtuous cycle goes forth.

      Then there is bundling, where Google uses it dominate position to promote it own second rate offerings above better results, tamping down completion.

      Then there is jealously and fear at having such a large and powerful corporation outside their realm.

    8. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      I don't have a strong opinion on SEO either way, but it's clear that companies believe it helps and are willing to invest in it

      Well obviously. SEO is largely an attempt to cheat the search-engine. Of course the companies investing in it want it. That doesn't mean it's good for Google, the web, or the end-user.

      Analogy: a fraudster might be willing to invest heavily in his fraud schemes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a strong opinion on it.

      Regardless if SEO was paid for or not, I can see why companies wouldn't consider the current situation ideal.

      I can't really think of a better way to run things. I wouldn't want Google taking secret pay-offs. I think the current tension between SEO and Google (who occasionally slam websites that play too dirty) is a good thing.

    9. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3

      Your first example is NOT an example of Google favouring its own offering over other, better, services. You describe a case where Google makes its map service the best, and gets more hits for that reason.

      Your second case is pretty much what I was asking about. Any particular examples, or is this theoretical?

      And your third case is a matter of "Google is evil(tm) because they do such a good job and my third-rate service can't compete".

      So, again, any actual examples of Google promoting its own, second-rate (or third- or fourth-) services above its (superior) competition?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      I know of 2 cases where the EU alleged issues:
              Google Maps, where Google put it's own reviews in front of other, like Yelp
              In shopping results, where it put it's shopping search engine before others.

      To your point, take a look at what you are saying. If Google ranks it's own services ahead of others, is it because they offer the best service? Google says yes, but then again their biased, so arguing that point is going to be futile.

      A better question is if the are they optimizing their algorithms to make it look like their serveries are the best? A analogy might be Microsoft's Explorer. A big issue was not that Microsoft included Explorer in all their copies of Windows, but that Microsoft had optimized Windows so Explorer. i.e. Explorer could make special secret calls to the OS while other bowers could not. If they are that would be a big issue.

    11. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Okay, you've reached the point of reframing my original question.

      I'm not actually trying to find out what my question is, since I already know that.

      What I want is an ANSWER to my question.

      So, let's ask again - is there any evidence that Google is adjusting its search results to favour Google's own services over superior competing services?

      Yes, we know that they are physically capable of doing so. That's not the question, so don't bother to tell me that they're capable of doing so....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Here we hit the problem of trust, and they won't publish the algorithm, so we can't know either way.

      The result is to fall back on the "congenial host principle": no guest in your house should receive lesser treatment than a member of your household. It is completely acceptable to treat your own household worse than the guest (smaller steak, non-silver cutlery etc) but the guest must receive good treatment.

      Perhaps Google have to be unfair to themselves in order to prove that they're not being unfair to their guests -- that's the way of the world.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    13. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't do what they like with it because that's what anti trust law says. In particular, you can't use your monopoly position in one market to gain advantage in other markets. Google have a monopoly on search, they can't (legally) use that monopoly to advertise their way into other areas now.

    14. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An example –search for "app store".

      Note that the Google play store is the top result (via an advert), not the actual thing called the App Store.

    15. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      It is a paid advertisement, followed by another paid ad for Verizonwireless app store. Organically I get the Apple iOS App store, and the next link is the OSX App store for Mavericks. SO If Google gave themselves an organic first result they'd be "Evil", and if they buy an ad to promote their own service, then they are Evil. The only way for Google to not be Evil is to completely ignore the end user and their own platform in the search.

      Note when I do the same search for app store via Android, the same results are there. Considering the app store search from an Android device is significantly less likely to be concerned with the Apple App store, then you'd expect the results to promote the Play store, and they still don't./ What does Google need to do for horse shit commentators like you to be considered fair? From what I've seen they are damned for anything they do...

    16. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Because it doesn't affect the person searching if Google's results don't show correctly the most popular results, it affects the company being pushed down the rankings - and the person searching is the person with decision-making power.

      Of course it affects Google and the person searching if their results aren't the most useful results. People use and used Google because it gives the most relevant results for searches in the most easily usable manner thus far. If Google put shit results in the search page, then people would immediately go elsewhere as the friction/effort has increased to get the correct results. Google's entire business model is predicated on search relevance. That is why they beat the paid model that Yahoo and everyone else were using.
      Also there is no such thing as the most popular result. There never has been. The results were always from day one decided on by a Google algorithm based off ranking metrics that they defined. The same is true for Bing or any other search engine,. The results are all interpretive. That is the only way a search engine can exist. Google does not always promote their own services first. Search app store and the iOS app store is the first organic result. Bing could buy and ad and show up near the top as well, and so can Google or Verizon or Amazon...

    17. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Perhaps Google have to be unfair to themselves in order to prove that they're not being unfair to their guests -- that's the way of the world.

      Alas, you're not proposing that Google be unfair to themselves, you're proposing that they be unfair to ME. And you. And all their other users.

      If Google "adjusts" their algorithms to give a benefit to inferior information/products/whatever, it's the users who suffer in the end.

      When I go looking online for a map, the thing I care about is that it be the best map possible, not that it is ranked higher so as to give Google's competition a bit of a boost. (Note that this is not to imply that I use Google Maps exclusively, or even mostly. Just depends on the place I'm looking at as to who has the best maps).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    18. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Great thread. You guys have done an excellent job of clarifying the issue and getting to the core questions. Much better than most /. discussion of this topic. It's almost like old slashdot.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by swillden · · Score: 1

      What I find interesting is Bing's result for that query: The top hit in the search results -- not ads -- is "Apps for Windows". #2 is the Google Play store and #3 is the Apple App Store. I get the same results when searching on from Chrome on Linux and from Safari on OS X.

      It's possible that this result is an accurate reflection of what Bing users want, biased by the self-selection effect that only people who are deeply wedded to Microsoft's platforms use Bing. But it really seems like this is a case of artificial search result manipulation. Granted that Bing clearly has no monopoly position and is therefore under no obligation to play fair, it still seems unwise and wrong.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    20. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Right. Go to Google and search for the phrase "map of Europe". The first thing you will see is a link to the Google Maps map of Europe. This is integration of Google Maps with the Google Search. Google Maps isn't brought up as a standard search result, worked into the list by pagerank, it is a specific Google App being placed at the top, before your search results (which incidentally do not include Google Maps.

      If I was wanting a Google map, I could have gone to Google Maps and searched for Europe, but I didn't. I went to Google's search engine and asked for a map -- they chose to promote Google Maps over worldatlas.com, mapsofworld.com, yourchildlearns.com etc etc -- all the real, algorithmic search results. That's what people are objecting to -- Google inserting their webapps into the search engine.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    21. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Right. Go to Google and search for the phrase "map of Europe". The first thing you will see is a link to the Google Maps map of Europe.

      And the second thing I see is a list of images for "map of europe".

      And then there's Worldatlas.com, mapsofworld.com, raileurope.com, etc.

      Interestingly, of those four choices, only the googlemaps version is (debatably) current. The others don't yet show the Crimean Peninsula as part of Russia, though the Googlemaps version seems to (looks like it has a border between Crimea and Ukraine). Note also that, looking at those maps of Europe and zooming in on Ukraine, the Googlemaps version shows more detail than the other maps.

      Note that the raileurope.com page doesn't even show a map of Europe.

      Note finally that I don't use Google to find a continental map all that often (actually, I never do - this was the first time). I'm much more likely to ask for a specific street address (or a name, like Stonehenge) than even the name of a city, much less a country, much less a continent....

      All that aside, if Europe really wants Googlemaps displayed as just another search result (where it will likely be number one for the most part), I've got no problems with that. Of course, if they insist that something other than the best (read: most popular) map be shown first, I'll have issues....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    22. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      You may consider it the best result, but it is not there because it is objectively the best result -- it is there because Google chose to put it there. Furthermore, it is now pretty much impossible to determine how much of Google Maps's popularity is down to being liked, and how much is down to the visibility it got from Google.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    23. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by yuhong · · Score: 1

      Person A sees that Google Maps is top and assumes they're better than company B, as you would when looking at a link in the #1 spot.

      Do people actually do that, especially when it is visually distinctive if I remember correctly.

    24. Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... by blivit42 · · Score: 1

      Google Maps isn't a good example in this case, due to Google's ever-increasingly bad UI design (sort of like slashdot beta...). With the latest round of changes to make google more smart phone friendly, google maps became more difficult to get to (scan for non-text icon, click, search for another icon in the drop-down, click), rather than just clicking the word Maps that used to be on the top bar. I now find it faster to simply type "maps", hit return, and click the first link, than to try to navigate their more difficult to use UI. For other things, such as Google Scholar, I gave up on trying to find it in the pulldown menus entirely, and have to use google to find its own service in order to use it. So, yes, if I'm using google, and I search for one of their services, then I definitely want the google service as the first link. But this is more due to my working around poor UI design than my desire to determine which Maps site is the most popular.

      Along similar lines, I have to use google to search for old slashdot stories, since slashdot search does, and always has, sucked. Same for many other forums. Also many other websites in general, where it can be difficult to figure out how to navigate/find the content that you want. I use google as a workaround to the failings of many other websites poor UI/search design. Google Maps is another example of this, so, at least from my perspective, it's not the best example to use to make your point :)

      Sorry, I just felt like ranting against increasingly poor website design, and this post brought that to the surface. Not like anyone besides maybe the original author is going to read this when I'm only getting around to reading the article 2 weeks after if was posted anyways....

  4. Viva Europa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Give us your Geld, Amerika, or we'll gas ihre Juden. Verstanden, ja?

  5. always open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    European Commission Reopens Google Antitrust Investigation

    Shouldn't this be open continuously?

  6. All the EU wants is a continuous flow of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They will keep setting demands that are dammed if you do, damned if you don't. Then they will shift the goalposts. Google is screwed. The EU is butthurt that no European based tech company has anything even close to a viable competing product. Their old blue chip technology company, Nokia is in ruins. The EU in retribution wants a continuous supply of money from Google into their coffers. Its trade protectionism, pure and simple.

    1. Re:All the EU wants is a continuous flow of money by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This stuff goes both ways. New York State has become notorious for trumping up charges against financial companies and draining mind-boggling sums of money directly into their own accounts. Governments are waking up to the fact that they've passed so many vague laws that basically any company can be "investigated" for breaching them, and given those governments are all heavily in debt and trying to cut back spending the temptation to go whack some foreign company and extract money from it is overwhelming. Compared to taxing their own citizens this seems like free money, plus they get to tell themselves and others that they're fighting the good fight against the evil corporations.

      When you dig into the details, that's when this story unravels. But most people never do.

    2. Re:All the EU wants is a continuous flow of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      EU is not a country. Nokia is not a EU company, it's a company in Finland. Finland is a EU member. Nokias taxes went to Finland, not EU. Nokia had nothing to do with searches and ads, so how is that a competing product? Also, that money from google is peanuts to the whole EU cash flow.

    3. Re:All the EU wants is a continuous flow of money by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Yeah a court case that costs millions to bring, drags on for at least five years and may end up with the corporation winning and the government winding up with the legal bill is the best way to bring in revenue [/sarcasm].

    4. Re:All the EU wants is a continuous flow of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah a court case that costs millions to bring, drags on for at least five years and may end up with the corporation winning and the government winding up with the legal bill is the best way to bring in revenue [/sarcasm].

      When the fines can reach BILLIONS, it means a 100x profit even if it cost the state 10 million, which means if they win 2 out of 100 times, the state nets profit from it, all the while giving work to do for a whole bunch of people.

      Yes, it is a great way to bring in revenue, as long as you pick some big rich company that did not hire too many people locally -- thus foreign companies with local presence but not too tied into local business network is the best.

      So you see the US investigating and fining foreign (and only foreign) banks, and now the EU wised up and investigate rich US tech companies.

    5. Re:All the EU wants is a continuous flow of money by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes the EU only picks on large foreign corporations: http://ec.europa.eu/competitio....

    6. Re:All the EU wants is a continuous flow of money by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      The people deciding to bring the suit get paid either way. In fact, the existence of the suit is more "work" which therefore justifies a larger budget for their department (whether they win or lose).

      The only way to fix it would be for the people in charge of the budget to withhold funding for frivolous lawsuits, but A) they don't really care anyway, B) separation of powers means they might not have the authority to decide which lawsuits are frivolous, and C) if they cut the prosecutors' budget they'd look "soft on crime" and lose the next election.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:All the EU wants is a continuous flow of money by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      These things rarely if ever go to court. Sometimes there's simply no relevance because the regulators have the power to fine companies without winning a court case, and sometimes (like with NY DFS) the laws involved have such insanely high criminal penalties attached - like 20 year jail sentences - you'd have to be crazy to roll the dice instead of just paying up.

  7. Google official Office now discovered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google Headquarter

    I understand why they want to sue them

  8. The EU needs Google more than Google needs the EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I would just love to see Google suspend all European based operations, even if it is for a few days. Its a long coming with onerous the regulations the EU is placing on them that are nearly impossible to comply with. What would EU do? Would they erect a great internet firewall like china and block their own citizens from using Google's servers in other countries? Ordinary citizens would start using open proxies and VPN tunnels just to use google, youtube, and gmail. The EU would have lost the moral high ground on internet censorship.

  9. Makes sense! I can't recall Google... by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    ...ever offering up better search results that didn't include Google results.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  10. WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the most ridiculous abuse of antitrust law ever. This "European Commission" should be sued in the WTO for their abuse of power in punishing American companies for being successful. Or better yet, let's just get rid of the WTO and "free trade" ideals entirely and admit that national protectionism is in the best interest of the citizens of each country.

    1. Re:WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think, if it were Microsoft being investigated they could just go to the US government, cap-in-hand, plead innocence until the US government wanders along and says "Hey, what're you doing?" and the Microsoft just keep on doing whatever illegal stuff they were doing.

  11. Re:The EU needs Google more than Google needs the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me translate this for you:
    "I would love for the EU to start censoring the internet so I can tell them that they have lost the moral high ground on internet censorship"

    You're welcome...

  12. Free markets demand money flow! by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    If the money isn't flowing, then the market isn't free. Any private entreprise, be it Google are whoever, that diverts money to itself is anti-free market.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  13. WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LAst part of your post makes sense. First part not so much. Google is deemed a monopoly on search area, so they have stricter rules to follow. One part of monopoly rules is to not use your monopoly as a leverage to enter other busines areas. Google may be using it's search as a way to promote (for example) it's maps business. I completely understand the need for such laws, otherwise for example, microsoft would have succeeded in forcing all other browsers out. There would only be IE (99% marketshare), and after that they would have forced other webservers out. IIS only, as it's the only one that works with IE, after that hardware would have gone the same route. MS hardware only, because software only works on it. I'm sure you see the pattern. Now, google may, or may not be doing this. If they are, they will be forced to do something else instead, if they aren't, well ,then they aren't.

  14. Re: Gotta get the money to pay back Germany somewh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nazi/Hitler reference coming up in 3, 2, 1...

  15. Again? by Sergey23 · · Score: 1

    The problem with that sentiment is that Google's rivals aren't other search engines. Their rivals are any business whose model Google finds favorable, then copies copies, and then promotes it using its own search engine. For example, let's say you want to fly to Toronto from NYC. If you google "nyc to toronto", one of the first and biggest search results is from Google Flights showing you a wide range of flights and prices. In this case, Google's rivals are Orbitz, Expedia, Travelocity, etc. Same thing goes for review services. No matter what one thinks of Yelp, they were one of the first few place review services around. Then Google tried to buy them and, when that failed, copied their business model and turned it into Google Places which held top place in any location search.

  16. The EU wants to own a piece of Google by gelfling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The EU's business model approach is a LOT like that of Tony Soprano. And they will not go away until the EU owns a large minority stake in Google.

  17. get your priorities straight... by mythix · · Score: 1

    If only they would put the bank tellers to the same scrutiny...