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.
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.
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
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.
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"
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.
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
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"