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.
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
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 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".
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.