Slashdot Mirror


The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google

An anonymous reader points out a report at the Financial Times (paywalled) which says the European Parliament is preparing to call for the break-up of Google. According to the draft seen by the FT, a potential solution to ongoing anti-trust concerns with Google is "unbundling search engines from other services." The article notes, "The European parliament has no formal power to split up companies, but has increasing influence on the commission, which initiates all EU legislation. The commission has been investigating concerns over Google’s dominance of online search for five years, with critics arguing that the company’s rankings favour its own services, hitting its rivals’ profits. Unbundling cannot be excluded, said Andreas Schwab, a German MEP who is one of the motion’s backers."

334 comments

  1. Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Windows phones no longer suck. iPhones have a big following. Bing is tolerable, if annoying. New OWA is actually kinda nice.

    And there is an ISO-standard EIA-certified crapload of other search and e-mail providers out in the world.

    EU: If you're desperately searching for things to "fix" at your next meeting: FIX SYRIA!

    1. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by bmo · · Score: 2

      Moreover, if Nokia wasn't run by absolute incompetents, they'd still be a huge player in the smartphone market.

      But they farted around with OSes, libraries, and waffled and couldn't decide themselves out of a wet paper bag being while pushed off a cliff. To top it off, the board decided to welcome Microsoft's cukoo-egg into their nest because "OH MY GOD A BILLION DOLLARS."

      Google is where it is because a lot of companies are run by boards that are more interested in feathering their own nests instead of what they largely give lip-service to - "innovation"

      Look at Yahoo. Go ahead, look at 'em. Point And Laugh. They deserve it.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by sabri · · Score: 0, Troll

      Google is where it is because a lot of companies are run by boards that are more interested in feathering their own nests instead of what they largely give lip-service to - "innovation"

      Not only that, but the EUSSR doesn't seem to understand that an American corporation has nothing to do with European communists.

      They should go and re-read their history books and remember how close all of Europe was to speaking either German or Russian.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    3. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by bmo · · Score: 2, Funny

      It actually hurt my brain to read your reply.

      Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

      --
      BMO

    4. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by sabri · · Score: 0, Troll

      It actually hurt my brain to read your reply.

      My point is that the EU is a bunch of arrogant idiots who have no business telling an American company to split up.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    5. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My point is that the EU is a bunch of arrogant idiots who have no business telling an American company to split up.

      Like it or not, idiots or not, they do have such business, simply because your poor little "american company" is no such thing. It's an international corporation that was once founded in america, but now does business all over the world, including within the EU and actually quite a lot of it.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    6. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should go and re-read their history books and remember how close all of Europe was to speaking either German or Russian.

      This is an argument from a monolingual person. Do you really think I give a flying fuck if its English or German I have to speak? I still can't get by with only my native language.
      I do however appreciate that there isn't some large fascist superpower trying to influence the politics of my country... oh wait..

    7. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by johnjaydk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only that, but the EUSSR doesn't seem to understand that an American corporation has nothing to do with European communists. They should go and re-read their history books and remember how close all of Europe was to speaking either German or Russian.

      I could have moderated your drivel to hell but that wouldn't help much.

      The EU commision can't tell US companies to do anything but they can set conditions for allowing them to operate within the EU. It's called sovereignty and the US does it too all the time. Having a beef with virtual or actual monopolies is not exactly a communist thing either. A monopoly is a direct attack on the free market and therefore upsets true free market believers.

      The US have a long, although not resent, history of cracking down on monopolies. The Standard Oil case is the poster child for this kind of policy.

      --
      TCAP-Abort
    8. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by sabri · · Score: 0, Troll

      Like it or not, idiots or not, they do have such business, simply because your poor little "american company" is no such thing. It's an international corporation that was once founded in america, but now does business all over the world, including within the EU and actually quite a lot of it.

      Fine, have it your way. Doesn't matter for the purpose of the discussion. Let's assume it is a worldwide company with no particular headquarters.

      What is happening here is that a bunch of politicians are interfering in the legitimate business of a private enterprise. Not as a result of violating any laws (there are criminal courts for that), but as a direct result of the success of the company. That smells like what Mother Russia did with Gazprom and is one of the big reasons why I've started to hate the EU so much that I chose to leave it.

      Oh and btw, modding me a troll just because you disagree with my opinion makes you a bad mod.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    9. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by sabri · · Score: 1

      This is an argument from a monolingual person.

      Well, I hate to break the news to you but I'm far from monolingual. I speak English, Dutch, German, a bit of French (albeit so bad that even the waiters in Paris reply in English) and a bit of Albanian. And I've lived in the EU as well as the US.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    10. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Nah, Tom's been this way from the beginning.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least not with the right definition of the term monopoly. But do you think the competition is healthy?
      It's the same with Visa and Master Card. Is that market dominance healthy?
      I think not.
      I'm all for it. Hell, break up a lot more of these huge corporations. They are destroying society in more than one way.

    12. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by sabri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The EU commision can't tell US companies to do anything but they can set conditions for allowing them to operate within the EU. It's called sovereignty and the US does it too all the time. Having a beef with virtual or actual monopolies is not exactly a communist thing either. A monopoly is a direct attack on the free market and therefore upsets true free market believers.

      Finally at least a reply that contains an actual argument. Thanks for that.

      I actually agree with you. The EU can set conditions for allowing a company to operate within the EU. However, they EU should not be in a position to split up a privately owned enterprise. If they feel that Google has too big of a market share, than they should encourage competition. Which, BTW, there is a lot of. Bing, Yahoo, Duckduckgo, Ask.com (yikes) and many others.

      In the case of Microsoft's anti-trust case, there was no such thing. Most people and business needed a Windows PC because (at the time) it was pretty much the only thing that would be compatible with your neighbor's PC. MS controlled the desktop. Switching required a installing a new operating system, and most people didn't even know how to do that let alone that they were even aware of alternatives.

      Google does not control your search engine. Internet Explorer defaults to Bing, and soon Firefox will default to Yahoo. It is easy to switch default search engines, all you need is to change a bookmark. However, I prefer Google simply because it's better and a lot of people will do the same.

      Having a better product than others doesn't necessarily mean you're an illegal monopoly. Google's perceived monopoly can be gone in six months, as soon as a competitor brings a better product.

      Look at Myspace vs Facebook, for example.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    13. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The EU uses a mafia style shakedown program against not only against US companies but any successful international companies who have the temerity of being successful. It's time those countries with true power to give them a glimpse of the potential downsides of their actions. We can kick things off by sending them a bill for US military services to be paid in advance. And their demonstrated incompetence in dealing with Russia will only guarantee they will need those services in the not so distant future the way things are currently progressing. To be fair and reasonable we can offer them a 5% discount if they make their payment within 90 days. Limit US NATO financial support to 10% of the total and just give them an 800 number to call in the event of an emergency. Pull all US military personnel and equipment since they have needed the US military presence in order to reduce their military budgets to fund their liberal welfare payments to the entitlement generation who consider working more than 15 hours a week as a violation of their human rights. National governments in every country are bad enough but leave it to the Europeans to create an entirely new tier of worthless bureaucracy that has contributed nothing to it's member countries let alone provide any united domestic and international leadership when it comes to advancing their member countries interests. And has anyone ever asked where the billions of dollars extorted from foreign corporations has ended up?

    14. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why . It is about time you Americans learnt to clean up your own fucking mess.

    15. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by supervillainsf · · Score: 1

      A monopoly is a direct attack on the free market and therefore upsets true free market believers.

      There is nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly. If I build a widget that no other company cares to build - I have a monopoly and that is perfectly ok. The problem comes when I abuse my monopoly position in the widget market to either stifle competing widget manufacturers or unfairly benefit my sprocket offerings - which is essentially what the EU Commission is accusing Google of doing. Does Google do this? I don't know and honestly I don't care. But, then again, I don't spend a whole lot of time using Google products so I guess that somewhat speaks to their (lack of) ability to manipulate markets for their non-search related services.

    16. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Oh and btw, modding me a troll just because you disagree with my opinion makes you a bad mod.

      The troll mods may have had something to do with these gems:

      Not only that, but the EUSSR doesn't seem to understand that an American corporation has nothing to do with European communists.

      They should go and re-read their history books and remember how close all of Europe was to speaking either German or Russian.

      My point is that the EU is a bunch of arrogant idiots who have no business telling an American company to split up.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    17. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The EU commision can't tell US companies to do anything but they can set conditions for allowing them to operate within the EU.

      Devil's advocate, how do you stop Google from operating in the EU? Google does have a physical presence in the EU, data-centers and all that, but strictly speaking they could run the whole operation from outside the EU. What do you do then? Block them at the network edge? Hardly seems compatible with free speech.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incompetence? Your inept troops kill more of their allies via friendly fire than the enemy does. If you weren't so military inclined and fucking useless at it you wouldnt have lost or 'drawn; most of your wars since WWW2.
      Have you ever fought and won a war without anyone elses help except your civil war?

      Your 'aid' comes tied to shitty copyright treaties etc. Hopefully more of the world will start to tell their leaders to tell to fuck off back to America with your aid and your troops.

    19. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone can make a web, mail, or search server (it can be costly depending on number of users and amount of data). It's a lot more feasible than running fiber to every small town in America (and remain competitive; building roads/bridges side-by-side and "competing" doesn't make much sense). That startup costs to competing with Google is a lot less than other industries.

    20. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Successful companies eventually pass a threshold in which their ambitions stop being beneficial to the rest of the economy, and start being exploitative of it. Any company, if too successful, will eventually cause more harm than good.

      Slippery-sloping the obvious responses to this observation can cause great economic harm as well. But that doesn't change the facts. Monopolism is bad for the economy, and robs everyone of the benefits that justify capitalism.

    21. Re: Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European Faggot Detected.

    22. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by matbury · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's funny that you say EUSSR. The European Central Bank is one of the most fundamentalist free-market neoliberal banking organisations in the world. It puts the Fed and Wall St. to shame (if you think being fundamentalist free-market neoliberal is a good thing). They're prepared to let whole countries go to rack and ruin for the sake of free-market purity.

      And Google have an effective monopoly on search and are abusing it. It's a pretty straightforward case for their companies in the EU being broken up. Isn't that one of the functions of small gubbermint in a fundamentalist free-market neoliberal system? You know, to ensure that there's competition and no one entity can become tyranical?

    23. Re: Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you think Google gets its money from? Last time I looked they had an HQ in iIreland through which most of their money goes through (and also the Netherlands to escape taxes). But even if they moved away from Europe completely and not do business in Europe they would miss out on a huge (a third?) of their revenue from advertising.

    24. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you so disrespectful to retarded people? It isn't their fault that they were born with bad genetics and didn't develop properly. The cognitive and physical limits are something they have to endure whether they like it or not.

      Show a little compassion for a being that is, by the whims of the fates alone, a bit simpler than you.

    25. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      What is happening here is that a bunch of politicians are interfering in the legitimate business of a private enterprise.

      Yes. And it's nice to know they have the balls to. This motion may or may not be a good idea, but simply bringing it up serves to remind everyone who is in charge here: voters rather than shareholders.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    26. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What part of this is not true?

      Fact has nothing to do with trolling. The way you write and speak makes you a troll.
      Notice how the one comment that got modded insightful is full of factual information, and your opinion of comparison to Russia (backed by a factual piece of information) that doesn't sound like a 2 year old name calling.

    27. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were shrieking and crying hysterically when you typed that, because deep down you knew what you were really doing was prostrating yourself before the GP, and abjectly confessing that as much as you wanted to, you could think of no intelligent response to his point. No other reason for your post is possible.

      You are screaming in impotent rage at your monitor as you read this, and you will now prove that you agree with everything I have said.

    28. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Actually a great many Europeans who were fleeing the cesspool of Europe fought on the winning side of the US civil war. Says quite a lot that immigrants right off the boats were willing to line up in rows across open fields and take turns firing at each rather than continue living in Europe. And don't confuse inept troops with the inept politicians who force them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. And can you provide any actual facts that support your friendly fire accusations? If not I suggest you try a little harder to hide your stupidity.

    29. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      You tell me how that does not constitute Soviet behavior.

      Seriously? Nobody is holding a gun to your head and the EU member states are free to leave any time they wish.

      Again, totally nothing factually wrong with that. If it were not for the Americans, all of Europe would either suffer under the Nazis or under the Soviets.

      Really? All of Europe you say? Even Great Britain? Finland?

      Are you an American? If you are I wish you'd STFU; you're making the rest of us look bad. WW2 was a team effort. Could the Allies have beaten the Germans without the Russians? Possibly; we did in WW1 after the Russians quit. The butcher's bill would have been a lot higher though. The west (particularly the United States and Canada) got off pretty easy. As far as "Europe would have been under the Soviets", that's debatable. The example of Finland suggests there are limits to how far Stalin was willing to go to gain strategic depth. Germany certainly would have gotten a much rawer deal without American involvement, though ironically enough it was the United States that originally proposed turning Germany into a pastoral state after the conflict.

      Sure, if you live in Greece and need the EU to fund your pension

      Yeah, well, the same problem is brewing in the United States and I haven't heard a single mainstream politician from either party come up with a proactive way of dealing with it. And guess what? There's no provision for a State to file bankruptcy like Detroit did. What happens when one of the 50 can't meet its obligations? Nobody knows but we're apt to find out in the coming decades....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    30. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by don.g · · Score: 1, Informative

      Silly question, but is a company which tries very hard to pay no tax on its profits a "legitimate business" or a leech on society?

      Yes, I know they do neat stuff, as do many other companies. Yes, many other large companies legally avoid taxes. They're leeches too.

      Yours sincerely, someone who likes his tax-funded healthcare and education systems. [can you guess I'm not in the US?]

      --
      Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
    31. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Kartu · · Score: 2

      Google can complain about "youtube losing money" while keeping ads price on youtube so low that competitors starve., cough.
      Google has too much power for "free open market" to be able to "regulate" it, OK?

      EU has both legal and MORAL right to dictate anyone in EU market how to behave IN EU.

      The "bunch of idiots" forced phone manufacturers to support USB charging, mobile providers to drop roaming charges, to allow you to switch mobile provider while keeping your old phone number, they forced Microsoft to un-bundle IE, PC manufacturers to offer windows-less version etc.

      NONE of that would happen just out of "free market" without government pressing them.

    32. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Kartu · · Score: 2

      Having better product never means you're an illegal monopoly.
      Leveraging your monopolistic position to fight competitors in other areas does.
      And exactly that is what evil EU is after.

    33. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by hene · · Score: 1

      as a direct result of the success of the company.

      Google has been manipulating search results in past.

      I think it is good thing to stop this kind of thing happening. I do care from business rights to do their own choises and business models. But at the same time, I do not want to live in the world where everything can and will be controlled with money.

      There is expected behavior of products. Consumer can't make in depth analysis of companies all to time to figure out all their connections. Just to find out which way he/she is getting screwed this time. Protecting the consumer rights is good thing, they have rights too.

      In USA corporations have way too much power. At the same time I'm very happy by not being the one who has to draw these lines.

    34. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      If they were firing at each other, how could they have been fighting on the same side?

      And in a response to a post about friendly fire, no less... Fish, barrel--meet gun.

      Meanwhile, I humbly suggest that you try a bit harder not to contradict yourself 3 or 4 times in the same post.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    35. Re: Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2

      The part that makes it trolling is that even if Europe did depend on the U.S. in WWII to save it's butt, that has no relevancy on whether it is right or wrong for the E.U. to consider breaking up Google.

      And I am sure you would agree with me had you heard an American use that same argument to try to justify some heinous crime in Europe.

      Also, is it just me or do Shakrai and sabri look an awful lot like sock puppets?

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    36. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem with Google's effective monopoly on search is not user lock-in. It's that they take that extremely successful business, and use it to fund other ventures, grabbing markets by virtue of being able to offer a product for very cheap or even free (e.g.: Android) by subsidizing it from search - which their competition cannot afford.

    37. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly question, but is a company which tries very hard to pay no tax on its profits a "legitimate business" or a leech on society?

      They don't try to pay no tax, but they do try to pay as little as possible. Laws actually effectively dictate they have to, as they have to run the business in such a way as to try to maximise the profits of their shareholders. Doing otherwise is mismanaging their investment.

      Even if the company paid 0% corporation tax on profits (and it's entirely possible for a company to legitimately have no profits if they're reinvesting everything) they are not feeding no tax into the treasury. They employ people, which means they're generating income tax. They also buy goods/services from other companies, so generate tax via those avenues too.

      I'm not saying they're right to try to pay no tax on profits. I'm only saying that even if they do you still can't say they're being a leech because there are other avenues that the government receives tax from them.

    38. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The very words Free Market are repulsive. The free market is a lie. No where on this planet has a free market ever existed. And no where on this planet will a free market ever exist. Taxed, regulated, governed by laws, or dominated and subjugated by a strong man or group describes all markets. Your sister can not be a little bit pregnant. She either is or is not pregnant. A market is either free or controlled. And when placed side by side and studied it can be impossible to determine which market has a higher or lesser degree of freedom.

    39. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And Google have an effective monopoly on search and are abusing it.

      You say this like it's been proven. I believe you are rigit in some sense, (Google has a monopoly on good search, as anyone who tried using DuckDuck Go for privacy or any other search engine for more than a few weeks knows; Google is getting major benefits from the strength of it's brand and using that to strong arm other companies), however when I compare with the legal standard that has been used for other companies I think what you are saying is rediculous.

      "Monopoly" you say: On every computer I have seen where Google is available, DuckDuck Go, and Bing can be used. You just have to type a different string in your URL bar. "the competition is crap" is hardly an argument for monopoly.

      Compare this with the "Windows Monopoly" which was established but was only treated as a limited monopoly. In this case, in almost every shop you would go to you would only find computers with Windows on. If you tried to order a computer from a major supplier they would refuse to remove Windows. Furthermore there was hard evidence in terms of exclusivity contracts and co-advertising subsidies which firmly showed that Microsoft deliberately set out to create this monopoly. Compared to just choosing if you want to in the case of Google, Microsoft's monopoly was much more real and clearly much stronger and much more obviously deliberately established.

      "Abusing" you say: If you don't like Google's web site then you can set up your own and it will work on any consumer's computer. In the case of Microsof, almost every consumer PC had their operating system so you had no alternative. Try doing a default Windows install and then running "wordperfect" in the search. You will find that the only thing you see (as you type) is "wordpad"; a Microsoft product. Microsoft was clearly caught making it difficult for their competitors to run; Google has done nothing like.

      Whilst Google's "monopoly" was established in a competitive equal access market place (remember they had to beat AltaVista and the result was not obvious to begin with) and was done by simple product quality, Microsoft's onopoly has been clearly shown to have been established by illegal tactics (see "Judge Jackson's Finding of Facts"

      There's no problem with the EU getting involved with Google; there is clearly some danger here and a judgement should be made. However, before they even think about doing this they should first handle other much more obvious cases like breaking up Microsoft. It's very funny the way that this whole stuff is showing up after things like Microsoft's Scroogle campaign and their anti Google lobbying.

      This looks like a fit up between the EU and Microsoft to avoid having to punish the actual offenders here.

    40. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. So Google raises the prices on youtube ads. Even fewer advertisers will buy ads on youtube. Total revenue from youtube ads drops and youtube operates at at a bigger loss. Do you have any clue how economics works?

    41. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My point is that the EU is a bunch of arrogant idiots who have no business telling an American company to split up.

      Don't like the laws of the land? Fuck off back to Dumerica.

    42. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Bing is terrible is a consequence of Google's monopoly. First, I am not sure if you are from Europe or not, but the numbers are quite different over there than here in the states. While in the US Google has a ~72% market share, in Europe their market share ranges from 90-96% (http://www.mvfglobal.com/europe). These numbers are similar to their search ad revenue dominance which hovers around 87%. Now here is the kicker. Their mobile ad revenue share is closer to 93% and growing (https://www.fairsearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Draft-Core-FairSearch-Fact-Sheet-051812.pdf) specifically because of their dominance with Android. This is EXACTLY the same thing as Windows bundling IE. The mobile market is growing incredibly fast and Google is killing it because it is essentially giving away an operating system for free.

    43. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Google doesn't have a monopoly on search. Not even close. The only reason they get used is because they're the best. The second that they start sucking, people will leave in droves. It's pretty fucking far from tyranny when any user can go elsewhere. That's not a monopoly.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    44. Re: Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      And what messes would that be?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    45. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Tom · · Score: 2

      The EU uses a mafia style shakedown program

      Get some help for your paranoia issues.

      The EU has become so fucking corporation friendly over the past two decades, we have rising poverty in all developed EU countries, falling real wages, unemployment, high percentages of temporary employment and are busy destroying the middle class that kept Europe stable for six decades. All in the name of protecting banksters and corporate profits, who are breaking records yearly.

      Accusing the EU of shaking down corporations is orwellian.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    46. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Tom · · Score: 2

      Yugoslavia was no threat to EU, ever. It was a civil war, and within Europe many people consider it a mistake to become involved.

      As for Putin - you can think what you want, he's never expressed any desires to expand into Europe. That he got nervous about Ukraine - well, after Kuba you americans shouldn't be talking. What would you do if there was a revolution in Mexico or Canada and the new government is strongly pro-Russia with open, direct and very vocal russian support? Or chinese. Or both. You'd sit on your asses and say "let the people decide", yes?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    47. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Tom · · Score: 1

      What is happening here is that a bunch of politicians are interfering in the legitimate business of a private enterprise.

      Without this naster "interference", those private enterprises wouldn't exist. The government provides the stability, regulation and occasional enforcement of the rules that enables the business world to function at all. Without contract law and courts, do you really think the stock market, stock ownership of corporations and the whole investment sector would exist?

      Funny how one kind of "interference" is taken for granted, as long as it benefits you, but as soon as you don't like it, it's evil nasty mafia-style badness.

      Not as a result of violating any laws

      It's called anti-trust, and yes there are laws about it.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    48. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point is that the EU is a bunch of arrogant idiots who have no business telling an American company to split up.

      Thank you, I do appreciate a good bit of irony.

      And, hypocrisy.

    49. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Tom · · Score: 1, Troll

      They should go and re-read their history books and remember how close all of Europe was to speaking either German or Russian.

      Funny historic fact: The USA was one vote away from speaking German. :-)

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    50. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Tom · · Score: 2

      What part of this is not true? The EU is operating like a socialist federation these days: they shove EU laws (up to and including a constitution) through their member states' throat and enforce them

      You have no idea how EU politics works.

      What's being "shoved down member states throats" are almost all laws that the national politicians wanted, but couldn't get through locally because of popular resistance and the media eating them alive. So they push it up to the EU, it comes back a few year later, thanks to short public memory they now claim they have no choice, it's an EU mandate, and they get the laws they wanted.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    51. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      They should go and re-read their history books and remember how close all of Europe was to speaking either German or Russian.

      Uh, about 16% of them do speak German.

      Because, they're like, Germans.

      Idiot.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    52. Re: Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They would be speaking Russian or German if it were not for Americans"? The same Americans (and British) that were hoping for USSR to bleed to the point where they were no longer a viable state to compete with anyone, let alone Britain or the US? What is happening in Russia today is a crying shame, but it is idiots like you who perpetuate the hate and mistrust amongst the world's people. Things could be some much different if people would, indeed, read study history as you have suggested. By the way, there is no lack of " unerstanding of technology " and its implications amongst the governments of the EU. Now, the Congress on the hand...

    53. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      A corporation is an artificial construct existing on a whim of the current lawmaking of a country (or in this case a union of countries). Thus these states have every right to split it. If it was an unlimited liability general partnership, things would be much different.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    54. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by dkf · · Score: 1

      Google doesn't have a monopoly on search. Not even close. The only reason they get used is because they're the best. The second that they start sucking, people will leave in droves. It's pretty fucking far from tyranny when any user can go elsewhere. That's not a monopoly.

      Google has a much higher share of search in the EU than in the US, so the EU is far more interested in keeping a close eye on what they're doing. That said, the story was about something that the EP is pushing for and they're not exactly the most influential set of people ever (they've got budgetary powers, the ability to vet the Commissioners, and the ability to revise proposed legislation). What's more, it would probably be possible to split the search side from the rest of Google enough to satisfy at least some of the EP without breaking up Google entirely. (Satisfying the whole EP? Might as well ask for something that satisfies the whole of Congress.)

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    55. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      they only have a monopoly though because they are good at what they do, not because of some evilness. There are plenty of other search providers out there.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    56. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      but why is that really a problem?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    57. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is rich a merkin commenting on people speaking German almost 500 years and you still can't speak ENGLISH.

    58. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ireland is f*cking the rest of Europe. By setting a low tax rate that undercuts all of the other countries, they get to tax revenue generated across the whole continent rather than just revenue generated in their own country. A small slice of an enormous pie is more than a large slice of a small pie.

      Your politicians have created laws that allow companies to shop around when deciding where to book their European revenue. I have a hard time mustering moral outrage towards for profit companies that, when offered a choice of where to legally record revenue, choose the most favorable venue.

    59. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      It does not require a monopoly, it only requires commanding market share. As far as Internet searches and mobile OS goes, Google clearly as a commanding market share. And typically, the US media (including slashdot) focuses on this because Google is a US company. The EU commissions have similar proceedings against numerous companies from Europe and Asia going all the time. Yes, they are not all as big as Google or Microsoft, but this isn't only about singling out US companies with a lot of money. It applies to ALL companies who get caught not playing by the rules.

    60. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      they only have a monopoly though because they are good at what they do, not because of some evilness. There are plenty of other search providers out there.

      It doesn't matter if you got your monopoly by being evil or not - we are talking about abuse of that monopoly.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    61. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      OK, so how much tax exactly should an entity(person/company/trust etc ) pay to not be a leech?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    62. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's important to understand *why* the ECB is free-market. Its predecessors are the national banks in Europe. Economically successful countries has independent national banks (Germany, the Netherlands), failing countries used the printing press (France, Italy). The German government was not going to put the French president in any position of power over the ECB. On the other hand, the French very well knew that they should stop with the money printing business, and the founding of the ECB was a way to do this without losing face.

      The ECB bankers haven't forgotten this. They've also seen the individual countries fail in their banking tasks (supervision of retail banking), which only helped to confirm the opinion that national governments should stay out of banking. That's not to say the ECB is in favor of laissez-faire capitalism. They very much want to take over control of banking regulation after the failure of national governments to do so.

    63. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by leslie.satenstein · · Score: 1

      My point is that the EU is a bunch of arrogant idiots who have no business telling an American company to split up.

      Like it or not, idiots or not, they do have such business, simply because your poor little "american company" is no such thing. It's an international corporation that was once founded in america, but now does business all over the world, including within the EU and actually quite a lot of it.

      In the USA Google can do what is allowed under USA law. You know, Present you with their preferred websites that permit you to shop with a controlled to merchants and pay more. One could say Google is a monopoly.

    64. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU uses a mafia style shakedown program against not only against US companies but any successful international companies who have the temerity of being successful.

      Why do you have a problem with that? The EU created a very profitable market for those companies and should thus act strongly against any mischief by them. Companies would not be successful if they didn't have a large market with a well-functioning justice system and many other functions that only a stable government provides.

    65. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      ... New OWA is actually kinda nice.

      You really think so? Have you been smoking pot? The 1990s called and they want their e-mail system back. I have to use it at work, it's a POS. Well to be honest, it would have to get better to even be a POS.

    66. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      The European Central Bank is one of the most fundamentalist free-market

      That's funny! You user "central bank" and "fundamentalist free-market" in the same sentence as if they weren't opposed! Amazing!

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    67. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      What's being "shoved down member states throats" are almost all laws that the national politicians wanted, but couldn't get through locally because of popular resistance and the media eating them alive. So they push it up to the EU, it comes back a few year later, thanks to short public memory they now claim they have no choice, it's an EU mandate, and they get the laws they wanted.

      I'm confused. It seems like you're supporting his argument versus opposing it. It seems like you're saying the local politicians try something. People revolt. The locals politicians get the EU to shove it down the people's throats and all is good. Isn't the EU shoving it down the people's throats what the person was arguing?

    68. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 1

      Laws actually effectively dictate they have to, as they have to run the business in such a way as to try to maximise the profits of their shareholders.

      Actually, no. There is no law that a corporation needs to maximize profits for their shareholders. Take Tim Cook's statements regarding Apple trying to be green when a shareholder insisted that wouldn't maximize profit.

    69. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by sabri · · Score: 1

      serves to remind everyone who is in charge here: voters rather than shareholders.

      This. Exactly this. This is exactly my point. But quite the opposite.

      If I own a loaf of bread, I get to choose whatever the F I want to do with it. I own it. No matter what my neighbor thinks, I own it and if I want to eat it, or let it sit, it is my property.

      Google is private property. Private property with shareholders yes, but it is still private property. The moment a government, -any- government, starts to interfere, it is interfering with private property. And that is exactly the thing I don't want the government to do with very limited exceptions (such as an idiot owning a nuclear bomb). Simply being the best in their industry (search results), is not one of these exceptions.

      The owner of the corporation is in charge of the corporation, not a voter (or a politician that nobody voted for).

      And once more, you modding-morons can mod me down as much as you like because you disagree, it doesn't make my points any less valid.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    70. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by sabri · · Score: 1

      Because, they're like, Germans.

      Na und? Ich spreche auch Deutsch, aber nur weil ich das gelernt habe in die Schule. You know damn well what I mean.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    71. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      And Google have an effective monopoly on search

      Nope. First of all such a statement needs to be qualified - for instance, the 1.3+ billion people in China overwhelmingly prefer Baidu. It is clearly quite possible for people to avoid Google entirely, not just for search (which is, of course, even easier).

      and are abusing it.

      In what way? Because you don't think Google should use its other services to provide a more integrated experience? Without any sort of lock-in, don't pretend that's anything other than punishing success.

      You're begging the question. If Google is a monopoly and they're integrating stuff, that's bad. And they must be a monopoly, because they're doing bad monopoly things like integrating stuff. But without being an actual monopoly with actual lock-in, there's no reason that integration is a problem at all - in fact it's quite the opposite, that's what they have to do to remain competitive. Changing search engines away from Google is as simple as typing a different URL or choosing something else from the drop-down, or even *not changing the default*. The idea that a high search marketshare can be anything other than direct user choice is ridiculous - and so what's the problem?

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    72. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Tom · · Score: 1

      Isn't the EU shoving it down the people's throats what the person was arguing?

      The GP claimed the EU is shoving laws down nation states' throats, but that's only a dangerous half-truth. The fact that typically the same politicians who claim "bad EU makes us do evil things" are the ones behind the EU doing said things is a critical part of the puzzle the GP either wasn't aware of or omitted intentionally.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    73. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      That's adorable. Voters are certainly not in charge though.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    74. Re: Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be serious. The US ploughs into iraq (basically a 3rd world large field), gets nowhere. Afghanistan, gets nowhere. Vietnam...you waste life and money constantly. Europe is a bigger and tougher place than america could ever be.

    75. Re: Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DEAD ON. Most factual and historically accurate reply in this thread. And yes I agree Microsoft and the EU are definitely in cahoots in this anti Google push. It's BS and I'm sure Google is winding up for the legal pitch. I'd live to see Microsoft get handed it's ass again. And again. And again. Like I have watched happen for over 20 years.

    76. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If I own a loaf of bread, I get to choose whatever the F I want to do with it. I own it. No matter what my neighbor thinks, I own it and if I want to eat it, or let it sit, it is my property.

      But your right to do what you want with your property is limited by other laws. For example you are not allowed to beat people to death with your loaf of bread, nor form and abuse a monopoly with your company. The latter which is what Google is - rightly or wrongly - accused of doing.

      Google is private property. Private property with shareholders yes, but it is still private property. The moment a government, -any- government, starts to interfere, it is interfering with private property.

      Google is legal fiction. It's very existence, the same as all corporations, depends on constant government interference. If the government ceases interfering on the marketplace, Google ceases to exist. Given this, it's absolutely government's right - and in fact duty - to define the exact parameters of its interference.

      And that is exactly the thing I don't want the government to do with very limited exceptions (such as an idiot owning a nuclear bomb). Simply being the best in their industry (search results), is not one of these exceptions.

      And that's all nice and good, but why should your personal preferences take precedence over someone else's? Why should you get to dictate the conditions of corporate existence?

      The owner of the corporation is in charge of the corporation, not a voter (or a politician that nobody voted for).

      No one is disputing Google's owners right to make decisions on behalf of the company. What's in question is whether the government should use it's legitimate - under antitrust laws - power over the company.

      And once more, you modding-morons can mod me down as much as you like because you disagree, it doesn't make my points any less valid.

      Well, your points aren't backed by either facts, logic or even ideology - since you're willing to accept exceptions but only when you judge them okay - so they aren't valid by any stretch of imagination. Also, you keep calling people morons.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    77. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is only private Property because the EU chooses to recognize private property and puts the systems in place to support it and ENFORCE it if needed. This costs money. If you don't want to pay this money via taxes then Google can easily fuck of back to America and explain to the shareholders why they did so.

      They have no automatic right to EU money without paying the cost of doing business just because there is a market someone else made and supports exists.

    78. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and Individual states in the US don't do this with corporate tax levels?

    79. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The company arent paying the income tax - the people who work for them are generating the money paid in income as a tax on THEIR labour.

    80. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Again, totally nothing factually wrong with that. If it were not for the Americans, all of Europe would either suffer under the Nazis or under the Soviets.

      Really? All of Europe you say? Even Great Britain? Finland?

      Actually... yes. Without US there's no way the British Empire could had mounted the Normandy invasion. That means the Soviet Union would had either lost or continued rolling on after reaching Berlin. Britain stopped a Nazi invasion and Finland a Soviet one, but neither could had hoped to last much longer without aid, much less win. And of course there's the post-war rebuilding of Europe and world economy, which was mostly orchestrated and bankrolled by the US.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    81. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Milharis · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you can't have a better product in six months, at least not a search engine that provides more relevant results.

      I've recently had a lecture from a guy from Bing, and when asked who was more relevant and why, he simply said "Google", especially outside the USA.
      The reason is that search engines are now way more about user data than any IR algorithm.
      Simply put, without the huge market share and time advantage Google has, you won't be able to match them is relevance.
      Now, you can compete on features or things like privacy, but Duckduckgo hasn't been able to upset the market with that.

      To go back to the story, I don't think it's Google's monopoly the problem, it's that Google is accused of leveraging its monopoly to promote their other products.

    82. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Because this destroy the competitive market.

    83. Re: Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the "American Companies" play taxes in Ireland or in Luxemburg.
      Btw it's sadly true. EU commision it's mostly a damage in the current version. It's an half-baked government.
      The BCE doesn't nave enough powers to be really useful even if Mario Draghi is a very smart person.
      So, EU isn't anything Luke USA forma better or worse.
      Too many centuries of history, too many selfish personalities and no real common political target.

    84. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Xest · · Score: 1

      It's probably worth pointing out that the only reason Europe has it in for Google in the first place is because of extensive lobbying by other US corporation, particularly Microsoft. See here for example:

      http://www.lobbyfacts.eu/news/...

      Google is being hit from two fronts, Microsoft has been strongly lobbying against it in the EU for many years now and spends more on EU lobbying than every other silicon valley tech company combined.

      On the other front is the newspaper industry. Part of this is indigineous like Germany's Bild, but of course there's Murdoch's News International as a major player in the fray too.

      So before anyone starts bitching at the EU for targeting American companies, they must bear in mind that the EU is targeting Google largely at the behest of other American corporations, again, most prominently Microsoft.

      What's really going on here is that Google just isn't making an equivalent counter-effort to build allies and lobby in it's favour within the EU. It has been doing this in the US where it seems to lobby the US government hard, but for some reason it just doesn't much seem to care how strongly it's losing on this front in the EU.

      You're absolutely right, Google has no monopoly but that's not the real actual issue here, lobbying and the consequences of it are the real actual problem here.

    85. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Oh, but you'd be surprised at what comapnies can do without violating any laws. They have whole teams of lawyers to help them figure it out.

      The problems is when private enterprise interfers in the business of other private enterprise.
      Or did you never learn about Standard Oil as a kid?
      Or trusts? Or monopolies?

      Here's a clue: those things are fundamentally BAD for free enterprise.
      That's why we make laws against them. Doing so fosters free enterprise by promoting and enabling competition.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    86. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Fail. We arent talking about if you had a loaf of bread, and what you chose to do with it.

      We are talking about if you had ALL THE LOAVES OF BREAD, and chose to tell others to do with it, or even withhold it entirely until certain conditions are met. That's the point when government steps in and says "nope". That's good for soecity. It keeps competition alive and active. It prevents stagnation int he economy. And most importantly, it lowers the chance of citizens getting themselves some of that bread youve been withhold via the The Pitchfork Method.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    87. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      1- It is clear that you are completely ignorant of the definitions of the words "socialist", "communist", and "Soviet".
      --

      2- It isn't the US that broke Germany's back. It was Russia. And Hitler's own obsession with it. We dont teach it in our history books nearly as well as we should. And people like you are poorer for it. There is no doubt that we contributed much of the technological might to the fight to counter the German's own (and even then we found just how far ahead of us they really were after the war).

      But the numbers, the sheer numbers of attrition, both allied and axis, were provided by the Russians.
      88% of all German casulaties were on the Russian Front.

      The Western Front was nothing comapred to the Russian Front. There's a reason being "sent to the Russian Front" was considered a death sentence and used as a threat within Germany. On the Russian Front fighting was "between 400 German and Soviet divisions on the Eastern Front for four years. The front itself spanned 1,600 km. In the meantime, the fighting on the Western Front involved 15-20 divisions at most." ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/w... )

      It as the Battle of Kursk that turned the tide of the war when a German advance was stopped for the first time before achieving its objectives, in one of the largest battles in human history. The Soviets incurred more 250,000 killed and 600,000 wounded. The Germans suffered 200,00 total casulaties, both fatal and wounded. One million casualties, in a single battle.

      Total Russian casualties for the war would be between 20 and 30 MILLION, far larger than any other country except China (10-20 million), and comprising nearly half of all casualties in the European theater.

      Keep in mind only a small portion of Germany's military might made life very difficult for all of the western allies (US, UK, France, etc), while the bulk of Germany's army was fighting Russia. If Hitler hadn't tried to take Russia, if he hadn't broken his own treaty with them, nothing the US did would have mattered. It was Russia that removed the German Army's will and capability to fight. It was Russia that absorbed the bulk of Hitlers might and eventually, slowly, beat him back.
      It was Russia that won WWII.
      --

      3- You are troll:

      You dont know basic facts.
      You substitute your own bigoted opinions for facts.
      You pass those opinions off as facts.
      You then denigrate people who point that out.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    88. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by g4sy · · Score: 1

      And Google have an effective monopoly on search and are abusing it. It's a pretty straightforward case for their companies in the EU being broken up. Isn't that one of the functions of small gubbermint in a fundamentalist free-market neoliberal system? You know, to ensure that there's competition and no one entity can become tyranical?

      No. The EU forces me all the time to do things I don't want to do, and I have no choice. I have, and did choose to stop using google services over a period about a year. Totally weaned from google about 12 months ago now. I might starting using them again now. But the point is I HAVE A CHOICE

      --
      somewhere, on a Big Red Sign:
      if(color==blue){speed--;}
    89. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      The European Central Bank is one of the most fundamentalist free-market

      That's funny! You user "central bank" and "fundamentalist free-market" in the same sentence as if they weren't opposed! Amazing!

      Here's a critic of an other of his books - the title says it all: http://blog.rongarret.info/2013/03/murray-rothbard-was-idiot.html " I read The Ethics of Liberty and found it completely, utterly, and transparently intellectually bankrupt. "

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    90. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I liked that article. It expresses many of the same criticisms I have to Rothbard, better than I myself could.

      However, that has no bearing on the issue at hand. Central banks are state monopolies that prevent the free market of private currencies. If one's a fundamentalist free-market advocate, then currencies are just a good among others, and monopolizing on their production is anything but being free. Hence, any central bank cannot by definition be a fundamentalist free-market advocate, else they'd advocate for their own monopolies over their respective national currencies to end.

      That's why, incidentally, no huge company is ever truly libertarian. Libertarianism is always the position defended by those neither at the bottom nor at the top of the economic pyramid. It's a purely middle-class ideology.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    91. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I liked that article. It expresses many of the same criticisms I have to Rothbard, better than I myself could.

      However, that has no bearing on the issue at hand. Central banks are state monopolies that prevent the free market of private currencies.

      Wait, what? "Private currencies"? Is that something like ocean shells? PostIts with "IOU" written on them? Look at non-cash payment system and who does and who doesn't support which combination of them, and tell me something like an unregulated private currency could work. Even as a reasonable alternative to a real currency, let alone as an replacement. And don't even get me started on "gold currency".

      The problem with FREE free markets is, that they don't work. Period.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    92. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by matbury · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that Baidu is a competitor to Google? How's your Chinese? I guess Europeans can always choose to learn Chinese and maybe, just maybe the search results will be appropriate for them. Who knows?

      In what way? Because you don't think Google should use its other services to provide a more integrated experience? Without any sort of lock-in, don't pretend that's anything other than punishing success. You're begging the question. If Google is a monopoly and they're integrating stuff, that's bad. And they must be a monopoly, because they're doing bad monopoly things like integrating stuff. But without being an actual monopoly with actual lock-in, there's no reason that integration is a problem at all - in fact it's quite the opposite, that's what they have to do to remain competitive. Changing search engines away from Google is as simple as typing a different URL or choosing something else from the drop-down, or even *not changing the default*. The idea that a high search marketshare can be anything other than direct user choice is ridiculous - and so what's the problem?

      This isn't even wrong. It's incoherent.

    93. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by matbury · · Score: 1

      The problem with Austrian School economics and the subsequent Chicago School is that they are a-historical, i.e. their theories bear little or no relation to what happens in reality. The Fed was set up as a response to the frequent financial panics that plagued the free market at the time: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/... Additionally, the foundational principle of Austrian/Chicago School economic theory, homo economicus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H..., is just plain wrong (See Daniel Kahneman's Nobel Prize in Economics-winning work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...). We're not rational, self-interested agents and we have over a century of conclusive cognitive psychology resarch that tells us otherwise.

      Austrian/Chicago School economists, like Murray Rothbard, are just plain nuts.

    94. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1
      They did, because the Americans weren't able to:

      “We immigrant citizens have the holy duty topreserve the Union and the Constitution . The native Americans are demoralized physically and spiritually. Love, true attachment for this land is entirely lacking [in the native born], They are unworthy of the freedom . They do not understand free institutions because to them the difference between freedom and despotism is unknown. To us immigrants is reserved to save this land from destruction. And we will do it.”

      The Europeans saved America. You are welcome.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    95. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      We're not rational, self-interested agents

      You're agreeing with one of Austrian Economics' basic axioms. Hayek wrote entire books based on this central fact.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    96. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      You have to make up your mind. Either central banks are fundamentalist free market advocates, or they aren't. In this post you seem to be agreeing with my point that they aren't. So, which is it?

      The problem with FREE free markets is, that they don't work.

      True, which is why I'm actually a distributist, not a libertarian. That however has no bearing on the original argument about what central banks are or aren't.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    97. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      You have to make up your mind. Either central banks are fundamentalist free market advocates, or they aren't. In this post you seem to be agreeing with my point that they aren't. So, which is it?

      There is a difference between "fundamentalist" and "extremist". You know, like Iran actually fighting ISIS, while "moderate" Turkey supports them (to fight Assad). Or Adam Smith speaking favorably about the Bank of England.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    98. Re:Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The Europeans colonized America they just couldn't hang on to it once the early immigrants got settled and a bunch of rich aristocrats decided they didn't want to pay taxes to a king on the other side of the Atlantic. And yes, the European immigrants during the Civil War period did help the North eventually win the war. And for the those who survived the Civil War I very much doubt that they considered themselves Europeans any more.

  2. Hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck with that, Europe.

  3. In an unrelated news item... by mmell · · Score: 3, Funny

    Europe disappeared from the worldwide web today.

    1. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google checked its own sources, found that the USA made up a very small part of the worlds population and that business growth was all outside of the USA.

    2. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe disappeared from the worldwide web today.

      What is this Europe you speak of. I tried googling it and could not find any results. All it said was "Did you mean: Europa"

    3. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Europe disappeared from the worldwide web today." ... and nobody noticed. When everyone did, they rejoiced.

    4. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google will bribe the right people and this will all be swept under the rug.

    5. Re: In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps, but Europe isn't exactly the engine of growth powering the world, either. Maybe EuroParl should think about fixing employment and debt along its southern periphery instead of trying to dismantle Bing's competitor.

    6. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would actually solve the problem (I take it you mean that Google will blacklist all European web sites).

    7. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Funny

      Europe disappeared from the worldwide web today.

      Would that be because the EU parliament exercised their right to be forgotten?

    8. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This stupid nonsense is posted every time the EU acts in relation to american companies.

      It's among the worst nationalistic hogwash misconceptions ever, easily on par with North Korea rambling about its moon base.

      The EU is bigger than the USA in almost every metric, especially on the important ones: Population count (507 mio. vs. 319 mio.) and GDP (18.4 trio. US$ vs. 16.8 trio. US$).

      Any big american company deciding to withdraw from Europe would have its board of directors kicked out faster than they can sign the paperwork to make it happen, or watch its stock crash & burn, because they've just not only moved out of its biggest market, they've also given a free playing ground for a global competitor to emerge unchallenged.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    9. Re: In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem is, if the EU does this then other countries, China, India, Russia, etc etc etc will look that they can do the same.

      China will soon be the worlds biggest economy.

      The US has to get over this belief they can bully everyone else in the world.

    10. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it will open up another issue.

      If google does this, all the other countries in the world will realise what a danger google represents, and they WILL then do something to mitigate this risk.

      The USA needs to grow up and stop believing it has the right to threaten, bully, shoot everyone else and that the USs rights come above everyone else.

    11. Re:In an unrelated news item... by slimjim8094 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But this represents an existential threat - when viewed that way, it's a no-brainer to give up a market, even a huge market, if the price of admission is too high. Also, Google doesn't have to stop serving them, just stop doing business there.

      Also, don't forget that Google pulled out of China, and China has a lot more population and will have the biggest GDP shortly. This is far more concerning than a little espionage.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    12. Re:In an unrelated news item... by zlives · · Score: 1

      google will make available certain search results and all will be google, i mean good

    13. Re:In an unrelated news item... by mister_playboy · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's among the worst nationalistic hogwash misconceptions ever, easily on par with North Korea rambling about its moon base.

      Pretending that the EU is a singular nation in the way that the US or North Korea are is itself "hogwash".

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    14. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not before Monsanto pulled the genetically modified plug on USA and wiped out all the population, without anyone being able to sue them because they have universal immunity now.

    15. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will be fixed with the next Firefox update.

    16. Re: In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon?

    17. Re: In an unrelated news item... by mmell · · Score: 1

      The US has to get over this belief they can bully everyone else in the world.

      Who's gonna make us - you?

    18. Re: In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as the US as ICBMs, they can bully whoever the fuck they please. By the way, what's the latitude and longitude of your house?
      -signed, the American Empire Party

    19. Re:In an unrelated news item... by mmell · · Score: 1
      Close.

      Not before Monsanto found a market for their products feeding third-world European nations.

      X^D

    20. Re:In an unrelated news item... by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 1

      I believe you mean the "right to suppress free speech", don't'cha?

    21. Re:In an unrelated news item... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Population count (507 mio. vs. 319 mio.) and GDP (18.4 trio. US$ vs. 16.8 trio. US$).

      Given their superior regulatory environment, why does the EU only make less than 70% per-capita of what the US makes? Especially given that many US-headquartered companies are recognizing most of their revenue in Ireland.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    22. Re:In an unrelated news item... by theVarangian · · Score: 1

      It's among the worst nationalistic hogwash misconceptions ever, easily on par with North Korea rambling about its moon base.

      Pretending that the EU is a singular nation in the way that the US or North Korea are is itself "hogwash".

      Who ever made that claim and how is it even relevant? What matter to Google (and any other company engaging in anti capitative behaviour) is that far as anti-trust issues are concerned the EU is a single entity.

    23. Re: In an unrelated news item... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Why are you hitting yourself France? Why do you keep hitting yourself?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny ha ha - The world wide web was invented in Europe - It isn't the quite the same think as the obvious idea of inter connected machines you Americans invented called the internet.

    25. Re:In an unrelated news item... by theVarangian · · Score: 4, Informative

      But this represents an existential threat - when viewed that way, it's a no-brainer to give up a market, even a huge market, if the price of admission is too high. Also, Google doesn't have to stop serving them, just stop doing business there.

      Also, don't forget that Google pulled out of China, and China has a lot more population and will have the biggest GDP shortly. This is far more concerning than a little espionage.

      But China was demanding a bit more than the EU who merely wants Google to break up it's operations in the EU into separate business units. China wanted Google to censor web searches and rat out Chinese citizens for regime critical utterances and activities. Pulling out of China in the face of those demands makes sense since Google's position as an information broker depends to a large extent on whether the public trusts them or not. If a large number of people get the notion that Google cannot be trusted, Google could easily see a collapse of it's share of the internet search market. Of course somebody will inevitably ignore this fact and go straight to pointing out that Google feeds information about it's users to the NSA as a matter of course (and as if that was a proven fact) to which I'll respond that I'm no friend of Google, I think they have become a dangerous monopolist, but I'll also consider them innocent of collaborating with the NSA until they are proven guilty.

    26. Re:In an unrelated news item... by theVarangian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Population count (507 mio. vs. 319 mio.) and GDP (18.4 trio. US$ vs. 16.8 trio. US$).

      Given their superior regulatory environment, why does the EU only make less than 70% per-capita of what the US makes? Especially given that many US-headquartered companies are recognizing most of their revenue in Ireland.

      Because the EU added several Eastern European nations as members who were, and to some extent still are, recovering from two world wars and 50 years as vassal states of the Soviet Union. Man of these countries are suffering through the usual corruption and political instability issues that plague all young democracies. Just try to imagine that the USA admitted a few dysfunctional South American countries with broken economies and a few tens of millions of poor working class citizens as new states of your union. The per capita economic output of the USA would take a bit of a nosedive. The reason that most US-headquartered companies are recognising their revenue in Ireland is because they are dodging taxes, the EU as a whole does not benefit from that because their corporate slime balls are doing the same thing. The only ones benefitting from the now famous 'double Irish' tax dodge are corrupt Irish politicians.

    27. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why does the EU only make less than 70% per-capita of what the US makes?

      Because Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, and Sweden are only five countries?

      Especially given that many US-headquartered companies are recognizing most of their revenue in Ireland.

      Corporate revenue doesn't reflect GDP and vice versa. The big difference between GDP and GNP is where international revenue is recognized. GDP always puts it in the country of production, regardless of where the company is headquartered.

      And beyond that, most production is by local companies anyway. The multinationals are large for single companies, but domestic only companies are larger in aggregate because there are more of them.

    28. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe disappeared from the worldwide web today.

      And nothing of value was lost.

    29. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you are not reducing all utility to a per-capita GDP measurement? So what if Europe makes less than 70% - does this in any way represent the well-being of a Western European relative to that of the American? Does nothing else matter but per-capita income?

    30. Re:In an unrelated news item... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Your numbers may very well be true, but the U.S. leads in per capita consumer spending. That means Americans spend more money on products per person than any other country (except the UAE, strangely enough). In contrast, the number for most of Western Europe is around 60% of the U.S.

      This is why the U.S. is often considered a special market (consumer products-wise) separate from the rest of the world. The only other market that's considered special is China, but only because of its growth potential due to sheer population numbers.

      Now, how much spending is on European products, nobody really knows. But the U.S. (and U.S. companies) does not need Europe to sustain businesses tied to consumer products.

      GDP numbers tend to be more relevant for B2B and banks, so it would be stupid if IBM or even Microsoft pulled out of Europe. But Google? Their dollars are advertising dollars, and the ROI on marketing in Europe just doesn't have the same potential. Not that they would want to pull out, as it's lost revenue and certainly opens the door for competition. But to say that Europe is a bigger market for them than the U.S. is flat out wrong.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    31. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like if Google left China to Baidu. Oh wait...

    32. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Who ever made that claim and how is it even relevant?

      The grandparent, in the stupid pissing contest EU vs. US thread. I really hate these threads; sure, we have quarrels, but we've also got a shared history, culture, and commitment to freedom. People would do well to remember that. They might also wish to remember that countries that share our values are most definitely in the minority on planet Earth; it's really fucking stupid to root for the EU to drag the US down or vice versa.

      These idiots should get a bloody passport and go visit the "other side"; you'll find we're/they're not that much different from you.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    33. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did but Americans just wont admit their economy and productivity would go hell in a handcart without all the 'illegal aliens' working in their economy.

    34. Re:In an unrelated news item... by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      I'm a little confused how your answer is a response to "Europe disappeared from the worldwide web." What you're replying to is a joke that google would get rid of all Europe links in retaliation, not a nationalistic claim that Google should abandon all business in EU nations. It's like you're deeply offended by something nobody is actually saying.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    35. Re: In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The warhead mounting wrench was lost in transit, and we are waiting for the replacement wrench to be shipped from China (where there still are actual machinists) to the defense contractor who will resell it for $650000. Of course the wrench will not fit and will strip the fastener head.

    36. Re: In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like your narrative about corruption afflicting young democracies. I'll try to remember that, along with sufficient fakelaki, the next time I visit Athens.

    37. Re: In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a couple of camel jockeys ? again :D

    38. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, you mean like greece?

      -c

    39. Re:In an unrelated news item... by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      Yup, because nothing says "trust" like search results based off of government mandates, right?

      --
      Love sees no species.
    40. Re:In an unrelated news item... by x0ra · · Score: 1

      In that case, is it Europe which is bullying for money it has not been competent enough to earn.

    41. Re: In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bing", fucking hell its been a long time since I heard that name.

    42. Re: In an unrelated news item... by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but Europe isn't exactly the engine of growth powering the world, either. Maybe EuroParl should think about fixing employment and debt along its southern periphery instead of trying to dismantle Bing's competitor.

      LOL the first post that mentions anything about the competition. Perhaps the EU is just trying to get special software seat costs for member countries from Redmond. A simple case of "the Mouse That Roared" strategy to get special treatment from the real monopolists on the block!

      Either way the truth about why the EU are trying to oust Google is most likely well and truly hidden from the tech journalists and the tech journalists that are reporting on this perceived strategy to dismantle Google as a company are in the pocket of the people behind the scenes.

      If Google is successfully dismantled and restricted in access by a segment of the internet as large as the domains of Europe then chances are what we will see happen in the future is new routing hardware and nodes being built. The results of breaking up Google in a big way will be a case of "All Roads Lead To Redmond" not Rome along with huge bandwidth cost increased not real competition as some officials in Europe may think.

      The other possibility is that the net will split up and we will see disconnected local nets firewalled in the same way China does. This could be easily done with hardware based domain blocking technologies the way cell phones can be made to lock out competing providers network pipes.

      Either way the network traffic and services including ad revenues will be controlled in Washington State instead of California. The revenues conveniently off shored by the lords of Redmond to avoid paying American corporate and state taxes regardless of which who is on the top of the heap.

      Or just maybe Suse will get more money and build a competitor search engine based upon Bing's search engine software, perhaps this explains the recent love affair with Linux that is happening in Redmond.

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    43. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eastern European countries have still 20 years to grow, see they actually were communists.

    44. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Tom · · Score: 1

      China is much less connected to the world and especially the language barrier is massive. There's more to language than making a translation. Why do you think Facebook has almost no traction in Russia? It's not that they couldn't find someone who writes kyrillic.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    45. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Tom · · Score: 2

      but the U.S. leads in per capita consumer spending.

      Which, as a per capita value is again dependent on the population number for total value, and the population of the EU is 60% larger.

      But the U.S. (and U.S. companies) does not need Europe to sustain businesses tied to consumer products.

      Strangely, they seem to think otherwise, because they're going to great efforts to do business in Europe.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    46. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Tom · · Score: 1

      You need to go back to reading comprehension 101. The part that's nationalistic about the GP post is USA nationalism, not european.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    47. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Tom · · Score: 1

      But this represents an existential threat

      Nonsense. One of the ways that corporations are different from real people is that you can split them into parts without killing them.

      So we'd have AdSearchGoogle, headed by Larry Page, and ServiceGoogle, headed by Sergey Brin. AdSearchGoogle would be prohibited for 5 years to favor search results pointing to ServiceGoogle, and that's it.

      Also, Google doesn't have to stop serving them, just stop doing business there.

      Googles business is advertisement. Their services are excuses for showing you advertisement. In this business, these two things are pretty much the same thing.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    48. Re:In an unrelated news item... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Also China is dominated by domestic companies who provide search, cloud services, email, chat and pretty much most of what Google does. It would have been very hard for them to complete, and with the political environment and the US's increasingly hostile position it just didn't make sense to continue.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    49. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the EU is a conglomeration of thugs who makes a lot of their money by suing big companies for free money.

      But, I digress.

      When you consider that the EU is a group of countries, and the US is 1 country, the comparison isn't apples to apples.

      regardless, "biggest market" is an outright lie. and you know it.

      so is "free playing ground for global..." - who, if they were as popular, and had as many "features" as google, would end up being told to break up, too...of which, hopefully they would tell the EU to go fuck themselves, too.

    50. Re: In an unrelated news item... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      There are two European countries that have enough warheads to destroy all towns in America with a population of more than 100,000.

      Want to start a game of chicken?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    51. Re: In an unrelated news item... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      As Greece has only been democratic since 1974 I'd say, yes, corruption affects young democracies.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    52. Re: In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Norway and Switzerland are not EU members, moron.

    53. Re: In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like your narrative about corruption afflicting young democracies. I'll try to remember that, along with sufficient fakelaki, the next time I visit Athens.

      As Greece has only been democratic since 1974 I'd say, yes, corruption affects young democracies.

      Hah... was he really trying to make the claim that because the Greeks practiced primitive form of democracy (which contrary to popular opinion they didn't invent) over two thousand years ago they must be a functioning democracy today?

    54. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same politicians that recently passed legislation to close the Double Irish?

      I guess they weren't being paid enough?

    55. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's the lesser known part of that. the 'forget you' clause.

    56. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Tom · · Score: 1

      and the EU is a conglomeration of thugs who makes a lot of their money by suing big companies for free money.

      If I had a dollar for everytime someone posts these 100% predicatable pieces of hogwash, I'd put Warren Buffet to shame.

      The EU is so crazy corporation-friendly, claiming they're in any way treating corporations badly is like saying the oceans are evil bastards because they're trying to drown all the fish.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    57. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I trust you don't have AIDS till proven.
      That said, I won't have sex with you untill proven you don't.

    58. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no... its just because they've forgotten how to do anything other than buy votes, and attempt to squeeze ever more monies out of people and corporations that have some, although TBH I can't see how this would get them any more cash as it would likely get them even less cash.

      You know, now that I think of it, ARM pretty much has a monopoly on mobile processors. I think that we should consider breaking up ARM.

    59. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're missing the point and so is he. Take a look at those numbers again... free clue think per capita...

    60. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does the EU get money from breaking up Google?

      Also, why do you think the EU - or any country or union of countries - tries to "earn money"? That's not the purpose of a country. The EU is a huge market which functions because it has rules that all companies must follow. Google seems to enjoy making profits of that market and should play by the rules.

    61. Re:In an unrelated news item... by Xest · · Score: 1

      It's also worth pointing out that regardless of China's GDP and population Google still wasn't ever going to make much money there because it would always be second place to indigineous Chinese search like Baidu.

      10% market share in a $20 trillion economy is still going to be far less than 70% in an $18 trillion economy.

      Google never had enough marketshare to care about China and neither was it making much progress in growing it's marketshare there and that's why it was happy to pull out. If Google had 70%+ marketshare in China what's the bet it would've bowed to the demands of the Chinese anyway?

  4. Google also has a plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To give the EU the middle finger.

    1. Re:Google also has a plan by Guppy · · Score: 2

      Practically, the EU branch of their offices needs to be little more than a cubicle with a lawyer and desk.

      But oddly enough, on paper it seems a huge portion of Google "exists" in the EU, legally speaking. As far as revenues and expenses go, a huge portion of Google's revenues and expenses are "generated" there, (specifically, Ireland), thanks to an international tax dodge.

    2. Re:Google also has a plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google has both large European engineering offices and large European datacenters.

  5. The EU Has a Plan To Break Up Google.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the EU. Break out the brown envelopes.

    Problem goes away.

  6. switching search engines has no cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I stopped using Google long ago, and now block all their known IP addresses.

    Is somebody forcing people in the EU to use Google? If they don't want to use it, why don't they just... not? There's no possibility of lock in: you can just point your browser to any search engine you want, and away you go. This isn't a problem that needs government intervention.

    Starve the beast, and it will die.

    1. Re:switching search engines has no cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Switching operating systems has no cost either. You can just download Linux and erase Windows from your hard drive. See where this is going? Unlike the US, Europe is opposed to monopolies even if they don't "abuse" their position. But arguably Google does abuse its position, for example by moving more and more parts from the Android Open Source Project to proprietary Google apps which heavily rely on Google services, and then requiring phone manufacturers to include these apps if they want their phones to be certified. Even Amazon, which wields tremendous power itself, has quite a difficult time establishing an alternative app store and replacing all Google services with their own and convincing app developers to include support for them. IMHO you don't even have to break out the conspiracy theories about Google ranking competitor's products lower than they would place naturally. Google does enough in the open to warrant restrictions on their activities. Whether Europe can do anything about it is a different question.

    2. Re: switching search engines has no cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switching from Windows to Linux is a much larger cost of you value your time. I have used Unix in some form or fashion for nearly 20 years and Linux STILL gives me trouble on a laptop compared to Windows or Mac OS X. Then you also have to learn new tools in a lot of cases.

      Don't get me wrong... I love Linux and use it every day both as my dev box and as a server but there is significant overhead involved in switching OSes.

      Switching search engines is much less of a time sink as long as the engines returned comparable results.

    3. Re:switching search engines has no cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Europe also has an incentive to go after US companies to gain international trade advantages. I suspect that Europe is acting out of less-than-pure self interest here.

    4. Re: switching search engines has no cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's true you can't hold Microsoft accountable for the fact Linux sucks. This door swings both ways people.

    5. Re:switching search engines has no cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the EU only acts upon foreign monopolies, take a look how it treats its former telecommunication monopolies (many of which are still partly owned by their respective countries). Considering the broadband and mobile market situation in the US, you could learn a thing or two from the EU.

    6. Re:switching search engines has no cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they don't want to use it, why don't they just... not?

      You're actually suggesting that people should decide for themselves what services to use? Comrade, I'm concerned about you. Perhaps some time in a glorious Socialist re-education camp would be good for you.

    7. Re:switching search engines has no cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just saying that we, as citizens of the world, should be weary of actions that reek of nationalism.

    8. Re:switching search engines has no cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU is a far less coherent mass than you imply.

    9. Re:switching search engines has no cost by tgv · · Score: 1

      Was somebody forcing people to buy anything from Standard Oil? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    10. Re:switching search engines has no cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, the barriers to otherwise acquiring oil were insurmountable. basically what is not happening here.

    11. Re: switching search engines has no cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is, however, a coherent mess. Coherent in the sense that they're determined to remain a mess.

    12. Re:switching search engines has no cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're stupid beyond belief. You're asking about consumer use of the search engine when the question is how competitors offering other services than search cannot compete on an equal playing field because Google prioritizes its own services in search results. Really, how could you miss that? Is it because you only use the search engine and don't know of anything else and assume that if you don't know or don't understand, then it doesn't matter?

  7. Free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And days ago, we had http://search.slashdot.org/story/14/11/18/1347219/court-rules-googles-search-results-qualify-as-free-speech

    Although, I do say that it probably gives Google an unfair advantage if they list their products before competitors.

    Let's hope the Firefox/Yahoo! thing help provide competition to Google.

    1. Re:Free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could the competitors pay Google the equivalent cost to promote their own products? I'm sure Google knows the opportunity cost for listing their own products.

    2. Re:Free speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure they could and that is exactly the same as Microsoft being paid an opportunity cost when Linux is preinstalled on a PC. But THAT was deemed illegal in italy recently. And we all cheered.

  8. What's so special about Google? by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The EU seems to have a chip on their shoulders about Google. I get it, they're huge and they need to be kept on a leash. But when are we going to see them go after other huge companies abusing their market share? We have Amazon regularly putting full-page ads for their latest electronics right on their front page.

    1. Re:What's so special about Google? by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kept on a leash. Lets be honest here, the ONLY thing that keeps someone from using another competing search engine is nothing at all. The only reason people use Google is because it's better, the minute they stop being better and people will quit using it. I don't consider it much of a monopoly when the barrier to entry is almost nothing.

      I don't particularly like them fronting their own service but again, no one is forcing anyone to use Google. It's not even the default search engine for the predominant desktop system! This appears to be being driven by the German politicians who are bowing to their own content industry to try to force google to give them a piece of their search business.

      I can't help but feel that this entire push is slimy corruption politics typical to Europe where they try to protect local businesses and harm foreign ones using dubious legal means which are often against WTO agreements.

    2. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News from UK about EU = Bullshit. No need to argue, no need to read.

    3. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They go after other companies for antitrust, you just don't hear about it. If you go to their antitrust case search engine and do a search for all antitrust/cartel cases in the last 6 months you will find 8 cases. How many of those 8 cases did you hear about? btw EU is already investigating Amazon over E-Book antitrust.

    4. Re:What's so special about Google? by Tom · · Score: 1

      But when are we going to see them go after other huge companies abusing their market share?

      They do. The anti-trust part of the EU is actually one of the few that's working pretty good. And before the usual stupid comments come running: They go against EU companies as much as against USA companies.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    5. Re:What's so special about Google? by CaptBubba · · Score: 2

      Yeah a lot of it is politics but you have to admit it is very difficult for anyone to get off the ground because whenever anyone comes up with something marginally better, usually for a specialized subject (like say flights), Google puts their own version of the same at the top of the Google search results and effectively attempts to use their current dominance in normal web search to completely eviscerate the newcomer's traffic. A nasty "secret" of the search industry is most people will only hit the first result or so because why click further when "eh close enough" is already there right in front of you?

      You don't have to be forcing customers to use your product to be exhibiting anti-competitive behavior, using your market position to make sure that no other companies can be profitable is just as effective.

    6. Re:What's so special about Google? by Tom · · Score: 0

      I don't consider it much of a monopoly when the barrier to entry is almost nothing.

      If you think the barrier to entry in the search market is low, you should have a talk with Yahoo or MS, both of which have spent a billion or three on what you call "almost nothing". Either they're all idiots, or you're missing something.

      I can't help but feel that this entire push is slimy corruption politics typical to Europe where they try to protect local businesses and harm foreign ones using dubious legal means which are often against WTO agreements.

      But actually a good thing. Of course you'll deny that if you drank too much of the neo-conservative cool-aid, but to any thinking person it's quite clear that the total dominance of a few global superplayers is not beneficial to the market or the people.

      I'll be frank, I despise my government here in Germany and if they all vanished tomorrow and were replaced by monkeys giving random orders, we'd probably be better off. But in a few things, they somehow manage to do the right thing, despite their total lack of competence.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    7. Re:What's so special about Google? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Yea I don't like it either but it's still not a impediment to alternative businesses IMO. Google might control advertising on Google and affiliated sites but they hardly control all advertising. And the most effective advertising is still not on the web, it's local.

      The reason Google dominates these other markets is often their solution is better, easier to use and charges less than competitors. In all their years of dominance they've done one thing continually and that's to drive prices down, not up. As an example Google did massive damage to Amazon's earnings by overnight dropping hosting costs by 90%.

      I guess my main gripe is that there has been no consumer hostile actions by Google (other than privacy). They've not raised prices, they don't refuse competitors advertisements. If they aren't hurting consumers than regulation should be light up until they do. For me it boils down to one simple fact, it's just not difficult for someone to type an alternative URL into a browser. There is nothing at all forcing consumers to Google, if anything they make it easier to leave their ecosystem than their competitors do.

    8. Re:What's so special about Google? by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you think the barrier to entry in the search market is low, you should have a talk with Yahoo or MS, both of which have spent a billion or three on what you call "almost nothing". Either they're all idiots, or you're missing something.

      The only barrier to entry is a good search engine that turns out results people want. It's not that hard, but it's far to easy to want to screw up those results to boost revenue, something yahoo was notorious for. Microsoft's biggest expenses related to search were advertising (such as buying Yahoo's search business) and trying to convince people they could be trusted, so far they've mostly failed at both. Even at that Bing is still not as good at returning results as Google is. Maybe that's because Google's entire company is devoted to search and Yahoo and Microsoft are devoted to other things with search being a second class citizen in the company.

      But actually a good thing. Of course you'll deny that if you drank too much of the neo-conservative cool-aid, but to any thinking person it's quite clear that the total dominance of a few global superplayers is not beneficial to the market or the people.

      You might like putting people in jars but I don't, please don't attempt to classify my political leanings by putting me in a jar, particularly one I despise. The problem with your argument is that the total dominance of Google as you claim could be replaced overnight by people typing a different URL in the bar. There is no barrier to entry other than excellence in search. What I see in search is a very functional and competitive market place. Google messes up once and the lions at their door will eat their market-share in a matter of months. The total lack of barrier's to entry, the ease with which consumers can switch and the fact that prices are falling indicates a healthy free-market, even if one of the players is dominant. All regulations will do in a situation like this is break the functioning market. I'm all for regulating markets, just not doing it to ones that are functioning relatively freely.

      European regulations should be focusing on the edges of the market where Google is trying to manipulate things, such as forcing them to randomize product listing instead of always listing their own first. Or making sure they don't turn their Android system into a vehicle to mobile control (but by all reports Europe has a healthier mobile competition than the US with a functional player in Microsoft). Or even leveraging their android wear or android car to gain control of other markets. Again though the touch should be light, by all accounts these markets are free and functional. Overly heavy regulation is as damaging as no regulation at all.

    9. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't care about business and competition hostile actions until they hurt consumers directly? You are happy to let them form themselves into a benevolent dictator. And when that consumer hostile act does come, the damage is that much greater because we've allowed them to wipe out an entire industry in the process.

      I'm glad you are not in charge.

    10. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google wasn't any better than Yahoo when I first started using it. The only reason I switched was because I liked the (lack of annoying) interface better,

    11. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can even change the default search engine in chrome. They have bing and yahoo in there, twice.

      Admittedly, there probably aren't a lot of user eyes in that area so they aren't going to catch a lot of bugs.

    12. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU seems to have a chip on their shoulders about Google. I get it, they're huge and they need to be kept on a leash.

      But when are we going to see them go after other huge companies abusing their market share? We have Amazon regularly putting full-page ads for their latest electronics right on their front page.

      Answer to you subject: Nothing. Nobody except journalists has mentioned Google. This is in fact a suggestion to make into law a ruling already enforced on Google, so it wouldn't affect Google, but only Google's competitors.

    13. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Special Interests. The EU Comission is on a leash from industry and banks europe wide.
      In the EP European Parliament the same happens...

      German deputy? It's the big german and british companies that don't like no more being in command of people's attention and have arrived late at the internet game...

    14. Re:What's so special about Google? by c · · Score: 1

      but to any thinking person it's quite clear that the total dominance of a few global superplayers is not beneficial to the market or the people.

      I don't entirely disagree, but before they have a go at kicking around Google, there's a whole host of larger corporations with a much longer and broader history of abuse that need a kicking first. That they don't seem to be interested in taking them on suggests that the "benefit of the market or the people" isn't the primary goal behind this little initiative.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    15. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the anti-trust, pro-competition part works so well, then why is Europe dependent on Russian gas to such a degree that it is not possible to impose sanctions? They seem to be "good" at dealing with things that don't really matter...

    16. Re:What's so special about Google? by steelfood · · Score: 2

      Everyone does it. It's called protectionism, and no country is guilt-free. It's a matter of how smartly it's done. This move? Stupid. Picking a fight with Google (or even trash talking, which this really is) is a really dumb idea. Nothing's really going to come out of this, except for maybe a bit of egg on some world leader's face at a Google-hosted party. Toppling democratically-elected regimes in unstable regions? Brilliant. Chances of success are almost a hundred percent, and the trade benefits are tremendous. It's only called bullying if you're caught doing it and nobody's really looking that way anyway.

      My point being, you shouldn't be so surprised political leaders are making lots of patriotic noise. It's what doesn't get into the papers that's the real eye-openers.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    17. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think the barrier to entry in the search market is low, you should have a talk with Yahoo or MS, both of which have spent a billion or three on what you call "almost nothing". Either they're all idiots, or you're missing something.

      The only barrier to entry is a good search engine that turns out results people want. It's not that hard, but it's far to easy to want to screw up those results to boost revenue, something yahoo was notorious for. Microsoft's biggest expenses related to search were advertising (such as buying Yahoo's search business) and trying to convince people they could be trusted, so far they've mostly failed at both. Even at that Bing is still not as good at returning results as Google is. Maybe that's because Google's entire company is devoted to search and Yahoo and Microsoft are devoted to other things with search being a second class citizen in the company.

      It is extremely difficult to turn out results people want. Truly, the only way to be able to determine results people want is by having people using it more and often. At this point, Google has that cornered due simply to momentum. There are companies out there with their primary focus being their search engine, but can barely get a toe in the arena. And it is not due to lack of trying.

    18. Re:What's so special about Google? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      Hogwash.

      What keeps people using Google is that it puts its grubby little search boxes in all the major default locations. Face it, most people use the first text entry field they see, regardless of if it's a search box or not. And when it doesn't respond like they think it should, they say it's broken, rather than accept that they typed words into the wrong textbox.

      Do not confuse ordinary people with the elite here at slashdot. We know which search engine we use, and we know the differences between them. But we're a tiny minority.

      TL;DR summary: Google's success isn't based on quality, it's based on flooding the major entry points for text so that people use them without needing to make a choice.

    19. Re:What's so special about Google? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      And if Google even hesitates or tries to leverage search in a way consumers don't like those very competitors will eat them alive so quickly it would make your head spin.

      If everyone on the planet used duck-duck-go tomorrow and for the rest of the month Google would be in very serious trouble.

    20. Re:What's so special about Google? by walterbyrd · · Score: 3

      > The EU seems to have a chip on their shoulders about Google.

      Because Microsoft pays better. Just business, nothing personal.

      During the OOXML, Microsoft was caught red-handed giving bribes to European officials.

      When somebody sticks it to Microsoft, Microsoft often uses the same tactic against it's competitors. Remember Europe saying MS had a monopoly? A few bribes later, and viola, MS competitors have a monopoly.

      BTW: I think US politicians are even worse.

    21. Re: What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in other words, google was better

    22. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU seems to have a chip on their shoulders about Google.

      There are a lot of old media companies, newspapers, and publishers in Europe. They have political clout not just because they are big corporations, but also because they write about politicians. And they hate Google because Google threatens their livelihood. That's what all this really comes down to.

    23. Re:What's so special about Google? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Truly, the only way to be able to determine results people want is by having people using it more and often.

      But you get diminishing returns. I doubt there's much additional value from a trillion searches over a billion searches, especially once the data gets a bit stale.

    24. Re:What's so special about Google? by Kartu · · Score: 1

      Yet EU isn't after googles dominant position as a search engine.
      It's about google (mis-)using that position to promote other products.

    25. Re:What's so special about Google? by Winchy · · Score: 1

      Duck Duck Go wouldn't be in great shape, either.

    26. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you trying to tell us that Google is such a powerful monopoly that they compelled Microsoft to make Google default search engine for IE which has 50% of the desktop browser market share instead of their own search engine Bing? New releases of Firefox will have Bing/Yahoo the default search engine. If your theory is correct, Bing's market share is about to get significantly higher because most people are too stupid to know what search engine they want to use.

    27. Re:What's so special about Google? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Tell me, do you really believe it is the anti-trust department that decides upon sanctions? If not, why bring up this strawman when my argument was that this department, at least is working nicely? I didn't say other parts of the EU do.
       

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    28. Re:What's so special about Google? by Tom · · Score: 0

      There is no barrier to entry other than excellence in search.

      Your entire argument is based on a false assumption. It's like saying that there's no barrier to entry in the space mining business other than excellence in technology.

      "Excellence in search" is not very easy, and given the Internets size requires a massive infrastructure by itself. In addition, you can have the best search engine in the world, as long as nobody knows about it, it's worthless. And since a large percentage of Internet users are only dimly aware that they're using a search engine when they type some words into the address bar, it's not as easy as you assume it to be.

      All regulations will do in a situation like this is break the functioning market.

      You missed the main part, I figure. Nobody is trying to break up the search market. Anti-trust is all about preventing a dominant player in one market from leveraging its dominance to become a dominant player in other markets where it would not prevail on merits alone.

      The search market, for all this regulation, would be unchanged.

      European regulations should be focusing on the edges of the market where Google is trying to manipulate things, such as forcing them to randomize product listing instead of always listing their own first.

      Great idea!

      Oh, wait...

      That's exactly what they're thinking about.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    29. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's not that hard..."

      You must be a regular here.

    30. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kind of wierd though, aren't most mature industries dominated by a few global superplayers? at what % do oligarchs distribute market share to make it OK with you?

    31. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only barrier to entry...

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      That is, barrier to entry refers to the business, not the consumer.

    32. Re:What's so special about Google? by bingoUV · · Score: 2

      I hear this a lot but I don't see this. I search Google by famous stock ticker names, and I always get Yahoo finance results as the top result. Google finance is 3rd or later, second is either "advice" from bloomberg or the company's own website.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    33. Re:What's so special about Google? by bingoUV · · Score: 2

      I had heard of poor reading comprehension, but not understanding your own statement? You take the cake. Look, "barrier to entry" doesn't matter to Microsoft and Yahoo - they have already entered. What you are referring to while calling it "barrier to entry" is actually "barrier to becoming the top player".

      Free market does NOT depend on this being low, nor does a free market cause it to be low. This barrier being low does a world of bad for everyone.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    34. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you get diminishing returns. I doubt there's much additional value from a trillion searches over a billion searches, especially once the data gets a bit stale.

      Diminishing returns comes quickly if only a subset of people are using the search engine. The more variety of people using the search engine, the longer it takes to get to that point. As for the stale part, I believe that is covered by the "and often" part of the GP.

    35. Re:What's so special about Google? by Tom · · Score: 1

      What you are referring to while calling it "barrier to entry" is actually "barrier to becoming the top player".

      You failed telepathy class, I assume?

      No, I meant barrier to entry. You may think that if you put up a website on a free webhosting site that returns results from that MySQL database your single-threaded Perl crawler is filling, you've somehow entered the search market, but I'm pretty sure everyone who's stopped laughing will explain that's not what entering a market means.

      You've not entered the furniture megastore market either when you're selling your old sofa on ebay, you know?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    36. Re:What's so special about Google? by Xest · · Score: 1

      I wondered the same thing for a long while, why Google when it's not even close to the worst tech offender? See my post here for an answer:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

      Long story short? Lobbying by a combination of the likes of Microsoft and News International.

      Of all the things Microsoft gets slagged off for one of the worst things it does is often ignored here and that's the amount of lobbying it engaged in within the EU. Have a Google for Microsoft EU lobbying to see how big a problem it is.

      I tend not to hate either Google or Microsoft, I like a lot of what Google does and I think Microsoft has improved a lot, but Microsoft's EU lobbying is one of those things that really concerns me (just as Google's increased lobbying against the European Data Protection Directive does).

    37. Re:What's so special about Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because there's a difference between providing a service (interweb searches; mobile phones etc) and a supplier of raw materials when no local supply can meet the demand?

    38. Re:What's so special about Google? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Which dictionary do you use which defines "entered" as "become top player"? FYI Microsoft's search engine is neither single threaded, nor Perl, not on MySQL either. Triple fail.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    39. Re:What's so special about Google? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Troll someone else. Your first sentence I just debunked, no need to repeat the effort. Your 2nd sentence is proving my point - MS spent tons of money, they're a great example for the barrier being quite high. Your 3rd sentence is self-referential.

      It's a good troll posting, actually, when I think of it. At first glance it seems just completely stupid, but looking more closely reveals a few nice gems that make it clear it was crafted as a joke on itself. Well done. I'm taking back my 1st sentence, high-quality trolling is rare these days.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    40. Re:What's so special about Google? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Nice move - you've been proved wrong so cry "troll!!". Go to mommy.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    41. Re:What's so special about Google? by Tom · · Score: 1

      Not everyone here is 12 years old and still lives with his mother. :-)

      I was wrong. Do go troll elsewhere. EOT.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    42. Re:What's so special about Google? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      I know, just you behave like a 6 year old that should live with someone motherly.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  9. More likely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are google's plans to break up the EU.

  10. Standards by NotInHere · · Score: 1

    A company should be abled to offer any services they want, but they should have to make sure they don't create lock-ins, eg through their own proprietary standards. If whattsapp users could communicate with skype chat users, we'd get rid of lots of problems. Its like with energy. There are lots of devices, but they all work with one energy grid, at least with the EU connector. And still, there are only a few large energy companies running most of the power plants. But when I have to buy new devices the moment I switch the energy company, I think twice before the switch.

    1. Re:Standards by eht · · Score: 2

      And Google is happy to let you take your data out of them.

      https://www.google.com/setting...

      Want out of the Google experience? Here is all your data available to take to your new service.

      I can not think of another company that offers anything remotely similar to this.

    2. Re:Standards by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Fantastic link.

      They have 2.36GB of data on me.

      At least this is reassuring...

      "It may take some time before it is ready to download. Don't worry, we'll email you when it's ready."

      I'm not sure how to respond, as well as process the data load.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    3. Re:Standards by swillden · · Score: 1

      Fantastic link.

      They have 2.36GB of data on me.

      At least this is reassuring...

      "It may take some time before it is ready to download. Don't worry, we'll email you when it's ready."

      I'm not sure how to respond, as well as process the data load.

      How much of that is your Gmail?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a shame I have to be logged in to use that. Google can easily track people without needing the silly mess of logging in, so what about all that data they collect while I am not logged in? Or only logged in though my e-mail client?

    5. Re:Standards by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Google Drive / Google Docs are all included in that too.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  11. Why does Europe use Google? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

    they should create their own GNU/Linux search engine, maybe out of Finland. Surely they'd be good at it.

    1. Re:Why does Europe use Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe did create their own search engine. It's called Quaero. Ironically enough, I had to Google that.

  12. EU is getting too powerful by DavenH · · Score: 5, Funny

    Time to break the EU into several different countries.

    1. Re:EU is getting too powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vote parent up...

    2. Re:EU is getting too powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More chance of that happening to the US and yes I get the joke.

    3. Re:EU is getting too powerful by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Time to break the EU into several different countries.

      According the Pew institute study, this is what the People of EU member states want. We also have the 2005 referendums in France and Netherlands that told us People had enough of this mess. That votes have been ignored.

      Give us democracy, break up the EU!

    4. Re:EU is getting too powerful by Shakrai · · Score: 2

      That's because the EU is really an economic concern trying to masquerade as a country. It originally started as the European Coal and Steel Community. It has always been about economics. A handful of rich and powerful countries benefit from a common market and currency. Countries that would probably be better off outside of the Eurozone won't leave it because the rich and powerful therein benefit. Well monied interests calling the shots is hardly a uniquely American phenomenon.

      Europe won't truly unite absent some sort of external and existential threat. It took such a threat to unify the United States back in the day and the American colonies had a shared culture, language, and no history of going to war with one another. Even at that there was a rather bloody Civil War and regional tensions that still simmer to this day...

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:EU is getting too powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are too short-sighted to see the potential for tremendous economic benefit this can (does?) bring. Free trade is nothing to sneeze at. But bigotry supecedes all other considerations, as always.

    6. Re:EU is getting too powerful by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Yes, but are those economic benefits worth the loss of sovereignty? Why should people in the UK or France be forced to live by rules determined by the people of Germany (or any other nation)?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    7. Re:EU is getting too powerful by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      We also have the 2005 referendums in France and Netherlands that told us People had enough of this mess

      Don't be an idiot.
      1. Those referendums said no such thing. They were about accepting a set of laws under the name 'European Constitution'. Most of the people who voted didn't have a fucking clue what any of the laws were and didn't want to know. They just collectively wanted to vent their nostalgic love for their old currencies and similar hatred for the newfangled Euro.
      2. It is not a mess. It's doing great and improving every day. You haven't the faintest clue what an ineffective and internationally unattractive clusterfuck Europe would have been without the EEC and the EU.
      3. Representative democracy. There is a reason for the existence of specialization and that reason is efficiency.
      I really feel for many of the good politicians: they work their ass off to understand the material to be able to make tough decisions and then literally millions of fuckwits who have no idea about any part of their job or the subject matter come along and bitch at them, tell them they should do it differently and to generally go fuck themselves.

      Honestly, imagine the second dumbest idiot you know who has no idea what the fuck your job is about, let him abuse you, tell you how to do your job and then just smile and say you're doing your best.
      Relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/793/

    8. Re:EU is getting too powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Norway. Like the UK, the follow the rules of Brussels. Unlike the UK, there are no Norwegian MEP. That's the price they pay for unlimited access to the EU market. The really intriguing question is why so many Brits want to give up their influence in Brussels. The City will be gutted if the Brits lose access to the European market, so leaving the EU will mean massive concessions to the EU.

    9. Re:EU is getting too powerful by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but are those economic benefits worth the loss of sovereignty?

      What economic benefits? You are aware that EU economical policy managed to bring recession to the whole continent, right? Germany included. And since EU economical rules are hardcoded in treaties, People of the EU cannot even use their vote to fix it.

      On the log term, compare the historical period of eurozone versus 1945-1975. Some EU countries did much better without the EU than with it.

  13. too sucessful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think it is wise for governments to determine the success of a business.
    Google has done this by itself. Nobody should be able to take that away from them.

  14. Simple solution Google will implement... by Isca · · Score: 1

    They'll drop all free services to users. No gmail. No News. No sites. No european developers allowed on the Play store in europe.

    1. Re:Simple solution Google will implement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, please. Mutual agreement is always nice. Google withdrawing from the European market is a bit more thorough than the EU had in mind, but I don't think the EU would oppose it.

  15. EU is getting too powerful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent idea. That will make it easier to sink them each into the Atlantic Ocean.

  16. If Google happens to be an EU corporation ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0, Troll

    If Google is an EU corporation EU will not do _anything_ to Google

    EU doesn't care if Google is a monopoly or not - they only use "monopoly" as an excuse to do what they do

    What EU really wants to achieve is to break America, starting by breaking American corporations, corporations such as Google

    And if they can do Google in, Apple will be next

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:If Google happens to be an EU corporation ... by johnjaydk · · Score: 2

      What EU really wants to achieve is to break America ...

      Nice conspiracy theory but we can't even get along internally over here. Herding all the cats into a unified, secret attack on the US would require a coordinated act by several deities.

      I'm afraid any break up is self inflicted. The US is already even more fractured than EU.

      --
      TCAP-Abort
    2. Re:If Google happens to be an EU corporation ... by Puls4r · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's where you're wrong. Americans hate each other. We treat each other like crap. Here's the thing though: anytime ANYONE not from another country tries to fuck with us we immediately band together. We may not get a long, but we have a nationalistic streak a mile wide.

    3. Re:If Google happens to be an EU corporation ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what you're talking about. The USA is a single country and the only divide is the Democrat/Republican one with lots of unrepresented fringe parties.

    4. Re:If Google happens to be an EU corporation ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not convinced that this is being done because of anti-American sentiment per se; I think the EU has simply gone so far down the path of progressive and politically correct thought that they're unable to deal with success. Deep down they're envious, but instead of creating a better product, they're more interested in using social pressures and legislative hacks to coerce companies as a form of wealth redistribution and whatnot.

      It's a typical progressive socialist response. They cannot compete; instead of building up, they use the power of the government to tear down. Instead of looking around for alternatives (and there are many - browsers, advertising, search, email), they'd rather attack the big successful person because it's easy.

    5. Re:If Google happens to be an EU corporation ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I believe the same. But it's not only a European thing, left wing politics are on the raise everywhere. Same was the case with Internet Explorer. US leads, EU just follows.

  17. Never happen by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

    No way anyone can win the argument that Google has a monopoly of any sort. Having a monster market share is only because they rose above their many many many competitors.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
    1. Re:Never happen by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Monster market share == Monopoly

    2. Re:Never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now that they are there, it is easy to STAY there. Without actually doing anything worthy of staying there. This is how monopolies are born.

    3. Re:Never happen by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Oh look, someone on Slashdot who has absolutely no knowledge of economics, but thinks they do. You hardly ever see that.

    4. Re:Never happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pot, meet kettle...

    5. Re:Never happen by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, people said that about Yahoo! and AOL as well. Now most people barely remember that they exist.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    6. Re:Never happen by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Oh please, wise Ralph [Wiggum], do share your definition of "monopoly" that deviates so much from the 90%-96% Google has in Europe.

  18. Stupid is as stupid does. by Cammi · · Score: 1

    So ... you get popular and a corrupt government will try to split you up .. must suck being good (or in this case, BAD).

  19. Long overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Large companies should definitely not be allowed to develop the power and control that google has developed - particular with the kind of close relations google has with the ruling junta in Washington, which has a strong reputation for serious human rights violations. This is long overdue action against this virtual monopoly. I hope we can see similar action on operating systems, where it is quite clear that Microsoft should have a competitor shipping a compatible system. I really hope there won't be any kind of corrupt political compromise this time, as happened with the previous Microsoft issue, where Microsoft survived virtually unscathed, despite demonstrated criminality.

  20. I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go and Ogle?

  21. All these search terms are yours, except "Europe" by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    I would like to see Google go into direct competition with the EU. Incorporate as a sovereign nation within Silicon Valley, in the same way as Vatican City. Issue its own currency. Build California a nice set of high-speed trains. Everybody wins.

  22. Does it matter? by trippytom · · Score: 1

    Google only has one line of business, and that is advertising. Try as they might, they can't seem to find much revenue elsewhere. Eventually all one trick ponies meet the same fate.

    http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/...

    1. Re:Does it matter? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Coca-Cola only has one line of business, and that is soft drinks. Eventually all one trick ponies meet the same fate.

      Yeah. Right. Um.

  23. All your data belongs to us! by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    I'm going to put on my tinfoil hat here.

    When the big boys don't get to play with the toys of the other big boys, then it's time for the boys to become men and show some muscles. This is all a dance, play with us (aka give us access to that wonderful database that knows everything about every individual out there) and we'll leave you alone.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  24. Wont They Die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google makes almost all of its money through ads. Can the other products survive by themselves? They won't have the detailed user profiles that provide the data for 'better' targeted ads, thus leading to a reduced ad income.

    I think a better solution would be for Google to put all it's related results into a side bar or something. Saying here's the general Internet results and here's all the things we do related to that. Actually, that would probably benefit Google more, but it would keep things separate.

    1. Re:Wont They Die? by AaronW · · Score: 1

      They also are making a fair amount of revenue selling services. For example, my employer had so many problems with Microsoft Sharepoint that they switched to Google Drive. I use both Google and Microsoft's services. Microsoft's (at least Email) leaves a lot to be desired.

      Google is also in the transaction business like Paypal and Amazon as well as hosting services.

      For another organization I'm looking into Google services now to handle documents and email.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  25. Good by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

    It's about time. Google has become the de facto gatekeeper for the web and have no real competition. That makes Google a problem.

    Also hahaha at the people saying Europe should be blacklisted, in other news, Google just lost access to a market of a half billion wealthy consumers.

  26. EU is getting Lame by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    The EU thinks too much of themselves. Google is not an EU company. The EU doesn't have any control over Google. If the EU doesn't watch out Google may buy the EU and put them down, discontinuing them in an end of life product cycle as they've done with some other annoying things. Bugs get squashed.

    1. Re:EU is getting Lame by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      With that amount of bullshit flying out of your figurative mouth, you could fertilize a whole field.

    2. Re:EU is getting Lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One more cussing know nothing jabbering away at his keyboard. Please stop drooling eric.

    3. Re:EU is getting Lame by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Google is not an EU company. The EU doesn't have any control over Google.

      They have control over any company that wants to do business in the EU. They can't directly break them up, but they can give them an ultimatum - "form a separate company to run your EU search business, or we will ban you from doing business within the EU". Or something like that. My example is probably overly simplistic and naive as I'm not an expert on international trade law, but just because they are incorporated in the US does not render the EU entirely toothless.

  27. Sure thing by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me know when the EU get's around to slapping Apple for browser bundling and not providing an install screen to select alternatives.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Sure thing by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think you understand what a monopoly is, or how antitrust works. Hint: simply bundling applications is not an antitrust violation.

    2. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let me know when the EU get's around to slapping Apple for browser bundling and not providing an install screen to select alternatives.

      The IE case had a lot more nuances. That Microsoft started to fling bullshit early in the investigation (IE.exe and the link to it are a core component of Windows) and has a history of dishonest ( IIRC the original IE code base was licensed for a share of the profit of selling it - 0$ ) and monopolistic misbehaviour ( if DOS_VERSION != MSDOS : print weird error) certainly didn't do them any favours. Nor did it help that they practically killed the browser marked back when they included IE for "free".

    3. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he doesn't. Samsung doesn't pay people to be smart, it pays them to troll apple on slashdot.

    4. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand how it works either. Hint: Having a zero barrier to entry is not an antitrust violation.

    5. Re:Sure thing by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Apple don't have a monopoly, so they can't be accused of using one monopoly to gain another.

    6. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint: simply bundling applications is not an antitrust violation

      It isn't?

    7. Re:Sure thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't they go after Microsoft for doing exactly that a while ago?

  28. EU citisens are skeptic too by xonen · · Score: 3, Informative

    As EU citizen, i can only say this is received with a lot of skepticism here too. And the usual anti-EU sentiment.

    While i'm pretty `pro-EU`, i indeed think this is bullshit. Yes, Google has some sort of monopoly, however, monopolies are only a problem when abused. I don't see that abuse part. Also, there are plenty alternatives, however, Google is the biggest simply because they are the best at what they do. For them it's core business. For MS and Yahoo it's not their core business.

    Anyways. it will blow over i guess. They prefer to launch this kind of bullshit ideas instead of worrying the things they really should worry about; like unemployment rates, poverty, eastern relationships, etc etc.

    --
    A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
    1. Re:EU citisens are skeptic too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of eastern relationships: Maybe the anti-monopoly commisioners should have done something about the dependence on russian gas, which is a monopoly that really matters.

    2. Re:EU citisens are skeptic too by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The main problem that the EU has with Google is that it promotes its own services above everyone else's, making it very hard to compete with them. They proposed fairer search results but Google hasn't implemented them, so now they are talking about forcing the issue.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:EU citisens are skeptic too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there is the fact Amazon can't go to Sony, HTC, Nokia, (Certainly the Microsoft owned part, possibly the bit that actually still is Nokia - although this depends on how much Nokia wants to use their own mapping service) Motorola, Panasonic, Samsung, Kyocera, LG, Alcatel, Huawei or Asus to make their Amazon Fire, lest the companies in question won't be allowed to bundle the Google Android apps. (Amazon don't have the greatest of histories in this department, though...)

      But yes, there are *far* more important things to worry about.

    4. Re:EU citisens are skeptic too by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Citation really needed. I reject that integration is "promoting above everybody else". They're trying to provide the most relevant answers to their users, when they can. If you want to go off and do your own thing, the regular results aren't even below the fold! Try "sfo to jfk", which is clearly looking for specific flights - Google has a little box telling you the flights you can take, but immediately below that is a link to Kayak.com (for me). If you search the more generic "flights", there's a small widget indicating that you could've just searched the flight, but the first actual result is Kayak. I should note that the flight search stuff has a huge "Sponsored" text on it - if you don't want to use it, they could hardly make it easier to avoid especially since people are so hardwired to drill in on Google's real results. And if you do want to use it... well, what's the big deal? If somebody's literally just clicking on the first result anyway, and now they don't have to, that's a pretty mercurial and weak preference - would you say that a subtle algorithm change that happened to switch the first and second result was also worth breaking up the company? That's probably more damaging than Google launching its own thing. I imagine a lot of people skip right over the whole top block of "non-organic" results due to years of practice with the ads, but they still click the first organic result.

      Let's use a less commercial example. Try searching for "triangle calculator" or "RFK mother" or "range of a cessna 172" or "how many bees are in a pound". They're obviously just trying to provide faster answers when they understand your query enough to do so. Do you really think they want to make money selling airline tickets? Or are they trying to put "ostermiller.org/calc/triangle.html" out of business as well?

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  29. Good luck with that EU by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No seriously... try it. All your bitching and moaning accomplished with MS was a decades long circle jerk. Exactly what do you think is going to happen if you try this with google?

    They'll appeal... and then appeal the appeal... and so on... and when we all die of old age they'll still be appealing and screwing you around until no one even remembers what it was about anymore.

    Here is the brass tacks... The EU sees a big rich american company doing business in the EU and they're not paying EU taxes. So they're going to fuck around with it until they figure out how to get money from it.

    personally, I think Hungry had the right idea... just tax bandwidth... do I ACTUALLY think that is a good idea? no, it is retarded. But it would neatly remove the idiots in government that see everyone making money without paying them as a problem.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Good luck with that EU by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

      The EU sees a big rich american company doing business in the EU and they're not paying EU taxes.

      On the plus side, those companies are not paying taxes in the US either.

    2. Re:Good luck with that EU by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Here is the brass tacks... The EU sees a big rich american company doing business in the EU and they're not paying EU taxes. So they're going to fuck around with it until they figure out how to get money from it.

      Actually, seems to me Google was paying taxes in EU:
      http://www.latimes.com/busines...
      http://www.businessweek.com/ma...

      I don't know where their taxes will be going next.

      Or dot you think Ireland is not a EU-country ?:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    3. Re:Good luck with that EU by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      It is an EU shake down. We've seen it before and if you read what the europeans are saying about Google in their press it is clear they are looking for any excuse to push google out.

      I'm fine with that. Simply put an easily bypass-able block between Google and the EU. Something along the lines of a notice "sorry, due to EU regulations Google is blocked in your country."...

      The point being to piss people off enough that they politically lynch the stupid EU committee causing the problem and then you restore service.

      The fact of the matter is that the EU doesn't have a competitive alternative and thus has a poor bargaining position. They might be able to pass regulations or levy taxes or whatever. But at the end of the day, their people want google more then they want those taxes. And so there should be some way to leverage that to undermine any attempt to roll google back.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    4. Re:Good luck with that EU by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      I understood that Google pays their taxes in Ireland, just like Microsoft, Facebook, and many others, I guess that makes them EU companies, so what's your point?

    5. Re:Good luck with that EU by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Look at what Hungry tried. That is my point. Note the pattern. Read european union officials on the issue.

      This is about protectionism and money.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  30. To what end? by JerryLove · · Score: 1

    For one thing: Will they outlaw "all the rest" from making their own search engine? They could even hire "Google" as the back end.

    Plus: this doesn't seem to be a monopoly break up (Google is not a monopoly according to Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, whatever apple defaults to, etc); but it does seem designed to put Google at a competitive disadvantage to Yahoo and Microsoft who offer pretty much all the same services as well as search.

  31. We really need more ladies here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is just too much dick measuring going on here.

    Let's have a fun topic of discussion like "What would happen if Google just shut down all systems right now.?"

    It scares the shit out of me to even consider it

  32. Google Acquires the EU by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

    Google announced yesterday the acquisition of the EU and has stated that intends to rollout a new service called Haven.EU that will allow companies to incorporate with this new Google service to evade US corporate income taxes all together.

  33. hum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is a U.S based company, EU has no jurisdiction over U.S and as usual EU screaming monopoly when in fact you have other search engines available and don't blame google because these other search engines suck. The problem with EU and like so many democrats who behave like communists in the U.S is that they cry foul every time a company becomes #1 because they are good at what they do. Look it how people bitched about MS Windows when it became #1 in the industry and yet nobody wanted to step up they just bitched and cried foul. Unix was never for the desktop in other words for the average joe, nobody knew what linux was, and apple was too damn expensive.

  34. EU parliament power by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    Yet another non binding resolution from EU parliament. This is a fake parliament: if cannot start a EU directive and does not decide on the budget.

    1. Re:EU parliament power by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yet another non binding resolution from EU parliament. This is a fake parliament: if cannot start a EU directive and does not decide on the budget.

      Never let fact get in the way of a good group naval gazing session.

    2. Re:EU parliament power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naval gazing? Is that like a fleet review?

  35. This isn't Soviet Russia by skaag · · Score: 1

    First, the EU is a joke. But even if it wasn't, who are they to tell a company not to favor its own products? It is a socialist agenda, and goes against the very core of capitalism.

    They can't claim it's anti competitive, there are still a lot of search engines out there. If they did as good a job as Google, maybe customers would have used them more. The fact is that Bing is also popular enough, and there are a few other search engines that are slowly gaining in popularity.

    --

    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...

  36. How and why? by iamacat · · Score: 1

    They can "plan" and "call for" all they want, but EU has no authority over a US company and banning it from doing business would violate trade treaties. They can certainly set rules for doing business that apply equally to all foreign and domestic players. Why don't they focus on that instead of useless and inflammatory rhetoric? It seems that Europe has it's own tea party.

    As to "why" part, where is the lock in? All major browsers including Chrome support a choice of search engines. Internet Explorer has Bing as default and soon Firefox will default to Yahoo. It sounds like EU government wants to put interests of its own big businesses over personal choices of ordinary citizens. Again, same as US, but so sad.

  37. Google doesn't dominate the search market... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the people that use Google that give it dominance. Google's supposed dominance is the choice of the people the world over, so go fuck yourselves you stupid incompetent EU hacks, just fuck off and die.

  38. american company by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    They're an American company so Europe can eat a big bucket of stfu.

    1. Re:american company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Google can fuck off back to the land of the chicken shit and scared. I'm sure somebody somewhere in the EU would step up to take their slice of the web advertising pie.

  39. Google doesn't have a monopoly on ANYTHING. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong. Windows Phones still suck and are infinity years behind Android phones.

  40. DO NOT WANT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like my Google just the way it is. Anti-competitive implies an outcome which negatively impacts the general public. I am not negatively effected.

  41. They let mickeysoft get away with shit for years.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dim wits over at the EU let mickeysoft get away with shit for *YEARS* freakin *YEARS* bundling the O/S with web browser, bundling the O/S with applications, even the stupid brainless adoption of msxml as an ISO standard (a standard that mickeysoft can't even follow), yet the pulpheads over at the EU let them get away with all and sundry. Google comes along and just does business straightforward, and they try to break them up. WTF!?!?! Are they fucking morons? Are they that mentally retarded? Are they paid off by mickeysoft for doing this (the last would come as absolutely no surprise). Absurd. Absolutely freaking absurd.

  42. ABT BREAK UP THE EU ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europe is JUST ABOUT READY TO EXPLODE since the unemplyement is 13 to 25% and MASSIVE social unrest is brewing for religious and political reasons...

    a "country" which treats it scitizens so callously like in Greece AND has a UNELECTED "president" mired in COLOSSAL TAX EVASION schemes like Cloude Juncker is just not going to last long...

    IT IS VERY PECULIAR that from a "country" so rocked by COLOSSAL social, tax and political problems we get lessons on "behavior".... just IGNORE them

    very soon THERE WILL NOT BE a EU to wast time on...

  43. The EU's Quaero by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    Isn't it supposed to be the Google-killer?

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  44. Corruption in its purest form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some could think it quaint that the EU 'parliament' propose to break up Google but has no such plans for Microsoft.

    But when you consider, that the bulk of the parliament stems from countries with abundant corruption - like for instance Rumania, Italy, France, Spain, Greece etc. it all makes perfect sense.

    No sensible person will have any doubts that this is born and funded out of Redmond.

  45. A political tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is also a political tool, weapon, and asset, to the U.S government, so it makes sense for the EU to go at it, and they should.

  46. Wait by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

    Where were these assclowns 10 years ago when Microsoft was actively doing evil (and relevant)?

  47. The EU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The EU should break up Microsoft

  48. Brussels Hotels Win by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    So will the local manufacturers of brown paper bags.
    Google and Bing lose.

    You'll (/.) work it out - eventually. (hint: another EU backhander bidding war - that'll continue until MS runs out of money they can't take back to the US).

  49. As usual by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    They just want as much lobby money from Goggle as they receive from the competition.

    1. Re:As usual by Shados · · Score: 1

      They're going to blissfully type to each other on their iphone to tell each other how to get as much money from Google :)

  50. I can't blame them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd also wish they could go after other companies who have grown so large and monolithic that they're too big to fail. Honestly it seems American's can't check capitalism anymore properly because our elected officials are bought and paid for by dirty political money that got legalized. If it takes the EU to pull a Teddy Roosevelt on American companies then I say good on them and keep up the good work we can't do ourselves.

  51. How about breaking up the EU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about breaking up the anti-competitive cartel of governments that calls itself the EU? Everything they accuse Google, Microsoft, and anyone else of, they are worse. How about breaking up the OECD that attacks anyone that undercuts them ("Harmful Tax Competition"... bwhahahha)?

  52. Typical euroweenies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can't compete (all the mostly French-backed efforts to build a "European Google" have been expensive failures) so they try and throw their puny weight around. When are they going to realize their glory days have long since passed and won't ever come back? Pathetic.

  53. So, let's say Google search was split by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least for the EU for instance - Search was split from Advertising/Mail/etc. Perhaps the Google Search could earn money by charging people for getting listed in their index. They could start with Spanish and German newspapers for instance.

  54. Just Outlaw Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China doesn't have any problems with this. They banned google in their country.

  55. Long overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The EU should definitely not be allowed to develop the power and control that it has developed - particular with the kind of close relations the EU has with the ruling junta in Germany, which has a strong reputation for serious human rights violations. It is long overdue to take action against its virtual monopoly on European nations.

  56. does MS have their hand in the cookie jar again? by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

    Lets see... If you don't want your windows broken from them hoodlums you need to pay Guido just $100 a week.

    How is it MS gets away with murder and everyone else gets kicked in the junk?

    --
    Your Average Joe
  57. What about the EU? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Last I knew they weren't even an official entity. The member states didn't agree via a vote to make them a legal entity. Maybe those votes in the 2000s didn't matter after all? I remember France rejected it, so did others.

  58. Obvious solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Require Google to use Bing's search engine, as well as office 365 instead of Google Docs, and Hotmail instead of Gmail.
    Their market share would plummet and the consumer would be ... oh, wait, the idea was to give consumers good service, and Google's doing that and the rest of them are third rate.

    Where Google is gaining market share by abusing their current position through anti-competitive practices, act against them.

    Google gives good service in exchange for what they get. That is why people use them. The competitors seem to be interested in locking me in by making it hard to escape (MS's favorite method). Google keeps me because their service is better than their competitors. The second it isn't, I leave.

  59. Is it to promote by NewYork · · Score: 1
  60. WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What good do they expect will come of this?