Slashdot Mirror


EU To Hit Google With Antitrust Charges

Bruce66423 sends news that the European Union has decided to hit Google with antitrust charges that could lead to fines of over $6 billion. The EU has been investigating Google for five years now. "The European Commission has highlighted four main areas of concern in its investigation: potential bias in Google’s search results, scraping content from rival websites, agreements with advertisers that may exclude rival search-advertising services and contracts that limit marketers from using other platforms." They're also keeping an eye on Android-related business practices.

18 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. This sh*t again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    It's their product, they can do whatever they want with it. Don't like it? Use something else. It's not like you are forced to use Google services. A real antitrust would be if they did backdoor deals to make sure products from the competition were subpar. But with Bing and Yahoo being the main competitor, they don't really need to do anything, do they. Because who in the right mind would use those awful services that never return the right results.

    1. Re:This sh*t again? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The bigger problem is not for people who use the engine to find things, it's for owners of things to be found. When a single search engine has 90% of all traffic, whether your business shows up in its search results or not, and if it does, then how high relative to its competitors, can easily become the single biggest determinant of your success. If such placement is not fair (whatever that means), there is an issue.

      You sound like a laissez-faire unregulated market proponent, so let me put it this way. Such markets, presumably, work fine when all actors are rational and base their decisions on facts. When a single company becomes in charge of delivering those facts, to the extent that most people implicitly trust them, it becomes trivial for it to skew the market by selectively withholding facts or downplaying their relevance.

    2. Re:This sh*t again? by sg_oneill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Antitrust isn't really about consumers (although arguable it is ultimately) but about making sure the free market is both a market and free.

      When the entire industry is subject to a single companies whim, then its a bad thing. Microsofts anticompetitive practices in the 90s and early 2000s held the IT industry back years, because web browsers stop being competitive and for the web industry that meant we where stuck with a bloody awful lowest common denominator (ie6) for nearly a decade. At least until EU sanctions gave firefox a fighting chance, and web browsers had to compete again and we saw real innovation finally.

      Wheres the innovation in searching, when the only engine one needs to care about is google. Wheres the innovation in content, when the only rule in web presence is "does googles algorithm like it". One company holds millions of IT workers fates in their hands, and thats not safe and its not a free market, just a market.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    3. Re:This sh*t again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's their product, they can do whatever they want with it. Don't like it? Use something else. It's not like you are forced to use Google services.

      It's the EUs market, they can do whatever they want with it. Don't like it? Go somewhere else.

    4. Re:This sh*t again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you are going to make the claim that the EU Microsoft Anti-Trust penalties were responsible for the popularity of other browsers, your going to need to support it. The EU ruling / measures had almost no impact on the use of Mozilla/Opera. What I remember from the time was that the only real result was to help curtail the bullying of system builders, and of course a nice influx of cash for the EU.

  2. from the don't-be-too-good-at-what-you-do dept. by Crashmarik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pretty much captures it. You can also go, with Politicians: They don't care why they'll take your shit anyway, Or "Google didn't bribe enough people in the EU"

  3. No they can't ignore consumer protections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's their product, they can do whatever they want with it.

    No they can't. I know it's hard for Americans with company worship to understand, but companies are held to account for their actions in the EU, and EU consumer laws have the express purpose of limiting the abuse of consumers by sociopathic profit-seekers. Anti-trust is part of that, because anti-competitive behavior screws other companies that are behaving responsibly. The relevant example here is consumer data protection which Google despises.

    Don't like it? Use something else.

    Sorry, but that's not how it works here. If companies don't want to be a part of EU consumer-friendly civilization, they can go wreak their havoc elsewhere. Here companies are expected to serve the public good, not just seek profit without rules nor accountability.

    1. Re:No they can't ignore consumer protections by linnsey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's very easy to go to a different search engine. We all know who they are, there's no discovery cost. There's no physical cost, and it's not time consuming. There's no captive audience. It's not possible to force users to use google for search. What Google is being criticized for here is linking to Google maps, shopping and other search products without also providing links to competitors. wtf? If I want to read Yelp, I'll go to yelp.com

    2. Re:No they can't ignore consumer protections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's very easy to go to a different search engine. We all know who they are, there's no discovery cost. There's no physical cost, and it's not time consuming. There's no captive audience. It's not possible to force users to use google for search. What Google is being criticized for here is linking to Google maps, shopping and other search products without also providing links to competitors. wtf? If I want to read Yelp, I'll go to yelp.com

      I know many don't bother to read the articles before posting, but didn't you read the summary either? Not a single thing of what you write here is relevant to what this EU case is about (hint: the case is about Google business practices).

    3. Re:No they can't ignore consumer protections by Sir_Substance · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >It's very easy to go to a different search engine.

      Says the woman posting from google plus. Have you actually tried avoiding google?

      Because I have. I try to force google out of every aspect of my life, and it's like fighting a hydra. Do you have any idea how many websites use googles pre-made scripts to run the most basic functions of their websites? Block them and 20% of websites instantly stop working.

    4. Re:No they can't ignore consumer protections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Block them and 20% of websites instantly stop working.

      You're talking about google hosted javascript libraries which is a FREE service google offers that speeds up site loading because the files are most likely already cached. They are common libraries used by many independent creators. They aren't "Google Scripts" and you're ignorance leads you to make incorrect assumptions.

  4. Re:Singled out? by diamondmagic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You wouldn't say Apple has as strong or a stronger hold on the music and mobile phone markets? There's plenty of adequate competition for search engines.

    If nobody else even knows about alternative search engines, you can't really hold Google liable for that, can you?

  5. Those who can - do. by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Those who cannot do - sue.

    The entire premise of 'anti-trust' coming from a government, ANY government is laughable in every possible way. The only real monopolies that can abuse power are created by governments and it is government power that is abused by them, as for Google and other companies that compete among each other and may become dominant (for some time) in a market - this is due to the choice of the clients, who collectively vote for that company to be in a more dominant position at that time.

  6. People are tribal even when they don't realize it. by Nutria · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As soon as I read the headline, I hoped that Google would beat the EU. It took effort to remember the Microsoft anti-trust case of 25 years ago, and how -- for many of the same issues -- I wanted the DOJ to grind MS into the dust.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  7. Re:People are tribal even when they don't realize by linnsey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You couldn't buy a computer (and still can't) without Windows. You couldn't uninstall IE. Windows was actively preventing users from using competitor's products, and it was costly and time consuming to do so. Google is in trouble for not sufficiently advertising competing products. There's no barrier for entry to use bing instead of Google, or amazon instead of google shopping.

  8. Google is not a monopoly. by linearZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All one has to do to use another search engine is google "search engine".

    Google doesn't even return Google when you google "search engine". It does return half a dozen other search engines, including Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Yahoo. A market leader perhaps, but not a monopoly.

    --
    Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
  9. Re:People are tribal even when they don't realize by linearZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps the reason you feel different is that Google isn't forcing people to use Google. This is a little bit different than Internet Exploder, which MS was forcing people to keep installed when using the OS. But one could just as easily type www.yahoo.com into the URL, or even www.bing.com into the URL. Heck those are easier, less characters. Perhaps people don't want to do this because Google is a better search engine?

    Google isn't a Monopoly by any means. At the time of its Anti-Trust case, Microsoft was effectively a monopoly on all PCs, and was acting like a monopolist dickwad. Microsoft well deserved the Anti-Trust treatment. The unfortunate fallout from the Microsoft cases were that governments got the bright idea to bring Anti-Trust lawsuits any tech market leader. Google just happens to be in line this week.

    --
    Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
  10. Product/Consumer/Provider by Trevelyan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's been said before, but bares repeating: If you're using Google's "services" for free, then you are the product and not the consumer/customer.

    Such an antitrust case is about protecting Google's consumers/customers from Google's de-facto monopoly in the market.

    You (the product) switching from google to another search provider only means that Google has 0.00000001% less product to sell, and is unlikely to impact anyone.

    However a business (the customer) switching to another provider, could (and would) cut that business off from over 90% of its potential customers (you). Something that is likely to impact them greatly (if not kill the business).