7 ms·

Google finally responds to Europe's antitrust charges

47 points by known 11y ago

lilbarbarian 11y ago
It should be clear to anyone paying attention that Google is using their dominance in search to support their businesses at the expense of their competitors. Just do a search for "Chicago Hotel" on a desktop browser. Unless you have a gargantuan screen, you will not see a single organic result. You will be given a list of paid ads, and then links to Google's local results. Clicking one of those local results will take you to another screen where you will see more paid ads, a Google Map, and a few seemingly organic results. But if you click on one of these "organic" results, Google then shows you a page where you can book a hotel room - and pay Google a fee for that.
- bpodgursky 11y ago
  I tried this, and it's true there are barely any organic results visible. 75% of what I do see are paid ads, either right bar or top bar. But I don't see how paid ads are an example of using dominance to support their business though; paid ads are just a market that both hotels and resellers bid for space in. In fact, in my results above the google-box results are - booking.com (ad) - expedia.com (ad) - priceline.com (ad) - hotwire.com (ad) - trivago.com (ad)
  - lilbarbarian 11y ago
    All of those companies have to pay Google the instant you click on any of those ads. In the past (when Google was touting their "Do no evil" slogan), you would have seen at least as many or more organic results to go along with the paid ads. By pushing the organic way below the fold, Google is drastically increasing the odds someone will click on their ad. In fact, a lot of these companies are in the organic results but instead of getting their traffic for free, they'll have to pay Google for it. I'd like to make clear - I have no problem with Google doing things that it deems good for it's bottom line. They have every right to do that, but that is why regulators exist - to make sure that when someone becomes the dominant player, they don't then use that position to eliminate competitors and extort customers.
- wvenable 11y ago
  It's almost as if Google's business was somehow entirely supported by advertising.
- thomasahle 11y ago
  I tried it: http://i.imgur.com/a45wZdf.png http://i.imgur.com/a45wZdf.png And while the top 'results' were not 'organic', they were not ads either. They were simply the top rated hotels on google maps near Chicago. When I clicked on 'More hotel', I was taken to google maps, which showed me top rated hotels as well as ads for hotels. In terms of giving me the most relevant results, I think this is pretty close.
  - Spivak 11y ago
    You have an ad blocker. This is what the actual results are on a 1080p screen. http://i.imgur.com/5Te0gmG.png http://i.imgur.com/5Te0gmG.png
    - aruggirello 11y ago
      Isn't it funny Google even states "About 650.000.000 results" in that page!?
- raldi 11y ago
  If you ran a search engine, what would your search results page for "chicago hotel" look like, and why would that be better for users than Google's?
  - lilbarbarian 11y ago
    If I ran a search engine it'd probably look exactly like Google's. That's not the point I'm trying to make. Was Microsost wrong to use their position as the dominant OS to kill Netscape by effectively banning it from Windows installations? Was Standard Oil wrong to force railroads to not only give them massive discounts but also force the railroads to hurt Standard competitors? What Google is doing and what Microsoft or Standard Oil did are fantastically profitable tactics that insure their long-term success. The question is, should they be allowed to do that without any restrictions?
    - raldi 11y ago
      During Microsoft's heyday, if your company used Windows and you wanted to try some other OS, you were out of luck: It would be enormously expensive to transition to another one -- you'd have to buy or write all new software and retrain all your employees. But if you're a Google user and you want to switch to some other search engine... you just switch. Instantly.
avmich 11y ago
"Google argues that the commission's proposed remedies, which include obliging its website to display ads "sourced and ranked" by rival companies, would only have a legal basis if it were a monopoly provider of essential supplies such as gas or electricity." Interesting. So, Google isn't a monopoly or web search that it provides isn't essential supply. That means, as I understand, there are plenty of comparable rivals in the search area - or the search itself isn't particularly important today. Is it so? Haven't heard about Europe-based - or anything-based search engines, which were as successful as Google, or even by half as successful. Similarly, I don't know many working people who don't search on the Internet daily. May be they can avoid doing that, but they probably don't want to. Sounds strange.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Google is like a convenient highway that everyone takes to work: just because there are other routes (DuckDuckGo) it doesn't mean people will take them, and regulatory framework has to, in absence of a legitimate competitor (Japan prefers Yahoo! for some reason), treat Google as a functional monopoly. Standard Oil held down prices which was good in theory for customers, but it was devastating for competitors and their employees, who spent like any other consumer. Europe's attitude towards Google isn't very free-market minded, but they are asking what kind of society they want, rather than having the economy as the be all and end all of their values. EDIT: If you're going to downvote without explaining why, then you haven't really helped the conversation, you just made yourself feel less insecure about your own opinion.
  - jbuzbee 11y ago
    >Standard Oil held down prices which was good in theory for customers, but it was devastating for competitors and their employees Uh, are you saying that Standard Oil should have made business decisions based on what was good for their competitors? This starts to get into collusion. And I understand that the theory was that Standard Oil would hold prices down, running at a loss in order to kill off all competition, then raise prices as high as it wanted in a non-competitive market. But this doesn't seem to apply to Google's situation as customers can easily move to searching Amazon, eBay, etc. when shopping.
crazy1van 11y ago
The wheels of the legal system turn so much slower than the fierce competition and relentless change of technology markets. By the time this is resolved in the courts, Google probably won't even be dominant in search / ads anymore -- just like Microsoft lost its stranglehold on the browser market before the antitrust case was resolved.
- toyg 11y ago
  You have your dates wrong. The US antitrust case was settled in 2001. Back then, there still was no real competitor to IE: Netscape had disbanded and Mozilla was still releasing only the full suite. Webkit did not exist (its predecessor KHTML was kinda crappy) and Chrome wouldn't be released before 2008. There is a line of thinking that says MS stopped working on the browser not just because they had killed Netscape, but because the antitrust case turned that market into a minefield. In any case, they had a full decade of dominance post-antitrust. In any case, the whole process took about 3 years. Quite a lot in technology terms, but not really that long. 3 years from now, I don't see Google going anywhere nor any competitor taking over -- technology in search hasn't changed much in the last 5 years, if anybody could take a real shot at unseating google they would have done it by now.

47 points by known 11y ago

It should be clear to anyone paying attention that Google is using their dominance in search to support their businesses at the expense of their competitors. Just do a search for "Chicago Hotel" on a desktop browser. Unless you have a gargantuan screen, you will not see a single organic result. You will be given a list of paid ads, and then links to Google's local results. Clicking one of those local results will take you to another screen where you will see more paid ads, a Google Map, and a few seemingly organic results. But if you click on one of these "organic" results, Google then shows you a page where you can book a hotel room - and pay Google a fee for that.

bpodgursky 11y ago
I tried this, and it's true there are barely any organic results visible. 75% of what I do see are paid ads, either right bar or top bar. But I don't see how paid ads are an example of using dominance to support their business though; paid ads are just a market that both hotels and resellers bid for space in. In fact, in my results above the google-box results are - booking.com (ad) - expedia.com (ad) - priceline.com (ad) - hotwire.com (ad) - trivago.com (ad)
- lilbarbarian 11y ago
  All of those companies have to pay Google the instant you click on any of those ads. In the past (when Google was touting their "Do no evil" slogan), you would have seen at least as many or more organic results to go along with the paid ads. By pushing the organic way below the fold, Google is drastically increasing the odds someone will click on their ad. In fact, a lot of these companies are in the organic results but instead of getting their traffic for free, they'll have to pay Google for it. I'd like to make clear - I have no problem with Google doing things that it deems good for it's bottom line. They have every right to do that, but that is why regulators exist - to make sure that when someone becomes the dominant player, they don't then use that position to eliminate competitors and extort customers.
wvenable 11y ago
It's almost as if Google's business was somehow entirely supported by advertising.
thomasahle 11y ago
I tried it: http://i.imgur.com/a45wZdf.png http://i.imgur.com/a45wZdf.png And while the top 'results' were not 'organic', they were not ads either. They were simply the top rated hotels on google maps near Chicago. When I clicked on 'More hotel', I was taken to google maps, which showed me top rated hotels as well as ads for hotels. In terms of giving me the most relevant results, I think this is pretty close.
- Spivak 11y ago
  You have an ad blocker. This is what the actual results are on a 1080p screen. http://i.imgur.com/5Te0gmG.png http://i.imgur.com/5Te0gmG.png
  - aruggirello 11y ago
    Isn't it funny Google even states "About 650.000.000 results" in that page!?
raldi 11y ago
If you ran a search engine, what would your search results page for "chicago hotel" look like, and why would that be better for users than Google's?
- lilbarbarian 11y ago
  If I ran a search engine it'd probably look exactly like Google's. That's not the point I'm trying to make. Was Microsost wrong to use their position as the dominant OS to kill Netscape by effectively banning it from Windows installations? Was Standard Oil wrong to force railroads to not only give them massive discounts but also force the railroads to hurt Standard competitors? What Google is doing and what Microsoft or Standard Oil did are fantastically profitable tactics that insure their long-term success. The question is, should they be allowed to do that without any restrictions?
  - raldi 11y ago
    During Microsoft's heyday, if your company used Windows and you wanted to try some other OS, you were out of luck: It would be enormously expensive to transition to another one -- you'd have to buy or write all new software and retrain all your employees. But if you're a Google user and you want to switch to some other search engine... you just switch. Instantly.

avmich 11y ago

"Google argues that the commission's proposed remedies, which include obliging its website to display ads "sourced and ranked" by rival companies, would only have a legal basis if it were a monopoly provider of essential supplies such as gas or electricity." Interesting. So, Google isn't a monopoly or web search that it provides isn't essential supply. That means, as I understand, there are plenty of comparable rivals in the search area - or the search itself isn't particularly important today. Is it so? Haven't heard about Europe-based - or anything-based search engines, which were as successful as Google, or even by half as successful. Similarly, I don't know many working people who don't search on the Internet daily. May be they can avoid doing that, but they probably don't want to. Sounds strange.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Google is like a convenient highway that everyone takes to work: just because there are other routes (DuckDuckGo) it doesn't mean people will take them, and regulatory framework has to, in absence of a legitimate competitor (Japan prefers Yahoo! for some reason), treat Google as a functional monopoly. Standard Oil held down prices which was good in theory for customers, but it was devastating for competitors and their employees, who spent like any other consumer. Europe's attitude towards Google isn't very free-market minded, but they are asking what kind of society they want, rather than having the economy as the be all and end all of their values. EDIT: If you're going to downvote without explaining why, then you haven't really helped the conversation, you just made yourself feel less insecure about your own opinion.
- jbuzbee 11y ago
  >Standard Oil held down prices which was good in theory for customers, but it was devastating for competitors and their employees Uh, are you saying that Standard Oil should have made business decisions based on what was good for their competitors? This starts to get into collusion. And I understand that the theory was that Standard Oil would hold prices down, running at a loss in order to kill off all competition, then raise prices as high as it wanted in a non-competitive market. But this doesn't seem to apply to Google's situation as customers can easily move to searching Amazon, eBay, etc. when shopping.

crazy1van 11y ago

The wheels of the legal system turn so much slower than the fierce competition and relentless change of technology markets. By the time this is resolved in the courts, Google probably won't even be dominant in search / ads anymore -- just like Microsoft lost its stranglehold on the browser market before the antitrust case was resolved.

toyg 11y ago
You have your dates wrong. The US antitrust case was settled in 2001. Back then, there still was no real competitor to IE: Netscape had disbanded and Mozilla was still releasing only the full suite. Webkit did not exist (its predecessor KHTML was kinda crappy) and Chrome wouldn't be released before 2008. There is a line of thinking that says MS stopped working on the browser not just because they had killed Netscape, but because the antitrust case turned that market into a minefield. In any case, they had a full decade of dominance post-antitrust. In any case, the whole process took about 3 years. Quite a lot in technology terms, but not really that long. 3 years from now, I don't see Google going anywhere nor any competitor taking over -- technology in search hasn't changed much in the last 5 years, if anybody could take a real shot at unseating google they would have done it by now.