4 ms·

I came to say exactly that. That's a very well written statement that clarifies the situation more than any news outlet I happened to read on the case. As for

I came to say exactly that. That's a very well written statement that clarifies the situation more than any news outlet I happened to read on the case. As for the decision, it may seem unfair for Google, but the European commission has to look at the bigger picture: its search dominance is so big that it gives Google an unfair advantage when competing in other business sectors, driving others out of competition even if they have a much better product. That's not good for society in the long run

dmix 9y ago
Google's search results have become more than just a directory of websites like it was in previous years. It now integrates tons of specialized results such as embedded videos and smart answers to direct questions. It will only move further and further away from simple lists of sites as their AI improves. I fear this fine will deter innovation here as any special results Google adds will be scrutinized heavily. It's also very possible the complex data they need for it's 'smart' results aren't available by integrating with other 3rd party services (at least not initially), which is likely why Google even created these competing services in the first place. If Google was merely a Yellow Pages style service as it was previously then I'd be more sympathetic to the idea of distorted rankings favouring Google services but that's becoming less and less the typical user experience.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >If Google was merely a Yellow Pages style service as it was previously then I'd be more sympathetic to the idea of distorted rankings favouring Google services but that's becoming less and less the typical user experience. Well, I'm primarily agains the idea of giving a single, non democratically controlled non-international entity, so much power. To the point where I don't care if Google is forced to stop innovating in being a "one stop shop" for the internet if that means more distributed sources and more distributed (even if lower quality and with fewer resources) innovation. Sometimes, when it comes to society, it's best to have less technology more uniformly distributed than a single source of highly advanced technology.
  - dmix 9y ago
    Do you think an organization like EU can effectively fine or regulate their way to a more uniform market though? Google could partner with other companies to do integration in their search engine for those smart results but then they'd just be giving another company an unfair advantage. I don't see how you could stop this without crippling the type of answers Google provides. Besides maybe offering open tools they could automously integrate with. Google pushed for adding metadata so any web developer can add things like star ratings and pricing directly to SERPs. But the adoption has been limited and limited compared to a full custom integration with a web service they control. But regardless Google is a monopoly that we can't really do much about. Plenty of people have tried to compete and failed so there will be some consequences of that. Considering how important the tool is to the world I'm quite the opposite. I'd rather let Google have a few specialized subsites which they can dominate a few markets with ease, in exchange for not severely limiting the potential of their technology - a technology we are all stuck using for the foreseeable future.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Do you think an organisation like EU can effectively fine or regulate their way to a more uniform market though? Maybe or maybe not, but fining seems like a step in the right direction. >I don't see how you could stop this without crippling the type of answers Google provides. As I wrote above, I'm all for crippling them if that's what it takes. But turning them into some kind of public infrastructure is another way.
    - tgragnato 9y ago
      > But regardless Google is a monopoly that we can't really do much about. Plenty of people have tried to compete and failed so there will be some consequences of that. The fine is focused on Google Shopping. I'd say the biggest competitors are Amazon and eBay. While I'm unsure if the EU can effectively do something about Google as a search engine monopoly, I'm pretty sure Google can be beaten in the e-commerce sector. Step by step, down the giants. Claiming the resolution of the matter in a single step is unrealistic.
      - 9y ago
- tripzilch 9y ago
  Well, Google is a dominant market force, even if it is dominant because it is simply that useful so that everybody has to use it. Because of that dominance, it deserves, no, requires scrutiny much, much more than not being deterred innovation. The latter is a "nice thing", the former is a necessity. Sorry but if you're that big, that dominant, of course we're going to scrutinize your responsibilities. If that's going to mean less fancy features, sad but so be it, the alternative is letting Google abuse all that power unchecked! edit: I think coldtea said it better (in this same subthread) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14645033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14645033

dmix 9y ago

Google's search results have become more than just a directory of websites like it was in previous years. It now integrates tons of specialized results such as embedded videos and smart answers to direct questions. It will only move further and further away from simple lists of sites as their AI improves. I fear this fine will deter innovation here as any special results Google adds will be scrutinized heavily. It's also very possible the complex data they need for it's 'smart' results aren't available by integrating with other 3rd party services (at least not initially), which is likely why Google even created these competing services in the first place. If Google was merely a Yellow Pages style service as it was previously then I'd be more sympathetic to the idea of distorted rankings favouring Google services but that's becoming less and less the typical user experience.

coldtea 9y ago
>If Google was merely a Yellow Pages style service as it was previously then I'd be more sympathetic to the idea of distorted rankings favouring Google services but that's becoming less and less the typical user experience. Well, I'm primarily agains the idea of giving a single, non democratically controlled non-international entity, so much power. To the point where I don't care if Google is forced to stop innovating in being a "one stop shop" for the internet if that means more distributed sources and more distributed (even if lower quality and with fewer resources) innovation. Sometimes, when it comes to society, it's best to have less technology more uniformly distributed than a single source of highly advanced technology.
- dmix 9y ago
  Do you think an organization like EU can effectively fine or regulate their way to a more uniform market though? Google could partner with other companies to do integration in their search engine for those smart results but then they'd just be giving another company an unfair advantage. I don't see how you could stop this without crippling the type of answers Google provides. Besides maybe offering open tools they could automously integrate with. Google pushed for adding metadata so any web developer can add things like star ratings and pricing directly to SERPs. But the adoption has been limited and limited compared to a full custom integration with a web service they control. But regardless Google is a monopoly that we can't really do much about. Plenty of people have tried to compete and failed so there will be some consequences of that. Considering how important the tool is to the world I'm quite the opposite. I'd rather let Google have a few specialized subsites which they can dominate a few markets with ease, in exchange for not severely limiting the potential of their technology - a technology we are all stuck using for the foreseeable future.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Do you think an organisation like EU can effectively fine or regulate their way to a more uniform market though? Maybe or maybe not, but fining seems like a step in the right direction. >I don't see how you could stop this without crippling the type of answers Google provides. As I wrote above, I'm all for crippling them if that's what it takes. But turning them into some kind of public infrastructure is another way.
  - tgragnato 9y ago
    > But regardless Google is a monopoly that we can't really do much about. Plenty of people have tried to compete and failed so there will be some consequences of that. The fine is focused on Google Shopping. I'd say the biggest competitors are Amazon and eBay. While I'm unsure if the EU can effectively do something about Google as a search engine monopoly, I'm pretty sure Google can be beaten in the e-commerce sector. Step by step, down the giants. Claiming the resolution of the matter in a single step is unrealistic.
    - 9y ago
tripzilch 9y ago
Well, Google is a dominant market force, even if it is dominant because it is simply that useful so that everybody has to use it. Because of that dominance, it deserves, no, requires scrutiny much, much more than not being deterred innovation. The latter is a "nice thing", the former is a necessity. Sorry but if you're that big, that dominant, of course we're going to scrutinize your responsibilities. If that's going to mean less fancy features, sad but so be it, the alternative is letting Google abuse all that power unchecked! edit: I think coldtea said it better (in this same subthread) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14645033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14645033