15 ms·

Google's response to the European Commission fine

211 points by leavjenn 9y ago

zrg 9y ago
With any luck this might make google rethink their strategy on AMP page prioritisation
pdog 9y ago
European commissioners should read a couple of Paul Graham's essays. No wonder the EU doesn't have the equivalent of a Silicon Valley. "How to Be Silicon Valley": http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html "Why Startups Condense In America": http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html
- ko27 9y ago
  Did you consider that maybe EU really doesn't want to have a "Silicon Valley" if the cost is infringement of consumer rights and exploitation of the free market?
  - VMG 9y ago
    Can the EU legitimately complain that tech companies prefer to operate outside then?
    - sgift 9y ago
      Outside the law? Yes, they can and should.
    - rini17 9y ago
      > tech companies prefer to operate outside Any examples please?
      - VMG 9y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_information_technology_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_informatio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Internet_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Internet_compa... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_software_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_software_c...
        8draco8 9y ago
        I'm not economist but I suspect that such concentration of tech companies in US is due to the fact that it was their home market from where they started. I think that the question was more along the lines: Is there any example of a company that started in EU and moved they main operations to US? Most companies that are on those lists have also strong EU presence.
      - nemo44x 9y ago
        The company that powers search for this very Website: http://www.impact-north-america.com/french-search-api-startup-algolia-raises-18-3m/#sthash.Hy0auMG5.dpbs http://www.impact-north-america.com/french-search-api-startu...
    - Radle 9y ago
      http://tech.eu/features/186/ignorance-is-remiss/ http://tech.eu/features/186/ignorance-is-remiss/
    - celticninja 9y ago
      They can operate outside of the EU all they want but if they want to do business here then they have to follow the rules. Its funny to see how the EU protectionism case is being played here and people jump on it being a USA vs EU thing, when really it is google abusing a monopoly position regardless of geographic location.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Probably not - they should however complain about how things are run elsewhere, because it's hurting them and everyone else. It's natural for companies to be drawn towards places that have less restrictions on businesses. It's to be expected, but that doesn't mean less restrictions is good for the society.
- 8draco8 9y ago
  In return EU have healthy job market with ~40hr work week and proper healthcare. Most of EU companies are not trying to keep me as developer in a golden cage, offering me everything so I wouldn't have to go home anymore. There are many healthy business hubs here in Europe (London, Cardiff-Bristol-Bath, Berlin and many others), maybe they do not have that superstar status as SV but they are still good places to be. Sometimes I wonder if people living in SV bubble thinks that there is no serious tech companies outside SV.
  - pgtan 9y ago
    the only "healthy" in the EU is the EU-Socialism
    - vixen99 9y ago
      And the fact that laws are proposed and made by unelected officials in private. Is that the future?
      - omginternets 9y ago
        <presumption alert> Does the U.S., with its Electoral College, really want to go there? This strikes me as throwing stones from a glass McMansion. </presumption alert> More to the point: unhindered, direct-democracy is rarely a good system as it tends to devolve into "majority rule". The case for appointed officials is neither new nor in and of itself undemocratic.
      - GrantSolar 9y ago
        Unless something changed very recently, EU laws are reviewed and adopted by the European Council (Heads of State for each member state) and the European Parliament which consists of elected MEPs
  - Jyaif 9y ago
    > have healthy job market Reminder: the EU's unemployment rate is twice as high as the US'.
- _fizz_buzz_ 9y ago
  I think these articles make really good points. But they seem completely off-topic. Nothing in there makes the connection between antitrust laws and a Silicon Valley economy.
  - JorgeGT 9y ago
    Not from the US so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the US had (and exercised) solid antitrust laws way before Silicon Valley developed? The case of Standard Oil in the early 20th century comes to mind.
    - CaptainZapp 9y ago
      Neither an historian nor an economist. But yes, they certainly did. Appart from Standard Oil AT&T and - in theory - Microsoft come to mind. Now US antitrust efforts seem to be pretty much non-existent, even though they may be needed more than ever. I don't see that happening anytime soon in the current climate. So, the EU hiting companies, which behave badly regardless where such companies are located is a very good thing in my book.
    - ionised 9y ago
      What good are those laws when concerted lobbying and corruption means they never get enforced?
      - euyyn 9y ago
        Are you trying to argue that Standard Oil didn't have much lobbying power? Or that politicians/courts were less corrupt back then?
tokenizerrr 9y ago
Their links are shit outside of the US as far as I can tell. At least they are in the Netherlands. It constantly links to US/UK stores (amazon) which are useless for me, since I'm not paying thrice the product price for shipping. It also doesn't know about most of the sites that actual Dutch price comparison sites (tweakers.net/pricewatch) know about, which always give me a better deal.
- ErikHuisman 9y ago
  I agree the products in the shop results are pretty bad. But i don't need the EU to protect the few dozen commercial comparison sites in the netherlands. At least google is honest about the links being sponsored. Tweakers is not.
  - teekert 9y ago
    How so? If something is advertising it is clearly labeled and green at the top, right? Or is there more going on?
    - mcintyre1994 9y ago
      My impression has always been that comparison sites have affiliate deals for everything they link you to. They're certainly not transparent about that (I'm sure it's in small print somewhere), but I assume it must be the case.
      - dazc 9y ago
        They're not doing it for charity, that's for sure. Not forgetting also one of the biggest affiliate networks in Europe has connections with a media company that has been very active on the lobbying front. I'm not a fan of the shopping ads but I don't think anyone is mistaking these for anything other than what they - which is paid ads. Comparison sites, oth, in general don't do a good job of disclosure or even comparing prices.
    - ErikHuisman 9y ago
bla2 9y ago
Sounds a bit tone deaf. On the other hand, I'm not sure if there's anything else they can do at this point. They've lost the case and the appeal won't change that, but investors would be even unhappier if they didn't even try to appeal.
ko27 9y ago
I think it would be worth adding these opinions of other US-based companies: "A number of US companies - including Oracle - published a joint letter addressed to Vestager this week in support of penalties against Google for “anticompetitive conduct.” It said: "As you near final decisions in the Shopping and Android cases, Google and its allies will no doubt continue to press through its lobbying and public relations machine the fiction that any adverse decision amounts to European 'protectionism'. "As U.S. based companies, we wish to go on record that enforcement action against Google is necessary and appropriate, not provincial. We have watched Google undermine competition in the United States and abroad. Google operates on a global scale and across the entire online ecosystem, destroying jobs and stifling innovation." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/27/google_hit_with_record_antitrust_fine_of_xxx_by_europe/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/27/google_hit_with_reco...
- dontnotice 9y ago
  Common origin does not disprove animosity or self interest. One wonders what NewsCorp or Oracle concerns are in ecommerce search, but then you remember that they had well publicized scuffles with Google. The last record fine was against a US company, as were recent tax related fines, patterns are harder to refute.
  - walterstucco 9y ago
    I'm sure EU court have based its decision on a number of different factors. The letter from Oracle is just one of them.
    - dontnotice 9y ago
      Court? the problem is that these fines don't go through any court.
      - UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
        So just like FCC decisions in the US then.
rndmio 9y ago
The response from google fails to really address the point from the EU Commission, that they used their monopoly position in search to drive business through their product price comparison service. The utility of the service and the "value of those kinds of fast and easy connections" are immaterial to the reasoning behind the fine.
- ko27 9y ago
  They are really twisting the commissions ruling to enact sympathy. "The commission said it did not object to the design of Google's generic search algorithms or to demotions as such, nor to the way that Google displays or organises its search results pages: "It objects to the fact that Google has leveraged its market dominance in general internet search into a separate market, comparison shopping."
  - IshKebab 9y ago
    So we can expect a similar decision against Apple bundling their own apps in iOS, or Microsoft promoting OneCloud in Windows, or Amazon not selling Google Chrome & heavily promoting their Firestick, or Bing doing exactly the same thing as Google (the only difference I see is the placement)? I think it would be better if Google made it clearer that the shopping search was all adverts, but otherwise this seems idiotic. Every large tech company leverages its dominance in one area to compete in a different market.
    - UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
      We have seen similar action against Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple in the EU... So, yes. > this seems idiotic. Every large tech company leverages its dominance in one area to compete in a different market. Then they will continue to be fined for anti-competitive behaviour. Which is also illegal in the US, the US just doesn't enforce their existing laws. It is "idiotic" that the US fails to enforce existing US law. It isn't "idiotic" that the EU does.
      - FussyZeus 9y ago
andrepd 9y ago
> (...) connecting our users with thousands of advertisers, large and small, in ways that are useful for both. We truly live in the age of spinning, of euphemisms, where words lose all their meaning. All-pervasive advertising, the most insidious technique of consumer capitalism, is now an idealistic connecting of people (why, rather than fining us indeed they should be thanking thanking us for that, they seem to say). Complete invasion of privacy and control over content and information reaching the person is "enhancing the user experience", etc etc.
- tfcata 9y ago
  And as Apple 're-defines' a couple of things each year.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- hoorayimhelping 9y ago
  I'd encourage you (and everyone) to read the comments in the other thread happening today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 You'll see people baffled by this decision and generally happy with the service and products google offers. It's just a reminder to remember that what doesn't work for you may be pure bliss for other people.
  - walterstucco 9y ago
    Mob in Italy is pure bliss for a lot of people. It's still a bad thing.
  - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
    You seem to have replied to the wrong comment. I've read through the other thread, I couldn't find a comment that agrees with "connecting our users with thousands of advertisers, large and small, in ways that are useful for both."
the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
Not sure how good google's search for this type of stuff in the US is but I have never seen the google product shopping results to take me to a store I want to buy from. So if user experience is concerned they are not doing a good job there.
larma 9y ago
> our data show that people usually prefer links that take them directly to the products they want, not to websites where they have to repeat their searches. If you would link them correctly, there wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site with their (usually better) results. Also, considering that product search results are sponsored, usually the top results at product search are crap. There are three things that people usually prefer links to when they search for a product: 1. High quality product information - that's usually the website of the manufacturer. Amazon is not too bad in some cases but smaller retailers usually lack a lot of useful information. 2. Best offer - when you pay for being a top result on Google product search, then it's hard to claim you will be able to provide the best price. 3. Buyers feedback - sites that are larger usually have more prior buyers and thus more feedback. Google's very own ratings (which the scrape from other sites that allow them I guess) is usually crap compared to what you find on Amazon. So basically, if Google would want to provide actual useful search results, this would just be a link to the manufacturers marketing site, a link to the best offer and/or the result page of a price-comparison site, and a link to Amazon and/or comparably large local retailers. Results based on who payed most is not what people usually want, don't try to argue that this is true.
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  > If you would link them correctly, there wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site with their (usually better) results. If I wanted to search Amazon, I would have searched Amazon, not Google. The last thing I want is to search for some product on Google and get a list of search results pages from other companies as a response instead of a listing of the products I'm actually searching for. It'd be like if I searched for some random bit of information on Google and the top result was a link to the same search results page on Yahoo. > usually the top results at product search are crap According to the line from Google you quoted above, most of their users disagree with you on that. I'm one such user. I don't typically use Google's shopping results as the _only_ source of product information for me, but I do occasionally use them as one source. You also seem to be misunderstanding what the links they show actually link to. Buyer feedback and product information for individual products are available on the landing page (from a third party site, I might add) you get to when you click on a link to a product. The main difference is that you get to the product page directly rather than having to go through _another_ search results page from a third party to find what you're looking for.
hobozilla 9y ago
That's complete rubbish. If they were really interested in helping customers get to the products quickly the products would be displayed underneath each websites search result. What they really want is for the retailers to pay for the privilege of having their products at the top of the page.
- jazoom 9y ago
  That's a good point
Changu 9y ago
The big question is: Do we want Google to grow into a black hole that sucks in all data on planet earth and leaves no room for small companies? I for one don't want that. I like startups. Let them do the shopping comparison. Let them do all kinds of stuff. Don't let the giants swallow everything.
haterswillhate 9y ago
I really would like, that google stop be hypocrite. They started with slogan "don't be evil" Lately google is been everything else than that. Spying and reading my emails "for advertising - yeah right", keeping tracking of my location "android", listening my conversations and also blocking me and thousands of other users out of they services. I don't want to sound too cynical, but is there anything else google could violate in my privacy? This e-commerce favouritism is just a very small top of very very big iceberg that is waiting to be exposed. Sad times for humanity, its really sad how greedyness of corporations is endless and how much they are ready to violate our privacy. I'm happy that google have to pay penalties, but I wonder do they come more evil than berofe now. I hope that people would stop to use these corporation products.
mangecoeur 9y ago
Argument based on what their data says consumers prefer kinda misses the point of the fine - the EU doesn't argue whether people prefer it or not, but whether Google is abusing it's market dominance in am anti competitive way. That way might well be innovative and could even have good customer satisfaction, but still be anti competitive.
Gatsky 9y ago
Compared to other antitrust cases, this seems very thin. 2.4 billion for nefarious price comparison site ranking? I don't get it. This is on a par with the fines given to banks for literally ripping off their customers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11619188/Barclays-handed-biggest-bank-fine-in-UK-history-over-brazen-currency-rigging.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfina...)
perseusprime11 9y ago
I hope Trump fines EU for all these non-sense fines they impose on American companies. Feels like EU is trying to compensate for their high debt.
- jamespo 9y ago
  Much like the US fines EU banks?
  - perseusprime11 9y ago
    Are the fines comparable? Why do they get fined?
    - jamespo 9y ago
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38412816 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38412816
    - ebalit 9y ago
      http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/30/investing/bnp-paribas-sanctions-fine/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/30/investing/bnp-paribas-sancti... BNP, a french bank, was fined 8.9 B$ for operations run outside the US but with countries on which the US had an embargo.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  This is not a valid complaint. Fining companies for breaking competition law is totally legitimate.
  - perseusprime11 9y ago
    Sometimes when you go to google search, it will prompt you to download the their app, download chrome, use their native weather, news, etc. It is part of how they iterate on their core search product. If they decide to show Google shopping, isn't that their product decision?
nthcolumn 9y ago
Their statement is a lie. Google are trying to blur 'shopping ad' and 'search result'. The consumer is worse off because those items are not listed first on their search merit. The consumer is deceived. It is only useful to those who pay for the promotions and Google.
Aissen 9y ago
Note that this happens just as Google scored a small win in France: a french tribunal advised the authorities that Google's tax evasion scheme with Ireland might be perfectly legal, and it might not have to pay the €1.15B the French authorities says they owe for 2005-2010. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-14/google-gets-boost-in-fight-over-1-3-billion-french-tax-bill https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-14/google-ge... Note that this is far from the end on this story. But it just shows the sheer scale out of which EU countries are being "optimized" out of tax revenue. Add the monopoly abuse to the mix, and they have every right to make sure the law is respected.
mattmanser 9y ago
The ridiculous thing about this blog is that if Google only had the search side of the business they would have built this functionality for the comparison sites to use via microdata or one of those specs, but didn't and only built it for their own shopping comparison site. So each search result could have had this carousel.
dingo_bat 9y ago
I guess this teaches companies to continue avoiding tax-payment in EU as much as possible.
lgl 9y ago
"We think our current shopping results are useful and are a much-improved version of the text-only ads we showed a decade ago. Showing ads that include pictures, ratings, and prices benefits us, our advertisers, and most of all, our users." Really Google? I personally remember the advent of adsense and their initial ultra simple text-only ads being a huge revolution in advertising as a whole and a huge improvement in user friendliness. Now it's suddenly better to have images and extra stuff thrown in there. Pretty soon, it will be even better to have some animated and interactive simians in them.
- unknownsavage 9y ago
  Google already pushes animated ads through adsense, but not yet on their own pages.
callumlocke 9y ago
It's true that these integrations are convenient for users, but it's also true that they harm market competition. Google's press release seems to avoid addressing the latter point. The closest they come is pointing out that Amazon also has a monopoly advantage, which doesn't seem like a strong argument.
- pweissbrod 9y ago
  If youve been in this business long enough you could see how this comment around "convenient integrations" could be applied to Microsoft/IE on the start menu 20 years' back. Seems to be a thin line between "convenient integrations" and big players reducing choice/competition. I realize I'm not the average consumer but I'll clamor for choice/competition every single time.
  - callumlocke 9y ago
    I don't think it's just a thin line, I think it's an overlap, that's the problem. Monopolies can be genuinely convenient/useful for consumers. Sometimes regulators have to make things less convenient/useful in the short term to prevent monopoly and stagnation in the long term.
pweissbrod 9y ago
"Our data show that people usually prefer a built-in browser on their start menu by default, not browsers they need to download/install/configure manually" -Microsoft 20 years ago
- tajen 9y ago
  ...before getting €2bn in fines, a good part of it for "forgetting" to show the browser choice popup for 6 months, in Win 7 ServicePack 1, after successfully showing it in Windows 7. Looking back, they did really play cat-and-mouse with the EU.
- euyyn 9y ago
  Of course everybody prefers a browser to be pre-installed, but Microsoft did way more than that. They strictly harmed users to protect their Windows monopoly from the threat of Java apps. Java applets distributed via the web (executed by Netscape Navigator) had the potential to displace Win32 as a preferred API, thus making Linux and other OS's able to compete with Windows in terms of application offering. Some OEMs wanted to sell Windows computers with Netscape Navigator preinstalled, because it was way better. Microsoft told them they wouldn't sell them any Windows license at all if they did it, forcing their hand. Microsoft further preinstalled their own incompatible version of Java, to try and make Java apps non cross-platform. They did the same with Internet Explorer's own incompatible version of web standards, when web apps started to gain popularity. Windows' monopoly was maintained in part by Microsoft purposefully spending resources in actions that only harmed Windows users (and consumers in general).
  - saurik 9y ago
    "That's the joke." https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk The comment you are replying to is showing by way of parallel to Microsoft that this polemic from Google is an absurd defense: your entire comment is something I would imagine the person you are replying to agrees with, which is precisely why they made the comment they did, as it demonstrates in a visceral way how absurd it is to be trying to give Google a free pass just because their product is useful. You seem to be going around this thread making the same mistake in multiple contexts, such as when you replied to me in this other linked thread, which makes me wonder if you are paying much attention before commenting :/. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646976
Jerry2 9y ago
It's interesting how on Hacker News, story about Google getting fined was censored and removed yet PR from Google is still on the front page. It's sad that bias and censorship on here is so strong.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  Take a page from Trump; let them think they're making fun of you, while they're actually spreading your gospel. Trump did this so successfully he actually became president, against all odds. Whether it comes through the Google PR machine or not, people are still getting the key message: Google has been fined for playing unfairly. Most people don't read past the headline, and defending against these allegations still just makes the allegations stickier in the minds of public; it strengthens the association between "Google" and "unfair" in the public's psyche.
- HerraBRE 9y ago
  Why do you say it was censored and removed? It's dropped down to page two, but that's perfectly normal once something has been on the front page for a while.
  - Ajedi32 9y ago
    It's only been 5 hours since it was posted, and the story has ~450 upvotes. In contrast, I see another story on the front page right now that was posted 18 hours ago and only has ~250 upvotes.
    - RandomBookmarks 9y ago
      It could be the algorithm: Maybe the original EU story got many downvotes from HN users that work at Google?
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        Is there a way to downvote stories? Maybe you mean it was flagged?
aparvinash 9y ago
One thing I was missing from comments is that the ruling is not passed by courts but by the commission investigated the crime. Is it same as prosecutor sentencing the accused and there by the burden of proof is upon the accused ? Would it be the same if the accused is a person and not a corporation in EU ?
dheera 9y ago
What if Google simply pulled out of those countries? I'm asking this seriously. When they pulled out of China, China blocked them, so they effectively lost. But Europe's countries do not block websites. Google could just pull out of those countries, continue to localize content for those countries' languages, and the users, page views, ad revenue wouldn't go anywhere. And those countries wouldn't be able to lay a finger on Google in terms of fines.
- ionised 9y ago
  Google is addicted to the favourable tax arrangements of the EU.
- rplnt 9y ago
  Could they still sell ads in those countries? Or other services?
- la_oveja 9y ago
  Because you can make lots of money in the EU, you just need to follow more strict rules than in the USA.
- mrtksn 9y ago
  What exactly Google will win from spending money just as it is spending today to run the services but stop making any financial returns? Why would investors be happy of Google catering to a market that has only expenses but no profit or hope for future profit due to regulatory reasons. I guess EU locals would enjoy the ad-free experience...
- insertnickname 9y ago
  >Europe's countries do not block websites. Sure they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Denmark
la_oveja 9y ago
> Our ability to do that well isn’t favoring ourselves, or any particular site or seller "not favoring any particular seller"? If it pays, it's on the front page. Are you seriously telling me that somebody who has paid nothing still can get on the front page competing with others who paid? I don't trust you, Google.
coverband 9y ago
I thought the combined fines given to Microsoft by the EU Commission were larger than this amount, but I was wrong. It seems Microsoft paid something like 2.2 billion euros between 2006-2013[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission (On a side note, I was employed by MS for a couple of years during that time, and remember clearly how every new feature was being inspected to ensure whether it followed EU requirements, on top of compliance requirements imposed earlier by FTC in the U.S.)
socrates1998 9y ago
From my limited knowledge of the situation, this seems an appropriate fine. Google claims that the success of Ebay and Amazon prove that they haven't been anti-competitive, right? But I think Google just couldn't help itself. How could you not? You have the consensus, world dominating search engine, and you just have to slightly tweak it to every so slightly support your shopping platform. It just seems way too easy to do. One small adjustment means $4 billion more next year, I mean, how could you not do it? As an anecdote, I have never trusted Google's product results in the top bar. It just all seemed to easy to fudge the results to me.
dlwdlw 9y ago
As an aside, I think Google has huge potential to become the source of discovery for all things. Actions where it promotes its own stuff on Google play despite knowing and hiding the same thing on Hulu/Netflix/HBO is myopic. It should continue to do what it is good at instead of fighting for slices of other pie.
xtracto 9y ago
I have no sympathy for Google. They take on their hands the role of policing the world removing some kind of ads that some guys in India think are not "good enough" for people all the way into other countries (Mexico in my case), without understanding the context of the country and the product in that country. And this, for products that are not only legal in the country but are even being promoted by the government. But when they are abusing their power for greed reasons and the government punishes them, then they whine. Hypocrites.

211 points by leavjenn 9y ago

zrg 9y ago

With any luck this might make google rethink their strategy on AMP page prioritisation

pdog 9y ago

European commissioners should read a couple of Paul Graham's essays. No wonder the EU doesn't have the equivalent of a Silicon Valley. "How to Be Silicon Valley": http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html "Why Startups Condense In America": http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html

ko27 9y ago
Did you consider that maybe EU really doesn't want to have a "Silicon Valley" if the cost is infringement of consumer rights and exploitation of the free market?
- VMG 9y ago
  Can the EU legitimately complain that tech companies prefer to operate outside then?
  - sgift 9y ago
    Outside the law? Yes, they can and should.
  - rini17 9y ago
    > tech companies prefer to operate outside Any examples please?
    - VMG 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_information_technology_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_informatio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Internet_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_Internet_compa... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_software_companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_software_c...
      - 8draco8 9y ago
        I'm not economist but I suspect that such concentration of tech companies in US is due to the fact that it was their home market from where they started. I think that the question was more along the lines: Is there any example of a company that started in EU and moved they main operations to US? Most companies that are on those lists have also strong EU presence.
    - nemo44x 9y ago
      The company that powers search for this very Website: http://www.impact-north-america.com/french-search-api-startup-algolia-raises-18-3m/#sthash.Hy0auMG5.dpbs http://www.impact-north-america.com/french-search-api-startu...
  - Radle 9y ago
    http://tech.eu/features/186/ignorance-is-remiss/ http://tech.eu/features/186/ignorance-is-remiss/
  - celticninja 9y ago
    They can operate outside of the EU all they want but if they want to do business here then they have to follow the rules. Its funny to see how the EU protectionism case is being played here and people jump on it being a USA vs EU thing, when really it is google abusing a monopoly position regardless of geographic location.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Probably not - they should however complain about how things are run elsewhere, because it's hurting them and everyone else. It's natural for companies to be drawn towards places that have less restrictions on businesses. It's to be expected, but that doesn't mean less restrictions is good for the society.
8draco8 9y ago
In return EU have healthy job market with ~40hr work week and proper healthcare. Most of EU companies are not trying to keep me as developer in a golden cage, offering me everything so I wouldn't have to go home anymore. There are many healthy business hubs here in Europe (London, Cardiff-Bristol-Bath, Berlin and many others), maybe they do not have that superstar status as SV but they are still good places to be. Sometimes I wonder if people living in SV bubble thinks that there is no serious tech companies outside SV.
- pgtan 9y ago
  the only "healthy" in the EU is the EU-Socialism
  - vixen99 9y ago
    And the fact that laws are proposed and made by unelected officials in private. Is that the future?
    - omginternets 9y ago
      <presumption alert> Does the U.S., with its Electoral College, really want to go there? This strikes me as throwing stones from a glass McMansion. </presumption alert> More to the point: unhindered, direct-democracy is rarely a good system as it tends to devolve into "majority rule". The case for appointed officials is neither new nor in and of itself undemocratic.
    - GrantSolar 9y ago
      Unless something changed very recently, EU laws are reviewed and adopted by the European Council (Heads of State for each member state) and the European Parliament which consists of elected MEPs
- Jyaif 9y ago
  > have healthy job market Reminder: the EU's unemployment rate is twice as high as the US'.
_fizz_buzz_ 9y ago
I think these articles make really good points. But they seem completely off-topic. Nothing in there makes the connection between antitrust laws and a Silicon Valley economy.
- JorgeGT 9y ago
  Not from the US so correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the US had (and exercised) solid antitrust laws way before Silicon Valley developed? The case of Standard Oil in the early 20th century comes to mind.
  - CaptainZapp 9y ago
    Neither an historian nor an economist. But yes, they certainly did. Appart from Standard Oil AT&T and - in theory - Microsoft come to mind. Now US antitrust efforts seem to be pretty much non-existent, even though they may be needed more than ever. I don't see that happening anytime soon in the current climate. So, the EU hiting companies, which behave badly regardless where such companies are located is a very good thing in my book.
  - ionised 9y ago
    What good are those laws when concerted lobbying and corruption means they never get enforced?
    - euyyn 9y ago
      Are you trying to argue that Standard Oil didn't have much lobbying power? Or that politicians/courts were less corrupt back then?

tokenizerrr 9y ago

Their links are shit outside of the US as far as I can tell. At least they are in the Netherlands. It constantly links to US/UK stores (amazon) which are useless for me, since I'm not paying thrice the product price for shipping. It also doesn't know about most of the sites that actual Dutch price comparison sites (tweakers.net/pricewatch) know about, which always give me a better deal.

ErikHuisman 9y ago
I agree the products in the shop results are pretty bad. But i don't need the EU to protect the few dozen commercial comparison sites in the netherlands. At least google is honest about the links being sponsored. Tweakers is not.
- teekert 9y ago
  How so? If something is advertising it is clearly labeled and green at the top, right? Or is there more going on?
  - mcintyre1994 9y ago
    My impression has always been that comparison sites have affiliate deals for everything they link you to. They're certainly not transparent about that (I'm sure it's in small print somewhere), but I assume it must be the case.
    - dazc 9y ago
      They're not doing it for charity, that's for sure. Not forgetting also one of the biggest affiliate networks in Europe has connections with a media company that has been very active on the lobbying front. I'm not a fan of the shopping ads but I don't think anyone is mistaking these for anything other than what they - which is paid ads. Comparison sites, oth, in general don't do a good job of disclosure or even comparing prices.
  - ErikHuisman 9y ago

bla2 9y ago

Sounds a bit tone deaf. On the other hand, I'm not sure if there's anything else they can do at this point. They've lost the case and the appeal won't change that, but investors would be even unhappier if they didn't even try to appeal.

ko27 9y ago

I think it would be worth adding these opinions of other US-based companies: "A number of US companies - including Oracle - published a joint letter addressed to Vestager this week in support of penalties against Google for “anticompetitive conduct.” It said: "As you near final decisions in the Shopping and Android cases, Google and its allies will no doubt continue to press through its lobbying and public relations machine the fiction that any adverse decision amounts to European 'protectionism'. "As U.S. based companies, we wish to go on record that enforcement action against Google is necessary and appropriate, not provincial. We have watched Google undermine competition in the United States and abroad. Google operates on a global scale and across the entire online ecosystem, destroying jobs and stifling innovation." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/27/google_hit_with_record_antitrust_fine_of_xxx_by_europe/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/27/google_hit_with_reco...

dontnotice 9y ago
Common origin does not disprove animosity or self interest. One wonders what NewsCorp or Oracle concerns are in ecommerce search, but then you remember that they had well publicized scuffles with Google. The last record fine was against a US company, as were recent tax related fines, patterns are harder to refute.
- walterstucco 9y ago
  I'm sure EU court have based its decision on a number of different factors. The letter from Oracle is just one of them.
  - dontnotice 9y ago
    Court? the problem is that these fines don't go through any court.
    - UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
      So just like FCC decisions in the US then.

rndmio 9y ago

The response from google fails to really address the point from the EU Commission, that they used their monopoly position in search to drive business through their product price comparison service. The utility of the service and the "value of those kinds of fast and easy connections" are immaterial to the reasoning behind the fine.

ko27 9y ago
They are really twisting the commissions ruling to enact sympathy. "The commission said it did not object to the design of Google's generic search algorithms or to demotions as such, nor to the way that Google displays or organises its search results pages: "It objects to the fact that Google has leveraged its market dominance in general internet search into a separate market, comparison shopping."
- IshKebab 9y ago
  So we can expect a similar decision against Apple bundling their own apps in iOS, or Microsoft promoting OneCloud in Windows, or Amazon not selling Google Chrome & heavily promoting their Firestick, or Bing doing exactly the same thing as Google (the only difference I see is the placement)? I think it would be better if Google made it clearer that the shopping search was all adverts, but otherwise this seems idiotic. Every large tech company leverages its dominance in one area to compete in a different market.
  - UnoriginalGuy 9y ago
    We have seen similar action against Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple in the EU... So, yes. > this seems idiotic. Every large tech company leverages its dominance in one area to compete in a different market. Then they will continue to be fined for anti-competitive behaviour. Which is also illegal in the US, the US just doesn't enforce their existing laws. It is "idiotic" that the US fails to enforce existing US law. It isn't "idiotic" that the EU does.
    - FussyZeus 9y ago

andrepd 9y ago

> (...) connecting our users with thousands of advertisers, large and small, in ways that are useful for both. We truly live in the age of spinning, of euphemisms, where words lose all their meaning. All-pervasive advertising, the most insidious technique of consumer capitalism, is now an idealistic connecting of people (why, rather than fining us indeed they should be thanking thanking us for that, they seem to say). Complete invasion of privacy and control over content and information reaching the person is "enhancing the user experience", etc etc.

tfcata 9y ago
And as Apple 're-defines' a couple of things each year.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
hoorayimhelping 9y ago
I'd encourage you (and everyone) to read the comments in the other thread happening today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712 You'll see people baffled by this decision and generally happy with the service and products google offers. It's just a reminder to remember that what doesn't work for you may be pure bliss for other people.
- walterstucco 9y ago
  Mob in Italy is pure bliss for a lot of people. It's still a bad thing.
- _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  You seem to have replied to the wrong comment. I've read through the other thread, I couldn't find a comment that agrees with "connecting our users with thousands of advertisers, large and small, in ways that are useful for both."

the_mitsuhiko 9y ago

Not sure how good google's search for this type of stuff in the US is but I have never seen the google product shopping results to take me to a store I want to buy from. So if user experience is concerned they are not doing a good job there.

larma 9y ago

> our data show that people usually prefer links that take them directly to the products they want, not to websites where they have to repeat their searches. If you would link them correctly, there wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site with their (usually better) results. Also, considering that product search results are sponsored, usually the top results at product search are crap. There are three things that people usually prefer links to when they search for a product: 1. High quality product information - that's usually the website of the manufacturer. Amazon is not too bad in some cases but smaller retailers usually lack a lot of useful information. 2. Best offer - when you pay for being a top result on Google product search, then it's hard to claim you will be able to provide the best price. 3. Buyers feedback - sites that are larger usually have more prior buyers and thus more feedback. Google's very own ratings (which the scrape from other sites that allow them I guess) is usually crap compared to what you find on Amazon. So basically, if Google would want to provide actual useful search results, this would just be a link to the manufacturers marketing site, a link to the best offer and/or the result page of a price-comparison site, and a link to Amazon and/or comparably large local retailers. Results based on who payed most is not what people usually want, don't try to argue that this is true.

Ajedi32 9y ago
> If you would link them correctly, there wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that other site with their (usually better) results. If I wanted to search Amazon, I would have searched Amazon, not Google. The last thing I want is to search for some product on Google and get a list of search results pages from other companies as a response instead of a listing of the products I'm actually searching for. It'd be like if I searched for some random bit of information on Google and the top result was a link to the same search results page on Yahoo. > usually the top results at product search are crap According to the line from Google you quoted above, most of their users disagree with you on that. I'm one such user. I don't typically use Google's shopping results as the _only_ source of product information for me, but I do occasionally use them as one source. You also seem to be misunderstanding what the links they show actually link to. Buyer feedback and product information for individual products are available on the landing page (from a third party site, I might add) you get to when you click on a link to a product. The main difference is that you get to the product page directly rather than having to go through _another_ search results page from a third party to find what you're looking for.

hobozilla 9y ago

That's complete rubbish. If they were really interested in helping customers get to the products quickly the products would be displayed underneath each websites search result. What they really want is for the retailers to pay for the privilege of having their products at the top of the page.

jazoom 9y ago
That's a good point

Changu 9y ago

The big question is: Do we want Google to grow into a black hole that sucks in all data on planet earth and leaves no room for small companies? I for one don't want that. I like startups. Let them do the shopping comparison. Let them do all kinds of stuff. Don't let the giants swallow everything.

haterswillhate 9y ago

I really would like, that google stop be hypocrite. They started with slogan "don't be evil" Lately google is been everything else than that. Spying and reading my emails "for advertising - yeah right", keeping tracking of my location "android", listening my conversations and also blocking me and thousands of other users out of they services. I don't want to sound too cynical, but is there anything else google could violate in my privacy? This e-commerce favouritism is just a very small top of very very big iceberg that is waiting to be exposed. Sad times for humanity, its really sad how greedyness of corporations is endless and how much they are ready to violate our privacy. I'm happy that google have to pay penalties, but I wonder do they come more evil than berofe now. I hope that people would stop to use these corporation products.

mangecoeur 9y ago

Argument based on what their data says consumers prefer kinda misses the point of the fine - the EU doesn't argue whether people prefer it or not, but whether Google is abusing it's market dominance in am anti competitive way. That way might well be innovative and could even have good customer satisfaction, but still be anti competitive.

Gatsky 9y ago

Compared to other antitrust cases, this seems very thin. 2.4 billion for nefarious price comparison site ranking? I don't get it. This is on a par with the fines given to banks for literally ripping off their customers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11619188/Barclays-handed-biggest-bank-fine-in-UK-history-over-brazen-currency-rigging.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfina...)

perseusprime11 9y ago

I hope Trump fines EU for all these non-sense fines they impose on American companies. Feels like EU is trying to compensate for their high debt.

jamespo 9y ago
Much like the US fines EU banks?
- perseusprime11 9y ago
  Are the fines comparable? Why do they get fined?
  - jamespo 9y ago
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38412816 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38412816
  - ebalit 9y ago
    http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/30/investing/bnp-paribas-sanctions-fine/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/30/investing/bnp-paribas-sancti... BNP, a french bank, was fined 8.9 B$ for operations run outside the US but with countries on which the US had an embargo.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
This is not a valid complaint. Fining companies for breaking competition law is totally legitimate.
- perseusprime11 9y ago
  Sometimes when you go to google search, it will prompt you to download the their app, download chrome, use their native weather, news, etc. It is part of how they iterate on their core search product. If they decide to show Google shopping, isn't that their product decision?

nthcolumn 9y ago

Their statement is a lie. Google are trying to blur 'shopping ad' and 'search result'. The consumer is worse off because those items are not listed first on their search merit. The consumer is deceived. It is only useful to those who pay for the promotions and Google.

Aissen 9y ago

Note that this happens just as Google scored a small win in France: a french tribunal advised the authorities that Google's tax evasion scheme with Ireland might be perfectly legal, and it might not have to pay the €1.15B the French authorities says they owe for 2005-2010. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-14/google-gets-boost-in-fight-over-1-3-billion-french-tax-bill https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-14/google-ge... Note that this is far from the end on this story. But it just shows the sheer scale out of which EU countries are being "optimized" out of tax revenue. Add the monopoly abuse to the mix, and they have every right to make sure the law is respected.

mattmanser 9y ago

The ridiculous thing about this blog is that if Google only had the search side of the business they would have built this functionality for the comparison sites to use via microdata or one of those specs, but didn't and only built it for their own shopping comparison site. So each search result could have had this carousel.

dingo_bat 9y ago

I guess this teaches companies to continue avoiding tax-payment in EU as much as possible.

lgl 9y ago

"We think our current shopping results are useful and are a much-improved version of the text-only ads we showed a decade ago. Showing ads that include pictures, ratings, and prices benefits us, our advertisers, and most of all, our users." Really Google? I personally remember the advent of adsense and their initial ultra simple text-only ads being a huge revolution in advertising as a whole and a huge improvement in user friendliness. Now it's suddenly better to have images and extra stuff thrown in there. Pretty soon, it will be even better to have some animated and interactive simians in them.

unknownsavage 9y ago
Google already pushes animated ads through adsense, but not yet on their own pages.

callumlocke 9y ago

It's true that these integrations are convenient for users, but it's also true that they harm market competition. Google's press release seems to avoid addressing the latter point. The closest they come is pointing out that Amazon also has a monopoly advantage, which doesn't seem like a strong argument.

pweissbrod 9y ago
If youve been in this business long enough you could see how this comment around "convenient integrations" could be applied to Microsoft/IE on the start menu 20 years' back. Seems to be a thin line between "convenient integrations" and big players reducing choice/competition. I realize I'm not the average consumer but I'll clamor for choice/competition every single time.
- callumlocke 9y ago
  I don't think it's just a thin line, I think it's an overlap, that's the problem. Monopolies can be genuinely convenient/useful for consumers. Sometimes regulators have to make things less convenient/useful in the short term to prevent monopoly and stagnation in the long term.

pweissbrod 9y ago

"Our data show that people usually prefer a built-in browser on their start menu by default, not browsers they need to download/install/configure manually" -Microsoft 20 years ago

tajen 9y ago
...before getting €2bn in fines, a good part of it for "forgetting" to show the browser choice popup for 6 months, in Win 7 ServicePack 1, after successfully showing it in Windows 7. Looking back, they did really play cat-and-mouse with the EU.
euyyn 9y ago
Of course everybody prefers a browser to be pre-installed, but Microsoft did way more than that. They strictly harmed users to protect their Windows monopoly from the threat of Java apps. Java applets distributed via the web (executed by Netscape Navigator) had the potential to displace Win32 as a preferred API, thus making Linux and other OS's able to compete with Windows in terms of application offering. Some OEMs wanted to sell Windows computers with Netscape Navigator preinstalled, because it was way better. Microsoft told them they wouldn't sell them any Windows license at all if they did it, forcing their hand. Microsoft further preinstalled their own incompatible version of Java, to try and make Java apps non cross-platform. They did the same with Internet Explorer's own incompatible version of web standards, when web apps started to gain popularity. Windows' monopoly was maintained in part by Microsoft purposefully spending resources in actions that only harmed Windows users (and consumers in general).
- saurik 9y ago
  "That's the joke." https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk The comment you are replying to is showing by way of parallel to Microsoft that this polemic from Google is an absurd defense: your entire comment is something I would imagine the person you are replying to agrees with, which is precisely why they made the comment they did, as it demonstrates in a visceral way how absurd it is to be trying to give Google a free pass just because their product is useful. You seem to be going around this thread making the same mistake in multiple contexts, such as when you replied to me in this other linked thread, which makes me wonder if you are paying much attention before commenting :/. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646976

Jerry2 9y ago

It's interesting how on Hacker News, story about Google getting fined was censored and removed yet PR from Google is still on the front page. It's sad that bias and censorship on here is so strong.

cookiecaper 9y ago
Take a page from Trump; let them think they're making fun of you, while they're actually spreading your gospel. Trump did this so successfully he actually became president, against all odds. Whether it comes through the Google PR machine or not, people are still getting the key message: Google has been fined for playing unfairly. Most people don't read past the headline, and defending against these allegations still just makes the allegations stickier in the minds of public; it strengthens the association between "Google" and "unfair" in the public's psyche.
HerraBRE 9y ago
Why do you say it was censored and removed? It's dropped down to page two, but that's perfectly normal once something has been on the front page for a while.
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  It's only been 5 hours since it was posted, and the story has ~450 upvotes. In contrast, I see another story on the front page right now that was posted 18 hours ago and only has ~250 upvotes.
  - RandomBookmarks 9y ago
    It could be the algorithm: Maybe the original EU story got many downvotes from HN users that work at Google?
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Is there a way to downvote stories? Maybe you mean it was flagged?

aparvinash 9y ago

One thing I was missing from comments is that the ruling is not passed by courts but by the commission investigated the crime. Is it same as prosecutor sentencing the accused and there by the burden of proof is upon the accused ? Would it be the same if the accused is a person and not a corporation in EU ?

dheera 9y ago

What if Google simply pulled out of those countries? I'm asking this seriously. When they pulled out of China, China blocked them, so they effectively lost. But Europe's countries do not block websites. Google could just pull out of those countries, continue to localize content for those countries' languages, and the users, page views, ad revenue wouldn't go anywhere. And those countries wouldn't be able to lay a finger on Google in terms of fines.

ionised 9y ago
Google is addicted to the favourable tax arrangements of the EU.
rplnt 9y ago
Could they still sell ads in those countries? Or other services?
la_oveja 9y ago
Because you can make lots of money in the EU, you just need to follow more strict rules than in the USA.
mrtksn 9y ago
What exactly Google will win from spending money just as it is spending today to run the services but stop making any financial returns? Why would investors be happy of Google catering to a market that has only expenses but no profit or hope for future profit due to regulatory reasons. I guess EU locals would enjoy the ad-free experience...
insertnickname 9y ago
>Europe's countries do not block websites. Sure they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Denmark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Denmark

la_oveja 9y ago

> Our ability to do that well isn’t favoring ourselves, or any particular site or seller "not favoring any particular seller"? If it pays, it's on the front page. Are you seriously telling me that somebody who has paid nothing still can get on the front page competing with others who paid? I don't trust you, Google.

coverband 9y ago

I thought the combined fines given to Microsoft by the EU Commission were larger than this amount, but I was wrong. It seems Microsoft paid something like 2.2 billion euros between 2006-2013[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission (On a side note, I was employed by MS for a couple of years during that time, and remember clearly how every new feature was being inspected to ensure whether it followed EU requirements, on top of compliance requirements imposed earlier by FTC in the U.S.)

socrates1998 9y ago

From my limited knowledge of the situation, this seems an appropriate fine. Google claims that the success of Ebay and Amazon prove that they haven't been anti-competitive, right? But I think Google just couldn't help itself. How could you not? You have the consensus, world dominating search engine, and you just have to slightly tweak it to every so slightly support your shopping platform. It just seems way too easy to do. One small adjustment means $4 billion more next year, I mean, how could you not do it? As an anecdote, I have never trusted Google's product results in the top bar. It just all seemed to easy to fudge the results to me.

dlwdlw 9y ago

As an aside, I think Google has huge potential to become the source of discovery for all things. Actions where it promotes its own stuff on Google play despite knowing and hiding the same thing on Hulu/Netflix/HBO is myopic. It should continue to do what it is good at instead of fighting for slices of other pie.

xtracto 9y ago

I have no sympathy for Google. They take on their hands the role of policing the world removing some kind of ads that some guys in India think are not "good enough" for people all the way into other countries (Mexico in my case), without understanding the context of the country and the product in that country. And this, for products that are not only legal in the country but are even being promoted by the government. But when they are abusing their power for greed reasons and the government punishes them, then they whine. Hypocrites.