4 ms·

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 th

by 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
      But this is relatively meaningless with the current fine structure. Unless the EU's is drastically different, the fine never comes close to matching what the companies are making with these anti-competitive practices, ergo the companies are not sufficiently disincentivized to stop using them.
      - kazen44 9y ago
        and to be honest, fines are not going to solve this. Why? making fines to large and forcing companies to pay them up to the point that it hurts them will result in a severe economic impact, which will destabilize te economy. For real gross conduct people should be held responsible in the company, even to the point that they might be personally responsible. People need a vested intrest to not do this kind of behaviour.
        FussyZeus 9y ago
        > making fines to large and forcing companies to pay them up to the point that it hurts them will result in a severe economic impact Yeah, that's kind of the point. If it's not large enough to cause an economic impact then what good is it? If speeding fines were $10 and didn't subtract points from your license, I'd sure be speeding a lot more.
        Radim 9y ago
        Correct. It's a lose-lose situation, and therefore should be avoided. Your "speeding tickets" example demonstrates this beautifully. We all know people who need an externally imposed speed limit, a scalar number that is so OBVIOUSLY SILLY it doesn't even take into account primary safety factors such as the weather, surrounding traffic situation, vehicle condition etc (as drivers do instinctively). People who worship that number as the source of "safeness"... because some bureaucrat somewhere said so. These are sad, broken people; actually dangerous to be around when driving. Put differently: a person who cares about the fines and "points deducted from their license" more than their own safety and self-preservation, is a great adept for the Darwin Awards. Applies to businesses equally.
  - s3r3nity 9y ago
    Anti-trust law in US & EU depends upon actually having significant market share. iOS has a significant minority share compared to Android, so it doesn't matter that Apple is bundling their own apps. The same logic applies to Bing, which employs many of the same anti-competitive tactics Google has used historically, though because market share is so low Microsoft will not garner any sanctions/fines (unless it becomes more comparable to Google.) EDIT: per the OneDrive argument on Windows, I think you might have a point - though Windows is pretty open to deep integration with competitive services like Dropbox or Google Drive, so my guess is that MSFT would just have to offer an easy way to uninstall OneDrive, maybe? (or at least disable it.)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by rndmio 9y ago

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
    But this is relatively meaningless with the current fine structure. Unless the EU's is drastically different, the fine never comes close to matching what the companies are making with these anti-competitive practices, ergo the companies are not sufficiently disincentivized to stop using them.
    - kazen44 9y ago
      and to be honest, fines are not going to solve this. Why? making fines to large and forcing companies to pay them up to the point that it hurts them will result in a severe economic impact, which will destabilize te economy. For real gross conduct people should be held responsible in the company, even to the point that they might be personally responsible. People need a vested intrest to not do this kind of behaviour.
      - FussyZeus 9y ago
        > making fines to large and forcing companies to pay them up to the point that it hurts them will result in a severe economic impact Yeah, that's kind of the point. If it's not large enough to cause an economic impact then what good is it? If speeding fines were $10 and didn't subtract points from your license, I'd sure be speeding a lot more.
        Radim 9y ago
        Correct. It's a lose-lose situation, and therefore should be avoided. Your "speeding tickets" example demonstrates this beautifully. We all know people who need an externally imposed speed limit, a scalar number that is so OBVIOUSLY SILLY it doesn't even take into account primary safety factors such as the weather, surrounding traffic situation, vehicle condition etc (as drivers do instinctively). People who worship that number as the source of "safeness"... because some bureaucrat somewhere said so. These are sad, broken people; actually dangerous to be around when driving. Put differently: a person who cares about the fines and "points deducted from their license" more than their own safety and self-preservation, is a great adept for the Darwin Awards. Applies to businesses equally.
- s3r3nity 9y ago
  Anti-trust law in US & EU depends upon actually having significant market share. iOS has a significant minority share compared to Android, so it doesn't matter that Apple is bundling their own apps. The same logic applies to Bing, which employs many of the same anti-competitive tactics Google has used historically, though because market share is so low Microsoft will not garner any sanctions/fines (unless it becomes more comparable to Google.) EDIT: per the OneDrive argument on Windows, I think you might have a point - though Windows is pretty open to deep integration with competitive services like Dropbox or Google Drive, so my guess is that MSFT would just have to offer an easy way to uninstall OneDrive, maybe? (or at least disable it.)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]