7 ms·

Just trying to get the facts straight. Google provided the ability to search your site. They also allowed you to show ads/make money from these searches. If you

by Veelox 8y ago

Just trying to get the facts straight. Google provided the ability to search your site. They also allowed you to show ads/make money from these searches. If you wanted to use this, you had to only show Google ads. I don't understand how that is illegal.

utopcell 8y ago
Eventually they are going to fine Google for showing only Google ads on Google's search page.
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  That kind of already happened: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/google-fined-e2-42bn-for-eu-antitrust-violations-over-shopping-searches/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/google-fined-e2-42bn-for-e...
  - dmitriid 8y ago
    As in: didn't happen, and Google was fined correctly: "Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google’s search results, and others appear even further down. Google’s own comparison shopping service is not subject to Google’s generic search algorithms, including such demotions."
    - utopcell 8y ago
      I can't wait to walk into a Walmart and see poster ads for Best Buy near its entrance. Why is Walmart abusing its dominance as a retailer ? (This line of reasoning actually makes sense to some people.)
      - faceplanted 8y ago
        I'm not sure if you're saying that the fine makes sense or you're being sarcastic and saying it doesn't.
        utopcell 8y ago
        I'm saying it doesn't. Google doesn't prioritize its own products on its organic search results.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - dmitriid 8y ago
        If you want to go down the slippery road of analogies, a better one would be: Google is Walmart, offering all kinds of products. Carrying Kellog’s cereals (and many others). Recently it started producing its own brand, Cerealify. Once it started producing its own brand, it’s the only brand you can now buy at Walmart. It’s also the only brand featured in marketing materials (catalogs, flyers, posters). Kelloggs, and other brands, can only be found in a warehouse 5 miles away. How’s that for competition?
        visarga 8y ago
        No, a better analogy would be if they conditioned Kelloggs to only sell on Walmart, if they want to sell on Walmart at all.
        utopcell 8y ago
        The Google Search page is not a market place and the original argument against Google is absurd. For instance, if I search for "The Art of Computer Programming" on Google, the first result through which I can actually buy the books is Amazon, arguably one of the largest competitors of Google. I understand the desire of playing Devil's Advocate here, but it's difficult to stomach. Google has been such a force for positive change globally that it's hard to see the EU as the good guys in this case.
        int_19h 8y ago
        Does Google being "such a force for positive change globally" requires it to abuse its dominant position in the market to promote its unrelated products?
        utopcell 8y ago
        False premise: it doesn't.
        dmitriid 8y ago
        @gamblor956 explained it way better than I could ever hope to here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19444072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19444072 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19445447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19445447
      - gamblor956 8y ago
        For starters, Walmart and Google are very different things. Walmart is a store, and sells things. Best Buy is also a store, and sells many of the same things Walmart sells. They are competitors in the market for selling electronics. Competition between them is good, and so they aren't required to advertise each others' stores. Google is a search engine. Bing and Yahoo Search are also search engines. They crawl and search the same websites. Competition between them is good, and so they aren't required to advertise each other's search engines. Google Mail is not a search engine. Google News is not a search engine. YouTube is not a search engine. Google Play is not a search engine. These are all different products from Google Search. Thus, Google giving preferential treatment to these products in its market-dominant search engine would be a textbook example of an antitrust violation: using a dominant market position in one market to interfere in the another market. (It depends on the jurisdiction's specific antitrust laws, but it may not matter where the competitors' products show up in the search results if Google is giving preferential treatment to its own competing products in searches for those products or the search terms that would list those products.)
        utopcell 8y ago
        I understood the argument (it wasn't that complicated to make.) By this reasoning, Google Ads is a different product from Google Search and as such gets preferential treatment by being the only one presented in Google's search results. It's not hard to see these line of fines against Google for what they are: Money-grabbing attacks. With no knowledge on the matter, as an external observer, I wish this doesn't lead Google to de-prioritize its offerings in Europe.
        gamblor956 8y ago
        By this reasoning, Google Ads is a different product from Google Search and as such gets preferential treatment by being the only one presented in Google's search results. I'm not sure what reasoning you're using, but it appears you aren't grasping the complexity of the argument. For starters, Google search placement is a fundamental part of the search product, and is a wholly different product from Google Ads (which don't show up alongside search results). Search results and display ads aren't just different products--they're different markets (for example, print ads and tv ads are also advertising but are wholly separate forms of advertising from each other and from display ads and from search placement). So paying for placement in search results isn't an antitrust issue. On the other hand, if buying search placement was contingent on also buying Google Ads, that would be a textbook example of antitrust abuse because Google's dominance in the search engine market is being used to leverage and interfere with the display ads market.
pessimizer 8y ago
Because forcing exclusivity is anti-competition. If you want a competitive ecosystem, you create laws that do not allow the largest player in a market to force customers to exclude their competitors in another market in order to use their primary product. If you're a libertarian, you would think that's fine, but in a libertarian world one company would have 97% of the market, and if you wanted to use their electricity, you would be forced to buy your food from them.
Angostura 8y ago
Because, as I understand it, Google was saying that if you used it search service, you were prohibited from showing non-Google ads anywhere else on the site. You couldn't just use Google Search and accept ads in those search results a cost of use. This sounds rather like abuse of a dominant position in one area to squash competitors in another.
- Veelox 8y ago
  >you were prohibited from showing non-Google ads anywhere else on the site. Can I get a link or a quote to support that? If that is the case then yes, it crosses a line but I didn't see any in the linked article to support that view. Edit: I reread the article and I think you are wrong. It specifically says on search pages. From the article >In 2006, Google started to include "exclusivity clauses" in contracts which stopped publishers from placing ads from Google rivals such as Microsoft and Yahoo on search pages, the Commission said. >From 2009, Google started replacing the exclusivity clauses with "premium placement" clauses, which meant publishers had to keep the most profitable space on their search results pages for Google's adverts and they had to request a minimum number of Google adverts.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    The premium placement clause for a different Google product is still an antitrust violation. Antitrust law, despite the name, isn't limited to abuses of monopoly power. It includes the use of dominant market positions in one market to reduce competition in another.
  - Angostura 8y ago
    I think I'm wrong too. Here's the EC press release explaining the rationale: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1770_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1770_en.htm
Sahhaese 8y ago
Not leveraging dominance in one area to push a different area is the basis of our anti-monopoly laws.
- Veelox 8y ago
  While I agreed the shopping issue was an issue of leveraging dominance, this seems more reasonable, if you want to monitize our free service, you have to use us to do it. At the moment I cannot come up with an example of that situation that would be an antitrust violation.
  - singron 8y ago
    Was this service free? It seems that if sites were modifying the results page to re-arrange ads, they were probably using the Google Custom Search JSON API, which is a paid service ($5/1000 queries): https://developers.google.com/custom-search/v1/overview#Pricing https://developers.google.com/custom-search/v1/overview#Pric...
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    You literally just provided the example. Product A: dominant search product Product B: non-dominant advertising product. If you want to use product A, you need to also use product B. That alone is sufficient to create an antitrust violation. It's almost literally the textbook example of an antitrust violation. But Google didn't stop there--they required exclusivity for product B for several years, and even after that ended they still required premium placement. Either way, they just compounded the severity of the antitrust violation.
    - Veelox 8y ago
      It might be that I don't see how what you classify as Product A and Product B are different products. I see Product B as the monetization feature of Product A. If I "squint" I can see how they are different products but I am not convinced.
      - 8y ago
Hamuko 8y ago
Google is leveraging its power in search by making sites not display ads from its competitors if they wish to use their search. Sounds uncompetitive to me.
squaresmile 8y ago
I think the press release [1] did a good job of detailing the specific activity that was over the line: > Starting in 2006, Google included exclusivity clauses in its contracts. This meant that publishers were prohibited from placing any search adverts from competitors on their search results pages. The decision concerns publishers whose agreements with Google required such exclusivity for all their websites. Even if the search result and some ads were provided by Google, requiring exclusivity for search adverts was too much. [1] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1770_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1770_en.htm
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Even if the search result and some ads were provided by Google, requiring exclusivity for search adverts was too much. Which completely ignores why ad networks have those restrictions. At one point it was common for crummy web pages to sign up for every ad network. All of them. Because every one you signed up for was more money. Then the whole side of the page would be ads from different networks. The obvious problem is that the advertiser is paying the website for eyeballs, but nobody is ever going to look at all of those ads. It's hard enough to get anyone to look at your ad box when it's the only one on the page. So you're paying for eyeballs and then not getting them. It was like buying a TV ad spot and discovering that the TV network had put it in the middle of an uninterrupted two hour block of just other ads. No surprise that the ad networks then required sites to stop doing that.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    I believe Google makes enough cash to hire people who could take care of those spammy websites. Instead, they consciously choose themselves to be a monopoly.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      What do you mean "take care of them"? If they're not allowed to restrict you from displaying their ads next to ads from other networks, that's the exact thing the spammy websites were doing.

by Veelox 8y ago

utopcell 8y ago

Eventually they are going to fine Google for showing only Google ads on Google's search page.

VikingCoder 8y ago
That kind of already happened: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/google-fined-e2-42bn-for-eu-antitrust-violations-over-shopping-searches/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/google-fined-e2-42bn-for-e...
- dmitriid 8y ago
  As in: didn't happen, and Google was fined correctly: "Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google’s search results, and others appear even further down. Google’s own comparison shopping service is not subject to Google’s generic search algorithms, including such demotions."
  - utopcell 8y ago
    I can't wait to walk into a Walmart and see poster ads for Best Buy near its entrance. Why is Walmart abusing its dominance as a retailer ? (This line of reasoning actually makes sense to some people.)
    - faceplanted 8y ago
      I'm not sure if you're saying that the fine makes sense or you're being sarcastic and saying it doesn't.
      - utopcell 8y ago
        I'm saying it doesn't. Google doesn't prioritize its own products on its organic search results.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - dmitriid 8y ago
      If you want to go down the slippery road of analogies, a better one would be: Google is Walmart, offering all kinds of products. Carrying Kellog’s cereals (and many others). Recently it started producing its own brand, Cerealify. Once it started producing its own brand, it’s the only brand you can now buy at Walmart. It’s also the only brand featured in marketing materials (catalogs, flyers, posters). Kelloggs, and other brands, can only be found in a warehouse 5 miles away. How’s that for competition?
      - visarga 8y ago
        No, a better analogy would be if they conditioned Kelloggs to only sell on Walmart, if they want to sell on Walmart at all.
      - utopcell 8y ago
        The Google Search page is not a market place and the original argument against Google is absurd. For instance, if I search for "The Art of Computer Programming" on Google, the first result through which I can actually buy the books is Amazon, arguably one of the largest competitors of Google. I understand the desire of playing Devil's Advocate here, but it's difficult to stomach. Google has been such a force for positive change globally that it's hard to see the EU as the good guys in this case.
        int_19h 8y ago
        Does Google being "such a force for positive change globally" requires it to abuse its dominant position in the market to promote its unrelated products?
        utopcell 8y ago
        False premise: it doesn't.
        dmitriid 8y ago
        @gamblor956 explained it way better than I could ever hope to here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19444072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19444072 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19445447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19445447
    - gamblor956 8y ago
      For starters, Walmart and Google are very different things. Walmart is a store, and sells things. Best Buy is also a store, and sells many of the same things Walmart sells. They are competitors in the market for selling electronics. Competition between them is good, and so they aren't required to advertise each others' stores. Google is a search engine. Bing and Yahoo Search are also search engines. They crawl and search the same websites. Competition between them is good, and so they aren't required to advertise each other's search engines. Google Mail is not a search engine. Google News is not a search engine. YouTube is not a search engine. Google Play is not a search engine. These are all different products from Google Search. Thus, Google giving preferential treatment to these products in its market-dominant search engine would be a textbook example of an antitrust violation: using a dominant market position in one market to interfere in the another market. (It depends on the jurisdiction's specific antitrust laws, but it may not matter where the competitors' products show up in the search results if Google is giving preferential treatment to its own competing products in searches for those products or the search terms that would list those products.)
      - utopcell 8y ago
        I understood the argument (it wasn't that complicated to make.) By this reasoning, Google Ads is a different product from Google Search and as such gets preferential treatment by being the only one presented in Google's search results. It's not hard to see these line of fines against Google for what they are: Money-grabbing attacks. With no knowledge on the matter, as an external observer, I wish this doesn't lead Google to de-prioritize its offerings in Europe.
        gamblor956 8y ago
        By this reasoning, Google Ads is a different product from Google Search and as such gets preferential treatment by being the only one presented in Google's search results. I'm not sure what reasoning you're using, but it appears you aren't grasping the complexity of the argument. For starters, Google search placement is a fundamental part of the search product, and is a wholly different product from Google Ads (which don't show up alongside search results). Search results and display ads aren't just different products--they're different markets (for example, print ads and tv ads are also advertising but are wholly separate forms of advertising from each other and from display ads and from search placement). So paying for placement in search results isn't an antitrust issue. On the other hand, if buying search placement was contingent on also buying Google Ads, that would be a textbook example of antitrust abuse because Google's dominance in the search engine market is being used to leverage and interfere with the display ads market.

pessimizer 8y ago

Because forcing exclusivity is anti-competition. If you want a competitive ecosystem, you create laws that do not allow the largest player in a market to force customers to exclude their competitors in another market in order to use their primary product. If you're a libertarian, you would think that's fine, but in a libertarian world one company would have 97% of the market, and if you wanted to use their electricity, you would be forced to buy your food from them.

Angostura 8y ago

Because, as I understand it, Google was saying that if you used it search service, you were prohibited from showing non-Google ads anywhere else on the site. You couldn't just use Google Search and accept ads in those search results a cost of use. This sounds rather like abuse of a dominant position in one area to squash competitors in another.

Veelox 8y ago
>you were prohibited from showing non-Google ads anywhere else on the site. Can I get a link or a quote to support that? If that is the case then yes, it crosses a line but I didn't see any in the linked article to support that view. Edit: I reread the article and I think you are wrong. It specifically says on search pages. From the article >In 2006, Google started to include "exclusivity clauses" in contracts which stopped publishers from placing ads from Google rivals such as Microsoft and Yahoo on search pages, the Commission said. >From 2009, Google started replacing the exclusivity clauses with "premium placement" clauses, which meant publishers had to keep the most profitable space on their search results pages for Google's adverts and they had to request a minimum number of Google adverts.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  The premium placement clause for a different Google product is still an antitrust violation. Antitrust law, despite the name, isn't limited to abuses of monopoly power. It includes the use of dominant market positions in one market to reduce competition in another.
- Angostura 8y ago
  I think I'm wrong too. Here's the EC press release explaining the rationale: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1770_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1770_en.htm

Sahhaese 8y ago

Not leveraging dominance in one area to push a different area is the basis of our anti-monopoly laws.

Veelox 8y ago
While I agreed the shopping issue was an issue of leveraging dominance, this seems more reasonable, if you want to monitize our free service, you have to use us to do it. At the moment I cannot come up with an example of that situation that would be an antitrust violation.
- singron 8y ago
  Was this service free? It seems that if sites were modifying the results page to re-arrange ads, they were probably using the Google Custom Search JSON API, which is a paid service ($5/1000 queries): https://developers.google.com/custom-search/v1/overview#Pricing https://developers.google.com/custom-search/v1/overview#Pric...
- gamblor956 8y ago
  You literally just provided the example. Product A: dominant search product Product B: non-dominant advertising product. If you want to use product A, you need to also use product B. That alone is sufficient to create an antitrust violation. It's almost literally the textbook example of an antitrust violation. But Google didn't stop there--they required exclusivity for product B for several years, and even after that ended they still required premium placement. Either way, they just compounded the severity of the antitrust violation.
  - Veelox 8y ago
    It might be that I don't see how what you classify as Product A and Product B are different products. I see Product B as the monetization feature of Product A. If I "squint" I can see how they are different products but I am not convinced.
    - 8y ago

Hamuko 8y ago

Google is leveraging its power in search by making sites not display ads from its competitors if they wish to use their search. Sounds uncompetitive to me.

squaresmile 8y ago

I think the press release [1] did a good job of detailing the specific activity that was over the line: > Starting in 2006, Google included exclusivity clauses in its contracts. This meant that publishers were prohibited from placing any search adverts from competitors on their search results pages. The decision concerns publishers whose agreements with Google required such exclusivity for all their websites. Even if the search result and some ads were provided by Google, requiring exclusivity for search adverts was too much. [1] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1770_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1770_en.htm

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Even if the search result and some ads were provided by Google, requiring exclusivity for search adverts was too much. Which completely ignores why ad networks have those restrictions. At one point it was common for crummy web pages to sign up for every ad network. All of them. Because every one you signed up for was more money. Then the whole side of the page would be ads from different networks. The obvious problem is that the advertiser is paying the website for eyeballs, but nobody is ever going to look at all of those ads. It's hard enough to get anyone to look at your ad box when it's the only one on the page. So you're paying for eyeballs and then not getting them. It was like buying a TV ad spot and discovering that the TV network had put it in the middle of an uninterrupted two hour block of just other ads. No surprise that the ad networks then required sites to stop doing that.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  I believe Google makes enough cash to hire people who could take care of those spammy websites. Instead, they consciously choose themselves to be a monopoly.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    What do you mean "take care of them"? If they're not allowed to restrict you from displaying their ads next to ads from other networks, that's the exact thing the spammy websites were doing.