5 ms·

That kind of already happened: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/google-fined-e2-42bn-for-eu-antitrust-violations-over-shopping-searches/ https://techcrunch.co

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
      - brynjolf 8y ago
        Positive change globally? Source?
    - j16sdiz 8y ago
      Except the search engine business is not profit making without ADs. Google is like yellow page, not Walmart.
  - 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.

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
    - brynjolf 8y ago
      Positive change globally? Source?
  - j16sdiz 8y ago
    Except the search engine business is not profit making without ADs. Google is like yellow page, not Walmart.
- 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.