3 ms·

> Or this is one of several independent steps, it only works when all are ready, and they are willing to spend the money. This is the step they can do for free

by spwa4 10mo ago

> Or this is one of several independent steps, it only works when all are ready, and they are willing to spend the money. This is the step they can do for free (without eating any government budgets). The other steps are really expensive. One does not lead to the other. This is like let's make a new Google and "already implementing the sorting algorithm". While undoubtedly important, it does not actually advance you towards your goal. Which is exactly what the EU did a few years back of course. Try to force the creation of a new Google. What did they come up with? Trovaprezzi.it Kelkoo.co.uk Yes, really. Visit those sites and decide for yourself how close they are to replacing Google. There were 10 or so others, even worse (by which I mean much worse scam sites). Don't worry, the EU kept the damages for their own budget and did not give them to those companies to actually try to build a new Google.

ben_w 10mo ago
> This is like let's make a new Google and "already implementing the sorting algorithm". While undoubtedly important, it does not actually advance you towards your goal. Google, the search engine? A search engine is just a sorting algorithm for the query over the data. This is what Page Rank is. Also, the Page Rank patent has expired. What made Google Inc. (and later Alphabet) a big player in the world was the money from the adverts. Their excuse for the prices they charge for those adverts comes from their analytics. The analytics are worryingly invasive, hence GDPR and the consent popups. > Kelkoo.co.uk Kelkoo is a European price comparison service founded in France in 1999.[1] In 2000 Kelkoo merged with Zoomit, Dondecomprar and Shopgenie. The company was bought by Yahoo! on 26 March, 2004.[2] and was subsequently sold by Yahoo to Jamplant, a British private equity firm, in 2008. … Initial funding of $3 million was provided by Banexi Ventures and Innovacom That's not even trying to be Google. Nor is it an example of the EU trying to force the creation of a new Google. Even if you can find EU funding despite evidence of this not being listed in the wiki page nor in, ahem, *Google's own* AI Overview, in that era a better question would be "was this the EU jumping on the dot.com bandwagon?" You might be able to put it in a similar role as eBay or Amazon, but only if I could also categorise Kaufland's website that way. But not Google.
- spwa4 10mo ago
  > That's not even trying to be Google. That's my point. Not even remotely close, and 100x as scammy as Google. The EU commission claimed these companies were the European competition for Google (and then kept the money they got from Google that was supposed to let them build their companies)
  - ben_w 10mo ago
    > That's my point. Not even remotely close, You said: Which is exactly what the EU did a few years back of course. Try to force the creation of a new Google. What did they come up with? Except they were not the EU "Try[ing] to force the creation of" anything, nor were they "a new Google", meaning the only parts of that sentence you get to keep are the spaces. Kelkoo did its thing before Google did shopping. Google is the mimic here. Kelkoo *pre-dates* Google's shopping search system, by a few years (Google's one first launched as Froogle in Dec 2002). > The EU commission claimed these companies were the European competition for Google (and then kept the money they got from Google that was supposed to let them build their companies) 1. When did the EU commission get money from Google, for any purpose or reason, including fines? Was it around fifteen years after Kelkoo was bought and sold by Yahoo!? And therefore would have needed a time machine to be involved in the creation of Kelkoo? 2. The actual reality is that Kelkoo joined in a lawsuit against Google for monopoly abuse[a], claiming to have been damaged by Google manipulating search results to favour its own products. Important: The US courts have also found Google guilty of antitrust violations[b]. If you try to insist that this case — which is the closest I can even find to your phrasing, you've not cited anything — can use any of the words "forcing", "creating", or the sentence "and then kept the money they got from Google that was supposed to let them build their companies", then you have to also apply this to the US courts. It's incorrect to use those words and phrases to describe the US case against Google, it's incorrect to use those words and phrases to describe the EU case against Google. [a] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39740/39740_14996_3.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39... [b] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/05/google-loses-antitrust-case-over-search.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/05/google-loses-antitrust-case-...

by spwa4 10mo ago

ben_w 10mo ago

> This is like let's make a new Google and "already implementing the sorting algorithm". While undoubtedly important, it does not actually advance you towards your goal. Google, the search engine? A search engine is just a sorting algorithm for the query over the data. This is what Page Rank is. Also, the Page Rank patent has expired. What made Google Inc. (and later Alphabet) a big player in the world was the money from the adverts. Their excuse for the prices they charge for those adverts comes from their analytics. The analytics are worryingly invasive, hence GDPR and the consent popups. > Kelkoo.co.uk Kelkoo is a European price comparison service founded in France in 1999.[1] In 2000 Kelkoo merged with Zoomit, Dondecomprar and Shopgenie. The company was bought by Yahoo! on 26 March, 2004.[2] and was subsequently sold by Yahoo to Jamplant, a British private equity firm, in 2008. … Initial funding of $3 million was provided by Banexi Ventures and Innovacom That's not even trying to be Google. Nor is it an example of the EU trying to force the creation of a new Google. Even if you can find EU funding despite evidence of this not being listed in the wiki page nor in, ahem, *Google's own* AI Overview, in that era a better question would be "was this the EU jumping on the dot.com bandwagon?" You might be able to put it in a similar role as eBay or Amazon, but only if I could also categorise Kaufland's website that way. But not Google.

spwa4 10mo ago
> That's not even trying to be Google. That's my point. Not even remotely close, and 100x as scammy as Google. The EU commission claimed these companies were the European competition for Google (and then kept the money they got from Google that was supposed to let them build their companies)
- ben_w 10mo ago
  > That's my point. Not even remotely close, You said: Which is exactly what the EU did a few years back of course. Try to force the creation of a new Google. What did they come up with? Except they were not the EU "Try[ing] to force the creation of" anything, nor were they "a new Google", meaning the only parts of that sentence you get to keep are the spaces. Kelkoo did its thing before Google did shopping. Google is the mimic here. Kelkoo *pre-dates* Google's shopping search system, by a few years (Google's one first launched as Froogle in Dec 2002). > The EU commission claimed these companies were the European competition for Google (and then kept the money they got from Google that was supposed to let them build their companies) 1. When did the EU commission get money from Google, for any purpose or reason, including fines? Was it around fifteen years after Kelkoo was bought and sold by Yahoo!? And therefore would have needed a time machine to be involved in the creation of Kelkoo? 2. The actual reality is that Kelkoo joined in a lawsuit against Google for monopoly abuse[a], claiming to have been damaged by Google manipulating search results to favour its own products. Important: The US courts have also found Google guilty of antitrust violations[b]. If you try to insist that this case — which is the closest I can even find to your phrasing, you've not cited anything — can use any of the words "forcing", "creating", or the sentence "and then kept the money they got from Google that was supposed to let them build their companies", then you have to also apply this to the US courts. It's incorrect to use those words and phrases to describe the US case against Google, it's incorrect to use those words and phrases to describe the EU case against Google. [a] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39740/39740_14996_3.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39... [b] https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/05/google-loses-antitrust-case-over-search.html https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/05/google-loses-antitrust-case-...