5 ms·

In which we see a difference between EU and US law. US antitrust law exists to protect the consumer. EU antitrust law, evidently, exists to protect other comp

In which we see a difference between EU and US law. US antitrust law exists to protect the consumer. EU antitrust law, evidently, exists to protect other competitors.

ocdtrekkie 12y ago
Actually, the difference is that US antitrust law won't go after companies who are friends of half the White House staff and pay off a decent chunk of Congress, whereas the EU doesn't care how big you are, they'll take you down.
- Goronmon 12y ago
  I think you meant "shake you down".
- adventured 12y ago
  Feel free to provide numerous examples of US companies avoiding anti-trust by paying off a decent chunk of Congress. You need to prove your assertions when they're that outlandish. Microsoft, IBM, Standard Oil, American Tobacco, Alcoa. Several of the biggest companies in US history, all pursued very aggressively by the US Government on anti-trust. You're clearly wrong.
AJ007 12y ago
Thankfully we have leaked documents from the US case. Excerpt from Ben Edelman, whose done a damn good job over the years not only watching Google but also companies involved in abusive adware and spyware practices: 'At the same time, Google systematically applied lesser standards to its own services. Examining Google's launch report for a 2008 algorithm change, FTC staff said that Google elected to show its product search OneBox "regardless of the quality" of that result (footnote 119, citing GOOGLR-00330279-80) and despite "pretty terribly embarrassing failures" in returning low-quality results (footnote 170, citing GOOGWRIG-000041022). Indeed, Google's product search service apparently failed Google's standard criteria for being indexed by Google search (p.80 and footnote 461), yet Google nonetheless put the service in top positions (p.30 and footnote 170, citing GOOG-Texas-0199877-906).' http://www.benedelman.org/news/040115-1.html http://www.benedelman.org/news/040115-1.html Were consumers hurt if Google de-ranked content which by even Google's own standards were better than its own? May be not, but it certainly peels away any idea of the integrity of algorithmic search. Google's business is under attack from all fronts today. As business owners and those employed by internet businesses we are so fortunate as to not have to rely on Google anymore for our audiences. We have have search from two major app stores, and more if you are international. Social can deliver new users at a greater rate than search. There was a day where Google penalized your company, and the next day you fired everyone. In the next year or so we may start seeing ultra-cheap Chinese smartphones flood the market with Google free Android. Interesting thing commenters here seem to not know, device manufacturers are not allowed to sell any non-Google Android devices if they sell Google Android. Idealy some lines are drawn so Facebook doesn't engage in similar abusive behavior against its users and customers. I don't have high hopes. If anything, the ability to avoid US penalties and the EU's late reaction time probably emboldens behavior by market leaders everywhere.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  I don't understand what you're getting at. The "product search onebox" does not drive traffic to Google, it drives traffic away from it. For instance if I search for "bicycle helmet" the thing at the top of the page is the product search onebox, it contains five prominent links to sites where I can buy a bicycle helmet. So I don't see what you are getting at. If anything, the product search onebox is the opposite of what the EU seems to be complaining about.
  - jdmichal 12y ago
    The question would be, how did those links in the OneBox get there? Is there harm in being the #1 search result, but not the first "result" on the page, because there's a OneBox above you with links from a different source?
    - thrownaway2424 12y ago
      I don't know. Apparently the merchants provide the information to Google directly in spreadsheets. https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/160637?hl=en https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/160637?hl=en As for your other question about being the #1 result but being ranked below paying advertisers, I'm not sure. Nobody deserves the #1 spot, it's not a natural right granted by your creator. In fact "the #1 search result" varies from query to query and from one user to the next based on their own Google account, if they have one.
- ocdtrekkie 12y ago
  "Interesting thing commenters here seem to not know, device manufacturers are not allowed to sell any non-Google Android devices if they sell Google Android." - This is one of those MADA terms few Google supporters understand. Samsung, for example, is prohibited from releasing Google-free Android unless they wholesale give up on all Google Apps on every device they sell.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
Google's behaviour is not pro-consumer. Lack of competition is not good for consumers.

In which we see a difference between EU and US law. US antitrust law exists to protect the consumer. EU antitrust law, evidently, exists to protect other competitors.

ocdtrekkie 12y ago

Actually, the difference is that US antitrust law won't go after companies who are friends of half the White House staff and pay off a decent chunk of Congress, whereas the EU doesn't care how big you are, they'll take you down.

Goronmon 12y ago
I think you meant "shake you down".
adventured 12y ago
Feel free to provide numerous examples of US companies avoiding anti-trust by paying off a decent chunk of Congress. You need to prove your assertions when they're that outlandish. Microsoft, IBM, Standard Oil, American Tobacco, Alcoa. Several of the biggest companies in US history, all pursued very aggressively by the US Government on anti-trust. You're clearly wrong.

AJ007 12y ago

Thankfully we have leaked documents from the US case. Excerpt from Ben Edelman, whose done a damn good job over the years not only watching Google but also companies involved in abusive adware and spyware practices: 'At the same time, Google systematically applied lesser standards to its own services. Examining Google's launch report for a 2008 algorithm change, FTC staff said that Google elected to show its product search OneBox "regardless of the quality" of that result (footnote 119, citing GOOGLR-00330279-80) and despite "pretty terribly embarrassing failures" in returning low-quality results (footnote 170, citing GOOGWRIG-000041022). Indeed, Google's product search service apparently failed Google's standard criteria for being indexed by Google search (p.80 and footnote 461), yet Google nonetheless put the service in top positions (p.30 and footnote 170, citing GOOG-Texas-0199877-906).' http://www.benedelman.org/news/040115-1.html http://www.benedelman.org/news/040115-1.html Were consumers hurt if Google de-ranked content which by even Google's own standards were better than its own? May be not, but it certainly peels away any idea of the integrity of algorithmic search. Google's business is under attack from all fronts today. As business owners and those employed by internet businesses we are so fortunate as to not have to rely on Google anymore for our audiences. We have have search from two major app stores, and more if you are international. Social can deliver new users at a greater rate than search. There was a day where Google penalized your company, and the next day you fired everyone. In the next year or so we may start seeing ultra-cheap Chinese smartphones flood the market with Google free Android. Interesting thing commenters here seem to not know, device manufacturers are not allowed to sell any non-Google Android devices if they sell Google Android. Idealy some lines are drawn so Facebook doesn't engage in similar abusive behavior against its users and customers. I don't have high hopes. If anything, the ability to avoid US penalties and the EU's late reaction time probably emboldens behavior by market leaders everywhere.

thrownaway2424 12y ago
I don't understand what you're getting at. The "product search onebox" does not drive traffic to Google, it drives traffic away from it. For instance if I search for "bicycle helmet" the thing at the top of the page is the product search onebox, it contains five prominent links to sites where I can buy a bicycle helmet. So I don't see what you are getting at. If anything, the product search onebox is the opposite of what the EU seems to be complaining about.
- jdmichal 12y ago
  The question would be, how did those links in the OneBox get there? Is there harm in being the #1 search result, but not the first "result" on the page, because there's a OneBox above you with links from a different source?
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    I don't know. Apparently the merchants provide the information to Google directly in spreadsheets. https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/160637?hl=en https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/160637?hl=en As for your other question about being the #1 result but being ranked below paying advertisers, I'm not sure. Nobody deserves the #1 spot, it's not a natural right granted by your creator. In fact "the #1 search result" varies from query to query and from one user to the next based on their own Google account, if they have one.
ocdtrekkie 12y ago
"Interesting thing commenters here seem to not know, device manufacturers are not allowed to sell any non-Google Android devices if they sell Google Android." - This is one of those MADA terms few Google supporters understand. Samsung, for example, is prohibited from releasing Google-free Android unless they wholesale give up on all Google Apps on every device they sell.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago

Google's behaviour is not pro-consumer. Lack of competition is not good for consumers.