5 ms·

Now this is interesting > At issue is whether the company uses its position as the dominant search engine company to muscle out competition from specialized se

Now this is interesting > At issue is whether the company uses its position as the dominant search engine company to muscle out competition from specialized search services, specifically comparison shopping sites, by prioritizing its own Google Shopping search results. Google Shopping results suck but when I search for products almost always is an Amazon, Walmart, Target and others linked at the top of the results sometimes higher than the actual company that produces the product. As far as I can tell you can only get their shopping search results by clicking on "Shopping" (at least I can't seem to trigger it without that). I don't understand the issue here. foundem is behind the initial lawsuit and kinda kicked off this whole thing but they're a search engine. If I owned a search company I certainly wouldn't want to be federating queries and indexing them doesn't make sense; why would I index an index when I can just index the source? Am I missing something here? > The European Commission also confirmed that it is opening an investigation into Android as well. Although the operating system is open source, meaning that any manufacturer can install it on the phones and tablets they sell, many core applications, including the Google Play store, are proprietary. Manufacturers must enter into special agreements with Google to include these proprietary apps. The investigation will attempt to determine whether Google is using its position to discourage the inclusion of rival applications on Android-based phones. I don't understand this one as well. These applications require the use of Google's infrastructure so if you want to use them why shouldn't you agree to handle them as they want? Besides I think Barnes and Noble's nook and Amazon's Fire platforms show this is a non issue.

rhino369 12y ago
The issue is that Google by being the default search engine could slowly subsume all the profitable markets that run on the internet. Once they kill off potential competitors then there is no reason to be competitive on price or quality. Think of it as sort of a net neutrality for the search engine. People here are totally okay with telling Comcast they can't leverage their ISP near-monopoly to win the video streaming market. Why should we allow Google to leverage their search monopoly into capturing other internet markets.
- Goronmon 12y ago
  People here are totally okay with telling Comcast they can't leverage their ISP near-monopoly to win the video streaming market. Why should we allow Google to leverage their search monopoly into capturing other internet markets. The easy response is that I don't have a choice to switch to someone other than Comcast. Whereas I can pretty trivially switch to use a search engine other than Google.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    ISP choices aren't that much more limited than search engine choice. Google and Bing appear to be the only large-scale commercial search engines running. Ask, Yahoo, AOL, etc. are powered by Google or Bing. But I don't think that really matters. The fact that you can not use a monopoly doesn't really diminish the monopolies power, especially when the monopoly power is used to attack other markets. Does the existence of linux make it okay for Microsoft to lockdown desktop applications and charge 30%?
    - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
      Indeed. In most markets there are at best, two options. And one of them will likely suck. In Chicago, it's Comcast or AT&T. And AT&T's top speed is Comcast's minimum speed, so your choice is made up.
      - rhino369 12y ago
        Chicago is a bad example. I had RCN in both the gold coast and streetville and UVerse access depending on building contracts. But I'll grant you that most areas it's cable v. DSL. But DSL is a lot cheaper and is plenty fast for most users. It isn't a purely fungible product but it close enough. IMO.
    - Goronmon 12y ago
      I'm really struggling to see understand your stance here. I think ISP choices is a much different situation from search engine choices and consider it pretty ridiculous to compare them in a meaningful way. Does the existence of linux make it okay for Microsoft to lockdown desktop applications and charge 30%? Again, I'm not seeing the comparison. Are you saying that any given user switching search engines is comparative in difficulty to switch from one OS to another?
dmitrygr 12y ago
The reason you do not understand is simple: there is no logic here. Google is not a monopoly. The parallels drawn here (by EU and by people on HN respectively) are: 1. Microsoft. This is wrong since while it was mostly impossible back then to buy a PC without windows, it is quite possible today to not use google. In fact not using google is easier than using google (you can skip typing google.com into the address bar) 2. Comcast. This is wrong since in many markets comcast is the only internet provider. No markets exist where bing and yahoo are inaccessible. Really this is just EU punishing google for getting too big. Unfortunately for EU, even their own ridiculous (IMHO) protectionist laws do not have anything about a company being to successful for their liking. I imagine this will be a huge money and time waste for the EU, but in the end they have no real case. Google owns google.com and may display whatever it wants there. Until someone forces EU citizens to use google, or until bing and yahoo die, they are not a monopoly, even as per EU's ridiculous (IMHO) definition. Google does not owe foo.com or bar.org or baz.info any place in their results page, unless is so chooses. And foo, bar, and baz are only there at google's mercy. Just like EU cannot force _YOU_ to include content _I_ want on _YOUR_ page, no matter how successful and how non-european you are and how unsuccessful and how european I am, it has no real power to force google to index foo, bar, and baz, or place any content of theirs (snippets of text and links to their pages) on google's property that is google.com/...
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The reason you do not understand is simple: there is no logic here. Google is not a monopoly. Whether Google is a monopoly in the sense relevant in (US) antitrust law is, well, not so easily dismissed. What is relevant isn't the absence of any competition, its market power -- which is usually defined in terms of pricing power (essentially, having some range within which changes in the price at which the firm offers its product in some market will not result in a shift from the firm to competitors.) And, in any case, EU antitrust law has a less restricted domain than US antitrust law and, AFAIK, while monopoly/market/pricing power is still relevant, is more likely to be violated even before a firm has established market power. > The parallels drawn here (by EU and by people on HN respectively) are The EU isn't, AFAICT, "drawing parallels", its directly objecting to specific Google behavior on its own merit, not because it is parallel to Microsoft, Comcast, etc. > Really this is just EU punishing google for getting too big. This inflammatory complaint could use some justification. > Unfortunately for EU, even their own ridiculous (IMHO) protectionist laws do not have anything about a company being to successful for their liking. What in particular is "protectionist" about the provisions of the law being applied here? AFAICT, the laws at issue are Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [0][1], which don't seem particularly protectionist. > I imagine this will be a huge money and time waste for the EU, but in the end they have no real case. Have you seen the actual Statement of Objections? If not, what is the basis of the conclusion about whether or not they have a real case? > Google owns google.com and may display whatever it wants there. Not if they have dominant power in a market and displaying what they want there constitutes an abuse of that position. > Until someone forces EU citizens to use google, or until bing and yahoo die, they are not a monopoly, even as per EU's ridiculous (IMHO) definition. Being a monopoly is not required for a violation of either the EU rules on anticompetitive agreements or the EU rules on abuse of a dominant position. [0] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12008E101 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120... [1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12008E102 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120...

rhino369 12y ago

The issue is that Google by being the default search engine could slowly subsume all the profitable markets that run on the internet. Once they kill off potential competitors then there is no reason to be competitive on price or quality. Think of it as sort of a net neutrality for the search engine. People here are totally okay with telling Comcast they can't leverage their ISP near-monopoly to win the video streaming market. Why should we allow Google to leverage their search monopoly into capturing other internet markets.

Goronmon 12y ago
People here are totally okay with telling Comcast they can't leverage their ISP near-monopoly to win the video streaming market. Why should we allow Google to leverage their search monopoly into capturing other internet markets. The easy response is that I don't have a choice to switch to someone other than Comcast. Whereas I can pretty trivially switch to use a search engine other than Google.
- rhino369 12y ago
  ISP choices aren't that much more limited than search engine choice. Google and Bing appear to be the only large-scale commercial search engines running. Ask, Yahoo, AOL, etc. are powered by Google or Bing. But I don't think that really matters. The fact that you can not use a monopoly doesn't really diminish the monopolies power, especially when the monopoly power is used to attack other markets. Does the existence of linux make it okay for Microsoft to lockdown desktop applications and charge 30%?
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    Indeed. In most markets there are at best, two options. And one of them will likely suck. In Chicago, it's Comcast or AT&T. And AT&T's top speed is Comcast's minimum speed, so your choice is made up.
    - rhino369 12y ago
      Chicago is a bad example. I had RCN in both the gold coast and streetville and UVerse access depending on building contracts. But I'll grant you that most areas it's cable v. DSL. But DSL is a lot cheaper and is plenty fast for most users. It isn't a purely fungible product but it close enough. IMO.
  - Goronmon 12y ago
    I'm really struggling to see understand your stance here. I think ISP choices is a much different situation from search engine choices and consider it pretty ridiculous to compare them in a meaningful way. Does the existence of linux make it okay for Microsoft to lockdown desktop applications and charge 30%? Again, I'm not seeing the comparison. Are you saying that any given user switching search engines is comparative in difficulty to switch from one OS to another?

dmitrygr 12y ago

The reason you do not understand is simple: there is no logic here. Google is not a monopoly. The parallels drawn here (by EU and by people on HN respectively) are: 1. Microsoft. This is wrong since while it was mostly impossible back then to buy a PC without windows, it is quite possible today to not use google. In fact not using google is easier than using google (you can skip typing google.com into the address bar) 2. Comcast. This is wrong since in many markets comcast is the only internet provider. No markets exist where bing and yahoo are inaccessible. Really this is just EU punishing google for getting too big. Unfortunately for EU, even their own ridiculous (IMHO) protectionist laws do not have anything about a company being to successful for their liking. I imagine this will be a huge money and time waste for the EU, but in the end they have no real case. Google owns google.com and may display whatever it wants there. Until someone forces EU citizens to use google, or until bing and yahoo die, they are not a monopoly, even as per EU's ridiculous (IMHO) definition. Google does not owe foo.com or bar.org or baz.info any place in their results page, unless is so chooses. And foo, bar, and baz are only there at google's mercy. Just like EU cannot force _YOU_ to include content _I_ want on _YOUR_ page, no matter how successful and how non-european you are and how unsuccessful and how european I am, it has no real power to force google to index foo, bar, and baz, or place any content of theirs (snippets of text and links to their pages) on google's property that is google.com/...

dragonwriter 12y ago
> The reason you do not understand is simple: there is no logic here. Google is not a monopoly. Whether Google is a monopoly in the sense relevant in (US) antitrust law is, well, not so easily dismissed. What is relevant isn't the absence of any competition, its market power -- which is usually defined in terms of pricing power (essentially, having some range within which changes in the price at which the firm offers its product in some market will not result in a shift from the firm to competitors.) And, in any case, EU antitrust law has a less restricted domain than US antitrust law and, AFAIK, while monopoly/market/pricing power is still relevant, is more likely to be violated even before a firm has established market power. > The parallels drawn here (by EU and by people on HN respectively) are The EU isn't, AFAICT, "drawing parallels", its directly objecting to specific Google behavior on its own merit, not because it is parallel to Microsoft, Comcast, etc. > Really this is just EU punishing google for getting too big. This inflammatory complaint could use some justification. > Unfortunately for EU, even their own ridiculous (IMHO) protectionist laws do not have anything about a company being to successful for their liking. What in particular is "protectionist" about the provisions of the law being applied here? AFAICT, the laws at issue are Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [0][1], which don't seem particularly protectionist. > I imagine this will be a huge money and time waste for the EU, but in the end they have no real case. Have you seen the actual Statement of Objections? If not, what is the basis of the conclusion about whether or not they have a real case? > Google owns google.com and may display whatever it wants there. Not if they have dominant power in a market and displaying what they want there constitutes an abuse of that position. > Until someone forces EU citizens to use google, or until bing and yahoo die, they are not a monopoly, even as per EU's ridiculous (IMHO) definition. Being a monopoly is not required for a violation of either the EU rules on anticompetitive agreements or the EU rules on abuse of a dominant position. [0] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12008E101 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120... [1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12008E102 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:120...