6 ms·

Or you should be happy, that the EU actually uses their regulatory power to benefit the consumer no matter how big the company they're going against is.

by denis1 9y ago

Ajedi32 9y ago
Does it benefit the consumer though? I fail to see how showing links to search results pages from other companies in response to a product query is better for consumers than just showing them a listing of the products they actually searched for. [Google's response][1] to this ruling suggests they have data which confirms this: > While some comparison shopping sites naturally want Google to show them more prominently, our data shows that people usually prefer links that take them directly to the products they want, not to websites where they have to repeat their searches. [1]: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-europe/european-commission-decision-shopping-google-story/ https://www.blog.google/topics/google-europe/european-commis...
- zdkl 9y ago
  As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. This is an opinion which I don't feel the need to convert anyone to but I really don't understand the opposite view. Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU?
  - mythz 9y ago
    Why are you using Google then? Use a Service you can trust or you believe has your best interests at heart.
    - watbe 9y ago
      The answer to your question is given by the EC decision: > There are also high barriers to entry in these markets, in part because of network effects: the more consumers use a search engine, the more attractive it becomes to advertisers. The profits generated can then be used to attract even more consumers. Similarly, the data a search engine gathers about consumers can in turn be used to improve results. Simply put, the EC believes that Google is a barrier to any viable competition, so there's no ability to develop a competitive service to Google's own.
      - mythz 9y ago
        Sounds like they're punishing commercial success, i.e. the goals of most public corporations. Search has been Google's core competency since their inception, they were much smaller than the existing Search engines when they started out but were able to create a better product that users preferred and since that time they've been able to amass a wealth of knowledge, experience and resources. Of course any company is going to have a hard time trying to compete with them now, but I don't see why they need to be punished for executing so well on their core mission.
        tripzilch 9y ago
        """Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets.""" It's not about "punishing" but it is about holding dominant companies responsible for handling the great power that comes with this dominance. Companies don't usually do this by themselves because like you say, their goals are orthogonal to this. Doesn't mean it's contrary to their goals (which would be "punishing", in a sense), but "commercial success" or profit just isn't a force that drives ethical behaviour and responsibility. It's not. Things would be so much easier if they were.
        zdkl 9y ago
        Well, I believe the court has considered their position and feels that "punishing" google is not a matter of commercial success but of anti trust law (the "companies don't have inner pressure to be moral" argument). One's opinion as to whether the court is acting in good faith with regards to its mandate is a matter of faith, I'll concede that; I personnaly have more faith in our individual ability to reorient the court/EUs mandate than to exercise pressure on google/corporations who are filling the new power center that comes with the internet and mass information distribution.
        aparvinash 9y ago
        Important correction its not the court its the commission. It seems similar to prosecutor handing down the sentence and burden of proof hence falls upon the accused
  - Mahn 9y ago
    Personally, as an EU citizen, I don't believe that Google is advancing my interests and rights, but I also don't believe that the EU commission dictating what Google can or cannot do based on who is lobbying and how much money is at stake has the consumer's best interests in mind. To me these fines seem motivated by money, not consumer rights.
    - refulgentis 9y ago
      +1. While adding billions to their coffers may not be the motivation, there's a ravenous appetite to figure out how to distribute wealth of this obscenely rich generation of multinationals. This reeks of an ineffectual political institution grasping for one of the few solutions it can implement.
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Would you prefer the EU simply prevent Google from operating in their borders? That's always an option. It's so refreshing to see checks and balances on US multinationals, and I say that as a US citizen.
    - disiplus 9y ago
      on what is this based. the EU commision distroyed roaming between EU members, and im pretty sure they had all the lobiying from mobile operators to not do it.
      - honestoHeminway 9y ago
        Its called democracy- its when a goverment pushes the interests of its people.
        xpaqui 9y ago
        That's not what democracy is. Also the EU has been shamed as undemocratic since their representatives are not elected by popular vote. People do vote for who represents them as a country in the EU but I doubt any of them had a choice in the Google fine.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - tripzilch 9y ago
    This. Google's data just shows their interests happen to align with "what people usually prefer" this time, but we know that is not what motivates google. Not at all. They have acted against "what people usually prefer" many, many times before when it was beneficial to their own interests. Additionally, "what people usually prefer" is completely orthogonal to the EU antitrust ruling, which is about holding companies responsible for the power that comes with market dominance. Companies don't really have ethics or humanity (the way people do), unless we force them to. "We" in this case refers to the whole of society, including the people making up the company. In particular as companies grow very large, even if the people making up the company are ethical, humane and good, THEY are still tasked to wrangle a wild beast that is mostly just hungry for profits, and try to steer it to do Good and not Bad because it doesn't see there is a difference. But even then, they can use help from the rest of society, and regulations can be part of this help.
  - stickfigure 9y ago
    As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. The same people that brought you that idiotic cookies warning?
    - AsyncAwait 9y ago
      Yes, the cookie notices are a bad implementation of a good policy, (informing users that they're being tracked.)
      - oh_sigh 9y ago
        Cookies don't imply tracking - that is just one use of them.
        mpeg 9y ago
        And the EU cookie consent law doesn't apply when you're using cookies for most other purposes than tracking.
        nicolaslem 9y ago
        The EU law on cookies is specifically about tracking cookies, not first-party cookies. See http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm#section_2 http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm#se...
      - stickfigure 9y ago
        No. The cookie notices are the natural consequence of a bad policy driven by a good motivation. Well-meaning but stupid busybodies are cluttering up my world. See also: California prop 65 warnings.
    - erk__ 9y ago
      And the same people that are removing it.
    - erk__ 9y ago
      And the same people that are removing it.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU? 1. Because it's in their long term best interest to have a customer for life (No political cycle) so they are more incentivized than a politician would be to support the interest of the consumer. 2. They have a more insight into user desires and actions on a day to day basis, meaning they can predict and "nudge" users in directions that are mutually beneficial.
    - sgift 9y ago
      re 2. Or one which only looks mutually beneficial, but only benefits Google in reality.
      - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        Can you give an unbiased concrete example (eg. tainted baby formula, collapsed bridge, corrupted hard drive from virus) of something that has benefited google to the direct harm of one of it's users? The biggest argument I've seen is that people don't like that they aggregate the data you give to them.
        RubberShoes 9y ago
        AMP. This is entirely what the AMP argument has been all about.
        AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        Really? Nobody benefits from AMP? I mean I get the complaints from developers and publishers, but even on HN I have seen support for AMP. This goes to the broader point though that Google wants to service the end user better based on their feedback (most sites are too big/load too slowly), so they created something simple that gives end users a faster, better and cheaper (lower mobile data cost) solution. In fact Google seems to be moving faster here because companies keep creating large websites to serve rich content that users find annoyingly slow. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/11/google-amp-facebook-instant-articles-apple-news https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/11/google-amp-fac...
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    At the very least you have no requirement to use Google. You don't have that option with the EU if you're in an EU country.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - siliconviking 9y ago
    You mean just like they have forced millions of websites to show the "Warning: This site uses cookies" message (which arguably cost a fortune in compliance costs and user annyoance, but made no difference in the end)? I would encourage a "follow the money" train of thought when thinking about this. My question then becomes: if this money (the $2.7bn) did not accrue to the EU, or was not levied at all, do you still think the EU would still pursue this as ferociously as it has, just to protect the consumer?
    - Toboe 9y ago
      >You mean just like they have forced millions of websites to show the "Warning: This site uses cookies" message The websites could have just stopped using tracking cookies.
  - dontnotice 9y ago
    It's not about you and who you trust the most, it's about if this makes sense or not. The EU is not infallible, they are subject to political pressures and there have been enough of that in this case that they started asking the wrong questions and reached the inevitable wrong conclusions, which are easy to welcome since they serve their protectionist instincts. Google is not a utility, it's not the water company nor the electric company, or even your ISP, it's essentially a website one which you are free to use or not and the price of admission and switching and opportunity costs are nil, same as for all competing websites, so dictating what Google's website can display and declaring it's contents illegal and worthy of billion dollar fines makes zero sense.
  - CamperBob2 9y ago
    Really? As a consumer, what has the EU done for you lately, compared to what Google and other Internet "monopolies" have done for you? One monopoly is no more moral than another simply because the first one has guns and the second doesn't.
  - bigleagueposter 9y ago
    I have no idea whose bribes control the corrupt EU bureaucracy. At least Google helps me by moving stuff from windows into the browser.
- denis1 9y ago
  > I fail to see how showing links to search results pages from other companies in response to a product query is better for consumers than just showing them a listing of the products they actually searched for. But that is not what google does. I just did a search for "samsung galaxy s8". Instead of the first result being a link to a Samsung page I got 3 results that where ads (one of them being for the new oneplus). How does that match the "show what people searched for"? The results where sorted by "how much money did google receive" instead of "what the user intended".
  - Ajedi32 9y ago
    That's not what I get at all: https://i.imgur.com/nKpAYKX.png https://i.imgur.com/nKpAYKX.png Regardless of what you're seeing though, ads are a necessary part of Google Search; it's how they make their money. IMO it's a little strange to be complaining that Google is showing you ads in your search results.
    - denis1 9y ago
      I mean, I don't expect Google to show the same results to everyone (this is what I get: http://imgur.com/a/go3pU http://imgur.com/a/go3pU ). Funny thing is that the results changed between my first and second query (there was another unrelated result before the first link to Samsung). I'm not complaining about ads and this fine is not about ads. It is about Google favoring Google Shopping links instead of competitors even though Google Shopping was inferior when it started. Google basically pushed their product no matter how shitty it was. If it were not for Google being a near monopoly in search this would not be a problem, but Google is a monopoly, so special rules apply to them.
      - Ajedi32 9y ago
        > I'm not complaining about ads and this fine is not about ads. It is about Google favoring Google Shopping links [...] Google Shopping links _are_ ads though: https://i.imgur.com/m5rGqLa.png https://i.imgur.com/m5rGqLa.png
- matt4077 9y ago
  It's possible for such tactics to be useful for consumers and still be an illegal use of their dominant market position. Compare MS and the bundled Internet Explorer: Yes, it was more convenient for people not to be required to download a browser after installing the OS. But imagine if MS had been successful, and Internet Explorer had emerged as the only browser: Do you think that would have been in the common interest? (hint: around that time, they tried to get .doc established as the standard, replacing HTML)
  - euyyn 9y ago
    > Compare MS and the bundled Internet Explorer: Yes, it was more convenient for people not to be required to download a browser after installing the OS. That was a non-issue, as OEMs were able (and did often) pre-install any number of software packages on top of Windows. The issue was MS telling them "if you preinstall Netscape Navigator, you won't get any more Windows licenses from us". Among other things that were unequivocally harmful to consumers.
    - vkou 9y ago
      In the words of another poster, it sounds MS was punished for being very successful! The thing about anti-trust is that being a monopoly is allowed. What's not allowed is using a monopoly position to get a large advantage in another market.
      - euyyn 9y ago
        I'm not understanding that. You can be very successful without trying to prevent your business partners from making their products better for their clients.
  - kartickv 9y ago
    I disagree that bundling IE in Windows harmed customers. If anything, it's silly to insist that an OS shouldn't come with a browser, since practically everyone uses a browser. What should or shouldn't come with an OS is not up to bureaucrats to decide. Going back in time, you can just as well argue that bundling Notepad in Windows is "illegal" or "anticompetitive" or what have you because it might have killed the market for third-party text editors.
- throwawaymanbot 9y ago
  I feel it does benefit the consumer. You are assuming that google is going to show me the best search results etc for my query, while in reality they are displaying what suits them and their advertiser better. Which is great for google, not exactly great for my interests however.
  - lerpa 9y ago
    Google doesn't have to fulfill any interests of yours, though.
    - throwawaymanbot 9y ago
      Exactly. Thats my point. Its not beholden to me. But alters what I see, based on what fulfills their interest, not what fulfills mine.
- s73ver 9y ago
  "Does it benefit the consumer though?" Isn't one of the big refrains here that competition always benefits the consumer? This situation makes me think of the larger markets: We're wanting the short term benefit (Google prioritizing their results over others) at the expense of the long term benefit (healthy competition in the travel space).
- Denzel 9y ago
  I fail to see how showing links to search results pages from other companies is better for the consumer either. So why does Google do it? Google is really smart, right? They've done some amazing things with search. Do we believe that Google doesn't know how to display those comparison search results page in a carousel like their own? Or is it that they don't want to? Think about it for a second. What if Google did that, and they subjected their own comparison search results page to the same generic algorithm that they subjected everyone else's too? Maybe it's too hard for Google. But they like standards: see AMP. So why not create some standard tags so everyone has a fair chance? I don't know, it certainly looks like Google was exploiting its market dominance in general internet search to get a leg up in another industry without actually competing. That's not fair.
chimeracoder 9y ago
> Or you should be happy, that the EU actually uses their regulatory power to benefit the consumer no matter how big the company they're going against is. So is the EU going to fine Apple for not allowing iPhone users to access third-party browsers? At least Google doesn't force any lock-in with their platform here (the browser or search engine) - you're free to use any search engine you want.
- gpderetta 9y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if the commission would take a look at Apple in the future, but note that currently they are not dominant in the mobile market.
- allendoerfer 9y ago
  You have answered your own question: They don't do it, because Google, their competitor, does allow it, so there is choice.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > You have answered your own question: They don't do it, because Google, their competitor, does allow it, so there is choice. ...what? Google doesn't force any lock-in on their platform, yet the EU fines them. Apple does, but the EU hasn't taken any action.
    - allendoerfer 9y ago
      It is not platform vs. platform, it is iTunes vs. Playstore (not a monopoly, choice => no action needed) and Google Search vs. nobody essentially (overwhelming dominance, quasi monopoly => action needed).
- ionised 9y ago
  > So is the EU going to fine Apple for not allowing iPhone users to access third-party browsers? They are not dominant in the market, but if they were I would hope so.

Or you should be happy, that the EU actually uses their regulatory power to benefit the consumer no matter how big the company they're going against is.

by denis1 9y ago

Or you should be happy, that the EU actually uses their regulatory power to benefit the consumer no matter how big the company they're going against is.

Ajedi32 9y ago

Does it benefit the consumer though? I fail to see how showing links to search results pages from other companies in response to a product query is better for consumers than just showing them a listing of the products they actually searched for. [Google's response][1] to this ruling suggests they have data which confirms this: > While some comparison shopping sites naturally want Google to show them more prominently, our data shows that people usually prefer links that take them directly to the products they want, not to websites where they have to repeat their searches. [1]: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-europe/european-commission-decision-shopping-google-story/ https://www.blog.google/topics/google-europe/european-commis...

zdkl 9y ago
As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. This is an opinion which I don't feel the need to convert anyone to but I really don't understand the opposite view. Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU?
- mythz 9y ago
  Why are you using Google then? Use a Service you can trust or you believe has your best interests at heart.
  - watbe 9y ago
    The answer to your question is given by the EC decision: > There are also high barriers to entry in these markets, in part because of network effects: the more consumers use a search engine, the more attractive it becomes to advertisers. The profits generated can then be used to attract even more consumers. Similarly, the data a search engine gathers about consumers can in turn be used to improve results. Simply put, the EC believes that Google is a barrier to any viable competition, so there's no ability to develop a competitive service to Google's own.
    - mythz 9y ago
      Sounds like they're punishing commercial success, i.e. the goals of most public corporations. Search has been Google's core competency since their inception, they were much smaller than the existing Search engines when they started out but were able to create a better product that users preferred and since that time they've been able to amass a wealth of knowledge, experience and resources. Of course any company is going to have a hard time trying to compete with them now, but I don't see why they need to be punished for executing so well on their core mission.
      - tripzilch 9y ago
        """Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets.""" It's not about "punishing" but it is about holding dominant companies responsible for handling the great power that comes with this dominance. Companies don't usually do this by themselves because like you say, their goals are orthogonal to this. Doesn't mean it's contrary to their goals (which would be "punishing", in a sense), but "commercial success" or profit just isn't a force that drives ethical behaviour and responsibility. It's not. Things would be so much easier if they were.
      - zdkl 9y ago
        Well, I believe the court has considered their position and feels that "punishing" google is not a matter of commercial success but of anti trust law (the "companies don't have inner pressure to be moral" argument). One's opinion as to whether the court is acting in good faith with regards to its mandate is a matter of faith, I'll concede that; I personnaly have more faith in our individual ability to reorient the court/EUs mandate than to exercise pressure on google/corporations who are filling the new power center that comes with the internet and mass information distribution.
        aparvinash 9y ago
        Important correction its not the court its the commission. It seems similar to prosecutor handing down the sentence and burden of proof hence falls upon the accused
- Mahn 9y ago
  Personally, as an EU citizen, I don't believe that Google is advancing my interests and rights, but I also don't believe that the EU commission dictating what Google can or cannot do based on who is lobbying and how much money is at stake has the consumer's best interests in mind. To me these fines seem motivated by money, not consumer rights.
  - refulgentis 9y ago
    +1. While adding billions to their coffers may not be the motivation, there's a ravenous appetite to figure out how to distribute wealth of this obscenely rich generation of multinationals. This reeks of an ineffectual political institution grasping for one of the few solutions it can implement.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Would you prefer the EU simply prevent Google from operating in their borders? That's always an option. It's so refreshing to see checks and balances on US multinationals, and I say that as a US citizen.
  - disiplus 9y ago
    on what is this based. the EU commision distroyed roaming between EU members, and im pretty sure they had all the lobiying from mobile operators to not do it.
    - honestoHeminway 9y ago
      Its called democracy- its when a goverment pushes the interests of its people.
      - xpaqui 9y ago
        That's not what democracy is. Also the EU has been shamed as undemocratic since their representatives are not elected by popular vote. People do vote for who represents them as a country in the EU but I doubt any of them had a choice in the Google fine.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tripzilch 9y ago
  This. Google's data just shows their interests happen to align with "what people usually prefer" this time, but we know that is not what motivates google. Not at all. They have acted against "what people usually prefer" many, many times before when it was beneficial to their own interests. Additionally, "what people usually prefer" is completely orthogonal to the EU antitrust ruling, which is about holding companies responsible for the power that comes with market dominance. Companies don't really have ethics or humanity (the way people do), unless we force them to. "We" in this case refers to the whole of society, including the people making up the company. In particular as companies grow very large, even if the people making up the company are ethical, humane and good, THEY are still tasked to wrangle a wild beast that is mostly just hungry for profits, and try to steer it to do Good and not Bad because it doesn't see there is a difference. But even then, they can use help from the rest of society, and regulations can be part of this help.
- stickfigure 9y ago
  As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. The same people that brought you that idiotic cookies warning?
  - AsyncAwait 9y ago
    Yes, the cookie notices are a bad implementation of a good policy, (informing users that they're being tracked.)
    - oh_sigh 9y ago
      Cookies don't imply tracking - that is just one use of them.
      - mpeg 9y ago
        And the EU cookie consent law doesn't apply when you're using cookies for most other purposes than tracking.
      - nicolaslem 9y ago
        The EU law on cookies is specifically about tracking cookies, not first-party cookies. See http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm#section_2 http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm#se...
    - stickfigure 9y ago
      No. The cookie notices are the natural consequence of a bad policy driven by a good motivation. Well-meaning but stupid busybodies are cluttering up my world. See also: California prop 65 warnings.
  - erk__ 9y ago
    And the same people that are removing it.
  - erk__ 9y ago
    And the same people that are removing it.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU? 1. Because it's in their long term best interest to have a customer for life (No political cycle) so they are more incentivized than a politician would be to support the interest of the consumer. 2. They have a more insight into user desires and actions on a day to day basis, meaning they can predict and "nudge" users in directions that are mutually beneficial.
  - sgift 9y ago
    re 2. Or one which only looks mutually beneficial, but only benefits Google in reality.
    - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
      Can you give an unbiased concrete example (eg. tainted baby formula, collapsed bridge, corrupted hard drive from virus) of something that has benefited google to the direct harm of one of it's users? The biggest argument I've seen is that people don't like that they aggregate the data you give to them.
      - RubberShoes 9y ago
        AMP. This is entirely what the AMP argument has been all about.
        AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        Really? Nobody benefits from AMP? I mean I get the complaints from developers and publishers, but even on HN I have seen support for AMP. This goes to the broader point though that Google wants to service the end user better based on their feedback (most sites are too big/load too slowly), so they created something simple that gives end users a faster, better and cheaper (lower mobile data cost) solution. In fact Google seems to be moving faster here because companies keep creating large websites to serve rich content that users find annoyingly slow. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/11/google-amp-facebook-instant-articles-apple-news https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/11/google-amp-fac...
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  At the very least you have no requirement to use Google. You don't have that option with the EU if you're in an EU country.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- siliconviking 9y ago
  You mean just like they have forced millions of websites to show the "Warning: This site uses cookies" message (which arguably cost a fortune in compliance costs and user annyoance, but made no difference in the end)? I would encourage a "follow the money" train of thought when thinking about this. My question then becomes: if this money (the $2.7bn) did not accrue to the EU, or was not levied at all, do you still think the EU would still pursue this as ferociously as it has, just to protect the consumer?
  - Toboe 9y ago
    >You mean just like they have forced millions of websites to show the "Warning: This site uses cookies" message The websites could have just stopped using tracking cookies.
- dontnotice 9y ago
  It's not about you and who you trust the most, it's about if this makes sense or not. The EU is not infallible, they are subject to political pressures and there have been enough of that in this case that they started asking the wrong questions and reached the inevitable wrong conclusions, which are easy to welcome since they serve their protectionist instincts. Google is not a utility, it's not the water company nor the electric company, or even your ISP, it's essentially a website one which you are free to use or not and the price of admission and switching and opportunity costs are nil, same as for all competing websites, so dictating what Google's website can display and declaring it's contents illegal and worthy of billion dollar fines makes zero sense.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  Really? As a consumer, what has the EU done for you lately, compared to what Google and other Internet "monopolies" have done for you? One monopoly is no more moral than another simply because the first one has guns and the second doesn't.
- bigleagueposter 9y ago
  I have no idea whose bribes control the corrupt EU bureaucracy. At least Google helps me by moving stuff from windows into the browser.
denis1 9y ago
> I fail to see how showing links to search results pages from other companies in response to a product query is better for consumers than just showing them a listing of the products they actually searched for. But that is not what google does. I just did a search for "samsung galaxy s8". Instead of the first result being a link to a Samsung page I got 3 results that where ads (one of them being for the new oneplus). How does that match the "show what people searched for"? The results where sorted by "how much money did google receive" instead of "what the user intended".
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  That's not what I get at all: https://i.imgur.com/nKpAYKX.png https://i.imgur.com/nKpAYKX.png Regardless of what you're seeing though, ads are a necessary part of Google Search; it's how they make their money. IMO it's a little strange to be complaining that Google is showing you ads in your search results.
  - denis1 9y ago
    I mean, I don't expect Google to show the same results to everyone (this is what I get: http://imgur.com/a/go3pU http://imgur.com/a/go3pU ). Funny thing is that the results changed between my first and second query (there was another unrelated result before the first link to Samsung). I'm not complaining about ads and this fine is not about ads. It is about Google favoring Google Shopping links instead of competitors even though Google Shopping was inferior when it started. Google basically pushed their product no matter how shitty it was. If it were not for Google being a near monopoly in search this would not be a problem, but Google is a monopoly, so special rules apply to them.
    - Ajedi32 9y ago
      > I'm not complaining about ads and this fine is not about ads. It is about Google favoring Google Shopping links [...] Google Shopping links _are_ ads though: https://i.imgur.com/m5rGqLa.png https://i.imgur.com/m5rGqLa.png
matt4077 9y ago
It's possible for such tactics to be useful for consumers and still be an illegal use of their dominant market position. Compare MS and the bundled Internet Explorer: Yes, it was more convenient for people not to be required to download a browser after installing the OS. But imagine if MS had been successful, and Internet Explorer had emerged as the only browser: Do you think that would have been in the common interest? (hint: around that time, they tried to get .doc established as the standard, replacing HTML)
- euyyn 9y ago
  > Compare MS and the bundled Internet Explorer: Yes, it was more convenient for people not to be required to download a browser after installing the OS. That was a non-issue, as OEMs were able (and did often) pre-install any number of software packages on top of Windows. The issue was MS telling them "if you preinstall Netscape Navigator, you won't get any more Windows licenses from us". Among other things that were unequivocally harmful to consumers.
  - vkou 9y ago
    In the words of another poster, it sounds MS was punished for being very successful! The thing about anti-trust is that being a monopoly is allowed. What's not allowed is using a monopoly position to get a large advantage in another market.
    - euyyn 9y ago
      I'm not understanding that. You can be very successful without trying to prevent your business partners from making their products better for their clients.
- kartickv 9y ago
  I disagree that bundling IE in Windows harmed customers. If anything, it's silly to insist that an OS shouldn't come with a browser, since practically everyone uses a browser. What should or shouldn't come with an OS is not up to bureaucrats to decide. Going back in time, you can just as well argue that bundling Notepad in Windows is "illegal" or "anticompetitive" or what have you because it might have killed the market for third-party text editors.
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
I feel it does benefit the consumer. You are assuming that google is going to show me the best search results etc for my query, while in reality they are displaying what suits them and their advertiser better. Which is great for google, not exactly great for my interests however.
- lerpa 9y ago
  Google doesn't have to fulfill any interests of yours, though.
  - throwawaymanbot 9y ago
    Exactly. Thats my point. Its not beholden to me. But alters what I see, based on what fulfills their interest, not what fulfills mine.
s73ver 9y ago
"Does it benefit the consumer though?" Isn't one of the big refrains here that competition always benefits the consumer? This situation makes me think of the larger markets: We're wanting the short term benefit (Google prioritizing their results over others) at the expense of the long term benefit (healthy competition in the travel space).
Denzel 9y ago
I fail to see how showing links to search results pages from other companies is better for the consumer either. So why does Google do it? Google is really smart, right? They've done some amazing things with search. Do we believe that Google doesn't know how to display those comparison search results page in a carousel like their own? Or is it that they don't want to? Think about it for a second. What if Google did that, and they subjected their own comparison search results page to the same generic algorithm that they subjected everyone else's too? Maybe it's too hard for Google. But they like standards: see AMP. So why not create some standard tags so everyone has a fair chance? I don't know, it certainly looks like Google was exploiting its market dominance in general internet search to get a leg up in another industry without actually competing. That's not fair.

chimeracoder 9y ago

> Or you should be happy, that the EU actually uses their regulatory power to benefit the consumer no matter how big the company they're going against is. So is the EU going to fine Apple for not allowing iPhone users to access third-party browsers? At least Google doesn't force any lock-in with their platform here (the browser or search engine) - you're free to use any search engine you want.

gpderetta 9y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the commission would take a look at Apple in the future, but note that currently they are not dominant in the mobile market.
allendoerfer 9y ago
You have answered your own question: They don't do it, because Google, their competitor, does allow it, so there is choice.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > You have answered your own question: They don't do it, because Google, their competitor, does allow it, so there is choice. ...what? Google doesn't force any lock-in on their platform, yet the EU fines them. Apple does, but the EU hasn't taken any action.
  - allendoerfer 9y ago
    It is not platform vs. platform, it is iTunes vs. Playstore (not a monopoly, choice => no action needed) and Google Search vs. nobody essentially (overwhelming dominance, quasi monopoly => action needed).
ionised 9y ago
> So is the EU going to fine Apple for not allowing iPhone users to access third-party browsers? They are not dominant in the market, but if they were I would hope so.