Support NeoGAF

[Caayn]

You read the title correctly, that's three billion euro (roughly $3.4 billion give or take)

It is understood that the European Commission is aiming to hit Google with a fine in the region of €3bn, a figure that would easily surpass its toughest anti-trust punishment to date, a €1.1bn fine levied on the microchip giant Intel.

Sources close to the situation said officials aimed to make an announcement before the summer break and could make their move as early as next month, although cautioned that Google’s bill for crushing competition online had not been finalised.

The maximum possible is around €6.6bn, or a tenth of Google’s total annual sales.

Legal sources said the fine it faces over shopping comparison is likely to take account of the fact that Google abused its monopoly on general web search over many years. The European Commission may also seek to make an example of the company over changes to its algorithms during the investigation that made it even harder for competitors to thrive, as well as what some officials now see as its delaying tactics during the investigation.

As well as facing a heavy fine, Google will be banned from continuing to manipulate search results to favour itself and harm rivals. The company has fiercely resisted such interference in its algorithms, the heart of its business, and sought to placate regulators with offers to redesign the presentation of results, a gambit that ultimately failed.

Source: Telegraph

Give me a three euro fine (I'm not that rich) if old.

 

[John Kowalski]

Man i could buy Overwatch with that kind of money.

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

Why does a company have to let competitors 'thrive'? Work harder other companies

 

[S¡mon]

This is good news. Google's power has become too big and they are using that power in such a way that t harms customers.

I like their services, like Search and Mail, but their anti-competitive behaviour is very harmful to the industry.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

As well as facing a heavy fine, Google will be banned from continuing to manipulate search results to favour itself and harm rivals. The company has fiercely resisted such interference in its algorithms, the heart of its business, and sought to placate regulators with offers to redesign the presentation of results, a gambit that ultimately failed.

So the EU is going to tell Google how to do an algorithm? No thanks. I don't trust Brussels to get me the information I'm looking for.

After their "right to forget" fiasco I don't want the EU anywhere near Google.

 

[Sheentak]

So what happens if google refuses to pay? Could they close up shop in europe?

 

[Aselith]

Man i could buy Overwatch with that kind of money.

But could you buy a high end PC to run it #comfycouchlife

 

[ISOM]

So the EU is going to tell Google how to do an algorithm? No thanks. I don't trust Brussels to get me the information I'm looking for.

After their "right to forget" fiasco I don't want the EU anywhere near Google.

That sounds absolutely awful. Good thing it's EU only.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

Good. EU! EU! EU!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This is good news. Google's power has become too big and they are using that power in such a way that t harms customers.

I like their services, like Search and Mail, but their anti-competitive behaviour is very harmful to the industry.

Where is their anti competitive behavior. The big thing I see is them putting their services up at the top.

I mean outlook is thriving, yahoo mail exists.

In search Bing is ok but people go to Google because they have the best information but because they're preventing competition.

That sounds absolutely awful. Good thing it's EU only.

But like right to work it affects people outside the EU.

 

[Deadstar]

So what happens if google refuses to pay? Could they close up shop in europe?

They close up shop and someone creates a new entity called Roogle to take their place.

 

[raphier]

This is good news. Google's power has become too big and they are using that power in such a way that t harms customers.

I like their services, like Search and Mail, but their anti-competitive behaviour is very harmful to the industry.

I dont know how Google is anti-competitive. Everything it offers is free and it's not like you're stuck with them, you can choose to follow another closed-garden schemes like Apple or switch to Yahoo, DuckDuckGo. Visitors will seldom switch anyway. This is just EU's way to get some money, if they truly wanted to attack anti-competitive market, they would have done so with Apple first or Unilever and other companies rather than the big IT groups.

 

[nubbe]

Search should be spun off from Alphabet
Go EU

 

[entremet]

EU interfering with American Excellence once again.

 

[BeforeU]

When was this announced? Their stock did not take hit? Is this the final verdict?

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Why does a company have to let competitors 'thrive'? Work harder other companies

you forgot to say 'bootstraps'

 

[Lagamorph]

I'm in Europe and I don't really agree with this.
I wouldn't describe Google as "Anti-Competitive" really. People are free to choose alternatives whenever they'd like. It's not Google's fault if most people don't bother to either switch or educate themselves a little bit.

 

[Dascu]

When was this announced? Their stock did not take hit? Is this the final verdict?

No, it's not even a verdict.

Whether or not you think it's anti-competitive or not, ultimately this is the result of years-long research, based also secret corporate documents, by teams of top-notch lawyers on all sides (disclaimer: some of which I know). So I'd rather not read more nonsense that this is just a politically motivated cash-grab by power-hunger bureaucrats.

 

[QuantumBro]

I dont know how Google is anti-competitive. Everything it offers is free and it's not like you're stuck with them, you can choose to follow another closed-garden schemes like Apple or switch to Yahoo, DuckDuckGo. Visitors will seldom switch anyway. This is just EU's way to get some money, if they truly wanted to attack anti-competitive market, they would have done so with Apple first and other companies rather than the big IT groups.

You say that, but there's this company out there called Rahmooful that offers every one of Google's services but better in every way. However, if you try to google Rahmooful, you'll get no results about the company because Google doesn't want you to know about them.

Try it if you don't believe me. And realize, this is only 1 out of millions of companies that get treated similarly by Google.

 

[Toa TAK]

Why does a company have to let competitors 'thrive'? Work harder other companies

I'm pretty sure the employees of Cyberdyne were going on saying the exact same thing.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

EU interfering with American Excellence once again.

At lot of their anti trust actions seem to go after American companies without an EU equivalent

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ope-Is-Going-After-U.S.-Tech-Giants.html?_r=0

 

[raphier]

You say that, but there's this company out there called Rahmooful that offers every one of Google's services but better in every way. However, if you try to google Rahmooful, you'll get no results about the company because Google doesn't want you to know about them.

Try it if you don't believe me. And realize, this is only 1 out of millions of companies that get treated similarly by Google.

that sounds like bullshit to me. Rahmooful is some fake shit, Besides I just tried on every possible search engine ever and none of them found it. Rahmooful.com is not even a thing. kek.

 

[S¡mon]

Why does a company have to let competitors 'thrive'? Work harder other companies

The problem is that Google has become so dominant that it is very difficult for competitors to break through the market, even if their product or service would be vastly superior.

In Europe Google is huge. Like enormously huge. It's big in the United States, but they are enormous in Europe. Microsoft's Bing offers some competition in the USA. In Europe, most people won't even know about the existence of Bing.

So, for example, if you search for "PlayStation 4" you'll get a list from Google Shopping comparing prices. Most shops in these Iists are sponsored + not the cheapest and Google earns money with them.

At the same time, there may be another Price Comparison X service that's much better and whicu compares more shops with lower prices.
Google decides to not show this Price Comparison X service in their search results or the service is ranked much lower.
This is harmful for consumers and bad for competition.

It would be no problem if Google has a relatively small market share, but let me point it out yet again: Google's market share in Europe is enormous, they're basically a monopoly.
Over-all, Google's market share in Europe is above 90%. In the Western and Nordic European countries, Google's market share approaches near 100%!

In the United States, Google has a market share of around 70%. Still a lot, but not quite as enormous as in Europe.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Funny thing is that this is probably still less of what google should pay in taxes over the revenues it made in the EU, but won't pay because of how multinational companies work.

The system is pretty borked and capitalism is dying at the hand of its most fervent preachers that are mistaking corp-drived markets for actual competitive ones. Soon there will be only giant multicorps and all their subsidiaries, competition will die because of their infinite power over politics and at the end only our new AI overlord will save us from a flooded world devastated by sandstorms and ridden by globalized wars and famines.

 

[outunderthestars]

You say that, but there's this company out there called Rahmooful that offers every one of Google's services but better in every way. However, if you try to google Rahmooful, you'll get no results about the company because Google doesn't want you to know about them.

Try it if you don't believe me. And realize, this is only 1 out of millions of companies that get treated similarly by Google.

Are you making up the name of this company?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

No, it's not even a verdict.

Whether or not you think it's anti-competitive or not, ultimately this is the result of years-long research, based also secret corporate documents, by teams of top-notch lawyers on all sides (disclaimer: some of which I know). So I'd rather not read more nonsense that this is just a politically motivated cash-grab by power-hunger bureaucrats.

Parallel construction is a thing

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

Why does a company have to let competitors 'thrive'? Work harder other companies

Monopolising the market makes it incredibly difficult for innovation to thrive, not to mention it is terrible for the consumer. One only needs to look at internet and cable pricing in the United States to see how much the consumer gets gouged by the few companies that exist to provide it.

 

[jellies_two]

I guess the recent information that Google pays almost no company tax in the countries that provide the bulk of their revenue and customer base, hasn't helped exactly burnish their image in the EU (even if it is the EU that allows the Irish setup so favored by tech companies in the first place?)

Either way, I don't have much sympathy for Google here, they market themselves as a search company and often blame their immutable algorithm for all kinds of things that they don't feel like touching, but it turns out of course that they have total control over what appears and its rank and of course they purposefully favor Whatever their current mission critical "product of the year" actually is (Google wave, Google Glass, Google plus, google play, Google flights, Google reviews).

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

How much of a monopoly does Google have in the EU? Because based on my experience with Google in the US this seems excessive.

 

[B.O.O.M]

Honestly that sounds excessive

 

[Mindlog]

You say that, but there's this company out there called Rahmooful that offers every one of Google's services but better in every way. However, if you try to google Rahmooful, you'll get no results about the company because Google doesn't want you to know about them.

Try it if you don't believe me. And realize, this is only 1 out of millions of companies that get treated similarly by Google.

I get the same results from Bing, DuckDuckGo and Yahoo.
Are there examples of Google excluding relevant yet competitive that turn up in other search engines?

 

[bloodforge]

You say that, but there's this company out there called Rahmooful that offers every one of Google's services but better in every way. However, if you try to google Rahmooful, you'll get no results about the company because Google doesn't want you to know about them.

Try it if you don't believe me. And realize, this is only 1 out of millions of companies that get treated similarly by Google.

I searched that name on all the search sites I could think of and found nothing. They must all be in on the conspiracy.

 

[S¡mon]

Where is their anti competitive behavior. The big thing I see is them putting their services up at the top.

I mean outlook is thriving, yahoo mail exists.

In search Bing is ok but people go to Google because they have the best information but because they're preventing competition.


But like right to work it affects people outside the EU.

I dont know how Google is anti-competitive. Everything it offers is free and it's not like you're stuck with them, you can choose to follow another closed-garden schemes like Apple or switch to Yahoo, DuckDuckGo. Visitors will seldom switch anyway. This is just EU's way to get some money, if they truly wanted to attack anti-competitive market, they would have done so with Apple first or Unilever and other companies rather than the big IT groups.

I understand your concerns. But traditionally, Europe has always had bigger worries about anti-consumerist and anti-competitive behaviour.

Something I'd like to point out is that Google has a market share of beyond 90% in Europe. In many European countries, their market share approaches 100%.
I get your ideas like "It's their company, they can do what they want with their own products"... but when so many people are so incredibly dependant on it, you receive extra responsibility.

This antitrust fine, which hasn't been confirmed by the way, doesn't mean that Google makes bad products. On the contrary, the fact that their market share is so big means that they have created some amazing products and services.
But they have approached a point where, in Europe, their behaviour is sometimes anti-consumerist and anti-competitive.

See my earlier post in this thread (http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=203844984) where I've pointed out how they rank or block out competitors (anti-competitive) and show product prices from shops which are supposed to be the cheapest, but, you guessed it, are not (anti-consumer).

 

[QuantumBro]

that sounds like bullshit to me. Rahmooful is some fake shit, Besides I just tried on every possible search engine ever and none of them found it. Rahmooful.com is not even a thing. kek.

Let me guess, you're using Chrome and using search engines from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. They're all in on this together along with their Reptilian overlords.

Try again while connecting through Tor. Also, if you value privacy at all switch your search engine to gull.ble or go home.

 

[spineduke]

You say that, but there's this company out there called Rahmooful that offers every one of Google's services but better in every way. However, if you try to google Rahmooful, you'll get no results about the company because Google doesn't want you to know about them.

Try it if you don't believe me. And realize, this is only 1 out of millions of companies that get treated similarly by Google.

what is this shit - give me a link or stop trash posting.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

You say that, but there's this company out there called Rahmooful that offers every one of Google's services but better in every way. However, if you try to google Rahmooful, you'll get no results about the company because Google doesn't want you to know about them.

Try it if you don't believe me. And realize, this is only 1 out of millions of companies that get treated similarly by Google.

I can't find that company through searching. Why don't you just link their webpage?

Let me guess, you're using Chrome and using search engines from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. They're all in on this together along with their Reptilian overlords.

Try again while connecting through Tor. Also, if you value privacy at all switch your search engine to gull.ble or go home.

Oh. Not funny.

 

[S¡mon]

How much of a monopoly does Google have in the EU? Because based on my experience with Google in the US this seems excessive.

Over-all beyond 90% in Europe. In the Western and Northern European countries, it approaches 100%.

 

[outunderthestars]

The problem is that Google has become so dominant that it is very difficult for competitors to break through the market, even if their product or service would be vastly superior.

In Europe Google is huge. Like enormously huge. It's big in the United States, but they are enormous in Europe. Microsoft's Bing offers some competition in the USA. In Europe, most people won't even know about the existence of Bing.

So, for example, if you search for "PlayStation 4" you'll get a list from Google Shopping comparing prices. Most shops in these Iists are sponsored + not the cheapest and Google earns money with them.

At the same time, there may be another Price Comparison X service that's much better and whicu compares more shops with lower prices.
Google decides to not show this Price Comparison X service in their search results or the service is ranked much lower.
This is harmful for consumers and bad for competition.

It would be no problem if Google has a relatively small market share, but let me point it out yet again: Google's market share in Europe is enormous, they're basically a monopoly.
Over-all, Google's market share in Europe is above 90%. In the Western and Nordic European countries, Google's market share approaches near 100%!

In the United States, Google has a market share of around 70%. Still a lot, but not quite as enormous as in Europe.

Not sure why it is Google's job to promote Bing, and when I searched for playstation 4 it pulled up a box of shopping results in the right corner, with a clear indication that these are sponsored results and a disclaimer that says that Google may be compensated by them. A Bing search pulls up the same vendors, but doesn't say that MS may be compensated for them.

Again, this is a free product. Shouldn't a company be allowed to make a profit from it?

 

[hodgy100]

annother reason I dont want to Leave the EU

 

[Mindlog]

Let me guess, you're using Chrome and using search engines from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. They're all in on this together along with their Reptilian overlords.

Try again while connecting through Tor. Also, if you value privacy at all switch your search engine to gull.ble or go home.

Fine be that way. I'm going to Bing some porn :\

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

annother reason I dont want to Leave the EU

Well then for your sake I hope the UK feels the same way.

 

[SpecX]

Why do US companies have to continue to support the EU economy with these lawsuits?

 

[raphier]

I understand your concerns. But traditionally, Europe has always had bigger worries about anti-consumerist and anti-competitive behaviour.

Something I'd like to point out is that Google has a market share of beyond 90% in Europe. In many European countries, their market share approaches 100%.
I get your ideas like "It's their company, they can do what they want with their own products"... but when so many people are so incredibly dependant on it, you receive extra responsibility.

This antitrust fine, which hasn't been confirmed by the way, doesn't mean that Google makes bad products. On the contrary, the fact that their market share is so big means that they have created some amazing products and services.
But they have approached a point where, in Europe, their behaviour is sometimes anti-consumerist and anti-competitive.

See my earlier post in this thread (http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=203844984) where I've pointed out how they rank or block out competitors (anti-competitive) and show product prices from shops which are supposed to be the cheapest, but, you guessed it, are not (anti-consumer).

Or maybe Google is just highly competitive and too good for us that nobody else has been able to reach their quality. Look at Microsoft, they have the money and skill, yet they somehow produced a half-assed search engine Bing that is only good for porn previews.


Besides I haven't paid a single cent for Google Services. When I want a mail service the first thing that comes into mind is Microsoft Mail, Yahoo mail, Hotmail and Gmail and yet I always pick voluntarily Gmail. Why? It's reliable for me.


When I think of search, There are always alternatives, but Google always finds me what I need, why can't others?

It's not like I am also stuck with android cellphones, I can get rekt with an Apple or Microsoft Lumia, but I prefer vastly the freedom given to me with Material Design.

If this was an internet provider with inflated prices without alternatives then I might've understood, but it's not. When I go to search things on Google I expect their results come up first as it's their platform, heck Everyone does it for their services, and yet Google is the only one to get me what I want.

 

[S¡mon]

Not sure why it is Google's job to promote Bing, and when I searched for playstation 4 it pulled up a box of shopping results in the right corner, with a clear indication that these are sponsored results and a disclaimer that says that Google may be compensated by them. A Bing search pulls up the same vendors, but doesn't say that MS may be compensated for them.

Again, this is a free product. Shouldn't a company be allowed to make a profit from it?

It's not Google's job to promote Bing. I made the comparison to point out that Google has much more power over what consumers actually encounter and see on the Internet. The more power you have as a company, the higher your responsibility becomes.

I get your idea of "it's their business, they should do what they want".

But if so many people use your service and do not know of any alternatives, you can't just promote yourself to become even bigger.

To talk about the price comparisons again: you don't see how it is harmful for competing businesses when Google purposefully rank competitors lower in their search results while at the same time those businesses can only be found through Google because Google's market share is so big?

And it isn't exactly helping that the prices that they show are sponsored, while at the same time they're giving the idea that it is a true pricing comparison service with the lowest prices.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Over-all beyond 90% in Europe. In the Western and Northern European countries, it approaches 100%.

And it's a search engine. This isn't like electronics or other consumer goodswhere monopolies hurt.

Monopolies aren't always harmful.

Different search engines I'd argue are harmful. I mean if this was about googling censuring information I'd feel like theirs a better case. In fact the EU wants censorship with their right to forget

 

[Ashes]

Go EU.

Good luck team of researchers working on this in the background.

 

[outunderthestars]

It's not Google's job to promote Bing. I made the comparison to point out that Google has much more power over what consumers actually encounter and see on the Internet. The more power you have as a company, the higher your responsibility becomes.

I get your idea of "it's their business, they should do what they want".

But if so many people use your service and do not know of any alternatives, you can't just promote yourself to become even bigger.

To talk about the price comparisons again: you don't see how it is harmful for competing businesses when Google purposefully rank competitors lower in their search results while at the same time those businesses can only be found through Google because Google's market share is so big?

And it isn't exactly helping that the prices that they show are sponsored, while at the same time they're giving the idea that it is a true pricing comparison service with the lowest prices.

Except that it clearly says these are sponsored results and doesn't say anything about lowest prices in any way, shape, or form.

"Products and offers that match your query. Google is compensated by these merchants. Payment is one of several factors used to rank these results. These results are based on your current search terms and may be based your visits to other websites. Visit Google's Consumer Ads Help Center to learn more. To block specific advertisers, opt out of personalized ads, or confirm your opt out status, visit Google's Ads Settings."

If Europeans are dumb enough to read that and see it as anything other than an advertisement then I don't know how any lawsuit is going to change anything.

 

[S¡mon]

Or maybe Google is just highly competitive and too good for us that nobody else has been able to reach their quality. Look at Microsoft, they have the money and skill, yet they somehow produced a half-assed search engine Bing that is only good for porn previews.


Besides I haven't paid a single cent for Google Services. When I want a mail service the first thing that comes into mind is Microsoft Mail, Yahoo mail, Hotmail and Gmail and yet I always pick voluntarily Gmail. Why? It's reliable for me.


When I think of search, There are always alternatives, but Google always finds me what I need, why can't others?

It's not like I am also stuck with android cellphones, I can get rekt with an Apple or Microsoft Lumia, but I prefer vastly the freedom given to me with Material Design.

If this was an internet provider with inflated prices without alternatives then I might've understood, but it's not. When I go to search things on Google I expect their results come up first as it's their platform, heck Everyone does it for their services, and yet Google is the only one to get me what I want.

I get what you are saying and normally I would agree.

But Google is so huge in Europe. If you ain't on Google, nobody will find your business (since Google is basically the only search engine people know of).
That'd be okay if Google Search was a totally neutral service, putting the best results on top... but Google has been proven to manipulate those search results for their own gain. And you simply can't do that when basically everybody depends on your service.

-----------
And again, I also like their services like Gmail. But this fine isn't about Google's services being of high or low quality.
This is about Google manipulating search results, which makes it harder or even impossible for competitors to be found by consumers.

 

[Acinixys]

The maximum possible is around €6.6bn, or a tenth of Google’s total annual sales

Google doesnt give a FUCK

Honestly. If their annual sales top 70 BILLION euros how is 3, or even 6 billion going to effect them?

Its not like Yahoo could take their monopoly

 

[S¡mon]

Except that it clearly says these are sponsored results and doesn't say anything about lowest prices in any way, shape, or form.

"Products and offers that match your query. Google is compensated by these merchants. Payment is one of several factors used to rank these results. These results are based on your current search terms and may be based your visits to other websites. Visit Google's Consumer Ads Help Center to learn more. To block specific advertisers, opt out of personalized ads, or confirm your opt out status, visit Google's Ads Settings."

They changed it. They didn't do that before.

Additionally, people don't read the small letters. Do your read your iTunes Terms? No.

People simply get the impression that it is independent and a fair price comparison. That's not weird either: it's exactly shown as a tool to compare prices and shops. Than it doesn't matter that, somewhere, on the page it says that the results are actually sponsored.

Edit also, you failed to address the fact that they rank competitors lower, so that their own sponsored service jumps out even more.