Support NeoGAF

[Aureon]

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.

This is about google putting GMail \ Youtube \ etc first in their searches.

Consider that in the search engine market, Google has a 90%+ share in europe. That's a monopoly, whatever or not the market share is rightfully earned through product quality or through anticompetitive practices.
Since it's been determined to be on fair grounds, there's no underway process to split up google's european operations or anything - but abuse of dominant market positions is a thing.

certainly most of you cheering this on still use multiple Google services daily

surely, being on this board, you know of several functional, viable alternatives to each

the reason you're still using Google is not because Google is somehow brainwashing you or preventing you from knowing about alternatives. Brussels infantilizing the good people of the EU isn't really a good way to promote tech competition there.

Again, this is not about google's main product, it's about the abuse of dominant market position to promote the -other- services, some of which are dominant on their own weight, some of which are not.

 

[Faddy]

Bullshit. It's because they pay apple a ton of money to have Google as the main search engine who in fact are the #1 users driving Google's search engine results outside of desktops. Please stop. As others have already said, everyone absolutely has a choice with the search engine they choose to use and its not Google's fault that they have literally became the household name that people DO want to use.

At the end of the day,Google isn't forcing people to use their search engine. They aren't ranking results lower and there hasn't been an incident like that for years. It's absolute bullshit because the EU just has a problem with its dominance that it's own citizen's don't look to their national creations with the same love.

Just because Google has a monopoly in search does not mean they can use that market dominance to subvert adjacent markets.

 

[dity]

Bullshit. It's because they pay apple a ton of money to have Google as the main search engine who in fact are the #1 users driving Google's search engine results outside of desktops. Please stop. As others have already said, everyone absolutely has a choice with the search engine they choose to use and its not Google's fault that they have literally became the household name that people DO want to use.

At the end of the day,Google isn't forcing people to use their search engine. They aren't ranking results lower and there hasn't been an incident like that for years. It's absolute bullshit because the EU just has a problem with its dominance that it's own citizen's don't look to their national creations with the same love.

No, Google isn't forcing anyone, they're just throwing their weight around so the spotlight lands on them in the most situations possible.

Tell me, what do you use for web searching, browsing, and as your phone. Do you have an explicit reason for it?

Also I think you reason (Google paying Apple for preference) is amazingly better than my example. Thanks.

 

[mdubs]

Maybe the European bureaucrats should work harder trying to develop alternatives to compete instead of smacking down the market leader

 

[Nikodemos]

Of course Google is a monopoly. They own 90+% of the ads market. Websites have their shitty little datamining garbage trackers, else they don't get listed on Google search (or get listed on page 7). Other engines who perform cross-search with Google end up with these sites on page 12+ (since Google actively downgrade pages not carrying their datamining shit during 'cross-pollination').

Seriously, people saying "look, there are other options!" are the same naive people going "look, it's not a dictatorship: there are opposition parties!".

 

[YoungFa]

You really always get the dumbest replies in these threads.

 

[Nipo]

US tech companies should just stop doing business in the EU. Let them develop their own tech companies to compete with Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook.

 

[mdubs]

US tech companies should just stop doing business in the EU. Let them develop their own tech companies to compete with Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook.

If Alphabet announced tomorrow that they were completely pulling out all of their services for Europe and completely blocking access to everything (youtube, google search, maps etc) , I wonder how long it would take for the European governments to roll over.

 

[Abstrusity]

Regardless if you wanted to go to youtube or vimeo(LOL), or hotmail instead of gmail, or whatever, if they run it by algorithm, but then take their sites off the algorithm and ALWAYS display them first, that's an anti-trust issue.

 

[AbsolutBro]

You seem to be in the habit of imagining things. Where does controlling the market come up in the definition?


So you're narrowing the definition of a monopoly to your anecdote? This is ridiculous. You're not even arguing, you're just stating 'I'm right'. How about you start addressing the actual definition.

"Controlling the market" is implied by "owns all or nearly all of the market". It is right there in the first sentence. Ya know what?

Let's go ahead and post the full definition from the site originally used:

A monopoly is a situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.

According to a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm. In such instances where a single firm holds monopoly power, the company will typically be forced to divest its assets. Antimonopoly regulation protects free markets from being dominated by a single entity.

Part the first: "A monopoly is a situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service."

Google does not own "all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product of service". There are competitive services. People may not use them, but that is not a requirement. The market is "search engines", right? Google owns Google.com. Microsoft owns Bing.com. Yahoo owns Yahoo.com and DuckDuckGo owns DuckDuckGo.com. So we can see, Google does not own the entire market of search engines.

Part the second: "By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products."
As shown above, there is no absence of competition. There are other, competing services. Whether people know about them or not. Whether people use them or not. They are there. They are available for use. There is nothing preventing any EU citizen from using those services, and certainly nothing under Google control from doing so. You would also be hard pressed to argue Google "results in high prices and inferior products". Search engines are free to use, and Google is definitely not seen as an "inferior product".

Part the third: "According to a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm. "
See part the first. I do not care if none of the EU know that Bing or Yahoo exist. They do. There are multiple firms (at least 4) in the "search engine" market. All are equally available and operable to and by the citizens of the EU. Unless Google is actively suppressing their existence, the lack of EU knowledge of them is not the fault of Google, and has no bearing on the existence of competition.

And my anecdote wasn't me "narrowing the definition" at all. It was a demonstrative example of an actual monopoly. It showcased the requirements for an actual monopoly. It then attempted to draw comparisons between that actual internationally prosecuted example, and the situation here with Google.

Well at least we know why American consumers keep getting screwed over.

Classy personal attack bro.

 

[Easy_D]

You really always get the dumbest replies in these threads.

It's always the same kind of "Why can't the big bad EU leave our fantastic and innocent American corporations alone " posts.

Every. Single. Time.

If Alphabet announced tomorrow that they were completely pulling out all of their services for Europe and completely blocking access to everything (youtube, google search, maps etc) , I wonder how long it would take for the European governments to roll over.

Yes, they could do that, if they like leaving money on the table. Which they clearly don't. If they would, I'd hope the EU calls their bluff :lol

 

[vwnut13]

If Alphabet announced tomorrow that they were completely pulling out all of their services for Europe and completely blocking access to everything (youtube, google search, maps etc) , I wonder how long it would take for the European governments to roll over.

They'd be too busy fining Microsoft because Bing is now a 'monopoly'.

 

[Nipo]

If Alphabet announced tomorrow that they were completely pulling out all of their services for Europe and completely blocking access to everything (youtube, google search, maps etc) , I wonder how long it would take for the European governments to roll over.

Those four companies have a combined market cap bigger than the gdp of South Korea. I have no doubt they are more powerful than most governments if they decided to act in unison. Apple stood up to the FBI already and I'm sure something similar will happen again.

 

[liliththepale]

Of course Google would promote their own interests before the interests of others. They have every right to and it would be folly to expect otherwise.

You can't even complain about Google having 90% of the marketshare because the market wouldn't be anywhere near as large without them. They didn't come in and cannibalize the search market, they came in and built it better.

I hope when Google fights this they win and the EU stops throwing petty antitrust bullshit at everyone they're jealous of.

 

[Nikodemos]

And my anecdote wasn't me "narrowing the definition" at all. It was a demonstrative example of an actual monopoly. It showcased the requirements for an actual monopoly.

And your example is bad, because it's a bad example in itself. A cartel is not a monopoly. It can't be, because it's not a single entity. Collusion is not monopoly, just as oligopolic behaviour is not a monopoly, because by definition it can't be (mono- vs. oligo-). Just because the results are similar does not make the causes identical, or the solutions the same.

 

[AbsolutBro]

And your example is bad, because it's a bad example in itself. A cartel is not a monopoly. It can't be, because it's not a single entity. Collusion is not monopoly, just as oligopolic behaviour is not a monopoly, because it can't be (mono- vs. oligo-). Just because the results are similar does not make the causes identical, or the solutions the same.

Technically it is. A cartel is simply one form of a monopoly. That is even accounted for in the definition of a monopoly that was posted:

A monopoly is a situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products.

 

[Nikodemos]

Technically it is. A cartel is simply one form of a monopoly. That is even accounted for in the definition of a monopoly that was posted:

If it's a group, it's a collusive oligopoly. It can't be a monopoly, because there's no single all-controlling entity. Exhibiting 'monopolistic' behaviour is not the same as actually being a monopoly by virtue of existing.

 

[dity]

Gaf one second: "Youtube fair use sucks but no one's changing to another video website because Youtube is most popular and content makers are alreafy established in making money there (and barely anyone goes to the other sites)."

Gaf next second: "Google, a monopoly? No no no. There's competition!"

 

[Saucy_XL]

Ah the annual EU anti-trust charade. Next year will probably be Amazon. Hint, when you have to constantly fine large "monopolies" from foreign countries, that may be a sign something else is wrong.

 

[YoungFa]

Of course Google would promote their own interests before the interests of others. They have every right to and it would be folly to expect otherwise.

You can't even complain about Google having 90% of the marketshare because the market wouldn't be anywhere near as large without them. They didn't come in and cannibalize the search market, they came in and built it better.

I hope when Google fights this they win and the EU stops throwing petty antitrust bullshit at everyone they're jealous of.

But the thing is they dont. There are especially laws in place that regulate what a company can and cannot do. These laws are created to foster competition and prevent a situation where one company just gets too big and basically kicks down the ladder they came up on. Such regulations are especially important in industries like the tech sector where network and lock in effects are heavily in play, which easily create a winner takes it all situation. You might forego such regulation and watch market concentration increase sharply, but then you loose all the economical advantages of a competetive market. And as it is the EUs responsibility to increase the welfare of its nations, its economies and its people, it is their duty to call companies that behave in an anticompetitive behaviour and thus acting welfare decreasing, to accountability.

 

[Nikodemos]

This is precisely the sort of stuff the US hopes to stop with the TTIP, which is why I pray to all the Elder Ones that the accursed piece of shit crashes in flames and burns to a cinder.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

Those four companies have a combined market cap bigger than the gdp of South Korea. I have no doubt they are more powerful than most governments if they decided to act in unison. Apple stood up to the FBI already and I'm sure something similar will happen again.

I don't know how what you wrote didn't terrify you.

Of course Google would promote their own interests before the interests of others. They have every right to and it would be folly to expect otherwise.

You can't even complain about Google having 90% of the marketshare because the market wouldn't be anywhere near as large without them. They didn't come in and cannibalize the search market, they came in and built it better.

I hope when Google fights this they win and the EU stops throwing petty antitrust bullshit at everyone they're jealous of.

No, no they don't have that right. When you have a dominant position in one market, you cannot use that position to make gains in other markets where your competitors do not have your position. I'm curious, how do you think Google providing fair search results for everyone and not favoring their results over other companies is bad for me as a consumer? I'd argue that it is a good thing.

Let's look back at when MS got in trouble because they included a web browser with their OS. Nowadays you would be shocked if your OS didn't come with a web browser at all so you may not get the big deal with it. However, back then the reason MS got in trouble was that because IE was included in the box, it was just so much easier for consumers to use IE over Netscape which had to be downloaded or more likely, bought at a store. Dial-up was slow as fuck, and tied up your phone line, so you could either wait like 30-60 minutes for a new web browser to download, or keep using the one which came pre-installed. In addition, there were concerns brought that MS had special API's in Windows that only their web browser team knew about. After all, it's their software, why shouldn't they create features for use by their other software? Isn't that their right because they built a better OS than anyone else and the market wouldn't be anywhere without MS? The answer is of course no. As that cliche saying goes, "with great power comes great responsibility".

 

[AbsolutBro]

If it's a group, it's a collusive oligopoly. It can't be a monopoly, because there's no single all-controlling entity. Exhibiting 'monopolistic' behaviour is not the same as actually being a monopoly by virtue of existing.

While true enough, it was the behaviour I was demonstrating. The effects on pricing of a cartel are identical to that of a monopoly. The control of production, ability to destroy any new competitors, and total market dominance are the same.

The reality is that we haven't seen a true large scale monopoly (at least, one that isn't sanctioned and regulated by a government) in a long time because of effective anti-trust regulation.

 

[Easy_D]

Gaf one second: "Youtube fair use sucks but no one's changing to another video website because Youtube is most popular and content makers are alreafy established in making money there (and barely anyone goes to the other sites)."

Gaf next second: "Google, a monopoly? No no no. There's competition!"

Gotta hold on to dat status quo.

 

[Log4Girlz]

They should use the fine money to promote their own search engine

 

[liliththepale]

But the thing is they dont. There are especially laws in place that regulate what a company can and cannot do. These laws are created to foster competition and prevent a situation where one company just gets too big and basically kicks down the ladder they came up on. Such regulations are especially important in industries like the tech sector where network and lock in effects are heavily in play, which easily create a winner takes it all situation. You might forego such regulation and watch market concentration increase sharply, but then you loose all the economical advantages of a competetive market. And as it is the EUs responsibility to increase the welfare of its nations, its econonomies and its people, it is their duty to call companies that behave in an anticompetitive behaviour and thus acting welfare decreasing, to accountability.

Almost every company partakes in anticompetitive behavior or would if they could. That's just the nature of business. Drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and saying that's too far, that's too much marketshare for you to have, it's stupid.

The fact that people have grown reliant on Google doesn't mean Google should suddenly have to start working against its own interests. It's not like Google came in and stole or bought up all of the competition. Antitrust laws are designed to prevent things like businesses merging or cooperating in a way that raises prices for consumers, which is not what this is. This is just Google being way better than everyone else and people naturally flocking to them.

 

[aliengmr]

Wait, who uses Google to find other search engines?

Personally, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that this 3.3 to 6 billion Euros would be more valuable in the hands of any government or any other company on the planet than Google (maybe if it goes straight to Musk?). How does taking this money out of their hands and into the EU's or giving it to some other, less competent company benefit me as a consumer?

The only argument here is a fundamental philosophical one that no single company, ever, no matter what, should have the size and influence that Google has risen to. But the idea that fining them would suddenly allow some hypothetical Google-slaying tech company to rise from the chains of monopolistic oppression seems COMPLETELY absurd to me.

That's what I'm curious about. What problem is being solved? Google will still be Google.

 

[Aureon]

"Controlling the market" is implied by "owns all or nearly all of the market". It is right there in the first sentence. Ya know what?

Let's go ahead and post the full definition from the site originally used:

Part the first: "A monopoly is a situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service."

Google does not own "all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product of service". There are competitive services. People may not use them, but that is not a requirement. The market is "search engines", right? Google owns Google.com. Microsoft owns Bing.com. Yahoo owns Yahoo.com and DuckDuckGo owns DuckDuckGo.com. So we can see, Google does not own the entire market of search engines.

Part the second: "By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products."
As shown above, there is no absence of competition. There are other, competing services. Whether people know about them or not. Whether people use them or not. They are there. They are available for use. There is nothing preventing any EU citizen from using those services, and certainly nothing under Google control from doing so. You would also be hard pressed to argue Google "results in high prices and inferior products". Search engines are free to use, and Google is definitely not seen as an "inferior product".

Part the third: "According to a strict academic definition, a monopoly is a market containing a single firm. "
See part the first. I do not care if none of the EU know that Bing or Yahoo exist. They do. There are multiple firms (at least 4) in the "search engine" market. All are equally available and operable to and by the citizens of the EU. Unless Google is actively suppressing their existence, the lack of EU knowledge of them is not the fault of Google, and has no bearing on the existence of competition.

And my anecdote wasn't me "narrowing the definition" at all. It was a demonstrative example of an actual monopoly. It showcased the requirements for an actual monopoly. It then attempted to draw comparisons between that actual internationally prosecuted example, and the situation here with Google.


Classy personal attack bro.

Google isn't getting fined for having a dominant market position.
It's getting fined for abusing said dominant market position by suppressing competition in other products.

 

[dity]

Almost every company partakes in anticompetitive behavior or would if they could. That's just the nature of business. Drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and saying that's too far, that's too much marketshare for you to have, it's stupid.

The fact that people have grown reliant on Google doesn't mean Google should suddenly have to start working against its own interests. It's not like Google came in and stole or bought up all of the competition. Antitrust laws are designed to prevent things like businesses merging or cooperating in a way that raises prices for consumers, which is not what this is. This is just Google being way better than everyone else and people naturally flocking to them.

Oh, so that's how you excuse this. "They do it too!"

 

[Iced_Eagle]

That's what I'm curious about. What problem is being solved? Google will still be Google.

Google will need to display all search results equally instead of pushing their own products in the results.

This benefits you as the consumer because your search results will actually be fair, and not pushing a Google agenda/product. It benefits smaller companies who Google may be getting snuffed out as well because Google is pushing their service above theirs, so it indirectly increase competition over the consumer, which is also a good thing.

 

[SPDIF]

Ah the annual EU anti-trust charade. Next year will probably be Amazon. Hint, when you have to constantly fine large "monopolies" from foreign countries, that may be a sign something else is wrong.

They've fined plenty of European companies in the past. You probably just didn't hear about it, and you likely wouldn't care if you did anyway. If you saw a thread about the EU fining Saint-Gobain, would you bother to click on it and post?

 

[Nikodemos]

That's what I'm curious about. What problem is being solved? Google will still be Google.

Hopefully I can completely uninstall shit from my phone rather than the garbage "Uninstall Updates" lameass option I get now.

They've fined plenty of European companies in the past. You probably just didn't hear about it, and you likely wouldn't care if you did anyway. If you saw a thread about the EU fining Saint-Gobain, would you bother to click on it and post?

Didn't they also fine Pilkington in the same ruling, due to collusive behaviour on tempered auto glass?

 

[Easy_D]

Almost every company partakes in anticompetitive behavior or would if they could. That's just the nature of business. Drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and saying that's too far, that's too much marketshare for you to have, it's stupid.

The fact that people have grown reliant on Google doesn't mean Google should suddenly have to start working against its own interests. It's not like Google came in and stole or bought up all of the competition. Antitrust laws are designed to prevent things like businesses merging or cooperating in a way that raises prices for consumers, which is not what this is. This is just Google being way better than everyone else and people naturally flocking to them.

The EU works in the interest of its citizens, if it finds Google does something against that interest, they get fined. It's that simple. Just because other unions/countries don't give as many fucks about their citizens doesn't mean it should work that way.

 

[WaterAstro]

Europe: We're poor, so we'll sue Google for no reason.

 

[Easy_D]

Europe: We're poor, so we'll sue Google for no reason.

Yes, that's exactly why they're doing this, exactly as outlined in the ruling.

We're so poor 3 Bil makes a huge difference and our only option to survive is to sue the Great American Corporations to scrape by.

 

[this_guy]

Yes, that's exactly why they're doing this, exactly as outlined in the ruling.

We're so poor 3 Bil makes a huge difference and our only option to survive is to sue the Great American Corporations to scrape by.

That makes more sense because I haven't seen how Google is harming consumers.

 

[Scrooged]

Google isn't getting fined for having a dominant market position.
It's getting fined for abusing said dominant market position by suppressing competition in other products.

"Suppressing competition"...within their own product.

 

[Kinitari]

Gaf one second: "Youtube fair use sucks but no one's changing to another video website because Youtube is most popular and content makers are alreafy established in making money there (and barely anyone goes to the other sites)."

Gaf next second: "Google, a monopoly? No no no. There's competition!"

It's almost like different people on GAF have different opinions, or something!

 

[Onlinehero]

Look patriots, if Google thought this was unfair they'd leave. They'll make it back in no time by avoiding taxes!

 

[YoungFa]

That makes more sense because I haven't seen how Google is harming consumers.

Well economics is a complex territory, not easy to understand for everyone.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Now I understand why MS buried the legal hatchet so hastily with Google and booked it the hell out of this mess recently. They didn't want anything to do with this ruling. The EU are so blatantly profiteering here it's actually hilarious. Nobody thinks this is a legitimate antitrust case or that Google deserves a fine of any kind, much less one of this size.

 

[Kinitari]

The problem here is that we're trying to apply market rules on software that just don't work. The idea of having a monopoly with free software available on the internet just doesn't work right. Try to map forcing Google to give equal weight to competitors products in a privately owned medium to stuff in real life, because I'm having trouble with that.

 

[dity]

It's almost like different people on GAF have different opinions, or something!

Yeah, who cares about the prevailling attitude OT has toward both issues and how opposite they are.

 

[kIdMuScLe]

Google will need to display all search results equally instead of pushing their own products in the results.

This benefits you as the consumer because your search results will actually be fair, and not pushing a Google agenda/product. It benefits smaller companies who Google may be getting snuffed out as well because Google is pushing their service above theirs, so it indirectly increase competition over the consumer, which is also a good thing.

Can you give a example of what is a fair search results? I'm really curious.

 

[Vamphuntr]

How are these fine calculated and where is the money going? I guess this is a way to get back taxes companies don't pay. I'm not a fan of monopoly or google but that seems a huge amount of money for something like this.

So how should google list search results? Would you guys pay for Google but with search results indexed differently?

 

[this_guy]

How are these fine calculated and where is the money going? I guess this is a way to get back taxes companies don't pay. I'm not a fan of monopoly or google but that seems a huge amount of money for something like this.

So how should google list search results? Would you guys pay for Google but with search results indexed differently?

If you wanted different search results you wouldn't use Google. I tried using Bing for their Bing rewards program but Bing search results suck

Spoiler

unless you're looking for porn

 

[Aureon]

"Suppressing competition"...within their own product.

When you have a dominant market position, that's absolutely a legit concern.

That's exactly why Microsoft was fined for over-promotion of IE within Windows, which had a dominant market position at the time.

 

[perfectchaos007]

When Europe feels an American company is getting too large of a marketshare in the EU, they sue. Seems like a fair way to do business.

 

[not psycho]

This is the moment I wished we had an EU version of Trump: "The fine just got 1 billion higher!'

Which actually goes to show that this fine is ridiculous.

If it sounds like something EU Trump would do, it's not on the level.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

Just because there is choice, does not mean a company can't have a monopoly like position. We saw the same with Microsoft for example. Apple was there, but for a long time Microsoft had a practical monopoly. Just like Google now in search.

Microsoft's monopoly is nothing like this so called monopoly the EU is alleging that google has on search.

Back in the day, if you wanted a PC, it came with windows, you couldnt even buy a PC without windows because MS wouldnt allow it, and MS forced PC builders to include stuff they necessarily didnt want. Consumers had no choice whatsoever.

If anyone wants to use a different search engine, google isn't stopping them. No one is stopping anyone from using a different search engine.

Google is in a dominant position because consumers put them there.