Support NeoGAF

[ClosingADoor]

We know - it's a money grab by the EU.

No. It's about anti-competitive business practices by Google.

 

[dity]

We know - it's a money grab by the EU.

You're just taking the piss now.

 

[this_guy]

No. It's about anti-competitive business practices by Google.

That does no harm to consumers but the EU can use that as an excuse to go get some money.

Europeans point of view: Americans are so stupid for defending corporations.
Americans point of view: There's no harm here. This is Europe's version of 'merica!'.

 

[ClosingADoor]

That does no harm to consumers but the EU can use that as an excuse to go get some money.

Europeans point of view: Americans are so stupid for defending corporations.
Americans point of view: There's no harm here. This is Europe's version of 'merica!'.

It is harming competition, which is bad for consumers.

 

[Lord Panda]

Good on the EU for gunning for Google. Wish my Australian government had the clout, will, and fortitude to go after these corporations.

 

[MarkMclovin]

C'mon, they were baiting users because they hoped Google+ would become the next Facebook if they took advantage of the Youtube userbase. It's the perfect example of them abusing their dominant position. They introduced G+ comments, but where's the ability to comment with Facebook or Twitter? They removed old Youtube-based comments to get you onto another service that basically only served as a means to comment for most. Lots of other websites allow you to use whatever service you want to comment on blogs/videos, but not Google.

What dominant position? You just said yourself that Facebook is the dominant service, so why not them be in the same position as google is right now? Remember myspace? When Facebook got more popular, myspace lost it's users and they fled to Facebook instead. Why is that OK?

What about Apple and iTunes, or Microsoft with Windows Server? How are they any different?

 

[Kinitari]

Again, this it not about consumers unable to switch from Google. This is about unfair business practices by Google in abusing their position on search to push their other services, which push competitors of those other services out of the market.

It is not about competition on search itself.

So Google, because it's so popular, shouldn't advertise it's other services or encourage their use? Even though these services are often a part of the same interlinking platform?

 

[this_guy]

It is harming competition, which is bad for consumers.

As has been stated several times here - search query results aren't the same as a glass cartel getting together and keeping new competitors from entering the market. Google's dominance is the result of people prefering their search results (which includes Google related products near the top). If people aren't fond of the search results Google provides there's other search engines to choose from.

 

[mugurumakensei]

It's okay to promote your own services above others when you do not own almost 100% of the market.

Also this:

That seems awfully weird to make different companies ies abide by different rules. It opens the door up to favoritism by bureaucrats. Either no one is allowed to do it or everyone is allowed.

 

[ClosingADoor]

So Google, because it's so popular, shouldn't advertise it's other services or encourage their use? Even though these services are often a part of the same interlinking platform?

Yes, because they have basically a monopoly on search, they should not abuse that position to influence their results to put their own services above others. If they do, the result is unfair competition.

As has been stated several times here - search query results aren't the same as a glass cartel getting together and keeping new competitors from entering the market. Google's dominance is the result of people prefering their search results (which includes Google related products near the top). If people aren't fond of the search results Google provides there's other search engines to choose from.

But doing this, Google is stopping competitors from entering the market. People prefer their search, that is not in question and is not a problem. The way they use that search to unfairly put their other services in front of users is.

 

[dity]

What dominant position? You just said yourself that Facebook is the dominant service, so why not them be in the same position as google is right now? Remember myspace? When Facebook got more popular, myspace lost it's users and they fled to Facebook instead. Why is that OK?

What about Apple and iTunes, or Microsoft with Windows Server? How are they any different?

Dominant position with regards to Youtube and being about to traffic its users into its new social network platform forcefully rather than letting people sign in whatever account they want to comment if they weren't going to let regular Youtube accounts comment normally anymore.

Also, Myspace died put a long time before Facebook reached peak popularity. And there was (and still is) also Twitter going on too y'know with hefty marketshare.

And those other things are whataboutism and I don't care. Look back on the thread for discussion on those.

 

[jorma]

That seems awfully weird to make different companies ies abide by different rules. It opens the door up to favoritism by bureaucrats. Either no one is allowed to do it or everyone is allowed.

Google's dominant position isn't the "crime" here, it's the alleged abuse of their dominant position. These "different companies" are also barred from abusing a dominant position, but they can't abuse what they don't have.

 

[Kinitari]

Yes, because they have basically a monopoly on search, they should not abuse that position to influence their results to put their own services above others. If they do, the result is unfair competition.

That's kind of crazy, software just... doesn't work like that. All software providers, when they have new or relevant products, link and recommend these products. And stuff like search engines are services that you have to actively seek out, it's not forced on consumers as the only choice.

Further, there is an actual difference - legally - between a monopoly where the consumers have no other choices because of actions taken by the producer, vs a defacto monopoly because all other options are not wanted. If two people are selling food, but one person sells food that always gives you the runs and no one buys from them - the other person has a monopoly, but not because they're actively doing anything.

Do you disagree?

 

[S¡mon]

That seems awfully weird to make different companies ies abide by different rules. It opens the door up to favoritism by bureaucrats. Either no one is allowed to do it or everyone is allowed.

No one wih a market share that approaches monopolistic characteristics is allowed to do so.

Also, companies are able to go to a judge if they feel they are unfairly treated. If you believe that this still isn't fair, be aware that there is a seperation of powers which basically comes down to that judges have a lot of power and act fair and independent.

Also, it's not like this fine (which hasn't been confirmed yet, by the way) comes out of nowhere. Europe has warned Google for years and has asked for proper change in their currently-not-so-neutral search results.

A fine is really one of the last measures available (the absolute last measure of course being splitting up the company).

Also, if Europe decides to fine Google, than be aware that their likely has been a thorough investigation and a huge collection of evidence. Legally, this case will absolutely favour the anti trust regulators - they don't take these can't of actions if they aren't absolutely certain that the law is on the regulator's side.

 

[this_guy]

Yes, because they have basically a monopoly on search, they should not abuse that position to influence their results to put their own services above others. If they do, the result is unfair competition.


But doing this, Google is stopping competitors from entering the market. People prefer their search, that is not in question and is not a problem. The way they use that search to unfairly put their other services in front of users is.

The order of the search results is what makes people flock to Google. It's part of the search results. People like it.

 

[The Albatross]

Google is being punished for making the best search algorithm and developing new products that they want people to use. Google should, instead, develop the best products and then encourage consumers to use worse products developed by their competition.

This isn't about consumers.

And that's the crux of it.

 

[S¡mon]

Google is being punished for making the best search algorithm and developing new products that they want people to use.

Google is being punished for deliberately making competitors harder to find and misleading consumers.

 

[Kinitari]

Dominant position with regards to Youtube and being about to traffic its users into its new social network platform forcefully rather than letting people sign in whatever account they want to comment if they weren't going to let regular Youtube accounts comment normally anymore.

This really really isn't how software works, and again is another problem with trying to shoehorn incompatible rules into a software ecosystem. It's bad architectural design to have many different authentication systems for an application, it's good design to have one authentication system for your suite of software. What's Google supposed to do, not improve their software because it might make them more popular?

 

[dity]

That's kind of crazy, software just... doesn't work like that. All software providers, when they have new or relevant products, link and recommend these products. And stuff like search engines are services that you have to actively seek out, it's not forced on consumers as the only choice.

Further, there is an actual difference - legally - between a monopoly where the consumers have no other choices because of actions taken by the producer, vs a defacto monopoly because all other options are not wanted. If two people are selling food, but one person sells food that always gives you the runs and no one buys from them - the other person has a monopoly, but not because they're actively doing anything.

Do you disagree?

But it's not a defacto monopoly because most people are using Google due to not knowing of choice.

Your example would make more sense if there were two food vendors, but one set up shop in front of the other and built a wall and no one goes to the second vendor because they don't know they can go behind the first. As such, people just eat what the first vendor provides because they don't know any better.

This really really isn't how software works, and again is another problem with trying to shoehorn incompatible rules into a software ecosystem. It's bad architectural design to have many different authentication systems for an application, it's good design to have one authentication system for your suite of software. What's Google supposed to do, not improve their software because it might make them more popular?

"This isn't how software works". Are you being serious, or have you never ever used a social network login to create an account on a website before? "Create an account, or sign in with Google+, Facebook, or Twitter."

"This isn't how software works" my fucking ass. Don't talk out your rear. Other commenting systems can implement it, I bet it wouldn't be hard for Google.

 

[Kinitari]

Google is being punished for deliberately making competitors harder to find and misleading consumers.

Harder to find? Misleading consumers? Can you elaborate?

 

[Kinitari]

But it's not a defacto monopoly because most people are using Google due to not knowing of choice.

Your example would make more sense if there were two food vendors, but one set up shop in front of the other and built a wall and no one goes to the second vendor because they don't know they can go behind the first. As such, people just eat what the first vendor provides because they don't know any better.

In your analogy, what's the wall? In your analogy, the good vendor should be advertising on its stalls that the shitty vendor is down the street.

"This isn't how software works". Are you being serious, or have you never ever used a social network login to create an account on a website before? "Create an account, or sign in with Google+, Facebook, or Twitter."

"This isn't how software works" my fucking ass. Don't talk out your rear

These are called oauth logins. A convenience feature created because everyone hates having too many authentication accounts. There are many different popular oauth login providers, but the big 3 are Twitter, Facebook and Google - and they don't generally provide you with other oauth logins. When you login with these accounts, you're almost always making a new proprietary account with whatever service you're using this oauth for. That list of permissions you give for these sign ins are the data used to populate this new account.

 

[dorn.]

ITT lots of people who don't realize that Google users =! Google's customers. Google acts like a ginormous asshole towards its actual customers, which they can do because they have a quasi-monopoly on internet searches.

 

[ClosingADoor]

That's kind of crazy, software just... doesn't work like that. All software providers, when they have new or relevant products, link and recommend these products. And stuff like search engines are services that you have to actively seek out, it's not forced on consumers as the only choice.

Further, there is an actual difference - legally - between a monopoly where the consumers have no other choices because of actions taken by the producer, vs a defacto monopoly because all other options are not wanted. If two people are selling food, but one person sells food that always gives you the runs and no one buys from them - the other person has a monopoly, but not because they're actively doing anything.

Do you disagree?

If one food vendor owns all stores in a city, except for one, is there a monopoly or not? I think there is.

The problem is not showing relevant products or recommendations. It is Google favoring their own over other things even if their own are less relevant.

The order of the search results is what makes people flock to Google. It's part of the search results. People like it.

That can be argued. Google is basically the default search engine everywhere in Europe. Yes, people partly use it because it gives them the result they want. But that does not mean Google can just influence those results to favor their own stuff, when others might be more relevant.

ITT lots of people who don't realize that Google users =! Google's customers. Google acts like a ginormous asshole towards its actual customers, which they can do because they have a quasi-monopoly on internet searches.

Pretty much. Google can make or break your online businesses because of their position. It would be the same as Microsoft saying "well, you got a great program there, works flawless, doing exactly what the user wants, but let's not allow that on Windows. What are you whining about, you can put it on Linux!" And meanwhile offering their own worse product instead.

 

[this_guy]

"This isn't how software works". Are you being serious, or have you never ever used a social network login to create an account on a website before? "Create an account, or sign in with Google+, Facebook, or Twitter."

"This isn't how software works" my fucking ass. Don't talk out your rear. Other commenting systems can implement it, I bet it wouldn't be hard for Google.

Doing so inherently makes your product less secure. Why do you want things to be less secure?

 

[mugurumakensei]

But it's not a defacto monopoly because most people are using Google due to not knowing of choice.

Pretty sure most of the EU knows about Yahoo and Bing. IE/Edge defaults to Bing for search. Firefox by default uses Yahoo. Chrome does default to Google. So, the only way that they could possibly not know about other choices is they always chose to get Google Chrome as their default browser or didn't access the internet until iphones and Android phones existed.

 

[dity]

In your analogy, what's the wall? In your analogy, the good vendor should be advertising on its stalls that the shitty vendor is down the street.

The wall is- get this- a wall. It's a wall.

There is no good or shitty vendor in my analogy. Only a lack of choice. You'd find the other food vendor like you would finding a result a few pages down in a google result.

Pretty sure most of the EU knows about Yahoo and Bing. IE/Edge defaults to Bing for search. Firefox by default uses Yahoo. Chrome does default to Google. So, the only way that they could possibly not know about other choices is they always chose to get Google Chrome as their default browser or didn't access the internet until iphones and Android phones existed.

I'm pretty sure most people don't even know what Bing is, and have forgotten about Yahoo unless they use a Yahoo email. The average joe doesn't know about address bar searching (or they'll search for Google to get to Google).

Seriously, I swear a bunch of you here live in a fantasy land.

 

[this_guy]

That can be argued. Google is basically the default search engine everywhere in Europe. Yes, people partly use it because it gives them the result they want. But that does not mean Google can just influence those results to favor their own stuff, when others might be more relevant.

That's the key thing - it IS the search results people want. People want Google's search results - not Bing, not duckduckgo, and certainly not the EU's.

 

[mdubs]

What an odd world we live in where a company is forced to give its competitors part of the spotlight. Hope Google sticks it to these European bureaucrats

 

[Kinitari]

The wall is- get this- a wall. It's a wall.

There is no good or shitty vendor in my analogy. Only a lack of choice. You'd find the other food vendor like you would finding a result a few pages down in a google result.

Your analogy is predicated on a wall preventing consumers from accessing stuff, and it just doesn't work even a little when there is no Google-wall, admit it.

 

[ClosingADoor]

That's the key thing - it IS the search results people want. People want Google's search results - not Bing, not duckduckgo, and certainly not the EU's.

Clearly, some disagree with you. You might think it is fine, but I don't. Google can't just randomly influence their search to push competitors in other fields out of the market. It is an abuse of their position. If that competitors result is more relevant then Googles own, then it should be higher.

 

[jorma]

That's kind of crazy, software just... doesn't work like that. All software providers, when they have new or relevant products, link and recommend these products. And stuff like search engines are services that you have to actively seek out, it's not forced on consumers as the only choice.

Further, there is an actual difference - legally - between a monopoly where the consumers have no other choices because of actions taken by the producer, vs a defacto monopoly because all other options are not wanted. If two people are selling food, but one person sells food that always gives you the runs and no one buys from them - the other person has a monopoly, but not because they're actively doing anything.

Do you disagree?

But what if, in your example, the other person has a dominant position because he sold at a loss at first (these days he is charging premium though), and later the people who delivered the food to him were banned from delivering food to the first guy (or the second guy will stop buying from them, forcing them to choose), and that's the reason the first guy now has inferior food that gives people the runs?

Wouldn't it make sense to make the second guy stop abusing his dominant position in the market?

 

[dity]

Your analogy is predicated on a wall preventing consumers from accessing stuff, and it just doesn't work even a little when there is no Google-wall, admit it.

Google built the wall. That's what I said.

This thread is the perfect example of people thinking the illusion of choice is real choice. There are choices, but They are not known or pushed down in search results.

The wall represents needing to go looking for and then finding your alternate result around the bend - like when you go several pages into a Google search.

 

[Kinitari]

But what if, in your example, the other person has a dominant position because he sold at a loss at first (these days he is charging premium though), and later the people who delivered the food to him were banned from delivering food to the first guy (or the second guy will stop buying from them, forcing them to choose), and that's the reason the first guy now has inferior food that gives people the runs?

Wouldn't it make sense to make the second guy stop abusing his dominant position in the market?

I agreeish on this. It gets fuzzy when extrapolating this out to software, but at its heart i would say that this would be anti competitive, ish. The problem is that loss leaders are not inherently bad practice, and changing vendors isn't either, but the right combination gets murky.

 

[this_guy]

Clearly, some disagree with you. You might think it is fine, but I don't. Google can't just randomly influence their search to push competitors in other fields out of the market. It is an abuse of their position. If that competitors result is more relevant then Googles own, then it should be higher.

What search engine do you use since you don't prefer Google's search results? I'll give your's a legit shot to see if I prefer something else. If you force Google to change their search results it's really not their search results any more.

But what if, in your example, the other person has a dominant position because he sold at a loss at first (these days he is charging premium though), and later the people who delivered the food to him were banned from delivering food to the first guy (or the second guy will stop buying from them, forcing them to choose), and that's the reason the first guy now has inferior food that gives people the runs?

Wouldn't it make sense to make the second guy stop abusing his dominant position in the market?

And this is why free software is different.

 

[Kinitari]

Google built the wall. That's what I said.

This thread is the perfect example of people thinking the illusion of choice is real choice. There are choices, but They are not known or pushed down in search results.

The wall represents needing to go looking for and then finding your alternate result around the bend - like when you go several pages into a Google search.

You're saying that the actual sorting algorithm itself is the anti competitive behaviour? Is there an accusation that Google is putting competing software products on the third+ page of results intentionally? I could get behind giving Google guff for that.

 

[dity]

You're saying that the actual sorting algorithm itself is the anti competitive behaviour? Is there an accusation that Google is putting competing software products on the third+ page of results intentionally? I could get behind giving Google guff for that.

That.

is what the thread.

IS ABOUT!

Hooooly fuck.

 

[MGrant]

Which competition's search results are they suppressing, exactly? I go to google, I type "search" and it gives me Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, etc. I type "Web browser" and it gives me Opera and Firefox before Chrome, even. "Analytics" gives me several competitors' websites, as do "news" and "maps" and "mail" and "video sharing" and "blogs" and... you get the idea. The only product of theirs I'm not seeing competitors on is "self-driving car," but I think that's just because no one else has one that far in development yet.

 

[gcubed]

That.

is what the thread.

IS ABOUT!

Hooooly fuck.

i think you're in the wrong thread?

 

[Kinitari]

That.

is what the thread.

IS ABOUT!

Hooooly fuck.

As far as i understand, it's about Google not advertising for the competition, which is different than Google influencing their algorithm to hide the competition which would have otherwise organically shown itself on the first page - the latter, if true is bad, the former is.. whatever, not a realistic want.

 

[dity]

i think you're in the wrong thread?

Oh sod off lol. Businesses competing with Google count as businesses effected by Google preferencing their own services.

Preferencing your own services pushes other results down. There doesn't have to be a minimum amount of push down.

 

[Dascu]

Which competition's search results are they suppressing, exactly? I go to google, I type "search" and it gives me Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, etc. I type "Web browser" and it gives me Opera and Firefox before Chrome, even. "Analytics" gives me several competitors' websites, as do "news" and "maps" and "mail" and "video sharing" and "blogs" and... you get the idea. The only product of theirs I'm not seeing competitors on is "self-driving car," but I think that's just because no one else has one that far in development yet.

For what it's worth, and I've stated this before, the investigation is also based on many documents that are not public (because they're internal Google stuff and trade secrets). In general, the case is a bit more complex than Google not showing Bing as a result or something.

 

[Igo]

Oh sod off lol. Businesses competing with Google count as businesses effected by Google preferencing their own services.

Preferencing your own services pushes other results down. There doesn't have to be a minimum amount of push down.

Are there examples of this?

The only thing I can think of is Youtube results which are usually near the top, but it's also the most popular service so that makes sense.

If the EU is talking about forcing Google to remove their shopping tab/link they can fuck off.

 

[gcubed]

Oh sod off lol. Businesses competing with Google count as businesses effected by Google preferencing their own services.

thats different then hiding or suppressing competitors. the whole thing was about google ads and shopping showing up ahead of any other actual websites, at least that was my understanding, even years ago when they offered to redesign the way the shopping results are shown to make it clear that they were ads and not actual results.

I mean, if people had proof that they were intentionally mucking with results to withhold search results about competitors, fine the fuckers 6B. If its because they have a bar at top that says sponsored and has some results for shopping then goes to all the normal search results, i have a hard time seeing that as materially damaging, especially to the tune of 3B dollars.

 

[Onlinehero]

A practical example of how this effects consumers in practice... when I type ”translate” into Google today, I get a few results before Google Translate gets a spot. If I type ”Google Translate”, it's the first result. In the corner of the Google page they still have and advertise all their services, they don't promote themselves as the first result on generic searches. That should be a result of rules like this, no?

With no regulation they'd just shove Google Translate into my face all the time. Even if there's a better alternative I wouldn't get to know about it, that would be abusing a dominant position. Google could theoretically start say, a competitor to Amazon, and block all results but Googles own.

That's the kind of thing we're hoping to avoid.

 

[dity]

thats different then hiding or suppressing competitors. the whole thing was about google ads and shopping showing up ahead of any other actual websites, at least that was my understanding, even years ago when they offered to redesign the way the shopping results are shown to make it clear that they were ads and not actual results.

I mean, if people had proof that they were intentionally mucking with results to withhold search results about competitors, fine the fuckers 6B. If its because they have a bar at top that says sponsored and has some results for shopping then goes to all the normal search results, i have a hard time seeing that as materially damaging, especially to the tune of 3B dollars.

You have to push down results to push your own results up, and I don't think that's cool.

For what it's worth, and I've stated this before, the investigation is also based on many documents that are not public (because they're internal Google stuff and trade secrets). In general, the case is a bit more complex than Google not showing Bing as a result or something.

Should be in the OP. I mean, there's probably tons of search data in there about result trends and whatnot that can't be replicated by a single search.

 

[Aureon]

As far as i understand, it's about Google not advertising for the competition, which is different than Google influencing their algorithm to hide the competition which would have otherwise organically shown itself on the first page - the latter, if true is bad, the former is.. whatever, not a realistic want.

Google is forcing their algorithm to show their own shopping options before everyone else's, over the organical algorithm's opinion.

 

[S¡mon]

You're saying that the actual sorting algorithm itself is the anti competitive behaviour? Is there an accusation that Google is putting competing software products on the third+ page of results intentionally? I could get behind giving Google guff for that.

That's the argument. There are basically two problems:

1) What you describe: Google is putting competing services (or did put in the past) lower in their search ranking.
2) Google Shopping: falsely giving the idea that Google Shopping is a price comparison service while in reality it's just all sponsored ads.

Edit; also, basically this:

Google is forcing their algorithm to show their own shopping options before everyone else's, over the organical algorithm's opinion.

That's obviously not an okay thing to do when you have near 100% of the market share (like is the case in Europe).
At least, it's not an okay thing to do in my opinion (and of many other Europeans). Americans, I get the impression, seem more open to the idea of a company having absolute freedom.

 

[gcubed]

You have to push down results to push your own results up, and I don't think that's cool.



Should be in the OP. I mean, there's probably tons of search data in there about result trends and whatnot that can't be replicated by a single search.

they don't really push them "down" that i can tell. They have the same amount of actual results, per page, with the shopping section on top or not. I have no idea what triggers the different layouts for google, i guess its resolution because i get them a lot on the side (besides mobile), which doesn't even remotely affect the appearance of actual returned results

 

[S¡mon]

they don't really push them "down" that i can tell. They have the same amount of actual results, per page, with the shopping section on top or not. I have no idea what triggers the different layouts for google, i guess its resolution because i get them a lot on the side (besides mobile), which doesn't even remotely affect the appearance of actual returned results

The argument the EU makes is that Google is in fact pushing results from competing services down (or, they've at least done so in the past).

Like someone mentioned, the EU has also got access to lots of documents that are considered (trade) secrets.
It's not like the EU just decides to fine companies: anti trust regulators need to have a very sturdy legal basis. If that isn't there, they won't fine. And if they somehow ever will do that in the future, judges will repeal the fine.

 

[Vermillion]

Y'all know that people put more trust in organic results than paid search/ads, right? PPC + SEO is a great combo, but ads aren't that overpowering to begin with.