great joke bro, pls tell it again
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Google faces record three billion euro EU antitrust fine
- Thread starter Caayn
- Start date
- Status
great joke bro, pls tell it again
That's the point. People trust the normal so-called organic results. When in fact these 'organic results' are also being manipulated / have been manipulated.
ClosingADoor
Member
I use Google. I like Google. It does what I want of it. That is not the problem. I use Google, Youtube, Google Calendar, Gmail, Google Apps, Youtube, Doubleclick and more. This all is not the point.
This is about Google being anti-competitive to other businesses (which in the end can hurt consumers). Not in search. But in the other areas they are being active in. The example investigated now is their Google Shopping results, that are pushed to the top of their page, while it are not the most relevant results. Google is abusing their position in search to push their other activities in the spotlight. Something that can be anti-competitive when you have a (near) monopoly.
You say that, and yet the US is still one of the best places to start and grow a business. A rather large number of the world's most innovative companies have come from the US and continue to do so today. Hell, Google itself is < 20 yrs old.
I'm not even disagreeing with you necessarily. I just think it's interesting seeing the differing philosophies between the EU and the US when it comes to antitrust issues. It seems the EU is always focused on trying to limit the power and influence of the big players, whereas the US is all about removing barriers to entry for the little guys.
Can't agree with some of the arguments being put forth as to why Google needs to be punished for antitrust practices over free services on the open internet with other options available, let alone have politicians meddle with their search algorithms. Always felt like the EU's hard on for fining Google amounted to little more than a thinly veiled tax shakeup.
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_39740
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4781_en.htm
There is apparently evidence of such kind of practices in regards to Shopping services.
Also, we should wait for a more formal announcement instead of this vague and unsubstantiated Telegraph article.
ClosingADoor
Member
Just because something is free doesn't make it exempt from anti-competitive practices. Microsoft is giving away Windows 10 left and right, but would still be fined if they abused their position. And rightfully so. These aren't charities just because it is free, they are big businesses with their own interest in front. Nothing wrong with that, but there are limits in how far you can take that, certainly when you are practically a monopoly.
mugurumakensei
Member
This actually is about sponsored results which do not actually take up spots of the results. You scroll down and look at the actual search results.
It also says sponsored.
The classic example is/was Googles weighting of restaurants and hotels based on Google+ reviews while minimising Yelp and Tripadvisor results. i.e hotels with a high Google+ score would be featured higher regardless of their tripadvisor or yelp scores.
In this entire case the EU and Google were close to an agreement on this issue as http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-87_en.htm states but a change in Commissioner saw that deal fall through. The 'deal' press release btw gives examples of before and after pictures of the what the EU want
The four main concerns are as follows:
Subsequently this and the shopping issue got rolled up, with a separate investigation into Android launched.
You forgot ads. And you can't pay for groceries with information. Not sure how this is relevant either way.
The word "sponsored" also does not exist in the Telegraph article. :/
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
So now it's based on how much time I'm using them? Lmao!
I have almost all my stuff through Google and that's because it works. Just like Apple users stick with Apple because it works for them, it's not different than people who use Google services or use Google to search because it works better.
Inbox > all other mail alternative including Gmail
Drive > better than any other cloud storage companies for me
Maps and Waze > better than any other mapping service there is
Photos > better than any other photo app right now including the storage option
Fiber > better than Comcast and everybody else right now (even though I don't have it)
Etc etc.... People aren't making things up when they actually like and WANT to use Google services. I am in Google's ecosystem and I could of chosen a dozen others that are out there, but I liked theirs the best and that's that. EU going after Google because people just really like them better and they think that their market dominance is causing this rather than them just have a great service that people like using is bull. It's really not about "The big bad EU wants to fine my amazing American company" for me....it's just about how ridiculous they are being about a search engine that really isn't harming customers at all especially when choices exist.
Hey, you brought up usin' all the services. Is it really that bad of me to wonder if you used them, or if you "used" them?
And hey, not about consumers.
Also lol'd at Fiber being better but you haven't even used it. Wowee.
Nothing. The goalposts will always move.
If you look at kmag's post above, it does a good job of explaining what this is actually about. They aren't being punished for being almost too good.
Vermillion
Banned
S¡mon;203902221 said:
Where is the proof of this?
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
You really really don't need my impression on the service as there has been nothing but good things being said about it all over including the running joke for "Google save us" ....like come on. Clearly something works if people want it.
And secondly, Google wasn't always this good. So "using" them is certainly what I did before Google started to eclipse everyone. You can only stay a non-conformist for so long until you realize how stupid it is to deprive yourself of something that really does live up to the hype.
You can't pay for groceries with historical gold coins either but you sure as hell can sell them for money, which then allows you to pay for your groceries. It's relevant because people in this thread went 'oh it's free plz don't complain'
Well, people really want NBN fibre here in Australia but it's not exactly roses and dandelions for everyone even though it's majorly hyped up.
Also, not sure where you got the impression but I use Google search and one of my email addresses is via gmail.
Good post.
I imagine the Google defenders in this thread would think the exact opposite if Google was actually shit. Just because they offer great services doesn't mean they are exempt.
If Google was shit European tech companies wouldn't need an international governmental union to give them a chance.
You dont understand the case. It is not about undermining competing search engines. Please refer to the OP
You can still dominate and be shit, Microsoft. Google do offer some great stuff but you can't turn a blind eye because they do but many feel that way and twist the narrative to paint Google in a good light.
In the end we will see the outcome and evidence of this. They have more data than us to make a final judgement.
Seems to me it's mostly about telling Google how to run their business despite them not being the only game in town, just the most popular. That's not antitrust, just government regulation of private business. That and a sweet 3 billion Euro cash influx.
The four main concerns in the post above aren't that convincing as legitimately harmful business practices. 'More difficult to find' is an intentionally vague parameter that implies folks can't either scroll down a page to see additional search results or they don't know how to find competition (Yahoo, Bing, etc) if they don't like the results they get in Google's ecosystem. The AdWord grievances are also petty, especially asking Google to make it easier for developers to port their ad campaigns across competing platforms.
ClosingADoor
Member
Yes, the European countries with a combined budget of 6.300 billion and EU itself with 144 billion euros is really just trying to get that sweet, sweet cash influx.
Them not being the only game in town is not relevant. When you have over 90% marketshare, it really doesn't matter what the others are doing.
And yes, sometimes government will tell companies how to run their business. Nothing wrong with that.
witchedwiz
Member
I swear people at Times are dense...
By giving more weight to google+ review than tripadvisor they are simply making their google+ self relevant for searching purpose which in exchange emana they are automatically devalueing other review systems as they are literally weighted less in the search algorithm..
I don't mind them pushing google+, but this way is just wrong for me..
But to each his own...
And btw i use drive, inbox, Google+, heck i even used hangout...
And i saw someone saying that the ue is more interested in limiting the growth of companies to prevent them from creating monopolies, whereas america is more amount allowing them to grow freely... Isn't this what a sovereign/elected representative should do? They are to with for the people for the sake of the people, and frankly obama's mandate is One of the few terms that actually worked with that in mind...
A monopoly doesn't help the citizens, but simply allow a company to thrive.
By giving more weight to google+ review than tripadvisor they are simply making their google+ self relevant for searching purpose which in exchange emana they are automatically devalueing other review systems as they are literally weighted less in the search algorithm..
I don't mind them pushing google+, but this way is just wrong for me..
But to each his own...
And btw i use drive, inbox, Google+, heck i even used hangout...
And i saw someone saying that the ue is more interested in limiting the growth of companies to prevent them from creating monopolies, whereas america is more amount allowing them to grow freely... Isn't this what a sovereign/elected representative should do? They are to with for the people for the sake of the people, and frankly obama's mandate is One of the few terms that actually worked with that in mind...
A monopoly doesn't help the citizens, but simply allow a company to thrive.
Yeah, gaining a dominant position in the marketplace isn't the problem. If the second food-vendor got his market share because of a secret recipe he inherited from his mom and nothing else, well that's all good. The EU commission wont threaten him with a billion dollar fine.
But once you do get a dominant position, you are held to a different standard and if the EU thinks that you are abusing it, well they will come and breathe down your neck. And i don't mind that at all.
The "right to be forgotten" is idiotic. If it is a published fact, no government should have the right to censor it.
In this thread it is doubly so because the "right to be forgotten" is the EU telling Google "your search results are too good mang, you gots to delete this shit," while the other hand is telling Google "your search results suck, you gots to move this other stuff up in results!"
Anyone in the EU complaining about tax havens is a hypocrite. The EU allowed a tax haven in the EU and now it wants to complain about the fact that companies that opened offices in the EU to take advantage of the EU tax haven are paying less taxes?
If the EU is really against tax havens, then why allow them in the first place?
Android does not limit you to the Play Store. You can use any store you want. iOS limits you to the Apple App Store. You cannot even load another store on the device.
My GF does the impossible then. She uses Bing every day.
S¡mon;203898442 said:
What "services" does Google put above others in results? People keep repeating this over-and-over in this thread but fail to produce concrete examples.
The closest I've seen are anti-Google posters claiming that the sponsored ads on the page are somehow anti-competitive, because even though they are clearly labeled as ads (and have been for years) EU citizens are too dense to realize this and confuse them with organic results.
S¡mon;203898262 said:
If Google's results were 100% neutral, it wouldn't be an effective search. Instead it would just return trash results filled with keyword spam.
Google gets used by most precisely because it isn't 100% neutral and instead sorts by relevance.
Maybe the EU doesn't know about IE/Edge and Bing because it doesn't let Microsoft ship Windows with a web browser.
And anyone choosing Chrome as a default is off their rocker. It has a memory leak a mile wide. Firefox is where it's at and that doesn't default to Google search at all.
EU needs to step up its tech game.
The general complaint seems to be that Google puts ads on its search results pages.
Pretty much this.
And "shopping options" are ads. A free service has ads (that don't hide any of the organic results). They're even labeled as ads.
You are claiming that Google is "abusing its position" because it is putting ads on the search results page. What is the solution? Google should offer a completely ad-free product because you don't like ads on the page?
jellies_two
Member
I think you may misunderstand what neutral means for search. Relevance ordering is fine. But pushing other companies down the page because your own products and services are more important to you than those of the competition, means, in conjunction with the monopoly position, that you are in violation of various anti-monopoly laws.
Lots of people think that Internet-wide search is a function that should not be dominated by one company exactly because a monopoly on it allows them to destroy healthy competition before it even gets off the mat. Google isn't just in the business of search it is in many different business areas and I guess the EU sees evidence it is abusing page 1 to promote those business ventures ahead of what possibly may be better ones.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I wonder if google would call their bluff and pull all operations out of Europe.
You think people in Europe would actually stop using google? No they would go to Google.com instead and advertisers would move to the other platform too.
Then watch the EU counter with filtering of google.com lol.
The biggest issue would be if they could no longer sell phones in Europe.
You think people in Europe would actually stop using google? No they would go to Google.com instead and advertisers would move to the other platform too.
Then watch the EU counter with filtering of google.com lol.
The biggest issue would be if they could no longer sell phones in Europe.
Google pulling out of EU? Lol?
I am sure they will abandon a 500 million market where they have 90% share due to a small fine. They would not pull out even if the fine was over 50 billion.
They probably tax avoid more than 3 billion every year in the EU. They don't have a leg to stand on.
Google don't mind participating in filtering internet in China as long as they can stay there and get $$$.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
This thread is a nice example of why there isn't a western world. The disparity in values between Europe and North America the USA is still night and day.
ClosingADoor
Member
This fine is about their shopping comparison. This has been said numerous times throughout the thread, so you are just choosing to ignore that. Here is the case http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=1_39740
So basically, by putting their own services (Google Shopping) above others by default, they are showing anti-competitive behavior.
The problems the EU finds with this are:
Google Shopping is a service, not an ad. The ads are below it marked with the "Adv" label.
The EU does not have the authority to set each individual countries tax rates and even if they did, what would that actually accomplish? Do you really think that the thousands of tax evading companies out there, would not be able to always find a loop hole in some of the rules?
To expect a government to set up a tax system, where it cannot be exploited at all, when you have thousands of companies and thousands of individuals who sole job is to find loopholes, then it is only a matter of time before they will find loopholes.
Just because something is legal, doesn't mean you should do it. How about these companies & shareholders get some moral compass and accept paying their fair share. So what if their end of the year profits will "only" be $5-15 billion dollars instead of $10-20 billion?
Society as a whole would be a lot better off, yet people still defend companies, without realising that they are hurting the poorest in the society, so that they can have a couple of billion more in profit....
Only hypocrite here are corporations, who don't mind cheating of their tax, yet at the same time complain about possible fines they face they when they break the law. I don't mind if the EU starts taking the piss and start to fine them for every little dodgy thing they do. What goes around, will eventually come around is the old saying.
MarkMclovin
Member
I don't think you know what you're talking about but you're not alone in this thread either.
Long read but gives you some good details. The FTC thing is pretty damning, Google dodged a bullet there.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/05/google-antitrust-case-europe-details-analysis/1/
However, behind closed doors at the FTC, the agency's staff were urging the commission to mount a legal challenge against Google. A 160-page report detailing that criticism only surfaced in 2015more than two years after the FTC ended its investigation of Google, when the company agreed to make only minor changes (PDF) to its business practices.
The Wall Street Journalwhich was sent the report following a Freedom of Information requestquoted FTC staff's conclusions about Google. One such example apparently said that Google had "adopted a strategy of demoting, or refusing to display, links to certain vertical websites in highly commercial categories."
While another FTC employee was quoted as saying that the search giant's behaviour had "helped it to maintain, preserve, and enhance Google's monopoly position in the markets for search and search advertising."
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/05/google-antitrust-case-europe-details-analysis/1/
However, behind closed doors at the FTC, the agency's staff were urging the commission to mount a legal challenge against Google. A 160-page report detailing that criticism only surfaced in 2015more than two years after the FTC ended its investigation of Google, when the company agreed to make only minor changes (PDF) to its business practices.
The Wall Street Journalwhich was sent the report following a Freedom of Information requestquoted FTC staff's conclusions about Google. One such example apparently said that Google had "adopted a strategy of demoting, or refusing to display, links to certain vertical websites in highly commercial categories."
While another FTC employee was quoted as saying that the search giant's behaviour had "helped it to maintain, preserve, and enhance Google's monopoly position in the markets for search and search advertising."
Nice, thanks for linking. Will give it a read later today.
HighResTomato
Member
EU don't fuck around.
ScHlAuChi
Member
So if someone writes that Syriel is a rapist and childmolester, and it gets spread on the internet eventho its false - you say its ok if the first thing that shows up when googling "Syriel" is that you are exactly that?
Would you not try EVERYTHING to get the false info out of the net?
Update? That isn't actually related, is it?
But anyway, if they finally found a way to make
companies like Google pay some damn tax, then I'm all for it.
Pokemaniac
Member
That's called libel, and doesn't require any silly "right to be forgotten" to be illegal.
The right to be forgotten deals with things that are true, not libel. It's about limiting peoples' ability to find actual information.
ClosingADoor
Member
How'd you go about fixing a ton of news websites that copy eachothers information and stuff being spread around on social media and stuff over multiple countries? Once it is out there, Google finds it. Having it forgotten there is a pretty reasonable request.
And even if things are true, let's say you did something as a teenager and got in the newspaper for it. Now you are 30, have a decent live, but are still denied job interviews because your name pops up that one story. Not really fair that way.
- Status