Support NeoGAF

[darkinstinct]

Why? Because the EU press release boils down to telling Google that it cannot place ads on its own search service.

"Google Shopping" is a paid service. Sponsored links.

When you search for, say Nintendo Switch, and the box appears on the right hand side of the results page with pricing and links, it is clearly marked as sponsored.

It is the equivalent of a front page ad on a newspaper. It is blindingly obvious that it is an ad, yet the EU press release calls it a "search result."

Sponsored links and paid ads are not search results. They are ads. With the exception of the EU prosecutors, no one is confusing the two.

This is no different than telling a newspaper that it cannot place its own ads on its front page, unless it also allows other companies to sell ad space on said front page. Why should other companies have any right to sell ads there?

So what you're saying is sponsored links don't work, everybody recognises them as ads. Then

remind me again, why do they exist in the first place, if by your informed opinion nobody would mistake them for a search result and so never click them as part of a search?

Might be hard to swallow for you but in Europe we actually have governments that see the customer's rights and needs first and not corporations. Makes us smart.

 

[Psychoward]

Lol this thread

"Well yeah it's bad but I still hope they win the appeal"

 

[Captain Smoker]

This thread.

My portfolio tanked because of this but I still support the decision.

Poor Alphabet.

 

[Trickster]

Lol this thread

"Well yeah it's bad but I still hope they win the appeal"

Most people who are defending google aren't even saying it's bad though.

It's closer to "I hope they win the appeal, because they should totally be allowed to manipulate the search results in a way that gives them an unfair advantage over smaller businesses, they earned that right"

 

[ClosingADoor]

Why? Because the EU press release boils down to telling Google that it cannot place ads on its own search service.

"Google Shopping" is a paid service. Sponsored links.

When you search for, say Nintendo Switch, and the box appears on the right hand side of the results page with pricing and links, it is clearly marked as sponsored.

It is the equivalent of a front page ad on a newspaper. It is blindingly obvious that it is an ad, yet the EU press release calls it a "search result."

Sponsored links and paid ads are not search results. They are ads. With the exception of the EU prosecutors, no one is confusing the two.

This is no different than telling a newspaper that it cannot place its own ads on its front page, unless it also allows other companies to sell ad space on said front page. Why should other companies have any right to sell ads there?

No, Google Shopping is a price comparison service. Yes, stores pay to get included. But the problem is about the unfair competition with other price comparison websites.

If I start a price comparison website, I can not buy that space from Google to put my service there. Google gives itself an unfair edge because of that.

Regular ads are different, they are open to anyone to buy.

 

[Dascu]

Essential reading if you want to learn more about the case and EU competition law in general, even though I disagree with some of his assessments: https://chillingcompetition.com/2017/06/27/google-shopping-decision-first-urgent-comments/

Please also read the comments for some immediate counterpoints.

 

[Orniletter]

Most people who are defending google aren't even saying it's bad though.

It's closer to "I hope they win the appeal, because they should totally be allowed to manipulate the search results in a way that gives them an unfair advantage over smaller businesses, they earned that right"

Ayn Rand would be proud !

 

[caliph95]

Lol this thread

"Well yeah it's bad but I still hope they win the appeal"

"Anti-trust laws is EU being anti-american and google deserves to abuse it's monopoly"

 

[Dascu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks3ZB_H1OZM

VICE News interviews Margrethe Vestager.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks3ZB_H1OZM

VICE News interviews Margrethe Vestager.

I like Vestager a lot I voted for her. She is poised and well mannered.



It makes me sad to see so much resistence to the ruling. Both here on GAF and in the comments. Google makes a lot of money of its monopoly in the EU. The competing search engines are not a viable option for millions of europeans whose livelihood absolutely depend on this.

If you're seriously suggesting people just to use Bing or something like that, you're not thinking this through or taking this seriously. There is no viable established alternative to google, and regulations need to happen to keep a more fair playing field.


I think that if the US sectors in things like big pharma, insurance companies, defense, soy, sugar, oil, coal, internet service providers and other industries had this form of regulation, the average American would be better off financially and there would be more healthy competition and as a result, as well as more prosperity and equality for all.

It saddens me that people are rooting for Google because they perceive it to be Europeans taking Americans money. That is a completely insane way to look at it. As a European I was happy when VW was fined 2,8 back in April. I don't perceive that as being "Europeans money". We live in a interchangeable global economy where corporations earn their revenue across. Regardless of territory, taxes and anti-monopoly practices must be maintained.



We have to stop voting and rooting for things that are against our own best interests.

 

[PumpkinPie]

How can they be fined for promoting their own stuff on their own search engine?

 

[pswii60]

They should just make a separate Google for Europe, like Google.co.uk or something

That way it would exist, but if people prefer to go to Google.com and get results like they do now, they could. I don't think it's fair to have them make changes that will affect Google outside of the EU

They already do exactly this, they already have a Google domain for every country. In the UK it has to comply with the 'right to be forgotten' law for example.

We use google.co.uk in the UK not Google.com

How can they be fined for promoting their own stuff on their own search engine?

Same reason why Microsoft weren't allowed to have IE as the default search engine in Windows. Monopolies and competition.

Opinion is irrelevant here though. The law is the law. Google knew what they were doing, they were warned, they carried on regardless. They made their own bed.

The EU also needs as much money as possible at the moment because they're going to have a large Brexit shaped hole in their budget in a couple of years.

 

[ClosingADoor]

How can they be fined for promoting their own stuff on their own search engine?

Because when you have basically a monopoly, pushing your own services can fall under different rules about what is allowed, to prevent an unfair marketplace where competitors are pushed out.

The EU also needs as much money as possible at the moment because they're going to have a large Brexit shaped hole in their budget in a couple of years.

2 billion is not really going to make the difference there. This is totally unrelated to the money the EU needs or uses of course. If the EU needs more money, they'll just have the member states pay up more where they can.

 

[ShironRedshift]

How can they be fined for promoting their own stuff on their own search engine?

Read through it again. The problem is NOT promoting their own services. The problem is them abusing their monopoly-search engine status to promote their other services in a way other companies can't possibly compete with (always unnaturally pushing their stuff to the top in search results regardless if popularity or usefulness to users, while denying their competitors that ability no matter their own popularity or how much their willing to pay Google).

No matter what Google's other services will be on top in their search results. That's anti-competitive behavior and a deliberate abuse of their monopoly position. Companies aren't allowed to just do whatever when they become a monopoly to prevent such behavior as impossible to compete with expansion into new markets. Google violated this and abused their search engine to give themselves an unnatural, unearned, and very difficult to compete with edge in unrelated services, and so they were smacked down to keep the market fair, make sure all businesses have the same chances and opportunities, and to prevent Google from becoming even more if a monopoly.