When I type in things to buy (buy cat food, buy couch) no where does it say Google Shopping. I get places like Amazon or local places that sell those things.
I think the EU is trying to make up a from a budget Shortfall...
Google gives the results I want to see. Just because all the other search engines are crap, that's not Google's problem.
I think in a board that is anti Google that people are overwhelmingly in favor of Google Search is pretty telling.
The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition.
You could not be more wrong. Google has a virtual monopoly of search (>80%) so they have to play fairly. Promoting their own products and services above those of a competitor is an abuse of that market. That gives a freer and more equal market than otherwise.
Google has a large share of search because people are lazy and not well informed. That doesn't make them a monopoly. Plus, idiots voluntarily choose to buy cheap Android phones instead of Apple, so they are 100% responsible for contributing to the fortunes of Google.
This is just the same old EU blackmailing tactics they've pulled on Apple, Microsoft and others.
It's just a matter of perspective.
You think that the American dream is real and that customers have a choice. I think you are naive, that the American dream has been shown to be a lie, that the US are a big scam, that consumers only have the illusion of a choice and that big companies prey on their consumers.
All complete hogwash. No one is forced to buy or use any of the services in question here.
Incapable EU politicians are poison to free markets.
And here you prove that you do not get this at all. This is not about end consumers. It's about competing companies that want to appear in search results and can't compete with Google Shopping's prominent placement.
Look, I know you're downvoting my replies. It still doesn't help your position.
Oh my god, quit acting like a baby!
Back on on the subject, you proved you don't understand this problem. This has little to do with end consumers and everything to do with smaller shopping websites that can't compete with Google because Google advertises its products on its engine even when its products aren't the most relevant.
When I type in things to buy (buy cat food, buy couch) no where does it say Google Shopping. I get places like Amazon or local places that sell those things.
I think the EU is trying to make up a from a budget Shortfall...
Google gives the results I want to see. Just because all the other search engines are crap, that's not Google's problem.
I think in a board that is anti Google that people are overwhelmingly in favor of Google Search is pretty telling.
Bullshit buddy, you're opinion, or anybody's astroturfing opinion is irrelevant to the fact that they're abusing their search monopoly.
That you suck Google's tit and like it is your own problem.
The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition.
Uh, that's actually the point of the ruling: Google was intentionally subverting competition by giving their own shopping links the priority within a general search.
It is Google's website after all. The first two links are sponsored, not the first two pages of search results. Why don't you spend billions of dollars to create a website and let us all post whatever we want on there for free where ever we want?! It seems like you're saying every website everyone builds is free to everybody to use however they want to use it. Completely ridiculous logic! Let's move to Europe as quick as possible everybody! Private property no longer exists there!!!
They won't be allowed to put Google Shopping at the top of the results page, which I'm sure was an effort to address eBay and Amazon product searches. Understandable Google would wish to do so, but also understandable that it could be seen as affecting competitors unfairly. If Google Search wasn't as good as it is, reportedly over 90% share in the EU (really??!), this would have probably passed muster IMO but the success of Google Search means they just can't do some of the some things a smaller competitor might get by with.
While personally a $2B+ fine for favoring (I've seen zero evidence they were blocking anyone else despite Ms. Vestager's comments) seems just a tad excessive considering the goal is to force them to change the way they present product search results which the ruling itself does, it is what it is. The EU Commission is convinced they hold sway over companies no matter where they do business as long as some of that business is in Europe. (I'll have to do some reading to see how that came about as it seems very odd to me.) Google can well afford to pay it, and it doesn't have anything to do with general Google Search results as far as I've read so that should not be affected. But Google competitors do seem to have Ms. Vesteger's ear so this is just the first shoe to drop.
Anyway, if anyone is curious how Google displays Google Shopping and how it can be seen as anti-competitive do a search for some product, perhaps a toaster, and see how Google displays the results. The EU feels the same ranking rules that apply to other shopping sites should also apply to Google's own products, even tho it is their search product that's being used. Once you get to the point of being seen as dominant in your field the EU believes you should play by stricter rules, and in some way I tend to agree.
Now is the EU unfairly targeting big US techs? I've not really firmly formed my own opinion on that yet. The quick-take would be... maybe. The EU is still chasing Apple for a few $B, Facebook was fined there in recent months for misleading the EU Commission, Amazon had to change the way they market books there or face fines, and very recently Nike and Comcast also have had new antitrust investigations targeting their practices opened by Ms. Vestager and the EU Commission.
There's also the so far rarely mentioned look by the EU into possible anticompetitive practices in the Apple App Store and Google Play where Ms. Vestager may try to make many of the same arguments she did in this case. More fun to come.
Amazon is first in my Google search
See that word 'Sponsored' in the top right hand corner? Those are paid ads you are looking at. The EU's point is that this comparison shopping service (i.e., that whole box of product photos, links and prices) is given unfair prominence over other comparison shopping services in Google's results.
Whether you think that is fair or unfair is a matter of opinion. The EU is saying that under their rules it is illegal. Perhaps in the USA it is not illegal. No problem. Google is quite capable of (and indeed is obliged to) adjusting its product to reflect the regulations of the markets in which it chooses to operate.
The ones under the paid ads are also not Google. They are Amazon. As for the 'Sponsored' ones, this is Google's website and they can charge people to place an ad. You think that they should give away ads for free? Why don't you build a website, spend billions of your own dollars, and let us put whatever we want on it for no charge? Google has also been doing this since the beginning. It was OK when they were smaller, but now that they're bigger it's not OK?! I'm worried about you guys over there
No they can't buddy, not if you're a god damn monopoly in search; that's the whole point of anti-trust legislation.
If the search is not returning the best result, but the one the lines their pockets, it's actual fraudulent to their own stated purpose.
The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition.
Nonsense. This decision is precisely defending European consumers. Nothing elite about it. Quit defending megacorporations instead of actual consumers.
And the US should defend US companies from unfair EU fines. We need to curbstomp the EU and maybe they will stop targeting US companies with these excessive fines. It's a blatant money grab.
Brussels wants us to not protect our steel industry from Chinese dumping because it might hurt them (this after imposing their own 73% tariffs on Chinese steel) and threatens us with "retaliation" if we do but hits US companies with huge fines based on worldwide earnings at the same time. Fuck them. Hit Europe as hard as possible with steel tariffs but let UK steel in. Frankly if the EU want to sell us anything they can go through the UK. That'll make them understand not to be total douches during Brexit.
Let them try their "nuclear option".
Right... Unfair, you do know they fine their own company just as much hey bud.
Stating some baseless claims doesn't make it true.
The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition.
Uh, that's actually the point of the ruling: Google was intentionally subverting competition by giving their own shopping links the priority within a general search.
It is Google's website after all. The first two links are sponsored, not the first two pages of search results. Why don't you spend billions of dollars to create a website and let us all post whatever we want on there for free where ever we want?! It seems like you're saying every website everyone builds is free to everybody to use however they want to use it. Completely ridiculous logic
It's not ridiculous logic when you are used by the vast majority of people.
They won't be allowed to put Google Shopping at the top of the results page, which I'm sure was an effort to address eBay and Amazon product searches. Understandable Google would wish to do so, but also understandable that it could be seen as affecting competitors unfairly. If Google Search wasn't as good as it is, reportedly over 90% share in the EU (really??!), this would have probably passed muster IMO but the success of Google Search means they just can't do some of the some things a smaller competitor might get by with.
While personally a $2B+ fine for favoring (I've seen zero evidence they were blocking anyone else despite Ms. Vestager's comments) seems just a tad excessive considering the goal is to force them to change the way they present product search results which the ruling itself does, it is what it is. The EU Commission is convinced they hold sway over companies no matter where they do business as long as some of that business is in Europe. (I'll have to do some reading to see how that came about as it seems very odd to me.) Google can well afford to pay it, and it doesn't have anything to do with general Google Search results as far as I've read so that should not be affected. But Google competitors do seem to have Ms. Vesteger's ear so this is just the first shoe to drop.
Anyway, if anyone is curious how Google displays Google Shopping and how it can be seen as anti-competitive do a search for some product, perhaps a toaster, and see how Google displays the results. The EU feels the same ranking rules that apply to other shopping sites should also apply to Google's own products, even tho it is their search product that's being used. Once you get to the point of being seen as dominant in your field the EU believes you should play by stricter rules, and in some way I tend to agree.
Now is the EU unfairly targeting big US techs? I've not really firmly formed my own opinion on that yet. The quick-take would be... maybe. The EU is still chasing Apple for a few $B, Facebook was fined there in recent months for misleading the EU Commission, Amazon had to change the way they market books there or face fines, and very recently Nike and Comcast also have had new antitrust investigations targeting their practices opened by Ms. Vestager and the EU Commission.
There's also the so far rarely mentioned look by the EU into possible anticompetitive practices in the Apple App Store and Google Play where Ms. Vestager may try to make many of the same arguments she did in this case. More fun to come.
Amazon is first in my Google search
See that word 'Sponsored' in the top right hand corner? Those are paid ads you are looking at. The EU's point is that this comparison shopping service (i.e., that whole box of product photos, links and prices) is given unfair prominence over other comparison shopping services in Google's results.
Whether you think that is fair or unfair is a matter of opinion. The EU is saying that under their rules it is illegal. Perhaps in the USA it is not illegal. No problem. Google is quite capable of (and indeed is obliged to) adjusting its product to reflect the regulations of the markets in which it chooses to operate.
The ones under the paid ads are also not Google. They are Amazon. As for the 'Sponsored' ones, this is Google's website and they can charge people to place an ad. You think that they should give away ads for free? Why don't you build a website, spend billions of your own dollars, and let us put whatever we want on it for no charge? Google has also been doing this since the beginning. It was OK when they were smaller, but now that they're bigger it's not OK?! I'm worried about you guys over there
No they can't buddy, not if you're a god damn monopoly in search; that's the whole point of anti-trust legislation.
If the search is not returning the best result, but the one the lines their pockets, it's actual fraudulent to their own stated purpose.
Precisely. It's almost a breach of contract where Google lies about showing the most relevant results.
This is a prime example of the EU's obsession with successful American companies. Frankly i think the goverment here in the USA needs to take a more active roll in adressing this harassment. In the end that is exactly what it is.
By the way iagree with Google, links to other search sites just waste my time. The last thing we need is crappy service from Google because the EU can't compete.
There is no obsession of the EU for American companies. Less than one fifth of the fines for anticompetitive behaviour are given to American companies, more than 60% to European companies. Only the latter are not published in American press and so you are not aware of it.
If would read the article then you understand that the fine is about the Google search service as such, which is recognized as the best service available. But it is forbidden by European competition law to use the monopoly in one domain in order to get an advantage in another domain. As Google has a monopoly in search (>90% market search in the EU), Google is not allowed to give its other products (Google shopping in this case) a higher ranking in the search results.
Ya, may be true, but look at the fines put on the American Company's to those EU company's. The EU fines are a joke in comparison to the HUGE fines the American company's have to pay out.
They won't be allowed to put Google Shopping at the top of the results page, which I'm sure was an effort to address eBay and Amazon product searches. Understandable Google would wish to do so, but also understandable that it could be seen as affecting competitors unfairly. If Google Search wasn't as good as it is, reportedly over 90% share in the EU (really??!), this would have probably passed muster IMO but the success of Google Search means they just can't do some of the some things a smaller competitor might get by with.
While personally a $2B+ fine for favoring (I've seen zero evidence they were blocking anyone else despite Ms. Vestager's comments) seems just a tad excessive considering the goal is to force them to change the way they present product search results which the ruling itself does, it is what it is. The EU Commission is convinced they hold sway over companies no matter where they do business as long as some of that business is in Europe. (I'll have to do some reading to see how that came about as it seems very odd to me.) Google can well afford to pay it, and it doesn't have anything to do with general Google Search results as far as I've read so that should not be affected. But Google competitors do seem to have Ms. Vesteger's ear so this is just the first shoe to drop.
Anyway, if anyone is curious how Google displays Google Shopping and how it can be seen as anti-competitive do a search for some product, perhaps a toaster, and see how Google displays the results. The EU feels the same ranking rules that apply to other shopping sites should also apply to Google's own products, even tho it is their search product that's being used. Once you get to the point of being seen as dominant in your field the EU believes you should play by stricter rules, and in some way I tend to agree.
Now is the EU unfairly targeting big US techs? I've not really firmly formed my own opinion on that yet. The quick-take would be... maybe. The EU is still chasing Apple for a few $B, Facebook was fined there in recent months for misleading the EU Commission, Amazon had to change the way they market books there or face fines, and very recently Nike and Comcast also have had new antitrust investigations targeting their practices opened by Ms. Vestager and the EU Commission.
There's also the so far rarely mentioned look by the EU into possible anticompetitive practices in the Apple App Store and Google Play where Ms. Vestager may try to make many of the same arguments she did in this case. More fun to come.
Amazon is first in my Google search
See that word 'Sponsored' in the top right hand corner? Those are paid ads you are looking at. The EU's point is that this comparison shopping service (i.e., that whole box of product photos, links and prices) is given unfair prominence over other comparison shopping services in Google's results.
Whether you think that is fair or unfair is a matter of opinion. The EU is saying that under their rules it is illegal. Perhaps in the USA it is not illegal. No problem. Google is quite capable of (and indeed is obliged to) adjusting its product to reflect the regulations of the markets in which it chooses to operate.
The ones under the paid ads are also not Google. They are Amazon. As for the 'Sponsored' ones, this is Google's website and they can charge people to place an ad. You think that they should give away ads for free? Why don't you build a website, spend billions of your own dollars, and let us put whatever we want on it for no charge? Google has also been doing this since the beginning. It was OK when they were smaller, but now that they're bigger it's not OK?! I'm worried about you guys over there
No they can't buddy, not if you're a god damn monopoly in search; that's the whole point of anti-trust legislation.
If the search is not returning the best result, but the one the lines their pockets, it's actual fraudulent to their own stated purpose.
Precisely. It's almost a breach of contract where Google lies about showing the most relevant results.
This is where the history of Google comes into play. When they first started out they were simply a search engine that happened to provide the best results. This is why other search engines failed - because Google wasn't just slightly better, they were far better.
Google searches were so good that the word "Google" actually meant "to search for information". This is where the phrase "just Google it" came from. They were regarded as an "encyclopedia of the world" where you could search for anything and find what you wanted.
This is the mindset of people when they think about Google - that it's simply a service that provides the most relevant information you ask it to. However, it no longer does this since they now modify rankings and promote some results over others. They did this without the majority of consumers even realizing it. People still think of Google as a reliable source of unbiased information, which is no longer the case.
Once Google got the world "hooked" on using Google Search they proceeded to monetize it. I would consider that an antitrust issue.
Google did something similar with Android. They gave it away for free and were "fast & loose" at the beginning as they wanted to get massive adoption from manufacturers. Now they're trying to reign Android back in and exert more control over it (which is also putting them under the antitrust microscope).
The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition.
The European 'elite'? What the fuck does that mean? Chip on your shoulder, much? What this demonstrates is that in a territory where there are laws companies large and small think they can ignore those laws. The EU has laws and regulations pertaining to comerce. I am happy they have spine enough to enforce these. Governments elected by people make laws and enforce them while companies make money. Everybody has to operate within the law, or else pay the price. You may not agree with European legislations, but so what? I don't agree with stop signs but I still have to stop at intersections even if there isn't a car in sight.
They won't be allowed to put Google Shopping at the top of the results page, which I'm sure was an effort to address eBay and Amazon product searches. Understandable Google would wish to do so, but also understandable that it could be seen as affecting competitors unfairly. If Google Search wasn't as good as it is, reportedly over 90% share in the EU (really??!), this would have probably passed muster IMO but the success of Google Search means they just can't do some of the some things a smaller competitor might get by with.
While personally a $2B+ fine for favoring (I've seen zero evidence they were blocking anyone else despite Ms. Vestager's comments) seems just a tad excessive considering the goal is to force them to change the way they present product search results which the ruling itself does, it is what it is. The EU Commission is convinced they hold sway over companies no matter where they do business as long as some of that business is in Europe. (I'll have to do some reading to see how that came about as it seems very odd to me.) Google can well afford to pay it, and it doesn't have anything to do with general Google Search results as far as I've read so that should not be affected. But Google competitors do seem to have Ms. Vesteger's ear so this is just the first shoe to drop.
Anyway, if anyone is curious how Google displays Google Shopping and how it can be seen as anti-competitive do a search for some product, perhaps a toaster, and see how Google displays the results. The EU feels the same ranking rules that apply to other shopping sites should also apply to Google's own products, even tho it is their search product that's being used. Once you get to the point of being seen as dominant in your field the EU believes you should play by stricter rules, and in some way I tend to agree.
Now is the EU unfairly targeting big US techs? I've not really firmly formed my own opinion on that yet. The quick-take would be... maybe. The EU is still chasing Apple for a few $B, Facebook was fined there in recent months for misleading the EU Commission, Amazon had to change the way they market books there or face fines, and very recently Nike and Comcast also have had new antitrust investigations targeting their practices opened by Ms. Vestager and the EU Commission.
There's also the so far rarely mentioned look by the EU into possible anticompetitive practices in the Apple App Store and Google Play where Ms. Vestager may try to make many of the same arguments she did in this case. More fun to come.
Amazon is first in my Google search
See that word 'Sponsored' in the top right hand corner? Those are paid ads you are looking at. The EU's point is that this comparison shopping service (i.e., that whole box of product photos, links and prices) is given unfair prominence over other comparison shopping services in Google's results.
Whether you think that is fair or unfair is a matter of opinion. The EU is saying that under their rules it is illegal. Perhaps in the USA it is not illegal. No problem. Google is quite capable of (and indeed is obliged to) adjusting its product to reflect the regulations of the markets in which it chooses to operate.
The ones under the paid ads are also not Google. They are Amazon. As for the 'Sponsored' ones, this is Google's website and they can charge people to place an ad. You think that they should give away ads for free? Why don't you build a website, spend billions of your own dollars, and let us put whatever we want on it for no charge? Google has also been doing this since the beginning. It was OK when they were smaller, but now that they're bigger it's not OK?! I'm worried about you guys over there
No they can't buddy, not if you're a god damn monopoly in search; that's the whole point of anti-trust legislation.
If the search is not returning the best result, but the one the lines their pockets, it's actual fraudulent to their own stated purpose.
Precisely. It's almost a breach of contract where Google lies about showing the most relevant results.
This is where the history of Google comes into play. When they first started out they were simply a search engine that happened to provide the best results. This is why other search engines failed - because Google wasn't just slightly better, they were far better.
Google searches were so good that the word "Google" actually meant "to search for information". This is where the phrase "just Google it" came from. They were regarded as an "encyclopedia of the world" where you could search for anything and find what you wanted.
This is the mindset of people when they think about Google - that it's simply a service that provides the most relevant information you ask it to. However, it no longer does this since they now modify rankings and promote some results over others. They did this without the majority of consumers even realizing it. People still think of Google as a reliable source of unbiased information, which is no longer the case.
Once Google got the world "hooked" on using Google Search they proceeded to monetize it. I would consider that an antitrust issue.
Google did something similar with Android. They gave it away for free and were "fast & loose" at the beginning as they wanted to get massive adoption from manufacturers. Now they're trying to reign Android back in and exert more control over it (which is also putting them under the antitrust microscope).
It seems to be a pattern with Google.
Yes, in the case of Android, the Anti-trust case is even stronger. They're shoving their whole ecosystem down everyone's throat and not allowing anyone to fork and just keep the play store, without it. That's the same double speak they did with search. A supposedly fair (or open source (sic)) becomes highly unfair and opaque. That Samsung has not sued YET is just a miracle; I suspect they might soon.
They won't be allowed to put Google Shopping at the top of the results page, which I'm sure was an effort to address eBay and Amazon product searches. Understandable Google would wish to do so, but also understandable that it could be seen as affecting competitors unfairly. If Google Search wasn't as good as it is, reportedly over 90% share in the EU (really??!), this would have probably passed muster IMO but the success of Google Search means they just can't do some of the some things a smaller competitor might get by with.
While personally a $2B+ fine for favoring (I've seen zero evidence they were blocking anyone else despite Ms. Vestager's comments) seems just a tad excessive considering the goal is to force them to change the way they present product search results which the ruling itself does, it is what it is. The EU Commission is convinced they hold sway over companies no matter where they do business as long as some of that business is in Europe. (I'll have to do some reading to see how that came about as it seems very odd to me.) Google can well afford to pay it, and it doesn't have anything to do with general Google Search results as far as I've read so that should not be affected. But Google competitors do seem to have Ms. Vesteger's ear so this is just the first shoe to drop.
Anyway, if anyone is curious how Google displays Google Shopping and how it can be seen as anti-competitive do a search for some product, perhaps a toaster, and see how Google displays the results. The EU feels the same ranking rules that apply to other shopping sites should also apply to Google's own products, even tho it is their search product that's being used. Once you get to the point of being seen as dominant in your field the EU believes you should play by stricter rules, and in some way I tend to agree.
Now is the EU unfairly targeting big US techs? I've not really firmly formed my own opinion on that yet. The quick-take would be... maybe. The EU is still chasing Apple for a few $B, Facebook was fined there in recent months for misleading the EU Commission, Amazon had to change the way they market books there or face fines, and very recently Nike and Comcast also have had new antitrust investigations targeting their practices opened by Ms. Vestager and the EU Commission.
There's also the so far rarely mentioned look by the EU into possible anticompetitive practices in the Apple App Store and Google Play where Ms. Vestager may try to make many of the same arguments she did in this case. More fun to come.
Amazon is first in my Google search
See that word 'Sponsored' in the top right hand corner? Those are paid ads you are looking at. The EU's point is that this comparison shopping service (i.e., that whole box of product photos, links and prices) is given unfair prominence over other comparison shopping services in Google's results.
Whether you think that is fair or unfair is a matter of opinion. The EU is saying that under their rules it is illegal. Perhaps in the USA it is not illegal. No problem. Google is quite capable of (and indeed is obliged to) adjusting its product to reflect the regulations of the markets in which it chooses to operate.
The ones under the paid ads are also not Google. They are Amazon. As for the 'Sponsored' ones, this is Google's website and they can charge people to place an ad. You think that they should give away ads for free? Why don't you build a website, spend billions of your own dollars, and let us put whatever we want on it for no charge? Google has also been doing this since the beginning. It was OK when they were smaller, but now that they're bigger it's not OK?! I'm worried about you guys over there
No they can't buddy, not if you're a god damn monopoly in search; that's the whole point of anti-trust legislation.
If the search is not returning the best result, but the one the lines their pockets, it's actual fraudulent to their own stated purpose.
I got the best results right away in my search. To sponsored ads that I always ignore. It's not that hard to look at the third results and take the action I want from there. Again Google owns the website google dot com, so it's not such a stretch they would charge for an ad and place at the top. Yelp does the same thing
The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition.
Nonsense. This decision is precisely defending European consumers. Nothing elite about it. Quit defending megacorporations instead of actual consumers.
And the US should defend US companies from unfair EU fines. We need to curbstomp the EU and maybe they will stop targeting US companies with these excessive fines. It's a blatant money grab.
Brussels wants us to not protect our steel industry from Chinese dumping because it might hurt them (this after imposing their own 73% tariffs on Chinese steel) and threatens us with "retaliation" if we do but hits US companies with huge fines based on worldwide earnings at the same time. Fuck them. Hit Europe as hard as possible with steel tariffs but let UK steel in. Frankly if the EU want to sell us anything they can go through the UK. That'll make them understand not to be total douches during Brexit.
Let them try their "nuclear option".
Right... Unfair, you do know they fine their own company just as much hey bud.
Stating some baseless claims doesn't make it true.
No, they don't "fine their own company just as much" which is why they call it a "record-breaking fine" as opposed to "the usual wrist-slap fine".
"Apple ordered to pay a record-breaking €13bn". "Google hit with a record €2.4 billion fine". "EU issues a record $1.45B fine to Intel".
So yes, stating some baseless claim doesn't make it true. The EU hits US companies with huge record breaking fines that aren't levied on EU companies.
They won't be allowed to put Google Shopping at the top of the results page, which I'm sure was an effort to address eBay and Amazon product searches. Understandable Google would wish to do so, but also understandable that it could be seen as affecting competitors unfairly. If Google Search wasn't as good as it is, reportedly over 90% share in the EU (really??!), this would have probably passed muster IMO but the success of Google Search means they just can't do some of the some things a smaller competitor might get by with.
While personally a $2B+ fine for favoring (I've seen zero evidence they were blocking anyone else despite Ms. Vestager's comments) seems just a tad excessive considering the goal is to force them to change the way they present product search results which the ruling itself does, it is what it is. The EU Commission is convinced they hold sway over companies no matter where they do business as long as some of that business is in Europe. (I'll have to do some reading to see how that came about as it seems very odd to me.) Google can well afford to pay it, and it doesn't have anything to do with general Google Search results as far as I've read so that should not be affected. But Google competitors do seem to have Ms. Vesteger's ear so this is just the first shoe to drop.
Anyway, if anyone is curious how Google displays Google Shopping and how it can be seen as anti-competitive do a search for some product, perhaps a toaster, and see how Google displays the results. The EU feels the same ranking rules that apply to other shopping sites should also apply to Google's own products, even tho it is their search product that's being used. Once you get to the point of being seen as dominant in your field the EU believes you should play by stricter rules, and in some way I tend to agree.
Now is the EU unfairly targeting big US techs? I've not really firmly formed my own opinion on that yet. The quick-take would be... maybe. The EU is still chasing Apple for a few $B, Facebook was fined there in recent months for misleading the EU Commission, Amazon had to change the way they market books there or face fines, and very recently Nike and Comcast also have had new antitrust investigations targeting their practices opened by Ms. Vestager and the EU Commission.
There's also the so far rarely mentioned look by the EU into possible anticompetitive practices in the Apple App Store and Google Play where Ms. Vestager may try to make many of the same arguments she did in this case. More fun to come.
Amazon is first in my Google search
See that word 'Sponsored' in the top right hand corner? Those are paid ads you are looking at. The EU's point is that this comparison shopping service (i.e., that whole box of product photos, links and prices) is given unfair prominence over other comparison shopping services in Google's results.
Whether you think that is fair or unfair is a matter of opinion. The EU is saying that under their rules it is illegal. Perhaps in the USA it is not illegal. No problem. Google is quite capable of (and indeed is obliged to) adjusting its product to reflect the regulations of the markets in which it chooses to operate.
The ones under the paid ads are also not Google. They are Amazon. As for the 'Sponsored' ones, this is Google's website and they can charge people to place an ad. You think that they should give away ads for free? Why don't you build a website, spend billions of your own dollars, and let us put whatever we want on it for no charge? Google has also been doing this since the beginning. It was OK when they were smaller, but now that they're bigger it's not OK?! I'm worried about you guys over there
No they can't buddy, not if you're a god damn monopoly in search; that's the whole point of anti-trust legislation.
If the search is not returning the best result, but the one the lines their pockets, it's actual fraudulent to their own stated purpose.
Precisely. It's almost a breach of contract where Google lies about showing the most relevant results.
Once Google got the world "hooked" on using Google Search they proceeded to monetize it. I would consider that an antitrust issue.
Explain that if you could. How is monetizing what was once a free service related to violating antitrust laws? Facebook started out as free. Pandora started out as free. Heck even Java started out as free. Companies figure out the best way to earn a living as their services progress and subject to change just as the winds do, and that's illegal?
Some things you write I agree with. With that one you seem to be trying to connect two that are unrelated. I realize haters gotta hate ( I respect a man whose consistent at least) but even that should be measured with common sense and a modicum of honesty.
They won't be allowed to put Google Shopping at the top of the results page, which I'm sure was an effort to address eBay and Amazon product searches. Understandable Google would wish to do so, but also understandable that it could be seen as affecting competitors unfairly.
Yes, from now on, all those who have IQ higher than 100, should take special medications that slows them down so that they could compete with the rest of us "fairly". /s UE bureaucrats have a really weird notion of what a fair competition is. It should be level playing field, not "level" player clones with the same skills/abilities, you bureaucratic idiots.... (sigh).
Or to put it another way, the EU has stomped on some blatantly anti-competitive activities and Google have to pay something for having broke the law. If they don't like the laws of a territory they can always stop trading there.
Back a few years when Google used to rank your website by relevance to the search (remember those days ?) our website was top of almost every possible relevant search. After 6 months of being bombarded by and rebuffing telephone calls from Google "suggesting" we started paying for Adwords we suddenly, overnight, fell off a cliff to the extent that even I couldn't find our entry using the same search words.
Miraculously within hours of signing up for Adwords, guess what ? Yes, we were back at the top again.
So I don't have a problem with the fine.
So i guess we can expect you not to b*tch when your ad rates go up, to pay the fine.
You could not be more wrong. Google has a virtual monopoly of search (>80%) so they have to play fairly.
Isn't it the case that Google achieved that 80%+ through hard work? So, what is wrong with them using their tools to their advantage? What you arguing for, is that if a small company competes against Boeing for building airplanes, then the gov-t should tell Boeing what to do in order to make it fair. And if Boeing has an advantage (of course they do - in terms of knowledge and R&D done), then, they should lay it off, since they are competing unfairly and by using their tools, they create an "unfair advantage" for themselves when they compete against that small company.
Comments
I think the EU is trying to make up a from a budget Shortfall...
Google gives the results I want to see. Just because all the other search engines are crap, that's not Google's problem.
I think in a board that is anti Google that people are overwhelmingly in favor of Google Search is pretty telling.
Back on on the subject, you proved you don't understand this problem. This has little to do with end consumers and everything to do with smaller shopping websites that can't compete with Google because Google advertises its products on its engine even when its products aren't the most relevant.
also "google has brought innovative products"
like glass? I can't think of another one.
This is where the history of Google comes into play. When they first started out they were simply a search engine that happened to provide the best results. This is why other search engines failed - because Google wasn't just slightly better, they were far better.
Google searches were so good that the word "Google" actually meant "to search for information". This is where the phrase "just Google it" came from. They were regarded as an "encyclopedia of the world" where you could search for anything and find what you wanted.
This is the mindset of people when they think about Google - that it's simply a service that provides the most relevant information you ask it to. However, it no longer does this since they now modify rankings and promote some results over others. They did this without the majority of consumers even realizing it. People still think of Google as a reliable source of unbiased information, which is no longer the case.
Once Google got the world "hooked" on using Google Search they proceeded to monetize it. I would consider that an antitrust issue.
Google did something similar with Android. They gave it away for free and were "fast & loose" at the beginning as they wanted to get massive adoption from manufacturers. Now they're trying to reign Android back in and exert more control over it (which is also putting them under the antitrust microscope).
It seems to be a pattern with Google.
"Apple ordered to pay a record-breaking €13bn".
"Google hit with a record €2.4 billion fine".
"EU issues a record $1.45B fine to Intel".
So yes, stating some baseless claim doesn't make it true. The EU hits US companies with huge record breaking fines that aren't levied on EU companies.
Some things you write I agree with. With that one you seem to be trying to connect two that are unrelated. I realize haters gotta hate ( I respect a man whose consistent at least) but even that should be measured with common sense and a modicum of honesty.
UE bureaucrats have a really weird notion of what a fair competition is.
It should be level playing field, not "level" player clones with the same skills/abilities, you bureaucratic idiots.... (sigh).
What you arguing for, is that if a small company competes against Boeing for building airplanes, then the gov-t should tell Boeing what to do in order to make it fair.
And if Boeing has an advantage (of course they do - in terms of knowledge and R&D done), then, they should lay it off, since they are competing unfairly and by using their tools, they create an "unfair advantage" for themselves when they compete against that small company.