EU hammers Google with record $2.7 billion antitrust fine for illegal search manipulation

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 150
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    paxman said:
    The European 'elite'? What the fuck does that mean?
    The unelected European Commission which makes all your laws and over whom you have absolutely no say whatsoever. Surely you’re not so dense that you don’t know about them, right?
    Governments elected by people make laws
    Not your government. Unelected officials (the elite) make your laws. You have no say in it. You are a totalitarian oligarchy.


    The EU’s standard decision-making procedure is known as 'Ordinary Legislative Procedure’ (ex "codecision"). This means that the directly elected European Parliament has to approve EU legislation together with the Council (the governments of the 28 EU countries).

    Drafting EU law

    Before the Commission proposes new initiatives it assesses the potential economic, social and environmental consequences that they may have. It does this by preparing 'Impact assessments' which set out the advantages and disadvantages of possible policy options.

    The Commission also consults interested parties such as non-governmental organisations, local authorities and representatives of industry and civil society. Groups of experts give advice on technical issues. In this way, the Commission ensures that legislative proposals correspond to the needs of those most concerned and avoids unnecessary red tape.

    Citizens, businesses and organisations can participate in the consultation procedure via the website Public consultations.

    National parliaments can formally express their reservations if they feel that it would be better to deal with an issue at national rather than EU level.

    Review and adoption

    The European Parliament and the Council review proposals by the Commission and propose amendments. If the Council and the Parliament cannot agree upon amendments, a second reading takes place.

    In the second reading, the Parliament and Council can again propose amendments. Parliament has the power to block the proposed legislation if it cannot agree with the Council.

    If the two institutions agree on amendments, the proposed legislation can be adopted. If they cannot agree, a conciliation committee tries to find a solution. Both the Council and the Parliament can block the legislative proposal at this final reading.

    The Parliament is elected and the Council is made up of the relevant ministers from governments of member states. 


    edited June 2017 clemynxspheric
  • Reply 82 of 150
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    avon b7 said:
    It is therefore impossible for the commission to even impose a law on any member state and to that end, the rest of the EU.
    Sure it is. Whatever you have to tell yourself to get to sleep at night. They write the fucking laws. They’re definitionally imposing them.
    The EU, by definition of its makeup is a very bureaucratic place…
    And mommy government would never go behind your back. Ever. “Sculpted from a finer clay” as it were…
    anton zuykov
  • Reply 83 of 150
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,884member
    avon b7 said:
    It is therefore impossible for the commission to even impose a law on any member state and to that end, the rest of the EU.
    Sure it is. Whatever you have to tell yourself to get to sleep at night. They write the fucking laws. They’re definitionally imposing them.
    The EU, by definition of its makeup is a very bureaucratic place…
    And mommy government would never go behind your back. Ever. “Sculpted from a finer clay” as it were…
    It isn't. They aren't.

    The commission could 'write' laws all day long, every day but as they can't actually pass any of them they would never come into force.

    For that to happen, other mechanisms come into force, as explained by Singularity.
    singularityclemynx
  • Reply 84 of 150
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    nht said:

    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. 
    Probably because European companies respect European law better. It's well known that Americans in general aren't very good at respecting other people's rules.
    foggyhill said:

    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 probably will once they begin falling back in line with smaller manufacturers.
  • Reply 85 of 150
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member

    Free market is not a scam, and it does work in the US. Whether you like that or not, is another topic.
    It depends on how you define work. If you mean "making the rich richer and the poor poorer for the past half century" yes, it works wonders.

    I wouldn't call this a success.
    http://blog.oxfamamerica.org.s3.amazonaws.com/politicsofpoverty/2015/04/Piketty-split.png
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/16/worlds-eight-richest-people-have-same-wealth-as-poorest-50

    If you mean "making society happier" no, it doesn't work at all.

    I think the pursuit of happiness should be the central point of our politics, not the pursuit of money.

    And no, there is no choice in many places. Companies make secret deals so that consumers always get what companies want, not the other way round. In New York for example you can't even chose your ISP in many places because only one serves the block. That is like in Europe 40 years ago.

    And back to the subject : Google doesn't show you the relevant result for shopping. What if everybody starts doing the same? How could a new, excellent shopping service be promoted if no one shows it prominently? It couldn't. Hence, your false choice.

    edited June 2017
  • Reply 86 of 150
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    foggyhill said:
    nht said:
    foggyhill said:
    nht said:
    clemynx said:
    ike17055 said:
    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. 
    One is a god damn tax thing, it's as much a snub on Ireland as apple and apple will likely never pay, so get  a clue and stop lying. The fine is proportional to the size of the company, if the company is a smaller company with a non monopolistic position, they get hit less. How the hell is that hard to understand.
    It's not hard to understand when you take it in the proper context:

    ""We don't want to become a digital colony of global internet giants," Montebourg said in May. "What's at stake is our sovereignty itself.""

    Döpfner warned: "Voluntary self-subjugation cannot be the last word from the Old World. On the contrary, the desire of the European digital economy to succeed could finally become something for European policy, which the EU has so sorely missed in the past few decades: an emotional narrative."

    The EU (via Juncker, Vestager and Oettinger) has declared war on US tech companies because EU tech companies are uncompetitive without an uneven playing field.  That hurts German and French sensibilities.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 87 of 150
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    ike17055 said:
    wizard69 said:
    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.   
    Google's success, and that of others, is in part how we can afford to continue paying the bulk of Europe's defense, while they sneer at us and laugh publicly at American admonishment for Europe's broken financial committment-- to itself. Trump gets a lot wrong, but he is right on this: if Europe wants to complain about how they cannot "depend" on America, perhaps they should stop shortchanging their own responsibilities, and quit always trying to play the U.S. for chumps, and begin to act like allies are supposed to act for once. 
    ???

    Europe would be fine without the US. YOU decided to put bases in Europe after the war. YOU can take them away we wouldn't care.

    Europe doesn't depend on the US for anything.

    The best way of being good allies is NOT leaving an international climate treaty and insulting basically every European leader.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 88 of 150
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    I fail to see how Android would be a strong anti trust case. What could Samsung actually sue Google for? It's not like Samsung or any other phone manufacture is being forced to use Android on their phones. No one is stopping Samsung from using Tizen on more phones. 
    It's a well known issue in fact. Google offers an OS but forces manufacturers to include all their apps if they want access to the Play store.
  • Reply 89 of 150
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    ike17055 said:
    ike17055 said:
    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.

    In fact, it is You who could not be more wrong. "Freer" and "more equal" are essentially contradictory in the marketplace. The freedom to succeed, or fail, is dependent largely on individual or organizational abilities and desire to exceed and outperform the practices of all others, not equality. The power of the consumer to choose ultimately picks the winner, not socialist interventions toward equality. This is the fundamental piece of free markets that European decisionmakers are missing. 
    Agreed. But since any sane person would say that equality is more important than a "free market" that only makes companies richer, there is no doubt that the EU is doing the right thing.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 90 of 150
    foggyhill said:
    clemynx said:
    foggyhill said:
    bshank said:
    BenC said:
    bshank said:
    gatorguy said:
    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.
    They're shoving their whole ecosystem down everyone's throat and not allowing anyone to fork and just keep the play store, without it.
    No one forces you to buy a product that has Android installed on it, isn't it?

    Wow, again showing your ignorance.

    Google doesn't force consumers to buy Android. They DO force OEMs to take an "all or nothing" approach to Android. You can't make an Android device and include Google Play while doing any customizing of which other Apps you might want to use instead of Googles.

    You also can't make a low-end Android phone with a customized Android fork, and also sell a high-end phone with Android and Google Play. Google doesn't allow you to do this - you have to pick one or the other.
    clemynxwilliamlondon
  • Reply 91 of 150
    MrJonesMrJones Posts: 6member
    Well, you wantend America first, we want EU first. 
    Thanks!
    clemynxwilliamlondonsingularitybrucemc
  • Reply 92 of 150
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    paxman said:
    The European 'elite'? What the fuck does that mean?
    The unelected European Commission which makes all your laws and over whom you have absolutely no say whatsoever. Surely you’re not so dense that you don’t know about them, right?
    Governments elected by people make laws
    Not your government. Unelected officials (the elite) make your laws. You have no say in it. You are a totalitarian oligarchy.

    Commissioners are nominated by the elected government of each member. So they clearly do represent the people.

    Also, in most European countries, when someone gets a majority of votes, they get elected. THAT'S called democracy.
    williamlondonsingularity
  • Reply 93 of 150
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member
    clemynx said:
    I fail to see how Android would be a strong anti trust case. What could Samsung actually sue Google for? It's not like Samsung or any other phone manufacture is being forced to use Android on their phones. No one is stopping Samsung from using Tizen on more phones. 
    It's a well known issue in fact. Google offers an OS but forces manufacturers to include all their apps if they want access to the Play store.
    My darn auto dealer won't let me add premium sound either without bundling navigation too. Dang it. 
  • Reply 94 of 150
    foggyhill said:
    clemynx said:
    foggyhill said:
    bshank said:
    BenC said:
    bshank said:
    gatorguy said:
    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.
    They're shoving their whole ecosystem down everyone's throat and not allowing anyone to fork and just keep the play store, without it.
    No one forces you to buy a product that has Android installed on it, isn't it?

    You also can't make a low-end Android phone with a customized Android fork, and also sell a high-end phone with Android and Google Play. Google doesn't allow you to do this - you have to pick one or the other.
    I honestly don't understand what you mean here. Most of the Android oems (Samsung, LG, Xioami, Huawei, Oppo, Vivo, Lenovo) do exactly what you described as "not allowed" by Google, i.e sell forked version of Android in low end AND also sell high end phones with play store. Am I missing something? Or I didn't understand your post at all!!!
  • Reply 95 of 150
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    foggyhill said:
    clemynx said:
    foggyhill said:
    bshank said:
    BenC said:
    bshank said:
    gatorguy said:
    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.
    They're shoving their whole ecosystem down everyone's throat and not allowing anyone to fork and just keep the play store, without it.
    No one forces you to buy a product that has Android installed on it, isn't it?
    Read what the hell I wrote. I am TALKING THE of the OEM.
    I am tired of this nonsense. Read the posts, then respond.
    edited June 2017
  • Reply 96 of 150
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,884member
    nht said:
    foggyhill said:
    nht said:
    foggyhill said:
    nht said:
    clemynx said:
    ike17055 said:
    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. 
    One is a god damn tax thing, it's as much a snub on Ireland as apple and apple will likely never pay, so get  a clue and stop lying. The fine is proportional to the size of the company, if the company is a smaller company with a non monopolistic position, they get hit less. How the hell is that hard to understand.
    It's not hard to understand when you take it in the proper context:

    ""We don't want to become a digital colony of global internet giants," Montebourg said in May. "What's at stake is our sovereignty itself.""

    Döpfner warned: "Voluntary self-subjugation cannot be the last word from the Old World. On the contrary, the desire of the European digital economy to succeed could finally become something for European policy, which the EU has so sorely missed in the past few decades: an emotional narrative."

    The EU (via Juncker, Vestager and Oettinger) has declared war on US tech companies because EU tech companies are uncompetitive without an uneven playing field.  That hurts German and French sensibilities.
    Ehem. The EU hasn't declared war on anyone. It has taken decisions to give itself more homegrown technology and not depend as much on external technology

    That is why it is developing its own processors for initial use in supercomputing, but will further develop them for other uses.

    These are completely logical steps.
  • Reply 97 of 150
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member
    foggyhill said:
    clemynx said:
    foggyhill said:
    bshank said:
    BenC said:
    bshank said:
    gatorguy said:
    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.
    They're shoving their whole ecosystem down everyone's throat and not allowing anyone to fork and just keep the play store, without it.
    No one forces you to buy a product that has Android installed on it, isn't it?

    Wow, again showing your ignorance.

    Google doesn't force consumers to buy Android. They DO force OEMs to take an "all or nothing" approach to Android. You can't make an Android device and include Google Play while doing any customizing of which other Apps you might want to use instead of Googles.

    You also can't make a low-end Android phone with a customized Android fork, and also sell a high-end phone with Android and Google Play. Google doesn't allow you to do this - you have to pick one or the other.
    Is it similar to a dealer agreement that in return for Company X support, marketing assistance, and products you agree not to also sell cheaper Company Y products with Company X's options installed on a product no one would otherwise want to buy? :/ 

    There may come a point where the EU tells Apple and Google they are not permitted to restrict competition to their own installed products. For example they may decide it's anti-competitive if Apple purposefully favors their own built-in services by blocking top level access for a competitor. What would be your attitude if the EU said Apple cannot be allowed to block the replacement of Apple Music with Spotify as the default player on your iPad, or even permitting a different map/navigation provider as the default on your iPhone with the threat of fines if Apple refused compliance? Apparently there's at least some consideration being given to that by Ms Vesteger's office. With luck they simply drop the inquiry as by and large neither Apple nor Android fans would be happy about it. At least I don't think they would. But if not I suspect you would have an entirely different atitude. And before you jump up and say "It can't happen because Apple isn't a monopoly" it's not about monopoly power. It's about having a dominant position for which it could be absolutely argued Apple meets the definition for. 

    And your highlighted claim above may not be 100% true either. Bixby on Samsung anyone? Or Alexa on Huawei's Google Android phones? Microsoft on Lenovo's Google Android phones? Google Android OEM Xiaomi selling handsets with their MIUI Android fork? 
    edited June 2017
  • Reply 98 of 150
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    ike17055 said:
    MisterKit said:
    Nice to see a system that favors the people and not corporations.
    A favor? It is about as much of a favor as Chavez did to his people.
    In a truly free society, consumers decide who serves the people and they do so with their choices on where to spend their currency. Not an interventionist government that treats the endorsement of consumers as a crime. 
    What endorsement?

    If they control a service and you don't see the alternatives and drive them all out of business, they (or you) don't have a choice, they (or you) don't see the alternative.
    They can then gouge you, provide substandard service and there will be no alternative; you will be stuck.
    If they're big enough, in many countries with weak anti-trust laws or tootless ones, they can even influence government policy to keep others out.

    This is illusory free market that will stay fair and self regulate only exists in the mind of people's notion of economics stopped, at economics 101 were they simplify everything so you can grasp basic concepts.

    So, bring on some more of this libertarian tripe, go on.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 99 of 150
    ike17055ike17055 Posts: 121member
    clemynx said:
    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. 
    your posts are nothing less than bizarre approximations of logic.
    williamlondonanton zuykovbshank
  • Reply 100 of 150
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    ike17055 said:
    wizard69 said:
    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.   
    Google's success, and that of others, is in part how we can afford to continue paying the bulk of Europe's defense, while they sneer at us and laugh publicly at American admonishment for Europe's broken financial committment-- to itself. Trump gets a lot wrong, but he is right on this: if Europe wants to complain about how they cannot "depend" on America, perhaps they should stop shortchanging their own responsibilities, and quit always trying to play the U.S. for chumps, and begin to act like allies are supposed to act for once. 
    So, a Trump lie huh, ok, now I know who to ignore.
    williamlondon
This discussion has been closed.