ericthehalfbee

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. 

maestro64 said:

I think this was a story planted by Qcom to hurt Apple's stock.

slurpy said:

Sorry, I don't believe or trust a word from "ex-employees", especially when they're unnamed. Also, even if any of this was true, if they had a shred of class they wouldn't shit talk their former employer or divulge info. This kind of thing is usually motivated by resentment. 

jcs2305 said:

ericthehalfbee said:

I'm not a fan of Samsung, but do these lawyers have any statistics to show these devices have a substantially higher risk of fires than the industry average (like the Note 7 did)? Otherwise it just seems like greedy lawyers searching for a class action where there isn't any merit. 

Statistics ?? People have made reports of damage and fire resulting from charging on these other devices. What does it matter if they have a substantially higher risk? That's not what the lawsuit is about from what I am understanding.  People are reporting fire and heat induced damage form different models, hence the class action suit. 

So if I have the phone plugged on my nightstand and it burns and damages my furniture and carpeting, unless there is data that says they have a higher risk of fire 🔥 Than other models or brands of smartphone my incident doesn't matter ?  Just asking .. I own iPhone 7+ btw.