Support NeoGAF

[outunderthestars]

I get what you are saying and normally I would agree.

But Google is so huge in Europe. If you ain't on Google, nobody will find your business (since Google is basically the only search engine people know of).
That'd be okay if Google Search was a totally neutral service, putting the best results on top... but Google has been proven to manipulate those search results for their own gain. And you simply can't do that when basically everybody depends on your service.

-----------
And again, I also like their services like Gmail. But this fine isn't about Google's services being of high or low quality.
This is about Google manipulating search results, which makes it harder or even impossible for competitors to be found by consumers.

How is that any different than a business listing in the yellow pages? Also, can you show me an example where it is impossible to find a business or a competitor on a google search? My business has never spent a dime with Google and yet we pull up first under a wide variety of searches...

 

[°°ToMmY°°]

I searched that name on all the search sites I could think of and found nothing. They must all be in on the conspiracy.

He was just trolling using a made up name.

 

[S¡mon]

How is that any different than a business listing in the yellow pages? Also, can you show me an example where it is impossible to find a business or a competitor on a google search? My business has never spent a dime with Google and yet we pull up first under a wide variety of searches...

No, honestly, I cannot give you a business which is impossible to find.

I'm just going off the European regulators and consumer organisations which say that they have prove that Google has manipulated their search results.

I haven't done a personal investigation, as I trust the institutions that are in place to protect the European people against anti-competitive and anti-consumerist behaviour.

 

[The Hermit]

Funny thing is that this is probably still less of what google should pay in taxes over the revenues it made in the EU, but won't pay because of how multinational companies work.

The system is pretty borked and capitalism is dying at the hand of its most fervent preachers that are mistaking corp-drived markets for actual competitive ones. Soon there will be only giant multicorps and all their subsidiaries, competition will die because of their infinite power over politics and at the end only our new AI overlord will save us from a flooded world devastated by sandstorms and ridden by globalized wars and famines.

lol

Spoiler

I agree

 

[outunderthestars]

I get what you are saying and normally I would agree.

But Google is so huge in Europe. If you ain't on Google, nobody will find your business (since Google is basically the only search engine people know of).
That'd be okay if Google Search was a totally neutral service, putting the best results on top... but Google has been proven to manipulate those search results for their own gain. And you simply can't do that when basically everybody depends on your service.

-----------
And again, I also like their services like Gmail. But this fine isn't about Google's services being of high or low quality.
This is about Google manipulating search results, which makes it harder or even impossible for competitors to be found by consumers.

How is that any different than a business listing in the yellow pages? Also, can you show me an example where it is impossible to find a business or a competitor on a google search? My business has never spent a dime with Google and yet we pull up first under a wide variety of searches...

They changed it. They didn't do that before.

Additionally, people don't read the small letters. Do your read your iTunes Terms? No.

People simply get the impression that it is independent and a fair price comparison. That's not weird either: it's exactly shown as a tool to compare prices and shops. Than it doesn't matter that, somewhere, on the page it says that the results are actually sponsored.

Oh come the fuck on. It is the same font size as the results and displayed directly above the price. When you click on it you don't get an Itunes styled TOS that is 25 pages. You get this exact text.

Based on your search query, we think you are trying to find a product. Clicking in this box will show you results from providers who can fulfill your request. Google may be compensated by some of these providers.

Seriously. Who the fuck could be confused by that? It is more clearly displayed than their competitors, and has an easier to understand explanation than them as well.

 

[ape2man]

They close up shop and someone creates a new entity called Roogle to take their place.

europe is their biggest market, they will bow before the bureaucrats

 

[Easy_D]

Good. Fine could be a bit higher I suppose. Get working on some taxation laws while you're at it.

 

[Irnbru]

Wait so, when/if Google gets fined... Who recieves the proceeds for said fine? lol just the EU group? What does it go towards. Genuinely curious.

And lol on taxation laws, it's the EU that allows the Irish loophole to happen.

 

[MCN]

This is good news. Google's power has become too big and they are using that power in such a way that t harms customers.

I like their services, like Search and Mail, but their anti-competitive behaviour is very harmful to the industry.

If other companies want to be successful, then they need to be as good as Google. They should work for it like Google did, instead of crying and wanting it all given to them on a fucking plate.

 

[Easy_D]

If other companies want to be successful, then they need to be as good as Google. They should work for it like Google did, instead of crying and wanting it all given to them on a fucking plate.

I can't even tell if this is satire or American Exceptionalism TM at work. If no one know you exist, it doesn't matter how good you are.

 

[S¡mon]

How is that any different than a business listing in the yellow pages? Also, can you show me an example where it is impossible to find a business or a competitor on a google search? My business has never spent a dime with Google and yet we pull up first under a wide variety of searches...

See my response a few posts above.

Oh come the fuck on. It is the same font size as the results and displayed directly above the price. When you click on it you don't get an Itunes styled TOS that is 25 pages. You get this exact text.



Seriously. Who the fuck could be confused by that? It is more clearly displayed than their competitors, and has an easier to understand explanation than them as well.

Except it's not. I just checked it out (on mobile). There's a grayed-out text in a smaller font that says "Sponsored" with an Information-icon behind it.
Easily something that can be looked over.

The rest of the page just gives you the impression that it is a price comparison service. While in fact they are simply ads.
When you tap on a product to get a more detailed view, there's no mention of it being sponsored whatsoever.

Also, again, they added the "Sponsored" part later and only after Europe started threatening with fines.

 

[ClosingADoor]

If other companies want to be successful, then they need to be as good as Google. They should work for it like Google did, instead of crying and wanting it all given to them on a fucking plate.

This isn't about that. They are using their dominance in search to push other services (their Google Shopping). That is abusing your monopoly and is bad for competition.

Same deal as when Microsoft abused theirs to push Internet Explorer and got fined for it.

 

[S¡mon]

If other companies want to be successful, then they need to be as good as Google. They should work for it like Google did, instead of crying and wanting it all given to them on a fucking plate.

That's an opinion you may have. In Europe, we, the people, decided that monopolies need to be regulated.

The only way for competitors to be found is through Google (as they have a near 100% market share).

I'll say that again.

The only way for competitors to be found is through Google (as they have a near 100% market share).

Europe says: since you are so big, you can't manipulate search results anymore and you can't mislead consumers anymore. Google continues to do so. Europe threatens with a fine.

If you believe that Google should have the right to continue to do so, because it's their business, than that's an opinion you may have.

And if Google insists on running their business as they want instead of being regulated for having a monopoly, that's okay, but than maybe Google should no longer be welcome on the European market.

 

[otakukidd]

See my response a few posts above.




Except it's not. I just checked it out (on mobile). There's a grayed-out text in a smaller font that says "Sponsored" with an Information-icon behind it.
Easily something that can be looked over.

The rest of the page just gives you the impression that it is a price comparison service. While in fact they are simply ads.
When you tap on a product to get a more detailed view, there's no mention of it being sponsored whatsoever.

Also, again, they added the "Sponsored" part later and only after Europe started threatening with fines.

They didn't just add that. Thats been there forever.

 

[S¡mon]

They didn't just add that. Thats been there forever.

It hasn't according to the regulators. Also, great way of not responding to the rest of my post.

 

[AbsolutBro]

This isn't about that. They are using their dominance in search to push other services (their Google Shopping). That is abusing your monopoly and is bad for competition.

Same deal as when Microsoft abused theirs to push Internet Explorer and got fined for it.

"Google is to good at their job and working with their own stuff, stop it and give us lots of money."

It really does summarize the EU and its hilariously absurd protectionism.

 

[nubbe]

That's an opinion you may have. In Europe, we, the people, decided that monopolies need to be regulated.

The only way for competitors to be found is through Google (as they have a near 100% market share).

I'll say that again.

The only way for competitors to be found is through Google (as they have a near 100% market share).

Europe says: since you are so big, you can't manipulate search results anymore and you can't mislead consumers anymore. Google continues to do so. Europe threatens with a fine.

If you believe that Google should have the right to continue to do so, because it's their business, than that's an opinion you may have.

And if Google insists on running their business as they want instead of being regulated for having a monopoly, that's okay, but than maybe Google should no longer be welcome on the European market.

indeed, don't get much clearer than this

 

[CyclopsRock]

What actually happens with this money? Do the consumers apparently harmed get anything back? Maybe contributions to the EU budget can go down per capita to make up for the windfall here (should it eventually occur)?

No?

Good-o.

 

[otakukidd]

It hasn't according to the regulators. Also, great way of not responding to the rest of my post.

http://searchengineland.com/google-tests-showing-product-ads-knowledge-graph-carousel-area-189362

That's from when they started putting products in that knowledge base 2 years ago. Notice the sponsored at the top.

 

[outunderthestars]

It hasn't according to the regulators. Also, great way of not responding to the rest of my post.

Desktop:

Mobile:

I honestly cannot see a way that they can make that more clear for users.

 

[Easy_D]

That's a North American search tho, doesn't prove (or disprove) that the Sponsored text was there for European visitors.

Edit: Referring to otakukidd's post.

 

[ClosingADoor]

"Google is to good at their job and working with their own stuff, stop it and give us lots of money."

It really does summarize the EU and its hilariously absurd protectionism.

This isn't about Google being good at its stuff. This is about them using their monopoly in search in an anti-competitive way. That position comes with extra responsibility.

If a company has a monopoly in area X they should not be able to use it to push people towards their own products in an unfair way.

So no, it does not summarize the EU.

Desktop:



Mobile:

I honestly cannot see a way that they can make that more clear for users.

It's not about it being unclear. It's about it being there at all.

People use Google to search for products. They have a monopoly on that. By including their own service in there (the price comparison) they push competition out of the market in an unfair way.

It's about putting their own services in front of others in their search results.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm not of the opinion that popularity should lead to your commercial service becoming a public service. If the EU wants to launch their own, independent search engine and a campaign to make people aware of its benefits, they should go ahead (or otherwise tell people about DuckDuckGo or whatever). I think this is especially the case on something like a search engine where the barrier to switching is so obscenely low. I really hate the idea that Google has basically done such a good job at attracting customers that they now have to run it as a public service. I'm also not thrilled at the idea of private property becoming the plaything of government just because they want it to be.

 

[outunderthestars]

On a side topic: I do find it a bit funny to read a story about unfair advertising on a site that had 20 different ads on a single page, including numerous ones masquerading as news. Seriously. Turn off your ad blocker for a moment and visit the site. It is an absurd number of ads. I could barely get the page to fully load!

 

[S¡mon]

http://searchengineland.com/google-tests-showing-product-ads-knowledge-graph-carousel-area-189362

That's from when they started putting products in that knowledge base 2 years ago. Notice the sponsored at the top.

Desktop:



Mobile:

I honestly cannot see a way that they can make that more clear for users.

Thanks.

I now realise that...

...showing a greyed out small font "Sponsored" text, ranking competitors lower or on later pages, giving the impression that prices and shops are being compared while in fact it are sponsored links like pointed out by the small font greyed out text....

...while having a near 100% market share....

...is in fact the best thing for competition and consumers.

I can't believe that I didn't realise this sooner. Must have been stuck in my pro-Europe bubble thinking that this was something negative for competing business and consumers.

Sorry, guys, I was wrong.

Spoiler

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I hope you guys get why I think that a possible fine for Google is a good thing.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I'm not of the opinion that popularity should lead to your commercial service becoming a public service. If the EU wants to launch their own, independent search engine and a campaign to make people aware of its benefits, they should go ahead (or otherwise tell people about DuckDuckGo or whatever). I think this is especially the case on something like a search engine where the barrier to switching is so obscenely low. I really hate the idea that Google has basically done such a good job at attracting customers that they now have to run it as a public service. I'm also not thrilled at the idea of private property becoming the plaything of government just because they want it to be.

Their search business is not in question. They are good at that and nobody is taking that away or having a problem with it.

However, they are using that monopoly on search to favor their own other products and that is wrong.

 

[AbsolutBro]

This isn't about Google being good at its stuff. This is about them using their monopoly in search in an anti-competitive way. That position comes with extra responsibility.

If a company has a monopoly in area X they should not be able to use it to push people towards their own products in an unfair way.

So no, it does not summarize the EU.

I worked in antitrust regulation for nearly 10 years. I am fairly familiar with what a monopoly is. The simple fact that other search engines exist, regardless of whether or not EU citizens know or want to use them, is hole #1 in this "Google controls all" argument the EU is putting forth.

Google promoting certain results shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that knows what a business is either. And believe it or not, Google is still a business. Impartiality is not a requirement.

 

[outunderthestars]

It's not about it being unclear. It's about it being there at all.

People use Google to search for products. They have a monopoly on that. By including their own service in there (the price comparison) they push competition out of the market in an unfair way.

It's about putting their own services in front of others in their search results.

I guess that is unfair and totally not what every other search engine does:

Bing:

Yahoo:

Lycos:

Oh right, nevermind.

Thanks.

I now realise that...

...showing a greyed out small font "Sponsored" text, ranking competitors lower or on later pages, giving the impression that prices and shops are being compared while in fact it are sponsored links like pointed out by the small font greyed out text....

...while having a near 100% market share....

...is in fact the best thing for competition and consumers.

I can't believe that I didn't realise this sooner. Must have been stuck in my pro-Europe bubble thinking that this was something negative for competing business and consumers.

Sorry, guys, I was wrong.

Spoiler

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I hope you guys get why I think that a possible fine for Google is a good thing.

No, having the worlds best technology at your fingertips for free is a good thing. Google has to pay for that some how. They are doing it same dame way the MS, Yahoo, Lycos are as well, through sponsored content. This is going to be the norm as ad blockers are more common than ever. Also, if someone is unable to tell that those results are sponsored by the examples I posted then they are beyond the help of any asinine anti-trust lawsuit.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Their search business is not in question. They are good at that and nobody is taking that away or having a problem with it.

However, they are using that monopoly on search to favor their own other products and that is wrong.

I don't think it is. It's so easy to find alternatives, to research elsewhere, to read other things. Why do we expect so little of people? It should not be the government's right to dictate the parameters of, imo. It's not theirs. (I know there are lots of cases where this is appropriate - ie polluting, waste etc. But I don't think this is one of them.)

 

[ClosingADoor]

I worked in antitrust regulation for nearly 10 years. I am fairly familiar with what a monopoly is. The simple fact that other search engines exist, regardless of whether or not EU citizens know or want to use them, is hole #1 in this "Google controls all" argument the EU is putting forth.

Google promoting certain results shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that knows what a business is either. And believe it or not, Google is still a business. Impartiality is not a requirement.

If over 90% of people are using your service, that is a monopoly no matter if there are other companies.

And that monopoly should not be abused to get ahead in other areas where otherwise Google would not do as well.

I guess that is unfair and totally not what every other search engine does:

Bing:



Yahoo:


Lycos:



Oh right, nevermind.

Does Lycos have a 90%+ market share? No. So different rules apply.

I don't think it is. It's so easy to find alternatives, to research elsewhere, to read other things. Why do we expect so little of people? It should not be the government's right to dictate the parameters of, imo. It's not theirs. (I know there are lots of cases where this is appropriate - ie polluting, waste etc. But I don't think this is one of them.)

And we in the EU find this appropriate. A monopoly positions should not be abused and the EU will judge on whether Google is doing so.

 

[S¡mon]

I guess that is unfair and totally not what every other search engine does:

Bing:



Yahoo:


Lycos:



Oh right, nevermind.

It's okay to promote your own services above others when you do not own almost 100% of the market.

Also this:

If over 90% of people are using your service, that is a monopoly no matter if there are other companies.

And that monopoly should not be abused to get ahead in other areas where otherwise Google would not do as well.

 

[AbsolutBro]

...while having a near 100% market share....

You keep saying this like it means anything. It would be one thing if "market share" of Internet searches meant a damn. It doesnt. 100% of EU citizens choosing to go to google.com and search for stuff instead of bing.com, yahoo.com, or any other .com only matters if Google owns all the lines and actively blocks or slows connections to those sites.

 

[Raonak]

See my earlier post in this thread (http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=203844984) where I've pointed out how they rank or block out competitors (anti-competitive) and show product prices from shops which are supposed to be the cheapest, but, you guessed it, are not (anti-consumer).

I don't recall google saying it would show the cheapest prices.
If anything; showing cheapest prices would count as being anti-competition, and potentially anti-consumer if the cheapest happen to be of shoddy quality.

Google is a linear search engine, so there has to be an ordering to the list of results.
Their search engine is trying to find the best match, which is generally most popular and most relevant to you.
It makes sense, and it's why the search engine is so reliable.

This does have the side effect of feeling anti-competetive because your shop would be one of the countless stores that exist
and because it's new or unpopular, it won't appear on the first page.

But, changing it another type of algorithm would just weaken the effectiveness of the search engine.

 

[Orkidea]

Isn't this like pennies for them?

 

[Rur0ni]

Where does the fine money go?

 

[AbsolutBro]

If over 90% of people are using your service, that is a monopoly no matter if there are other companies.

No. It is not. A monopoly exists when it has 100% market share by virtue of not having any competitors. It also has the ability to prevent new competition, usually by controlling the market. If 90% of people shop at Amazon.com, Amazon does not have a monopoly. It means that 90% of people choose to shop there. Other sites exist, other sites are used.

 

[S¡mon]

You keep saying this like it means anything. It would be one thing if "market share" of Internet searches meant a damn. It doesnt. 100% of EU citizens choosing to go to google.com and search for stuff instead of bing.com, yahoo.com, or any other .com only matters if Google owns all the lines and actively blocks or slows connections to those sites.

Well, that's something where you and I differ of opinion.

For me, it's all about the usage of a service. If an extremely vast majority uses one single service or product, than that's a monopoly.
Doesn't matter if there are a 100.000 alternatives... the public simply doesn't know these alternatives. And even if they do, they still use that one single service/product.
And thus regulation is required.

 

[oti]

When will the #WarOnAmericanExceptionalism stop? Damn you, Socialist Hell Hole Europe!

Spoiler

This is good for everyone.

 

[msv]

"Google is to good at their job and working with their own stuff, stop it and give us lots of money."

It really does summarize the EU and its hilariously absurd protectionism.

"Google does not have to obey European laws because I don't like those laws'

It really does summarize your post.

 

[outunderthestars]

It's okay to promote your own services above others when you do not own almost 100% of the market.

So what is the magic percentage of market share when you have to stop abusing people who are too stupid to be able to read?

 

[ClosingADoor]

You keep saying this like it means anything. It would be one thing if "market share" of Internet searches meant a damn. It doesnt. 100% of EU citizens choosing to go to google.com and search for stuff instead of bing.com, yahoo.com, or any other .com only matters if Google owns all the lines and actively blocks or slows connections to those sites.

Just because there is choice, does not mean a company can't have a monopoly like position. We saw the same with Microsoft for example. Apple was there, but for a long time Microsoft had a practical monopoly. Just like Google now in search.

I don't recall google saying it would show the cheapest prices.
If anything; showing cheapest prices would count as being anti-competition, and potentially anti-consumer if the cheapest happen to be of shoddy quality.

Google is a linear search engine, so there has to be an ordering to the list of results.
Their search engine is trying to find the best match, which is generally most popular and most relevant to you.
It makes sense, and it's why the search engine is so reliable.

This does have the side effect of feeling anti-competetive because your shop would be one of the countless stores that exist
and because it's new or unpopular, it won't appear on the first page.

But, changing it another type of algorithm would just weaken the effectiveness of the search engine.

It's not about finding prices or shops. Its about Google pushing their own Google Shopping price comparison in the search results above other such services.

 

[PanicFreak]

Wow. How will they ever pay for such a fine?

 

[S¡mon]

I don't recall google saying it would show the cheapest prices.
If anything; showing cheapest prices would count as being anti-competition, and potentially anti-consumer if the cheapest happen to be of shoddy quality.

Google is a linear search engine, so there has to be an ordering to the list of results.
Their search engine is trying to find the best match, which is generally most popular and most relevant to you.
It makes sense, and it's why the search engine is so reliable.

This does have the side effect of feeling anti-competetive because your shop would be one of the countless stores that exist
and because it's new or unpopular, it won't appear on the first page.

But, changing it another type of algorithm would just weaken the effectiveness of the search engine.

Thanks for you input, I appreciate a good discussion.

To answer your post:

- Google may not explicitly state that they show the lowest prices, but it is simply implied/suggested by the fact that Google Shopping looks and operates like a product price comparison service.

- Regarding the algorithm: I mostly agree. But the thing is, according to the antitrust regulators, Google alters search results to either promote their own services more, or make competing services less visible.

Especially the algorithm-thing is a problem. Like you said, there's no problem if the algorithm is neutral and you let it do its work.

The accusation (from the antitrust regulators) here is: Google has control over and alters search results to either promote their own services more or to make competing services less visible.

 

[Frozenprince]

Nothing is going to oust google. They run the world. Accept it.

 

[AbsolutBro]

Well, that's something where you and I differ of opinion.

For me, it's all about the usage of a service. If an extremely vast majority uses one single service or product, than that's a monopoly.
Doesn't matter if there are a 100.000 alternatives... the public simply doesn't know these alternatives. And even if they do, they still use that one single service/product.
And thus regulation is required.

It's not opinion. It is the definition of a monpoly. Your "opinion" has no basis in fact or reality.

 

[S¡mon]

So what is the magic percentage of market share when you have to stop abusing people who are too stupid to be able to read?

There's no magic number. Personally, I'd say that if you've got three quarter of the market (or more), you are in or approaching monopoly territory. Still questionable though.

We're talking here about a company with a near 100% market share, so no doubt here.

 

[The Technomancer]

It's not opinion. It is the definition of a monpoly. Your "opinion" has no basis in fact or reality.

Ehhh software is weird. Everyone was able to buy Netscape Navigator if they wanted but that didn't stop Microsoft from losing the suit in the 90s

 

[S¡mon]

It's not opinion. It is the definition of a monpoly. Your "opinion" has no basis in fact or reality.

You want literal definitions, here is one from Investopedia.

What is a 'Monopoly'
A monopoly is a situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition.

Well, the first sentence is 100% applicable in Google's situation. The second sentence, you could argue that they mean "by the absence of competing companies".
But that's not what it says. It says competition. If nearly 100% is using your product and not that of a competitor, than there is no competition.

 

[outunderthestars]

There's no magic number. Personally, I'd say that if you've got three quarter of the market (or more), you are in or approaching monopoly territory. Still questionable though.

We're talking here about a company with a near 100% market share, so no doubt here.

The last number I saw was around 94% for Google in EU, so on that I don't have any doubts.

I just don't see how something could be anti-consumer and be ok, as long as you don't have that much market share. Why not just ban the practice for all search engine providers?

Also: honest questions: What about retailers who also have third parties selling on their sites? Should Amazon be required to always list the lowest price first? What if I don't even do business with Amazon, but have a lower price?

Is Amazon really that different than Google when it comes to products when I can order something from Amazon that they never handled in any way outside of taking a cut of the sale for delivering my eyeballs to a retailer? That is obviously a bit of a stretch, but it is to highlight that the concept of a "search engine" is a dated one and one that is quickly getting really murky.

 

[AbsolutBro]

You want literal definitions, here is one from Investopedia.



Well, the first sentence is 100% applicable in Google's situation. The second sentence, you could argue that they mean "by the absence of competing companies".
But that's not what it says. It says competition. If nearly 100% is using your product and not that of a competitor, than there is no competition.

Except it is 100% not. They don't "own" the search market. There is nothing to own. No production means, no product, no nothing.

There is nothing stopping EU citizens from using ANY of their competitors. Google is not forcing those engines out of existence.

Those competing companies are there. Whether you use them or not is entirely not up to Google.