You're right. It's not like Google is the biggest and people only know of Google and not any competitors. And it's also not like Google purposefully alters results to make it more difficult to find competitors.
Oh... wait. :
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Google faces record three billion euro EU antitrust fine
- Thread starter Caayn
- Start date
- Status
Oh... wait. :
AbsolutBro
Member
That was more that IE was unable to be separated from Windows. There was essentially no uninstall. It was also a pricing issue, where Microsoft used it's market share to force a price race to the bottom. Microsoft could afford to release IE for free, Netscape not so much. That is anti-competitive behaviour, which is a separate issue from a monopoly (though closely related, naturally).
Admittedly, that was before my time at ATR.
Look at Chrome getting pushed on Google sites and how it sky rocketed to the most popular browser. Google has the power to do that with lots of products and services. It's hard to compete against that. Not a bad thing in the browser market right now of course but shows you how easily things can swing when you command such a massive slice.
Bing may be underwhelming in comparison but how do you compete with a small percentage market share of user data that helps refine results to higher standards against Google that has 95% and more in some countries. There is a choice but it doesn't mean much if Google can swat away the fly and throw it's weight into new categories and leverage it's power to snuff out competition.
Bing may be underwhelming in comparison but how do you compete with a small percentage market share of user data that helps refine results to higher standards against Google that has 95% and more in some countries. There is a choice but it doesn't mean much if Google can swat away the fly and throw it's weight into new categories and leverage it's power to snuff out competition.
outunderthestars
Banned
S¡mon;203853088 said:
You keep saying this and I honestly confused. What are the competing search engines that Google is making to hard to find?
I searched Google for fastest web browser and Google told me it was Safari.
/shrug
They were pretty adamant about getting their payday from the start, everyone knew it. They will come up with some weird shit, it'll be implemented, the fine will be paid, and people will still continue to use Google services because they are the best of the rest of the choices.
Believe it or not, people aren't just, not using Bing because they can't find it on Google (which is bullshit anyway), they aren't using it because they don't want to. That goes for competitors in others spaces as well. I think what gets people more than the fact that Google has a near monopoly on some of those spaces, is the fact that they deserve said monopoly for having a greater product.
This ain't no Internet Explorer scenario.
They were pretty adamant about getting their payday from the start, everyone knew it. They will come up with some weird shit, it'll be implemented, the fine will be paid, and people will still continue to use Google services because they are the best of the rest of the choices.
Believe it or not, people aren't just, not using Bing because they can't find it on Google (which is bullshit anyway), they aren't using it because they don't want to. That goes for competitors in others spaces as well. I think what gets people more than the fact that Google has a near monopoly on some of those spaces, is the fact that they deserve said monopoly for having a greater product.
This ain't no Internet Explorer scenario.
AbsolutBro
Member
S¡mon;203853088 said:
The ignorance of people isn't Google's fault or problem. Given that IE or whatever apple's browser is comes on every PC or Mac in existence, I would argue that "people only know of Google" is idiotic hyperbole.
Google is under no obligation to be unbiased in their search results. I have no idea why you or the EU think that they are. Google is not some benevolent force existing to serve the whims of the populace. They are a company whose chief goal is to make money. I am not at all sure what part of that is not clear.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
About time. Jeezuz.
It's okay to promote your own services and even to alter search results to make competitors less visible. It's just not okay when you are owning nearly 100% of the market share.
To answer your Amazon questions: Amazon has an entirely different business structure. They literally sell products for X price.
If Amazon had a massive market share (of monopolistic proportions), than they would also undoubtedly be closely monitored by anti trust regulators
If they suddenly raise their prices significantly, customers would simply also find their way to other webshops which offer fair prices through search engines like Google for example.
It would start to become anti-competitive if they started blocking third party retailers or if they started demanding unreasonably large cuts from third party retailers (which would force prices to go up).
krameriffic
Member
S¡mon;203853088 said:
Wait, who uses Google to find other search engines?
Personally, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that this 3.3 to 6 billion Euros would be more valuable in the hands of any government or any other company on the planet than Google (maybe if it goes straight to Musk?). How does taking this money out of their hands and into the EU's or giving it to some other, less competent company benefit me as a consumer?
The only argument here is a fundamental philosophical one that no single company, ever, no matter what, should have the size and influence that Google has risen to. But the idea that fining them would suddenly allow some hypothetical Google-slaying tech company to rise from the chains of monopolistic oppression seems COMPLETELY absurd to me.
It's funny watching shows like CSI when the actors have to say "Bing it!".
How is Google's dominance hurting consumers? Google is being fined for being too good at what they do, not harming consumers.
DragonSworne
Banned
So Google can't have sponsored ads on their page?
AbsolutBro
Member
It is not exactly the first company to make it's brand name practically synonymous with a particular thing though. See: Band-Aid, Kleenex, Xerox, etc.
Regarding the bolded part. They are when they own nearly 100% of the market.
If you disagree.. well, I'm happy you aren't the one calling the shots at Google.
If Google disagrees, they'll be fined and forced to adjust. If they still won't listen after that, than maybe they shouldn't be welcome at all on the European market.
But it won't come that far. Google will adjust (maybe before or maybe after they get fined, because let's be clear, they haven't been fined yet). They'll continue to be dominant. They'll continue building create products and services.
jellies_two
Member
Yes they do,
however the revenue per google employee is $1.2m and a profit margin of about 70%
So they are not just paying for it "some how", the tiny group of shareholders are making a fortune, at the moment through stock capital gain.
Of course a company should not be a target because it is highly profitable, I'm just pointing out that neither can you excuse behaviour by saying "they have to pay for (the tech) some how". Not when they've got a 70% profit margin while the minnows that live in googles shadow, or live and die by google ranking, are often run at a loss.
No one suggested that. At least I didn't.
The fine is there to press them to change their policies (like not ranking competing services lower in their search results, e.g. that they'll start providing neutral search results).
And in the case of Google Shopping: to make it look less like a product price comparison tool, while it in fact isn't.
AbsolutBro
Member
S¡mon;203854258 said:
Under what rule is Google required to operate not as a business, serving its own interests?
And again, they don't own jack shit when it comes to search market share. It is literally not a thing that is possible to own, unless you are telling me Google owns your internet lines. Google is not responsible for the actions of people in the EU. If this is such a big problem, and apparently it's triple the previous record fine big, then why does no one actually do anything about it? Why don't people type Bing.com, Yahoo.com or even DuckDuckGo.com (all options for default search engines in an iPhone) into their little search bars and actually do something?
I can tell you why. It's because they don't care. Because they are not being hurt, a market is not being controlled and there is noting being done wrong. This is the EU fishing for money from a successful company, again.
i'd just like an example of someone they artificially excluded from search since the poster here consistently uses it as its fact.
What i'd also be interested in seeing, and I assume these regulators have this data, is how much traffic is driven to shopping sites through google shopping vs... say, Amazon or any other very very large internet retailer.
What i'd also be interested in seeing, and I assume these regulators have this data, is how much traffic is driven to shopping sites through google shopping vs... say, Amazon or any other very very large internet retailer.
neurosisxeno
Member
S¡mon;203854258 said:
So they should offer inferior products so other shitty companies can compete?
Nothing1016
Member
Punished for being massively successful eh?
I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that most people saying Google's just being (too) good and should be left unchecked haven't read that many cases on competition law and don't realize the many different ways in which companies try to screw either competitors or consumers. It's pretty boring and doesn't make headlines like this Google case, but these rules are there for a reason. The fines are not supposed to magically allow other companies to compete; it's to stop the infringing party from repeating it again. And just because a company provides a (perceived) good service, doesn't make them exempt from breaching the law.
Flying Toaster
Member
Why post an example? The governments in the EU say so, so it must be true.
neurosisxeno
Member
Look how effective it has been against Intel and Microsoft after all.
strikeselect
You like me, you really really like me!
Why does the EU treat their citizens like children? First the "right to forget" (laughable really) and now this? Yikes.
Yes, you keep telling yourself that "there is no such thing as marker share in the search market". There is, friend. There really is.
Also, people do not even know that Bing exists. They do not know that DuckDuckGo exists. And they may have heard of Yahoo... "Isn't that that old company that provided email a long time ago?"
I've tried to explain it really well and in lots of different ways. And all you keep coming up with icomes basically down to "No, Google is not a monopoly!!1" and "Europe only wants money, they are evil" and "This is protectionism, stay away from our great American companies, Europe!"
I'll say it again. Google is a monopoly. Monopolies need to be regulated.
You can disagree, but than the best term I can come up with is: "Let's agree to disagree." Because I'm too stubborn to move my opinion from "Google is a monopoly" to "Google is not a monopoly" and you are clearly also too stubborn to change your opinion in the opposite direction.
AbsolutBro
Member
I worked for Anti-Trust Regulation at DoJ for nearly 10 years. Now granted, I am not a case attorney, I do litigation support, but it's not like I have no experience.
The "market share" that keeps being crowed about in this thread is literally the percentage of people who choose to use Google. They have other choices. Those choices exist, with no costly drop in service for using them. If I'm to believe some of the posts in this thread, almost the entirety of the EU is completely oblivious to the existence of Bing or Yahoo (I won't add DuckDuckGo here, because honestly I forgot they exist...).
There is no monopoly here. Unless the EU is trying to tell me that Google developed broadcast mind control in the vein of MKUltra, it is impossible to control search engine market share. There is no finite supply of searches that Google controls the means of production for. Google does not send goons to your home if you use Bing. Nor do they control the internet lines, slowing speeds for searches done at competing sites. Google has nothing to do with the choice people make in using their site, other than offering what people perceive to be the superior choice. THAT is simply good business.
What are you implying? I haven't kept up on it, but I sure didn't hear of any recent antitrust cases being open against Intel. The case against them wasn't to curtail their market position, it was that they abused their dominant market position. Microsoft has different Windows builds in the EU now that come without things like Media Player, and measures have been taken to allow the user to choose from different browsers.
The Apple counterargument that sometimes makes the rounds is not quite the same thing, because Apple provides both the OS and the physical system. This, from my understanding, gives them more leeway because it's evident that the user is buying an Apple system (specifically) and not a 'regular' PC. In a way, they are their own market. It's more complex than that, of course, but that might clear it up.
edit: the problem is not their market share, it's that Google is abusing their dominant position in the market.
Indeed. Let them die and wither away like true free adults /s
It's laughable that people have gone so far to some weird libertarian rightwing dimension that protection a market from monopolies is seen as a bad thing or even a leftwing thing to do. It's basic liberal economics.
The goddamn definition is posted right here in this thread. According to that definition, it's monopoly. What are you even talking about 'not a finite supply of searches'? That has nothing to do with it.
SecretMoblin
Member
certainly most of you cheering this on still use multiple Google services daily
surely, being on this board, you know of several functional, viable alternatives to each
the reason you're still using Google is not because Google is somehow brainwashing you or preventing you from knowing about alternatives. Brussels infantilizing the good people of the EU isn't really a good way to promote tech competition there.
surely, being on this board, you know of several functional, viable alternatives to each
the reason you're still using Google is not because Google is somehow brainwashing you or preventing you from knowing about alternatives. Brussels infantilizing the good people of the EU isn't really a good way to promote tech competition there.
AbsolutBro
Member
S¡mon;203855230 said:
And I will say it again, but with facts on my side. I am not speaking from a position of opinion; you are using words whose definition you either do not understand, or do not accept. It doesn't change the facts.
Google is not a monopoly. The apparent ignorance of the EU citizenry is not Google's fault, and it is not Google's problem. The simply fact that those sites exist, offer a comparable service at a comparable price (read: free) is quite literally all it takes to disprove a monopoly existing.
"Search engine" market share may be a thing that exists (in that it can be measured how many people are using a particular search engine), but more importantly it is not a thing that can be controlled. Google does not force you to go to Google.com. Google does not make other sites inferior by manipulation of the marketplace (indeed, Google does not even control the marketplace i.e., the internet). Google does not alter results that those other sites might give you. Google does nothing to prevent those services from being reached. They do not delete Internet Explorer from your PC, nor Safari from your Mac. They do not prevent you from installing Firefox or Safari or Opera on your Android based cell phone, and in fact those apps are available in Google Play.
Google does one thing. They make a product that people see as superior, and want to use. Those people who do use it, do so under the implied knowledge that Google is a business, and businesses exist to make money. If Google did not exist to make money, they would be a non-profit organization and this whole argument would be even more foolish than it already is.
Google is not a monopoly by any reasonable definition of the word. A monopoly has the power to completely prevent new options from entering the market. Google does not have that power (as evinced by DuckDuckGo being a thing). A monopoly forms when all opposing entities have been driven out of business, last I checked Microsoft/Bing and Yahoo are still in existence.
Were Google a monopoly, there would be no other options. Those options are there. Whether the citizenry of the EU chooses to use them or not has no bearing on whether or not the monopoly exists.
Say what now?
Service is search engine, service is search engine ads, they have almost all of the market. What's the confusion here?
AbsolutBro
Member
AbsolutBro
Member
You are misunderstanding what "controlling the market" means. It means that a particular company controls the entirety of means and supplies to produce a particular service. My "no limit on search results" was a nod to that.
Let me give you an example.
When I first started at ATR, one of my first cases was a cartel monopolizing control of Lysine. Lysine is a feed additive for cattle and other livestock. Basically, a group of international corporations was controlling the market for Lysine. They made sure they all charged the same (ridiculously high) price for Lysine. When a new competitor tried to enter the Lysine market, they would all drop their prices to absurdly low levels and force that new company out of business, then jack their prices up insanely high again. In this way, they were able to control the market.
New companies couldn't enter, because start up prices were fairly high and new companies couldn't absorb the profit loss that these other companies (working together) could. They could also manipulate stock levels in various parts of the world to justify those costs, usually by selling to each other 'at-cost'. In this way, they made ridiculous amounts of money by forcing buyers to buy from them. There was no other way to get the product that they needed.
Do you see how that doesn't relate to Google at all?
You seem to be in the habit of imagining things. Where does controlling the market come up in the definition?
So you're narrowing the definition of a monopoly to your anecdote? This is ridiculous. You're not even arguing, you're just stating 'I'm right'. How about you start addressing the actual definition.
neurosisxeno
Member
When was the last time you paid for a Web Browser?
Everyone making excuses for Google and saying "well it's their product, they can do whatever they want!" are probably the same people that complain about Apple's "closed garden" where all Apple things come first and customisation is minimal.
Ya can't just tell other businesses to "do better!" They're prpbably trying their best, they just have this huge gigantic wall called Google sitting in their way. Chrome's most popular? Yeah because Google shells out sponsorship cash to get it in installers. Oops, there goes Firefox. Google's the most popular search engine? Probably because these days it's pushed in both Chrome and Android and was the default search engine for most search toolbars before Chrome. Oops, there goes Yahoo (and before that, Ask Jeeves).
Google throws their weight around and uses their money to do it. That basically stuffs all other free alternatives in the bin, and people don't want to pay for a browser or search engine so the competing companies are up shit creek. It doesn't help that Google fucks with their exposure on the only search engine they even remember.
Ya can't just tell other businesses to "do better!" They're prpbably trying their best, they just have this huge gigantic wall called Google sitting in their way. Chrome's most popular? Yeah because Google shells out sponsorship cash to get it in installers. Oops, there goes Firefox. Google's the most popular search engine? Probably because these days it's pushed in both Chrome and Android and was the default search engine for most search toolbars before Chrome. Oops, there goes Yahoo (and before that, Ask Jeeves).
Google throws their weight around and uses their money to do it. That basically stuffs all other free alternatives in the bin, and people don't want to pay for a browser or search engine so the competing companies are up shit creek. It doesn't help that Google fucks with their exposure on the only search engine they even remember.
andythinkpad
Member
This is how stronger political bodies deal with silicon valley company's dominance, either charge the "Monopoly" tax like EU does, or simply shut them out so the home grown companies will make the money like China does.
It's the opposite. The markets become increasingly dynamic and opaque with new technologies. This is why we need more effort put into oversight and regulation.
The product is not free, let's get that straight. You pay with your data, views and clicks, and ad companies pay with cash. I don't even understand how you can say it's free with a straight face. A company with a market value of over 300 billion dollars has its main source of revenue coming from a free product? I mean really...
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Bullshit. It's because they pay apple a ton of money to have Google as the main search engine who in fact are the #1 users driving Google's search engine results outside of desktops. Please stop. As others have already said, everyone absolutely has a choice with the search engine they choose to use and its not Google's fault that they have literally became the household name that people DO want to use.
At the end of the day,Google isn't forcing people to use their search engine. They aren't ranking results lower and there hasn't been an incident like that for years. It's absolute bullshit because the EU just has a problem with its dominance that it's own citizen's don't look to their national creations with the same love.
Agreed. GAF's solutions to a lot of these issues is to nerf everything. We all gotta work harder. I just wanna see what else they have behind those Google X curtains! Lol
- Status