Support NeoGAF

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Just because Google has a monopoly in search does not mean they can use that market dominance to subvert adjacent markets.

Subvert adjacent markets ?! LOL WHERE? They aren't strong arming anyone to adhere to their search engine. You either use it or you don't.

No, Google isn't forcing anyone, they're just throwing their weight around so the spotlight lands on them in the most situations possible.

Tell me, what do you use for web searching, browsing, and as your phone. Do you have an explicit reason for it?

Also I think you reason (Google paying Apple for preference) is amazingly better than my example. Thanks.

I use Google because it's better than EVERYTHING else. That is my choice. I've used Yahoo, MSN before Bing and now Bing, Ask Jeeves, DuckGoGo, like almost everything and the only thing that gives me what I want is Google. And it's not because Google forces me,its because it literally works better. Google pays apple because they have had this relationship for years and it's not like Apple wouldn't be able to pull the rug underneath them like they did with Maps ..but it's not illegal to pay for exclusivity if that's what you're saying.

 

[dity]

Subvert adjacent markets ?! LOL WHERE? They aren't strong arming anyone to adhere to their search engine. You either use it or you don't.



I use Google because it's better than EVERYTHING else. That is my choice. I've used Yahoo, MSN before Bing and now Bing, Ask Jeeves, DuckGoGo, like almost everything and the only thing that gives me what I want is Google. And it's not because Google forces me,its because it literally works better. Google pays apple because they have had this relationship for years and it's not like Apple wouldn't be able to pull the rug underneath them like they did with Maps ..but it's not illegal to pay for exclusivity if that's what you're saying.

It is at this level of market share.

And really, you've used all those? Like, for enough time to actually give it a chance or just a random search? Not even I'd take that stance when I'm trying to say I like what I like.

How heavy are you in the Google ecosystem?

 

[S¡mon]

Guys, you also need to realise that the EU isn't fining Google because it's big. It's fining Google because it has used its power to manipulate search results so competitors would show rank lower or their own services would rank higher.

It doesn't matter that there are alternatives. All that matters is:

- Google's market share in Europe is near 100%, meaning many people rely on the service
- There's been shady stuff going on with Google Shopping
- Search results have been manipulated by Google, ranking competing services lower

If you have a near 100% market share, you have a responsibility. Doesn't matter if there is competition or not.

 

[RedToad64]

Didn't Microsoft face similar problems with Internet Explorer a few years ago?

 

[Easy_D]

That makes more sense because I haven't seen how Google is harming consumers.

Yep Save us America-Kun

Guys, you also need to realise that the EU isn't fining Google because it's big. It's fining Google because it has used its power to manipulate search results so competitors would show rank lower or their own services would rank higher.

It doesn't matter that there are alternatives. All that matters is:

- Google's market share in Europe is near 100%, meaning many people rely on the service
- There's been shady stuff going on with Google Shopping
- Search results have been manipulated by Google, ranking competing services lower

If you have a near 100% market share, you have a responsibility. Doesn't matter if there is competition or not.

No the EU is jealous of the greatest company in Gods chosen nation of the United States of America.

 

[HariKari]

When Europe feels an American company is getting too large of a marketshare in the EU, they sue. Seems like a fair way to do business.

They sue to insure that the American company doesn't suppress competition. Just because the U.S. has given up on meaningful regulation and lets megacorporations run amok doesn't mean the EU has to do the same.

 

[Syriel]

Guys, you also need to realise that the EU isn't fining Google because it's big. It's fining Google because it has used its power to manipulate search results so competitors would show rank lower or their own services would rank higher.

It doesn't matter that there are alternatives. All that matters is:

- Google's market share in Europe is near 100%, meaning many people rely on the service
- There's been shady stuff going on with Google Shopping
- Search results have been manipulated by Google, ranking competing services lower

If you have a near 100% market share, you have a responsibility. Doesn't matter if there is competition or not.

1) Google Search has ads. They are clearly labeled as ads. The ads are how Google Search makes money. Ads are how pretty much every single free service on the Internet (including competing search engines and NeoGAF) make money. If the EU wants to remove ads, it is basically demanding Google Search for free.

2) Google Shopping is ads and has been for years. It is also clearly labeled as such. To complain about Google Shopping is like complaining that the sale flyer in your local paper only showed you paid ads. Unless you were born yesterday,

3) Google constantly tweaks its algorithms to block sites that are gaming the system. This is public knowledge. The only sites hurt by it are the shady ones.

Complaints about Google results usually fall into one of two categories. Groups or governments that want Google to censor search results (ex music industry and links to "pirate" sites which may not even be illegal, or the whole "right to forget" nonsense) or people who are pissed that Google has ads.

Here is an example of the former:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/24/bpi-british-music-labels-piracy-policy-google

Here is an example of the latter:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=ryanair

Yes, the latter link is the subject of a court case because Google dares to have ads on the search results page.

 

[MonsterHunter]

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.

Yes actually. That's exactly what happens.

To those infantile comments that the EU is somehow jealous or vindictive; the EU investigates all anti-consumer issues whether foreign or local. The US does the same.

 

[MonsterHunter]

As an example: Does anyone in this thread actually believe 1 billion people chose Google+ because it's a good service? Like fuck they did. You were absolutely required to sign up if you wanted to continue making comments and using other features of Youtube.

 

[Carcetti]

ITT thread I've learned GAF has search engine fanboy shills with console wars level of delusion.

"Oh no it's evil Europeans trying to hurt mah US search engine!!!"

 

[YoungFa]

Didn't Microsoft face similar problems with Internet Explorer a few years ago?

Yeah, now if you install a new version of windows you can choose whether you want internet explorer, firefox or chrome installed as your browser. So you dont have to go through ie to download chrome or firefox. Which is something, as you might have seen on your families computer, tech distant people dont do.

 

[Nipo]

As an example: Does anyone in this thread actually believe 1 billion people chose Google+ because it's a good service? Like fuck they did. You were absolutely required to sign up if you wanted to continue making comments and using other features of Youtube.

Why is that a bad thing?

 

[dity]

Why is that a bad thing?

Because it had nothing to do with making Youtube better and everything to do with inflating Google+ sign up numbers forcefully.

 

[King Tubby]

If Google altered its algorithm to heavily favor Android smartphones over Apple phones in platform-neutral search results for "phones", would that not be a problem?

 

[dity]

If Google altered its algorithm to heavily favor Android smartphones over Apple phones in platform-neutral search results for "phones", would that not be a problem?

Well, if you search "smartphone" from google.com.au you get Samsung, LG, and Sony's official websites on the first page after the usual Wikipedia and new article entries.

 

[perfectchaos007]

This is the moment I wished we had an EU version of Trump: "The fine just got 1 billion higher!'

Ironically, Trump took the NFL to US court claiming they had a monopoly on American football...and he won! His USFL still failed regardless, but hey if he can win a case like this I guess the EU has a shot.

If I were google, my defense to having a search engine monopoly would be 3 words: Yahoo!, Bing, ask.com

 

[TatteredHat]

Good, these kinds of megacorps should be bound to some outside regulation.

 

[MarkMclovin]

Because it had nothing to do with making Youtube better and everything to do with inflating Google+ sign up numbers forcefully.

Whats wrong with Google+ numbers going up? I've had a google/youtube account and android phone for years and Google+ has never been in my way nor have I ever used it.

 

[Dascu]

For what it's worth, Politico's saying it's too early for an announcement.

That aside, I also want to point out again that the legal teams at work here have access to many more documents and files than we do. They're also investigating practices over a much longer timespan than just today, so some of the alleged abuses of dominance may have already been rectified in the mean time. The entire game of comparing search results as I see people doing here is therefore a bit stupid.

 

[dity]

Whats wrong with Google+ numbers going up? I've had a google/youtube account and android phone for years and Google+ has never been in my way nor have I ever used it.

omg it's not the numbers going up itself that's bad, it's how they chose to do it ad the fact that Youtube users really had no way around it. Users were forced onto another platform. Let's not pretend the outrage at the time the G+ Youtube system was implemented didn't exist.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

So the EU is going to tell Google how to do an algorithm? No thanks. I don't trust Brussels to get me the information I'm looking for.

After their "right to forget" fiasco I don't want the EU anywhere near Google.

right to be forgotten is awesome. I don't see a fiasco there. Soon as I'm out of university my web histpry is going to be swept clean as possible.

 

[MarkMclovin]

omg it's not the numbers going up itself that's bad, it's how they chose to do it ad the fact that Youtube users really had no way around it. Users were forced onto another platform. Let's not pretend the outrage at the time the G+ Youtube system was implemented didn't exist.

No one is saying it didn't exist. It wasn't a problem like you're making out. Not only that, they soon done a U turn on it anyway. Oh no they forced you onto a mere platform they created on a service they provided, for free.

 

[Business]

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?

If Amazon's third party sellers list is deemed to be the overwhelming or quasi only source of information for EU consumers to base their purchasing decisions upon, then yes that should be regulated too.

 

[Pokemaniac]

If they want to go after Google for something, it really should be the super strict requirements for shipping a phone with the Google Play Store. That's really the only place where they unfairly push their own search engine. Even Firefox defaults to Yahoo now.

 

[Calvero]

You say that, but there's this company out there called Rahmooful that offers every one of Google's services but better in every way. However, if you try to google Rahmooful, you'll get no results about the company because Google doesn't want you to know about them.

Try it if you don't believe me. And realize, this is only 1 out of millions of companies that get treated similarly by Google.

Let me guess, you're using Chrome and using search engines from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. They're all in on this together along with their Reptilian overlords.

Try again while connecting through Tor. Also, if you value privacy at all switch your search engine to gull.ble or go home.

lmao

 

[Pokemaniac]

right to be forgotten is awesome. I don't see a fiasco there. Soon as I'm out of university my web histpry is going to be swept clean as possible.

You really don't see any potential issues with forcing websites to delete content based on personal requests? The whole idea is ripe for abuse by allowing Orwellian edits on records of history. It also is generally opposed to freedom of speech.

 

[pronk420]

You really don't see any potential issues with forcing websites to delete content based on personal requests?

its just deleting search results, not deleting the actual content

 

[cabot]

If they want to go after Google for something, it really should be the super strict requirements for shipping a phone with the Google Play Store. That's really the only place where they unfairly push their own search engine. Even Firefox defaults to Yahoo now.

I thought this was one of the main drives?

They definitely talked about it in the recent past.

 

[Condom]

You really don't see any potential issues with forcing websites to delete content based on personal requests? The whole idea is ripe for abuse by allowing Orwellian edits on records of history. It also is generally opposed to freedom of speech.

That's not Orwellian, the poor guy has his works and intentions misused constantly. I really think this has to do with people thinking his work was an argument against regulation and pro free market etc

Orwell actually was a socialist, you'd really think he'd be opposed to the right to be forgotten by a corporation as life controlling as Google?

 

[YoungFa]

You really don't see any potential issues with forcing websites to delete content based on personal requests? The whole idea is ripe for abuse by allowing Orwellian edits on records of history. It also is generally opposed to freedom of speech.

The right to forgotten is equivalent to removing a number from the phone book. It is deleleting links, the content still stays on the web.

 

[Nipo]

Because it had nothing to do with making Youtube better and everything to do with inflating Google+ sign up numbers forcefully.

So what? Why does it matter. Signing up on Google plus to comment has no negative impact on my life and could potentially introduce me to a new service

 

[AusRoachman]

Would be funny of Google punishes the eu by redirecting them to Bing.

 

[Easy_D]

You really don't see any potential issues with forcing websites to delete content based on personal requests? The whole idea is ripe for abuse by allowing Orwellian edits on records of history. It also is generally opposed to freedom of speech.

Does freedom of speech have superiority over the right of privacy?

Imagine if the countless women who've been harassed due to whatver internet fuckery going on could easily make it much harder for people to find their personal info online?

But hey, free speech am I right?

 

[raphier]

ITT thread I've learned GAF has search engine fanboy shills with console wars level of delusion.

"Oh no it's evil Europeans trying to hurt mah US search engine!!!"

IF EU truly wanted to attack anti-consumerism,then they should start with MPAA, Apple, the big pharma Monopoly and internal EU practices, but no they do very little about them and then keep rotating around American IT companies because the IT laws are not mature enough. They can waltz as they please. Does that sound fair?

 

[Pokemaniac]

The right to forgotten is equivalent to removing a number from the phone book. It is deleleting links, the content still stays on the web.

That just makes it somewhat impotent, not really any less bad. You're still breaking the functionality of services for personal gain.

 

[Condom]

IF EU truly wanted to attack anti-consumerism,then they should start with MPAA, Apple, the big pharma Monopoly and internal EU practices, but no they do very little about them and then keep rotating around American IT companies because the IT laws are not mature enough. They can waltz as they please. Does that sound fair?

There is no fairness in this world, IT companies make big money and getting sentimental over them having to pay a fine here and there is ridiculous

 

[MGrant]

You say that, but there's this company out there called Rahmooful that offers every one of Google's services but better in every way. However, if you try to google Rahmooful, you'll get no results about the company because Google doesn't want you to know about them.

Try it if you don't believe me. And realize, this is only 1 out of millions of companies that get treated similarly by Google.

Uh, what? I'm not getting results for "Rahmooful" on DuckDuckGo, Bing, or Yahoo. Or did I miss a joke/get trolled?

Edit: Oh I see.

 

[Harmen]

I think this is unfair. I can click Google away and type in Bing if I want. Offcourse Google is going to promote their own products first, but doesn't every company ever do that?

 

[YoungFa]

That just makes it somewhat impotent, not really any less bad. You're still breaking the functionality of services for personal gain.

Well in some parts of the world it is not considered a personal gain, but considered a fundamental right. Thats just different values I guess.

 

[Pokemaniac]

Does freedom of speech have superiority over the right of privacy?

Imagine if the countless women who've been harassed due to whatver internet fuckery going on could easily make it much harder for people to find their personal info online?

But hey, free speech am I right?

Those types of activities would be considered an invasion of privacy, and, if I understand correctly, are illegal in their own right. That has nothing to do with this "right to be forgotten" silliness.

 

[dity]

No one is saying it didn't exist. It wasn't a problem like you're making out. Not only that, they soon done a U turn on it anyway. Oh no they forced you onto a mere platform they created on a service they provided, for free.

So what? Why does it matter. Signing up on Google plus to comment has no negative impact on my life and could potentially introduce me to a new service

C'mon, they were baiting users because they hoped Google+ would become the next Facebook if they took advantage of the Youtube userbase. It's the perfect example of them abusing their dominant position. They introduced G+ comments, but where's the ability to comment with Facebook or Twitter? They removed old Youtube-based comments to get you onto another service that basically only served as a means to comment for most. Lots of other websites allow you to use whatever service you want to comment on blogs/videos, but not Google.

 

[Pokemaniac]

Well in some parts of the world it is not considered a personal gain, but considered a fundamental right. Thats just different values I guess.

Call it whatever you want. The problem is that people are being given a largely unchecked power to erase history.

 

[YoungFa]

Call it whatever you want. The problem is that people are being given a largely unchecked power to erase history.

Well youre definition of unchecked and history are very questionable.

 

[spekkeh]

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.

Thats the whole point of anti trust, Google is making sure the other companies can't compete.

Not that 3 billion will do much, but still.

 

[Dascu]

If they want to go after Google for something, it really should be the super strict requirements for shipping a phone with the Google Play Store. That's really the only place where they unfairly push their own search engine. Even Firefox defaults to Yahoo now.

I thought this was one of the main drives?

They definitely talked about it in the recent past.

Yes, that's a different investigation: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1492_en.htm

 

[spekkeh]

Does freedom of speech have superiority over the right of privacy?

Imagine if the countless women who've been harassed due to whatver internet fuckery going on could easily make it much harder for people to find their personal info online?

But hey, free speech am I right?

7.9 cents. That's the cost per full name and address of a rape victim. This is the information that data brokers such as Google facilitate and sell. Obviously something we should protect and much more important than the right to privacy.

 

[spekkeh]

IF EU truly wanted to attack anti-consumerism,then they should start with MPAA, Apple, the big pharma Monopoly and internal EU practices, but no they do very little about them and then keep rotating around American IT companies because the IT laws are not mature enough. They can waltz as they please. Does that sound fair?

The American IT companies are much bigger and more powerful than any of those though.

 

[Sioen]

Lol Americans getting angry about huge companies getting fined, good job.

 

[PdotMichael]

Some people should feel ashamed.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

IF EU truly wanted to attack anti-consumerism,then they should start with MPAA, Apple, the big pharma Monopoly and internal EU practices, but no they do very little about them and then keep rotating around American IT companies because the IT laws are not mature enough. They can waltz as they please. Does that sound fair?

They do go after apple, specifically for not having a standard charger on their phones.

You really don't see any potential issues with forcing websites to delete content based on personal requests? The whole idea is ripe for abuse by allowing Orwellian edits on records of history. It also is generally opposed to freedom of speech.

It's deleting search results and no there's zero issue with that especially since it's not available to the same degree for famous/important people.

I see more issues with companies retaining the rights to your private life you stupidly shared with them in your teens.