Support NeoGAF

[Katcrawler]

I would love to see American corporations boycott the EU and pull all of their business out of these countries. It yet again is all too apparent that the EU goes after American companies with the intent to use them to line their pockets for shitty reasons.

 

[Theonik]

Damn that's 1425 DUP MPs

Or 4.44 Commons majorities.

 

[numble]

Can someone link me to some good reading on this? What is google doing exactly? Also how do you regulate a search company manipulating things on the website they invented? Doesn't any company want to push their products above all other competitors? Did they stop EU folks from using Bing?

And what's all this talk of breaking up large tech companies? Wouldn't that kill the innovation and tech race these companies are part of?

I'm largely ignorant on this subject.

It is summarized here:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-1785_en.htm

Basically, they claim Google's search rules made it so that competitor's price comparison websites usually show up very far down in the results (like on the 4th page), but Google's similar service was not subject to the same search rules and appeared on the top of the results, even though Google admitted internally that their service was not as good as the competition.

There is no real talk about breaking up tech companies besides random posters here.

 

[oti]

I would love to see American corporations boycott the EU and pull all of their business out of these countries. It yet again is all too apparent that the EU goes after American companies with the intent to use them to line their pockets for shitty reasons.

And we're done here. See you in the next "EU is trying to kill American Exceptionalism" thread y'all.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Let these companies grow to massive proportions and then nationalize them.

 

[hanspampel]

I would love to see American corporations boycott the EU and pull all of their business out of these countries. It yet again is all too apparent that the EU goes after American companies with the intent to use them to line their pockets for shitty reasons.

Google would be fucked
Europe is the only region where Google is at >90% market share

But yeah let them boycott the EU

 

[Doikor]

I would love to see American corporations boycott the EU and pull all of their business out of these countries. It yet again is all too apparent that the EU goes after American companies with the intent to use them to line their pockets for shitty reasons.

Nobody is forcing the American corporations to come to the EU market. But the fact is that the combined EU economy is bigger then the US economy so why the fuck would any multi-national corporation ever do that? Even if Google now pays this 2.4 billion fine they make way more then that in profits from EU in a single year so they would come out loosing in total profits if they pulled out.

 

[Blastoise]

Got damn my stock be droppin

 

[TheDarkLord]

I would love to see American corporations boycott the EU and pull all of their business out of these countries. It yet again is all too apparent that the EU goes after American companies with the intent to use them to line their pockets for shitty reasons.

That would be an apocalypses

 

[Ac30]

I would love to see American corporations boycott the EU and pull all of their business out of these countries. It yet again is all too apparent that the EU goes after American companies with the intent to use them to line their pockets for shitty reasons.

Absolutely. So obvious that they never go after their own.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2582_en.htm

The European Commission has found that MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler, Iveco, and DAF broke EU antitrust rules. These truck makers colluded for 14 years on truck pricing and on passing on the costs of compliance with stricter emission rules. The Commission has imposed a record fine of € 2 926 499 000.

I forgot that DAF, MAN and Volvo/Renault are American firms.

 

[G.ZZZ]

I disagree that a 10% rule (or more) should be applied every time; the logical conclusion if that actually happened would be that companies would need to seek approval for every activity from the Commission for every new activity they take, because if they make a mistake or even if their lawyers think there is nothing wrong with an activity, that means that you automatically give up 10% of your revenue.

Like you said, it took 7 years for the Commission to determine whether or not this activity broke the rules, and they are still investigating Google's other activities. Even if it just takes 1-2 years for a Commission to make a determination on whether a proposed activity will break the rules, it would stifle activity and definitely be considered over-regulation if companies are afraid of getting a 10% fine without preclearance from the Commission. As an active example, Google has proposed implementing ad-blocking in Chrome by default. Hard to say whether it violates any anti-competition rules, but if there was always a 10% fine for violating anti-competition rules, it would stop Google in its tracks even if at the end of the day (after a 7 year investigation?) the Commission might clear it and say it is okay.

That's a great idea.
We could make them pay 10% of their revenue every year, and then give it a new name, like cost of the privilege of accessing the largest single market in the world, or transition access privilege cost, so you could shorten it like tapc... i think we're onto something

 

[jm89]

I would love to see American corporations boycott the EU and pull all of their business out of these countries. It yet again is all too apparent that the EU goes after American companies with the intent to use them to line their pockets for shitty reasons.

Your precious american companies need the EU market more than the EU need them.

 

[hobblygobbly]

I would love to see American corporations boycott the EU and pull all of their business out of these countries. It yet again is all too apparent that the EU goes after American companies with the intent to use them to line their pockets for shitty reasons.

They will never because the EU market is massive for them.

Also the EU goes after companies in Europe all the time and the all have to abide by regulations to begin with any ways, you think European companies have free reign in the EU and American one don't?

 

[MisterFalcon]

If only markets were 100% game theory. Like in this case they obviously aren't. It was google that with its monopoly position just crushed everyone else by putting their own results first. Only realistic way for a price comparison site to compete with Google is to make a more popular search engine then Google and then put their price comparison results there. Chances of that happening are pretty much 0 and thus the EU fines for Google abusing its monopoly position.

Google managed to get to #1 somehow over the crushing superiority of Yahoo and Altavista. And I believe they did it without regulators forcing those companies to help out Google.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I would love to see American corporations boycott the EU and pull all of their business out of these countries. It yet again is all too apparent that the EU goes after American companies with the intent to use them to line their pockets for shitty reasons.

Donald Trump ? Is that you ?

 

[tuxfool]

Google managed to get to #1 somehow over the crushing superiority of Yahoo and Altavista. And I believe they did it without regulators forcing those companies to help out Google.

Yes, companies that didn't abuse their positions. Not least for the fact that the market was more open then.

 

[Funky Papa]

Google managed to get to #1 somehow over the crushing superiority of Yahoo and Altavista. And I believe they did it without regulators forcing those companies to help out Google.

The EU doesn't have a problem with companies owning large parts of the market (as a matter of fact, it accepts Google's de facto monpoly), but with said companies using their disproportionate power to crush smaller competitors. This is not something unique to the EU. Pretty much every country has rules against abuse of market dominance/dominant position, including America.

There's some nuance that needs to be taken in consideration. Dascu's post is informative in that regard.

 

[TheDarkLord]

Your precious american companies need the EU market more than the EU need them.

Remember when Google went down for 2 mins and internet traffic around the world dropped by 40%, The world is more reliant on google than we are on it unfortunately

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Remember when Google went down for 2 mins and internet traffic around the world dropped by 40%, The world is more reliant on google than we are on it unfortunately

But should it last more than a few minutes people would simply switch to competitor services. A lot of persons actually volontarily do not use gogole services.

 

[23qwerty]

But should it last more than a few minutes people would simply switch to competitor services.

it'll be a cold day in hell before I use bing my dude

Spoiler

had to google bing there to see if it even still exists

 

[jm89]

Remember when Google went down for 2 mins and internet traffic around the world dropped by 40%, The world is more reliant on google than we are on it unfortunately

This would be temporary another company will easily be able to take it's place..

 

[Dwight Schrute]

it'll be a cold day in hell before I use bing my dude

Spoiler

had to google bing there to see if it even still exists

Duckduckgo ?

 

[tokkun]

Peanuts.

Google got away with everything for years, this sum means nothing for where Google is positioned in the market.

Is Google Shopping in a dominant market position in Europe? Because it seems like no one uses it here in the US.

Absolutely. So obvious that they never go after their own.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2582_en.htm



I forgot that DAF, MAN and Volvo/Renault are American firms.

So multiple companies engaged in price fixing, which is an expressly illegal act that directly harms consumers in an obvious way, got roughly the same fine as a single company that was promoting one of its services on another without any evidence of malicious intent?

I get the idea that you think this example is supposed to show the EU being unbiased, but it does the opposite.

 

[daxy]

I love the derailment this thread has taken over an opinion. Some people don't share your same thoughts guys.

That's what happens when people shitpost rather than elaborate their controversial positions.

 

[numble]

That's a great idea.
We could make them pay 10% of their revenue every year, and then give it a new name, like cost of the privilege of accessing the largest single market in the world, or transition access privilege cost, so you could shorten it like tapc... i think we're onto something

I know you're trying to make a joke about tax, but revenue does not equal profit. 10% of global annual revenue would be 9 billion or half of their global profit. If you think 10% tax on revenue is appropriate, you will be bankrupting Tesco, Carrefour, Amazon, WalMart and other retailers that make somewhere between 2-5% profit on revenue.

 

[23qwerty]

Duckduckgo ?

nah

 

[Kthulhu]

it'll be a cold day in hell before I use bing my dude

Spoiler

had to google bing there to see if it even still exists

You must've not used a Microsoft product in awhile.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

nah

Just saying you don't need Google. you prefer Google. Besides,should it "go-down", new services would absorb traffic, generate revenue and develop a similar service quality-wise.

 

[AbsolutBro]

Nobody stopped you from installing another browser (many did) and just removing the IE icon from your desktop effectively making you not use it to the same degree as not using google search (seriously. Try to not use google search for like a year. Pretty much impossible). There are options. There will always be options. The question is are they meaningful options?

Not using Google is not "pretty much impossible". It is very possible. I dont ever go to google.com, I use the search built into Firefox. Yes, right now it is set to Google. I could change it to Bing or Yahoo or whatever and I would probably not notice the difference. And this is largely the issue I have with this decision and have historically had in these threads: EU members and consumers have options. Their unwillingness to actually utilize those options and then pass the blame to the tune of billions.

I can't remove google apps
You can change the search engine in the browser, but not for the whole phone...

So you cant remove the Google aps from Google's android system? Shocking. Honestly not sure what that has to do with the issue presented here, but hey. Honest question, having never owned an Apple production: can you remove the Ap Store from Apple Phones?

 

[Ac30]

Is Google Shopping in a dominant market position in Europe? Because it seems like no one uses it here in the US.



So multiple companies engaged in price fixing, which is an expressly illegal act that directly harms consumers in an obvious way, got roughly the same fine as a single company that was promoting one of its services on another without any evidence of malicious intent?

I get the idea that you think this example is supposed to show the EU being unbiased, but it does the opposite.

My point was the user claiming the EU targets foreign companies for shakedowns - they have sued both local and foreign firms, including Microsoft and Intel, for legitimate reasons. I was simply providing an example of recent case.

 

[TheDarkLord]

This would be temporary another company will easily be able to take it's place..

Google search, Google Drive, Gmail.. how many websites run off google services. It would be a nightmare. How many Google Android phones are there, Apps would become obsolete

 

[23qwerty]

You must've not used a Microsoft product in awhile.

nah I never use Windows 10 ever never ever ever

Spoiler

??

Just saying you don't need Google. you prefer Gogole. Besides,should it "go-down", new services would absorb traffic, generate revenue and develop a similar service quality-wise.

Obviously. Just hard to make a joke at Bing's expense around here apparently..

 

[Muffin1611]

No wonder America is in its current state looking at this thread.

So many consumers in here stanning for huge corporations abusing their monopoly. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

 

[inner-G]

Google should surround EU search results pages with ads like something out of Idiocracy

It seems like a shameless attempt to take money from a profitable US company and put it into the EU budget. Their internet regulations are pretty ridiculous

 

[Dwight Schrute]

nah I never use Windows 10 ever never ever ever

Spoiler

??

Obviously. Just hard to make a joke at Bing's expense around here apparently..

Spiderman uses Bing, man

 

[AbsolutBro]

But should it last more than a few minutes people would simply switch to competitor services. A lot of persons actually volontarily do not use gogole services.

I wish I was on PC instead of my tablet so I could pull up all the choice posts from other threads on this topic where my suggestion of "use another service" was met by a chorus of "those services might as well not exist in the EU". You make it sound easy, but apparently it is like pulling teeth to type "bing.com" instead of "google.com".

 

[Wamb0wneD]

I cant think of any big company that has not been accused of abusing their position in any capacity, and when i say big i mean M$, Apple, Wal-mart, Google. That type of big. Its simply down the corporate mindset, why help others when you can line your own pockets with cash right. Not saying its a good thing, but its how the world works

But why root for it?

 

[hanspampel]

Not using Google is not "pretty much impossible". It is very possible. I dont ever go to google.com, I use the search built into Firefox. Yes, right now it is set to Google. I could change it to Bing or Yahoo or whatever and I would probably not notice the difference. And this is largely the issue I have with this decision and have historically had in these threads: EU members and consumers have options. Their unwillingness to actually utilize those options and then pass the blame to the tune of billions.


So you cant remove the Google aps from Google's android system? Shocking. Honestly not sure what that has to do with the issue presented here, but hey. Honest question, having never owned an Apple production: can you remove the Ap Store from Apple Phones?

Apple does not claim to be an "open" platform
And Apple does not force their customer to do that, because Apple is selling the phones themselves.
Not able to do that on a Google phone? Yeah fine.
Samsung and everyone else not able to get the play store without all the other services.
Sucks for any competition

The stuff is not even comparable

 

[Cabaratier]

I wish I was on PC instead of my tablet so I could pull up all the choice posts from other threads on this topic where my suggestion of "use another service" was met by a chorus of "those services might as well not exist in the EU". You make it sound easy, but apparently it is like pulling teeth to type "bing.com" instead of "google.com".

Which part of the Commission's investigation and decision do you feel is invalidated or countered by the fact that consumers in the EU are theoretically capable of changing search engines?

"The Commission investigated Google's market position in general internet search since 2008, and the Decision found Google to be dominant in each country (...) This assessment is based on the fact that Google's search engine has held very high market shares in all EEA countries, exceeding 90% in most. It has done so consistently since at least 2008, which is the period investigated by the Commission.

There are also high barriers to entry in these markets, in part because of network effects: the more consumers use a search engine, the more attractive it becomes to advertisers. The profits generated can then be used to attract even more consumers. Similarly, the data a search engine gathers about consumers can in turn be used to improve results.

(...) Market dominance is, as such, not illegal under EU antitrust rules. However, dominant companies have a special responsibility not to abuse their powerful market position by restricting competition, either in the market where they are dominant or in separate markets. Otherwise, there would be a risk that a company once dominant in one market (even if this resulted from competition on the merits) would be able to use this market power to cement/further expand its dominance, or leverage it into separate markets."

 

[airmangataosenai]

So basically they are pressuring Google to remove a price conparisob banner which shows the lowest prices in order to protect consumers somehow? Gotcha.

 

[jm89]

Google search, Google Drive, Gmail.. how many websites run off google services. It would be a nightmare. How many Google Android phones are there, Apps would become obsolete

Yeah a nightmare for google. People will move on eventually. It will take time but you can bet competitors will provide some sort of migration option to their service.

 

[Skoen]

Comes with the territory of being a big company i guess

You must be American I guess?

No fucking wonder that your Country is in the state it is. The length to which some of you go to defend Mega-Corporations is absolutely disgusting...

 

[daxy]

I wish I was on PC instead of my tablet so I could pull up all the choice posts from other threads on this topic where my suggestion of "use another service" was met by a chorus of "those services might as well not exist in the EU". You make it sound easy, but apparently it is like pulling teeth to type "bing.com" instead of "google.com".

The problem is not that they are in a dominant position. The problem is always about abusing said dominance, so it's irrelevant how easy it is to use a different search provider.

Moreover, people do not think about the fairness of comparison services when they seek them out, but they reach for the one that's first presented to them. Therefore, by being such a big player in the internet search industry and putting their comparison service ahead of others' by drawing prominent attention to it, they are diluting the possibility for other players in the comparison services market to compete with Google -- who themselves may not even have the best comparison service (they are just more visible).

I'm sure there's more nuance to the judgment, but this is the gist of it from what I understand.

edit, here's the press release from the Commission's website:

From 2008, Google began to implement in European markets a fundamental change in strategy to push its comparison shopping service. This strategy relied on Google's dominance in general internet search, instead of competition on the merits in comparison shopping markets:

Google has systematically given prominent placement to its own comparison shopping service: when a consumer enters a query into the Google search engine in relation to which Google's comparison shopping service wants to show results, these are displayed at or near the top of the search results.

Google has demoted rival comparison shopping services in its search results: rival comparison shopping services appear in Google's search results on the basis of Google's generic search algorithms. Google has included a number of criteria in these algorithms, as a result of which rival comparison shopping services are demoted. Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google's search results, and others appear even further down. Google's own comparison shopping service is not subject to Google's generic search algorithms, including such demotions.

As a result, Google's comparison shopping service is much more visible to consumers in Google's search results, whilst rival comparison shopping services are much less visible.

The evidence shows that consumers click far more often on results that are more visible, i.e. the results appearing higher up in Google's search results. Even on a desktop, the ten highest-ranking generic search results on page 1 together generally receive approximately 95% of all clicks on generic search results (with the top result receiving about 35% of all the clicks). The first result on page 2 of Google's generic search results receives only about 1% of all clicks. This cannot just be explained by the fact that the first result is more relevant, because evidence also shows that moving the first result to the third rank leads to a reduction in the number of clicks by about 50%. The effects on mobile devices are even more pronounced given the much smaller screen size.

This means that by giving prominent placement only to its own comparison shopping service and by demoting competitors, Google has given its own comparison shopping service a significant advantage compared to rivals.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1784_en.htm

 

[nubbe]

Should have gone for the full 10% penalty
This isn't enough to punish Google

 

[numble]

So basically they are pressuring Google to remove a price conparisob banner which shows the lowest prices in order to protect consumers somehow? Gotcha.

They aren't asked to remove it. They are asked to give equal treatment to competitor services.

In particular, the Decision orders Google to comply with the simple principle of giving equal treatment to rival comparison shopping services and its own service:
Google has to apply the same processes and methods to position and display rival comparison shopping services in Google's search results pages as it gives to its own comparison shopping service.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Not using Google is not "pretty much impossible". It is very possible. I dont ever go to google.com, I use the search built into Firefox. Yes, right now it is set to Google. I could change it to Bing or Yahoo or whatever and I would probably not notice the difference. And this is largely the issue I have with this decision and have historically had in these threads: EU members and consumers have options. Their unwillingness to actually utilize those options and then pass the blame to the tune of billions.

Why refrain from using the best service for malpractice in some areas when the EU will look out for you and make sure they aren't abusing their market position?

 

[ClosingADoor]

Google should surround EU search results pages with ads like something out of Idiocracy

It seems like a shameless attempt to take money from a profitable US company and put it into the EU budget. Their internet regulations are pretty ridiculous

I would love to see American corporations boycott the EU and pull all of their business out of these countries. It yet again is all too apparent that the EU goes after American companies with the intent to use them to line their pockets for shitty reasons.

The EU fines EU companies all the time for the same things. If you want to operate in the EU, you have to follow the same rules as everyone else. American companies are no special case here and can follow the law just like everyone else or get out.

So basically they are pressuring Google to remove a price conparisob banner which shows the lowest prices in order to protect consumers somehow? Gotcha.

They are telling Google to stop their unfair practices with Google Shopping that lead to unfair competition. Google is abusing its dominant position in search to push their other products at the expense of their competitors.

Just look up any product and you get Google Shopping on top. That is unfair competition, since they don't offer that option to others. It is not a better choice for consumers also, it is just abusing your position to push your own products.

 

[Trickster]

No wonder America is in its current state looking at this thread.

So many consumers in here stanning for huge corporations abusing their monopoly. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Yep, and gaf represents the left of americans too. Imagine what the posts would be like if it was a right leaning place.

 

[tuxfool]

Google should surround EU search results pages with ads like something out of Idiocracy

It seems like a shameless attempt to take money from a profitable US company and put it into the EU budget. Their internet regulations are pretty ridiculous

Certainly riding the dicks of massive corporations is something out of Idiocracy. Funny you should mention it.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Corporations need to be massive. That way when the time comes to nationalize them, the government and the people will control all large scale industries.