Support NeoGAF

[Volphied]

People defending Google in here? Jesus Christ.

Google promised to "do no evil".

Many fell for it.

 

[tuxfool]

If you own Goggle stock I could see why you would be upset

Why would one be upset? This fine is barely even a pinprick.

 

[this_guy]

I don't get it. If I do a search for something, I want actual search results. I don't want a list of other websites where I can do the search.

If I want to search for flights from Houston to New York, I want results for flights available and prices. If I wanted to see Kayak.com or Trivago as search results I would have used a different search term.

 

[Beefy]

This thread is crazy. I don't get why people would defend a multi billion dollar company.

 

[ayeorkean]

I don't get it. If I do a search for something, I want actual search results. I don't want a list of other websites where I can do the search.

If I want to search for flights from Houston to New York, I want results for flights available and prices. If I wanted to see Kayak.com or Trivago as search results I would have used a different search term.

EU citizens have browsers locked to google.com...

 

[Volphied]

This thread is crazy. I don't get why people would defend a multi billion dollar company.

An evil "socialist" Non-American entity is bullying a patriotic/capitalist American company.

Tribalism kicks in. Mental gymnastics fill the thread.

EU citizens have browsers locked to google.com...

You absolutely don't understand the issue and are just shitposting at this point.

 

[Heigic]

Why would one be upset? This fine is barely even a pinprick.

I would think that they will have to change their services in the EU to comply with EU regulations and make less money from the increased competition.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

I don't get it. If I do a search for something, I want actual search results. I don't want a list of other websites where I can do the search.

If I want to search for flights from Houston to New York, I want results for flights available and prices. If I wanted to see Kayak.com or Trivago as search results I would have used a different search term.

Google Search is not the same as Google Shopping or Google Flights. They are different products with different business models and different revenue streams. The EU does not want to prevent users from using those services, it just wants to stop Google leveraging a monopoly they have in one area, search, to unfairly push their other products on consumers who didn't ask for that.

It's not complicated.

 

[airmangataosenai]

This thread is crazy. I don't get why people would defend a multi billion dollar company.

Well why are you defending the EU? It goes both ways.

Honestly I really feel like this is more about collecting revenue without calling it a tax than any legitimate anti-trust grievances. This is just one of many questionable rulingd from their courts over the past decade or so.


But yeah, because Google is a company it doesnt matter.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Well why are you defending the EU? It goes both ways.

Aside from the obvious huge difference? The EU are representing and defending European citizens. Google simply want what is best for their shareholders.

 

[Easy_D]

Aside from the obvious huge difference? The EU are representing and defending European citizens. Google simply want what is best for their shareholders.

Wow are you saying people who own shares are of less worth!?

 

[Bronx-Man]

"Actually, monopolies are a good thing" is not a take I expected to see on GAF today.

Spoiler

Then again, this is a forum filled with Valve fanboys

 

[Volphied]

Well why are you defending the EU? It goes both ways.

Because the EU actually cares about customer rights which directly affects me?

Honestly I really feel like this is more about collecting revenue without calling it a tax than any legitimate anti-trust grievances.

These mental gymnastics from Google defenders are getting tiresome.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Aside from the obvious huge difference? The EU are representing and defending European citizens. Google simply want what is best for their shareholders.

Defending them from what? Seeing the lowest proce matching options through Googles website?

Thank God they are their for that.


Honestly I get this forum leans left but it is so reactionary. As if everyone should just automatically agree with the ruling simply because Google is worth a lot of money without exploring the actual merits of the case.

 

[Easy_D]

Because the EU actually cares about customer rights which directly affects me?



These mental gymnastics from Google defenders are getting tiresome.

It's not specifically Google defenders, this is literally every thread in which it's reported that the EU is fining a US company. Gotta love dat patriotism

Defending them from what? Seeing the lowest proce matching options through Googles website?

Thank God they are their for that.

What's your honest to good opinion on fake news?

 

[Volphied]

"Actually, monopolies are a good thing" is not a take I expected to see on GAF today.

Spoiler

Then again, this is a forum filled with Valve fanboys

I know you're joking, but it's actually not that surprising that people who blindly defend videogame companies like sports teams would then defend Google.

They think that companies are their friends. "Brand loyalty" is a terrible drug.

 

[DasPenguin]

It's not specifically Google defenders, this is literally every thread in which it's reported that the EU is fining a US company. Gotta love dat patriotism



What's your honest to good opinion on fake news?

Enthusiastic patriotism and stupidity go hand in hand very often.

 

[witchedwiz]

Wow are you saying people who own shares are of less worth!?

I..
I......
At times i think that some people forget how companies are Made for profit and seems to be sworn paladins...

I mean, you DO know the terms for putting an image on FB? Do you know what google can do with your documents in google drive ?

 

[ShadowSoldier89]

Because of their dominant position as a search engine, them pushing their own products there is abusing their power and distorting a fair marketplace. If Google would have made their Google Shopping site and just put it between the results the same as every other site, and got their visitors because they simply offer a better product, it wouldn't be a problem.

It doesnt really come off as abuse to me though, just cross-selling. I still don't understand why Microsoft was forced in the EU to advertise every browser option either. Windows is their OS, why do they have to advertise other people's software to run on it.

Not that I really care. This is EU law, so they have to follow their laws to do business there. I can only say what it looks like from an American point of view.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Well why are you defending the EU? It goes both ways.

Honestly I really feel like this is more about collecting revenue without calling it a tax than any legitimate anti-trust grievances. This is just one of many questionable rulingd from their courts over the past decade or so.


But yeah, because Google is a company it doesnt matter.

Yes, the EU took 7 years to investigate the issue, spent tons of hours on it, want after one of the biggest companies in the world with access to a ton of lawyers, to collect 2.4 billion euros. A whole whopping 0,65 euros per citizen per year of investigation. Because that was easier then collecting a bit more tax. This is very effective revenue collecting.

It doesnt really come off as abuse to me though, just cross-selling. I still don't understand why Microsoft was forced in the EU to advertise every browser option either. Windows is their OS, why do they have to advertise other people's software to run on it.

Not that I really care. This is EU law, so they have to follow their laws to do business there. I can only say what it looks like from an American point of view.

It is their OS, it is their website, but because of their position in the market, they have to watch out that they don't abuse that. Otherwise this will lead to unfair competition and prevent innovation. I can make the best shopping comparison website ever, but since Google is basically the way people find stuff online, if they push their service in front of everyone else, my product doesn't stand a chance. That is what the EU is trying to prevent, that companies abuse their position and create an unhealthy marketplace.

The thought is that competition will lead to innovation, lower prices and better products for people. If there is no competition possible because someone is abusing their position, that will lead to problems. Now, if a product simply is the best and everyone uses it, that is fine. But if they then use that position to also push their other products, there are limits to that.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Honestly I get this forum leans left but it is so reactionary. As if everyone should just automatically agree with the ruling simply because Google is worth a lot of money without exploring the actual merits of the case.

The EU spent 7 years on this investigation. How much time have you spent learning EU anti-trust laws? Please, tell to me about the legal reasons why Google didn't break the law without saying "but I like Google" or "but when I googled for something I didn't see that"

 

[Volphied]

It doesnt really come off as abuse to me though, just cross-selling. I still don't understand why Microsoft was forced in the EU to advertise every browser option either. Windows is their OS, why do they have to advertise other people's software to run on it.

Not that I really care. This is EU law, so they have to follow their laws to do business there. I can only say what it looks like from an American point of view.

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

"What Google has done is illegal under EU antitrust rules. It denied other companies the chance to compete on the merits and to innovate. And most importantly, it denied European consumers a genuine choice of services and the full benefits of innovation."

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.

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.

• Today's Decision concludes that Google is dominant in general internet search markets throughout the European Economic Area (EEA), i.e. in all 31 EEA countries. It found Google to have been dominant in general internet search markets in all EEA countries since 2008, except in the Czech Republic where the Decision has established dominance since 2011. 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.
• Google has abused this market dominance by giving its own comparison shopping service an illegal advantage. It gave prominent placement in its search results only to its own comparison shopping service, whilst demoting rival services. It stifled competition on the merits in comparison shopping markets.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

Kind of sucks that in the grand scheme of things, this was pretty good for consumers because it was kind of a no-nonsense listing of things. Travel, shopping, etc. In Vancouver, I could go to BC Transit and find a schedule for bus A or whatever but googling it is more efficient. I get that it stifles competition but the competition is pretty relaxed in their current systems so...

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[Volphied]

Kind of sucks that in the grand scheme of things, this was pretty good for consumers because it was kind of a no-nonsense listing of things. Travel, shopping, etc. In Vancouver, I could go to BC Transit and find a schedule for bus A or whatever but googling it is more efficient. I get that it stifles competition but the competition is pretty relaxed in their current systems so...

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

This is such bullshit. This wasn't good for consumers. Google didn't push the cheapest/best service to the top, it pushed its OWN service. There could have easily been better option for you on page 4 and further down, hidden from you by Google.

The EU press release I linked above went in-depth into how this was harming consumers. Please read it.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Kind of sucks that in the grand scheme of things, this was pretty good for consumers because it was kind of a no-nonsense listing of things. Travel, shopping, etc. In Vancouver, I could go to BC Transit and find a schedule for bus A or whatever but googling it is more efficient. I get that it stifles competition but the competition is pretty relaxed in their current systems so...

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

I don't think anything beside the Shopping part is being asked to change at the moment.

And those service are still accessible. Just go to google.com/shopping and you access the same thing. The service doesn't need to be removed, but it needs to be implemented in Google Search (which is a different product) on the same terms as competing shopping services.

 

[Slayven]

"Actually, monopolies are a good thing" is not a take I expected to see on GAF today.

Spoiler

Then again, this is a forum filled with Valve fanboys

The worship of a storefront is some creepy shit

 

[entremet]

EU holding down American Excellence once again

I don't agree with the ruling at all.

 

[Volphied]

EU holding down American Excellence once again

I don't agree with the ruling at all.

Holy shit, this is some vintage Cold War propaganda and brainwashing.

 

[entremet]

Holy shit, this is some vintage Cold War propaganda.

Joking about the first part. But I don't agree with the ruling. There are other services. Google is defacto monopoly because they're good. They're not infringing on other companies from creating their search engines. Use those. Google gained that advantage because they provide a great service.

I don't care of the country of origin. If Google was a French company, I would also be against the current ruling.

 

[inner-G]

They should just make a separate Google for Europe, like Google.co.uk or something

That way it would exist, but if people prefer to go to Google.com and get results like they do now, they could. I don't think it's fair to have them make changes that will affect Google outside of the EU

 

[SmartBase]

So you're telling me american companies have to run to the EU because their own country can't and doesn't want to get shit done (as proven by a lot of comments by the tools in this thread)?

Sad!

Sad? More like entertaining, I'm having a grand time seeing glimpses of the dystopian corporate future.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Joking about the first part. But I don't agree with the ruling. There are other services. Google is defacto monopoly because they're good. They're not infringing on other companies from creating their search engines. Use those.

THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT JESUS CHRIST
Can you please tell me WHY you don't agree with the ruling in actual legal terms?

 

[ShadowSoldier89]

It is their OS, it is their website, but because of their position in the market, they have to watch out that they don't abuse that. Otherwise this will lead to unfair competition and prevent innovation. I can make the best shopping comparison website ever, but since Google is basically the way people find stuff online, if they push their service in front of everyone else, my product doesn't stand a chance. That is what the EU is trying to prevent, that companies abuse their position and create an unhealthy marketplace.

The thought is that competition will lead to innovation, lower prices and better products for people. If there is no competition possible because someone is abusing their position, that will lead to problems. Now, if a product simply is the best and everyone uses it, that is fine. But if they then use that position to also push their other products, there are limits to that.

right I get that. I'm just saying that as an American and from the point of view of our laws this just looks like Cross-Selling, which is a standard practice of using something you have already sold someone as an entry point to sell them on another part of your business. For instance in my case I work for a worker's assistance branch of a health insurance company. We talk to our general health insurance group clients constantly to sell them on our product.

I'm not going to read the whole of EU law that the other guy posted, I'm already sure google violated it because its easy enough to understand conceptually what is being viewed as anti-trust. I just felt like pointing out the optics of it from American law.

 

[entremet]

THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT JESUS CHRIST

I have no problem with Google promoting its own services on it's own products. I just don't. They earned it.

 

[Volphied]

Joking about the first part. But I don't agree with the ruling. There are other services. Google is defacto monopoly because they're good. They're not infringing on other companies from creating their search engines. Use those. Google gained that advantage because they provide a great service.

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

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.

• Today's Decision concludes that Google is dominant in general internet search markets throughout the European Economic Area (EEA), i.e. in all 31 EEA countries. It found Google to have been dominant in general internet search markets in all EEA countries since 2008, except in the Czech Republic where the Decision has established dominance since 2011. 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.
• Google has abused this market dominance by giving its own comparison shopping service an illegal advantage. It gave prominent placement in its search results only to its own comparison shopping service, whilst demoting rival services. It stifled competition on the merits in comparison shopping markets.

Read the rest in the link provided above.

 

[Aureon]

Yes, but the Google results are the useful ones. None of these other sites are as convenient to use. They are inferior.

I want results like this that I can directly navigate to:


I don't want results like this, where I have to go to another site, download an app, etc. to get the information:


What's stopping Yelp and these other companies from making a product that's convenient to use? Why do I need to download their app to see HQ restaurant review pics? Why do I need to have their crap in my search results? I don't.

You know what would be best?
Google opening up the API they use for pinned results to other sites.

 

[entremet]

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



Read the rest in the link provided above.

Again, I disagree with these laws from a philosophical point of view. I'd rather them get taxed at a higher rate for this than a heavy handed fine.

Gonna be interesting as Amazon starts dominating.

 

[witchedwiz]

I'm a consumer. I don't really see any benefit from VW being fined, myself. American people could care less about VW emissions, it all politics/business crap. Someone didn't bribe the right politician so they got fined.

Some government agency will probably just use the money to finance fining even more companies.

Your tidus avatar is fitting but it should have been tidus doing the akward laugh..
Sigh..

 

[Volphied]

Again, I disagree with these laws from a philosophical point of view. I'd rather them get taxed at a higher rate for this than a heavy handed fine.

Gonna be interesting as Amazon starts dominating.

You're not really explaining your "philosophical point of view".

Methinks you have none, beyond blind brand loyalty and patriotic fervor.

 

[entremet]

You're not really explaining your "philosophical point".

Methinks you have none, beyond blind brand loyalty and patriotic fervor.

I have no problem with Google using its product advantage to promote its products over others. I don't see it as an ethical quandary.

What's the difference with Apple and their App store for example?

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Again, I disagree with these laws from a philosophical point of view. I'd rather them get taxed at a higher rate for this than a heavy handed fine.

Gonna be interesting as Amazon starts dominating.

"Oh you broke the law so we're just gonna invent some new tax lawl"

 

[Ferr986]

This thread is making me scream, and I come from Gaming side where people fight for their companies...

 

[entremet]

"Oh you broke the law so we're just gonna invent some new tax lawl"

We can't criticize laws now? I don't agree with the law. It's not a controversial take. They're still getting fined. And no I don't own Google stock lol. I also think Google is rather shady company in some respects, so I'm not capping for Google

 

[830920]

I started making popcorn as soon as this thread popped up. Not disappointed so far.

 

[Volphied]

I have no problem with Google using its product advantage to promote its products over others. I don't see it as an ethical quandary.

What's the difference with Apple and their App store for example?

AGAIN, READ THE LINKED PRESS RELEASE.

If you had actually read it you wouldn't be asking these ridiculous questions, or making these silly comparisons.

READ IT.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Joking about the first part. But I don't agree with the ruling. There are other services. Google is defacto monopoly because they're good. They're not infringing on other companies from creating their search engines. Use those. Google gained that advantage because they provide a great service.

I don't care of the country of origin. If Google was a French company, I would also be against the current ruling.

Sure Google's services are great.

But imagine if Microsoft was able to crush their competitors in the browser market while they owned the highest share during IE5/6 days.

You'd still use IE5 in 2017. No competition, no need to reinvent or upgrade (they only started to care about html standards and security flaws like active x when 3rd party browsers took a cut of the market share). Does that sound good to anyone?

If you "own" a market you also have a lot of responsibility.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

I also think Google is rather shady company in some respects, so I'm not capping for Google

But you are
You literally are

 

[Beefy]

Well why are you defending the EU? It goes both ways.

Honestly I really feel like this is more about collecting revenue without calling it a tax than any legitimate anti-trust grievances. This is just one of many questionable rulingd from their courts over the past decade or so.


But yeah, because Google is a company it doesnt matter.

Trust you or a 7yr report 🤔........

 

[entremet]

AGAIN, READ THE LINKED PRESS RELEASE.

If you had actually read it you wouldn't be asking these ridiculous questions, or making these silly comparisons.

READ IT.

I'm aware. I've been following this case for a bit. Google does have crazy advantage but I'm more laissez faire about these things.

You know that will eventually happen with Facebook and Amazon. I don't know if old school industrial revolution laws work here. That is all.

It's a classic cat and mouse game and Google has way smarter people working for it than these regulatory agencies.

 

[Volphied]

I'm aware. I've been following this case for a bit. Google does have crazy advantage but I'm more laissez faire about these things.

So basically, your entire argument is based on you not giving a single fuck.

Thanks for being honest, I guess.