European Commission Reopens Google Antitrust Investigation 96
An anonymous reader writes:
Earlier this year, European Commission regulators finally agreed to a settlement in the organization's long-running antitrust investigation of Google's search and advertising business. Unfortunately for Google, it didn't stick. The EC said today they're reopening the investigation after a large number of "very negative" complaints about the settlement. "The key objection to the proposed settlement, which would have allowed rival services to buy spaces at the top of search results pages, was that it would not prevent Google from favoring its own services, and would divert money from the rivals to Google even if they received clickthroughs from the adverts — rather than the zero-cost solution if they were ranked highly in 'organic' search results, and Google was prevented from putting its own commercial services above those." The Commission is also looking into other parts of Google's business, including its influence over mobile devices through Android.
Again? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
google doesn't just have a head start, they have a monopoly position, once you are a monopoly the rules of fairness change and it isn't enough to simply say someone can start their own business.
Re: (Score:1)
Redundant comment in support of parent posts viewpoint. Moving on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not what redundant means though.
Re: (Score:3)
None of those things apply on the internet. If I found another search engine that worked better than Google, I'd switch tomorrow. So far, no dice.
Re:Again? (Score:4, Interesting)
The trouble is in this instance, is that the people who have the decision making power (you, in this instance) aren't the same as the people who are being abused (the provider of the thing you're searching for). To say that it's okay because you have the power to change what you do, doesn't change the fact that you won't change because you're not the one being screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not see these other people as having a right to have their stuff shoved in front of my face to the exclusion of Google.
They can pay for ad space, maybe Google puts Google ads up there, too. Otherwise fight for page rankings like everyone else.
If Google is claiming fair rankings and bitchslapping competitors down in the normal (not paid) search results, that's fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
Relatively speaking - computing power is cheap these days. You can build a server with more computing power of Google's first server farm for a few thousand dollars. You can virtualize everything and rent CPU power from Amazon or Rackspace or Microsoft. If you're working out of your garage you can start up a new search engine for a couple tens of thousands of dollars which, really, is hardly anything these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"no cost of entry"
Google is the only entity in the world that has the history of the web stored. Without this history, proper search result ranking is next to impossible.
The "cost of entry" is astronomical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The "cost of entry" is astronomical.
I think what u38cg meant was that there's no cost to a person using the search-engine, to switch search-engine.
Of course it costs millions to start your own search-engine.
Google is the only entity in the world that has the history of the web stored
Wrong. [archive.org]
Re: (Score:1)
"archive.org has nothing."
Which is why I can find my old geocities pages and even download some of the old files from my page, eh?
Google's cached content can't even do that half of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you seriously think finding a few old geocities pages on archive.org refutes what I'm saying?
Well, yes, because it sounds like Khyber chose an arbitrary, non-remarkable website, looked it up on archive.org, and it was there. Not conclusive, by any means, but it certainly counts for something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google obviously has a depth of expertise that would be difficult to match but I don't think it's impossible to compete with them if you're sufficiently determined.
This isn't hypothetical: see Bing, and Baidu.
According to Bing, Bing is at least as good as Google in blind-tests. Whether that's really true, I don't know. I admit I don't use Bing - the reason is that unless Bing is really better than Google, why switch? That said, it costs me nothing to switch. Maybe it's just a matter of 'trust'.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure if I support the EU here (don't know enough about the details).
But this doesn't apply to you using Google to search or your ability to create a new search engine or switch search engines.
Google is the dominant search engine. The complaint is about how Google leverages it "monopoly" in search to position itself more favorably against other people/companies search results. e.g. Let's say Google sold watches, and always listed it's watches more favorably over other companies who sold watches. It would
Re: (Score:2)
There is a massive cost of entry and a massive cost of switching, we aren't talking about web users who can switch search engines, we are talking about businesses that need to advertise their services, switching to another service means they don't get the exposure and advertising they need to survive as google has a monopoly on the advertising industry, building your own service would cost billions as you need to gain a foothold to make your advertising have some value, to do so would likely cost 10's of bi
Re: (Score:2)
Netscape was free too, and it was easy to switch from IE for anyone who wanted to... And yet MS was rightly convicted.
Never overerestimate the inability of ordinary people from doing the most basic things. You may think it's trivial to switch search engines, but for most people it isn't. And antitrust is all about bringing about a good outcome for most people, not for people like you or me who can take care of ourselves.
So no, switching search engi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Netscape was free too, and it was easy to switch from IE for anyone who wanted to...
Netscape wasn't free until Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer (IE) into Windows, which had (and still has) a (what should be illegal) monopoly on desktop operating systems. At that point, no one could charge for a browser. That was leveraging a monopoly in one area to gain a monopoly in another area, which is a felony (for which Microsoft was rightly convicted).
Switching from IE to anything else was almost impossible for most people, because Microsoft's browser dominance was so thorough that a huge numbe
Re: (Score:2)
Netscape was free too, and it was easy to switch from IE for anyone who wanted to... And yet MS was rightly convicted.
For most parts, IE4+ was better than Netscape and people would have chosen it even when given a fair choice.
In fact, Microsoft may have played dirty but they still had the overall best browser. Only with Firefox we started to have serious competition. Opera was very good too but it wasn't free at the time.
And now, the IE market-share is declining and I don't think it is because of some stupid ballot screen (it started earlier). It is just that there are now better alternatives.
Competition work well in this
Re:Again? (Score:4, Insightful)
"the simple truth is Google is the best. "
That's some time ago. Nowadays I have to enclose every fucking word between quotes or it is ignored.
I want them to show me what I typed, not what they think I might mean.
I really do have "mangy boils", no I did not mean to purchase "angry oils".
Again? (Score:1)
Re:Again? (Score:4, Insightful)
No matter what one thinks of Yelp, they were one of the first few place review services around. Then Google tried to buy them and, when that failed, copied their business model and turned it into Google Places which held top place in any location search.
I'm failing to see the problem. That is how competition is supposed to work: doing something better than someone else.
Did Google threaten anyone, or did Google just provided a better service/experience?
Did Google conspire with other companies to put Yelp out of business?
Did Google somehow leverage a monopoly position in search to gain a monopoly position in reviewing stuff?
As far as I know, Google is just a better competitor.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm failing to see the problem. That is how competition is supposed to work: doing something better than someone else.
Except that Google Places was not better. Google utilized its (well-deserved) virtual monopoly in search to promote its own service above everyone else. Plus the services was integrated into Google Maps. Even then it took at least a year before they got everything working right.
Did Google threaten anyone, or did Google just provided a better service/experience?
I doubt they threatened anyone. They did *not*, however, provide a better experience. In fact, their review services were pretty unreliable which is one of the main reasons why they bought Zagat. They've been using their search monop
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how long it will be before EU investigates Microsoft over that...
Gotta get the money to pay back Germany somewhere (Score:1)
why not get it from Teh Goog!e
Re: (Score:3)
I don't really understand - it's googles product (phones, search, etc) why can't they do what they like with it? I'm sure people would go elsewhere if other products were any good?
Because it doesn't affect the person searching if Google's results don't show correctly the most popular results, it affects the company being pushed down the rankings - and the person searching is the person with decision-making power.
- Person A searches for "maps", either on the site, on the phone or on Chrome.
- Google promotes their own maps to the top regardless of whether they're the best choice, ahead of company B's solution, whether that solution is better or not.
- Person A sees that Google Maps is t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious - is there any evidence that Google does this?
Seriously, I've not been paying too much attention to the Google antitrust cases, so I've no clue whether Google is an Evil Monster (tm) or a Wronged Giant (tm)....
Re: (Score:2)
I access from the UK so I can't tell if they do or don't now. I know they used to, but things have changed a bit since then.
We'll have to see the results of the new investigation, I imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there is evidence of this. But it may not be illegal.
Part of the reason is a network effect. As Google brings in more and more information, it gets better at sorting it and finding connections. In the above example, Google knew people were wanting to search on maps so it bought a map outfit and started pouring data in. As it gets better at integrating various sets of data, the better it gets, the more people visit it, the more money it makes, the more data it can buy, and the virtuous cycle goes forth.
Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... (Score:4)
Your first example is NOT an example of Google favouring its own offering over other, better, services. You describe a case where Google makes its map service the best, and gets more hits for that reason.
Your second case is pretty much what I was asking about. Any particular examples, or is this theoretical?
And your third case is a matter of "Google is evil(tm) because they do such a good job and my third-rate service can't compete".
So, again, any actual examples of Google promoting its own, second-rate (or third- or fourth-) services above its (superior) competition?
Re: (Score:2)
I know of 2 cases where the EU alleged issues:
Google Maps, where Google put it's own reviews in front of other, like Yelp
In shopping results, where it put it's shopping search engine before others.
To your point, take a look at what you are saying. If Google ranks it's own services ahead of others, is it because they offer the best service? Google says yes, but then again their biased, so arguing that point is going to be futile.
A better question is i
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, you've reached the point of reframing my original question.
I'm not actually trying to find out what my question is, since I already know that.
What I want is an ANSWER to my question.
So, let's ask again - is there any evidence that Google is adjusting its search results to favour Google's own services over superior competing services?
Yes, we know that they are physically capable of doing so. That's not the question, so don't bother to tell me that they're capable of doing so....
Re: (Score:2)
Here we hit the problem of trust, and they won't publish the algorithm, so we can't know either way.
The result is to fall back on the "congenial host principle": no guest in your house should receive lesser treatment than a member of your household. It is completely acceptable to treat your own household worse than the guest (smaller steak, non-silver cutlery etc) but the guest must receive good treatment.
Perhaps Google have to be unfair to themselves in order to prove that they're not being unfair to their
Re: (Score:3)
Alas, you're not proposing that Google be unfair to themselves, you're proposing that they be unfair to ME. And you. And all their other users.
If Google "adjusts" their algorithms to give a benefit to inferior information/products/whatever, it's the users who suffer in the end.
When I go looking online for a map, the thing I care about is that it be the best map po
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Go to Google and search for the phrase "map of Europe". The first thing you will see is a link to the Google Maps map of Europe. This is integration of Google Maps with the Google Search. Google Maps isn't brought up as a standard search result, worked into the list by pagerank, it is a specific Google App being placed at the top, before your search results (which incidentally do not include Google Maps.
If I was wanting a Google map, I could have gone to Google Maps and searched for Europe, but I did
Re: (Score:2)
And the second thing I see is a list of images for "map of europe".
And then there's Worldatlas.com, mapsofworld.com, raileurope.com, etc.
Interestingly, of those four choices, only the googlemaps version is (debatably) current. The others don't yet show the Crimean Peninsula as part of Russia, though the Googlemaps version seems to (looks like it has a border between Crime
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a paid advertisement, followed by another paid ad for Verizonwireless app store. Organically I get the Apple iOS App store, and the next link is the OSX App store for Mavericks. SO If Google gave themselves an organic first result they'd be "Evil", and if they buy an ad to promote their own service, then they are Evil. The only way for Google to not be Evil is to completely ignore the end user and their own platform in the search.
Note when I do the same search for app store via Android, the same resu
Re: (Score:2)
What I find interesting is Bing's result for that query: The top hit in the search results -- not ads -- is "Apps for Windows". #2 is the Google Play store and #3 is the Apple App Store. I get the same results when searching on from Chrome on Linux and from Safari on OS X.
It's possible that this result is an accurate reflection of what Bing users want, biased by the self-selection effect that only people who are deeply wedded to Microsoft's platforms use Bing. But it really seems like this is a case of a
Re: (Score:2)
so SEO for them is a combination of guesswork and research (costs which Google don't have to pay, incidentally).
Are you for real; SEO is a wankers activity that directly harms consumers. The more 'Expensive' Google make it, the better, 'cos I wont shed any tears if the whole SEO crowd end up homeless.
As for the rest of your drivel; google maps comes top of the list because it is the most popular destination for Google users. Which part of that is too hard for you to understand?
Re: (Score:2)
Maps was an example rather than the only definitive place that it happens. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.
I don't have a strong opinion on SEO either way, but it's clear that companies believe it helps and are willing to invest in it, where Google doesn't need to as they control the results and the algorithm. Regardless if SEO was paid for or not, I can see why companies wouldn't consider the current situation ideal.
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of search engines if you search for "search" Google isn't even the top result (Yahoo is...), Google is third. If you search for maps Google Maps comes first (which makes sense as it is probably the one most people link to on websites), followed immediately by whereis. As far as I can tell Google isn't inte
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a strong opinion on SEO either way, but it's clear that companies believe it helps and are willing to invest in it
Well obviously. SEO is largely an attempt to cheat the search-engine. Of course the companies investing in it want it. That doesn't mean it's good for Google, the web, or the end-user.
Analogy: a fraudster might be willing to invest heavily in his fraud schemes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a strong opinion on it.
Regardless if SEO was paid for or not, I can see why companies wouldn't consider the current situation ideal.
I can't really think of a better way to run things. I wouldn't want Google taking secret pay-offs. I think the current tension between SEO and Google (who occasionally slam websites that play
Re: (Score:2)
Because it doesn't affect the person searching if Google's results don't show correctly the most popular results, it affects the company being pushed down the rankings - and the person searching is the person with decision-making power.
Of course it affects Google and the person searching if their results aren't the most useful results. People use and used Google because it gives the most relevant results for searches in the most easily usable manner thus far. If Google put shit results in the search page, then people would immediately go elsewhere as the friction/effort has increased to get the correct results. Google's entire business model is predicated on search relevance. That is why they beat the paid model that Yahoo and everyone else were using.
Also there is no such thing as the most popular result. There never has been. The results were always from day one decided on by a Google algorithm based off ranking metrics that they defined. The same is true for Bing or any other search engine,. The results are all interpretive. That is the only way a search engine can exist. Google does not always promote their own services first. Search app store and the iOS app store is the first organic result. Bing could buy and ad and show up near the top as well, and so can Google or Verizon or Amazon...
Re: (Score:2)
Person A sees that Google Maps is top and assumes they're better than company B, as you would when looking at a link in the #1 spot.
Do people actually do that, especially when it is visually distinctive if I remember correctly.
Re: (Score:1)
Viva Europa (Score:1)
Give us your Geld, Amerika, or we'll gas ihre Juden. Verstanden, ja?
All the EU wants is a continuous flow of money (Score:1, Insightful)
They will keep setting demands that are dammed if you do, damned if you don't. Then they will shift the goalposts. Google is screwed. The EU is butthurt that no European based tech company has anything even close to a viable competing product. Their old blue chip technology company, Nokia is in ruins. The EU in retribution wants a continuous supply of money from Google into their coffers. Its trade protectionism, pure and simple.
Re:All the EU wants is a continuous flow of money (Score:4, Insightful)
This stuff goes both ways. New York State has become notorious for trumping up charges against financial companies and draining mind-boggling sums of money directly into their own accounts. Governments are waking up to the fact that they've passed so many vague laws that basically any company can be "investigated" for breaching them, and given those governments are all heavily in debt and trying to cut back spending the temptation to go whack some foreign company and extract money from it is overwhelming. Compared to taxing their own citizens this seems like free money, plus they get to tell themselves and others that they're fighting the good fight against the evil corporations.
When you dig into the details, that's when this story unravels. But most people never do.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah a court case that costs millions to bring, drags on for at least five years and may end up with the corporation winning and the government winding up with the legal bill is the best way to bring in revenue [/sarcasm].
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah a court case that costs millions to bring, drags on for at least five years and may end up with the corporation winning and the government winding up with the legal bill is the best way to bring in revenue [/sarcasm].
When the fines can reach BILLIONS, it means a 100x profit even if it cost the state 10 million, which means if they win 2 out of 100 times, the state nets profit from it, all the while giving work to do for a whole bunch of people.
Yes, it is a great way to bring in revenue, as long as you pick some big rich company that did not hire too many people locally -- thus foreign companies with local presence but not too tied into local business network is the best.
So you see the US investigating and fining foreign
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes the EU only picks on large foreign corporations: http://ec.europa.eu/competitio... [europa.eu].
Re: (Score:3)
The people deciding to bring the suit get paid either way. In fact, the existence of the suit is more "work" which therefore justifies a larger budget for their department (whether they win or lose).
The only way to fix it would be for the people in charge of the budget to withhold funding for frivolous lawsuits, but A) they don't really care anyway, B) separation of powers means they might not have the authority to decide which lawsuits are frivolous, and C) if they cut the prosecutors' budget they'd look "
Re: (Score:2)
These things rarely if ever go to court. Sometimes there's simply no relevance because the regulators have the power to fine companies without winning a court case, and sometimes (like with NY DFS) the laws involved have such insanely high criminal penalties attached - like 20 year jail sentences - you'd have to be crazy to roll the dice instead of just paying up.
Re: (Score:1)
EU is not a country. Nokia is not a EU company, it's a company in Finland. Finland is a EU member. Nokias taxes went to Finland, not EU. Nokia had nothing to do with searches and ads, so how is that a competing product? Also, that money from google is peanuts to the whole EU cash flow.
Free markets demand money flow! (Score:1)
If the money isn't flowing, then the market isn't free. Any private entreprise, be it Google are whoever, that diverts money to itself is anti-free market.
Makes sense! I can't recall Google... (Score:1)
...ever offering up better search results that didn't include Google results.
The EU wants to own a piece of Google (Score:2, Insightful)
The EU's business model approach is a LOT like that of Tony Soprano. And they will not go away until the EU owns a large minority stake in Google.
get your priorities straight... (Score:1)
If only they would put the bank tellers to the same scrutiny...