Google Gets Record $2.7 Billion EU Fine for Skewing Searches

This is what I always have an issue with the government shouldn't sue a company period. They can run fines too but this issue is the government is just as corrupt as the company. Someone is filling their coffers by placing such fines. (im not defending the company being money grabbing greedy sink holes) but placing these fines on large companies "because they can afford it" isn't the answer. The real answer is block all traffic to the site until they conform. There are other choices out there. It would be more effective if the service was gone for a day or two or even a month. You would gather more attention that way than just fining. You would get backlash but hell you get it anyway so at this point who cares? By assessing fines you are just trying to grab cash that doesn't belong to anyone by right anyway.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Google's search engine is #1 because of popularity. It's not because they engaged in anti-competitive practices (like microsoft).
Click to expand...

Microsoft was never charged with being a monopoly, the issues all steamed from using its market dominance to gain leverage elsewhere. There's nothing inherently illegal about being a monopoly outside of certain industries like banking that prohibit things like having too large a percentage of deposits.
 
Google search is just the tool abused for another Google product. And that's the main problem of the case.

When you use Google search and search for an item. Google Shopping shows on page 1. However the Amazon link is shown on page 4.

So its not really about putting Google Shopping first. Its about hiding the competition so far away you wont even notice.
 
SomeoneElse said:
This is i always have an issue. The government shouldn't sue a company period.
Click to expand...

That's impractical at best because what happens when a company does really screw up, like dumping coal ash in your drinking water? And say that company provides your electricity. Indeed even if an individual or group of individuals were to sue on their own and they'd still need the force of government to receive their damages. Others the company would just tell them to fuck off.
 
Gotta love it when the government tells an internet search company, who created the search algorithm, that it's biased.... This is the stupid of the week so far (although I'm sure trump is asking someone to hold his beer).

It's not like people are forced to use google. They created a search engine that worked better than everyone elses, now people are crying about the results. Don't like it? Go use bing/yahoo/whatever. They are providing a free service, gotta recover costs somehow.


They should go after amazon next. They have the amazon marketplace for 3rd party retailers, but they always put amazon products first in the searches. OMG, the horror!!!! How could they block competition like that on their own site!!!!
 
Biznatch said:
Gotta love it when the government tells an internet search company, who created the search algorithm, that it's biased.... This is the stupid of the week so far (although I'm sure trump is asking someone to hold his beer).

It's not like people are forced to use google. They created a search engine that worked better than everyone elses, now people are crying about the results. Don't like it? Go use bing/yahoo/whatever. They are providing a free service, gotta recover costs somehow.
Click to expand...

There are many things you are not forced to either in your life. But that you like being regulated. Civilization is based on laws and regulation.
 
Shintai said:
Google search is just the tool abused for another Google product. And that's the main problem of the case.

When you use Google search and search for an item. Google Shopping shows on page 1. However the Amazon link is shown on page 4.

So its not really about putting Google Shopping first. Its about hiding the competition so far away you wont even notice.
Click to expand...
But so what?
Why does google have to modify it's search engine to show competitors at all?
Is someone prevented in any case from going directly to amazon and doing a search on there?
Do google shopping results show up on amazon searches?
 
Hypergreatthing said:
But so what?
Why does google have to modify it's search engine to show competitors at all?
Is someone prevented in any case from going directly to amazon and doing a search on there?
Do google shopping results show up on amazon searches?
Click to expand...

If Google didn't modify its search to begin with there wouldn't be any problem. The problem is they modify the search to penalize other companies like Amazon.

Because its the law. Same reason there is more browsers in the world than IE and Edge today.

When you first got a dominant position in the information and/or platform control, you control it all. Just look at Apple and their business model. And Google even pays Apple a billion a year to be there for the searches.

Also try ask smaller businesses how it is to deal with Google. Pay or vanish. But that's in case against Google. This one was just the first of 3.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Why does google have to modify it's search engine to show competitors at all?
Click to expand...

To protect consumers. Google than use it's search engine to sway people to buy only the products and services it wants people to by via a generic web search engine. That's not the at all the same this as a search of a stores own goods and services.
 
Shintai said:
Because its the law. Same reason there is more browsers in the world than IE and Edge today.

When you first got a dominant position in the information and/or platform control, you control it all. Just look at Apple and their business model.
Click to expand...

The law didnt make Chrome, Opera, Firefox etc. exist. Also chrome is now the #1 browser. It didnt get there because of the government, it got there because people like and use it more than the others.
 
Shintai said:
Because its the law. Same reason there is more browsers in the world than IE and Edge today.

When you first got a dominant position in the information and/or platform control, you control it all. Just look at Apple and their business model.
Click to expand...
The first web browser was mozilla. Why would there only be IE and Edge today?

Apple's business model blows. What kind of comparison is that?

Which law allows EU to dictate how google runs it's business?
 
///AMG said:
The law didnt make Chrome, Opera, Firefox etc. exist. Also chrome is now the #1 browser. It didnt get there because of the government, it got there because people like and use it more than the others.
Click to expand...

Chrome would be nowhere today if MS wasn't fined and had to change behavior.
 
Shintai said:
Chrome would be nowhere today if MS wasn't fined and had to change behavior.
Click to expand...

Thats not even close to true. For most of the world outside of the EU you have to physically go and take a few extra steps to download and install chrome. The fact that people did this means they preferred chrome for many different reasons. Microsoft never stopped you from using others, it just prepackaged IE and Edge.
 
///AMG said:
The law didnt make Chrome, Opera, Firefox etc. exist. Also chrome is now the #1 browser. It didnt get there because of the government, it got there because people like and use it more than the others.
Click to expand...

There's an argument to be made that government had a lot to do with these browsers because of the trouble Microsoft got in over IE and the force governments used to making Microsoft offer alternative browsers. I'm not saying that's the only reason but you can bet Google was more than happy to have this happen to Microsoft.
 
I don't get why Google search results need to be impartial. Their whole business is geared towards gathering information on people and sending them to a place where Google can make money off them. Google is a business and runs it as such, it makes sense for them to favor their own results. This is just a case of Google getting burned because people using Google are too stupid to figure out the results aren't always going to be fair.
 
Shintai said:
There are many things you are not forced to either in your life. But that you like being regulated. Civilization is based on laws and regulation.
Click to expand...

No, laws and regulations are to protect consumers from corporations effing them. Not to protect consumers from their own stupidity (although we sure are passing a lot of that garbage in our current nanny state) because they can't be bothered to use another search engine.
 
///AMG said:
Thats not even close to true. For most of the world outside of the EU you have to physically go and take a few extra steps to download and install chrome. The fact that people did this means they preferred chrome for many different reasons. Microsoft never stopped you from using others, it just prepackaged IE and Edge.
Click to expand...

The Microsoft anti-trust issues with IE started a lot of retail installs of alternative browsers. The notion that Microsoft's anti-trust issue with IE in no way had effect on the current situation is difficult to prove. It certainly slowed Microsoft down a lot and hamstrung them with a ton of legal issues and concerns they wouldn't have had otherwise.
 
Biznatch said:
No, laws and regulations are to protect consumers from corporations effing them. Not to protect consumers from their own stupidity (although we sure are passing a lot of that garbage in our current nanny state) because they can't be bothered to use another search engine.
Click to expand...

Remember deregulating the finance sector? Ye, the world still suffer from that one.
 
Shintai said:
Because MS abused its position if you already forgotten than.



Apple controls top to bottom.



The Antitrust law.
Click to expand...
Google's search engine isn't a monopoly. The antitrust law doesn't apply to them.

MS abused their position in different ways. If you're talking about because windows came installed with IE, that's laughable. Even today windows comes installed with IE (non EU modified versions) and anyone can just install another browser of their choosing.

Apple has a walled market approach to controlling everything. Does that make them a monopoly?
 
Biznatch said:
No, laws and regulations are to protect consumers from corporations effing them. Not to protect consumers from their own stupidity (although we sure are passing a lot of that garbage in our current nanny state) because they can't be bothered to use another search engine.
Click to expand...

Who takes other search engines seriously? If you use Bing you'd be considered another kind of fool by some. Google is a monopoly in search, period. Not that they did anything wrong to get there but using that position to advantage yourself in other areas, it's just classic anti-trust.
 
heatlesssun said:
The Microsoft anti-trust issues with IE started a lot of retail installs of alternative browsers. The notion that Microsoft's anti-trust issue with IE in no way had effect on the current situation is difficult to prove. It certainly slowed Microsoft down a lot and hamstrung them with a ton of legal issues and concerns they wouldn't have had otherwise.
Click to expand...

heatlesssun said:
There's an argument to be made that government had a lot to do with these browsers because of the trouble Microsoft got in over IE and the force governments used to making Microsoft offer alternative browsers. I'm not saying that's the only reason but you can bet Google was more than happy to have this happen to Microsoft.
Click to expand...

But they only did it in the EU as far as I know. The EU isnt the majority of the market, Firefox and Chrome gained marketshare way before the 2013 ruling and enforcement shortly after. Also looking at http://gs.statcounter.com Chrome passed IE in Europe long before the 2013 ruling so neither yours or Shintai's argument make any sense, or have factual basis behind it.
 
///AMG said:
But they only did it in the EU as far as I know. The EU isnt the majority of the market, Firefox and Chrome gained marketshare way before the 2013 ruling and enforcement shortly after. Also looking at http://gs.statcounter.com Chrome passed IE in Europe long before the 2013 ruling so neither yours or Shintai's argument make any sense, or have factual basis behind it.
Click to expand...

But Microsoft's anti-trust issues were going on well before 2013. It had an effect without question.
 
///AMG said:
But they only did it in the EU as far as I know. The EU isnt the majority of the market, Firefox and Chrome gained marketshare way before the 2013 ruling and enforcement shortly after. Also looking at http://gs.statcounter.com Chrome passed IE in Europe long before the 2013 ruling so neither yours or Shintai's argument make any sense, or have factual basis behind it.
Click to expand...

The case started long before 2013.

Actually as long back as 1998 for the US with final in 2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

Just as this case about Google started in 2011.
 
heatlesssun said:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/ Yeah, Google search is a monopoly.
Click to expand...
Lets see what a monopoly is:
the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
"his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs"

Does google have exclusive possession or control of a service?
So bing, yahoo, duckduckgo, etc don't exist? Or is it convenient to redefine what a monopoly means and say anything that has a market share of over 80%?
 
Shintai said:
Remember deregulating the finance sector? Ye, the world still suffer from that one.
Click to expand...

That is not a search engine and actually has a dramatic affect on pretty much everything, people and corporations... Not even close to a relevant example to this BS money grab.
 
Shintai said:
The case started long before 2013.

Actually as long back as 2001 for the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

Just as this case about Google started in 2011.
Click to expand...

You and heatless are so misinformed. Just because a case was going on doesnt mean ANYTHING. No ruling was made, no enforcement was done etc. NO ONE MADE microsoft do anything before the ruling. You think people will go out of their way to download and install Chrome and Firefox if they werent better or preferred in some way? The government didnt provide any incentive for people to take the extra steps before the ruling to download and isntall the alternatives. People just did it because they preferred them not because the government did anything. Did you start using the alternatives because of the case? Probably not.
 
Biznatch said:
That is not a search engine and actually has a dramatic affect on pretty much everything, people and corporations... Not even close to a relevant example to this BS money grab.
Click to expand...

The little search engine is worth 644B$ with 172B$ in cash. It got a world wide impact.
 
heatlesssun said:
Who takes other search engines seriously? If you use Bing you'd be considered another kind of fool by some. Google is a monopoly in search, period. Not that they did anything wrong to get there but using that position to advantage yourself in other areas, it's just classic anti-trust.
Click to expand...

So it's do what you want until you are too big, then try and get a piece of that pie?.... They got this large because of their search algorithm, why should a government step and tell them how it should work?

I agree with you on quite a few things, but this isn't one of them. There are things government should step in and regulate. A search engine isn't one of them, and it's only happening because the EU is eye-ing all that money trying to figure out ways to get some of it. Not that our US gov is any better....
 
///AMG said:
You and heatless are so misinformed. Just because a case was going on doesnt mean ANYTHING. No ruling was made, no enforcement was done etc. NO ONE MADE microsoft do anything before the ruling. You think people will go out of their way to download and install Chrome and Firefox if they werent better or preferred in some way? The government didnt provide any incentive for people to take the extra steps before the ruling to download and isntall the alternatives. People just did it because they preferred them not because the government did anything. Did you start using the alternatives because of the case? Probably not.
Click to expand...

The case that ended in 2001 by the US had a big impact. Funny enough the same year IE peaked and went downhill since.

And yes, companies start to behave quite differently as soon as investigations begins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top