Google Gets Record $2.7 Billion EU Fine for Skewing Searches

Somebody please explain what Google is actually doing wrong. When I use Google, I am doing so because I want the best, fastest and most convenient method of searching the internet. Why do I care about smaller shopping search services. The point of using google is to get the immediate results, not give me another site to go searching on... Am I missing something here?
 
heatlesssun said:
Of course. But there's a lot of new stuff out there as well that's not available for other desktop platforms especially in the area of gaming.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but gaming isn't where MS makes their money. Business is. My company has software that literally won't run on 10. Not "OMG WINDOWS 10 BLOWS SO I'M USING 7" won't run on 10...I mean it literally will not open/respond/whatever.

If MS can't make a product that legacy will work on (for one reason or another...most of which are legit reasons) why do you think a 3rd party would be able to?
 
OEM said:
Yeah, but gaming isn't where MS makes their money. Business is. My company has software that literally won't run on 10. Not "OMG WINDOWS 10 BLOWS SO I'M USING 7" won't run on 10...I mean it literally will not open/respond/whatever.

If MS can't make a product that legacy will work on (for one reason or another...most of which are legit reasons) why do you think a 3rd party would be able to?
Click to expand...

It's not always about making money, it's about mindshare and keeping PC gaming mindshare on Windows I think is something Microsoft has spent far more energy on than in many years. As for something not running on Windows 10 that ran on prior versions as in doesn't open, that's pretty rare. Sure it happens but if the developer is around and it can't be fixed, that seems very odd unless he's using some interesting win32 calls or something that probably wasn't the best way to go about it in the first place.
 
The EU is such a parasitical organization. All bureaucracy is to one degree or another, but the EU is particularly shameless about it.
 
heatlesssun said:
You can still be a monopoly even with alternatives and competition and use that power to your advantage. The problem with free markets is that they inherently want to not be free. Free markets eventually screw themselves up without any interference. That doesn't necessarily make them evil but ultimately the desire to make more and more money creates problems.
Click to expand...

There is zero proof here of what you suggest. It MIGHT be different if it was Microsoft not allowing other browsers to be used on their operating system, and then monopolizing what appears on it's search engine. In that instance, you start to easily see people being steered away from the freedom to choose. We're not even remotely close to something like that. This whole thing is a load of bullshit. And I say that as somebody with no dog in this hunt. I don't give a shit about google or anybody else. Fuck em all.
 
heatlesssun said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fine. Sounds like an opportunity for a competing search engine to start showing they don't do that. If it's important enough to consumers, they will switch. I'm not some corporate apologist, but in some cases, it really is in the best interest for the market to decide.
 
heatlesssun said:
Most people weren't doing this in the 90s. Indeed when Microsoft started giving away IE while Netscape cost money, that raised a lot of eyebrows, far more relatively speaking than the free Windows 10 upgrade at the time. But that actually was a good thing in the end.
Click to expand...

And history has shown that was the incorrect move. Who pays for an internet browser now? Nobody, that's who. And it was foolhardy of Netscape to think it could continue with that business model for long, regardless of what Microsoft did.
 
heatlesssun said:
There's plenty of proof of what I am saying. There's not a large company that I know of that's not let greed run amok at some point or time.
Click to expand...

That's not proof. That's you spewing shit out of your backside. Well duh, companies can be greedy. I fucking hate corporations and their greed. That doesn't mean you can't be objective about a specific instance. You're literally using the logic, that because companies can be greedy, and greed is bad, then this example is illegal. Is it greedy? Yes. Is it bad? Yeah probably. But that's not the same as it should be illegal. There is a gazillion other search engines out there. Google does NOT have a monopoly because they don't restrict freedom to choose another search engine. How is this hard to understand? You might as well fine Apple for not having the Android app store on iOS and vice versa. IT'S ANTI-COMPETITIVE!!
 
percydaman said:
And history has shown that was the incorrect move. Who pays for an internet browser now? Nobody, that's who. And it was foolhardy of Netscape to think it could continue with that business model for long, regardless of what Microsoft did.
Click to expand...

I agree, however in the 90s it was seen by many an attempt to take over an emerging market buy leveraging its operating system. And that was certainly the idea Microsoft had in mind. Sometimes corporate and consumers do align. In this case Microsoft was going the right thing but for the wrong reason.
 
heatlesssun said:
I agree, however in the 90s it was seen by many an attempt to take over an emerging market buy leveraging its operating system. And that was certainly the idea Microsoft had in mind. Sometimes corporate and consumers do align. In this case Microsoft was going the right thing but for the wrong reason.
Click to expand...

If MS had underhandedly made it difficult to download and use Netscape, or made it not work well, or some other shit, it would be a different story. But I don't recall ever hearing those things happened. It was absolutely asinine that MS would be fined for including a web browser in its OS.
 
percydaman said:
If MS had underhandedly made it difficult to download and use Netscape, or made it not work well, or some other shit, it would be a different story. But I don't recall ever hearing those things happened. It was absolutely asinine that MS would be fined for including a web browser in its OS.
Click to expand...

There have plenty of stories about how Microsoft sabotaged 3rd party software over the years and those continue today. Like the thread about the AV that's current in this forum.
 
heatlesssun said:
The historical record of corporate malfeasance because of pure greed is beyond well documented. If you ignore it that's fine. But here's a Top 10 list just to get started: http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-great-moments-corporate-malfeasance.htm
Click to expand...

Dude. It doesn't matter! I'm well aware of corporate greed. You don't have to tell me. I hate corporations with a passion. I trust them less then the actual government. I love to see corporations get bent over. I really do. But it has to be deserved. Did you read what I wrote? It's never been easier to use a different search engine. You don't even need to download and install anything! There is NOTHING stopping a consumer from using a competing search engine. This should be a PR nightmare for Google. But that's not the same thing as fining them billions of fucking dollars. That's just absurd. We're just going to have to agree to disagree I suppose.
 
heatlesssun said:
There have plenty of stories about how Microsoft sabotaged 3rd party software over the years and those continue today. Like the thread about the AV that's current in this forum.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm not saying MS are saints. If they are found to have done that stuff, they should be punished. But I don't remember any of that happening with Netscape. Certainly not any that was proven. That said, it's been an awful long time. I could just be misremembering. And I'm too lazy to research it at the present.
 
percydaman said:
Dude. It doesn't matter! I'm well aware of corporate greed. You don't have to tell me. I hate corporations with a passion. I trust them less then the actual government. I love to see corporations get bent over. I really do. But it has to be deserved. Did you read what I wrote? It's never been easier to use a different search engine. You don't even need to download and install anything! There is NOTHING stopping a consumer from using a competing search engine. This should be a PR nightmare for Google. But that's not the same thing as fining them billions of fucking dollars. That's just absurd. We're just going to have to agree to disagree I suppose.
Click to expand...

Alternatives don't necessarily factor into this. The basic question in anti-trust cases is did a company knowingly use its market position to gain leverage it couldn't have otherwise? Was it able to get insanely good pricing or sweet contract deals from vendors or was it able to coerce its partners into deals that otherwise they wouldn't have done because of fear of being cut off a vital resource for business.

And regardless of the alternatives, there is world economy tied to Google's search engine. No other engine comes close to how much influence it has on global economics especially as ever more goods and services are sold online. In any case the fine is nothing to Google. They'd pay it and move own if that was all there was to this.
 
This is clearly just a money grab. There are plenty of Google alternatives if customer's don't like it. This is the experience customers want or else they wouldn't be using the service.

I know it will never happen because Google makes way too much money in the EU, but I would love to just hear them say, "We are going to appeal and further unfair persecution by the EU may necessitate the closing all EU branches and data centers. Enjoy the unemployment, Bing, and your iPhones if that's what you think your citizens really want."
 
Google could probably buy the EU...lock stock and barrel , but then why would one , that's right , defunct , bankrupt , etc etc etc
 
Has the UK and Poland left the EU yet or is that next year?


If I was Google, I'd just keep sending "checks in the mail" until the EU doesn't even matter, or maybe it already doesn't?
 
Tiberian said:
I can see it now, a few dozen semis pull up in front of the EU HQ or whatever the fuck they use as a "command center" and then has a bunch of people dressed up in green Android clean room suits unload the $2.7 billion fine in pennies on the front lawn of the facility.

Then as the final slap one of them has to walk inside and ask for a receipt.
Click to expand...

If i were google, id pay the fine then disable google services the EU for a month since they cant afford to run them now.

Governments need to learn that companies like Google are providing a relatively free service with something like search, they arent their servants.

Except for google apps users of course, google never made the guarantee that search results were unbiased or weighted by advertising...
 
Although i don't understand what Google has done wrong (I get results for amazon and eBay when I search for things), but this is just a slap on the wrist and will have no material impact on the company (assuming they don't appeal).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top