The EU vs Google

[98elise]

KFC said:

Foliage said:

No its not.

Are you in the camp of 98elise then.... as long as you get everything free as a consumer you don't care who gets trampled on in the process?

From my point of view Google are not a Monopoly, you have to actively choose to use it. I choose to use it as it tends to give me me the results I want when I search. It's been doing this since the day I started using it....for free.

As I choose to use it I can't complain about what it shown in the results. If it wasn't delivering then I would use something else.

[TeamD]

greygoose said:

Indeed, similarly people struggling to see the problem with monopolies.....

Whilst reading PH on their iphones

[andy_s]

Can't see the problem, not that bothered either, they provide a good service and you know that any site you go on is collecting data, cookie fed ads (here...) anyway. They are a monopoly because they are the best search engine (most people use it) not because no one else can do it. If some people are dense enough not to scroll down 2 inches on their smart phone then toughski stski, it doesn't bother those that are a bit more normal and know this anyway.

2 billion, for what? I'd tell 'em to feck off and send some tanks if they're serious.

The EU, protecting ourselves from ourselves, as long as they can make a buck. Shysters.

Edited by andy_s on Tuesday 27th June 21:44

[Murph7355]

Is this the latest wheeze from the EU to replace our fees?

[TonyToniTone]

TeamD said:

Whilst reading PH on their iphones

That doesn't make any sense, do one of the above have a monopoly?

[anonymous-user]

http://www.thesearchenginelist.com/

How is Google a monopoly?

[55palfers]

jsf said:

http://www.thesearchenginelist.com/

How is Google a monopoly?

And the name that cropped up most frequently on that list was...?

[mickytruelove]

55palfers said:

And the name that cropped up most frequently on that list was...?

because they work the best?

Im also one struggling to understand what the fuss is about. A person chooses to go to google.com and use their search. Money supermarket or compare the meerkat do not show prices for every insurance company.

I see more of a problem with microsoft constantly trying to force me to use Bing. No one forces you to use google.

[TeamD]

TonyToniTone said:

TeamD said:

Whilst reading PH on their iphones

That doesn't make any sense, do one of the above have a monopoly?

Huh? One of which above?

[paulrockliffe]

greygoose said:

Indeed, similarly people struggling to see the problem with monopolies.....

Some monopolies are bad, some are good, it's tricky balance. A monopoly is bad where it leads to higher costs because you can't get the thing anywhere else and you have to have it. The EU position is that it's also bad if you don't have to have it because in a competitive market you could have it cheaper. I can understand that point to an extent, but I think you have to pay more attention to the wider economy around the activity and the consumer experience, which I think is where the EU are failing their citizens with the current approach.

I gave the example earlier of the Sky TV monopoly on TV rights that was ended; in that case the consumer went from being able to pay £30 a month to one service to watch all the games, to having to pay £40 a month to two services. Then the two services competed with each other for the rights packages and pushed cost to the consumer up. It's now vastly more expensive if you want to watch all the football and you have to jump through hoops to get both services on one viewing box.

The Google 'monopoly' is slightly different in that the service and all of the value are created by Google for Google, it makes no sense that for Google to be able to sell their stuff on their own platform they also have to let other companies use the platform or treat those as equivalents. So long as the advertising isn't misleading, then there is no issue in my mind. Google Shopping isn't a price-comparison service that fakes the results to get you to buy from Google, it's simply serving a list of things Google would like to sell you that they think you might be interested in based on your immediate search and the data they hold about you.

As a consumer I have no problem with that being the service Google offer up and I'm perfectly used to going to multiple vendors to find the best product to meet my needs as that's how retail works in the real world. I don't expect Debenhams to tell me that BHS are selling something similar for £10 less anymore than I expect Google to not put their interests to the fore when I'm using their services. All perfectly normal.

The most succinct comment I read on this was that these sorts of fines explain why there are no EU tech giants.

[hyphen]

paulrockliffe said:

Some monopolies are bad, some are good, it's tricky balance. A monopoly is bad where it leads to higher costs because you can't get the thing anywhere else and you have to have it.

Google is tricky because it appears to be free to you the consumer. But it isn't.

Facebook and Google dominating means that they can command more for advertising, the more power they get, the more they charge advertisers. And that cost comes out of how much the consumer later pays for the product.

So it will make things more expensive for you, just indirectly. So when other price comparison companies complained to the EU, it was for our good, as the more choice advertisers have the less they will pay, Google Shopping dominating will mean you pay more for everything.

paulrockliffe said:

The most succinct comment I read on this was that these sorts of fines explain why there are no EU tech giants.

Nothing to do with it. There are many reasons for EU not having such high profile tech giants, and one of them is that google and their ilk buy up any remotely promising competitor at a very early stage.

Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 28th June 08:37

[Oceanic]

To me, this is like going into a public library and complaining about the wallpaper.

[Derek Smith]

paulrockliffe said:

Some monopolies are bad, some are good, it's tricky balance. A monopoly is bad where it leads to higher costs because you can't get the thing anywhere else and you have to have it. The EU position is that it's also bad if you don't have to have it because in a competitive market you could have it cheaper. I can understand that point to an extent, but I think you have to pay more attention to the wider economy around the activity and the consumer experience, which I think is where the EU are failing their citizens with the current approach.

I gave the example earlier of the Sky TV monopoly on TV rights that was ended; in that case the consumer went from being able to pay £30 a month to one service to watch all the games, to having to pay £40 a month to two services. Then the two services competed with each other for the rights packages and pushed cost to the consumer up. It's now vastly more expensive if you want to watch all the football and you have to jump through hoops to get both services on one viewing box.

The Google 'monopoly' is slightly different in that the service and all of the value are created by Google for Google, it makes no sense that for Google to be able to sell their stuff on their own platform they also have to let other companies use the platform or treat those as equivalents. So long as the advertising isn't misleading, then there is no issue in my mind. Google Shopping isn't a price-comparison service that fakes the results to get you to buy from Google, it's simply serving a list of things Google would like to sell you that they think you might be interested in based on your immediate search and the data they hold about you.

As a consumer I have no problem with that being the service Google offer up and I'm perfectly used to going to multiple vendors to find the best product to meet my needs as that's how retail works in the real world. I don't expect Debenhams to tell me that BHS are selling something similar for £10 less anymore than I expect Google to not put their interests to the fore when I'm using their services. All perfectly normal.

The most succinct comment I read on this was that these sorts of fines explain why there are no EU tech giants.

All monopolies are bad. They stifle innovation and choice.

You say 'as a consumer', but most consumers are suffering. The top search result gets 35% of the hits. The first page gets 95%. Google controls where websites end up. It puts its own choices at the top. Trip Adviser has a considerably greater number of reviews but search for hotels and you'll get the Google+ reviews. Not even in the same league, but at the top.

Your analogy of high street shops is faulty. If BHS set up a price comparison shop where the implicit suggestion was that you would be given the best information, then M&S would have grounds for complaint if customers had to go to the tenth floor to retrieve them.

The 'smoking gun' is apparent to anyone who wants to look for it. Do a search. It is there on your screen.

Others have criticised the EU for daring to attack an IT company. The US had an enquiry into Google and decided not to proceed with it. Does anyone believe that had it been a non-US company the decision would have been the same?

I welcome the EU's stance on MS, Apple and now Alphabet. Hopefully the other enquiries into Alphabet will be as thorough and if they find evidence to proceed against them, they have the bottle to do so.

Let's put one thing to bed. In the EU Google has all but 95% of searches. That, for the purposes of anti-trust legislation, falls well within the definition of a monopoly.

[b2hbm]

Derek Smith said:

(snipped quote)
Let's put one thing to bed. In the EU Google has all but 95% of searches. That, for the purposes of anti-trust legislation, falls well within the definition of a monopoly.

All well and good but..... the consumers have given Google that market position. Other search engines are available as has been previously shown in this thread, but on your figures it would appear that the vast majority of people use Google. There's a reason for that, it's simple, fast and efficient. People like it.

I'll concede that Google, as with any business, will keep a look out for competitors and either buy or push them out of the market. But it's still an open global market and with competitors such as Bing it's difficult to argue that they have a monopoly which has been created solely by their business practices. Unless of course you decide that being "the best" or "most popular" is an unscrupulous practice.

I don't actually care if Google prejudices any shopping search results in their favour, in fact I'm cynical enough to expect them to do that. I'm grown up and can work out for myself if I want to buy something or not, where I want to buy it from and if I'm happy with the price.

So let's get down to the real truth; this latest wheeze is nothing more than an attempt to tax Google. I've no problem with taxing Google, Amazon or any of the massive internet names but at least be honest about it. Will the money be returned to those consumers who are being "duped" ? No, of course not. It'll go into the EU pot and frittered away as usual.

[hyphen]

b2hbm said:

I don't actually care if Google prejudices any shopping search results in their favour, in fact I'm cynical enough to expect them to do that. I'm grown up and can work out for myself if I want to buy something or not, where I want to buy it from and if I'm happy with the price.

So Google should have 2 sites?

One for 'grown ups that can work things out for themselves' and the other for under 18's, the elderly, people with low IQ's, learning difficulties, uneducated and so on.

[Ascayman]

Google isn't a monopoly. No one has to use them. They are just simply the best (most popular) at what they do.

Surely there are more important things to worry about..

[Pesty]

hyphen said:

So Google should have 2 sites?

One for 'grown ups that can work things out for themselves' and the other for under 18's, the elderly, people with low IQ's, learning difficulties, uneducated and so on.

Do you have evidence to suggest that a this affects them and b they would be done any other way.

[hyphen]

Pesty said:

Do you have evidence to suggest that a this affects them and b they would be done any other way.

Point A - It is proven that whatever is most prominently displayed on the 1st page of the search will get nearly all the clicks- this is why advertisers pay Google.

Point B - not sure what you mean. If there is a fair algorithm delivering search results, then the 'best' price comparison sites will come out the top. Google instead of fairly competing, just stuck their own shopping automatically to the top in a big box.

[anonymous-user]

Ascayman said:

Google isn't a monopoly. No one has to use them. They are just simply the best (most popular) at what they do.

Surely there are more important things to worry about..

Under EU rules it's abuse of a dominant position and can occur in multiple ways - in this case google was demoting search results that were not from it's own price comparison/shopper program. As price comparison services are driven by traffic, this is an excellent way to kill off any competition given their dominant position in search. As far as I know this was not a case of dropping from the top 3 to the top 10, but often to several pages back and done based on the google search algorithm that was not applied to the google product.

A previous employer of mine had a dominant position in a number of product areas and had to be much more circumspect in it's dealings than smaller competitors would.

[paulrockliffe]

wsurfa said:

Under EU rules it's abuse of a dominant position and can occur in multiple ways - in this case google was demoting search results that were not from it's own price comparison/shopper program. As price comparison services are driven by traffic, this is an excellent way to kill off any competition given their dominant position in search. As far as I know this was not a case of dropping from the top 3 to the top 10, but often to several pages back and done based on the google search algorithm that was not applied to the google product.

A previous employer of mine had a dominant position in a number of product areas and had to be much more circumspect in it's dealings than smaller competitors would.

This wasn't anything to do with search results, it was to do with the placement of adverts in the Google Shopping part. The part that is clearly advertisement. You still get the 'right' search results below, well below the ones marked as promoted, which are free for anyone to buy. What Google is doing is only letting Google advertise on one bit of their own website. It's laughable that this isn't allowed in the EU.

The definition of Monopoly here is so narrow to be ridiculous, it's akin to saying Apple have a monopoly on selling the iPhone. Of course they do, they own it. Google don't have a monopoly on advertisements, not even when you restrict it to online only either.