The EU vs Google
Discussion
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.
Indeed. According to the FT, the leading competitor to one of Google's products was on page 4. That's nowhere.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.
35% of clicks to the result in first place, 95% to those on the first page. 1% to the top result on page two.
This is not a case of Google providing a service. Just the opposite. One searches to find the most appropriate result for the criteria. This is not what Google Search does.
b2hbm said:
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.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.
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.
You suggest you are grown up. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Perhaps that you don't mind going to page 4 of the search results to look for the best price.
Google abused its monopolistic position; systematically did so according to the EU. It's got nothing to do with being the best. Indeed, many suggest that it is not, and not giving accurate results tends to support this point of view. It restricts innovation, that's something that affects us all, old, young and grown up.
If you were to argue that the situation has changed over the 8 or 9 years that Google has been abusing its position, then I would say there are strong arguments that this is so. But that's not what this case is about. Companies, some of them sizeable, which have been treated unfairly by Google Search will probably sue, but for what has happened in the past.
What this case does is send a signal to big international companies that they should abide by the rules and regulations of any country it wants to make money from. Seems sensible to me. If they don't like it they can withdraw their services, but they won't. They are making too much money, from me and you, for that.
Derek Smith said:
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.
Indeed. According to the FT, the leading competitor to one of Google's products was on page 4. That's nowhere.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.
35% of clicks to the result in first place, 95% to those on the first page. 1% to the top result on page two.
This is not a case of Google providing a service. Just the opposite. One searches to find the most appropriate result for the criteria. This is not what Google Search does.
"2 When a consumer searches for a product in Google, its own shopping links were displayed at the top of the results. Rival services were further down the page, or on following pages"
Which, obviously, is exactly what you'd expect. If you search for headphones (as per FT example), you get results for... wait for it... headphone manufacturers!, headphone reviews!, and places that sell headphones!
What you don't get, is another price comparison website's results for headphones. Why the f
k would you?! You've told Google you're looking for headphones, and headphones you shall receive. If you tell Google you're looking for a price comparison website, that's what you'll receive.Why are rival services on page 4? Because you've not asked for rival services. You've asked for headphones!
It makes no sense at all to me.
The case is around google shopping, not normal google. When you use Google shopping you see predominately results form people that have paid to sell their stuff through Google Shopping. Which is what you'd expect.
Part of the reason for that is that Google are warranting the trust worthiness of the sellers to some extent, so it protects the customer from fly-by-night scammers as well as making Google money.
Perhaps the distinction could be clearer, but you're not asking Google for the best prices for x y or z, you're going into Google's shop. Where you would expect Google to exert influence over what you buy, just as every other retailer does. Amazon don't list anything from anyone that hasn't paid to be there. Funnily enough, eBay don't do that either.
Part of the reason for that is that Google are warranting the trust worthiness of the sellers to some extent, so it protects the customer from fly-by-night scammers as well as making Google money.
Perhaps the distinction could be clearer, but you're not asking Google for the best prices for x y or z, you're going into Google's shop. Where you would expect Google to exert influence over what you buy, just as every other retailer does. Amazon don't list anything from anyone that hasn't paid to be there. Funnily enough, eBay don't do that either.
amusingduck said:
The FT says
"2 When a consumer searches for a product in Google, its own shopping links were displayed at the top of the results. Rival services were further down the page, or on following pages"
Which, obviously, is exactly what you'd expect. If you search for headphones (as per FT example), you get results for... wait for it... headphone manufacturers!, headphone reviews!, and places that sell headphones!
What you don't get, is another price comparison website's results for headphones. Why the fk would you?! You've told Google you're looking for headphones, and headphones you shall receive. If you tell Google you're looking for a price comparison website, that's what you'll receive.
Why are rival services on page 4? Because you've not asked for rival services. You've asked for headphones!
It makes no sense at all to me.
I'm not sure if you understand anti-trust laws and particularly the abuse of a virtual monopoly. Look at it from that direction rather than Google's."2 When a consumer searches for a product in Google, its own shopping links were displayed at the top of the results. Rival services were further down the page, or on following pages"
Which, obviously, is exactly what you'd expect. If you search for headphones (as per FT example), you get results for... wait for it... headphone manufacturers!, headphone reviews!, and places that sell headphones!
What you don't get, is another price comparison website's results for headphones. Why the f
k would you?! You've told Google you're looking for headphones, and headphones you shall receive. If you tell Google you're looking for a price comparison website, that's what you'll receive.Why are rival services on page 4? Because you've not asked for rival services. You've asked for headphones!
It makes no sense at all to me.
If you want headphones, you will, no doubt, want the selection to be fair.
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure if you understand anti-trust laws and particularly the abuse of a virtual monopoly. Look at it from that direction rather than Google's.
If you want headphones, you will, no doubt, want the selection to be fair.
If I want headphones, I have plenty of choice. If you want headphones, you will, no doubt, want the selection to be fair.
I can type into any search engine "best headphones 2017" - and a list of third party links will be provided for me to click on and read reviews and summaries. I can then search for the model number and again be provided with a whole gamut of sellers of those headphones.
I could go to Amazon.co.uk and type in "headphones" - and I'll only be shown headphones from suppliers that pay Amazon to market their headphone offerings. They won't even downgrade the offerings from sellers that haven't paid Amazon, they're not shown at all...
I could go to Google shopping, and get exactly the same principle as I would from Amazon.co.uk although it actually seems they will give links (downgraded) to third parties who haven't paid Google for advertising...
Whilst Google have a consumer provided dominance of the search engine market, I don't think that could even begin to be said about their shopping service - Amazon is the clear market leader for general online shopping provision surely?
Derek Smith said:
amusingduck said:
The FT says
"2 When a consumer searches for a product in Google, its own shopping links were displayed at the top of the results. Rival services were further down the page, or on following pages"
Which, obviously, is exactly what you'd expect. If you search for headphones (as per FT example), you get results for... wait for it... headphone manufacturers!, headphone reviews!, and places that sell headphones!
What you don't get, is another price comparison website's results for headphones. Why the fk would you?! You've told Google you're looking for headphones, and headphones you shall receive. If you tell Google you're looking for a price comparison website, that's what you'll receive.
Why are rival services on page 4? Because you've not asked for rival services. You've asked for headphones!
It makes no sense at all to me.
I'm not sure if you understand anti-trust laws and particularly the abuse of a virtual monopoly. Look at it from that direction rather than Google's."2 When a consumer searches for a product in Google, its own shopping links were displayed at the top of the results. Rival services were further down the page, or on following pages"
Which, obviously, is exactly what you'd expect. If you search for headphones (as per FT example), you get results for... wait for it... headphone manufacturers!, headphone reviews!, and places that sell headphones!
What you don't get, is another price comparison website's results for headphones. Why the f
k would you?! You've told Google you're looking for headphones, and headphones you shall receive. If you tell Google you're looking for a price comparison website, that's what you'll receive.Why are rival services on page 4? Because you've not asked for rival services. You've asked for headphones!
It makes no sense at all to me.
If you want headphones, you will, no doubt, want the selection to be fair.
If you search for headphones, the first page is currys, argos, whathifi, amazon, sennheiser, john lewis, tesco, and bose. There is no shopping bar, for me at least. You can click Shopping if you wish, and you'll see specific headphones from a variety of retailers.
What is the issue?
It seems to me that the crux is that Google cannot incorporate other areas of its business in its search results. How does that benefit the user?
If you search for the o2 arena, for example, embedded in the search results are Top Stories, Images, and Maps.
How does the end user benefit from segregating these services?
amusingduck said:
In what way is it unfair as-is?
If you search for headphones, the first page is currys, argos, whathifi, amazon, sennheiser, john lewis, tesco, and bose. There is no shopping bar, for me at least. You can click Shopping if you wish, and you'll see specific headphones from a variety of retailers.
What is the issue?
It seems to me that the crux is that Google cannot incorporate other areas of its business in its search results. How does that benefit the user?
If you search for the o2 arena, for example, embedded in the search results are Top Stories, Images, and Maps.
How does the end user benefit from segregating these services?
Your question is loaded. Who said the services would be segregated?If you search for headphones, the first page is currys, argos, whathifi, amazon, sennheiser, john lewis, tesco, and bose. There is no shopping bar, for me at least. You can click Shopping if you wish, and you'll see specific headphones from a variety of retailers.
What is the issue?
It seems to me that the crux is that Google cannot incorporate other areas of its business in its search results. How does that benefit the user?
If you search for the o2 arena, for example, embedded in the search results are Top Stories, Images, and Maps.
How does the end user benefit from segregating these services?
In essence you are asking is if the consumer benefits from a monopoly. The simple answer is that they don't.
We, the consumer, loses choice. I don't want Windows. I want something simple and secure that is easy to use. The monopoly that MS had removed that choice. Want only one browser? Thankfully the attempt at monopolising a position of power to feed the company was blocked and now we have a choice. Edge is quite good, in fact much better than the one we would have had if MS had destroyed all opposition.
I want choice. Lack of choice is bad for me, for everyone.
Derek Smith said:
....
I want choice. Lack of choice is bad for me, for everyone.
And in what way is Google Shopping denying you that? Or even Google's search engine? I want choice. Lack of choice is bad for me, for everyone.
I'd suggest it does the exact opposite. If it didn't, people would stop using it and go to Amazon or Yahoo or Bing or eBay instead.
Derek Smith said:
Your question is loaded. Who said the services would be segregated?
In essence you are asking is if the consumer benefits from a monopoly. The simple answer is that they don't.
We, the consumer, loses choice. I don't want Windows. I want something simple and secure that is easy to use. The monopoly that MS had removed that choice. Want only one browser? Thankfully the attempt at monopolising a position of power to feed the company was blocked and now we have a choice. Edge is quite good, in fact much better than the one we would have had if MS had destroyed all opposition.
I want choice. Lack of choice is bad for me, for everyone.
In essence I am saying that there is a world of difference between a company that has a monopoly on epi-pens, and jacks the price up to $1000/each, and a company that has a monopoly on the free services that it provides, because they simply provide the best free service.In essence you are asking is if the consumer benefits from a monopoly. The simple answer is that they don't.
We, the consumer, loses choice. I don't want Windows. I want something simple and secure that is easy to use. The monopoly that MS had removed that choice. Want only one browser? Thankfully the attempt at monopolising a position of power to feed the company was blocked and now we have a choice. Edge is quite good, in fact much better than the one we would have had if MS had destroyed all opposition.
I want choice. Lack of choice is bad for me, for everyone.
MS' attempt to monopolise IE would have been unsuccessful regardless of the EU ruling. Firefox/Chrome market share was on the up and up before the ruling, and would have continued regardless.
paulrockliffe said:
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. 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.
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.
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.
As I said, when you are in a dominant position then you must be far more circumspect in your behaviour
amusingduck said:
In essence I am saying that there is a world of difference between a company that has a monopoly on epi-pens, and jacks the price up to $1000/each, and a company that has a monopoly on the free services that it provides, because they simply provide the best free service.
MS' attempt to monopolise IE would have been unsuccessful regardless of the EU ruling. Firefox/Chrome market share was on the up and up before the ruling, and would have continued regardless.
However it killed netscape navigator, which was their aim and gave them v 90% market share by around 2000. It's just that they ballsed up the ongoing development of IE and surprisingly for microsoft MS' attempt to monopolise IE would have been unsuccessful regardless of the EU ruling. Firefox/Chrome market share was on the up and up before the ruling, and would have continued regardless.
they made it crappy and bloatedDerek Smith said:
You suggest you are grown up. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Perhaps that you don't mind going to page 4 of the search results to look for the best price.
Hmm. Perhaps you should read what I wrote rather than assume I'm just not capable of understanding such a complex issue. Here's it again.....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.
I would have thought being grown up in the context of the quote was quite fully explained. There used to be a phrase "no such thing as a free lunch" and if someone offers me an apparently free service I do expect them to make a return somewhere along the line.Google is the new High Street....unfortunately. I think you should have a great deal in interest in who owns that High Street. They are actively taking ownership of the High Street ( Digital Space) and they are pricing out smaller Companies. They charge a fortune for advertising space or that even medium sized Companies struggle to pay. As you all know being on Page 2 is effectively being no-where. Its now very complicated for Companies to get to the top of the Search Tree and requires alot of investment. If Google was a benign Search Engine this wouldn't matter but its deliberately selecting those that pay or Comapnies which it has an interest in. Google is best seen as an advertising Conglomorate that provides a service to the Public based on a falsehood.
In other news, Audi is facing a fine for not offering Toyota stereo with their cars and h&m has to pay damages for refusing to sell Zara jackets in their stores.
And don't get me started on that damn Apple not having the Google app store on their phones!
Nobody stops people from using AOL search instead of the evil Google.
And don't get me started on that damn Apple not having the Google app store on their phones!
Nobody stops people from using AOL search instead of the evil Google.
Edited by PotatoSalad on Wednesday 28th June 18:27
wsurfa said:
Shopping is a search result, it is not the same as going to an amazon site.
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.
As I said, when you are in a dominant position then you must be far more circumspect in your behaviour
The market should judge; if it tips to being inconvenient to use then people will shop elsewhere. 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.
As I said, when you are in a dominant position then you must be far more circumspect in your behaviour
I don't think anyone would find it unusual that google promotes google in a google search engine.
'Shopping around' is a good way to look at it; some do, some don't, but you can't blame the shops, it's the consumer that clicks on an obvious 'google shopping' tab or doesn't shop past the first few results. Price comparison websites that only include 70% of available companies because some are too small to pay or don't want to are far more tricky - on these unless you do your research you think that the presented options are the only ones - not the case with google.
PotatoSalad said:
In other news, Audi is facing a fine for not offering Toyota stereo with their cars and h&m has to pay damages for refusing to sell Zara jackets in their stores.
And don't get me started on that damn Apple not having the Google app store on their phones!
Nobody stops people from using AOL search instead of the evil Google.
5%, 1.5%, 22%, 90%And don't get me started on that damn Apple not having the Google app store on their phones!
Nobody stops people from using AOL search instead of the evil Google.
Edited by PotatoSalad on Wednesday 28th June 18:27
40%
These are relevant percentages in the application of abuse of a dominant position under EU competition law. Below 40% market share it will generally not apply, guess which market shares apply to which businesses, and then which one has been fined.
Einion Yrth said:
How does fining Google help? They are so successful at driving advertising that they will be able, quite comfortably, to pass on the cost to their advertisers, who, in turn, will pass it onto their consumers, to wit, us.
Way to go...
A study showed that google shopping charged its partners an average of $11.30 for every $100 in sales. Who do you think paid this cost? Yes that's right, you. Way to go...
Also adverts costs don't work as you describe, Advertisers calculate what an advert is worth to them, and bid that amount in the advertising auctions. Google can't raise their prices beyond what advertisers want to pay- the large advertisers who spend millions/billion(s) have some sway in this matter.
Also if Google Shopping isn't taking up the top 1/4 of the page, then more ads can be shown in a fairer manner.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff