EU hit Google with record fine of €2.4 billion over Google shopping service!

[oxymoronic]

This isn't about google having a high market share and being dominant in the search engine market. That is fine, they arn't being fined for that. They are being fined for abusing that dominant position to create unfair competition in an unrelated market.

and how the fuck can you justify that being illegal? stupid people over there. I say leave nato and let them deal with the world on their own. see how long it takes before russia and china put their foot up that pompus ass.

[Tyrianth]

Does Google shopping actually come up as the first links for the EU? Generally I see something like Amazon appear first here in the US, or if it's a more specialized thing you're looking for it'll take you to a site that deals directly with that.

Just as an example:
I looked up "Guardians of the Galaxy DvD" (I assume people buy DvDs online? I almost never shop online.)
Amazon
Walmart
Target
Redbox
Ebay
BestBuy
Then it starts giving me news about the movie, or reviews of the DvD.

All of those are large companies, and as far as I know Google doesn't own any of them?
Is the problem that they have a tab tagged "Shopping" at the top there? Because I personally don't see a problem with that, it didn't default me there, even when I put the word "buy" in front of the search.

Those links are from Google Shopping. Shopping is just a search engine for retail sites (amazon, ebay, etc). The problem isn't that google offers these services either. The problem is that Google has market dominance and the fact that they are reserving those premium "sponsored" spots for their own subsidiaries vs giving competing shopping companies an opportunity to buy into those sponsored location.

It's anti-competitive since the vast majority of people use Google to do their searching and it hinders their competition since they can't advertise on a platform that ~90% of the market uses for their web searches.

[Machismo]

Yes, you have stated in numerous threads all over this forum how you oppose all laws and regulations out of principle.
No need to discuss this with you, when all you do is trying to set up strawmen so you can argue against any and all regulations and laws.

- - - Updated - - -


That was intentional.
All he ultimately cares about is telling people about his definition of "freedom": "anarchy", the absence of laws and regulations.
He always starts out with muddying the waters by arguing unrelated semantics, but if you really keep digging he will admit he is attacking laws and regulations as a matter of principle.
Just look up his posting history.

- - - Updated - - -


Since posting proof of that claim is against forum rules anyone can claim to be Bill Gates of something here, it would be just as worthless as your post unless you can demonstrate your knowledge which is the exact opposite of what you did in that previous post.

I do not oppose all laws, that is a misrepresentation of my stance. I oppose any restriction of an action which does not cause harm. I have no problem with laws that ban murder, rape, assault, or even titty twisters.

[Tyrianth]

I do not oppose all laws, that is a misrepresentation of my stance. I oppose any restriction of an action which does not cause harm. I have no problem with laws that ban murder, rape, assault, or even titty twisters.

Anti-competitive behaviour harms the consumer.

[Better]

Those links are from Google Shopping. Shopping is just a search engine for retail sites (amazon, ebay, etc). The problem isn't that google offers these services either. The problem is that Google has market dominance and the fact that they are reserving those premium "sponsored" spots for their own subsidiaries vs giving competing shopping companies an opportunity to buy into those sponsored location.

It's anti-competitive, since the vast majority of people use Google to do their searching and it hinders their competition since they can't advertise on a platform that ~90% of the market uses for their web searches.

Is it really just that sponsored thing at the top? Because I don't see that with my adblocker, so personally it doesn't hinder me at all when I'm searching for things. Though as I admitted in my last post, I don't buy many things online.

[Tyrianth]

Is it really just that sponsored thing at the top? Because I don't see that with my adblocker, so personally it doesn't hinder me at all when I'm searching for things. Though as I admitted in my last post, I don't buy many things online.

The vast majority of internet users do not use an ad blocker, personally I have google white listed because those sponsored links are useful when shopping. So when your mom wants to buy a kitchenaid stand mixer, she'll type that into google. The first thing she sees is the sponsored link selling a kitchenaid stand mixer. She clicks it and buys it. Google Shopping gets a cut of the sale. By forcing other companies out of the sponsored links area they are pretty much guaranteeing anyone who use google to shop will end up going through Google Shopping instead of a competing company which might have cheaper results than what Google Shopping has.

[Jaylock]

Yes, you have stated in numerous threads all over this forum how you oppose all laws and regulations out of principle.
No need to discuss this with you, when all you do is trying to set up strawmen so you can argue against any and all regulations and laws.

- - - Updated - - -


That was intentional.
All he ultimately cares about is telling people about his definition of "freedom": "anarchy", the absence of laws and regulations.
He always starts out with muddying the waters by arguing unrelated semantics, but if you really keep digging he will admit he is attacking laws and regulations as a matter of principle.
Just look up his posting history.

- - - Updated - - -


Since posting proof of that claim is against forum rules anyone can claim to be Bill Gates of something here, it would be just as worthless as your post unless you can demonstrate your knowledge which is the exact opposite of what you did in that previous post.

Just like when someone says: "post your WoW armory so we can see if you have killed mythic guldan"

Poster can then proceed to post a character that isn't his (that killed mythic guldan) and say: "Yep see i told you so!"

Even if I provided proof, how do you really know that it would be me? Are you going to ask for my social security number and home address too? lol get a life.

[oxymoronic]

The vast majority of internet users do not use an ad blocker, personally I have google white listed because those sponsored links are useful when shopping. So when your mom wants to buy a kitchenaid stand mixer, she'll type that into google. The first thing she sees is the sponsored link selling a kitchenaid stand mixer. She clicks it and buys it. Google Shopping gets a cut of the sale. By forcing other companies out of the sponsored links area they are pretty much guaranteeing anyone who use google to shop will end up going through Google Shopping.

still trying to see the problem here. you say their own dominance in the market, yet if they flex their dominance in any way you will steal their money? hard to make anybody using common sense to understand this. and of course they have dominance in a market they created as they should. the real question is how can we as citizens of earth voice our displeasure with this outcome?

[Tyrianth]

still trying to see the problem here. you say their own dominance in the market, yet if they flex their dominance in any way you will steal their money? hard to make anybody using common sense to understand this. and of course they have dominance in a market they created as they should. the real question is how can we as citizens of earth voice our displeasure with this outcome?

I didn't say they would steal anyones money, but I understand your arguments are only valid if you put words in peoples mouth.

Edit: Opps miss read your post, sorry.

Flexing your dominance is okay. It's not okay if it puts an undue hardship on your competition. Because competition is more important than Googles bottom line.

[oxymoronic]

Anti-competitive behaviour harms the consumer.

so does large unions attempting to steal/extort large sums of money from corporations. they would have never tried to pull this off if it wasnt for the EU. shows how horrible they are and the funniest part is how much they hate america for doing the same. hypocrites at best, thieves at worst.

- - - Updated - - -

Flexing your dominance is okay. It's not okay if it puts an undue hardship on your competition. Because competition is more important than Googles bottom line.

why? artificially creating competition is the worst thing we can do as a people and will stifle us more than you could ever imagine.

[Tyrianth]

This is not artificially creating competition. This is preventing google from using it's immense influence in one market (general purpose web search) to put undue hardship on competition in different markets (retail specific searches).

[Slant]

Just shows how fucked up the EU is. A sad precedent has been set by them. Need the people to wake the fuck up and stop this intrusion into business. This is not right on so many levels. Sanctioned theft should not be legal just cause you have a large union. This should be a wake up call to anybody that does business with this so called union. They cannot be trusted.

Woah, hold on a second there. That is the same EU that keeps allowing Google to quote snippets from news articles of which Google makes a shitton of money. Understand the reasoning before you cry foul. The US knows very well that a monopoly is not good for the economy or the consumer. Do you remember AT&T?

[Independent voter]

So the Europeans are happy they stuck it to a rich American tech company.

And the Americans think the Europeans stuck it to a rich American tech company.

We're in agreement.

[Tyrianth]

So the Europeans are happy they stuck it to a rich American tech company.

And the Americans think the Europeans stuck it to a rich American tech company.

We're in agreement.

Nope, Europeans are happy that the EU actually stands for whats best for the consumer, not whats best for the companies. Nothing to do with nationality.

[oxymoronic]

Woah, hold on a second there. That is the same EU that keeps allowing Google to quote snippets from news articles of which Google makes a shitton of money. Understand the reasoning before you cry foul. The US knows very well that a monopoly is not good for the economy or the consumer. Do you remember AT&T?

it should be the consumers choice. there is plenty of search engines out there to use. i can think of at least 3-4 and im sure i could find others. google should not be held responsible because people choose their search engine and putting your own interests 1st in the search results should definitely be allowed. hell its one of the key ways how they make money. wtf

also EU that allows google to quote snippets from news articles? who the fuck do you think you are? holy shit, give a few shitty nations power and all of a sudden they think they are kings of the world. fuck me

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, Europeans are happy that the EU actually stands for whats best for the consumer, not whats best for the companies. Nothing to do with nationality.

prove this makes it better, ill give you a few days if you can come up with something.

[Tyrianth]

it should be the consumers choice. there is plenty of search engines out there to use. i can think of at least 3-4 and im sure i could find others. google should not be help responsible because people choose their search engine and putting your own interests 1st in the search results should definitely be allowed. hell its one of the key ways how they make money. wtf

- - - Updated - - -



prove this makes it better, ill give you a few days if you can come up with something.

Prove how it's bad. I'll give you a few days if you can come up with something.

[Slant]

still trying to see the problem here. you say their own dominance in the market, yet if they flex their dominance in any way you will steal their money? hard to make anybody using common sense to understand this. and of course they have dominance in a market they created as they should. the real question is how can we as citizens of earth voice our displeasure with this outcome?

Meh... it's one thing to gain dominance by providing the better service. Which Google undoubtedly does in a lot of fields. But quite another trick is to stop gaining market shares by providing the better service and start gaining market shares simply by forcing competitors out of the competition with methods they cannot actually do anything against.

In this case, Google promoted its own shopping comparison services via its search engine, which isn't technically even the same thing. They didn't gain market share because they were better, they gained market shares simply because they decided to flip a switch and hide everyone else from the consumer. The Google search engine being a de facto monopoly, that is quite clearly a foul as far as monopolies go.

Put it another way: Imagine Google simply removed all search entries connected to firearms of any kind. You wouldn't be able to search for any gun specification, gun shop, compare prices, hear news about your favourite gun... as far as internet searches were concerned, you'd be back in the early 90s with your guns. Think that's cool? What if they offered you the new Google gun? It only shoots fluff pellets and doesn't really hurt anyone. Would you buy that?

- - - Updated - - -

So the Europeans are happy they stuck it to a rich American tech company.

And the Americans think the Europeans stuck it to a rich American tech company.

We're in agreement.

Nope, the US tech company committed a foul and it was punished. That's the beginning and the end of the story. It's really not that spectacular aside from the enormous punitive charge. Google knows our consumer protection and anti-monopoly laws. This isn't exactly a surprise to them. The EU will defend Google against news media next week, when those dickheads try to stop Google from running their Google news service.

See, the problem isn't that it's a US tech company. It's that Europe doesn't have anything similar. If a European company tried that shit, they'd get the same kind of punishment. And European monopoly regulators prevent acquisitions on a regular basis to stop such monopolies to exist. The US, however, is quite happy to ride itself into a situation where Google can literally say "Yes, so we ignored laws... what are you going to do about it? Oh sorry, we just switched off the internet search, you'll have to do your shit in the library, or we could just forget this whole thing, how about that?"

[oxymoronic]

Meh... it's one thing to gain dominance by providing the better service. Which Google undoubtedly does in a lot of fields. But quite another trick is to stop gaining market shares by providing the better service and start gaining market shares simply by forcing competitors out of the competition with methods they cannot actually do anything against.

In this case, Google promoted its own shopping comparison services via its search engine, which isn't technically even the same thing. They didn't gain market share because they were better, they gained market shares simply because they decided to flip a switch and hide everyone else from the consumer. The Google search engine being a de facto monopoly, that is quite clearly a foul as far as monopolies go.

Put it another way: Imagine Google simply removed all search entries connected to firearms of any kind. You wouldn't be able to search for any gun specification, gun shop, compare prices, hear news about your favourite gun... as far as internet searches were concerned, you'd be back in the early 90s with your guns. Think that's cool? What if they offered you the new Google gun? It only shoots fluff pellets and doesn't really hurt anyone. Would you buy that?

uhh i would use bing, yahoo, duckduckgo, quora, dogpile, yandex, ixquick, ask.com and im sure i could find more just googling search engines.

this is way worse than what you guys did to microsoft over their IE which was horrible. now this? it has to be stopped. cant wait till trump finds out, he gonna fuck u up good.

[Tyrianth]

uhh i would use bing, yahoo, duckduckgo, quora, dogpile, yandex, ixquick, ask.com and im sure i could find more just googling search engines.

this is way worse than what you guys did to microsoft over their IE which was horrible. now this? it has to be stopped. cant wait till trump finds out, he gonna fuck u up good.

Except you wouldn't know google is hiding any results from you. Do you think google tells the consumer they're preventing them from access to their competition? lol

LOL Trump is a little bitch. He won't do shit. He'll send some tweets and cry about it on twitter. He mighty step up his social media game and create an instagram account!

[oxymoronic]

Meh... it's one thing to gain dominance by providing the better service. Which Google undoubtedly does in a lot of fields. But quite another trick is to stop gaining market shares by providing the better service and start gaining market shares simply by forcing competitors out of the competition with methods they cannot actually do anything against.

In this case, Google promoted its own shopping comparison services via its search engine, which isn't technically even the same thing. They didn't gain market share because they were better, they gained market shares simply because they decided to flip a switch and hide everyone else from the consumer. The Google search engine being a de facto monopoly, that is quite clearly a foul as far as monopolies go.

Put it another way: Imagine Google simply removed all search entries connected to firearms of any kind. You wouldn't be able to search for any gun specification, gun shop, compare prices, hear news about your favourite gun... as far as internet searches were concerned, you'd be back in the early 90s with your guns. Think that's cool? What if they offered you the new Google gun? It only shoots fluff pellets and doesn't really hurt anyone. Would you buy that?

- - - Updated - - -




See, the problem isn't that it's a US tech company. It's that Europe doesn't have anything similar. If a European company tried that shit, they'd get the same kind of punishment. And European monopoly regulators prevent acquisitions on a regular basis to stop such monopolies to exist. The US, however, is quite happy to ride itself into a situation where Google can literally say "Yes, so we ignored laws... what are you going to do about it? Oh sorry, we just switched off the internet search, you'll have to do your shit in the library, or we could just forget this whole thing, how about that?"

i think you hit the nail on the head. EU doesnt have anything similar. they want it. they are trying to force out google so they can start their own search engine much like the chinese would. you guys are despicable businessmen. im done here.