European Commission Opens Another Antitrust Case Against Google

[Guest]

Google has been the target of multiple antitrust claims in Europe, and this latest case from the European Commission targets its online shopping services and the Android operating system.

European Commission Opens Another Antitrust Case Against Google : Read more

 

[ahnilated]

Aaah, if you are going to Google.com then it is their site. Why wouldn't they promote their stuff compared to others. If you want to get different results use a different search engine. They have to pay the bills somehow.

 

[sykozis]

They do have to pay the bills, but they don't have to skew search results the way they do. Not that long ago I searched for the same information on 3 different search engines. Google, Yahoo and Bing. The first relevant link was on page 4 from Google. It was on page 1 for Yahoo and Bing. These days, I'm using Bing more and more as I find what I'm looking for appearing in the first couple links without having to go through multiple pages of results.

As for Google search on Android, I feel Google should be forced to do with Android what Microsoft was forced to do with Internet Explorer in Windows. When the phone is setup, Google should be required to provide a list of competing search engines for the user to choose from. In fact, I think Google should be required to provide a list of ALL competing services/apps. It would only be fair. They should also be forced to remove the requirement of a Google account to use Android and provide a method to disable ALL user tracking.

 

[balister]

Aaah, if you are going to Google.com then it is their site. Why wouldn't they promote their stuff compared to others. If you want to get different results use a different search engine. They have to pay the bills somehow.

It's not search that the EU is going after, it's search results from retailers and sellers. Google lists the retailers who pay them the most first on the search results of suggesting retailers, so a company that might offer you a better price or be closer to you may not show up in the results because they didn't pay Google (enough). That is the is what the Antitrust case against search is about, not some much search itself, but instead how Google lists the retailers that might sell an item someone is looking for.

 

[ammaross]

"Regarding Android, the EC believes Google is squeezing out competition by pre-installing its own apps and services, preventing manufacturers from modifying and developing their own versions of Android to compete with Google and forcing users into Google's own services and apps by linking it with other Google services on the mobile device."

So the only reason this DOESN'T apply to Apple would be because they don't allow 3rd parties to make hardware for their iOS? Everything else in that complaint is exactly what Apple does...

 

[glasssplinter]

As for Google search on Android, I feel Google should be forced to do with Android what Microsoft was forced to do with Internet Explorer in Windows. When the phone is setup, Google should be required to provide a list of competing search engines for the user to choose from. In fact, I think Google should be required to provide a list of ALL competing services/apps. It would only be fair. They should also be forced to remove the requirement of a Google account to use Android and provide a method to disable ALL user tracking.

Why exactly? You're buying a google product and then don't want to use google software? That's like buying an iphone and complaining about itunes.

 

[alidan]

for all the good the eu can do, this over regulation is horrible.

 

[tom10167]

They do have to pay the bills, but they don't have to skew search results the way they do. Not that long ago I searched for the same information on 3 different search engines. Google, Yahoo and Bing. The first relevant link was on page 4 from Google. It was on page 1 for Yahoo and Bing. These days, I'm using Bing more and more as I find what I'm looking for appearing in the first couple links without having to go through multiple pages of results.

Thank you for perfectly pointing out why this is nonsense. 1.) they don't HAVE to skew the results, but they can if they want to. It's their search engine. Does it say anywhere that they will always 100% provide the most fair search results to all users? No.
2.) As you point out, Google is not a Monopoly. Don't like the results Google gives you? Use Bing and stop crying(which is exactly what you've done!) I nominate you to run the EU antitrust division.

 

[sykozis]

As for Google search on Android, I feel Google should be forced to do with Android what Microsoft was forced to do with Internet Explorer in Windows. When the phone is setup, Google should be required to provide a list of competing search engines for the user to choose from. In fact, I think Google should be required to provide a list of ALL competing services/apps. It would only be fair. They should also be forced to remove the requirement of a Google account to use Android and provide a method to disable ALL user tracking.

Why exactly? You're buying a google product and then don't want to use google software? That's like buying an iphone and complaining about itunes.

If I buy a Samsung Galaxy S4 (which I do own), I'm not buying a "Google product". I'm buying a Samsung product. If I buy an LG G2, I'm buying an LG product. Not a Google product. Why isn't Google being held to the same standards they wanted forced on MS over IE? Google joined the complaint against MS over Internet Explorer. Now MS has to provide access to alternate web browsers. Google should be forced to provide access to services and apps that compete with their own for Android users.

I also don't see where Google has any right to track my phone.

They do have to pay the bills, but they don't have to skew search results the way they do. Not that long ago I searched for the same information on 3 different search engines. Google, Yahoo and Bing. The first relevant link was on page 4 from Google. It was on page 1 for Yahoo and Bing. These days, I'm using Bing more and more as I find what I'm looking for appearing in the first couple links without having to go through multiple pages of results.

Thank you for perfectly pointing out why this is nonsense. 1.) they don't HAVE to skew the results, but they can if they want to. It's their search engine. Does it say anywhere that they will always 100% provide the most fair search results to all users? No.
2.) As you point out, Google is not a Monopoly. Don't like the results Google gives you? Use Bing and stop crying(which is exactly what you've done!) I nominate you to run the EU antitrust division.

I'm adaptable. Not everyone else is. I'll open 2 tabs just so I can use Bing and Google at the same time. There is an advantage to my methods, just as there are drawbacks.

If I were unning the EU Commission, Google would be forced to comply with the same standards they helped force on MS. Anything forced on Windows would be forced on Android, ChromeOS, OSX and iOS as well. If we're going for fair competition, we might as well make things "fair" across the board.

 

[falchard]

lol EU needs more money. So more anti-trust cases against US tech companies.

 

[NightshadeRC]

I don't believe Microsoft should have been forced to do anything either. It is their operating system. They should have the freedom to choose what software can or cannot run on their software. I don't see any difference between what Microsoft was doing and what Google are going compared to what Apple do on their mobile platform.

 

[MasterMace]

It's not the same as Microsoft's Internet Explorer AntiTrust lawsuit. Microsoft was manipulating APIs to hinder the competition and formed restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs, as a result people were forced to shop using Internet Explorer.

The issue they seem to have is barely close. Android's default search engine is Google, and Google promotes their products on their search engine.

Search engines like Bing are awful, Bing in particular has gone through many re-branding processes (MSN Search, Live Search, Windows Live Search). Yahoo!'s search engine is powered by Bing from 2009-2019. AOL is powered by Google. Ask Toolbar is considered malware. Ask got rebranded from Ask Jeeves. Despite this, there aren't many other search engines, and so Ask is still popular, the #3 Worldwide search engine (#4, if the China-specific Baidu is included - Baidu got domain-hijacked in 2010). Only other real search engine is new to the game - DuckDuckGo. I'll need to try it out more.

 

[fudoka711]

"Regarding Android, the EC believes Google is squeezing out competition by pre-installing its own apps and services, preventing manufacturers from modifying and developing their own versions of Android"

A few things: 1) Google's base android system just seems to be better than most modifications other companies make to it. 2) Why can't Google pre-install its own apps? It's a google made app for a google made operating system. Besides, cell phone companies pre-install their own apps anyways. Is the EU actually going to target them, too? I'm specifically looking at Samsung and Apple. 3) Doesn't Google specifically allow cell phone companies to make whatever modifications they want to android?

As for putting sponsored results up first. I have a few reasons for why that is perfectly fine. It's Google's website/search engine, not the government's. Just like how companies pay to show adds on TV, companies pay Google to sponsor links. You see the paid for stuff first because someone paid for those spots. Companies pay to show advertisements on public transportation, billboards, etc. You pay for the spot.

Regulation is important in some cases, but definitely not here. It's like the EU is admitting that its citizens are too lazy and/or stupid to simply press a button to move to the second page or even scroll down the page to see more links.

 

[Fierce Guppy]

The EU commission wants more revenue going to member states. Google has plenty of cash. When you're that high up in government, no fuzz is going to turn up on your doorstep after you fleece a company out of $100s of millions.

 

[virtualban]

I think any company having more than 50% of market in any sector measurable should be regulated, for the sake of the consumers. (regulated by the consumers or their representatives, not the bloodsucking leeches that the politics have become everywhere, but that's another topic).

50% is an arbitrary choice, which would not save the US from their telecom oligopolies, so, reviewed on a case by case basis.

 

[aldaia]

The game is simple. Google as a private company can do as they wish. At the same time any country (lets give the EU the cosideration of country) is soverign, and private companies must comply with local laws and rules. Google can either abide to local laws or pull out of the country as they did with China (though that last case was a bit more complex)

 

[mx_mp210]

People needs to differentiate between sponsored and organic links. There are only 10 links by default on your search queries, all other content is advertised based on Google's policies. You cannot force them to remove ads just because people do not see the icons and lazy to read full statements.

This one is different from Microsoft suit. This one is about manipulating system rather then forbidding apps / software to develop..

About Android , yes android as OS is open source, go ahead and compile it for yourself and you are ready to have your own android device. Google pre installs app with OEM because of Play Store and it's eco-system. Play Store is not free as you know. So if you don't like it change to another marketplace. Again Android as open system does not force you to stick to Play Store.

It's the OEMs and their contracts who don't want you to modify OS. They bundle the play store and you agree to comply rules of product when you purchase them.( Again no one actually cares to read long text!) So complain to OEM,ditch the play store and see what happens. We also forget about contracts between carriers and OEM. They also load tons of useless software.

The point is we have separate lines between open-source software(without warranty) and products form companies(with support & agreement) , just don't mix it up.

You are free to install apps for other search engines. Go ahead and use them if you don't like Google. At fair point they are trying to make phone Eco-system open and innovative instead of locking down and forbid developers to try new things with the system. Phones as products is completely different thing. The software provided by OEM is different then clean AOSP. However some OEMs allow you to unlock phone bootloader and retain hardware warranty but it's their choice of supporting customers.

There was a lawsuit about pre installed apps and it clearly states you are not forced to select Google as service provider. This lawsuit is about manipulating search results for e-commerce product search. Differentiate between android lawsuit and search lawsuit. Somehow EU thinks the are manipulating search results on smartphones because people are "forced "to install Google search is wrong. It's the people made choice.

 

[Bloob]

"Regarding Android, the EC believes Google is squeezing out competition by pre-installing its own apps and services, preventing manufacturers from modifying and developing their own versions of Android to compete with Google and forcing users into Google's own services and apps by linking it with other Google services on the mobile device."

So the only reason this DOESN'T apply to Apple would be because they don't allow 3rd parties to make hardware for their iOS? Everything else in that complaint is exactly what Apple does...

Apple does not control 85% of both the smartphone and the search engine market.

edit: just to be clear, Google prohibits setting other services as default if you want to use their Play-services (as OEM), and those services are rather essential (and once again, a near monopoly).

 

[sykozis]

The game is simple. Google as a private company can do as they wish. At the same time any country (lets give the EU the cosideration of country) is soverign, and private companies must comply with local laws and rules. Google can either abide to local laws or pull out of the country as they did with China (though that last case was a bit more complex)

Google is a publicly traded, publicly operated company. They also dominate 3 markets: Smartphone, Search and Browser. As the market leader, they have a lot of control over marketing through their search engine. They can, to a degree, impact the flow of users to websites by changing how sites are listed in search results. This can have a damaging impact on small companies that can't afford to pay Google to favor them over other companies.

 

[ddpruitt]

People needs to differentiate between sponsored and organic links. There are only 10 links by default on your search queries, all other content is advertised based on Google's policies. You cannot force them to remove ads just because people do not see the icons and lazy to read full statements.

...

You are free to install apps for other search engines. Go ahead and use them if you don't like Google.

...

There was a lawsuit about pre installed apps and it clearly states you are not forced to select Google as service provider. This lawsuit is about manipulating search results for e-commerce product search. Differentiate between android lawsuit and search lawsuit. Somehow EU thinks the are manipulating search results on smartphones because people are "forced "to install Google search is wrong. It's the people made choice.

This. I would also point out that paid ads are clearly marked at the top and the right hand side, unlike Bing were you can't tell which results are paid.

They do have to pay the bills, but they don't have to skew search results the way they do. Not that long ago I searched for the same information on 3 different search engines. Google, Yahoo and Bing. The first relevant link was on page 4 from Google. It was on page 1 for Yahoo and Bing. These days, I'm using Bing more and more as I find what I'm looking for appearing in the first couple links without having to go through multiple pages of results.

As for Google search on Android, I feel Google should be forced to do with Android what Microsoft was forced to do with Internet Explorer in Windows. When the phone is setup, Google should be required to provide a list of competing search engines for the user to choose from. In fact, I think Google should be required to provide a list of ALL competing services/apps. It would only be fair. They should also be forced to remove the requirement of a Google account to use Android and provide a method to disable ALL user tracking.

You obviously don't understand how Android or search works. 9 times out of 10 Google provides better results. It's true in few cases that Bing is better. Let's not forget that when Micheal Jackson died a search on Google gave several pages to this effect, Bing didn't show anything.

Secondly you clearly don't understand how Google requires Android to work. One of the requirements of Android is that when two apps exist on a device that provide the same functionality the system MUST ask the user which app to use, at that point it's up to the user to decide. You see there isn't any favoritism here, most Samsung devices use Samsung's version of the apps, HTC does the same, etc.

This is like claiming someone cheated at cards when they were all dealt face up. Way to go EU, another day another chance to prove how incompetent politicians really are at technology.

 

[sykozis]

I fully understand how Android works. However, it's MY opinion that Google should be forced to provide a list of alternative apps to those provided with the phone, same as Microsoft has to do with Windows. Microsoft is required to provide a list of alternative web browsers for EU users. Google should be required to do the same with Android and every app that comes pre-installed. "Turn about is fair play"....

 

[mx_mp210]

I fully understand how Android works. However, it's MY opinion that Google should be forced to provide a list of alternative apps to those provided with the phone, same as Microsoft has to do with Windows. Microsoft is required to provide a list of alternative web browsers for EU users.

It should be the OEM which bundles the software who should be providing you options, it's not google! The browser case is so dumb, as a web developer you have 50% work loads just to have compatibility with IE and it's old standards for front end. It may look good to people in front end when they load pages but developers always encourage use of other alternatives... But if that works for you that's good. Microsoft was forced way back to allow netscape as an application regardless they wanna bundle IE or not in starting days, because Microsoft banned other browsers to run/ install into the system. Well, for browser users every one has their own choice and no one stops you from choosing other over the bundled one. If you don't like it don't use it! As most of us who surf more often ditch IE anyways at some point....

The very same way you don't need a list of apps if you know exactly what does apps do and why you need them. Or you are satisfied with another alternative you'd be loyal to it ofc. It's simple logic like it or not. The same thing happens with differentiating ads when you actually click it without seeing the "sponsored" or "ad" tag on it, at-least they have courtesy to tell us which one is ad and which one isn't. And just read above comments.

 

[RobWHS]

The game is simple. Google as a private company can do as they wish. At the same time any country (lets give the EU the cosideration of country) is soverign, and private companies must comply with local laws and rules. Google can either abide to local laws or pull out of the country as they did with China (though that last case was a bit more complex)

eBay and Amazon being the same. But if challenged when they break EU law they simply point to their own set of rules. Basically the laws of the land they operate in don't apply to them. It appears the laws only apply to smaller businesses.

 

[sykozis]

I fully understand how Android works. However, it's MY opinion that Google should be forced to provide a list of alternative apps to those provided with the phone, same as Microsoft has to do with Windows. Microsoft is required to provide a list of alternative web browsers for EU users.

It should be the OEM which bundles the software who should be providing you options, it's not google! The browser case is so dumb, as a web developer you have 50% work loads just to have compatibility with IE and it's old standards for front end. It may look good to people in front end when they load pages but developers always encourage use of other alternatives... But if that works for you that's good. Microsoft was forced way back to allow netscape as an application regardless they wanna bundle IE or not in starting days, because Microsoft banned other browsers to run/ install into the system. Well, for browser users every one has their own choice and no one stops you from choosing other over the bundled one. If you don't like it don't use it! As most of us who surf more often ditch IE anyways at some point....

The very same way you don't need a list of apps if you know exactly what does apps do and why you need them. Or you are satisfied with another alternative you'd be loyal to it ofc. It's simple logic like it or not. The same thing happens with differentiating ads when you actually click it without seeing the "sponsored" or "ad" tag on it, at-least they have courtesy to tell us which one is ad and which one isn't. And just read above comments.

I don't recall a time where Netscape didn't install and run on Windows. With the exception of the few Apple computers we had, every school computer I used from 1995 until 1999 had Netscape installed. It was removed in 1999 due to AOL buying Netscape.

What people "need" and what is "fair" isn't necessarily the same thing.

 

[BuildingPCs]

I think this attack against Google is fair. Why does Google decide how we have to work?! Google should give us the option to chose.

We don't have to use Google. We can use other services from other companies.
And if you like the idea to have everything you need from one company and you don't want to use Google, then take a look on what other companies can offer you, e.g. Microsoft.
Google Mail -> Outlook.com, Android phone -> Windows Phone, Google Drive -> OneDrive, Google web search -> Bing, ...