> At issue is whether the company uses its position as the dominant search engine company to muscle out competition from specialized search services, specifically comparison shopping sites, by prioritizing its own Google Shopping search results.
Google Shopping results suck but when I search for products almost always is an Amazon, Walmart, Target and others linked at the top of the results sometimes higher than the actual company that produces the product. As far as I can tell you can only get their shopping search results by clicking on "Shopping" (at least I can't seem to trigger it without that).
I don't understand the issue here. foundem is behind the initial lawsuit and kinda kicked off this whole thing but they're a search engine. If I owned a search company I certainly wouldn't want to be federating queries and indexing them doesn't make sense; why would I index an index when I can just index the source?
Am I missing something here?
> The European Commission also confirmed that it is opening an investigation into Android as well. Although the operating system is open source, meaning that any manufacturer can install it on the phones and tablets they sell, many core applications, including the Google Play store, are proprietary. Manufacturers must enter into special agreements with Google to include these proprietary apps. The investigation will attempt to determine whether Google is using its position to discourage the inclusion of rival applications on Android-based phones.
I don't understand this one as well. These applications require the use of Google's infrastructure so if you want to use them why shouldn't you agree to handle them as they want? Besides I think Barnes and Noble's nook and Amazon's Fire platforms show this is a non issue.
The issue is that Google by being the default search engine could slowly subsume all the profitable markets that run on the internet.
Once they kill off potential competitors then there is no reason to be competitive on price or quality.
Think of it as sort of a net neutrality for the search engine. People here are totally okay with telling Comcast they can't leverage their ISP near-monopoly to win the video streaming market.
Why should we allow Google to leverage their search monopoly into capturing other internet markets.
The reason you do not understand is simple: there is no logic here. Google is not a monopoly. The parallels drawn here (by EU and by people on HN respectively) are:
1. Microsoft. This is wrong since while it was mostly impossible back then to buy a PC without windows, it is quite possible today to not use google. In fact not using google is easier than using google (you can skip typing google.com into the address bar)
2. Comcast. This is wrong since in many markets comcast is the only internet provider. No markets exist where bing and yahoo are inaccessible.
Really this is just EU punishing google for getting too big. Unfortunately for EU, even their own ridiculous (IMHO) protectionist laws do not have anything about a company being to successful for their liking. I imagine this will be a huge money and time waste for the EU, but in the end they have no real case. Google owns google.com and may display whatever it wants there. Until someone forces EU citizens to use google, or until bing and yahoo die, they are not a monopoly, even as per EU's ridiculous (IMHO) definition.
Google does not owe foo.com or bar.org or baz.info any place in their results page, unless is so chooses. And foo, bar, and baz are only there at google's mercy. Just like EU cannot force _YOU_ to include content _I_ want on _YOUR_ page, no matter how successful and how non-european you are and how unsuccessful and how european I am, it has no real power to force google to index foo, bar, and baz, or place any content of theirs (snippets of text and links to their pages) on google's property that is google.com/...
What is a Search Engine? Is this some kind of legally regulated category that says you a) must only return Web results and b) in the form of 10 blue links?
Should a search which a search engine knows the direct answer to (word definitions, the current weather or time, etc) send you to another site for the answer. Why are "search engines" prohibited from direct answers, but voice agents like Siri allowed? Is there something fundamentally different between a text box and a voice input?
Likewise, if a search engine has indexed data and can return deep links to other sites formatted differently, why is that different? For example, if you search for "Playstation 4" and Google simply returned the first 10 hits (Amazon.com, eBay, Walmart, etc) as a page of 10 blue links like it did in 2006, instead of formatting them in a nice box at the top of the screen with summary price extracted, would this still be illegal? Why is it legal to display organic search results as blue links, but if you display them in a box and call it "Product Search", it's suddenly illegal? This makes no sense to me. The only difference between the Google Product Search box at the top, and displaying the links is simply better visual presentation.
The world has moved on from ten blue links. Mobile devices have even more constrained real estate and network latency pushing the need for summarization and smart presentation even further. A new class of consumer expects these devices to almost act like intelligent agents when answering queries.
Is the European Commission saying it will be illegal to build JARVIS or the Star Trek computer, because a smarter search that doesn't delegate to other niche search engines, and instead returns direct answers, is unfair competition?
At the heart of this seems to be the idea that Google search should return links to other shopping comparison engines instead of direct links to Amazon, et al. That frankly seems like a good way to hurt customer experience. If you have a good product comparison engine these days, you're probably going to end up as a native app anyway.
By the time this EU case winds down (Microsoft's took a decade), the traditional web search engine might not even exist anymore.
There is the rather delicate issue of copyright here. If you google for something and the answer is on another page, lifting it from that page is (a) making a copy and (b) potentially depriving the linked page of revenue.
There is also the question of using the threat to ban people from your search results (which is calamitous for most businesses) to resolve your disputes with them.
Strictly speaking, you are only allowed to connect to a remote computer if you agree with their Terms of Service. I guess there are legitimate round corners, like you need to fetch the ToS first. It's not applicable as-is for the WWW, but you need to accept the websites have a say in how their results should be displayed.
> By the time this EU case winds down (Microsoft's took a decade), the traditional web search engine might not even exist anymore.
Exactly. The court system moves so much slower than the technology industry. It wasn't the US justice department that disrupted IE. Instead it was Firefox, Safari, and Chrome. It took me 5 minutes to install a different, better web browser. It will take me even less time to start using a different, better search engine whenever one comes along.
"Building the Star Trek computer" was always a funny marketing angle for Google, given that the Federation would frown on a greedy corporation controlling the flow of information.
As a user of Google search and Android, I want Google to bundle services. Android would, in my opinion, be impaired if it didn't include Google play, gmail, chrome, and Google Maps.
Similarly, Google search would be worse for me if it didn't present me with instantly relevant results like shopping, wikipedia responses, imdb style results, or quick answers to unit conversions and equations.
Yes Google leverages its dominance in search and mobile to bundle services, but is this something that the EU should fine Google for? As a consumer, I don't think so.
Microsoft said the same back in the day. And it is true - in the immediate term, consumers benefit from a single vendor integrating all their products and limiting competition.
The problem happens when you look a little farther ahead. Anti-competitive measures prevent other companies from offering something even better. Those products might not exist now, but without an open and competitive environment, they won't show up. And consumers are very much hurt if that is the case.
My 2 cents. I had an Android phone since 2011 and an Android tablet since last December. I do use Google Play to install apps and for nothing else. I use Google Maps without being logged in. I don't use Gmail nor Chrome (also on desktop). I search from within Opera (I bet this is very unusual).
I know it's anecdotal but given my experience the only thing that would impair Android is the lack of an app store. Books, movies, music etc don't matter. Only apps. There are alternatives to Google Play and there will be more if for some reason Google decide to shut it down but a search engine and a little QA for apps is convenient. Having to wander through 4 or 5 app stores would be a bad experience (btw, I do use FDroid for some app not on Google's store).
>As a user of Google search and Android, I want Google to bundle services. Android would, in my opinion, be impaired if it didn't include Google play, gmail, chrome, and Google Maps
Even if it was so, the convenience of consumers is less important than having a healthy economic ecosystem.
While I am in general a fan of Google (like AppEngine, Android, etc. contracted at Google in 2013), it is important to prevent harming markets due to effective monopolies. One problem is that anti-competitive practices may cause long term harm to markets while making consumers happy short term. Really a tough issue to deal with fairly.
I did notice something odd today in Google search results: I searched for "surface 3" and the link I wanted was a top paid for ad link. In the past, I could look down the page and see similar unpaid links, but not today.
You might be interested in a classic (well, pre-Microsoft antitrust) book written by a professor who has specialized in antitrust law. I've interviewed him a few times. Excerpt:
"Professor Armentano thoroughly researches the classic cases in antitrust law and demonstrates a surprising gap between the stated aims of antitrust law and what it actually accomplishes in the real world. Instead of protecting competition, Professor Armentano finds, antitrust law actually protects certain politically-favored competitors. This is an essential work for anyone wishing to understand the limitations and problems of contemporary antitrust actions."http://www.amazon.com/Antitrust-Monopoly-Anatomy-Independent...
So what? US has signed bilateral trade agreements with EU for that reason. As much as EU may benefit from fines on US companies, it's still a strict application of the law. US also benefits from the strict application of their laws when EU companies try to enter the US market. Actually, EU companies rarely try it. Guess why.
It has everything to do with anti-trust. Google's near-monopoly on search is dangerous, and they've abused it multiple times. Google News and Yelp are good examples: they would steal content (not just link to it as they'd have you believe), then threaten to delist the victim's sites if they complained.
What would be a viable way for Google to fix this that doesn't hurt users?
Sure, have Google Chrome installs start with "What do you want as your default search provider?" But can you do that with Android? How much will it affect Google Now to have it be connecting to a different search provider, and what does that mean? If I enter "1+1", or "weather", or "call Bob" or "navigate home", should it go to my search provider, or to Google Now? (I know the first two currently go to GWS anyway, but why should they?)
And if integration of services like shopping on GWS are a problem, does that mean they should be removing the "Shopping" tab and make it just another result? That would suck. (For me, as a user.) I dunno, maybe long-term it allows for more competition and innovation, but short term I don't see solutions that aren't "make your product worse". Even allowing me to choose plug-in search tabs from other services seems iffy.
>What would be a viable way for Google to fix this that doesn't hurt users?
Assuming that any of Google's business practices needs to be "fixed" (a claim that's debatable and has been rejected by U.S. FedGov), you've put your finger on the difference between the U.S. and Euro regulatory approaches.
The European approach is more inclined to protect competitors that complain about a rival -- in this case Yelp, Microsoft, etc. are doing that. Note protecting competitors from rivals is not the same as protecting competition; in fact, having bureaucrats cripple some firms and favor others can reduce competition and injects politics and lobbying and who-golfs-with-the-commissioner into the process. It also can lead to bizarre results like the lack of a reasonably viable way to "fix" things.
The U.S. approach toward dominant firm behavior (well, since the 1970s) has been different. It focuses on intervening when there's consumer harm, or at least tries to. If consumers are not harmed, the logic goes, there is likely no reason for the Feds to intervene. This is why the FTC did not proceed with its case against Google. U.S. law also emphasizes economic analysis, which stands a better chance of grounding the analysis in marketplace reality.
Note Microsoft enlisted U.S. politicians in its attempt to fend off broad EU antitrust actions; here's my article from 2004: http://news.cnet.com/U.S.-politicos-fire-at-EUs-Microsoft-ru... Google doesn't seem to have the same depth of congressional outreach, especially among Rs predisposed to be skeptical of antitrust actions.
Android is very simple: Google needs to be banned from mandating OEMs install the whole Google Apps package. Leave it on OEMs to decide what browser, search, etc. apps to package on their devices. The market, and consumers, will decide what works.
The Open Handset Alliance is a blatant example of an illegal trust. A large group of supposed competitors agreeing not to compete.
> What would be a viable way for Google to fix this that doesn't hurt users?
Its hard to even evaluate the accuracy of the objections, much less propose something that would resolve them, without the actual text of the Statement of Objections rather than news articles and even the original EU press release [0] and fact sheet [1] on the SO.
But, in any case, but for their anticompetitive effect, actions which violate competition laws often benefit users in terms of interaction with the product. The whole point of competition laws is to prevent that short-term benefit from being the source of monopolization which leads both to stagnation and monopoly rents, which harm consumers over the long term.
You can currently change your google now provider.
Firefox Beta, when installed now, registers an intent for search, and when you next do a google-now swipe-up, it'll ask you to pick between google now and firefox beta.
Google already has the solution for android of letting apps register intents, even for core things like maps or search or (hell) even the homescreen.
Google's solution of letting other apps register intents to handle things and prompt the user, while having default apps made by them that fulfill those intents, seems to be the best compromise on usability and extensibility.
In which we see a difference between EU and US law. US antitrust law exists to protect the consumer. EU antitrust law, evidently, exists to protect other competitors.
> At issue is whether the company uses its position as the dominant search engine company to muscle out competition from specialized search services, specifically comparison shopping sites, by prioritizing its own Google Shopping search results.
Anyone else find shopping with Google Search is almost useless and I always follow up with a search on amazon.com and get a better result?
No, but then I don't use either Google Search or Amazon for much online shopping -- mostly, I go directly to an appropriate (more focused than Amazon) retailer, though sometimes I use Google Search to find a retailer if I'm searching for something where I don't already know a set of retailers to check.
I never understood the antitrust angle towards Google search. Is there some kind of browser or app out there that is forcing people to use Google as their search engine on all their devices?
> At issue is whether the company uses its position as the dominant search engine company to muscle out competition from specialized search services, specifically comparison shopping sites, by prioritizing its own Google Shopping search results.
Where are you getting that the 'antitrust angle towards Google search' is a subject of the complaint?
>I never understood the antitrust angle towards Google search. Is there some kind of browser or app out there that is forcing people to use Google as their search engine on all their devices
The fact that most people use the default, and that Google mandates the browser be Chrome and the search be Google for all Chrome web browsers (largest desktop market share) and Android devices (largest mobile market share). And that they then prioritize their own products and services in Search as well.
The issue isn't "everyone is forced to use Google Search" as much as "Google creates a monopoly through connected use of it's various products and services".
I don't think Google should be allowed to dictate clauses like this one from their developer agreement:
4.5 Non-Compete.
You may not use the Market to distribute or make available any
Product whose primary purpose is to facilitate the distribution
of software applications and games for use on Android devices
outside of the Market.
Search engine isn't Google's only product. And since you use "app", I presume you mean "any kind of software", in which case yes, it's called Google Analytics. You don't have to ever use any Google's site, but you are still tracked by them almost everywhere.
Although that probably isn't very relevant to this case....
>The investigation will attempt to determine whether Google is using its position to discourage the inclusion of rival applications on Android-based phones.
I don't see any way to even ask the question sensibly about iOS.
Google supplies an OS (Android) to non-Google phone makers, and Google supplies applications to non-Google phone makers. The potential antitrust issue is if Google is using its position as an OS supplier to other companies to influence those other companies to also choose Google for applications.
Apple supplies neither an OS nor applications to non-Apple phone makers. There is no third party that Apple is using iOS to influence toward choosing Apple applications.
As an EU citizen and consumer, here's my message to European Commission: SCREW YOU!
I would like to know why is it so hard (and expensive) to buy a car on a foreign EU country and legalize it on other, I don't know why am I still paying robbery-like roaming "costs", I don't how is it possible to be considered fiscal resident simultaneous on 2 different countries and why citizens has still to resort to individual country-to-country specific deals to avoid double taxation within EU.
And I could just keep going on... BUT they are worried with a freaking search engine! Piss off.
I wouldn't be suspicious until I read ".. fine of 6.4 billion .."
What ?
Even BP didn't get that big of a fine when they polluted half of the Atlantic Ocean.
I don't understand what EU's problem is. If they don't like google and android please ask your tech graduates to create their own.
The EU is an funny organization. they are not democratically elected. Their policies is the reason half of EU is bankrupt. The EU should be fined for bankrupting entire generations of young people in Greece and promoting the largest transfer of wealth from poor European nations to rich European nations.
Even assuming Google did participate in behaviour that is anti-competitive that market that google dominates was created by google !
I like china's approach to this where they forced their countrymen to create powerful competitor to google. The emphasis should be promotion of wealth creation and not redistribution. Why doesn't Europe have its own homegrown search giant ? An EU company would clearly have massive advantage due to the language barrier. The EU should be paying people to create companies to compete with google. Or atleast make it a priority to do so. What happens when google refuses to pay the fine and starts backtracing or treating the EU market as "not worth it", has the EU though about how it will effect consumers ?
In addition to this, Google currently deprioritizes other video search engines over YouTube because of the recent DMCA algorithm change, as Google forwards DMCA's to YouTube and doesn't impact the search ranking for YouTube per notice. It's completely unfair.
Google's competitors should spend more time improving their products and less time complaining to the EU.
As an example, google flight search is just hands down better than the alternatives. It is ultra fast (a killer feature) and has a simple but intuitive UI.
[+] [-] BinaryIdiot|11 years ago|reply
> At issue is whether the company uses its position as the dominant search engine company to muscle out competition from specialized search services, specifically comparison shopping sites, by prioritizing its own Google Shopping search results.
Google Shopping results suck but when I search for products almost always is an Amazon, Walmart, Target and others linked at the top of the results sometimes higher than the actual company that produces the product. As far as I can tell you can only get their shopping search results by clicking on "Shopping" (at least I can't seem to trigger it without that).
I don't understand the issue here. foundem is behind the initial lawsuit and kinda kicked off this whole thing but they're a search engine. If I owned a search company I certainly wouldn't want to be federating queries and indexing them doesn't make sense; why would I index an index when I can just index the source?
Am I missing something here?
> The European Commission also confirmed that it is opening an investigation into Android as well. Although the operating system is open source, meaning that any manufacturer can install it on the phones and tablets they sell, many core applications, including the Google Play store, are proprietary. Manufacturers must enter into special agreements with Google to include these proprietary apps. The investigation will attempt to determine whether Google is using its position to discourage the inclusion of rival applications on Android-based phones.
I don't understand this one as well. These applications require the use of Google's infrastructure so if you want to use them why shouldn't you agree to handle them as they want? Besides I think Barnes and Noble's nook and Amazon's Fire platforms show this is a non issue.
[+] [-] rhino369|11 years ago|reply
Once they kill off potential competitors then there is no reason to be competitive on price or quality.
Think of it as sort of a net neutrality for the search engine. People here are totally okay with telling Comcast they can't leverage their ISP near-monopoly to win the video streaming market.
Why should we allow Google to leverage their search monopoly into capturing other internet markets.
[+] [-] dmitrygr|11 years ago|reply
1. Microsoft. This is wrong since while it was mostly impossible back then to buy a PC without windows, it is quite possible today to not use google. In fact not using google is easier than using google (you can skip typing google.com into the address bar)
2. Comcast. This is wrong since in many markets comcast is the only internet provider. No markets exist where bing and yahoo are inaccessible.
Really this is just EU punishing google for getting too big. Unfortunately for EU, even their own ridiculous (IMHO) protectionist laws do not have anything about a company being to successful for their liking. I imagine this will be a huge money and time waste for the EU, but in the end they have no real case. Google owns google.com and may display whatever it wants there. Until someone forces EU citizens to use google, or until bing and yahoo die, they are not a monopoly, even as per EU's ridiculous (IMHO) definition.
Google does not owe foo.com or bar.org or baz.info any place in their results page, unless is so chooses. And foo, bar, and baz are only there at google's mercy. Just like EU cannot force _YOU_ to include content _I_ want on _YOUR_ page, no matter how successful and how non-european you are and how unsuccessful and how european I am, it has no real power to force google to index foo, bar, and baz, or place any content of theirs (snippets of text and links to their pages) on google's property that is google.com/...
[+] [-] soxpopuli|11 years ago|reply
Should a search which a search engine knows the direct answer to (word definitions, the current weather or time, etc) send you to another site for the answer. Why are "search engines" prohibited from direct answers, but voice agents like Siri allowed? Is there something fundamentally different between a text box and a voice input?
Likewise, if a search engine has indexed data and can return deep links to other sites formatted differently, why is that different? For example, if you search for "Playstation 4" and Google simply returned the first 10 hits (Amazon.com, eBay, Walmart, etc) as a page of 10 blue links like it did in 2006, instead of formatting them in a nice box at the top of the screen with summary price extracted, would this still be illegal? Why is it legal to display organic search results as blue links, but if you display them in a box and call it "Product Search", it's suddenly illegal? This makes no sense to me. The only difference between the Google Product Search box at the top, and displaying the links is simply better visual presentation.
The world has moved on from ten blue links. Mobile devices have even more constrained real estate and network latency pushing the need for summarization and smart presentation even further. A new class of consumer expects these devices to almost act like intelligent agents when answering queries.
Is the European Commission saying it will be illegal to build JARVIS or the Star Trek computer, because a smarter search that doesn't delegate to other niche search engines, and instead returns direct answers, is unfair competition?
At the heart of this seems to be the idea that Google search should return links to other shopping comparison engines instead of direct links to Amazon, et al. That frankly seems like a good way to hurt customer experience. If you have a good product comparison engine these days, you're probably going to end up as a native app anyway.
By the time this EU case winds down (Microsoft's took a decade), the traditional web search engine might not even exist anymore.
[+] [-] pjc50|11 years ago|reply
There is also the question of using the threat to ban people from your search results (which is calamitous for most businesses) to resolve your disputes with them.
[+] [-] tajen|11 years ago|reply
Strictly speaking, you are only allowed to connect to a remote computer if you agree with their Terms of Service. I guess there are legitimate round corners, like you need to fetch the ToS first. It's not applicable as-is for the WWW, but you need to accept the websites have a say in how their results should be displayed.
Btw, is Robots.txt legally enforceable? http://www.robotstxt.org/faq/legal.html
[+] [-] crazy1van|11 years ago|reply
Exactly. The court system moves so much slower than the technology industry. It wasn't the US justice department that disrupted IE. Instead it was Firefox, Safari, and Chrome. It took me 5 minutes to install a different, better web browser. It will take me even less time to start using a different, better search engine whenever one comes along.
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hodder|11 years ago|reply
Similarly, Google search would be worse for me if it didn't present me with instantly relevant results like shopping, wikipedia responses, imdb style results, or quick answers to unit conversions and equations.
Yes Google leverages its dominance in search and mobile to bundle services, but is this something that the EU should fine Google for? As a consumer, I don't think so.
[+] [-] azakai|11 years ago|reply
The problem happens when you look a little farther ahead. Anti-competitive measures prevent other companies from offering something even better. Those products might not exist now, but without an open and competitive environment, they won't show up. And consumers are very much hurt if that is the case.
[+] [-] antsar|11 years ago|reply
Android would be "impaired" if it shipped a general-purpose mail client rather than one designed specifically for Gmail?
It would be "impaired" if part of the setup process was to select an app store[0], a browser[1], and a maps app[1]?
That sounds more like "consumer empowerment" than "impairment" to me.
[0] Google Play, F-Droid, Amazon's app store, etc
[1] Just show that category of programs from the aforementioned app store
[+] [-] pmontra|11 years ago|reply
I know it's anecdotal but given my experience the only thing that would impair Android is the lack of an app store. Books, movies, music etc don't matter. Only apps. There are alternatives to Google Play and there will be more if for some reason Google decide to shut it down but a search engine and a little QA for apps is convenient. Having to wander through 4 or 5 app stores would be a bad experience (btw, I do use FDroid for some app not on Google's store).
[+] [-] coldtea|11 years ago|reply
Even if it was so, the convenience of consumers is less important than having a healthy economic ecosystem.
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|11 years ago|reply
I did notice something odd today in Google search results: I searched for "surface 3" and the link I wanted was a top paid for ad link. In the past, I could look down the page and see similar unpaid links, but not today.
[+] [-] outside1234|11 years ago|reply
This has nothing to do with anti-trust and everything to do with extracting a kilo of flesh from a successful non-EU company.
[+] [-] declan|11 years ago|reply
"Professor Armentano thoroughly researches the classic cases in antitrust law and demonstrates a surprising gap between the stated aims of antitrust law and what it actually accomplishes in the real world. Instead of protecting competition, Professor Armentano finds, antitrust law actually protects certain politically-favored competitors. This is an essential work for anyone wishing to understand the limitations and problems of contemporary antitrust actions." http://www.amazon.com/Antitrust-Monopoly-Anatomy-Independent...
[+] [-] matt4077|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tajen|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|11 years ago|reply
It has everything to do with anti-trust. Google's near-monopoly on search is dangerous, and they've abused it multiple times. Google News and Yelp are good examples: they would steal content (not just link to it as they'd have you believe), then threaten to delist the victim's sites if they complained.
[+] [-] lkbm|11 years ago|reply
Sure, have Google Chrome installs start with "What do you want as your default search provider?" But can you do that with Android? How much will it affect Google Now to have it be connecting to a different search provider, and what does that mean? If I enter "1+1", or "weather", or "call Bob" or "navigate home", should it go to my search provider, or to Google Now? (I know the first two currently go to GWS anyway, but why should they?)
And if integration of services like shopping on GWS are a problem, does that mean they should be removing the "Shopping" tab and make it just another result? That would suck. (For me, as a user.) I dunno, maybe long-term it allows for more competition and innovation, but short term I don't see solutions that aren't "make your product worse". Even allowing me to choose plug-in search tabs from other services seems iffy.
[+] [-] declan|11 years ago|reply
Assuming that any of Google's business practices needs to be "fixed" (a claim that's debatable and has been rejected by U.S. FedGov), you've put your finger on the difference between the U.S. and Euro regulatory approaches.
The European approach is more inclined to protect competitors that complain about a rival -- in this case Yelp, Microsoft, etc. are doing that. Note protecting competitors from rivals is not the same as protecting competition; in fact, having bureaucrats cripple some firms and favor others can reduce competition and injects politics and lobbying and who-golfs-with-the-commissioner into the process. It also can lead to bizarre results like the lack of a reasonably viable way to "fix" things.
The U.S. approach toward dominant firm behavior (well, since the 1970s) has been different. It focuses on intervening when there's consumer harm, or at least tries to. If consumers are not harmed, the logic goes, there is likely no reason for the Feds to intervene. This is why the FTC did not proceed with its case against Google. U.S. law also emphasizes economic analysis, which stands a better chance of grounding the analysis in marketplace reality.
A colleague and I wrote about the different EU vs. US antitrust approaches here: http://news.cnet.com/Intel-probe-highlights-EU-U.S.-regulati...
Note Microsoft enlisted U.S. politicians in its attempt to fend off broad EU antitrust actions; here's my article from 2004: http://news.cnet.com/U.S.-politicos-fire-at-EUs-Microsoft-ru... Google doesn't seem to have the same depth of congressional outreach, especially among Rs predisposed to be skeptical of antitrust actions.
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|11 years ago|reply
The Open Handset Alliance is a blatant example of an illegal trust. A large group of supposed competitors agreeing not to compete.
[+] [-] whyenot|11 years ago|reply
If they are prioritizing Google Shopping results, as is alleged, stop doing that or otherwise biasing search results to favor Google products.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|11 years ago|reply
Its hard to even evaluate the accuracy of the objections, much less propose something that would resolve them, without the actual text of the Statement of Objections rather than news articles and even the original EU press release [0] and fact sheet [1] on the SO.
But, in any case, but for their anticompetitive effect, actions which violate competition laws often benefit users in terms of interaction with the product. The whole point of competition laws is to prevent that short-term benefit from being the source of monopolization which leads both to stagnation and monopoly rents, which harm consumers over the long term.
[0] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4780_en.htm
[1] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4781_en.htm
[+] [-] TheDong|11 years ago|reply
Firefox Beta, when installed now, registers an intent for search, and when you next do a google-now swipe-up, it'll ask you to pick between google now and firefox beta.
Google already has the solution for android of letting apps register intents, even for core things like maps or search or (hell) even the homescreen.
Google's solution of letting other apps register intents to handle things and prompt the user, while having default apps made by them that fulfill those intents, seems to be the best compromise on usability and extensibility.
[+] [-] thrownaway2424|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baldfat|11 years ago|reply
Anyone else find shopping with Google Search is almost useless and I always follow up with a search on amazon.com and get a better result?
[+] [-] dragonwriter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Goronmon|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Brakenshire|11 years ago|reply
> At issue is whether the company uses its position as the dominant search engine company to muscle out competition from specialized search services, specifically comparison shopping sites, by prioritizing its own Google Shopping search results.
Where are you getting that the 'antitrust angle towards Google search' is a subject of the complaint?
[+] [-] elsewhen|11 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
Such laws seek to "promote and maintain fair competition"
[+] [-] coldtea|11 years ago|reply
Antitrust law is not about being "forced"...
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|11 years ago|reply
The issue isn't "everyone is forced to use Google Search" as much as "Google creates a monopoly through connected use of it's various products and services".
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kbwt|11 years ago|reply
I don't think Google should be allowed to dictate clauses like this one from their developer agreement:
See: https://play.google.com/intl/ALL_us/about/developer-distribu....[+] [-] Aoyagi|11 years ago|reply
Although that probably isn't very relevant to this case....
[+] [-] manulp|11 years ago|reply
Shouldn't this also apply to iOS?
[+] [-] tzs|11 years ago|reply
Google supplies an OS (Android) to non-Google phone makers, and Google supplies applications to non-Google phone makers. The potential antitrust issue is if Google is using its position as an OS supplier to other companies to influence those other companies to also choose Google for applications.
Apple supplies neither an OS nor applications to non-Apple phone makers. There is no third party that Apple is using iOS to influence toward choosing Apple applications.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|11 years ago|reply
Perhaps, but the set of entities behind the complaints that triggered the investigations directed at Google are specifically targeting Google.
If a similar group targets Apple, then maybe we'll see a similar investigation.
[+] [-] SunShiranui|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antsar|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] father_of_two|11 years ago|reply
I would like to know why is it so hard (and expensive) to buy a car on a foreign EU country and legalize it on other, I don't know why am I still paying robbery-like roaming "costs", I don't how is it possible to be considered fiscal resident simultaneous on 2 different countries and why citizens has still to resort to individual country-to-country specific deals to avoid double taxation within EU.
And I could just keep going on... BUT they are worried with a freaking search engine! Piss off.
[+] [-] 1971genocide|11 years ago|reply
What ?
Even BP didn't get that big of a fine when they polluted half of the Atlantic Ocean.
I don't understand what EU's problem is. If they don't like google and android please ask your tech graduates to create their own.
The EU is an funny organization. they are not democratically elected. Their policies is the reason half of EU is bankrupt. The EU should be fined for bankrupting entire generations of young people in Greece and promoting the largest transfer of wealth from poor European nations to rich European nations.
Even assuming Google did participate in behaviour that is anti-competitive that market that google dominates was created by google !
I like china's approach to this where they forced their countrymen to create powerful competitor to google. The emphasis should be promotion of wealth creation and not redistribution. Why doesn't Europe have its own homegrown search giant ? An EU company would clearly have massive advantage due to the language barrier. The EU should be paying people to create companies to compete with google. Or atleast make it a priority to do so. What happens when google refuses to pay the fine and starts backtracing or treating the EU market as "not worth it", has the EU though about how it will effect consumers ?
[+] [-] Aoyagi|11 years ago|reply
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/15/what_did_google_do_w...
[+] [-] undefined0|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wstrange|11 years ago|reply
As an example, google flight search is just hands down better than the alternatives. It is ultra fast (a killer feature) and has a simple but intuitive UI.
[+] [-] ocdtrekkie|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deepix5|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] deepix5|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] deepix5|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]