
Google's response to the European Commission fine - leavjenn
https://www.blog.google/topics/google-europe/european-commission-decision-shopping-google-story/
======
ko27
I think it would be worth adding these opinions of other US-based companies:

"A number of US companies - including Oracle - published a joint letter
addressed to Vestager this week in support of penalties against Google for
“anticompetitive conduct.” It said: "As you near final decisions in the
Shopping and Android cases, Google and its allies will no doubt continue to
press through its lobbying and public relations machine the fiction that any
adverse decision amounts to European 'protectionism'. "As U.S. based
companies, we wish to go on record that enforcement action against Google is
necessary and appropriate, not provincial. We have watched Google undermine
competition in the United States and abroad. Google operates on a global scale
and across the entire online ecosystem, destroying jobs and stifling
innovation."

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/27/google_hit_with_reco...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/27/google_hit_with_record_antitrust_fine_of_xxx_by_europe/)

~~~
dontnotice
Common origin does not disprove animosity or self interest.

One wonders what NewsCorp or Oracle concerns are in ecommerce search, but then
you remember that they had well publicized scuffles with Google.

The last record fine was against a US company, as were recent tax related
fines, patterns are harder to refute.

~~~
pulse7
"patterns are harder to refute" -> there is also a pattern, how big US tech
companies avoid tax payments in EU, it even has a name ("double irish
sandwich")

~~~
debatem1
...and as a result a hefty fine under an unrelated law should be levied?
Europe is and should be a place where laws are more than just tools with which
to punish disfavored parties. If the double Irish should be illegal, then make
it so, and hold on tighter to the straight and narrow path.

~~~
pulse7
Double Irish is treated illegal as "illegal state aid". Would it be legal in
US, if Delaware decided to give some foreign company (registered in Delaware)
only 0,1% tax on everything they earn in the US? I thing the federal court
would rule such "state aid" as illegal...

------
larma
> our data show that people usually prefer links that take them directly to
> the products they want, not to websites where they have to repeat their
> searches.

If you would link them correctly, there wouldn't need to search again, but
would be on the search results of that other site with their (usually better)
results.

Also, considering that product search results are sponsored, usually the top
results at product search are crap. There are three things that people usually
prefer links to when they search for a product: 1\. High quality product
information - that's usually the website of the manufacturer. Amazon is not
too bad in some cases but smaller retailers usually lack a lot of useful
information. 2\. Best offer - when you pay for being a top result on Google
product search, then it's hard to claim you will be able to provide the best
price. 3\. Buyers feedback - sites that are larger usually have more prior
buyers and thus more feedback. Google's very own ratings (which the scrape
from other sites that allow them I guess) is usually crap compared to what you
find on Amazon.

So basically, if Google would want to provide actual useful search results,
this would just be a link to the manufacturers marketing site, a link to the
best offer and/or the result page of a price-comparison site, and a link to
Amazon and/or comparably large local retailers. Results based on who payed
most is not what people usually want, don't try to argue that this is true.

~~~
Ajedi32
> If you would link them correctly, there wouldn't need to search again, but
> would be on the search results of that other site with their (usually
> better) results.

If I wanted to search Amazon, I would have searched Amazon, not Google. The
last thing I want is to search for some product on Google and get a list of
search results pages from other companies as a response instead of a listing
of the products I'm actually searching for. It'd be like if I searched for
some random bit of information on Google and the top result was a link to the
same search results page on Yahoo.

> usually the top results at product search are crap

According to the line from Google you quoted above, most of their users
disagree with you on that. I'm one such user. I don't typically use Google's
shopping results as the _only_ source of product information for me, but I do
occasionally use them as one source.

You also seem to be misunderstanding what the links they show actually link
to. Buyer feedback and product information for individual products are
available on the landing page (from a third party site, I might add) you get
to when you click on a link to a product. The main difference is that you get
to the product page directly rather than having to go through _another_ search
results page from a third party to find what you're looking for.

~~~
ksk
>The last thing I want is to search for some product on Google and get a list
of search results pages from other companies as a response instead of a
listing of the products I'm actually searching for.

The OP isn't talking about Google linking to 'search results pages', but link
to the actual product itself. You're already in agreement with them, so stop
arguing :)

The only problem here is that Google seems to think that its mission is to
setup a tollbooth on the internet rather than indexing information and just
responding to search queries.

>According to the line from Google you quoted above, most of their users
disagree with you on that. I'm one such user.

An advertising company says "Our users think our ads are awesome" \- You'll
have to excuse the people who don't take that seriously.

~~~
Ajedi32
> The OP isn't talking about Google linking to 'search results pages'

Really? It certainly sounds like that's what he was talking about:

> wouldn't need to search again, but would be on the search results of that
> other site

In any case, linking directly to the actual product is _already_ what Google
does. So if that's the goal, then what's the issue?

> An advertising company says "Our users think our ads are awesome"

That's another thing about this ruling that I don't get. Google's "Product
Search" results are essentially paid ads, and they're explicitly marked as
such. (Example: [https://imgur.com/m5rGqLa](https://imgur.com/m5rGqLa))

With this ruling, isn't the EU pretty much saying that Google isn't allowed to
display ads on their search results pages, because those ads are displayed at
the top of the page, thus "giving prominent placement to Google's own
service"? That's ridiculous, right?

~~~
ksk
Google was not fined for displaying ads, but for promoting its services,
illegally, via product tying. Google search should be responding to a query
with relevant web pages that their crawler indexed. Instead, they insert a
popup that links to their shopping service and try to make a buck off of that.
This is the first complaint, the second is that they demoted rival shopping
services from their search results.

~~~
Ajedi32
I can't really speak to the second complaint, since I'm not privy to the
internal workings of Google's ranking algorithms (though I have anecdotal
evidence that the overall quality of Google's search results in these
situations is just fine), but as for the first one: as a consumer I very much
like Google's integrations between search and their other services. Those
integrations are one of the main things that makes Google's search engine
better than its competitors. Being able to search for a nearby business and
immediately see whether it's open, with a link to get directions to it on
Google Maps, is incredibly useful. Same goes for the product results being
discussed here, and for other services like Google's built-in calculator,
dictionary, image search, etc.

If such integrations are illegal under EU law, then in my opinion the law is
harmful to consumers and needs to be changed. I'm not an EU citizen though, so
I don't really have a say in the matter. I can only sit back and hope this
ruling only results in the quality of Google's search results being gimped in
the EU, and not in non-EU countries.

~~~
ksk
>Being able to search for a nearby business and immediately see whether it's
open, with a link to get directions to it on Google Maps, is incredibly
useful. Same goes for the product results being discussed here, and for other
services like Google's built-in calculator, dictionary, image search, etc.

A lot of that is not a service provided by Google. They simply scrap data
others have created and insert their ads. Its a sophisticated form of rent
seeking. If you tried to do that with THEIR services they'd shut you down ASAP
- e.g. If you ran a meta search engine which collected search results from all
other search engines, google will immediately block your access once you got
popular.

I'm totally for this fine, and hope that Google mends their ways. They do have
a good search product that I enjoy using but promoting their unsuccessful
services by integrating it with a successful search product is wrong and harms
competition. I want the web to stay open, and Google's promotion of their
closed platforms is troublesome. Unfortunately, Google spends a lot on
lobbying and cozying up with the government, so I doubt we will see such
enforcement in the US.

~~~
julianmarq
> A lot of that is not a service provided by Google. They simply scrap data
> others have created and insert their ads. Its a sophisticated form of rent
> seeking. If you tried to do that with THEIR services they'd shut you down
> ASAP - e.g. If you ran a meta search engine which collected search results
> from all other search engines, google will immediately block your access
> once you got popular.

You are aware that the opposite applies too, right? That whoever doesn't want
Google scrapping results can block their crawlers?

No, you don't, you have mistaken Google for something other than a private
company. Only you've made that mistake arbitrarily, as evidenced...

> I'm totally for this fine, and hope that Google mends their ways. They do
> have a good search product that I enjoy using but promoting their
> unsuccessful services by integrating it with a successful search product is
> wrong and harms competition. I want the web to stay open, and Google's
> promotion of their closed platforms is troublesome. Unfortunately, Google
> spends a lot on lobbying and cozying up with the government, so I doubt we
> will see such enforcement in the US.

... Here. You are aware that Google search itself is closed, right? You either
aren't or your grandstanding regarding the "open web" is completely empty
words.

Of all the arguments in favor of this ruling I've read, this one is _by far_
the weirdest.

~~~
ksk
>You are aware that the opposite applies too, right? That whoever doesn't want
Google scrapping results can block their crawlers?

The point was, 'whoever has the power, makes the rules'. Google skews search
results whenever it wants to promote its services. Given Google's dominant
position, this harms competition. The EU is addressing this.

>... Here. You are aware that Google search itself is closed, right? You
either aren't or your grandstanding regarding the "open web" is completely
empty words.

An open platform has absolutely nothing to do with the source code. For e.g.
Linux would be an open platform even if you had no access to the source code.
This is because you can run any software you want, poke at any and all bits in
memory, call any API you want, extend the OS using documented APIs in any way
you want, etc. OSX and Windows are open too, with some caveats relating to
their app stores. iOS and Android are not open platforms.

Google is creating tightly integrated closed platforms where they control
absolutely everything, and doing anything that is not "blessed" by them is
automatically illegal and violates their TOS For e.g. If you came up with a
better commenting system, you can't create an app that lets you watch youtube
videos and comment using your own system. If you came up with a better stock
ticker, you can't compete with google because typing 'apple stock quote'
popups up their own service and there is no way to get that top spot. Such
integrations combined with their dominant market position harms competition.
Anyway, i've spent way too much time on this story so this will be my last
comment. Need to get back to work ! :)

~~~
julianmarq
Heh, now you're complaining about a site having its own commenting system. And
that Android isn't an open platform.

Your definition of open and closed is hilariously misguided, I see absolutely
no reason or point in accepting it. And, as your entire argument hangs on that
faulty definition...

------
rndmio
The response from google fails to really address the point from the EU
Commission, that they used their monopoly position in search to drive business
through their product price comparison service. The utility of the service and
the "value of those kinds of fast and easy connections" are immaterial to the
reasoning behind the fine.

~~~
ko27
They are really twisting the commissions ruling to enact sympathy.

"The commission said it did not object to the design of Google's generic
search algorithms or to demotions as such, nor to the way that Google displays
or organises its search results pages: "It objects to the fact that Google has
leveraged its market dominance in general internet search into a separate
market, comparison shopping."

~~~
IshKebab
So we can expect a similar decision against Apple bundling their own apps in
iOS, or Microsoft promoting OneCloud in Windows, or Amazon not selling Google
Chrome & heavily promoting their Firestick, or Bing doing exactly the same
thing as Google (the only difference I see is the placement)?

I think it would be better if Google made it clearer that the shopping search
was all adverts, but otherwise this seems idiotic. Every large tech company
leverages its dominance in one area to compete in a different market.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
We have seen similar action against Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple in the EU...
So, yes.

> this seems idiotic. Every large tech company leverages its dominance in one
> area to compete in a different market.

Then they will continue to be fined for anti-competitive behaviour. Which is
also illegal in the US, the US just doesn't enforce their existing laws.

It is "idiotic" that the US fails to enforce existing US law. It isn't
"idiotic" that the EU does.

~~~
FussyZeus
But this is relatively meaningless with the current fine structure. Unless the
EU's is drastically different, the fine never comes close to matching what the
companies are making with these anti-competitive practices, ergo the companies
are not sufficiently disincentivized to stop using them.

~~~
kazen44
and to be honest, fines are not going to solve this.

Why? making fines to large and forcing companies to pay them up to the point
that it hurts them will result in a severe economic impact, which will
destabilize te economy.

For real gross conduct people should be held responsible in the company, even
to the point that they might be personally responsible. People need a vested
intrest to not do this kind of behaviour.

~~~
FussyZeus
> making fines to large and forcing companies to pay them up to the point that
> it hurts them will result in a severe economic impact

Yeah, that's kind of the point. If it's not large enough to cause an economic
impact then what good is it? If speeding fines were $10 and didn't subtract
points from your license, I'd sure be speeding a lot more.

~~~
Radim
Correct. It's a lose-lose situation, and therefore should be avoided.

Your "speeding tickets" example demonstrates this beautifully. We all know
people who need an externally imposed speed limit, a scalar number that is so
OBVIOUSLY SILLY it doesn't even take into account primary safety factors such
as the weather, surrounding traffic situation, vehicle condition etc (as
drivers do instinctively). People who worship that number as the source of
"safeness"... because some bureaucrat somewhere said so. These are sad, broken
people; actually dangerous to be around when driving.

Put differently: a person who cares about the fines and "points deducted from
their license" more than their own safety and self-preservation, is a great
adept for the Darwin Awards. Applies to businesses equally.

~~~
FussyZeus
If you expect any regulation, be it speed limits or anti-trust legislation, to
have an effect on the situation the penalties for violating them must
_reflect_ that, i.e. there needs to be a real reason for the
business/individual to obey them. Financial penalties are the most direct way
to do so.

Where speed limits are often arbitrary and I think rather useless to maintain
safety, to say that also applies to anti-trust and monopoly regulations is a
stretch. People tend to forget that the first of these sorts of laws grew up
next to companies like Standard Oil and US Steel, companies so large they
literally held a stranglehold not just on the people who did business with
them, but even to a great extent on their competition. Who's to say Google
isn't a monopoly? Not so very long ago with a few keystrokes Google changed
the fortunes of hundreds if not thousands of media companies by cracking down
on linking and changing how their algorithm worked. Whether or not you agree
with their decision (I do, but that's besides the point) is irrelevant; the
fact is that Google has the power to greatly influence the flow of traffic on
the web, and this power is completely, 100% unchecked and rife with
opportunities for abuse.

And as for your co-opting my speeding metaphor, it's also worth noting that
while speeding itself isn't so awfully unsafe, plenty of other things that
will cost you "points on a license" are also things like drunk driving,
reckless driving, driving without insurance, driving vehicles that have
damaged components, etc. in other words: things that not only affect _your_
safety, but the safety of those _around_ you.

------
tokenizerrr
Their links are shit outside of the US as far as I can tell. At least they are
in the Netherlands. It constantly links to US/UK stores (amazon) which are
useless for me, since I'm not paying thrice the product price for shipping.

It also doesn't know about most of the sites that actual Dutch price
comparison sites (tweakers.net/pricewatch) know about, which always give me a
better deal.

~~~
ErikHuisman
I agree the products in the shop results are pretty bad. But i don't need the
EU to protect the few dozen commercial comparison sites in the netherlands. At
least google is honest about the links being sponsored. Tweakers is not.

~~~
teekert
How so? If something is advertising it is clearly labeled and green at the
top, right? Or is there more going on?

~~~
ErikHuisman
Sorry to burst your bubble but all prices on pricewatch are paid for.

"Tweakers.net brengt 24 uur per dag, 365 dagen per jaar informatie over
technologie, consumentenelectronica en daaraan gerelateerde onderwerpen. De
bezoekers van Tweakers.net hebben een bovengemiddeld groot budget voor de
aankoop van hardware, software en consumentenelectronica. Om deze mensen te
informeren over de laagste prijzen en beste aanbiedingen worden deze
bijgehouden in de Pricewatch. In 2014 werd de Pricewatch door het Nederlandse
publiek uitgeroepen tot Beste Vergelijkingssite. Op dit moment bestaat de
database uit ruim 800.000 producten met 2.5 miljoen prijzen bij ruim 350
winkels. Heeft u een webshop en wilt u deze graag aansluiten bij de
Pricewatch? Neem dan contact op met onze verkoopafdeling via
pricewatch@tweakers.net of telefoonnummer 020-204 2133"

~~~
mtrimpe
That's just a sales pitch to have companies (proactively) push their current
prices to Tweakers. Where do you see anything about paid listing there?

~~~
ErikHuisman
Any price not paid for is automatically removed after only 3! days. So
effectively > 99.99% are being paid for but they still maintain the illusion
that it is user generated content.

"Om de Pricewatch actueel te houden vervallen handmatig toegevoegde prijzen na
automatisch na drie dagen. Bedrijven met een Pricewatch Manager abonnement
kunnen een onbeperkt aantal prijzen toevoegen."

~~~
teekert
Yeah but it is still sorted based on price and they have a lot of meta data on
the products and the stores. I don't see any problem. In the end they link to
the sites themselves so it's not like you pay more via Tweakers.

~~~
ErikHuisman
There is no problem. It a great site! I prefer it over any other comparison
site and google shopping big time.

The problem is the EU 'protecting' these commercial enterprises by fining
Google 2.24b euro. A bit high and bit unfair because google at least discloses
the links as sponsored unlike the sites being protected.

~~~
teekert
Then we fully agree ;)

------
hobozilla
That's complete rubbish. If they were really interested in helping customers
get to the products quickly the products would be displayed underneath each
websites search result.

What they really want is for the retailers to pay for the privilege of having
their products at the top of the page.

~~~
jazoom
That's a good point

------
pweissbrod
"Our data show that people usually prefer a built-in browser on their start
menu by default, not browsers they need to download/install/configure
manually"

-Microsoft 20 years ago

~~~
euyyn
Of course everybody prefers a browser to be pre-installed, but Microsoft did
way more than that. They strictly harmed users to protect their Windows
monopoly from the threat of Java apps.

Java applets distributed via the web (executed by Netscape Navigator) had the
potential to displace Win32 as a preferred API, thus making Linux and other
OS's able to compete with Windows in terms of application offering.

Some OEMs wanted to sell Windows computers with Netscape Navigator
preinstalled, because it was way better. Microsoft told them they wouldn't
sell them any Windows license at all if they did it, forcing their hand.

Microsoft further preinstalled their own incompatible version of Java, to try
and make Java apps non cross-platform. They did the same with Internet
Explorer's own incompatible version of web standards, when web apps started to
gain popularity.

Windows' monopoly was maintained in part by Microsoft purposefully spending
resources in actions that only harmed Windows users (and consumers in
general).

~~~
saurik
"That's the joke."

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk)

The comment you are replying to is showing by way of parallel to Microsoft
that this polemic from Google is an absurd defense: your entire comment is
something I would imagine the person you are replying to agrees with, which is
precisely why they made the comment they did, as it demonstrates in a visceral
way how absurd it is to be trying to give Google a free pass just because
their product is useful.

You seem to be going around this thread making the same mistake in multiple
contexts, such as when you replied to me in this other linked thread, which
makes me wonder if you are paying much attention before commenting :/.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646976](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646976)

~~~
euyyn
> your entire comment is something I would imagine the person you are replying
> to agrees with, which is precisely why they made the comment they did

Let that person reply then? I'm refuting the parallel between the two cases,
even if you don't see it.

Microsoft prevented other companies from selling computers with Netscape
Navigator preinstalled.

------
Jerry2
It's interesting how on Hacker News, story about Google getting fined was
censored and removed yet PR from Google is still on the front page. It's sad
that bias and censorship on here is so strong.

~~~
HerraBRE
Why do you say it was censored and removed? It's dropped down to page two, but
that's perfectly normal once something has been on the front page for a while.

~~~
Ajedi32
It's only been 5 hours since it was posted, and the story has ~450 upvotes. In
contrast, I see another story on the front page right now that was posted 18
hours ago and only has ~250 upvotes.

~~~
RandomBookmarks
It could be the algorithm: Maybe the original EU story got many downvotes from
HN users that work at Google?

~~~
polishTar
You can't downvote posts

~~~
mortehu
But you can comment, and posts with many comments are penalized.

------
andrepd
> (...) connecting our users with thousands of advertisers, large and small,
> _in ways that are useful for both_.

We truly live in the age of spinning, of euphemisms, where words lose all
their meaning. All-pervasive advertising, the most insidious technique of
consumer capitalism, is now an idealistic connecting of people (why, rather
than fining us indeed they should be thanking thanking us for that, they seem
to say). Complete invasion of privacy and control over content and information
reaching the person is "enhancing the user experience", etc etc.

~~~
hoorayimhelping
I'd encourage you (and everyone) to read the comments in the other thread
happening today:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712)

You'll see people baffled by this decision and generally happy with the
service and products google offers.

It's just a reminder to remember that what doesn't work for you may be pure
bliss for other people.

~~~
autokad
I'm going to get down voted out the wazoo for saying it, but I will voice my
opinion anyways.

The EU has long used 'anti trust fines' as a way of levying tariffs against US
companies.

~~~
izacus
I find comments like yours baffling. The basic tenement of capitalism, as
worshipped in US, is that it needs competition to function. If a monopolist
prevents competition from functioning (either by hiding their products on the
largest search engine on earth, lowering prices under profitable margins or
other tactics used by such entities) capitalism degenerates into socialism led
by a corporation instead of state. It ceases to function and benefit anyone.

So why the heck would you not support an action that stops a giant corporation
from stiffling the most important mechanism of capitalism?

~~~
Firebrand
>So why the heck would you not support an action that stops a giant
corporation from stiffling the most important mechanism of capitalism?

Because it's not the government's job to unclog the market. It's the
entrepreneur's opportunity to disrupt the market and kick Google's ass.

~~~
andrepd
When you come down from the cloud-land of capitalist heaven you will find this
is not even remotely what happens.

Capitalism is inherently anti-competitive. Larger established companies have
more power than the idealized "entrepreneur" that libertarians like to posit.
If a competitor appears they can simply force them to shutdown, via dumping,
via legal harassment, or simply by virtue of being much larger and being able
to do everything more efficiently and with larger margins. Government
regulation is needed to prevent monopolies. This is self-evident.

------
Changu
The big question is: Do we want Google to grow into a black hole that sucks in
all data on planet earth and leaves no room for small companies?

I for one don't want that. I like startups. Let them do the shopping
comparison. Let them do all kinds of stuff. Don't let the giants swallow
everything.

------
lgl
"We think our current shopping results are useful and are a much-improved
version of the text-only ads we showed a decade ago. Showing ads that include
pictures, ratings, and prices benefits us, our advertisers, and most of all,
our users."

Really Google? I personally remember the advent of adsense and their initial
ultra simple text-only ads being a huge revolution in advertising as a whole
and a huge improvement in user friendliness. Now it's suddenly better to have
images and extra stuff thrown in there.

Pretty soon, it will be even better to have some animated and interactive
simians in them.

~~~
unknownsavage
Google already pushes animated ads through adsense, but not yet on their own
pages.

------
mangecoeur
Argument based on what their data says consumers prefer kinda misses the point
of the fine - the EU doesn't argue whether people prefer it or not, but
whether Google is abusing it's market dominance in am anti competitive way.
That way might well be innovative and could even have good customer
satisfaction, but still be anti competitive.

------
the_mitsuhiko
Not sure how good google's search for this type of stuff in the US is but I
have _never_ seen the google product shopping results to take me to a store I
want to buy from. So if user experience is concerned they are not doing a good
job there.

------
Gatsky
Compared to other antitrust cases, this seems very thin. 2.4 billion for
nefarious price comparison site ranking? I don't get it. This is on a par with
the fines given to banks for literally ripping off their customers
([http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfina...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11619188/Barclays-
handed-biggest-bank-fine-in-UK-history-over-brazen-currency-rigging.html))

------
la_oveja
> Our ability to do that well isn’t favoring ourselves, or any particular site
> or seller

"not favoring any particular seller"? If it pays, it's on the front page. Are
you seriously telling me that somebody who has paid nothing still can get on
the front page competing with others who paid?

I don't trust you, Google.

------
nthcolumn
Their statement is a lie. Google are trying to blur 'shopping ad' and 'search
result'. The consumer is worse off because those items are not listed first on
their search merit. The consumer is deceived. It is only useful to those who
pay for the promotions and Google.

------
Aissen
Note that this happens just as Google scored a small win in France: a french
tribunal advised the authorities that Google's tax evasion scheme with Ireland
might be perfectly legal, and it might not have to pay the €1.15B the French
authorities says they owe for 2005-2010.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-14/google-
ge...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-14/google-gets-boost-
in-fight-over-1-3-billion-french-tax-bill)

Note that this is far from the end on this story. But it just shows the sheer
scale out of which EU countries are being "optimized" out of tax revenue. Add
the monopoly abuse to the mix, and they have every right to make sure the law
is respected.

------
coverband
I thought the combined fines given to Microsoft by the EU Commission were
larger than this amount, but I was wrong. It seems Microsoft paid something
like 2.2 billion euros between 2006-2013[0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission)

(On a side note, I was employed by MS for a couple of years during that time,
and remember clearly how every new feature was being inspected to ensure
whether it followed EU requirements, on top of compliance requirements imposed
earlier by FTC in the U.S.)

------
callumlocke
It's true that these integrations are convenient for users, but it's also true
that they harm market competition.

Google's press release seems to avoid addressing the latter point. The closest
they come is pointing out that Amazon also has a monopoly advantage, which
doesn't seem like a strong argument.

~~~
pweissbrod
If youve been in this business long enough you could see how this comment
around "convenient integrations" could be applied to Microsoft/IE on the start
menu 20 years' back.

Seems to be a thin line between "convenient integrations" and big players
reducing choice/competition. I realize I'm not the average consumer but I'll
clamor for choice/competition every single time.

~~~
callumlocke
I don't think it's just a thin line, I think it's an overlap, that's the
problem. Monopolies can be genuinely convenient/useful for consumers.
Sometimes regulators have to make things less convenient/useful in the short
term to prevent monopoly and stagnation in the long term.

------
aparvinash
One thing I was missing from comments is that the ruling is not passed by
courts but by the commission investigated the crime. Is it same as prosecutor
sentencing the accused and there by the burden of proof is upon the accused ?
Would it be the same if the accused is a person and not a corporation in EU ?

------
bla2
Sounds a bit tone deaf. On the other hand, I'm not sure if there's anything
else they can do at this point. They've lost the case and the appeal won't
change that, but investors would be even unhappier if they didn't even try to
appeal.

------
dheera
What if Google simply pulled out of those countries?

I'm asking this seriously. When they pulled out of China, China blocked them,
so they effectively lost. But Europe's countries do not block websites. Google
could just pull out of those countries, continue to localize content for those
countries' languages, and the users, page views, ad revenue wouldn't go
anywhere. And those countries wouldn't be able to lay a finger on Google in
terms of fines.

~~~
mrtksn
What exactly Google will win from spending money just as it is spending today
to run the services but stop making any financial returns?

Why would investors be happy of Google catering to a market that has only
expenses but no profit or hope for future profit due to regulatory reasons.

I guess EU locals would enjoy the ad-free experience...

------
zrg
With any luck this might make google rethink their strategy on AMP page
prioritisation

------
xtracto
I have no sympathy for Google. They take on their hands the role of policing
the world removing some kind of ads that some guys in India think are not
"good enough" for people all the way into other countries (Mexico in my case),
without understanding the context of the country and the product in that
country. And this, for products that are not only legal in the country but are
even being promoted by the government.

But when they are abusing their power for greed reasons and the government
punishes them, then they whine. Hypocrites.

------
socrates1998
From my limited knowledge of the situation, this seems an appropriate fine.

Google claims that the success of Ebay and Amazon prove that they haven't been
anti-competitive, right?

But I think Google just couldn't help itself.

How could you not?

You have the consensus, world dominating search engine, and you just have to
slightly tweak it to every so slightly support your shopping platform.

It just seems way too easy to do.

One small adjustment means $4 billion more next year, I mean, how could you
not do it?

As an anecdote, I have never trusted Google's product results in the top bar.
It just all seemed to easy to fudge the results to me.

------
dlwdlw
As an aside, I think Google has huge potential to become the source of
discovery for all things. Actions where it promotes its own stuff on Google
play despite knowing and hiding the same thing on Hulu/Netflix/HBO is myopic.
It should continue to do what it is good at instead of fighting for slices of
other pie.

------
mattmanser
The ridiculous thing about this blog is that if Google only had the search
side of the business they would have built this functionality for the
comparison sites to use via microdata or one of those specs, but didn't and
only built it for their own shopping comparison site.

So each search result could have had this carousel.

------
dingo_bat
I guess this teaches companies to continue avoiding tax-payment in EU as much
as possible.

------
perseusprime11
I hope Trump fines EU for all these non-sense fines they impose on American
companies. Feels like EU is trying to compensate for their high debt.

~~~
matthewmacleod
This is not a valid complaint. Fining companies for breaking competition law
is totally legitimate.

~~~
perseusprime11
Sometimes when you go to google search, it will prompt you to download the
their app, download chrome, use their native weather, news, etc. It is part of
how they iterate on their core search product. If they decide to show Google
shopping, isn't that their product decision?

~~~
danielbarla
Yes, it is. The problem comes in when a company which controls a significant
percentage of one platform (search, in this case), uses that advantage to
muscle in to other areas.

This is seen as a bad thing, because beyond the consumers are left with an
unbeatable giant. Unlike normal market leaders, however, this giant doesn't
need a superior product, but only apply leverage (given by their other
positions).

This is the very essence of anti-trust / monopoly laws. Competition is a good
thing.

------
pdog
European commissioners should read a couple of Paul Graham's essays. No wonder
the EU doesn't have the equivalent of a Silicon Valley.

"How to Be Silicon Valley":
[http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/siliconvalley.html)

"Why Startups Condense In America":
[http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html)

~~~
8draco8
In return EU have healthy job market with ~40hr work week and proper
healthcare. Most of EU companies are not trying to keep me as developer in a
golden cage, offering me everything so I wouldn't have to go home anymore.
There are many healthy business hubs here in Europe (London, Cardiff-Bristol-
Bath, Berlin and many others), maybe they do not have that superstar status as
SV but they are still good places to be. Sometimes I wonder if people living
in SV bubble thinks that there is no serious tech companies outside SV.

~~~
Jyaif
> have healthy job market

Reminder: the EU's unemployment rate is twice as high as the US'.

~~~
omginternets
The US might have a better job market (by some cherry-picked metrics), but the
EU doesn't have a _bad_ one (I'll grant that there are notable exceptions, but
then you'll have to grant me the same for certain US states).

The point is that you're playing with words.

Moreover, you have to factor in things like healthcare, life expectancy,
literacy rates, access to education, danger involved in unemployment, crime
rates, unemployment pensions, etc if you want to make a useful decision as to
which of the two systems is more dysfunctional than the other.

-=EDIT=- : _viz_ "cherry-picked metrics", the quality of a job market is more than just the proportion of people employed. Let's not forget other relevant factors:

\- job stability

\- employee protection

\- workplace hazards & injury compensation

\- vacation & sick leave

\- retirement pensions

\- mandated employee benefits (transportation, remote-work assistance, etc.)

\- maternity / paternity leave

\- etc

~~~
eeZah7Ux
...and the negative externalities: per-capita imprisonment rates, people
killed in other countries through war and other means, people killed in the
same country, energy usage, waste output, pollution and carbon footprint...

