There's no fixed threshold. The dominance is determined by the court, based on multiple criteria. A 40% market share may be considered dominant, if competitors are all much smaller, the barrier to entry is high, or if the company is an unavoidable trading partner.
There's no fixed threshold. The dominance is determined by the court, based on multiple criteria. A 40% market share may be considered dominant, if competitors are all much smaller, the barrier to entry is high, or if the company is an unavoidable trading partner.
I feel like there's non-competitive environment for how all nations in the EU should be run and that it feel like the EU Parliament and Commission have a complete monopoly over how it should be ruled.
We need to break it up and make it easier for smaller people like me to influence it.
Who "forces anyone to use Google"??? Well, it's the "other consumers". If all the "other consumers" use Google, then essentially the businesses are "forced" to use Google... and in turn "you and I" are "forced" to use Google
One could argue that "it's not Googles fault that they make a better product than the consumer", and that is true.
The commission if fining Google because:
- Consumers(stupidly/naively) believe that Google is showing the results that are most relevant to the customer
- Google is NOT doing that
If you search for "cheap shoes", the searcher/customer has a right to expect that they get a fair representation of the best(most relevant) sites that sell cheap shoes.
Google does NOT do this...
- They will sneakily put links to their own store, with out any indication that it is essentially an advert for their own product/store.
If you search for "cheap shoes", the searcher/customer has a right to expect that they get a fair representation of the best(most relevant) sites that sell cheap shoes.
"That sell cheap shoes..."
Well, how do you know that? Do you read peoples' minds? When I searched for "cheap shoes", I was looking for cheap shoes that aren't worth the time. Not what you stated.
Also, remember that what I refer to as "cheap" may not necessarily be the same thing you refer to as cheap.
It doesn't matter anyway now because I am not a judge.
Who forces anyone to use Google in the first place?
What's the alternative? Bing? hahahah
No seriously, that is kind of my point. When there is a primary search engine and alternatives are actively mocked, users of alternatives are actively mocked, and alternatives despite a massive amount of funding and resources behind them have poor market share, then you are in a defacto monopoly.
Monopoly status is not dependent on someone's ability to easily switch to an alternative, but rather the actual possibility that they would if the alternatives exist. Quite frank
Google "denied other companies the chance to compete" and left consumers without "genuine choice."
We should start right there. Who forces anyone to use Google in the first place?
What forces me to use Google is the fact that they have the best searches which is to a large extent due to the fact that they have something like 78% of the global market share which in turn is a large part of the reason they are able to deliver such good searches in the first place although Google would like you to believe that it's exclusively due to the fact that their search algorithm is light years more advanced than that those of the competition. Mind you I usually try to use other search engines first, mainly because I'm a compulsive windmill jouster who loathes monopolies or near monopolies in any form, but I all to often end up going back to Google much to my annoyance because I think Google is in desperate need of some truly fierce competition (mind you Bing has been gradually getting better over the years it's just been slooooow going). What makes or breaks a search engine is not giving good results on the 20-30% of searches on very popular and therefore extremely common searches like 'big titties' it's the ability to deliver good results on the 70-80% of searches on very specific/esoteric topics like: 'error LNK2001 unresolved symbol', 'install a performance air filter on a Moto Guzzi bike', 'the silver economy in dark age Europe', 'carrot beer' or 'vegan spinach ice cream' (and yes, the last two really are a thing, just not terribly popular). Its a kind of like the chicken or the egg causality dilemma, the more traffic an engine gets the more accurate the search results get and the quicker it is able to deliver them but if your engine is only getting 3% of the traffic, Bing is getting 20% and Google is hogging the rest you're in for an up hill struggle with your search engine startup unless you get lucky and come up with a quantum leap in search technology like Google did and contrary to what you may believe those don't grow on trees. In the mean time monopolies or near monopolies are never a good thing even if the monopolist is Google.
What forces me to use Google is the fact that they have the best searches which is to a large extent due to the fact that they have something like 78% of the global market share which in turn is a large part of the reason they are able to deliver such good searches in the first place although Google would like you to believe that it's exclusively due to the fact that their search algorithm is light years more advanced than that those of the competition.
It's easily forgotten that Google's dominance developed because their algorithms in fact were light years more advanced than those of the competition. At that time we also had Hotbot/Inktomi and Altavista. We stopped using them specifically because their search results lacked relevance, while Google's kept getting better.
Yes, but I see it being inexplicably forgotten that bygones are bygones. The court ruling, is not about the days when we had Hotbot/Inktomi and Altavista.
The default is a powerful motivator. Most phones have Google as the default search engine. Most people seem to have Google as their default desktop search engine due to it being the default in Chrome and Firefox or their company.
That's why the EU didn't use the word "force", as you did. They are saying that being the default gives Google something of a monopoly, as seen by the proportion of traffic they get compared to other search engines and price comparison sites. The EU expects companies in a monopoly p
The default is a powerful motivator. Most phones have Google as the default search engine. Most people seem to have Google as their default desktop search engine due to it being the default in Chrome and Firefox or their company.
While the default IS a powerful motivator, I don't think that's what's happening here. My wife's work did not allow any browsers except for IE; whenever IE got an update, the search engine would be set back to the default (bing). At which point her co-workers would all bug her to help then change the search back to Google.
People don't use Google because it's the default. They go through a reasonable amount of effort to change from the non-Google default. It's a bit freaky, actually, but it's true.
The short answer? Google. That is the reason they got fined.
The longer answer is that they decided to do business in Europe and thus have to follow the rules in Europe. Just like e.g. can sell beer to 16 year olds in Belgium, but not to 20 year olds in the US.
You can agree or disagree with either or both laws, but that does not change anything.
Who forces anyone to use Google in the first place?
Consumers are forcing retailers to use Google.
Your confusion is stemming from the fact that you're thinking of this backwards: you're approaching it from the consumer side, rather than the retailer side. Consumers have free choice in regards to what search engine they use, but the fact that 90% of them have chosen Google means that stores have no choice. They are forced to advertise through Google if they want to stay in business. European law dictates that companies cannot use their dominance in one market
Search is not a market. Selling advertising is. It makes no sense to demand that companies only do search or advertising - no ones pays for search. but advertisers pay for eyeballs.
This is equivalent to saying that {insert TV station} should be forced to show adverts by their competitors because they cannot use their dominance in terms of good TV to dominate advertising.
Google has built the world's largest discovery engine. In addition to pages that score highly on other metrics, Google also promotes pages
It makes no sense to demand that companies only do search or advertising
No one is demanding that, and I have no idea how you reached that incorrect assumption. European law simply demands that if you do both, you need to not abuse your position in one to give yourself an advantage in the other.
This is equivalent to saying that [...]
No, it's not like your analogy at all. You're saying that TV network A is getting in trouble for not showing ads for TV network B's shows, but that's not at all what's happening here. What's happening here is that TV network A commands 90% of viewership and also owns a fas
Who forces anyone to use Google in the first place?
Quality forces people to use Google. Not just Google's quality but the lack of alternative quality. Marketing, market forces, ridicule for using the alternatives, the fact that google is used commonly as a verb....
You don't need to have your arm twisted or a gun to your head to be "forced" to use a service. Sometimes sheer market dominance will do that for you.
What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?
Is Google forced down anyone's throat? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google "denied other companies the chance to compete" and left consumers without "genuine choice."
We should start right there. Who forces anyone to use Google in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Who forces anyone to use Google in the first place?
Nobody, but that's not relevant according to the law, which only looks at dominance (over 90% market share), not force.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody, but that's not relevant according to the law, which only looks at dominance (over 90% market share), not force.
So, what's the threshold? 85%? 80%? 40%? Do we know?
Re: (Score:2)
There's no fixed threshold. The dominance is determined by the court, based on multiple criteria. A 40% market share may be considered dominant, if competitors are all much smaller, the barrier to entry is high, or if the company is an unavoidable trading partner.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no fixed threshold. The dominance is determined by the court, based on multiple criteria. A 40% market share may be considered dominant, if competitors are all much smaller, the barrier to entry is high, or if the company is an unavoidable trading partner.
I feel like there's non-competitive environment for how all nations in the EU should be run and that it feel like the EU Parliament and Commission have a complete monopoly over how it should be ruled.
We need to break it up and make it easier for smaller people like me to influence it.
Re:Is Google forced down anyone's throat? (Score:4, Informative)
One could argue that "it's not Googles fault that they make a better product than the consumer", and that is true.
The commission if fining Google because:
- Consumers(stupidly/naively) believe that Google is showing the results that are most relevant to the customer
- Google is NOT doing that
If you search for "cheap shoes", the searcher/customer has a right to expect that they get a fair representation of the best(most relevant) sites that sell cheap shoes.
Google does NOT do this...
- They will sneakily put links to their own store, with out any indication that it is essentially an advert for their own product/store.
Re: (Score:1)
If you search for "cheap shoes", the searcher/customer has a right to expect that they get a fair representation of the best(most relevant) sites that sell cheap shoes.
"That sell cheap shoes..."
Well, how do you know that? Do you read peoples' minds? When I searched for "cheap shoes", I was looking for cheap shoes that aren't worth the time. Not what you stated.
Also, remember that what I refer to as "cheap" may not necessarily be the same thing you refer to as cheap.
It doesn't matter anyway now because I am not a judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Who forces anyone to use Google in the first place?
What's the alternative? Bing? hahahah
No seriously, that is kind of my point. When there is a primary search engine and alternatives are actively mocked, users of alternatives are actively mocked, and alternatives despite a massive amount of funding and resources behind them have poor market share, then you are in a defacto monopoly.
Monopoly status is not dependent on someone's ability to easily switch to an alternative, but rather the actual possibility that they would if the alternatives exist. Quite frank
Re:Is Google forced down anyone's throat? (Score:4, Informative)
Google "denied other companies the chance to compete" and left consumers without "genuine choice."
We should start right there. Who forces anyone to use Google in the first place?
What forces me to use Google is the fact that they have the best searches which is to a large extent due to the fact that they have something like 78% of the global market share which in turn is a large part of the reason they are able to deliver such good searches in the first place although Google would like you to believe that it's exclusively due to the fact that their search algorithm is light years more advanced than that those of the competition. Mind you I usually try to use other search engines first, mainly because I'm a compulsive windmill jouster who loathes monopolies or near monopolies in any form, but I all to often end up going back to Google much to my annoyance because I think Google is in desperate need of some truly fierce competition (mind you Bing has been gradually getting better over the years it's just been slooooow going). What makes or breaks a search engine is not giving good results on the 20-30% of searches on very popular and therefore extremely common searches like 'big titties' it's the ability to deliver good results on the 70-80% of searches on very specific/esoteric topics like: 'error LNK2001 unresolved symbol', 'install a performance air filter on a Moto Guzzi bike', 'the silver economy in dark age Europe', 'carrot beer' or 'vegan spinach ice cream' (and yes, the last two really are a thing, just not terribly popular). Its a kind of like the chicken or the egg causality dilemma, the more traffic an engine gets the more accurate the search results get and the quicker it is able to deliver them but if your engine is only getting 3% of the traffic, Bing is getting 20% and Google is hogging the rest you're in for an up hill struggle with your search engine startup unless you get lucky and come up with a quantum leap in search technology like Google did and contrary to what you may believe those don't grow on trees. In the mean time monopolies or near monopolies are never a good thing even if the monopolist is Google.
Re: (Score:2)
What forces me to use Google is the fact that they have the best searches which is to a large extent due to the fact that they have something like 78% of the global market share which in turn is a large part of the reason they are able to deliver such good searches in the first place although Google would like you to believe that it's exclusively due to the fact that their search algorithm is light years more advanced than that those of the competition.
It's easily forgotten that Google's dominance developed because their algorithms in fact were light years more advanced than those of the competition. At that time we also had Hotbot/Inktomi and Altavista. We stopped using them specifically because their search results lacked relevance, while Google's kept getting better.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but I see it being inexplicably forgotten that bygones are bygones. The court ruling, is not about the days when we had Hotbot/Inktomi and Altavista.
In other words, how is that relevant today ?
Re: Is Google forced down anyone's throat? (Score:2)
I don't believe this is about you. You are not the customer, you are the product. This is about those who wish to advertise.
Re: (Score:2)
What don't you believe is about Freischutz ?
Did you just randomly select a place to spew the cliche (no unicode ? é) about customer and product ?
Or are you saying users being customers makes Google's situation not monopolistic but monopsonistic ? Does that change anything materially ?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a cliche for him to say users of Google search are the product when they are in fact the product. That's called a fact.
Ok, I'll wait for proof that a fact cannot be a cliche.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You will understand why not, if you read the wikipedia article instead of only linking to it.
Re: (Score:2)
The default is a powerful motivator. Most phones have Google as the default search engine. Most people seem to have Google as their default desktop search engine due to it being the default in Chrome and Firefox or their company.
That's why the EU didn't use the word "force", as you did. They are saying that being the default gives Google something of a monopoly, as seen by the proportion of traffic they get compared to other search engines and price comparison sites. The EU expects companies in a monopoly p
Re: (Score:2)
The default is a powerful motivator. Most phones have Google as the default search engine. Most people seem to have Google as their default desktop search engine due to it being the default in Chrome and Firefox or their company.
While the default IS a powerful motivator, I don't think that's what's happening here. My wife's work did not allow any browsers except for IE; whenever IE got an update, the search engine would be set back to the default (bing). At which point her co-workers would all bug her to help then change the search back to Google.
People don't use Google because it's the default. They go through a reasonable amount of effort to change from the non-Google default. It's a bit freaky, actually, but it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
Their competitors. I mean, have you tried Bing?
Re: (Score:2)
The short answer? Google. That is the reason they got fined.
The longer answer is that they decided to do business in Europe and thus have to follow the rules in Europe. Just like e.g. can sell beer to 16 year olds in Belgium, but not to 20 year olds in the US.
You can agree or disagree with either or both laws, but that does not change anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Who forces anyone to use Google in the first place?
Consumers are forcing retailers to use Google.
Your confusion is stemming from the fact that you're thinking of this backwards: you're approaching it from the consumer side, rather than the retailer side. Consumers have free choice in regards to what search engine they use, but the fact that 90% of them have chosen Google means that stores have no choice. They are forced to advertise through Google if they want to stay in business. European law dictates that companies cannot use their dominance in one market
Re: (Score:2)
Search is not a market. Selling advertising is. It makes no sense to demand that companies only do search or advertising - no ones pays for search. but advertisers pay for eyeballs.
This is equivalent to saying that {insert TV station} should be forced to show adverts by their competitors because they cannot use their dominance in terms of good TV to dominate advertising.
Google has built the world's largest discovery engine. In addition to pages that score highly on other metrics, Google also promotes pages
Re: (Score:2)
Search is not a market. Selling advertising is.
False dichotomy.
It makes no sense to demand that companies only do search or advertising
No one is demanding that, and I have no idea how you reached that incorrect assumption. European law simply demands that if you do both, you need to not abuse your position in one to give yourself an advantage in the other.
This is equivalent to saying that [...]
No, it's not like your analogy at all. You're saying that TV network A is getting in trouble for not showing ads for TV network B's shows, but that's not at all what's happening here. What's happening here is that TV network A commands 90% of viewership and also owns a fas
Re: (Score:2)
Who forces anyone to use Google in the first place?
Quality forces people to use Google. Not just Google's quality but the lack of alternative quality. Marketing, market forces, ridicule for using the alternatives, the fact that google is used commonly as a verb....
You don't need to have your arm twisted or a gun to your head to be "forced" to use a service. Sometimes sheer market dominance will do that for you.