back to article WHAT did GOOGLE do SO WRONG to get a slapping from the EU?

Google made the internet a bit more crappy and considerably less diverse, breaking its own vows along the way. That’s what the EU’s competition division declared earlier today, in a formal Statement of Objections. So what’s their beef? If you’ve a long memory, you’ll find uncanny parallels with Microsoft’s behaviour in the …

  1. AndyS

    Very interesting read

    Thanks, for a decent, thorough explanation of the issue.

    Every time a large company is accused of abusing its monopoly, particularly by the EU, the comments section here and elsewhere seems to fill up with the most mindless drivel, in equal parts small minded UKIP talking points ("who are they to tell us what to do") and misunderstanding the issues ("Nobody's stopping you using Bing.") An explanation like this article provides is extemely useful in understanding what's actually at issue.

  2. Zog The Undeniable

    Who uses Google Shopping?

    Google's shopping search results have always been hopeless. Too many rubbish eBay items, wrong items or unavailable items from old web pages. On a level playing field, they wouldn't be able to compete at all because they're so laughably bad at "doing" shopping. Hence the Foundem story - if true - is entirely believable.

    Google jumped the shark a long time ago, notably when they tried to take on Farcebook in a market where mediocrity, poor usability and privacy concerns are all clearly trumped by critical mass. Not a very intelligent move. The basic search engine is still good, though, and Android is sufferable, so it's not all a disaster.

    1. asdf

      Re: Who uses Google Shopping?

      >The basic search engine is still good

      Though I strongly dislike using Google for many reasons but especially due to them actively sabotaging anyone using their service with tor (captcha hell 4 joo) using their competitors to find out how to fix fairly obscure FreeBSD issues quickly showed me why they lead. DuckDuckGo is great as long your needs are rarely esoteric.

      1. salamamba too
        Thumb Up

        Re: Who uses Google Shopping?

        I prefer Startpage to DDG, it uses google, but strips identifiable information out first. you can also view most resulting sites through a built-in proxy.

    2. Durant Imboden

      Re: Who uses Google Shopping?

      Shopping results are ads. Period. Whether they're hopeless or brilliant is beside the point.

  3. Indolent Wretch

    And one other thing (I could rant endlessly but I'm busy)

    "Your choice as a seller of dog food or soap powder wanting to attract a digital audience is to go to Google or Microsoft's Bing"

    Yes... in order to buy advertising... What do you think is better for me as a seller of new dog food, have 2 or 3 big advertising agencies to go to in order to cover a wide demographic of billions of people.... or have to go to hundreds each covering a tiny fraction?

    And even if I don't want to buy advertising you never heard of Twitter? or Facebook? or Pinterest? or "Insert latest social trend here" of effing Mumsnet?

    How can Google be said to control billions of desktops when the people involved can all switch search engines tomorrow if they wanted to.

    How can Analytics be said to have no competitors when anyone could write one tomorrow, or how about using Piwik or KISSmetrics or Clicky or Woopra or Open Web Analytics or FoxMetrics or ClickTale or Mint or GoingUp! or Crazy Egg or Mouseflow or Chartbeat or GoSquared or Moz Analytics or etc or etc or etc.

    1. Test Man

      "How can Google be said to control billions of desktops when the people involved can all switch search engines tomorrow if they wanted to."

      I think you're missing the point. The billions of desktops don't know how or don't desire to switch engines tomorrow, that's the problem! I know someone who, instead of putting in company name and adding a .com to the end will fire up Google and put in company name in there, every single time. She doesn't know anything, because Google is the defacto and default search engine, hell, Google IS the internet. Therefore Google can promote ANYTHING and she will simply lap it up without querying it. This is potentially DANGEROUS.

      What hope is there for others when Google has such a wide reach they can influence people at will to the total detriment of other companies?

      "How can Analytics be said to have no competitors when anyone could write one tomorrow, or how about using Piwik or KISSmetrics or Clicky or Woopra or Open Web Analytics or FoxMetrics or ClickTale or Mint or GoingUp! or Crazy Egg or Mouseflow or Chartbeat or GoSquared or Moz Analytics or etc or etc or etc."

      Have you actually tried to write a competitor site and then tried to actually get it promoted? When Google is the one controlling the views of billions of desktop, how do you think your company, who is a direct competitor, is actually going to fare regarding promotion when Google controls the view and, unchecked, will also stop you from being noticed at all?

      1. VinceH
        Unhappy

        "I know someone who, instead of putting in company name and adding a .com to the end will fire up Google and put in company name in there, every single time."

        I think we all know people like that. Amongst the people I know it's not always Google, though it is for most of them.

        I witnessed a particularly good example the other day. I read out a (short) domain name to someone and he typed it in. I assumed he was typing it into the address bar - but when I looked up, he had a page of Google results on screen. It's a sad indictment of the way average users think about the internet.

        "She doesn't know anything, because Google is the defacto and default search engine, hell, Google IS the internet. Therefore Google can promote ANYTHING and she will simply lap it up without querying it. This is potentially DANGEROUS."

        Quite.

      2. Oninoshiko

        "I think you're missing the point. The billions of desktops don't know how or <u>don't desire to switch engines</u> tomorrow, that's the problem!"

        No, that's not a problem. That's google doing search well enough that it's not worth the time test every piddly competitor. Here's the reality, 94% of my searches put what i'm looking for on the first page, another 4% I have to dig deeper, and the last 1% gives me nothing useful. I only marginally care about that 4%, and only REALLY care about the 1%. The problem is, the competitors don't do them noticeably better.

        So, tell me, WHY should I go out of my way to use something that isn't better?

        "Have you actually tried to write a competitor site and then tried to actually get it promoted? When Google is the one controlling the views of billions of desktop, how do you think your company, who is a direct competitor, is actually going to fare regarding promotion when Google controls the view and, unchecked, will also stop you from being noticed at all?"

        Even when you AREN'T a competitor to Google this is a problem. The already established site is who Google's going to rank higher simply because it's more likely that's what people are looking for. What do you purpose, have Google list in reverse order of relevancy?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          > So, tell me, WHY should I go out of my way to use something that isn't better?

          Did you actually read the article at all? Been good at something is not a monopoly. Being good at something and then using that as leverage to force people to to use something which you are not so good at is abusive.

          If they are good at search, fine, but they are not allowed to use that "good at search" to also force Google+, Maps, Google Shopping, analytics, etc, etc, or whatever other "beta software" they have invented down your throat - that stifles competition. Doubly so in Google's case because they subsidize all of the peripheral stuff on the back of a huge ad network, which makes it almost impossible to compete against on a commercial footing.

          The general risk is that you end up in a situtation where users can't use something better because it doesn't exist, but it should have existed in a well functioning market. Mega corps are nearly always "bad".

      3. JEDIDIAH
        Mushroom

        Rescuing the morons from themselves...

        > I think you're missing the point. The billions of desktops don't know how or don't desire to switch engines tomorrow, that's the problem!

        That's simply not Google's problem.

        There's simply no technical or structural barrier keeping customers in place. The fact that most people are apparently too stupid (your own observation) to choose Pepsi over Coke is not a problem that should be solved by the government punishing the victor. If they are doing something like dumping, or even like what the article said (hiding competitors), that's something more along the lines of classic anti-trust.

        The fact that most people buy Cambells, Ford, and McDonalds is not an anti-trust issue.

        Search is a commodity. It's not a platform that requires buy-in from 3rd parties. So conflating Google and Microsoft is grossly misleading.

      4. Richard Plinston

        > The billions of desktops don't know how or don't desire to switch engines tomorrow, that's the problem!

        Type "Search engine" into Google and it lists heir competitors. Wiki is top of the list then DuckDuckGo, Bing is 4th. They don't _desire_ to change because Google does a good enough job without being annoying and they don't care about your dogma.

        > I know someone who, instead of putting in company name and adding a .com to the end will fire up Google and put in company name in there, every single time.

        Not all company web sites are company.com. They may be .co.uk, or any of the many other .co or .com or even newer top levels. They may even not be 'company' but some combination. Google works this out and saves trying several arbitrary combinations which fail.

        > Have you actually tried to write a competitor site and then tried to actually get it promoted?

        Type "Search engine" into Google. Do they block competitors ?

        1. veti Silver badge

          Did nobody here even read the fine article?

          It's not about being the best search engine. Google is that, for values of "best" that seem good enough for most people. No question.

          It's about not being the best in other fields, then leveraging their search engine prowess to screw over their competitors in those fields. And if you doubt for a moment that Google has been doing that, I've got an internet to sell you.

          1. Indolent Wretch

            Lets take Maps as an example.

            Others did Maps. They all did it awfully.

            Google came in with a piece of software that was revolutionary in it's day. People literally were amazed by it. It was fast and slick and brilliant.

            They then extended it, brilliantly, with street level views. People were gobsmacked AGAIN.

            That was nothing to do with search engine prowess and screwing over their competitors. Nothing.

            They were just much, much better.

            Or do you disagree with that?

            1. dogged

              > Others did Maps. They all did it awfully.

              No, Streetmap and Mapquest were actually quite a lot better than Google Maps. They just weren't as easy to embed and didn't pop up like magic when you searched for (pretty much anything with a physical location) with Google.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              WTF???

              Seriously, you haven't a clue about maps.

              There's a lot of history there and when Google Maps came out, they bought map data to put on the internet from Navteq and Tele Atlas.

              I'm posting anon because I had a front row seat.

              Google could put map data on the internet because Navteq couldn't. Do you comprehend the costs of setting up the infrastructure to support it? Google had it because of what Google is. Navteq couldn't begin to go out and build the data centers to supply the map data.

              Then there's the synergy between the map data and the rest of Google that Navteq didn't have.

              So if you think about it, Google leveraged their other businesses that Navteq / Garmin / etc couldn't.

              Again there's more to the story but I can't talk about it.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "How can Google be said to control billions of desktops when the people involved can all switch search engines tomorrow if they wanted to."

      That was true for Microsoft Windows, Internet Explorer and Media Player as well. There were alternatives, and MS never forbid anyone to install a different browser or player - or even an office suite, there were Lotus SmartSuite and WordPerfect one, plus StarOffice which would have become OpenOffice later. You could use OS/2, if you didn't like Windows, or even some of the first releases of Linux, Solaris, and other Unixes.

      The real problem was that most people had real little choice anyway, because MS effectively abused its monopoly and killed competition ensuring it was too expensive and with uncertain revenues trying to compete with it because it could give away the browser and the media player for free, while retaining a competitive advantage in applications because it did control the APIs.

      Exactly what Google did now.

      1. oldcoder

        No.

        Microsoft abused things because EVEN IF you chose to use OS/2 or Lotus or whatever - you STILL had to give Microsoft money.

        Google doesn't do that.

        Microsoft STILL sets the default browser, even if you WANT something else. Microsoft STILL sets the default search engine to its own. Yes, you can change that... but the next update/patch could replace it AGAIN.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "Microsoft abused things because EVEN IF you chose to use OS/2 or Lotus or whatever - you STILL had to give Microsoft money".

          Where did you dream that? Patents? So, don't use Android.

          What was wrong for a MS product to have a default MS browser - which you could easily change? Don't Google drives you to its own services as well?

          Frankly, the fact that people like you has a unnatural hate for MS, while Google is holy, makes all this a bit scary...

      2. Indolent Wretch

        Nonsense.

        You could barely buy a PC without Windows installed on it and switching it to another operating system was a task WAY WAY beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of users out there.

        Regardless of your choice of browser you could NEVER uninstall IE.

        I don't see how Google has killed the opposition when every single thread of this type ends in a chorus of people exclaiming how they've ditched Google and use DuckDuckGo.

    3. AndyS

      "...mindless drivel ... misunderstanding the issues ("Nobody's stopping you using Bing.")"

      "How can Google be said to control billions of desktops when the people involved can all switch search engines tomorrow if they wanted to."

      And there it is, only 2 comments later.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        AndyS, so what, it is a true statement. The fact that a lot of people can't be bothered to change what they have been doing for years in no way changes that fact. Just as people complain about adds in the search results because they don't use AB+.

      2. Tom 35

        They don't have to switch to bing

        When they log onto Windows for the first time they have IE and Bing.

        They download Chrome. On purpose.

        They switch IE to use Google. On purpose.

        Or even download Firefox, and switch to Google.

        Or for the most limited people, they will type google.com every time. I know people who do that.

        They do it because they LIKE google, and Bing/Yahoo sucks.

        Bing has just as much advertizing stuck at the top, and even more crap links on the first page like cnet "reviews" or ebay links.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Indolent Wretch

      You've just made the argument that advertising is a natural monopoly, that one player (perhaps two) is the minimum energy state for that market (blending physics and economics). In which case, it *must* be regulated.

  4. hplasm
    Meh

    Sometimes, just sometimes

    The competition just isn't up to much.

  5. Yugguy

    Corporation puts profit ahead of principles???

    Blimey.

    Next you'll be telling me water is wet.

    1. asdf

      Re: Corporation puts profit ahead of principles???

      >Corporation puts profit ahead of principles?

      Yeah Jack Welch taught the Baby Boomers how to do that and they really ran with it. Now its standard SOP.

  6. dogged

    The fun bit is waiting for some fandroids to come along and tell us that even though the FTC internally found Google guilty on all counts, they are still clearly innocent because nobody makes McDonalds sell Burger King burgers or some other nonsensical drivel.

    1. VinceH
      Facepalm

      Don't confuse two different groups of people: Those who use Android and those who like Google. They are not necessarily the same.

      For example: I am in the former group, but I couldn't be further outside the latter group.

  7. Planty Bronze badge

    Google's problem

    Is that Microsoft now suck at everything they do, but they have lots of cash from legacy product lines to buy euroocrats.

    Bad news for consumers when google are forced to push crappy competitor products up the results rankings just to keep people in Brussels happy.

  8. MSLiermann

    An article by Andrew Orlowski carrying water for a megacorporation...as surprising as a fart after a Mexican dinner, and about as welcome in polite society, too.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What a peculiar misreading of this article

      Did you actually read it?

      1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Poseurs will pose.

      2. Oninoshiko

        Re: What a peculiar misreading of this article

        I think that's a pretty obvious "no."

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What a peculiar misreading of this article

        I was especially taken by the explaintion on the differences in competition analyses between the US and Europe. Now it makes sense.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What a peculiar misreading of this article

        Andrew, to be frank, I think he did have a point and the fact he didn't read what you wrote kind of proves it. The point is, while we all have our obsessions, and pedal our views, consciously or not, your leitmotif on the Register (this article is a complete departure, by the way) once or twice interesting, finally got monotonous, i.e. article after article on the same and with the same angle. This is to the point that, if I happen to glance at the author's name and recognize yours, I think "oh no, not again", and move to other stuff, and if I miss the name, I can recognize you after a few lines, and, sorry, with the same effect. Sure, it's a free world (pun intended), nobody's forcing me to read, and you can write what you want and how you want, and lots of people probably do enjoy it. But this hilariously misfired post above did strike a chord with me, hence the comment. Kind of ironic, given that your text on Google v EU was measured and very enjoyable, hopefully you'd not take it as an offense, written so clearly, that perhaps even an average politician could get it. I wish I could see more of your writing on variable topics.

  9. John G Imrie

    There’s little chance of a European YouTube rival getting much backing

    That's because without a behemoth like Google behind it any video sharing site is going to be killed by the music and movie businesses.

  10. John Lilburne

    Take maps as an example

    In 2007/8 I found that certain Google searches returned as the top hit a KLM link drawn from the geodata RSS feed that flickr provided on my account. Click the link and you were taken to Google Maps with the photos layers over it. In essence a scraping service no better than those that pretty up their tawdry website by displaying a ribbon of tagged flickr images. How ever these were an up-to-date tags, these were what the RSS feed contained when googlebot indexed it several weeks ago. As I recall the search was "Liseux" the geodata on the day I looked held images from Snettisham Beach. Basically Google were layering images across their maps in order to "pretty it up" it had nothing to do with search information at all. Cynical exploitation.

  11. Indolent Wretch

    "Google said it demoted verticals because they were spammy (“low quality,” “shallow”, “duplicate, overlapping, or redundant” content) – and it’s undoubtedly true that such sites attempted to game Google and get in the rankings. Yet so, too, did sites providing a better consumer offering. Google just didn’t want you to see them."

    Try and get a clue, this isn't the freaking point. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM. If I go to a search engine and do a search the last thing I want, 99.99999999% of the time, is to get directed to another search engine.

    I don't care how utterly brilliant a consumer offering they have they are by definition "redundant" because I didn't go to them to do my search.

    Basically this article amounts to Google bad because Wil Wheaton and the Gadget Show told me so.

    1. Any mouse Cow turd

      but...

      on the occasions when you are searching for a product I'm betting that you want to find the best site to do the price comparisons with (and \or reviews).

      The fact that Google presents you with their shopping results ahead of anyone else's, and often in lieu of anyone else's clearly shows they know what you want to see but chose not to show it. Added to that they probably game their results to give themselves the largest commission if a sale does go through.

      If Google were operating decently they would show the top rated shopping/comparison sites so you could get the best deal, not them!

      1. McBread

        Re: but...

        Actually, if I'm searching for a product by model, I'm almost certainly interested in reviews and real-world experiences, be it (online) magazines, blogs or forum discussions. Perhaps the manual in pdf form. Actually looking for the best price to buy online is a minority situation.

        Two of best features google have ever had were "fewer shopping results" and the 'blogs and forums' search option. Sadly neither exist any longer.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: but...

        If Google were operating decently they would show the top rated shopping/comparison sites so you could get the best deal, not them!

        The point is that if I am looking for detailed information - specifications, manuals, power usage, etc. - I DO NOT WANT OR NEED to have to trawl through shopping and/or comparison sites, they are just a hindrance to me getting the information I want.

        1. veti Silver badge

          Re: but...

          If you're looking for specs, manuals etc, then add those words to your search terms. Do you really need to be told this stuff?

          If you're looking for best prices, on the other hand, that's a completely different search.

      3. nijam Silver badge

        Re: but...

        > The fact that Google presents you with their shopping results ahead of anyone else's, and often in lieu of anyone else's clearly shows they know what you want to see but chose not to show it.

        WTF? Google has *never* shown me their own shopping results. Nor, I'm delighted to say, have comparison sites ever come near the top of my searches. (Comparison sites are usually just a list of sponsored links anyway, they just don't admit it.)

        So what are the rest of you doing that makes these things into an issue?

      4. Indolent Wretch

        Re: but...

        No I want to see places selling the product, reviews of the product and just stuff about the product. If I want the best price comparison site I'll google for "price comparison site".

        Your argument boils down to "Google search the internet for information and let you search for it BUT prices of products is a special sort of information and they shouldn't be allowed to treat it in the same way". As a dev and a supporter of the general purpose computing device that irritates me immensely.

    2. DavCrav

      "Try and get a clue, this isn't the freaking point. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM. If I go to a search engine and do a search the last thing I want, 99.99999999% of the time, is to get directed to another search engine."

      You are looking at it wrongly. Try an experiment: you want manuals, type <widget> manual. You want specifications, you type <widget> specification. You get what you want. You want to actually buy the thing, you type <widget> buy, and Google doesn't want you to see price comparison websites, and instead shows you its own, abysmal, shopping website. If this were judged on quality alone, Google Shopping would be deader than flares.

      1. Domino

        "<widget> price" didn't give me the reults I'd expect, and "<widget> price comparison" is worse. I'd expect the relevant page from price comparison sites to show up for those terms. To use google for this search I have to find "price comparison" then go to each result site to find "<widget>".

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What has made Google's product so successful is that it's actually good at what it does, finds what you are looking for.

    What I find disheartening is that there isn't an EU based alternative but given the EUs penchant for over regulating the market is it any wonder ? They love to create socialist utopia in Brussels and Strasbourg but often forget who has to foot the bill.

    1. Dan Paul

      Exactly.....@Mine's a Guinness

      Why do people in the EU look to others to tell them what is right and wrong? Can't they figure it out themselves or are they so used to being dictated to that they can't think for themselves?

      Make up your own minds and stop the wild accusations. You can't even begin to complain about so called monopolies when you don't even try to make a decent competing product that does what people want. Google is successful at what they do.

      If you did make a competitor, you would likely gain some real market share seeing as you all think that Google has a monopoly, there is clearly room for a competitor.

      I say the only reason there is a "monopoly" is because everyone else would rather cry than try. Those who do try will eventually get some results. Those who just cry, end up with their tears and nothing else.

      1. veti Silver badge

        Re: Exactly.....@Mine's a Guinness

        Why do so many people jump straight into commenting without reading the article?

    2. AndyS

      "...mindless drivel... small minded UKIP talking points ("who are they to tell us what to do")"

      Yup, there we are, tick and tick.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @ AndyS

        Nobody mentioned UKIP apart from you but as you brought it up.......

        I'm old enough to remember the 1975 referendum and it was actually labour heartlands and the traditional working classes that were most against remaining in the EEC. Tony Benn was one of the most vocal proponents of leaving the EEC at the time.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    US officials haven't accepted anything

    The FTC takes a much more laissez-faire approach to monopolies, for better or worse. They didn't do much about Microsoft, and one can argue they were proven right as mobile devices broke their monopoly. However that's almost completely due to missteps on Microsoft's part; had they been smarter about their strategies Windows Phone and Android would have their market positions reversed and their monopoly would be stronger than ever. They'd be able to leverage that dominant mobile share to help Bing's fortunes as well.

    Google's monopoly will only get stronger until there is a market disruption. You can either hope one occurs naturally, or an external force like the EU can apply it. I think the 10% revenue fine thing they claim to have the power for ridiculous, but even if that was off the table there are ways they could enforce this. Good thing someone is watching out for consumers, the US government only watches out for those with enough money to pay lobbyists and funnel money into election coffers.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: US officials haven't accepted anything

      Don't you believe that the EU ruling that forced MS to publish its own protocols gave a big boost to Linux, and thereby to Android too, especially when all of them as to talk to some Microsoft system like Exchange or the like? Or Office document compatibility? Would have had Samba and other projects lagged far behind if those ruling were never enforced?

      1. oldcoder

        Re: US officials haven't accepted anything

        ooo...

        You mean the protocol documentation that Microsoft had to ask the Samba project for?

        No big boost to Linux at all. The major benefit was the blocking of lawsuits that resulted.

        Or the Office document compatibility that was already reverse engineered? Again, the only boost was the blocking of lawsuits over the file formats.

        Samba was already ahead of Microsoft. Even to the point of becoming a Domain controller before the "documentation" was released.

        I repeat, the only thing that was a benefit was the blocking any potential lawsuits.

    2. icesenshi

      Re: US officials haven't accepted anything

      Only downvoting because 10% from google is far from ridiculous, like they can't afford it or something.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        10% "not" ridiculous

        So if a company has the ability to pay, the fine is not ridiculous? That's pretty much saying the more successful a company is (therefore the better their ability to pay) the more they should be fined. Is that really something you support? Seriously?

    3. nematoad

      Re: US officials haven't accepted anything

      " I think the 10% revenue fine thing they claim to have the power for ridiculous..."

      Claim has nothing to do with it. I think that you will find that the EU actually *does* have the power to fine a company 10% of revenue if found to be in violation of the rules in the EU.

      As the old saying goes "If you can't do the time don't do the crime." I'm not saying that Google has done anything wrong, but if it is found that they have then the 10% fine is in my opinion entirely justified. Oh, a final thought, the 10% bit is the maximum that the EU can impose, not the amount they must impose.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        EU claiming the power to fine

        I suppose the EU can claim whatever power they want and prevent a company from doing business in the EU if they refuse to comply. I agree that Google is guilty of what they say, but if they try to enforce that 10% fine I hope Google says a big F.U. to the EU and stops doing business there in lieu of paying the fine. Let's see how EU businesses like it when search results stop showing them.

        They can hope for an EU search engine to spring up to compete with them, but that won't happen overnight, nor will EU citizens immediately get used to going to www.findit.com or whatever instead of google.com. Probably what would happen is people wanting to search for stuff in the EU would be forced to Bing it, and Microsoft would end up with nearly 100% of the EU search market within five years...

        1. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

          Re: EU claiming the power to fine

          > I agree that Google is guilty of what they say, but if they try to enforce that 10% fine I hope Google says a big F.U. to the EU and stops doing business there in lieu of paying the fine.

          There's no way they'd do that.

          > Let's see how EU businesses like it when search results stop showing them.

          But don't forget, Google would be out of the EU - so would be irrelevant to the majority of EU users who would switch to another search engine. Most likely, I'd expect Google to "go dark" due to legally imposed blocking - as in orders to all the major ISPs that "Google is a criminal organisation, block them".

          Google could not cope with that as it would destroy their business model which is to keep competition pinned down leaving them free to dictate the market.

          Once Google is out of the running, there are other offerings that would pop up very quickly. OK, there'd be a huge disruption for a short time, but it certainly wouldn't take years. And some of us would be busy with friends/relatives teaching them how to access those alternatives.

          As to Bing getting a dominant position in the EU, as much as I "quite dislike" Microsoft and their products and their business practices, I'm not sure it would be that bad a thing. For the reasons given above, Google would soon capitulate - but in the meantime Bing would get a massive boost. Once there is at least one viable competitor then Google's power is vastly diminished. Google would suddenly be competing from the position of weakness.

          Ie, if Google aren't the very dominant engine they are now, they'd have to sell mousetraps by being genuinely better, rather than by blocking people from knowing about competing mousetrap vendors which is effectively what they do now.

    4. Ian Michael Gumby
      Boffin

      @DougS Re: US officials haven't accepted anything

      The US did in fact sue Microsoft and win.

      That's one of the cases that made David Boise famous.

  14. Amorous Cowherder
    Facepalm

    "Google's Rachel Whetstone responded to reports of anti-competitive conduct by posting a GIF of a baby."

    Well that confirms all I need to know about what Google think of we mere plebs.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      She tried to find a clever answer on Google, but wasn't able to find one...

    2. Daggerchild Silver badge

      Context is important.

      The pleb in question was Rupert Murdoch. News Corp were playing the 'wounded party'.

      If you use meme GIFs in replies, people will use them against you just like this. There's a reason corporate communications are cold and boring.

  15. billium

    @ test man the Microsoft monopoly's Windows Eight desktop is full of bing ... it is hard to avoid.

    1. Tromos

      @bilium

      I suspect MS would have been wary of trying it on, but for the precedent set by the Google monopoly's Android desktop being full of Google.

  16. Daggerchild Silver badge

    Foundem. Unfound.

    I put "Compare prices" into Google, and I don't get anything for Foundem, *or* Google.. on the other hand I use Pricerunner and I've never heard of Foundem.

    Which search terms are showing the competition problem?

  17. martinusher Silver badge

    Microsoft was different

    Microsoft abused their position by actively working to degrade competing offerings. They were so blatant about this that they lost the public's trust -- you used their stuff because you had to, not because you wanted to. I think Google understands what Microsoft did wrong and has done a pretty good job of avoiding their mistakes. I don't see blatant favoritism for their products (especially as not all their offerings are the best) and I don't see them actively working to degrade competition. Obviously it pays to be vigilant -- a large company like Google has numerous byways and backwaters so there's always scope for someone to try something on, corporate policy or no, but I think these large scale attacks on the company are a combination of political grandstanding and extortion.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Microsoft was different

      Sorry, people used MS stuff because they *wanted* to - they bought them, they *pirated* them by the sacksful, even when they had no real reason to use them - why get something illegally if you don't like it?

      Some MS products was barely OK, other were excellent, while competitors like Lotus and WordPerfect actually committed suicide believing DOS would have still been used widely in the XXI century, or that Notes would have made the company rich. IBM believed with OS/2 on its PS/2 machine using the Microchannel bus it would have regained control of the PC market.

      Microsoft took advantage of the position it found itself - people meaning "Microsoft" when they said "PC". Nobody was forced with a gun to buy a Windows PC - just very few choose Apple or OS/2 - I bought OS/2 in 1994 to avoid Windows, how many of you did? I bought SmartSuite 95 to avoid MS Office, how many of you - now MS haters and complainers - did? Of you all got your copy of 95 and Office, maybe without paying for it?

      Google is doing exactly what MS did, just you don't complain because it's so "smart" to give away some lame free products - and most people are ready to give away their first born as soon as they see the word "free". And of course, Google is useful to find also a lot of other "freeeeee...." software and contents, MS one included. Of course, just because "you have to". Hypocrites are Google best allies.

      1. Richard Plinston

        Re: Microsoft was different

        > Nobody was forced with a gun to buy a Windows PC

        If you went into a shop the only products available were Windows PCs (maybe a few Apples at high prices). While you weren't forced to buy one, it was almost impossible to buy anything else.

        This was because of several things:

        Contracts: OEMs could buy Windows at a discount as long as they were 'loyal' and all computers of a particular model were built with Windows only. 'Per Box Pricing' was a variety of this, MS was paid even if a machine was made with another OS and no MS software at all. These made other systems more expensive.

        Profit: Shops put on the shelf what made the most profit. Apple has a big markup. Windows machines gave opportunities for much profitable add-ons, plus upgrades and replacements.

        Anti-competitive: Per box pricing was one. DR-DOS was killed because MS announced 'Advanced Server' and said that Novell Netware might not be supported in the next MS-DOS/Windows. Novell bought DRI so that it could offer DR-DOS clients for Netware if MS-DOS failed to work with Netware. MS 'conceded' by continuing to support it if Novell killed DR-DOS (and also DRI's Multiuser-DOS).

        The reason that Linux, and derivitives ChromeOS and Android, have survived is that MS could not just buy them and kill them.

        1. dogged

          Re: Microsoft was different

          > If you went into a shop the only products available were Windows PCs (maybe a few Apples at high prices). While you weren't forced to buy one, it was almost impossible to buy anything else.

          You went to the wrong shops. I went to shops, bought hardware and built my own. No Windows tax there.

          1. Richard Plinston

            Re: Microsoft was different

            > You went to the wrong shops. I went to shops, bought hardware and built my own. No Windows tax there.

            So did I, but that is not what 99% of people who wanted computers were capable of, or wanted to do.

      2. Allan George Dyer

        Re: Microsoft was different

        "I bought OS/2 in 1994 to avoid Windows, how many of you did?"

        Well, me, for one. Later I bought NT4 (because it supported Traditional and Simplified Chinese - which was a crock because you had to reboot to swap between them) and Office 2000. The point is, I moved to Word not because it was a better wordprocessor, WordPerfect 5.1 was all the wordprocessor I needed, but because users at other companies only knew what to do with .doc.

        "why get something illegally if you don't like it?"

        Many small shops round here were selling no-brand PCs with *cough* "free" pre-installed Microsoft software, not using it would require some technical know-how. Of course, Microsoft didn't approve of the piracy, but it did cement their dominant mindshare position.

        Basically, it is difficult for an individual consumer to go against a monopoly. That's why it's useful to have a strong government agency to stand for everyone's best interests.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Odd....

    Whenever I read an article like this, the first thing I do is pop over to Google and search for something like Office Appications. They never promote their own stuff, at these particular times. Yet I have done that same search, at other times, and seen Google's own apps near the top. Does Google pull a fast one, whenever regulators make noises? What do you think of the fit and finish of my new tinfoil hat?

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    HERE is ok...

    Nokia's HERE was Navteq. Navteq shot themselves in the foot when they missed an opportunity to put their maps on the web.

    Navteq also supplied Map Data to Google.

    So while you can blame Google... part of the blame goes to Navteq's Upper Management.

    Posted Anon for various and obvious reasons.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A meandering discourse as I'm getting on a bit...

    I've been out of the MS ecosystem for a long time but here's my thoughts.

    MS was all about developers - back in the late 90s early 00s MS development tools where the easiest and most productive to use (although I'm sure someone will assert I was just too stupid to fully master vi/emacs). I remember during my degree teaching myself C# as the IDE was so much better than anything Java had at the time (Sun's Java workbench, J Builder, etc). As a result, back before ubiquitous broadband connections, if you were building Windows apps, MS languages and tools meant you could achieve so much more than with AWT/Swing. And the travesty that was asp.net web forms became very popular as it was very appealing to windows devs as it sort of made the web act like windows apps for devs.

    Anyway, back to the point, MS gained traction because people wrote apps for windows and using MS tech as writing stuff in non-MS tech for the Windows platform was tedious, as a result most major apps were windows only. By contrast developing with google APIs and their cloud id far harder/frustrating to use than their competition (try using Big Query and compare the experience with Amazon's Redshift). However, GA is the only game in town so I'm stuck using BigQuery even though the user experience is frustrating and I've got a choice between a web UI and the command line for running queries.

    Note: MS did a lot of dodgy things, not denying that at all. I'd just rather be locked into a monopoly because it made my life easier.

    If you read this far, I apologise as I've barely been on topic.

  21. Mark 65

    Taxes

    However, Brussels isn’t Washington, and despite a huge lobbying effort here, the idea that Google has harmed European startups has proved to be a most persuasive argument.

    The fact they haven't been paying any taxes won't do them any favours either.

  22. naive

    It just feels wrong

    For me it is hard to understand this information well enough to see fully what google does wrong, but for me google is best that has happened to the world in the last decades.

    Anyone buying an Android phone has to pay $10 extortion tax to Microsoft, but gets Android for free from google, so how does that translate to market dominance and taking profits from it ?.

    Finally a company constantly investing in innovations instead of next quarter profit and so called "share holder value".

    It would be nice if the EU commission disclosed the names of the complaining parties. Perhaps EU and US should adapt to Volkswagen Law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Law, for google, it is hard to imagine anyone would do better. If they want to destroy google because a few guys have trouble to make www.crapshop.com visible for the average user, it is not going to make the world a better place.

  23. nijam Silver badge

    Monopoly

    Sorry about this, but felt I had to do it...

    Why is there only one EU?

    1. Uffish

      Re: only one EU

      You obviously don't know how the EU works.

  24. ThatGuy

    Google has a shopping site?

    Firs I am hearing of this. Furthermore, here in South Africa, if you use Google to search for a product, the top search results include a site called "PriceCheck". Take a guess at what kind of site it is?

  25. Diogenes

    Customisation of search results

    Its funny looking at the comments above , I never see xyz vs I always see xyz first.

    May I remind the our gentle reader that google looks at all sorts of things before deciding which set of search results to return previous searches, which browser, which device etc etc. I get totally different results searching the same terms at home & work (which is a right royal pain sometimes but very illuminating at other times) - and the kids I teach also get different results for the same terms also which of 3 (work related) accounts I am logged into chrome. Although I must say that since I have started using ghostery the difference between the work/home set is reducing all the time with a much greater overlap on the first 2 pages - and getting "old" google on opera 12 is a positive joy

  26. crayon

    "I know someone who, instead of putting in company name and adding a .com to the end will fire up Google and put in company name in there, every single time."

    I know someone who brings up the google search form then types in the URL of the site he wants and clicks on the resulting links. When I asked him why he did that, he replied "That's how you get to the website isn't it?" I have since told him the correct way to get to a site if you already know the URL, however I suspect he still goes through google.

    "The FTC takes a much more laissez-faire approach to monopolies, for better or worse. They didn't do much about Microsoft, and one can argue they were proven right as mobile devices broke their monopoly."

    One can argue that the FTC should've done its job when the circumstances are relevant. If one company had a monopoly on fossil fuels, should the FTC be sitting on its arse and do nothing because in 30 years time nuclear fusion will break that monopoly?

    "Sorry, people used MS stuff because they *wanted* to - they bought them, they *pirated* them by the sacksful, even when they had no real reason to use them - why get something illegally if you don't like it?"

    If someone sends you a MS Word doc what do you use to view it? The "free" Word doc viewer? But it runs on MS Windows. Some ignorant companies want you to send them your CV in MS Word format, so what's a poor graduate looking for their first job going to do?

    "I bought OS/2 in 1994 to avoid Windows, how many of you did?"

    I bought OS/2 Warp because it was better than Windows, sort of, the 8MB ram machine I ran it on didn't seem quite enough to take full advantage of Warp.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like