https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/27/google-brac...
Klarna bought pricerunner for just under a billion 5 years ago, pretty good deal.
Is this real accountability for anti-competitive behaviour, or just another cost of doing business for Big Tech?
My cynicism is tell me that unfortunately it is the latter.
Why would Google NOT favor it's own service at it's own product? How is that illegal?
https://www.moneylaunderingbulletin.com/legalandregulatory/c...
There was another case where they got slapped hard by the Swedish tax agency, but I can't find links for it.
Sometimes courts are actually just enforcing rules you know. Just because it is a foreign company it doesn't mean it can bypass local rules.
If they stop providing value to users, they are putting their ad business at risk. It's never free, providing value to share holders is a top priority.
Them not launching in Europe gives the local market a chance to build up its own players. China was very successful in this thanks to the Great Firewall.
Those are just more avenues for Google to collect data to shove ads down everyone's throats.
Good that regulations keeps Google from releasing more pf their shit here. Governments should really tighten the screws there.
(Even India has fined them 100s of millions of dollars - https://ssrana.in/articles/google-fined-anti-competitive-pra... ).
The former is nigh impossible, the latter is fairly trivial with sufficient will.
Internet wont be human steered by the time this is over
Just agents running x402 payments over mcp servers
(I can’t possibly understand this being downvoted.
The downvote button isn’t an “I disagree” button.)
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
and yes, downvoting is a perfectly fine disagree button, what else do you think it is
1.5B is preferable to being broken up (not that Sweden could enforce that)
It is now illegal as laws have been introduced with the aim to prevent this from happening again. The effectiveness of these laws, with regards to how well they fit the current era, is a different matter.
So Google is allowed to favour their own price comparison in, say, Hangouts, but not in Search.
The law isn’t just “what you happen to intuitively think is right”, especially in a jurisdiction where you clearly do not reside.
At this point can you make a custom task manager and sue Microsoft to propose users to install your task manager on first boot? What about background image providers, why doesn't Microsoft propose to install background images from them at first boot?
It's an absolutely ridiculous idea.
They should not block alternatives, but having to promote them is complete nonsense.
For instance, if a company started up an ad business, are they going to sue and win, because Google uses their own ad service in Search instead of this new competitor?
That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
I have often had a look at Google shopping results but very rarely clicked one.
I think when searching for an answer ai assist is often sufficient but not for where you are buying?
Why have local laws in that case? Better we all just adopt American laws to not have to fear the Americans getting pissy when they diverge...
Considering Klarna essentially boils down to a lending service for people who want to buy stuff they aren't able to afford in the moment, I don't think this is the dunk you think it is.
All of Europe can't even push back a broken husk of Russia.
A company can create a new search engine and Google Search isn't obligated to even mention it.
The issue is when achieving market dominance and new service is integrated into the dominant product.
You clearly haven't been around long enough to have caught a lot of discussions on this topic over a decade ago.
But for example if they're behind a user choice like a click after your search is done, ie click shopping or maps because you want to use googles products in this case, then its likely not over the line. If its still over the line would they be required to unbundle products by for example using different domains? Would that also apply to things like facebook marketplace then?
Google literally is a convicted monopolist in the Search antitrust case. The judge just didn’t impose any remedy or penalty.
Many of the arguments around that case had to do with bundling Search, nothing to do with other products. It was Search.
This is why the Firefox CEO gave Google the testimony they paid for, and retired shortly thereafter. It was quid pro quo.
Firefox was paid for years to include Search so one day they’d show up to court and say “we include Google because they are the best, not because they pay us”. The judge didn’t actually buy it, but that was the deal - we pay you millions, one day you show up and read a script.
The confusing part to the lay person is Google got away with it despite the prosecutions case holding.
Imagine if a person robbed a bank and was convicted. The judge then said, ok you robbed the bank, the prosecution proved it, I rule in their favor.
However, when it comes to the punishment, I’m just going to let it slide, you can go home now.
Also, keep the money you stole, and if you happen to walk by another bank…say Associated Investments (AI), just go ahead and rob that one!
FWIW, even what you think should be allowed is banned in Europe. On Google Search in the EU there is no "Shopping" or "Maps" tab.
And you think local players are going to look at users with this comically detached worldview and be like "Yeah, we want to build services for that group of people to use"?
Raise your hand if you use an ad blocker.
I rest my case.
Exactly! This is what is genius about Trumps tariff strategy, as you correctly point out. Blocking Chinese EVs gives a chance to bully up local players.
Similarly, they bundle Bing as the Web search in the start menu.
Regardless of whether the ads reach you or not, you as a data point add to the count that make the package enticing to advertisers, so you're helping them sell the package anyways.