Publishers reject Google's revised offer to fix search biz in Europe

Google's revised package of concessions to try to fix a three-year-long competition probe in Europe relating to the ad giant's dominant search biz has been attacked by a group of publishers. The lobby outfit, which represents newspaper and magazine publishers across the EU said it was "highly concerned" by how Brussels' …

[Anonymous Coward]

Why surprised?

"Google persists in giving preferential treatments to its own services and in displaying every alternative service as inferior, even if they are in fact more relevant to consumers,"

They (Google) are an American corporation. Did you really expect their attitude to be any less?

After all, Blessed be American Capitalism, savior of humanity. Without American businessmen we'd all be doomed. [/sarcasm]

[Gavin Ayling]

Not a monopoly

Google is demonstrably not a monopoly. What it chooses to prioritise, or not, is its business and if people don't get the right results, they'll go to Bing, Yahoo or DuckDuckGo.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not a monopoly

Demonstrate please...

[Tom 35]

Re: Not a monopoly

Anyone using google has actively chosen to do so. When you first log onto Windows you get IE and Bing as your default. If you install Flash/Reader/Java without watching what you click on your going to get Ask.com. But I don't remember ever getting slammed onto Google.

If you want Google as your default you have to actively change your IE search to Google, or download a different browser like Chrome or Firefox.

Google is #1 despite MS trying to stuff Bing onto everyone's computer.

Personally I use duckduckgo most of the time, because I don't what anyone trying to decide what I should want.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not a monopoly

If you need some specs for another look, I have some google glass you can borrow.

Do you not think that if google didn't have a monopoly in the search business, the case would have been thrown out months ago? If you can't see that there might be a problem, don't comment, you aren't adding anything to the conversation.

[Destroy All Monsters]

All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspects.

"Do you not think that if google didn't have a monopoly in the search business, the case would have been thrown out months ago?"

This is called "begging the question".

I may also remind the esteemed AC that "monopoly" used to designate the situation where one single seller of an important good could set prices at his discretion (if the good were not important, no-one would care, right?). This has been redefined, boiling frog style, into the situation where a major seller makes life difficult for smaller sellers (the latter often with friendly ears in government or seen as particularly noteworthy in the nationalistic register) even though there is nothing that would prevent the major seller to be challenged at any time or the situation to change quickly due to customers' fickleness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspects.

All this ac wanted was to see a demonstration, since it was demonstrable.

I care little either way - big businesses playing around with each other. Government institutions getting involved. It's an old dance, doesn't really matter either way to me; personally - though I realise it could matter to others.

[M Gale]

Re: All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspects.

since it was demonstrable.

Open your web browser.

Type in "www.yahoo.com" (Or maybe bing.com, duckduckgo.com, ask.com or comparethemeerkat.com).

Now do the same thing, only with Google's entire IP range firewalled out of your network. Observe that the sites still work.

QED.

Now, try running most commercial PC software without the operating system made by one of the corporations that comprise the Fairsearch lobby. Yes, Microsoft are one of the entities trying to say that Google have an abusive monopoly, which to me is best described as "fucking rich".

Observe how the software will neither install nor run.

And now you know the difference between an abusive monopoly, and people choosing in large numbers to use a particular product or service.

[Ragarath]

Re: All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspects.

You could also say that people have a choice of operating system on their PC (Yes they chose to buy the PC with Windows on it, alternatives are there for those that do not want it, as there has always been).

All you have to do is install it. Same as purposefully going to a different search provider.

Yes Microsoft were using their influence back in the day, and yes they were rightly trodden on. Same is now happening with Google. Alternatives are there yes but your comparison to OSs is dis-ingenious seeing as there have always been alternative OSs too.

[M Gale]

Re: All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspects.

Alternatives are there yes but your comparison to OSs is dis-ingenious seeing as there have always been alternative OSs too.

As I pointed out, I would like to see you running all that lovely commercial software in something not Windows. Enjoy your pain. I'll be around later to sweep the hair up that you've torn out after enough battling with WINE to get a few percent of it sort-of half working.

Now, firewall Google's entire IP range out of your system. Observe that the rest of the Internet still works. Flawlessly.

[Paul Shirley]

"turn to the traditional route of a prohibition decision."

Google didn't have to do a thing, just sit back and watch the complainers inflict collateral damage on each other. So busy painting Google as a villain in need of punishment they left no room for compromise or supportable alternatives for Almunia.

Perhaps we need an excessive response now, maybe the pain of becoming unfindable will encourage compromise. It won't take ordinary companies long to realise Fairsearch members aren't a good replacement and even less controllable than Google.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft pulling the strings somewhere

you can bet money on that.

[ratfox]

Colour me surprised

I was certain they were going to thank Google for their generosity.

That said, I thought that the last sticking point was about placement of competing web sites. Weren't the other issues solved? Why are the publishers unhappy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Colour me surprised

"That said, I thought that the last sticking point was about placement of competing web sites. Weren't the other issues solved? Why are the publishers unhappy?"

Yup, just searched for "email" on google.com and Hotmail was the first result, followed by Yahoo followed by Gmail. That while I'm signed into my Google account which should know by now I don't use either Hotmail or Yahoo.

[Tom 35]

Moaning publishers

So how often do these publishers send people to other publishers because their service is not as good as the competition?

Google refuse to pay you for linking to your stuff and providing you traffic? You threaten to block them if they don't pay and they send you instructions on how to setup a robot file? Want your cake and eat it too?

Clearly they should list your stuff at the top of all searches, and pay you for the privilege.

Personally I've been using Duckduckgo because Google is already too screwed up by people who think they know what I should be looking at.

[OrsonX]

"preferential treatments to its own services"

Next it will be Tesco's for giving preferential shelf space TO THEIR OWN FRIKKIN' BEANS

[Destroy All Monsters]

F*ck those guys

"turn to the traditional route of a prohibition decision"

Yeah!! Uh. Hold on. Crony capitalism and lobby manoeuvers are the "traditional route" in Yurop? Why, sure they are.

Does anything deserve to be saved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Competition.

Do you think someone should point out to the European Commision that contrary to the utter bollocks Googles competitors have been feeding them, it is indeed possible to successfully compete with Google in their own marketplace. That Duckduckgo have done just that... with many endorsements to show it.