Google snubs Euro watchdog's 'abuse of dominance' claims Google remains at loggerheads with anti-competition officials in Brussels, who today went public for the first time with concerns about the search giant's "abuses of dominance". The company's European public policy spokesman Al Verney has told Reuters that Google was disappointed by the European competition commissioner's …
Illegal business practices in the browser market have been in play for many years. Since 1995 for sure.
Seems the EU should first address clearly illegal bundling and commingling between the OS and IE before they get all upitty about advangtages in search. No one is forcing consumers to click on particular search links. Microsoft does force consumers to purchase IE. Purchase means money.
Yet, the EU claims to be concerned about competition? What a joke.
Both the EU commission and the US DOJ have lost all credibiltiy because they have refused to act to ensure the browser market if fair and open. Instead they help close it.
Google should just tell the EU that they will address those concerns when they can SELL Chrome preinstalled on Microsoft systems (i.e. IE not included).
Why doesn't the EU require IE to be unbundled and uncommingled? Does not that illegal act give Microsoft an unfair advantage? Buy IE first, then you can download other technologies which must be free simply because the market was illegally ruined.
These authorities prove they are idiots.
"Tell them to sod off.
Its just the usual suspects complaining.
No evidence of guilt... AFAICS."
Well, no need to have an investigation then. And if it turns out they are deliberately manipulating the results (as is pretty obvious by the fact that Google shopping appears so near the top of every search term, well above places actually selling the object) won't you have egg on your face...
Better do an investigation after all, just to be sure.
"And if it turns out they are deliberately manipulating the results..."
So what?
It's their page, they should be able to do what they want with it, including promoting their own products.
If you don't like their search results, go somewhere else (Duck Duck Go, Bing, and Ixquick are good search engines). If enough people start taking their searches elsewhere, then maybe Google will decide they need to shape up.
So by your logic Microsoft should have been left alone to do whatever it likes with Windows regardless of any practices that might affect competition?
I already use Bing - rarely use Google and since AltaVista was dumbed down I had to find an alternative that I could rely on to provide unbiased search results. Reality is that Google is taking the mickey with their deliberate exclusion of competitors, knowing full well that most people start their internet browsing session on the Google home page and can be led wherever Google wants to take them. Something has to be done, unless manipulation of the general public is perfectly acceptable in most peoples' eyes.
"So by your logic Microsoft should have been left alone to do whatever it likes with Windows regardless of any practices that might affect competition?"
No, the same logic would have been that they wanted Microsoft to include a Ubuntu live-cd with every copy of Windows.
I'm happy that Google tries to remove the results of these alternative search engines out of the results, because that's not what I was looking for. You don't want to end up on another search page, that points to another search page,...
If I type an address in the Google toolbar, it is because I want to look it up on Google maps. If I wanted a different map service, I would just type the name of that service. Google is just giving me what I want.
Unless I explicitly type Foundem, I am not looking for Foundem. I am sure that Google knows this, and that is why it is not returning Foundem as top result.
When Foundem say "has affirmed Foundem’s complaint," they apparently didn't read the word 'may'. They're also deluded if they think this is going to work out quickly or well for Foundem.
This reads like the EU have nothing concrete yet and want a soft option to avoid having to put real effort in. Google can probably make a meaningless gesture here and carry on with only cosmetic changes. Or force a real inquiry and still walk away largely unaffected.
If Foundem & co believe a flood of work will arrive if only the EU makes it easier to poach Google customers, they haven't understood which shitty end the of market Foundem occupies. Or understood *why* they never show up high in search results, unlike their successful competitors. If I see a vertical search leech in my search results I expect it to be a good one, with results worth looking at. And that ain't a description of these guys.
per @petur
>>> I'm happy that Google tries to remove the results
>>> of these alternative search engines out of the
>>> results, because that's not what I was looking for.
>>> You don't want to end up on another search page,
>>> that points to another search page,...
QFMFT!
Morons who can't get this simple truth through their skulls deserve the kind of linkspam riddled search results that would eventuate if the numbskulls who think THIS is a good example of Google being anti-competitive succeed.
Now Google Chrome... There is a potential example of Google abusing it's dominant/monopoly search position to try and takeover the desktop (kinda a reverse MSIEsm)
To me it look like they just need to cease use snippets from websites, make some minor changes to the UI and create better export tools for Ad-words. I suspect Google founders will be pretty happy with this result. An remove an exclusivity clause in some contracts, which will not mean a lot as I doubt there many organisations around in this environment that want to take a risk and move away from Google or even diversify where there adverts come.
It also sound like the EU is less than clean on taking Google to court, which tend to point to them not having a very strong case at all and is just looking to quickly sweep the matter under the carpet as quickly as possible.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
