EU Votes To Split Up Google's Services

[nonstop]

---

System: The following 3 messages were cut out of thread at: http://www.webmasterworld.com/goog/4717759.htm [webmasterworld.com] by engine - 2:45 pm on Nov 27, 2014 (utc 0)

---

the EU is the largest economy in the world

[en.wikipedia.org...]

and the EU have just voted to break up Google

[bbc.co.uk...]

the EU are applying their panda update... there maybe turbulent results now for Google.

like the web spammers, google have tried to game the tax system and over advertise their own services, this was bad for users, An algo refresh is needed

[edited by: nonstop at 2:06 pm (utc) on Nov 27, 2014]

[heisje]

It would be a grave mistake for all if the US government and the American public viewed this EU vote as Anti-American.

This is Anti-Monopoly action, not Protectionism.

Europe and the US, despite contradictions, are indispensable & inseparable allies, past, present and future, and have huge common interests - far beyond anything than Google may signify.

.

[diddlydazz]

Where was the EU then? Protectionism isn't a panacea for more than two decades of ignoring where the world was headed.

Tim Berners Lee mean anything to you?

You should also look at the European engineers that have been involved in Google's evolution before you start slating a whole continent.

One of the reasons Google's market share has seen and maintained the growth it has is because of the Internet's growth in general. They were the best engine around when technology started making the Internet an "even more" every-day tool (the rise of Internet-enabled devices).

When the word Google is synonymous with search (because it was a trendy name with good results at the right time in the history of the Web) it would be a difficult task for any SE to take market share, even if their results were superior.

[jskrewson]

At some point, Google US will be forced to unbundle services as well. It is inevitable as they are destroying large swathes of the Internet. Google was never supposed to replace the web, they were suppose to index the web. Somehow we went from "do no evil" to "do whatever it takes to increase shareholder value each quarter".

Google has an unfair advantage. They use their dominant position in search to replace websites with inline content. Unfortunately, by the time they are broken up, they will have the "only" source left for information in certain industries. Good for them I guess, as they will have killed off the competition by the time their own information sites are decoupled.

[nickreynolds]

I suspect that the EU philosophy tends much more towards the idea that no one company or business should have too much power than is the case in the US.
So in the UK it is very unlikely that one of the big supermarkets wiould be allowed to take over one of the others. One of our banks -Lloyds TSB had to split into two partly because it had too much of a monopoly.
I suspect that if Google was a British company operating in the UK there is no way that it would be allowed to operate in the way it does and it would have to separate its different businesses out as stand alone companies.

[mcneely]

heh ... Now Google can diversify -- Instead of one or two areas of self promotion, there could be hundreds of areas of self promotion -- Hey EU, here's lookin' at you kid :)

[Hollywood]

AMEN Jskrewson! You ARE correct!

["At some point, Google US will be forced to unbundle services as well. It is inevitable as they are destroying large swathes of the Internet. Google was never supposed to replace the web, they were suppose to index the web. Somehow we went from "do no evil" to "do whatever it takes to increase shareholder value each quarter".]

[Hollywood]

Nick R Also very very true, your whole post!

[I suspect that if Google was a British company operating in the UK there is no way that it would be allowed to operate in the way it does and it would have to separate its different businesses out as stand alone companies.]

Look people, hate to break it to you but not only am I DONE with Google B$, but entire countries and markets are being killed and inovation is NOT there, I can't waaaaaait till it becomes more clear to the entire population and people DO SOMETHING about it.

Tired of this ----

[netmeg]

Hopefully you're not holding your breath. We're not really in a pro government regulation phase in the US for the foreseeable future.

[motorhaven]

Hollywood, 90% of the EU searching population has made it clear they prefer Google as their search solution, and they are doing something by continuing to use them. And when and if Google doesn't suit them, they will do something and use a different search solution.

As to British companies getting their legs cut out from under them, perhaps this has contributed to the UK having 28 companies on the Fortune Global 500 verses 128 from the US.

[EditorialGuy]

The European Parliament vote is about trade, and ending monopoly practices that undermine free trade in Europe.

Actually, it's nothing more than a tantrum, since the European Parliament lacks the power to "break up" Google or anyone else.

As for Google's "monopoly power," any monopoly that Google enjoys is the result of consumer choice--that, and the failure of European businesses to keep up with the times.

[jmccormac]

One has to wonder why, 25 years after the Web was invented and nearly 20 years after the commercial Web was launched, nobody in the EU has come up with a competitive search engine. (And by competitive, I don't mean "competitive with Google," I mean competitive, period. Where was the EU when Webcrawler, HotBot, AltaVista, Excite, Infoseek, etc. were testing the waters of Web search?)

Well not being in the EU, not having a clue about the development, launch and demise of search engines in the EU and not being in the Search business do not seem to be barriers to inaccurate and uninformed commentary. And the rather simplistic argument about a "competitive search engine" is typical of people who don't understand the business of Search.

Building a good search engine is a lot easier than monetising the results. Google got that part right and did it better than any other search engine. Now Google is stuffing the SERPs with results from its own properties. It is also Yahooicising its search engine to make it stickier for users so that the users don't go to other sites in the SERPs.

The EU doesn't need more protectionism, it needs more innovation.

It is not protectionism though it is easy to see why some people would think so.

Regards...jmcc

[edited by: jmccormac at 4:00 am (utc) on Nov 28, 2014]

[Donna]

To the folks who think the EU has no power and wont disturb Google's operations, just have a bucket load of popcorn, sit comfortably and enjoy the biggest entertaining event web developers are about to witness. We have lost most so the most anyone can lose at this point is Google and Google only.

Blunt hammer is still a hammer!

[seoskunk]

One has to wonder why, 25 years after the Web was invented and nearly 20 years after the commercial Web was launched, nobody in the EU has come up with a competitive search engine. (And by competitive, I don't mean "competitive with Google," I mean competitive, period. Where was the EU when Webcrawler, HotBot, AltaVista, Excite, Infoseek, etc. were testing the waters of Web search?)

There is no second place on the web in all honesty.Google is not the only Monopoly the web creates them.

Whats the second biggest Encyclopedia after Wikipedia? Who cares!
Whats the second biggest Social Network after Facebook? Who cares!
Whats the second biggest video sharing site after Youtube? Who cares!
Whats the second biggest micro blogger after twitter? Who cares!
Whats the second biggest photosharing site after Pinterest? Who cares!

And this maybe Google's best defence. The internet is full of Monopolies so why pick Search?

Whats the second biggest search engine? Who cares!

Well seemingly the Eu do. As for lack of inovation in europe re quoted text. Obviously they have never heard of CERN and Tim Berners Lee who invented the world wide web.

[FranticFish]

I don't really think it's accurate to compare Google to other companies when talking about monopolies, not even Wikipedia.

All the sites mentioned are built on UGC that is then monetised by the platform provider.

With Facebook, Pinterest, YouTube and Twitter any bias is evident because 'so and so' says 'something'.

Many people tend to overlook the fact that Wiki is crowd-sourced, frequently by amateurs, and there have been a number of instances where journalists using it as a source have had to publish retractions. But still, their strapline is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".

Google also uses UGC but, far more, relies on content generated by non-users. Yet they have been allowed to gradually make adverts look near-identical to the other listings. And they now also run their own venture capital business for the web, and their partners and affiliates are not even slightly labelled when they show up in the results.

To call that anything other than deceptive is to mince words.

That said, I doubt that much will change in practice. Here in the UK, there was concern that BT had a monopoly, so the company was broken up into two outfits: one that handled hardware in homes/businesses, and another that handled the rest of the telecoms network including the exchanges. This was apparently enough for the regulator. Yet, if there was a fault somewhere in the network that affected your service, the company handling the exchanges (BT's offspring and even still branded as BT) didn't take calls from the public and were not accountable to you, the customer. So, if you had a problem, you had worse service than before.

[londrum]

Google are ahead of the game then, because they already offer no customer service

[EditorialGuy]

As for lack of inovation in europe re quoted text. Obviously they have never heard of CERN and Tim Berners Lee who invented the world wide web.

Yes, and they created a monopoly by killing off CompuServe, AOL, Prodigy, and so on. Dang! Time to break up the World Wide Web.

BTW, anyone who doubts that protectionism is the motive behind the European Parliament's vote might find German MEP Evelyne Gebhardt's comments in this Register article illuminating:

[theregister.co.uk...]

[Wilburforce]

they created a monopoly by killing off CompuServe, AOL, Prodigy, and so on

Sarcasm doesn't magic the monopoly away, and it really doesn't matter how it came about. Hitler's rise to power came about through democracy, which didn't make it desirable, or safe to ignore.

anyone who doubts that protectionism is the motive behind the European Parliament's vote might find German MEP Evelyne Gebhardt's comments in this Register article illuminating

I certainly doubt it, and - without finding whatever illumination I am supposed to see in the comment - agree that “Internet search services dominate the everyday lives of Europeans. Web search results influence consumers' decisions, not only with regard to online sales of goods and services, but also in terms of social and political rights.” Google's domination of internet search services in Europe is unhealthy. Even if - and it is a pretty big if - they have never been guilty of any abuse of that position, it doesn't mean that leaving them with the opportunity is the EU's most sensible course of action.

Wishing to curb Google's dominance in Europe has nothing to do with nationalism or protectionism: in my view Google would already have been subjected to considerably greater control in Europe if they had been a European company to begin with. Far smaller and less monopolistic business in the UK have faced more stringent curbs.

We can obviously debate (and differ on) how much market regulation is desirable, but to present this as a self-interested act of protectionism by a couple of partisan politicians is to ignore the sizable cross-party polictical majority in favour of action, and the disquiet that gave rise to it.

[philgames]

like the web spammers

Yeah google doesn't just mess up the "web spammers" sites....

Good riddance. Bye bye Google deserves you right for being a greedy monopoly.

[FranticFish]

Yes, and they created a monopoly by killing off CompuServe, AOL, Prodigy, and so on. Dang! Time to break up the World Wide Web.

I don't follow your argument here. AOL and the like had private, member-only intranets controlled by one company. They were superceded by a public internet, for everyone, accessible through multiple providers and with various governing bodies and open source standards. Exactly how did those pushing for a world wide web profit from that?

In fact, I think your analogy is exactly the wrong way round. It would be correct if AOL and other closed networks had replaced the world wide web. We went from closed systems to more open systems. Please explain how Google does the same.

[RedBar]

any monopoly that Google enjoys is the result of consumer choice

And mostly initially built by global webmasters for the good of all...free of charge!

Yes, many of us did believe in their statement "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful"

What did we get out of their floatation?

[glakes]

Google Search is the big monopoly, but Google has a number of vertical monopolies too. YouTube, Gmail, Chrome, etc. Microsoft found themselves in court for a lot less.

It should be interesting to see what the EU does and what excuses the USA has for not protecting the small businesses, advertisers and consumers in their markets. Might it have something to do with the Google Chairman (Eric Schmidt) being Obama's friend and campaign contributor and/or all the previous Google employees that now hold high level government jobs in the United States?

[londrum]

If they go ahead and do this, and force the search engine to split away from googles other businesses, how could it survive as a standalone business? Because it doesn't make any money on its own. It must be subsided through all of googles other ventures.

Not that I feel sorry for Google... because I don't, but I would imagine that it would be very hard for it to exist entirely on its own

[brotherhood of LAN]

It could provide its search results "as a service". They'd probably have to do the same with adwords though, for central point of sale and the sophisticated click-fraud prevention.

An API could provide the first 100K results so a new UI could rand() them as minty fresh results..... TBF I think most people would be OK with the results as they are, and new window dressing would be enough.

[heisje]

Google is a hard nut to crack.

Among others, a fundamental reason : its relationship with the powerful deep American State. Google has surrendered citizens' civil liberties in exchange for protection against anti-monopoly action, for monetary gain. It is an unholy alliance hurting citizens and consumers.

This complex and dangerous for democracy nexus must be broken, even at the (comparatively ridiculous) cost of having, in the short-run, less efficient web search.

Freedom, liberty, civil rights and consumer protection, are not given - they come at a cost. That cost is worth the sacrifice.

.

[EditorialGuy]

THE ECONOMIST has a thoughtful analysis of the EU vote and its implications:

[economist.com...]

[heisje]

The Economist?

Google (whose executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, is a member of the board of The Economist’s parent company) . . . . . .

An article so shamelessly biased, borderline malignant, a disgrace to journalism.
Fit only for naive & ignorant readers.

.

[incrediBILL]

Microsoft found themselves in court for a lot less.

But MS was forced on users purchasing computers unless they bought Apple. MS also made some backroom deals to make sure they showed up on all those machines when computer makers would have preferred to give away something free. Had Ubuntu been available way back then, MS might not have had such influence.

What people overlook is back then data compatibility was the biggest problem, not the OS. MS Office is the rosetta stone that standardized the format of Word, Excel, etc. which was way more important than Windows. MS Office if the only reason that corporations started to allow Apples into the workplace because exchanging data in the daily workflow was the critical issue. Nobody really cares what platform MS Office runs on as long as workers can excahnge documents. That's probably the single thing still keeping Linux out of many workplaces because while Open Office/Libre Office has basic MS Office compatibility, it loses a lot in the translation.

Once you get past mandatory requirements like an Office suite, things like Google, YouTube, GMail, etc. are all choices. They aren't requirements and aren't even preloaded on your desktop computer. You only get the Google suite preloaded on Android devices, which again is a choice between Apple, MS and Android devices.

When a company is punished because of customer choices, where it's never been shoved down their throats like the phone company, MS, etc., then I find that government massively overstepping when they're taking away choices and bullying companies for being successful.

Is Google an angel? Hell no. But they're still a choise.

In all the other previous monopoly cases, there were no other choices, you took them because they were the only game in town.

In the case of Google, the surfer could just as easily choose Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, Baidu, etc. but they don't.

Based on this, perhaps the EU should break up Toyota because people tend to pick Prius over all other hybrid cars, or Amazon because Kindle is the dominant eReader, or Facebook because it dominates social media, or Twitter because it's a monopoly on Tweets or some other stupidity.

Guess all we can do now it sit back and watch it play out like some stupid TV game show at this point.

[FranticFish]

Even if something does happen (don't hold your breath), it'll be some futile gesture and business will carry on exactly as usual behind the scenes. There's billions at stake here and money rules all.

If the politicians really wanted to sort this out (as Netmeg said), they could fund and promote an open-source, non-profit search engine with quality raters selected at random, like jury duty. Now THAT would be something worth getting behind.

[aristotle]

Posters in this thread keep inter-mixing two different issues:

1. Google's near monopoly of the European general search market.

2. Google intentionally rigging their search results to promote their other properties.

It's the second issue that's the heart of the problem, and the one needs to be addressed.

[heisje]

Is Google an angel? Hell no. But they're still a choice.

Seems a lot of (otherwise intelligent) people miss the point.

Even when a company is not a total monopoly, but has become dominant in a market through excellence and consumer choice, it may not be allowed to *abuse* its dominant position, hurting citizens, consumers, competitors and small business. Such abuse is not to the long term benefit of society.

A "parallel" example : a philanthropist supporting to the highest material standards a young girls' orphanage, becomes the main source of support for these high standards, gets easy access to the girls as a figure of "authority", and being (in closet reality) of questionable character succeeds in molesting some.

Keyword here : abuse.

Google is not investigated because it sells advertising to support its search engine operations, neither because it makes a profit. Google is investigated because it abuses its dominant position, in multiple ways.



.