Hacker News Reader

Comment by interfixus | Hacker News Reader

Please enlighten me: What kind of monopoly would that be? Much as I detest an awful lot of Google, I have never once been - and know of noone else who has ever been - forced to use their search against my will. In fact, I get along fine without it, as well as without their analytics and their browser and their cloud stuff, excepting of course that I am often forced to correspond with gmail addresses.

View on HN

Google holding a dominant position or a monopoly on search is not by itself illegal. However, using that position to gain entry in a different market (shopping, in this case) is considered anti-competitive and hence illegal.

No, I realise that. My question is how are they supposed to hold a monoply or dominance, when there is nothing but preference or lazyness stopping anyone from switching to a competing service?

> nothing but preference or lazyness

Those two (but especially preference) are extremely strong motivators for humans to choose one product over the other.

But even if it wasn't, the law is there the protect the citizens and their livelihoods, not one company's supposed right to hold a monopoly.

A lot of time, research and money has gone into feeding those preferences and laziness. The patterns to create habit forming products are well known - even books about it http://amzn.to/1PU95Fp

There probably needs to a category of consumer software where the argument "but you could always use an alternative" should not apply, when evaluating monopolies. Once you have network effects for example, you have the foundations for a monopoly. WhatsApp is probably a monopoly by now, for example: if all you're friends are using it, you don't really have a choice, even though there are alternatives.

Of course I have a choice. Not using WhatsApp.

How the monopoly arises is irrelevant to the law. Even if it's just collective laziness, it is still illegal to use that monopoly to influence other markets.

I suggest you read the wiki article[1], it's actually very good at answering your question. The whole article is worth reading, not just the section I linked answering your specific question.

Dominance is reflected by the reality of market share, not by whether or not someone could theoretically switch search engine. In the EU they have a very dominant position (95% I think?).

It's no different from saying MS had an effective monopoly/dominance in the 2000s, even though you could theoretically install Linux.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#Dominance_and_...

It's no different from saying MS had an effective monopoly/dominance in the 2000s, even though you could theoretically install Linux

I not only could, I most certainly did.

The situation was different, though. Microsoft Windows had a kind of real monoply, since it was - and is - difficult to find a retail pc without the damned thing preinstalled and included in the price. No such mechanism exists concerning Google, as long as we politely keep Android out of the picture.

Mind you, my position back then was more or less the same with regard to EU vs MS as it is today, with Google taking over: I dislike both companies. I very much more intensely dislike the monolithic and terrifying EU throwing its weight around.

I very much more intensely dislike the monolithic and terrifying EU throwing its weight around.

why do you find the EU terrifying? (also, the EU is not exactly monolithic considering it is not a single entity in many areas, but that is another point entirely).

It's not just customer choice. They have all the classical barriers for entry for anyone trying to provide similar product quality. Even if someone manages to beat them temporarily, Google can compete with prices (of ads typically) so low that they can't make profits but Google can. They bleed out anyone trying to compete.

Economies of scale, network externalities and vertical and horizontal integration means that popular internet services are king of the hill type business. Bigger and larger translates to smaller cost per user, cheaper ads and higher quality. There can be only few really big players and they create natural barriers to entry for anyone else.

All classical barriers of entry apply to Google, FB, Amazon:

* Economies scale production

* Limit pricing

* High set-up costs

* High sunk costs

* Advertising

* brand loyalty

* vertical integration

* horizontal integration

I will need to do a bit of research, because instinctively I don't see how shopping is not a part of search.

The same way that maps pops up automatically when google search realize that I search for a place (or the weather widget).

Now, I don't use Google shopping very often because in my experience it is meh

Agreed. If I search for a jacket, I'm using Google to price compare. If I want to use a different price comparison service, I'll google for price comparison sites instead.

So when Amazon decided to sell hardware, would that be anti-competitive?

Pretty much, you could use the argument you just made against any business that delved into another space. Apple with phones back in the day, Microsoft with Hardware, Walmart and groceries, etc etc etc. There are almost infinite examples, very few businesses haven't expanded their product line and reach. Using their own business to do so is just an obvious solution.

> So when Amazon decided to sell hardware, would that be anti-competitive?

Which monopoly does Amazon have that they're abusing to sell hardware?

> Pretty much, you could use the argument you just made against any business that delved into another space.

Nope; only businesses which are a monopoly.

Amazon has no monopoly, therefore the argument cannot be used against them. Plus nobody is stopping Google from opening a new website (e.g. GoogleShopCompare.com) and doing anything they want, using their huge brand and financial power, what they're saying is wrong is embedding it into their existing monopolistic property to give it an unfair advantage (Google.com).

It is exactly comparable to the Microsoft/Windows issues in the 1990s. Microsoft could sell/give away IE, they just couldn't bundle it with their monopoly (Windows) to give it an unfair advantage. Google previously got into trouble for exactly this due to Google Maps being bundled with Google.com.

Define monopoly, Google is the largest search engine, Amazon is the largest eretailer. Personally I don't think Google has a monopoly, as there are alternatives (a monopoly is supposed to be when their exist no competitors, not just when a business is so much better than everyone else that people choose to use them). Plus, switching search engines takes literally seconds.

Amazon used to only push other's products, now they push their own as well, often making use of their front page to do so. It's the same, if not worse, than what Google is doing.

The term "market domination" is actually the one under consideration with this ruling. Previous time this happening with Microsoft, they just happened to also be a monopoly.

"Market domination" is in fact defined in the article (and in more specific detail if you follow the links there).

I believe I said monopoly, not market domination. Thanks though.

It's not about users that _could_ do something else. It's about the fact that in reality 95% of all clicks as a result of a google search go to the top 3 results and 90% of all search in the affected countries goes through google.

Sure those users could use ddg but it's not about what users could do, the reality of the matter is that other comparative shopping sites depend(ed) on google and got cheated.

I don't think your argument that the company whose word has become so synonymous with internet search that you can look it up in the Oxford English dictionary is not a monopoly really holds much water. Pretty much everyone on the planet has been affected unless you won't be happy their dominance of this space is truly complete until the last hermit calls it day from his mountain view. You have chosen to eschew their services - I'll bet with some non-negligible degree of difficulty - but have forgotten that you are also affected passively by all the other people in the world googling - not for you now and not your services and so must be less prosperous for it. You are still affected by their dominance whether you use their services or not as they gain unlawful advantage over, and thereby affecting, all the other services you do use. I love the Google btw. The fine seems hefty and a bit like a shakedown but I'm sure they are not unduly worried.

It's explained here, [1]. Monopoly is not the right term. See market dominance instead.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law

That you're somewhat free to switch doesn't actually matter. But if it did, I'd point out that Google's customers are advertisers, and they do not have the freedom to switch easily, considering they are forced to go wherever their customers are.

> I have never once been - and know of noone else who has ever been - forced to use their search against my will

Well I've seen Google's voice search trigger against people's will on many occasions ;)

I know that wasn't your point, though.

This is not about Google having a monopoly but about Google abusing a dominant position.

And even if it were about monopoly, whether or not you are forced to use a product or a service is not what determines if it constitutes a monopoly.

The concept of "Monopoly" in U.S. antitrust law and the concept of "Dominant position" in EU law are basically the same.

Compare the laws here: EU (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...) US (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2)

And whether or not you are forced to use a product is a large part of what it means to have a monopoly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switching_barriers

Did you mean to reply to someone? The word monopoly doesn't appear in the press release.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com