Google is a monopoly, they have like 90% market-share in the search market.
In that region, the primary market-share isn't entirely to Google. Yandex, Bing (Microsoft), Seznam, Conduit, and Vinden are major players in Europe.
And the E.U. has done this before with Microsoft and the browser choice screen.
That's stretching it. Microsoft was very dirty with Windows/IE. They were packaging each Windows disc with IE installed right there in the software. On of that, the other practice they employed was forcing vendors to include Windows with each PC sold. I could go on and on, but those are the reasons why anti-trust was so fucking hard on Microsoft. And they're
still doing it to
this day. And guess what? The EU is laying down for Microsoft at this point, with their body
naked. I'm sorry for the way I am saying it, but think of it that way. They just don't care about Microsoft anymore. And today, the anti-trust isn't coming down on Microsoft as it was before.
To be frankly honest, it's surprisingly that the E.U. hadn't done anything already with all the anti-trust laws, this is probably because the person before Vestager was a push-over who blindly took Google's promises and assurances at face value and now they're mad at Google for playing them for fools.
Well, if they're going to go after Google, they're going to need to go after Microsoft, too - since they service Bing. It's now embedded, and cooked into every goddamn device Microsoft ever launched in Europe. That includes Xbox branded consoles.
This isn't the full story either. Google was actually downranking competing sites in their search results and blamed it on the "algorithm". Also, they've been steadily expanding their search options, from just general search to product search, airline search, etc. in response to new sites springing up.
That's their fault for not optimizing EU sites. (I mean the Euro citizens.)
And yes, if you are a monopoly, then you cannot step into new markets and use your weight to distort those markets. This is basically antitrust 101.
No. Quite on the opposite. Google has been in Europe for as long as 2016 or even earlier. If you check the
map of Google HQ's, you will notice that Google has been in that area for a very, very long time. They only recently announced their massive HQ in London in 2016/17/18. It's what caught EU's attention and created GDPR, fined them, and whatever else they want to do. This is why I see EU as the bad guy. And the worst part is, the world is watching. They're trying to make a spectacle of something that Google wanted to benefit to Europeans, rather than the antitrust they're getting from EU. I think the whole thing is one big misunderstanding and we're all collateral damage.
Antitrust law only applies to monopolies, in other words, companies with a ridiculously high market-share. That is the law. It really isn't anything new or even particularly strange, it's just that they've been getting away for it for so long.
No. Quite on the opposite. Antitrust applies to ANY company of any size. If you do something dirty. Slap on the wrist with a fine.
Here's a definition from a quick google search:
"relating to legislation preventing or controlling trusts or other monopolies, with the intention of promoting competition in business."
Further research lead me to this: "Antitrust laws are the laws that
apply to virtually all industries and to every level of business, including manufacturing, transportation, distribution and marketing. They prohibit a variety of practices that restrain trade. Examples of illegal practices are
price-fixing conspiracies, corporate mergers likely to reduce the competitive vigor of particular markets, and
predatory acts designed to achieve or maintain monopoly power."
Meaning, if you, as a company, are trying to control consumer "trust" to lean things your way, despite the competition between yourself as a business person, and another person.
I took a class to learn this shit. It's not as complicated as you would be led to believe. If you dominate a sector, then you dominate a sector. Nothing more, and nothing less.
That has to be done in an
underhanded way to trigger the anti-trust. As is the case with the OEM's from Microsoft, and the inclusion of IE.
The U.S. Government was even considering breaking up Microsoft at one point for abusing their monopoly, etc.
That did go through. It's the same philosophy that Google now employs to avoid antitrust lawsuits.
There is no argument or twist or whatever, they are a monopoly. The U.S. thinks so too, but they were satisfied with vague promises from Google.
They're never vague. They promised job growth to come to London - any time a corporation of the size that Google is; announces a new HQ, job growth comes rushing in. Why do you think states
HERE in U.S. are trying to catch Amazon's attention? It's because those states/cities are dying for more jobs in that area.
On the other hand, if Europe's concern was with the downranked sites in that area, Google could easily fix the problem by locating their business there. That
was the other reason for the new HQ. But I think, by doing this, EU is scaring off Google. *shrugs*
Also, good luck competing with Google, they're practically the portal to the web, if they weren't twiddling their thumbs while it grew, they would have beaten Facebook black and blue.
Any company can compete with the big company. Anyone. Bing and Yandex are currently
doing it.
Do you want to know how Chrome became the market leader? Because IE is bad? Ahahaha, no. It's because Google put up notices everywhere telling people to use. IE / Edge are default, who would be bothered to replace them, if not for Google's influence.
Same is true for Mozilla and Yahoo. Mozilla paid Yahoo to make those same advertisements to aid the growth of FireFox. Yes, FIRE. FOX. It was popular for a while, and made a dent on IE's marketshare, but has been beaten by Google. (I just double checked now, sadly.)
The E.U. has done a lot of stupid things, but this is probably the most level-headed and rational decision they've made in decades.
That's debatable. *laughs*
