Europe were the ones that tore Microsoft apart in the end, I wouldn't take this lightly. A 90% share of the market, wow does that include Youtube I wonder....

This is a bit like the U.S. Congress passing a resolution calling for the breakup of [Insert name of European company]. It's political grandstanding, since--as the Reuters said--it's "non-binding."

This is a bit like the U.S. Congress passing a resolution calling for the breakup of [Insert name of European company]. It's political grandstanding, since--as the Reuters said--it's "non-binding."

Except Europe has successfully broken a Monopoly before, Microsoft. The European politicians are dangerous to Google's Monopoly, If I was Google I would be taking this very seriously.

wow does that include Youtube I wonder

No - it's just search.

I do notice a distinct difference in viewpoint on WebmasterWorld between US and non-US members on these points. This maybe because the definition of monopoly in Europe is not the same as anti-trust in the US, you don't need 100% market share, just dominance.

There is no doubt that Google seems to favour US companies or their European subsidiaries. Even I have noted that any European internet company that becomes successful, in terms of traffic or profits, seems to get bought up quickly by US companies, using cash stashed in tax-free offshore accounts. ( note our company pays more corporation tax than Facebook UK !)

In our one part of our niche we have a nearly 80% control by US subsidiaries, in fact if they take over another company they will trigger an investigation. We have just 2 independent companies left, except a few small regional ones.

This is the real background to the investigation, re-inforced by Germany and France. The UK, not so much, as Google have some heavy hitters in No 10 Downing Street.

Except Europe has successfully broken a Monopoly before

The European Parliament hasn't (and can't). That's why I used the U.S. Congress analogy.

In our one part of our niche we have a nearly 80% control by US subsidiaries, in fact if they take over another company they will trigger an investigation. We have just 2 independent companies left, except a few small regional ones.

This is the real background to the investigation, re-inforced by Germany and France.

In other words, this isn't about antitrust, it's about protectionism.

One does have to wonder why, with a population of half a billion, the EU hasn't been able to field a competitive search engine. Surely all the innovative people in search can't be in Silicon Valley, Russia, or China?

The EU Parliament is grasping for relevance amid a Europe wide trend towards nationalism. Look at the amount of nationalists elected to the EU Parliament as a direct poke in the eye.

Being blowhards about "Breaking Up the Google Monopoly" plays to the jingoist vote.

No - it's just search.

Google refers to Youtube as "the second biggest search engine in the world" amongst other things. It's the third largest website in the world (800Million visitors per month). I wonder if this is included in the stats. If its not then Google's grip on search is even higher.

a non-binding resolution that proposes

In other words: a waste of time. The European parliament should focus 100% on real problems: the economy and unhappy Europeans who are tired of the European community and the extra taxes it creates.

Presumably whatever they do is only going to affect Google.co.uk, google,fr and all the rest. Google.com will still stay the same. It would be be interesting to see how many EU people use google.com. It's probably quite a big chunk

Europe were the ones that tore Microsoft apart in the end

Err.. when was MS torn apart? A breakup was imposed by a US court but overturned by a higher court so MS carried on unchanged.

On the whole I am quite glad to see the EU parliament put pressure on the competition commissioner. I wish a few other tech companies (MS, Amazon, Apple) were being scrutinised as well.

It would be be interesting to see how many EU people use google.com

Most by default get their own ccTLD version and if my experience of watching users is anything to go by then they haven't a clue how to get to G.com nor any other search engine.

It's amazing how many users search via G's AdWords, I kid you not.

The EU didn't "tear Microsoft apart", but they certainly tore them a new one.

European antitrust regulators on February 27, 2008 fined Microsoft $1.3 billion for failing to comply with a 2004 judgment, that the company had abused its market dominance. The new fine by the European Commission was the largest it has ever imposed on an individual company, and brings the total in fines imposed on Microsoft to about $US 2.5 billion, at current exchange rates.

These fines were not "non-binding" either.

Regarding the context of "non-binding" for the Google break-up recommendation.

The reason it's non-binding is that the organization talking about all of this is the European Parliament. They aren't the body that has any regulatory power over Google. The idea is that their recommendation would put pressure on the European Commission, a separate body...that does have some teeth (see above regarding the fines they imposed on Microsoft in the 2008).

The idea is that their recommendation would put pressure on the European Commission, a separate body...that does have some teeth

In SEO layman terms, it's a strong signal that should be interpreted by the EC in their efforts to resolve an ongoing and quite drawn out issue.

One does have to wonder why, with a population of half a billion, the EU hasn't been able to field a competitive search engine. Surely all the innovative people in search can't be in Silicon Valley, Russia, or China?

I tend to agree, since, on the whole, I'm sympathetic to the view that more competition is better than regulation.

But has North America been able to field a competitive search engine?

Bing? Is Bing a competitor?

What about Blekko?

What about Cuil?

What about nutch?

What about Wikia Search?

The European problem is not could they make a competitive search engine ( they could ) ..It is that they cannot agree on what to call it..The French in particular have been awkward about any name that sounds too Anglo-Saxon..which resulted in Quaero..look it up..( and weep for what might have been but for Mr Chirac's insistence on a non Anglo Saxon sounding name ) which like cuil, almost no-one could pronounce, so almost no-one used it..
So France finished up with Voila ( which few non French can pronounce correctly ) ..and which hardly anyone uses, including the French..and Google.fr..( which around 98% of the people in France use ) and which I hear around one in ten French pronounce as Coogle.fr..

I'm looking forward to the day it happens, splitting them up, that is...I've never fully understood why/how the usage of search engines in the US/EU is reported as being so different. Comscores' ~60% figures are suspect. I see 80-90% of traffic in the US coming from Google all of the time to many sites.

@MICKLEARN As a member coming from Eastern Europe I can tell you that the vast majority of the people outside of US use Google in an profoundly different way. Hell most don`t even know .com exists let alone anything else. Tripadvisor, yelp, ask, Amazon(to some extent) - they do not know what are these websites are for. All they do is go to country code top of the page best looking ad and click. Believe me when I tell you that there are many people making good money out of it too.

One exception in the rule is .co.uk where the users tend to act more like an average US user albeit not fully.

Referring to "non binding" : this is a matter of degree.

EU Commission is obligated to act on Parliament recommendations of investigation and report back. Ultimately, Parliament has the power of bringing down the whole Commission, through a No-Confidence motion. While this is never going to happen in real life, the EU lives & moves by balanced consent - meaning every EU authority listens carefully to what the others say, at least in major, non-frivolous, issues.

And, this is far from being a frivolous issue. There is broad consent in the EU, and individual EU countries, that Google is a major issue, including commerce and security (spying, privacy, etc.).

.

It will come as no surprise that the proposal hasn't gone down well in the United States.

The US Mission to the European Union responded to news of a draft proposal by the European Parliament calling for an "unbundling" of Google's businesses with a disapproving tone. US expresses 'concern' over EU proposal to break up Google [cnet.com]

Many Europeans think very bad about the EU, the commisars and the EU mad EU parliament.

Many Europeans think very bad about the EU, the commisars and the EU mad EU parliament.

And many don't..:)


Whereas ..many from both the pro and the anti EU groups within the EU..
are, as heisje said..

And, this is far from being a frivolous issue. There is broad consent in the EU, and individual EU countries, that Google is a major issue, including commerce and security (spying, privacy, etc.).

concerned about Google, and other global mega-corps involved in the "net" ( both those based outside and inside the EU ) and would like them "reining in"..and Europeans know that the USA is not going to do so..

I'm not sure how (a) a European parliament can force a USA company to unbundle and (b) how it would make any difference to Google's practices if it could. The fact is that the average Google employee is a whole lot smarter than the average European politician, who just doesn't understand what's going on. Any group of people who would have considered the proposed Almunia settlement to be any more than a huge bag of wool pulled over their eyes really don't inspire much confidence.

Possibly they ( the EU ) are thinking that if G did not comply..the EU could say you cannot operate using your current "methods" in the EU..which would make Google's tax and financial affairs ( worldwide, including the USA ) very much more complex than they already are..

G claims ( for tax purposes within the EU that their EU head office is in Eire )..and 10 % of G's worldwide revenue comes from the UK ( which is for now, part of the EU ) alone..

They could refuse to accept G's use of the "Irish maneuver", or the "double dutch" or whatever flavour(s) of sandwich they use currently to make money in the EU whilst avoiding paying taxes at local rates in the EU countries that they work in..

G does a great deal more business in the EU than just search..

When individual governments in the EU have told G that they are unhappy with aspects of G's policies etc, G have indeed modified them..as did MS when the EU told it to..

Agree with you re Alumnia ( and European politician's knowledge about "the web" and "net" economy )..he was waaaay too G friendly..

Almunia : I wouldn't be surprised if people at some quarters had dark suspicions about the way he was dealing with the Google issue . . . . . . . .

.

The following 3 messages were cut out to new thread by engine. New thread at: goog/4718601.htm [webmasterworld.com]
2:45 pm on Nov 27, 2014 (utc 0)