That is called competition.
If Amazon decides to produce widgets that are comparable to Random brand™ Widgets, then we have a competition. To me, thats good for the market.
That gives me a choice. I can either lower the cost on my Widgets (to compete) or find another market to diversify into. Yes, Amazon has the “depth” to run me out of business, but Amazon had to start somewhere.
This isn’t about the placement of one entity paying for advertising compared another entity that isn’t paying for it.
This is about Google introducing a “feature” and thus hitting a market in which they didn’t operate before. But instead of playing fairly and not penalizing their competitors in said market, they penalized them so heavily that essentially Google went from “irrelevant because it’s utter ■■■■” to “we’re still utter ■■■■, but now the #1 in business because we drove everyone else out”.
They drove their competitors out by NOT playing fair and using their search engine dominance to grab all the traffic that otherwise would have gone to said competitors by penalizing their competitors in their search results and thus forcing those entities that buy ads to have to rely on Google instead of Google’s competitors.
Again Linus, I’m really not trying to be a d**k here. Just so you know. However, you seemed to just contradict yourself…
That’s not competition, that’s Amazon using their dominant market position to drive independent manufacturers out of business.
These days you have to rely on Amazon or deal with the fact that your revenue will take a major hit. Amazon knows everything about the market capacity of your product and can use that to “clone” it if it’s profitable and thus drive you out of business, because they’re going to advertise their own product line above yours, the original one.
No, I didn’t.
Googles competitors aren’t the entities that buy ads on Google. Those are the customers that both Google and Google’s competitors are fighting for.
Or perhaps to make that more clear.
When I provide a service and then you join as a competitor to me with a similar service, why would I start paying you to provide to me the service that I myself provide as well?
I’m a competitor to you, not a customer. We’re fighting for the same customer base with a similar product.
I get that. However there are other search engines. Just because Google is a household name that everyone uses, doesn’t mean that they are the only one. I don’t blame Google for trying to be #1. If I had a business, I’d do the same. I will still fall back on my lazy sheep perspective. That may make me a bit closed minded, but so be it.
If my car breaks down, I tend to go to my neighborhood auto parts store. They dont always have what I need. If it’s dire, I will go to the chain auto parts store for what I need. If not, I’ll wait until what I need is ordered in.
Yes. However if I advertise with Flybynight™ search engine to advertise my service and you advertise with Google, I really cannot be p***ed with Google because you have better ROI in your advertising budget than I do.
The entire EU ruling is about how Google uses their dominant market share to deliberately drive competitors out of business with no options for those businesses to get back the traffic they had before Google started penalizing them unfairly.
I can tell you are very passionate about this. If nothing else, in the comments that you’ve made. 
I come from a very old school philosophy (because I’m an old guy). The only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to them. However, I feel that the government doesn’t need to be the one to do it.
I have very much enjoyed our discussion, but I really really need to get some work done.
Thank you for a very lively discussion!
Honestly, I believe that’s because you’re (I’m guessing here) a US American.
The US is a pretty much unregulated free market, where the big firms are lobbying and bribing in their favor.
The EU is a regulated market with rules which are enforced. We have laws against anti-competitive behavior, like the ones Google broke (again), whereas in the US there are laws to protect the big monopolies (cable firms like Comcast).
Google wants to do business in the EU and they therefor have to abide by EU laws and regulations. They can’t pull the same ■■■■ that’s common-place in the US and our market is way better off for it.
Yes, yes I am.
I could dispute this, but I wont. I will agree that your market is different, if you’re willing to agree the same. I could spend days arguing over who’s market is better than who’s and why.
Just one simple question. Are you in favor of net neutrality, or are you not?
Had quite the storm here last night. Too celebrate here’s some likes!
FTC came to the same conclusion as the EU, btw.
“Staff concludes that Google’s conduct has resulted - and will result - in real harm to consumers and to innovation in the online search and advertising markets. Google has strengthened its monopolies over search and search advertising through anticompetitive means…”
Ah, another sticky question.
To be discussed at another time.
It’s honestly just a simple yes or no. If you’re in favor, then you’re agreeing with me that regulation is better for consumers.
If you’re against net neutrality, then I give you your opinion about an unregulated US market with all its caveats.
Just thought net neutrality is something you could relate with better.
I love storms and rain in general. 
Wish it would rain where I am more often. 
I LIKED EVERYONE!!!
hmm… CCP hamsters must be slow then today 'cause I has none new likes 