Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

47% Positive

Analyzed from 1723 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#google#maps#fine#search#don#tech#should#user#monopoly#browser

Discussion (56 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

elric2 minutes ago
JFC these comments.

It should be clear to everyone that Google is too big and is engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. The EU giving them a token fine every once in a while just part of the cost of doing business for Google. Google could just choose to not favour their own services and to give users a choice. But they don't. Hence the fine.

plantainabout 1 hour ago
It drives me insane when in Europe the link between Google Search and Google Maps is broken and I often have to copy paste an address between the two. Thanks EU, what if I like Google's integrations?
phireskyabout 1 hour ago
The EU told them they can not by default prefer their own maps product when linking from their search product, they have to allow the user to choose.

They could have simply added a selector when a user first clicks on the maps preview in the search result, and then remembered it on device or across that user's account.

But of course, then the user could choose a competitor's product and Google would have to honor it. That would be horrible, so instead they just made the user experience worse for everyone and elegantly made people blame the EU.

esterna32 minutes ago
I wonder if the EU will someday figure out a patch for this "Deteriorate everyone's user experience in a way that is technically compliant and blame the EU" behavioural exploit...
nolok12 minutes ago
It's fine + obligation to fix, and daily fine until fixed, and higher fine if you do it again.

I know that sounds like it comes from "it will never work", but that's how active directory, office file format, etc ... got opened, and in a case more similar to here that's how windows n and decoupling of media and internet component from windows internals happened.

The issue is, yes, it takes time.

Another issue, purely PR, is that yes the EU gets attacked repeatedly by people trying to match "respect the law of the market or leave" with "the EU tax US companies because they can't compete".

brador18 minutes ago
The corrective force should be market competition, but Google is a monopoly not a monopoly with so many moats it might as well be a monopoly.

They also buy up the competition before it gets a chance as is the way now.

Hamuko23 minutes ago
Google really sucks at giving users a choice. The Gmail app on iOS has a browser selector dialog, which asks if you want to open a link in an email in Chrome or Safari. Despite the fact that you can change your default browser in iOS settings if you really want to use Chrome. And even if you choose Safari and don’t ask it to remind you every time, it will still prompt you again later if you’d like to switch to Chrome this time. Couldn’t I just pick Safari and you respect that choice until I say otherwise?

I do wonder if people using Chrome on iOS face the same issue, or if Google respects your browser of choice a bit more if it’s their browser.

nolok37 minutes ago
It's malicious compliance with the intent of having the users misunderstand what's happening (that you don't have to do that but do it on purpose, and instead blame the law protecting them).

And eh, it works for the cookie banner so why change the strategy ? The comment you're answering to prove it still works. As long as people can't be bothered to think and inform themselves for a second about it, they won't stop. Same with the purposefully annoying and unclear and user hostile 'gdpr popup' about third party consent.

I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying from Google POV that's the correct move given their intent, the issue then become people like parent.

maccard5 minutes ago
Well no, the cookie banner is a well intentioned but flawed and poorly designed law. Any law that is that technically specific but relies on people without an understanding of how it works is doomed to repeat the same fate. The eu should have seen prop 65 and not sleepwalked back into it.
darkwater20 minutes ago
Yes, but by the time you are sued and fined into compliance again, you already made a ton of money to pay 10x the next fine.
atwrk32 minutes ago
This is intended to drive you insane on purpose. It is just malicious compliance intended to make users blame the anti-monopoly regulators instead of the monopolists.

This is a corporation with tens of thousands of software developers. If they wanted to do better, they could. As always: If the UI is bad for you, that probably means that particular implementation is good for the corporation.

cromka32 minutes ago
What drives you nuts is Google's malicious compliance and your ignorance: what EU forbidden is defaulting to it in a way that they can't be decoupled. What Google was allowed to do was adding a option to enable it.

They didn't. That's specifically to piss you off on EU.

mrtksnabout 1 hour ago
I share the frustration but maybe if Google hadn't gained a monopoly status Google Maps wouldn’t have been in its current sorry state.

My assessment is that EU is doing too little too late, the fine should have been something like 20B and used towards creating a non-profit, open and extendable map service ideally with the people who already do great mapping tech that don't show up in Google search results at the top.

EU is too vanilla, too unopinionated towards the tech, they go over the problem after the damage is done, take the money for themselves and force a non-solution that doesn't fix the problem and often makes it worse because they leave the implementation to the convicts who make sure to make it maliciously compliant.

f6v22 minutes ago
> if Google hadn't gained a monopoly status Google Maps wouldn’t have been in its current sorry state

What's up with Google Maps? It's great for me.

nolok35 minutes ago
Eh, on the other hand the EU has now effectively forced usb-c for devices after apple refused to play it clean for years and they still got people who complained (how dare the regulator be opiniated toward tech !).

The EU loves to play it the european way, and while on the surface it seems "oh that means regulations" in reality it's a "figure it out yourselves and please behave like adult, we don't want to deal with that" and we ask for some sort of regulatory association or whatever that we can refer to to talk to them all.

It's worked in a ton of industries including ones where we have no moat but somehow tech companies are always incapable to behave. At least the US ones, eg for the phone thing it ended up being Samsung who told the EU "hey I've been playing ball for years and Apple isn't , make them or I stop too".

dns_snek43 minutes ago
Why are you blaming the EU and not Google's malicious compliance? They could simply ask you which map provider you'd like to use.
kandros19 minutes ago
Nobody is forcing me to use Google search, regardless of all the browser and search engine selection clown show, so much wasted money and time for nonexisting problem
f6v21 minutes ago
> They could simply ask you which map provider you'd like to use.

Yeah that's why EU isn't producing capable tech competitors. If other map services want my business they need to work on that. Instead, someone who built a search infrastructure is supposed to do a free promotion for competitors.

geokon27 minutes ago
I think this is a larger web-standards problem.

There is no standard clickable "link" for physical locations. There is no URL-equivalent you can send to someone, they click it, it open up their map viewer of choice. You can send Lat Lon coordinates and then have the recipient copy and paste them. It generally works though there isn't a standard format and no service will make it clickable like an email address, so the whole process remains clunky.

When you "Share" a location in Google Maps or OSMand, you get back a URL link to their service and not an service agnostic "link" to the geographic location.

master-lincoln2 minutes ago
There is a standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_URI_scheme

I have it working on my Android phone. It's clickable links that open my map app of choice (or rather a selection dialog).

It's just that the big players do not want to use it.

plufzabout 1 hour ago
Im sure you are right, but I’m not sure what you mean. I can search for an address fine in search and I get an embedded map that I can click to open Google Maps. How does it work in the US?
arka2147483647about 1 hour ago
Does not work for me. Presumably there is some popup you have to accept somewhere for it to work.
ricardobayesabout 1 hour ago
If you click the "address" link in the Google Maps sidebox in Google Search it will show you on Google Maps -> even in EU.
rnnrabout 1 hour ago
US's DoJ fined Microsoft for bundling a web browser into its own OS. EU is the apprentice.
TeMPOraL24 minutes ago
What's surprising here is that people still cheer on this, but no one is suggesting to do the same on mobile today. I honestly am confused by this. Obviously, the current situation warrants it 100x as much.
radres19 minutes ago
Good god. That was an EU thing?
baxtrabout 1 hour ago
similar with video. No, I don't want to watch the Facebook video, I want the YouTube version!
globular-toastabout 1 hour ago
Instead of going insane, why not try to think about how to solve this problem? With the correct markup, your browser could recognise the address as a physical location and ask you how you would like to handle the address. You would choose Google Maps.

We need to stop being so helpless. A proper user agent should be able to do what you want it to.

kandros23 minutes ago
yes, everybody lose here
ktallettabout 1 hour ago
This is unrelated to Google's apps being integrated and working together which should not be affected by that.
qq66about 1 hour ago
The EU has found a clever way to charge US tech companies for market access without triggering a WTO violation.
blitzarabout 1 hour ago
Its a reverse uno after decades of fines by the US against European banks and car makers.

They will just write it off against the tax they pay back in the US anyway (which is why the US doesnt like it).

jabwdabout 1 hour ago
If the US had working anti trust this wouldn't really even be a thing.
21asdffdsa12about 1 hour ago
The market is a funnel, rewarding centralization, you can thrustbust the t-1000 all you want, but the mercury meets in the middle and guess who is back.
TeMPOraL21 minutes ago
Yes, but that's by design in some sense. Monopoly is a carrot, entrepreneurs are donkeys on treadmills chasing after such carrots. The market's value to society in this metaphor is the energy produced by the treadmills, so while it's critical to offer donkeys the promise of a carrot, it's even more important they don't actually get it, because then they step off the treadmill and become a nuisance.
raverbashing32 minutes ago
(Actually I think it was Gallium but your point stands ;) )
amelius24 minutes ago
This is only true if Google isn't ordered to change its behavior and the fine isn't higher next time.
Iolaumabout 1 hour ago
I m not sure about that. It raises the cost of doing business, but US tech giants still get to dominate the EU tech landscape.
phoronixrlyabout 1 hour ago
What's the alternative -- let US companies continue with their anti-competitive practices?
troupoabout 1 hour ago
This is the exact same thing the US should he doing, but its in love with corporate overlords.
cromka29 minutes ago
That's last week's fine, isn't it? If so, it's a dupe.
anonymous_user9about 2 hours ago
For reference, that's 0.25% of Alphabet's revenue last year.
jstummbillig37 minutes ago
Another reference: It's ~0.75% of Alphabets 2025 income.
KellyCriterion30 minutes ago
ktallettabout 1 hour ago
The issue is that app developers can not offer alternatives to this, not that Google's apps only favour their own services. This is the exact same issue Japan had with Apple. Both were fair rulings. Forcing developers to use services is just removing free competition.
throwaw1239 minutes ago
Expect threats by the Trump administration towards EU.

US: our beloved tech companies (also funded our POTUS elections) tried to navigate the complex regulation landscape in the EU to innovate and accidentally stepped into very complex rules. But EU is fining them for being good boys.

Shame on you EU, for not supporting criminals as much as US does

trolleski37 minutes ago
Don't worry, EU will give it back in almost every gov running on the American BigTech, it's just a show. The Granny In Chief has to get the emails somehow. /s
8364273639232 minutes ago
Expect a spook on your doorstep in the morning for undermining Supreme Leader Von der Leyen's Autoritah!
trolleski11 minutes ago
I own nothing and am happy, am happy! Do not, I repeat do not send a senile agent my way, I can't stand listening to the Cold War stories anymore...
-lmaoabout 2 hours ago
EU will do shit like this and still refuse to support Firefox over Chrome
throw1234567891about 2 hours ago
wathefuk r you talking bout
YukiElectronicsabout 1 hour ago
Probably referring to how quite a few e-ID and online banking sites require you to use Chrome or Safari, as the companies behind them don't test with eg. Firefox.

The Danish "MitID", for example, doesn't quite work right with how a lot of apps using it for authentication (the default Firefox settings probably strip something from the intent links the MitID login page uses) and Danish citizen service sites require Chrome for some things such as booking an appointment, iirc.

ricardobayesabout 1 hour ago
It should be tested on Firefox, but its global usage share is hovering around 3.3% and dropping. At this time, even Opera is comparable at 1.7%.
tkelabout 1 hour ago
sounds like very different groups of people. a few danish developers vs 27 politicians from across europe (european commission)
83642736392about 1 hour ago
Wow, that pays for 145 days of von der Leyen's corrupt EU parliament.
Advertisement