Mike Elgan This jumped out at me:

[G+_George Kozi]

Mike Elgan This jumped out at me:

 

"rival comparison shopping services appear in Google’s search results on the basis of Google’s generic search algorithms. Google has included a number of criteria in these algorithms, as a result of which rival comparison shopping services are demoted. Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google’s search results, and others appear even further down. Google’s own comparison shopping service is not subject to Google’s generic search algorithms, including such demotions."

https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/27/google-fined-e2-42bn-for-eu-antitrust-violations-over-shopping-searches/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=sfgplus&sr_share=googleplus&?ncid=sfgplus

[G+_M. L. Hunt]

I understand Google's need to maintain secrecy around its search ranking algorithms for all sorts of business and performance reasons.

 

But its treatment of sites that directly compete with Google services has long seemed dodgy at best. It's been clear for a couple years now that something like this was coming.

 

This especially the case for the Google shopping service, which is a paid service and so isn't really even search as we think of it.

 

I'd appreciate your or anyone else's thoughts on why Google didn't do something to head this off. Arrogance? A desire to call the EC's bluff? Pure profit-based cost/benefit calculation? Some sort of stand on principle (if so, what principle?)?

[G+_George Kozi]

And this, (see image) is why it is important to keep them honest. pbs.twimg.com ... because if you don't, you get... Comcast....