Not really, seeing as the article you link addresses that?

It's like a car company saying "we used to only make black cars, but actually we looked into it, and now we think people want colours; so we're making them".

Continued:

"So we're making them, and we're penalizing any dealerships that are still selling black cars."

Unfortunately your continued use of that analogy has backfired.

If a car manufacturer used to sell black cars, then added other colors, if their own dealers refused to sell the additional colors, it would be entirely reasonable for the manufacturer to step in (since it hurts the manufacturer's brand). So in that analogy, the manufacturer is right.

The reality is that Google aren't a car manufacturer, they're more like a car magazine. Suddenly they decide not to feature trucks, and therefore Bobs BigTruckin modal X2000 coming out next month is penalised because they won't be featured in the next issue.

Is it "fair?" In general, yes, but in this specific case because Google holds a monopoly on the market you could argue it is unfair. A lot of sites will suddenly see a large drop-off of traffic if they didn't get the memo, because so many depend on Google for redirects.

As some report, you can reproducably get the ads even today.

So Google is punishing competitors for something they do themselves.

This is all looking like Google just wants to make the EU regulators angry.

This would only matter if punishment was being dished out today - which is not the case. Everyone is being given a heads-up (until November 1). Also, Google has already set a precedent of punishing itself[1] for bad behaviour.

1. http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-penalizes-chrome/3...

Still exists for Gmail (on iOS at least).

> Based on these results, we decided to permanently retire the interstitial.

Well at least they admitted they are bad, even if they tried them.

Annoying ads are only to be purchased through google, peon.

You cut them out, they cut you.