MoodyFog
Member
They don't. Twitter and linkedin's numbers are very good, for example.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
European parliament may propose to split Google
- Thread starter ICKE
- Start date
- Status
They don't. Twitter and linkedin's numbers are very good, for example.
And the protocols and backbones of the internet were developed in the US.
whatever77
Banned
One does not tell a political organization that can fine you 5 billion at will to "fuck off". What are you, 12?
Orbis Tabula
Member
The way I feel is this: Monopolies are dangerous and we don't want them, because they tend to engage in anti-competitive practices in order to maintain their position, rather than relying on the quality of their product. And that is anti-consumer. However, if there is a monopoly (or just a supremely dominant competitor) that maintains its position through the quality of their product, and not through anti-competitive practices, there isn't any reason that company should be forced to relinquish control of the market. So the question shouldn't be "Does Google have too large of a share of the search market?" It should be "Does Google use its enormous control of the search market to unfairly prevent competitors from engaging in the market." I don't know the answer to that, but I'm looking through some of the links that have already been posted in this thread.
They invented hypertext(which itself was based on SGML), and I guess the name 'world wide web'. Which isn't the same thing as saying they invented what the web would eventually become, that was a worldwide project, not just the work of a couple of guys at CERN.
Nothing was fundamentally superior about hypertext vs any other internet protocol in the early days, the reason it caught on was because it was CERN disowned, so people around the world, including many many in America began experimenting with it, building their own clients and servers and modifying and extending it.
The graphical web browser was developed at UIUC, without which hypertext would have been just another internet protocol, and Tim Berners-Lee has been working at the W3C at MIT for the past 20+ years, which is where much of the work that has made the web what it is today was done.
Also for the bolded, they have where they were allowed to, but those platforms are substantially locked down, so Google can't really do a 1:1 port in many cases. But then you can ask do the other two companies even make apps for competing platforms?
Resident_UA
Member
I did say I like Google. But the bigger it gets the more people it can control. It can't be good. Of course other companies can do it and some do, but if one company can do so much it could be bad (I use google, so obviously I trust them now)
perfectchaos007
Member
He can't? I thought Euros had freedom of speech?
He just did.
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
Okay.
No. Part of them are coming from ARPA. The concept of packet switching is Welsh, the French CYCLADES placed responsibility of the correct packets on the connecting points and not the packet, ...
They aren't working for the people, here. This only hurts consumers.
the numbers don't matter, its the percentage of use.
Google Search has the same percentage of use as Facebook does in social media. (~65%)
Break em up!
perfectchaos007
Member
But it sounds like if Google was a European company, they wouldn't be making a big deal out of this.
MoodyFog
Member
Well I'm not sure the EU would say no if you proposed that.
GoldenEye 007
Member
I don't know. Potentially breaking Google Now functionality for me doesn't seem like a solution I was looking for.
Than you are wrong, the Union has often fined European companies and governments for what they felt was anti-competitive behaviour, like state support in unnecessary cases.
Worldwide. In Europe Google owns 90% of the search market. But again, it is not that dominance that is the problem. It is the interconnectivity of their dominances.
That's just a sentence written by the guy writing the article, does it have any factual backing?
It's not just this though. Stuff like warranties on electronics, the way compensation for weather delays on flights work, and some other little anecdotes I've heard but have now forgotten just leave me in awe.
I honestly doubt that.
Yup. There have also been investigations against European companies for all sorts of reasons, e.g. there were investigations against German railway company DB.
The EU's arguments don't talk specifically about the www, only posters in here trying to attribute the creation which EU wished to regulate as being an EU invention. Well they are trying to affect for than just the www. Even though the US behind the internet, the EU clearly has their own internet infrastructure so the nationality of the inventors doesn't give any claim laying for either of the two entities.
Splitting up Google would not benefit them, it would only great a bunch of powerful US entities. US copywrite, lobbyist, monopoly law needs to change before such a drastic split up happens. We would need to see US ISPs split up first. Then the EU would have to do a lot more enacting their own regulations to open up their internet beyond what the US allows. They would need to charter their own companies. There is much more than can and need to be doing that is entirely unrelated to Google holding a monopoly. Not to mention the historical reasons for splitting up monopolies don't seem to suggest that Google is operating at the expense of humanity. Quite the opposite.
You are a funny guy, that's why the Commission will fine you last.
These laws safeguard our internal market and work really well with the four fundamental freedoms.
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
I'm not sure a split is the solution here, but I appreciate they're actively discussing the issue.
whatever77
Banned
If google happily hand it the multi-bilion dollar fine like Microsoft did, I am sure EU doesn't care if google fanboys want to yell a few more "fuck off".
Blargonaut
Banned
I'm all for competition, but governments setting fire to Google's canopy just to let the undergrowth have some sun? Google's fought to the top, and sit on the throne by right of blood, spilled.
Why can't a plucky rebellious upstart-up be free to take down the monopolistic oppressive juggernaut on their own terms, winning our hearts and minds in the dance-off without being handheld to the prize like some ever-redundant product of the smartphone industry?
This is not how the global cyberpunk dystopia should come about, by nagging from The Man. It should be by hardcore corporate espionage and the toppling of giants by romanticized outlaws.
Fuck this future
Why can't a plucky rebellious upstart-up be free to take down the monopolistic oppressive juggernaut on their own terms, winning our hearts and minds in the dance-off without being handheld to the prize like some ever-redundant product of the smartphone industry?
This is not how the global cyberpunk dystopia should come about, by nagging from The Man. It should be by hardcore corporate espionage and the toppling of giants by romanticized outlaws.
Fuck this future
The weirdest part of the complaint is that Google's wouldbe competitors are complaining that Google is stifling them by moving them down in the Google results.
To me, that's like calling the police because the local Italian Restaurant keeps getting rid of the flyers for my Italian restaurant that I put in their lobby.
To me, that's like calling the police because the local Italian Restaurant keeps getting rid of the flyers for my Italian restaurant that I put in their lobby.
captmorgan
Banned
So the lesson is don`t get to successful or government will chop you back down to the level of mediocrity like everyone else.
Google fanboys? Are you really suggesting anyone against this must just be a fanboy?
Pretty much. What a fucking joke. Sounds like if anything it's them that should have less power, not Google.
Bomber Bob
Banned
lol EU
GoldenEye 007
Member
I mean, who is arguing for untampered companies and no regulation in this thread?
Did Google engage in monopolistic tactics and anti-competitive behavior that warrants them being broken up a la AT&T or other classic examples? Or are people expecting and predicting they will at some undermined time in the future?
Orbis Tabula
Member
I don't think people are saying that monopolies should go completely untampered with. Their saying that they don't think this particular tampering with one company is warranted.
whatever77
Banned
I suggest people who make "LOL XXX fuck off!" type posts are fanboys.
Or a libertarian, I simply can not comprehend why some people do not see the risks or are willing to overlook them if the product happens to be good. One would think that people would start to realize that concentration of wealth and monopoly power is not a good thing at this point, given what the economic prospects are for most people these days.
Regardless, it will be interesting to see how this develops The pressure is grows every year though as citizens become more frustrated. We have austerity in place for normal working people while at the same time multinationals are enjoying themselves like never before.
Well this sort of action deserves that type of response, honestly, regardless of how you feel about Google. Their reasoning for this is a complete joke.
perfectchaos007
Member
They aren't a monopoly though. There are plenty of alternatives, but few people choose to use them. If Google turns into an asshole company, people still have the choice to switch to yahoo or msn or whatever. In a monopoly, those fallbacks aren't available. Seems like this is a case of trying to punish a big company because they are....well...big!
Khaos_Knight
Banned
LOL a foreign government thinks it has the power to decide the fate of an American tech giant?
Fuck off and go focus on Ukraine, you senile, sterile and dysfunctional bag of flaccid dicks.
Fuck off and go focus on Ukraine, you senile, sterile and dysfunctional bag of flaccid dicks.
Do people honestly not see how Google being a knowledge powerhouse of interconnected services that has 90% of the market in Europe is not a bad thing for competitors, old and new ?
Yes, Google services are good, great even.That is beside the point, completely meaningless to the issue. Choice in the market, again meaningless with this issue.
When Google leverage their vast knowledge base to expand into other markets, growing ever more knowledgable with their connected services, beating companies to the punch, walking into markets with their big footprint, making any competitor inroads virtually impossible, you have a problem that needs sorting.
Yes, Google services are good, great even.That is beside the point, completely meaningless to the issue. Choice in the market, again meaningless with this issue.
When Google leverage their vast knowledge base to expand into other markets, growing ever more knowledgable with their connected services, beating companies to the punch, walking into markets with their big footprint, making any competitor inroads virtually impossible, you have a problem that needs sorting.
Do you not see how it would be bad for internet users if you ruin all of that? Having all of those interconnected services is part of what makes Google so good. If they break that, you essentially make the internet a worse place for everyone.
Wow, some high quality discourse here.
No?
What would be so terrible if, say, Android and Google Search were run by different companies?
They are indeed "anti-competitive" in that they own a monopoly. Monopolies are bad. Here is a good summary of why:
No company should be exempt from competition law for any reason, even if their public image paints them as a company that "does good."
MoodyFog
Member
What does Apple has a monopoly on?
It might make Android phones worse. That would be bad for people who like Android phones.
Sometimes it feels like apps with all the apps they have that I want =(.
Orbis Tabula
Member
The point is that any action that one participant makes in a market is usually a bad thing for competitors. They're competing, that's the nature of it all. Whenever Company A grows it's market, it usually comes at the cost of Companies B-Z. So saying that a company's actions hurt its competitors is not sufficient justification for for harming said company. It is necessary to demonstrate that not only is a company hurting its competitors, but that is behaving in a way that is "unfair" and harms consumers. I don't particularly care if a company can't compete if the only way for them to succeed to is change the market in such a way that harm is done to consumers. People who disagree with you aren't fans of untempered monopolies. They're of the belief that the benefits provided by Google being the company it is today outweigh the costs of having so much power consolidated into one entity. And, correct me if I misrepresent your argument, but you seem to be of opposite belief. So simply "How do you not understand why this is bad!?" does nothing to advance an argument or explain why you feel the way you do.
It's also weird because Google is, essentially, a free service for consumers. Calling it an unfair monopoly is a tough sell when most people associate a monopoly with price-fixing or price gouging.
Hell, Bing PAYS me to use them, I get $5 in Amazon gift credit a month for using Bing, and I still use Google most of the time because the results are better and more in line with what I want.
I also wrote a bot to do my Bing searches so I don't have to bother with that terrible search engine.
Hell, Bing PAYS me to use them, I get $5 in Amazon gift credit a month for using Bing, and I still use Google most of the time because the results are better and more in line with what I want.
I also wrote a bot to do my Bing searches so I don't have to bother with that terrible search engine.
- Status