Support NeoGAF

[MartyStu]

I think people in this thread and the EU fail to understand exactly what a monopoly is.

Google is a large company with a commanding presence in multiple fields.

They do NOT provide any services that can only received through them. People are in no way EVER required to use them. Oh, and almost all of their services are free.

The idea that splitting search from their other services would do anything is bunk. Google-Search would still have a massive command of the search business. If they wanted to start fucking with people, that part of the business could still do it. And then people could just leave and use any number of companies that provide similar services.

And then what, Google-Search would never be allowed to experiment in other fields? Must it spin-off into another company every time it has a good idea?

 

[Jova094]

This would only strengthen Apple and Microsoft which would really suck.

 

[Yamauchi]

Yandex has proven competent competition can beat Google. That the EU lacks the talent and industry to take on Google is not Google's fault, and indeed it feels like an attempt to legislate or enact its way out incompetence.

 

[wsippel]

But I fail to see why this is a situation they need to be broken up over. If search, Android, YouTube and Chrome (which 3 of them are optional things any user can use whether they want to or not) are mostly used by consumers by choice, why are they being called to be broken up over that? Anyone at any point can use whatever search engine they want. Same with Android and Chrome

So surely while some might say they have a monopoly in it, I don't see it. Market leader, yes, in complete dominate control without allowing the user choice.... I don't see that. YouTube is the only thing that is really a clear monopoly but even that has competition.. Albeit, not as large however.

Google can and does influence those consumer choices by (ab)using their dominance in other areas. That's what makes them a monopoly, and that's why the European parliament considers breaking them up.

 

[danwarb]

I think people in this thread and the EU fail to understand exactly what a monopoly is.

Google is a large company with a commanding presence in multiple fields.

They do NOT provide any services that can only received through them. People are in no way EVER required to use them. Oh, and almost all of their services are free.

The idea that splitting search from their other services would do anything is bunk. Google-Search would still have a massive command of the search business. If they wanted to start fucking with people, that part of the business could still do it. And then people could just leave and use any number of companies that provide similar services.

And then what, Google-Search would never be allowed to experiment in other fields? Must it spin-off into another company every time it has a good idea?

The EU parliament are talking about online search specifically, and they are right. Google has lots of stuff to market and a web search monopoly. They apparently don't mention Google.

 

[Durante]

Google can and does influence those consumer choices by (ab)using their dominance in other areas. That's what makes them a monopoly, and that's why the European parliament considers breaking them up.

Exactly.

Looking at this:

Google has been getting continuously more excessive in the tying together and forcing of its less popular services via its most popular / dominant ones.

They abused their market position in video distribution (youtube) to
(a) push the rest of their services (by forcing you to join accounts)
(b) push their browser by not offering services (e.g. 60 FPS video) to competing browsers, even though there is no technical reason not to

They have also taken their "open" messaging service, once it reached critical mass, and replaced its open protocol with a proprietary one, which forces you to use their messenger program.

Fuck Google, seriously.

I think in particular the youtube bullshit with the restriction of features to their own browsers is worse than anything that MS ever pulled with IE bundling. If that was penalized (and IMHO rightfully so), then the same should apply to Google.

 

[MartyStu]

Very good.

Google has been getting continuously more excessive in the tying together and forcing of its less popular services via its most popular / dominant ones.

They abused their market position in video distribution (youtube) to
(a) push the rest of their services (by forcing you to join accounts)
(b) push their browser by not offering services (e.g. 60 FPS video) to competing browsers, even though there is no technical reason not to

They have also taken their "open" messaging service, once it reached critical mass, and replaced its open protocol with a proprietary one, which forces you to use their messenger program.

Fuck Google, seriously.

This is all legitimate. Especially what they did with XMPP. Bringing an anti-trust case against them a la Microsoft and forcing them to tamp down on they more sleazy practices is a good thing.

Splitting them up is misguided and only kills a ton of experimental services because they will no longer have revenue streams.

 

[mre]

You are confused. The search engine would stay exactly like the same, it would actually become better and more accurate in the process. They don't want to split the search engine itself, just split the search engine from other parts of the company. This way if Google wants to win in new market they will have to do it on the strenght of their own product, not by making the competition unfair by leveraging their search monopoly.

Plus as separate european search company, located solely in EU, it would be a lot easier to stop the data from leakin outside of EU

You keep saying this, but don't provide any sort of factual basis for your assertion.

 

[danwarb]

Yandex has proven competent competition can beat Google. That the EU lacks the talent and industry to take on Google is not Google's fault, and indeed it feels like an attempt to legislate or enact its way out incompetence.

lol. Power to the multifaceted, multinational corporations with almost complete control over online search!

I'm glad the EU Parliament is good for something.

 

[tokkun]

Firefox was the superior product long before the EU decision. Unless you think IE was the best browser in 2009. What they accomplished?

IE went from 70% to 20% market share since 2009. It helped open up the market.

We both agree that Microsoft's marketshare declined. The question here is whether that decline was due to the EU sanctions or whether the decline was already occurring due to competition from a superior product as I assert.

Your own graph contradicts your theory. IE was unbundled with the release of Windows 7 in Europe in October 2009. The sharp decline of IE marketshare started in Q4 of 2008, a full year before that happened.

If we look at that chart, the rate of decline does not appear to change when the unbundling occurs in Europe in Q4 2009. Moreover, the same decline occurred in the US, where IE continued to be bundled as the default browser. How you look at that data and say you can see a causal relationship between the EU's decision and IE's decline is beyond me.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

Yandex has proven competent competition can beat Google. That the EU lacks the talent and industry to take on Google is not Google's fault, and indeed it feels like an attempt to legislate or enact its way out incompetence.

Surely China's troubled relationship with Google and the censoring of searches had nothing to do with this.

 

[Joni]

I tried to find an article that's related this subject of matter but I couldn't find it with DuckDuckGo

It was literally my first result on DuckDuckGo. It is my fourth one on Google.

I think people in this thread and the EU fail to understand exactly what a monopoly is.

I think you don't know what the legal definitions of monopoly and market abuse are.

We both agree that Microsoft's marketshare declined. The question here is whether that decline was due to the EU sanctions or whether the decline was already occurring due to competition from a superior product as I assert.

It remains remarkable the downfall starts around the time the EU started up the proceedings.

Surely China's troubled relationship with Google and the censoring of searches had nothing to do with this.

Russia. Baidu is China.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

Russia. Baidu is China.

Oh fuck, right. My mistake.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Google can and does influence those consumer choices by (ab)using their dominance in other areas. That's what makes them a monopoly, and that's why the European parliament considers breaking them up.

And what other area is this? Does Google give people money to use Chrome? Do they force people to use Gmail? Do they force you to use Google search?

I'm trying to figure out what areas of dominance they have outside of all these other areas that would essentially force the consumer into using their products only? If the consumer finds that Google, above all, work better and tap into their ecosystem... How is that a monopoly? What tools does Google have that makes it impossible for other to create on their own?

I know the Microsoft strong hand situation was bad, but wasn't that because Microsoft didn't want to pay or get into a licensing deal with them? Or something to that affect? Wasn't Microsoft also strong arming many android OEMs over bogus software patents as well?

 

[MartyStu]

If the EU wants to look at anything, it should be the very nature of search engines.

Putting strict rules into place to determine how they should behave and how users should interact with them is definitely something I want.

And looking at this closely, I think this is the issue they want to address. The idea of splitting up Google is just so dumb that it overshadows the sentiment.

 

[RELAYER]

As others have stated, I don't understand how Google, despite its tremendous success, is a monopoly.

You are never forced to interact with Google if you don't want to.

 

[Kinitari]

I think the problem here is trying to approach software like we have all other industries before it. Software is just different, it interacts with people different, it brings in revenue different and it works different.

What would breaking up Google search mean? Would that mean that they wouldn't let you login to your Google account with search? And then would it mean they wouldn't let search share/sell any information to other parts of Google?

Further, because of the nature of software, and this push towards more functional and robust AIs as the backbones to all these services, the interconnectivity is a fundamental requirement to increasing the quality of search, as well structured back ends that communicate amongst each other "teach" software now. If they make this.. I don't know, illegal for Google, it could reduce the quality of their service which would then reduce the quality of services available for consumers.

This is not like all industries before it, and trying to FORCE it to fit into the confines of its predecessors won't work.

 

[MartyStu]

I think you don't know what the legal definitions of monopoly and market abuse are.

In this particular case, Google-Search is only a monopoly if it abuses its position. Merely being used by 90% of people on the web is not in itself a monopoly.

This is why the conversation is about splitting Google and not its search business. The idea is to remove its ability to abuse its search business.

So my point here is that it is NOT a foregone conclusion that they have abused their search business in such a way as to require breaking up the company.

Fines, sanctions, lawsuits? Sure. But splitting off search just kills/weaken the other services and still leaves Google in control of that 90% share (and capable of crushing pretty much any competitor in that space).

The actual part of the company that makes money would still be intact, they would just not be allowed invest it into new products.

 

[Bboy AJ]

Break Google up, please. Nothing bad can come out of it.

As others have stated, I don't understand how Google, despite its tremendous success, is a monopoly.

You are never forced to interact with Google if you don't want to.

Nonsense. They basically forced G+ profiles on everyone. YouTube was a pain to use at one point. Google uses its strong products to force its weaker ones.

 

[Valnen]

Break Google up, please. Nothing bad can come out of it

Yeah except fucking over Android users.

 

[robertsan21]

I agree, do it! Monopoly on a market is BAD for everyone.

 

[tokkun]

It remains remarkable the downfall starts around the time the EU started up the proceedings.

What exactly are you trying to argue here?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so maybe you can explain exactly what your theory is for the causal mechanism of this drop. It does not seem to make sense to me that the EU starting the proceedings to try to force unbundling would have a huge effect, but actually achieving unbundling would have no effect.

 

[Kinitari]

Break Google up, please. Nothing bad can come out of it.



Nonsense. They basically forced G+ profiles on everyone. YouTube was a pain to use at one point. Google uses its strong products to force its weaker ones.

This is another weird thing about software. Google was trying to change their service structure to be more profile centric as well as compete against Facebook. So they tried to roll out a new profile system tied to their social network. Does Google have an obligation to not update/change their software? To forever keep in grandfathered in services?

 

[RELAYER]

Nonsense. They basically forced G+ profiles on everyone. YouTube was a pain to use at one point.

They forced G+ profiles on who?
Youtube users?
So what is stopping you from going to DailyMotion or somewhere else then?

You speak like Youtube is a public service or something.

Google uses its strong products to force its weaker ones.

So in other words, they use the success of prior products to try and expand into newer ones.
AKA, every single company ever.

 

[slit]

Break Google up, please. Nothing bad can come out of it.

They're not breaking shit up. I'm not taking a position on the merits of doing it, but if it's going to be done it's not going to be because of the EU. The EU is pissed because the U.S. and East Asia are much more innovative and influential in this area.

 

[RedTurbo]

In this particular case, Google-Search is only a monopoly if it abuses its position. Merely being used by 90% of people on the web is not in itself a monopoly.

That's what I said in my post, but the problem is that they've started to use their clout in owning things like Youtube and Android to then force you to get a Google account. When I have a google account it becomes harder for me to want to use any other email services other than gmail since the account works across the board same with the other services Google offers. I should not have to link the accounts if I don't want to. Not to mention, as other have, Youtube has features on Chrome, (which is Google's), that Firefox and IE don't have and aren't available yet, or ever. That's pretty anti-competitive.

 

[666]

Monopoly used to be a dirty word

 

[MartyStu]

This is another weird thing about software. Google was trying to change their service structure to be more profile centric as well as compete against Facebook. So they tried to roll out a new profile system tied to their social network. Does Google have an obligation to not update/change their software? To forever keep in grandfathered in services?

Agreed.

I get the impression that if Google opted to not brand any of its new services and instead just claimed them to be a new feature of your Google account, they would get less complaints.

 

[Funky Papa]

So what is stopping you from going to DailyMotion or somewhere else then?

Now go ahead, take a seat and ponder the question.

 

[Kreed]

"Google is awesome" posts are missing the point about monopolies.

Google does not have a monopoly and no one should be mentioning monopolies in this thread (the OP started his thread with monopoly discussion so I understand why). A true monopoly is when you not only have complete control of a product or service, but no one else can legally make the same product or service and compete with you.

Google is not the only search engine and are not in control of all search engines on the market. They are just the most popular one. Everyone in Europe could freely choose to use Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, and other search engine alternatives if they wanted. That's why the original article does not use the word monopoly because Google isn't a monopoly, only the OP's opinions do.

Here's a quote from the article that IMO would have provided a much more worthwhile discussion:

In a position paper, they cited a number of possible solutions to what they saw as Google’s abusive dominant position in search engines and its ability to drive Internet traffic to favored sites. If these failed, then, they suggested, legislation should be tried.

“In case the proceedings against Google carry on without any satisfying decisions and the current anti-competitive behavior continues to exist, a regulation of the dominant online web search should be envisaged,” they said.

Reflecting broad suspicion of Google, other parties in parliament may also support the non-binding resolution.

Jan Philipp Albrecht of the Greens said: "Search engines like Google should not be allowed to use their market power to push forward other commercial activities of the same company.

 

[MartyStu]

That's what I said in my post, but the problem is that they've started to use their clout in owning things like Youtube and Android to then force you get get a Google account. When I have a google account it becomes harder for me to want to use any other email services other than gmail since the account works across the board. I should not have to link the accounts if I don't want to. Not to mention, as other have, Youtube is has features on Chrome, (which is Google's), that Firefox and IE don't have and aren't available yet, or ever. That's pretty anti-competitive.

What I am trying to get across is that I agree. To a point.

The anti-competitive shit does need to get addressed, I just think going scorched earth is the wrong approach.

Breaking a monopoly for more physical services is definitely not the same as doing so for web services.

As for the automatic bundling of accounts? I hate it. But from what I remember, they give you a choice now. Not that it matters now, because as with XMPP, the damage is done.

 

[tokkun]

That's what I said in my post, but the problem is that they've started to use their clout in owning things like Youtube and Android to then force you get get a Google account. When I have a google account it becomes harder for me to want to use any other email services other than gmail since the account works across the board same with the other services Google offers. I should not have to link the accounts if I don't want to. Not to mention, as other have, Youtube has features on Chrome, (which is Google's), that Firefox and IE don't have and aren't available yet, or ever. That's pretty anti-competitive.

Is this different from what every other tech company is doing?

I notice that the same Amazon Prime account I signed up for to get free shipping is now also associated with a streaming video service, e-readers, tablets, phones, and an app store.

My Microsoft email account is now tied to my Windows 8 login, an app store, OneDrive, the Xbox, and Office365. Not to mention a bunch of dead services, like Zune music and Games 4 Windows.

My AppleID is tied to iOS, iCloud, an app store, iTunes, and even retail interactions at the Apple Store.

I want to use Yahoo's fantasy football? Guess what, make a Yahoo email account.

 

[Diablos]

Please don't to it Europe. Google is our last hope against a future where the major ISP's completely rape the free Internet in the US. We need Google to be as profitable as possible.

 

[RELAYER]

Now go ahead, take a seat and ponder the question.

I've already attempted to make my point, now perhaps you could make yours instead of apparently asking me to make it for you.

 

[Rur0ni]

I'm not sure what to think. I think Google does pull some anti-competitive shit. For example, Chrome has flash and a pdf reader built into the browser instead of being a separate download. Does this give them an unfair advantage to IE and Firefox users? I believe so. Firefox does not work properly on this 2 GB RAM netbook that I'm typing on because of flash, but works perfectly with Chrome because it's built in/uses HTML5. I'm pretty much forced to use Chrome now on this netbook to watch streaming video from places like Youtube because my specs aren't "good enough" for firefox anymore.

You know these are built-in for security reasons, right?

Chrome also has features on Youtube that the firefox features don't have such as speed settings and, for now, 60fps only on Chrome. If they were being fair they'd roll out all of the features immediately for all but instead, Firefox and IE youtube are crippled so that the Chrome version, which is owned by Google, looks better.

So engineers should spend time optimizing the competition first rather than bringing it to market sooner by developing the feature in-house along with co-workers?

 

[Crossing Eden]

Yeah, I was using Firefox before the EU decision because it was better and while it did have success, never quite leaped forward then Chrome happened which is a prime example of how Google can with flick of a switch, change the market with their dominance and possibly be unfair. Chrome was advertised across the Google landscape, even through different browsers, install/try Chrome would pop up. How could Firefox or newcomers possibly compete with that scale when Google has so much of the market.

When something new and better comes up, with a big marketing budget, then it will become accepted quickly. It's not unfair that google has a lot of money that they earned by being better than the competition.

 

[RedTurbo]

What I am trying to get across is that I agree. To a point.

The anti-competitive shit does need to get addressed, I just think going scorched earth is the wrong approach.

Breaking a monopoly for more physical services is definitely not the same as doing so for web services.

As for the automatic bundling of accounts? I hate it. But from what I remember, they give you a choice now. Not that it matters now, because as with XMPP, the damage is done.

I do agree with you. I'm not in the camp that thinks that Google is a monopoly on the levels of standard oil or a natural monopoly like the ISPs. I'm more torn over if it's because google has a better product or if they are stacking the deck in their favor. I know that they're anti-competitive at least on the web browser end and that could be taken care of without breaking them up.

Is this different from what every other tech company is doing?

I notice that the same Amazon Prime account I signed up for to get free shipping is now also associated with a streaming video service, e-readers, tablets, phones, and an app store.

My Microsoft email account is now tied to my Windows 8 login, an app store, OneDrive, the Xbox, and Office365. Not to mention a bunch of dead services, like Zune music and Games 4 Windows.

My AppleID is tied to iOS, iCloud, an app store, iTunes, and even retail interactions at the Apple Store.

I want to use Yahoo's fantasy football? Guess what, make a Yahoo email account.

I believe that all of that is wrong anyway. I shouldn't have to use anything other than an email or phone number instead of having to use another company's services in addition to my email. That's stacking the deck against your competition.

You know these are built-in for security reasons, right?

Why they build it in is not my problem. I said before, I'm sure it's something other companies can do too so I'm not worried about it. I more worried about the next thing you said.

So engineers should spend time optimizing the competition first rather than bringing it to market sooner by developing the feature in-house along with co-workers?

If Google did not own Youtube, this would be a different story, but when Google owns Youtube, it is the number one streaming website, and it builds in features that the competition can't take advantage of, that becomes pretty darn anti-competitive. If I can't use youtube properly on firefox but I can on Chrome I wonder what's going on.

 

[Joni]

You know these are built-in for security reasons, right?

That is an unfair advantage they have because of their position. They could easily give the same access to trusted competitors like Mozilla and Microsoft.

 

[maeh2k]

This is another weird thing about software. Google was trying to change their service structure to be more profile centric as well as compete against Facebook. So they tried to roll out a new profile system tied to their social network. Does Google have an obligation to not update/change their software? To forever keep in grandfathered in services?

They didn't 'have to' compete with Facebook in social. But they wanted to and tried to leverage their monopolies in search, video, ... to make it happen. If Google+ had been made by anyone other than Google, it would have been dead in the water from the start.

And Google really tried to push Google+ hard. Mandatory Google+ with every Google account and mandatory Google account with every Android phone. E.g. my father, who would never join Facebook and doesn't know what Google+ is has a Google+ account because of his phone. And they also favored some Google+ results in their search/knowledge graph.

They forced G+ profiles on who?
Youtube users?
So what is stopping you from going to DailyMotion or somewhere else then?

You speak like Youtube is a public service or something.



So in other words, they use the success of prior products to try and expand into newer ones.
AKA, every single company ever.

... and that's a problem when their prior products constitute a monopoly (as with Youtube). With monopolies you cannot look at it as a simple choice between competing services. There's Youtube and then there's everyone else. Go and ask average internet users about Youtube-competitors. They'll have a hard time naming any.
And then, of course, the Youtube app will also come bundled with Android phones. How many people do you think will go and look for an alternative?
And if an OEM like HTC wanted to put a different video app on their phones instead of Youtube? No dice.

 

[trifelife]

Good. One of the best things about EU is that it actually cares about citizens and small companies, instead of just throwing everything at big corporations' feet.

Yeah, those artisanal mom and pop search engines sure are great.

 

[Crossing Eden]

If Google did not own Youtube, this would be a different story, but when Google owns Youtube, it is the number one streaming website, and it builds in features that the competition can't take advantage of, that becomes pretty darn anti-competitive. If I can't use youtube properly on firefox but I can on Chrome I wonder what's going on.

If I'm a huge company and I buy a streaming website, i'd want it to be the best, it's not google's problem that the competition isn't doing the legwork that would allow them to catch up.

 

[mdubs]

But gaming side told me that competition is not helpful

 

[RedTurbo]

If I'm a huge company and I buy a streaming website, i'd want it to be the best, it's not google's problem that the competition isn't doing the legwork that would allow them to catch up.

lol so it's OK for companies to undercut their competition and push their services to the end user as long as they have money and they're a huge company?

 

[twobear]

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other here, really, but I think it's a little naive to say that as long as Google aren't abusing their position it's possible that some other company will take over when they offer a better product and so if no other product has appeared it's only because nobody else has made a better product. That might be true in perfectly idealised economic models or theories but I sincerely doubt it's true in many real-world cases.

 

[Jonm1010]

I feel like a lot of Google defenders aren't reading the OP. If Google is in fact intentionally engaging in anti-competitive behavior like hiding competitors on their engine or blocking access to data to stifle rivals that needs to be addressed.

 

[Valnen]

I feel like a lot of Google defenders aren't reading the OP. If Google is in fact intentionally engaging in anti-competitive behavior like hiding competitors on their engine or blocking access to data to stifle rivals that needs to be addressed.

Not by splitting up the company.

 

[Scrooged]

So a monopoly these days is just a business that's successful? Okay.

I could have sworn that monopolies prevent users from using other services somehow. The way the internet works makes that very difficult. Anyone who doesn't want to use a Google service can just type in yahoo.com or msn.com into their toolbar.

Yes, Youtube is the place for internet video. But there is absolutely nothing stopping other similar services from competing. Just because most people use a particular service doesn't mean it's a monopoly that needs to be split up.

At the end of the day, if Google is forced to separate it's only going to be bad for the people who use the Google ecosystem.

 

[M3d10n]

So many people missing the point. The problem with Google search is that search engines are a fundamental element for acessing the internet, almost as important as DNS servers and browsers. That was the same problem that led to the Internet Explorer ruling: you need a browser to access the internet and Microsoft leveraged their OS monopoly to push their own browser.

A search engine is even worse because it has a much greater grasp on which information and services people are more likely to be directed to than a browser, specially if the company operating the search engine has other services and products they can promote through search results over competitors. This already happened: Google was relentlessly telling you to install Chrome if you searched for anything on another browser, for example. Google also uses your search history to tune the ads they display to you on other websites, giving them an advantage other ad providers can only dream about. Therefore, a search engine cannot operate completely unregulated.

So a monopoly these days is just a business that's successful? Okay.

I could have sworn that monopolies prevent users from using other services somehow. The way the internet works makes that very difficult. Anyone who doesn't want to use a Google service can just type in yahoo.com or msn.com into their toolbar.

Yes, Youtube is the place for internet video. But there is absolutely nothing stopping other similar services from competing. Just because most people use a particular service doesn't mean it's a monopoly that needs to be split up.

At the end of the day, if Google is forced to separate it's only going to be bad for the people who use the Google ecosystem.

And how are you supposed to know about these other search engines and video websites? You have to google them. Just like you had to use IE to download another browser.

At the very least, Google has instant knowledge about how popular the alternative are getting.

 

[Scrooged]

I feel like a lot of Google defenders aren't reading the OP. If Google is in fact intentionally engaging in anti-competitive behavior like hiding competitors on their engine or blocking access to data to stifle rivals that needs to be addressed.

So that automatically means they need to be split up? That doesn't even make sense. Google search is Google search.

And how are you supposed to know about these other search engines and video websites? You have to google them. Just like you had to use IE to download another browser.

At the very least, Google has instant knowledge about how popular the alternative are getting.

So now it's up to Google to advertise for other search engines?

 

[IceCold]

They are only doing this because Google is an American company. Same thing with their war against Microsoft.

You don't see the EU do anything about Luxottica and their monopoly on glasses (not only do they produce most of them and own many of the largest brands , but they also own Sunglass Hut...).