Is there really a monopoly? I mean there are a lot of search engines out there that people can use if they choose to.
-
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
Is there really a monopoly? I mean there are a lot of search engines out there that people can use if they choose to.
In most cases I've ever seen, when one of google's services comes in at the top of a search query, it is because that is genuinely when it is what most people are looking for. Searching for 'maps' and 'e-mail' the two most notable examples. If you search for web mail, microsoft's comes up first.
If you google 'videos', reddit and bing come up before google videos. If you google 'music', Pandora is on top of Google Music. If you google 'web browser' chrome is behind Opera and Firefox(along with a link to the wiki for 'web browser'). If they are fixing their search queries to promote their products, they are doing a shit job.
Google interconnecting their services makes them better for the users, if anything I wish they would be more interconnected, I want the ability to google search my google play library, so if I google a band, it would pop up their albums in my library.
If you google 'videos', reddit and bing come up before google videos. If you google 'music', Pandora is on top of Google Music. If you google 'web browser' chrome is behind Opera and Firefox(along with a link to the wiki for 'web browser'). If they are fixing their search queries to promote their products, they are doing a shit job.
Google interconnecting their services makes them better for the users, if anything I wish they would be more interconnected, I want the ability to google search my google play library, so if I google a band, it would pop up their albums in my library.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
I can't even get iTunes on my Windows Phone.
This wouldn't be an issue at all if Google Search was its own entity entirely.
The real problem is Google being complete assholes at points. Like forcing Microsoft to remove the actually kickass Youtube App because it didn't play the ads, then Microsoft fixed it, but Google was all "No fuck you have this redirect to the mobile site".
What of 60fps videos on YouTube? It's pretty much only an HTML5 thing, which every browser ever supports, limiting the 60 FPS option to Chrome is again them being dicks just because they can.
perfectchaos007
Member
Hey, Google isn't a monopoly, so what's the problem?
They have a monopoly in search and use it to as an advantage in other markets. That's a problem. Like how Microsoft used their monopoly in operating systems to push Internet Explorer. Oh wait by the logic in this thread Microsoft didn't have a monopoly because 100 distributions of Linux exist.
Derekloffin
Member
Well, Microsoft technically didn't have a full monopoly, but they did have a legal monopoly. Google I believe also qualifies currently as a legal monopoly, but there is quite a few differences between the MS IE situation and Google's, enough that comparing the two isn't very useful in the wider sense. But yes, I believe Google is in the legal monopoly territory.
Google (the whole company) is not awesome
CyclopsRock
Member
The comparisons to operating systems are really silly, though. An OS is part of a stack. Your choice of OS immediately limits what further software and hardware you can use. Since the OS itself is rarely ever going to be "the software" that you want to use (but rather it'll be a word processor, a spreadsheet software, a music player, a CAD tool etc) then your decision on what OS to get will be defined by the other software you want to use. If an OS becomes sufficiently popular that it's the obvious choice for all major software to be produced on, you *may* end up with a problem because you're at the whims of that market leaders pricing policies.
That simply isn't the case with a search engine. You're not buying into a whole ecosystem of products when you use Google. Obviously you *can* use a whole suite of Google products but they aren't required in order to use the search engine. If you wake up one morning and decide you want to use Yahoo or Bing or Wolfram Alpha or whatever else, you can, without a seconds thought. You're not locked in in any way and this is why comparisons to a market leading OS are silly.
That simply isn't the case with a search engine. You're not buying into a whole ecosystem of products when you use Google. Obviously you *can* use a whole suite of Google products but they aren't required in order to use the search engine. If you wake up one morning and decide you want to use Yahoo or Bing or Wolfram Alpha or whatever else, you can, without a seconds thought. You're not locked in in any way and this is why comparisons to a market leading OS are silly.
Guys, this doesn't prevent Google from having a monopoly. They don't need to literally be the only search provider out there, they just need to effectively dominate the market.
Agreed.
CyclopsRock
Member
But when there are literally no barriers to changing - unlike an operating system, unlike a word processor with a proprietary format, unlike an internet provider that is the only one in the area - then surely the manner in which they "dominate" a market is by being the best product? If not, then what else?
Many ways. A couple of years ago for example accessing gmail with Opera used to give all kinds of problems. The thing is that if you changed the address bar to identify yourself as chrome or firefox it worked perfectly.
Again, it's not about changing search engines. Everyone loves Google, is happy with search, and chooses to use it every single time.
... but what about the services that Google integrates into search and gives preferential treatment? Do people choose Zagat for restaurant reviews, or do they just use it because they use Google.com and Zagat is integrated into that (http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2013/07/29/google-unveils-new-zagat-integration-including-free-access-to-zagat-restaurant-ratings/)? How does that affect the competition for restaurant recommendations?
Kenshin001
Member
This just demonstrates how behind Europe is. I was only thinking the other day there are almost no major European players when it comes to tech startups. The only one I can think of is Soundcloud.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said. To my knowledge, Google.com works fine on just about every browser ever invented, doesn't it? Besides, do you really think Google went out of their way to try and harm Opera? Only about eight people use it anyway, don't they?
Is this really a problem we have? I couldn't have told you what Zagat was before this post.
I also don't have any problem with this happening, eitherway. I don't care if Youtube results come up before other sites. Google aren't arbiters of the internet, they aren't a public service. I don't think they owe Dailymotion anything. Furthermore, whilst I can see the potential for the market of restaurant review websites to be distorted, and that this could prove a problem should Zagat become the go-to place for restaurant reviews, there's also virtue to the integration of these services - they aren't just a way for Google to manipulate things, they also add value to the user. Breaking up Google seems like a ridiculous solution.
In every case like this, this makes it so much more convenient to the user that it would suck if they weren't allowed to do it. It's not like they are allowed to put reviews from Michelin or somewhere else into their maps like that, so if they were forced to take them out, it would only make the experience worse for everyone. I don't want to have to make two search queries if Google has information that I might want, they should show it to me.
Breaking up a company that has a monopoly isn't anything new in the EU.
It helps competition and drive the market forward while preventing monopolies.
Raonak
Banned
Sounds kinda unfiar to google, since it's the profits from google/advertising that gives them money to innovate in the other areas they operate in.
Half they shit do is to enrich their platform and because they have money to burn.
How is it even gonna work? Is the search engine google company not allowed to do anything outside of search engines anymore? What if they decide to expand to new sectors, will it require another split a few years later?
Such a weird case, because google does have the monopoly on search, but that's because they're the best. There's plenty of other search engines out there, and as far as I recall, they aren't anti-competetive in the search space, hell, bing even uses their results.
That said, they should have a authority review google's search engine algorithms to make sure theres no shady stuff going on.
Half they shit do is to enrich their platform and because they have money to burn.
How is it even gonna work? Is the search engine google company not allowed to do anything outside of search engines anymore? What if they decide to expand to new sectors, will it require another split a few years later?
Such a weird case, because google does have the monopoly on search, but that's because they're the best. There's plenty of other search engines out there, and as far as I recall, they aren't anti-competetive in the search space, hell, bing even uses their results.
That said, they should have a authority review google's search engine algorithms to make sure theres no shady stuff going on.
Red Liquorice
Member
This needed to happen years ago.
I always find it interesting to see kids these days defending huge multinational megacorps like they have an emotional attatchment to them. Times certainly have changed.
I always find it interesting to see kids these days defending huge multinational megacorps like they have an emotional attatchment to them. Times certainly have changed.
captmorgan
Banned
Ya I cant imagine why anybody would be against laws that punish people or companies not because they did anything wrong or illegal but because they might at some future time.
I kind of hope they do break up google, then I hope each entity becomes even bigger and more powerful than google is today.
not psycho
Member
More like people are wondering what the argument is to break them up.
Yandex beats Google in Russia. Yahoo beats Google in Japan. Baidu beats Google in China. Even in the US Google doesn't have the dominance it has in Europe... Europeans really, really like using Google, and it isn't because it is impossible to compete with.
You can't just go by market position. Think of the market position Myspace had and how fast it vanished. Think of Facebook, with their Google-level position, and ask yourself if they are invincible. Popularity alone is not reason to break up a company.
That said, from the way this thread has gone Search is kind of a red herring. A lot of people have made arguments, such as Youtube not working properly on other browsers, that have little to do with Google Search being popular. I wasn't even aware of Google breaking Youtube on other browsers: that's the kind of problem where it would make sense to consider splitting up the browser part of the company from the Youtube part.
captmorgan
Banned
But doesn't Google own youtube? Why wouldn't they have the right to only make it chrome compatible if they wanted to? Why would other companies have a right to use or search youtube if Google didnt want them to?
not psycho
Member
Sounds like you support free rein for anti-competitive practices.
There is no reason why Youtube should only work on Google's browser, so it would be a clearly anti-competitive tactic of Tying.
I'm not interested in going over why anti-competitive tactics can be bad, so I'll just quote:
My main point is that popularity alone, including the dominance of Google Search in many markets, is not reason to break up the company. You have to actually make an argument, such as the one regarding Youtube and Chrome.
Please show the part of the draft where they name 'America' as part of the reasons. I'll wait.
Because that is luckily not how the world works.
You also have to take into account why Yandex and Baidu are bigger. Baidu got a big government support, Yandex is integrated with all kinds of other big Russian services. And they are losing ground since Chrome turned up. Chrome made people switch to Google Search.
Which is why it's a good thing it doesn't only work on chrome, I guess.
The 60 fps works on Chrome and Safari, and other browsers are coming eventually. I'm guessing the testing on webkit browsers just got done ahead of the others, so they pushed it out earlier.
Does it really makes sense to force Google to wait until they are done testing new features on every browser before they can release them? because that would severely hamper their ability to innovate.
When it comes to things like feature disparity between browsers... well you need to remember that Google doesn't have free reign to make all browsers work the same, and they sometimes want to try new and cool things to keep their edge.
It's not like there is a line of code they have to put in that says "work good in ie/opera/safari/firefox" - browser constraints are a very real thing web developers (including Google) have to deal with every day. And Google for their part tries really really hard for parity. If they decided to template all their Google products with flexbox, and it ended up not working well in ie9 and lower - does that mean that Google is being anti-competitive?
It's not like there is a line of code they have to put in that says "work good in ie/opera/safari/firefox" - browser constraints are a very real thing web developers (including Google) have to deal with every day. And Google for their part tries really really hard for parity. If they decided to template all their Google products with flexbox, and it ended up not working well in ie9 and lower - does that mean that Google is being anti-competitive?
That isn't the issue, it's the fact that they and their direct subsidiaries have power over markets they shouldn't have the ability to do so. The things that come up when you search especially for things like as mentioned above resturaunt reviews are biased by the fact they have services intergrated into their search which directly influences peoples ideas and opinions while suffocating anyone else trying to do that. That is the issue with monopolies. You don't want one person or group controlling news, reviews or any other industries like even search as it allows them to slowly change peoples opinions to match or favour that of their own.
The article and subsequent comments here are almost painful to read.
The draft proposal is that google search and the primacy of google's integrated results be split - i.e you get a list of websites rather than the result from google's own data.
The issue is how Google is leveraging its domination of online search advertising into other areas, and at the same time putting competitors at a direct disadvantage by not making its search results neutral.
Of course the fact that MS & Yahoo have contributed to anti-Google legal action in the UK & European mainland is completely unrelated...
The draft proposal is that google search and the primacy of google's integrated results be split - i.e you get a list of websites rather than the result from google's own data.
The issue is how Google is leveraging its domination of online search advertising into other areas, and at the same time putting competitors at a direct disadvantage by not making its search results neutral.
Of course the fact that MS & Yahoo have contributed to anti-Google legal action in the UK & European mainland is completely unrelated...
OminoMichelin
Member
I think mozilla stated that there was a problem with licensing, hence why they didn't get support for 60fps videos until now.
MS must really want that official Youtube app
This should be a new thread.
ClosingADoor
Member
It really is short sighted, but it won't do anything really. They are just saying "Google should break up" and that's basically that. Google breaking off their search isn't like... unplugging their search computer and plugging it into a new building. Their 'search' is fundamentally tied into all their products and vice versa.
The idea that search engines also have to exist in vacuums is also a little ludicrous - it prevents search engine technology from evolving with the web - search isn't just about indexing the internet anymore, and it will continue to change and leverage all sorts of other technologies.
Further, even if you could somehow magically break up Google Search into a separate company, how does that prevent Google Search from highlighting Google products in results?
I honestly don't even know what the plan is, but it really sounds like
1. Split Google Search into a separate company
2. ???????
3. Don't have to worry about bad monopolies anymore
The idea that search engines also have to exist in vacuums is also a little ludicrous - it prevents search engine technology from evolving with the web - search isn't just about indexing the internet anymore, and it will continue to change and leverage all sorts of other technologies.
Further, even if you could somehow magically break up Google Search into a separate company, how does that prevent Google Search from highlighting Google products in results?
I honestly don't even know what the plan is, but it really sounds like
1. Split Google Search into a separate company
2. ???????
3. Don't have to worry about bad monopolies anymore
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
This is probably deeply related to Google reducing the visibility of competing services such as Tripadvisor and UK's Streetmap in their search results.
Now, it's legitimate for a company to highlight their own services and integrate them as nicely as you can, and I fully believe that Google has done a good job there, but when you basically OWN the internet search business, you absolutely need to give your competitors a fair chance.
Despite what some people may think, this situation is hardly something new. A similar situation would be that of countries with former phone and internet monopolies that had to open their markets to private companies, which in turn required enforce rules such as forcing the former state operated monopoly to rent their infraestructure to their new rivals in order to ensure competition.
Now, it's legitimate for a company to highlight their own services and integrate them as nicely as you can, and I fully believe that Google has done a good job there, but when you basically OWN the internet search business, you absolutely need to give your competitors a fair chance.
Despite what some people may think, this situation is hardly something new. A similar situation would be that of countries with former phone and internet monopolies that had to open their markets to private companies, which in turn required enforce rules such as forcing the former state operated monopoly to rent their infraestructure to their new rivals in order to ensure competition.
MisterFalcon
Member
Are they ? I just typed in the name of a hotel I visited and there are three advertisment links marked as such, the site of the hotel itself and Tripadvisor as second real link.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
One hotel is hardly enough to make a conclusion. That said, Google reached a tentative settlement with the EU and then they got told to stop screwing around unless they wanted serious measures taken against them. This is basically a game of tug of war.
From september:
It reminds me of the utter idiocy of the Microsoft-made YouTube app for Windows Phone.
- Status