>implying every world power doesn't do this.
-
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
>implying every world power doesn't do this.
CharminUltra
Member
Uh oh, Googs
That was just an extension of the internet. Which developed by the NSF, ARPA, and spawned ICANN.
WWW is just synonymous with the connections of the internet exposed by hyperlinks and their related transfer protocols. Which was a paradigm that came out of Cern. They did not found the internet.
They don't want to split the engine in multiple parts, they want to make sure they can't use the engine for anti-competitive behaviour in other sectors.
massivekettle
Member
If I were the EU, I would force Google to make its algorithm public or ban them from operating in the EU (and exploiting the Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich tax loophole) if they refuse to.
Europeans didn't invent the world wide web. if anything it was being developed at the same time from within europe and the US.
Unknown Soldier
Member
The European Parliament really thinks they can force the American company Google to split up. This is certainly an interesting development.
In unrelated news, America gives no fucks because the American dominance of the Internet suits our interests. How about a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up?
In unrelated news, America gives no fucks because the American dominance of the Internet suits our interests. How about a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up?
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
That's the unfortunate part. Very easy attack vector to sway the public.
MoodyFog
Member
Because once a search engine has become the most visited website on the planet and is used and known by practically everyone on the planet, it is difficult to compete even if you made a service 10 times better.
By breaking up the company? That's like dropping a nuke to kill an ant. Way overkill. People don't buy Android phones because they found it on google.com.
Nothing about this sounds like even remotely a good idea.
GoldenEye 007
Member
There were so many other well known players, though? Google wasn't that popular until what, the early 2000s? Up until then AOL, Yahoo, Altavista, AskJeeves, and others were bigger I thought.
You misspelled Al Gore's brain.
Where is this 10 times better search service so that we can test this theory being correct? As far as I can tell Google's search is still the best on the market.
MoodyFog
Member
Well you should search for it on Goo... oh.
Wiktor
Member
Well...the comissions are thinking they might already be using that monopoly to stifle the competition, hence why there are investigations into this atm. Knowin EU they might even get pissed at bannin any YT app access on Windows Phone or forcing Android phone exclusivity for Android Wear.
I mean, those are the same ruling bodies that will soon be forcing companies to use universal charging cables for all phones, no matter what the brand as well as setting strict limit on how much phone companies will be able to charge for roaming.
It doesn't really have to be anything "omg! evil" for the new laws to be created. The comissions might just consider some changes to be beneficial for whole EU and just implement them.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Ok, but why should Google be punished for that? As long as they were not egregiously stifling competition with anti-competitive tactics.
You still didn't answer my question and are just deflecting. If there is a better search product out there and people are still flocking to Google you would have a point but right now you are theorizing without any factual basis.
Joke post? Europeans were major contributors to the development of the Internet.
Also, the web itself (where Google started out and where its search operates) is a European invention.
Wiktor
Member
Again. This isn't criminal trial. Nobody cares about punishing Google. If it happens it will just be a byproduct of changes designed to improve situation in the market. Whether Google will get punished or not in the process is at best a secondary concern and in the end meaningless one.
Nicktendo86
Member
Surely the EU should concentrate on practical things such as cracking down on tax avoidance? I'm sure the new incoming President will be the man for the job! What was his last job? Prime minister of tax haven Luxembourg?
Oh...
Oh...
Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau are considered the inventors of the web.
For instance: Have Google applications like Search, Maps and others always worked equally good on iOS and Windows Phone as they did on Android? IF you want the best Google experience, do you need Android? If the answer is yes, then that can be construed as anti-competitive behaviour.
It was more around 2000 when the bubble burst.
That's too much of a simplification, because it implies that you could simply go ahead and construct a "better" search engine, when Google has an unparalleled amount and variety of data. That is without taking into account the enormous advantage they already have. That said, I don't think a breakup makes sense at this point.
Wiktor
Member
Uh..? The new president of EU (well..the closest to that function EU has) is from Poland, which is also trying to crack down on tax avoidance.
MoodyFog
Member
What I said was an answer to the people saying "well Google just has the better product!" like it's what it is about.
It's not about the product anymore, heck how many people have Google as their homepage? When there's a thread and articles about new search engines (like the one that learned from your previous requests to give you better results, what was that one's name again?) how many people actually try it out instead of sayin' "meh I have no problem with Google, I'll stick with that"?
Google's position is insane, I don't think we even have an example of another company like that. In terms of search engine, as long as they keep it working they literally don't have to do anything to be leader by far whatever competitors might try to do.
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
There could easily be a better search engine out there right now without us knowing it, although given the amount of data Google has it is unlikely. Google were the first to offer a much better alternative to other search engines at a time the web was in an embryonic state. Classic case of preferential attachment ensued and the company ballooned to the state it's in today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment
I think it's very hard for a company today to replicate that, even with a better service considering just how dominant they are today. Promising companies now tend to get bought by the bigger players like them before they can pose a threat to existing juggernauts.
I wouldn't know. Even if they didn't, is that really Google's fault entirely?
GoldenEye 007
Member
I never said it was a criminal trial? A party can be "punished" in other forms of legal maneuvers or procedures too. And when the potential action cites directly Google versus just vague statements in general, it's pretty simple to conclude the move is designed to punish that company.
If the potential trial or legislation was meant to be truly general and just improve a given market, it wouldn't refer to any company by name. It would just detail the situation of the market, how consumers are suffering, and the proposed steps to improve the existing dire situation.
It does not matter, competition laws are in place to safeguard the market and provide an environment where newcomers can have a chance to break through barriers. If you have a situation where one company controls the market share, the barriers are too high and said company is also using its monopoly power to expand its portfolio, then action needs to be taken.
There is no reason to make excuses for these giants. When they grow too big or become a problem, then it's time to split them up. Regional interests do also play a role.
unfortunately for android users, google apps have at times been better on IOS then on Android. I wouldn't be shocked if the apps would be wholly better on IOS if it wasn't for Apple's shitty system of not allowing defaults to change
PdotMichael
Banned
Google is cool?
The company doesn't do anything else than collecting and selling your personal informations.
The company doesn't do anything else than collecting and selling your personal informations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet
describes the US was the main developer of the internet.
Nicktendo86
Member
A common complaint by android users (myself included) is that more often than not iOS versions are better designed than their android counterparts. Many would also be improved on iOS if apple let you assign default apps instead of forcing you to use the apple ones. Should apple be split up?
Google isn't a problem. EU are being babies. Hopefully Google just moves elsewhere and gives them the middle finger.
It might be, it might not be. It is something they can always come and explain, but it is stuff like that which the EU is looking at.
I said the World Wide Web. You spend most of your internet time on the WWW.
perfectchaos007
Member
I never said web, I just said internet. The internet was invented by Americans Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf aka "The Father's of the Internet". The www was invented by the Europeans you mentioned.
wikipedia! another american company that needs to be split up. They have a monopoly on KNOWLEDGE
The other company with a stronghold on search is Amazon. At least when it comes to products. If I need to buy something online, I don't even go to google.com. I straight up go to Amazon and search for the product there. If the product is not sold through Amazon, and only then, I will go back to search through Google.
Resident_UA
Member
They can do a lot. Sell your information. Control which websites you find/visit. Control which hotels/stores you go to, etc . The things that google can do are not the things you would know they are doing. You would not know that you need to "switch".
Sophistical Bunt
Banned
I agree, but then if you own a business and there's legal ways that you can pay much less tax, you'd be wise to take advantage of them, especially as your customers clearly don't care enough to start boycotting your products over it. It's the loopholes that need to be closed, as MS, Apple, Amazon etc. are all doing the same shit.
Google's "don't be evil" thing is a load of bullshit anyway. The reason the EU is proposing this in the first place is largely due to complaints from other companies about some of Google's restrictive and anti-competitive practices. I use a bunch of Google services and I'm a huge fan of Android, but they deserve to be investigated over this shit.
Resident_UA
Member
You think they are going to leave the largest economic zone on the entire planet even if they have to adapt and only make X billion dollars profit every year? Google specifically isn't the power you are correct, market dynamics are in certain instances.
Lol if that's your argument then you can levy that argument against any internet company that holds your private data.
The European Union doesn't have anything against monopolies per say. They have something against monopolies that can be abused. It is also not a company with a huge foot in Europe as its quarters are almost exclusively based in the US.
That's probably a better than having your company broken up, I imagine.
makingmusic476
Member
I don't think the comparison of companies like Google to Standard Oil are apt. While yes, Google has a near monopoly on search, and that gives them considerable influence over your general consumer's access to other products, the solution of breaking them up doesn't necessarily seem like a good idea.
A company like Google's services are strengthened by their integration and coordination. Splitting them up would have a whole host of negative consequences for the consumer in a way breaking apart Standard Oil - wherein competition and choice was increased with no noticeable drawbacks on the quality of the products involved - would not.
I think nationalization and regulation would be preferable choices here. Same goes for companies like Amazon as they begin to dominate various markets.
A company like Google's services are strengthened by their integration and coordination. Splitting them up would have a whole host of negative consequences for the consumer in a way breaking apart Standard Oil - wherein competition and choice was increased with no noticeable drawbacks on the quality of the products involved - would not.
I think nationalization and regulation would be preferable choices here. Same goes for companies like Amazon as they begin to dominate various markets.
Nicktendo86
Member
Was referring to the president of the European Commission, I know there are many roles and not a de facto 'EU president' but four positions that do different things in a glorious waste of time and money.
- Status