Not true for Europe. The US market actually has some viable competitors with decent share. In Europe, Google is at over 90% in many countries.
-
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
Not true for Europe. The US market actually has some viable competitors with decent share. In Europe, Google is at over 90% in many countries.
Kill Your Masters
Member
But they already do.
Lots of companies, that even do worse things.
Googles mistake is they dont offer hookers and coke to the old shitheads sitting in the parliaments to look the other way.
The search business is the reason Android exists.
What is the incentive to continue developing a free, open-source operating system if you cut off its only revenue stream?
Yup. How is Google able to pay for Youtube, Android, Gmail, Cloud Storage, etc if the revenue from search are cut off? The implications are pretty damn big.
killer rin
Member
No, but they can ban Google and push the USA to break them up. Also since Google has Offices in Europe they command a certain amount of control
Lol the US would never break up Google. I don't see that happening especially with the lobbying Google would do. They wouldn't do it on nationalism alone probably. Imagine the headlines in the US. "Euro authority wants to break up American company because of dominance" That would go over real well. /s
Shake Appeal
Member
I use Google apps for just about everything and love them, and I'm all in favor of this.
The idea of one corporate entity having a monopoly on information is absolutely terrifying.
The idea of one corporate entity having a monopoly on information is absolutely terrifying.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I'm pretty sure the entire population of Europe would have a few things to say to the European Parliament if they tried to ban Google. I think the words "You aren't getting reelected" would suffice to get their message across.
MonsterHunter
Member
In their own market, of course they can. The US blocks Chinese companies from gaining a foothold in it's domestic market all the time.
They certainly do give a fuck, and had their own 2 year anti-trust investigation into Google's practices with the possibility of forcing a split, which yielded positive changes. Same for Microsoft.
http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...ees-change-its-business-practices-resolve-ftc
American judicial system presiding over an American company in an American jurisdiction.
Additionally, Microsoft is still a single entity.
The best they could do is sanctions in European markets and a strongly written letter.
How would you feel if your apps became unusable or shitty as a result of this? Chances are you'd regret your stance.
Succinct Verbosity
Member
The EU did something similar with Internet Explorer, and that worked out pretty well tbh.
Ruining Android.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Internet Explorer as it was isn't comparable to Google Search. I'd say the search engine wars is like the browser wars of now. Consumers are freely able to pick whoever they want to use.
While I understand the idea of not wanting one company's product to dominate. In the case of the Search engine companies this doesn't really apply. Splitting up Google Search isn't going to suddenly NOT make Bing suck ass. It's not suddenly going to make Yahoo search relevant (which is funny considering many users use Yahoo mail, but how many of those people DON'T use yahoo search).
Worked out well in what sense?
Netscape still ended up leaving the browser business. IE still ended up gaining a dominant marketshare. The reason that finally changed was because of competition from a superior product, not because IE was unbundled from Windows in Europe. What exactly did the EU accomplish?
Let's say it differently. They don't need to split, but they need to give other companies a fair chance at working together with their products unlike now. It wouldn't worsen Google's product, but it would improve the competition. Something ljke that would also satisfy the EU. Look at what Microsoft did with IE, they didn't need to give it away to another company, they just had to treat the competition fairly.
IE went from 70% to 20% market share since 2009. It helped open up the market.
To be fair, Microsoft belongs to a lobby group that is causing this.
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.
I'm pretty sure it already does by a couple of trillion.
Let's have more monopolies for everyone, i heard they work great. It's not like having that much money and power mean actually something in the real world, like passing legislation created for you and to fuck the lower classes etc... Those shitty euros and their paranoia USA USA USA
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.
PdotMichael
Banned
I'm really shocked how a non joke discussion on neogaf can be so dominated by nationalistic nonsense.
More_Badass
Member
You know that makes them sound like Hydra, right?
Yeah, when everyone knows they are really Skynet.
Has everyone just up and forgotten that they've been wage-fixing? Because I sure haven't.
Nah man it's fine. The invisible hand of the market will sort it out by planting a superior algorithm in some basement programmers brain and lending him the billions in capital needed to take on Google.
As a European, I'm completely in favour. Not only that, but we should invest more on Internet tech (and technology in general) to create good European alternatives to this American-dominated market. We complain a lot but we all use Google, Skype, Facebook, etc. We need our own services, developed by people from Europe, hosted in Europe and that pay taxes in Europe (although no Luxembourg pls).
PetriP-TNT
Member
I tried to find an article that's related this subject of matter but I couldn't find it with DuckDuckGo
PdotMichael
Banned
Strange, EU and Google should give you more than enough results.
Can Crusher
Banned
"Google is awesome" posts are missing the point about monopolies.
A few years back, Google blocked Opera users from accessing certain features of their services. Their excuse was simply that Opera was unsupported and the solution they provided was to download Chrome. Thing is, when you spoofed opera's user agent to resemble chrome everything would work smoothly.
StreetsAhead
Member
I sure do enjoy being able to watch 60fps videos on Youtube using Firefox. A site which as only improved since Google purchased them, too.
Google is grand.
Google is grand.
The Parliament can't, the European Comission is another thing, don't underestimate them! Google may be an american company but they operate in europe and they want to continue doing so, so they will do what the comission wants them to do, leaving the european market is not really an option, that would be worse for google than splitting up, google is bigger in europe than it is in america.
Another thing about the power of the european comission, iirc a few years ago when Microsoft didn't do what the comission demanded they threatened to terminate all windows patents and to release the source codes, making windows open source.
They don't need the legal power to split up an american company, they can fuck them over economically and the companies know it.
As if, should google search be banned for example people would bitch and cry for a few days and then move on and use something else, 95% of the population wouldn't even give a shit, they use google because that's what everyone else does, not because they tried several search engines and realized google was the best.
Sanctions in the european market are a big deal, you make it sound like it's nothing. Being nominally an american company is pretty much irrelevant as long as the company in question operates internationally and wants to keep doing so.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Ah, it is one of those threads again.
This. I don't want to offend anyone, but a lot of people are missing the point. It's not healthy if one company has so much control and power. Information is a very, very powerful tool. A monopoly does not benefit people.
I'm not saying it should happen, but the EU government definitely has a good point.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
What I'm trying to figure out is what is Google doing that is a monopoly?
The only thing Google is the market leader in is Search. Android is probably second but between that and iOS, it doesn't seem like they are taking over anything.
So where is this monopoly? They don't have Google stores. Google fiber is still a starter program. Maps is, I guess, another thing they are the market leader in. They aren't the market leader by that much in mail. Their individual products such as glass, TV, cast etc aren't big hits. G+ is not a big hit. YouTube was bought ages ago and it's too late to break that up now.
I fail to see what they are so huge in besides search that gives them this huge monopoly that needs to be broken up. I don't even like the fact they forced them to implement that "Ok to be forgotten BS" that's more dangerous than anything out there.
The only thing Google is the market leader in is Search. Android is probably second but between that and iOS, it doesn't seem like they are taking over anything.
So where is this monopoly? They don't have Google stores. Google fiber is still a starter program. Maps is, I guess, another thing they are the market leader in. They aren't the market leader by that much in mail. Their individual products such as glass, TV, cast etc aren't big hits. G+ is not a big hit. YouTube was bought ages ago and it's too late to break that up now.
I fail to see what they are so huge in besides search that gives them this huge monopoly that needs to be broken up. I don't even like the fact they forced them to implement that "Ok to be forgotten BS" that's more dangerous than anything out there.
Google search is as much of a monopoly as anything. They have about 95% market share in Germany. Android also qualifies as a monopoly with about 80% market share in Europe (where iOS has been on the decline). Youtube owns internet videos. And Chrome is leading in usage share.
People defending gigantic multinational monopolies in here...
Monopolies are bad for everyone. This is what governments ought to be doing, but they are bought and paid for. The European Parliament can't really save us, but it's nice that it tries.
Google can run, or not run, whatever paid ads they like.
Monopolies are bad for everyone. This is what governments ought to be doing, but they are bought and paid for. The European Parliament can't really save us, but it's nice that it tries.
Google can run, or not run, whatever paid ads they like.
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.
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.
'Ars has now seen a copy of the draft proposal. While it does not mention Google directly, it says that "the online search market is of particular importance in ensuring competitive conditions within the digital single market, given the potential development of search engines into gatekeepers and their possibility of commercialising secondary exploitation of obtained information." The proposal "therefore calls on the Commission to enforce EU competition rules decisively, based on input from all relevant stakeholders and taking into account the entire structure of the Digital Single Market in order to ensure remedies that truly benefit consumers, internet users and online businesses; [and] furthermore calls on the Commission to consider proposals with the aim of unbundling search engines from other commercial services as one potential long-term solution to achieve the previously mentioned aims."
European MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht issued a statement saying, It is key to assure equal competition in a Digital Single Market. Search engines like Google should not be allowed to use their market power to push forward other commercial activities of the same company. '
European MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht issued a statement saying, It is key to assure equal competition in a Digital Single Market. Search engines like Google should not be allowed to use their market power to push forward other commercial activities of the same company. '
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
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.
I... Don't agree with this.
I don't see how linking all your services to work together is forcing. YouTube is owned by Google. Your gmail is directly tied to your gmail, your phone, and all other Google services to ensure maximum continuity between platforms and that's forcing? When your Apple ID allows you to purchase songs through ITunes , access Mail, access messenger, which can now be tied to your iCloud etc.. Why is no one calling them out on that? Same thing with Microsoft. I've never understood the outrage over linking your already Google account with other Google services that you basically naturally going to use. The G+ thing was the line that was crossed but it's not even a situation that was really an abuse of power imo. You didn't have to exactly join if you didn't want to. Nothing was forced.
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.
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.
Basically this, Google owning Youtube, stacking their web browser to work better on a service they own, and integrating a bunch of other services which work better on Google owned platforms such as Android, gives them an unfair advantage.
My problem is how does someone deal with this? Is Google really in or headed for Standard Oil monopoly territory or is it just that they have another product that just happens to gain marketshare and that their competition should just learn from?
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.
Basically this, Google owning Youtube, stacking their web browser to work better on a service they own, and integrating a bunch of other services which work better on Google owned platforms such as Android, gives them an unfair advantage.
My problem is how does someone deal with this? Is Google really in or headed for Standard Oil monopoly territory or is it just that they have another product that just happens to gain marketshare and that their competition should just learn from?
MisterFalcon
Member
Google will be forced to open a new HQ hundreds of miles from Mountian View and all their staff will move between HQ's every month. The loss of productivity will be so enormous any competetive advantage it has will be useless.
- Status