Support NeoGAF

[Klotera]

People keep talking about this in terms of a big corporation vs. small companies. The biggest benefit from this move would just go to other large corporations, such as MS, Apple, and Facebook. And it would be naive to think they aren't the ones lobbying for this most behind the scenes. MS, in particular, is always feeding EU regulators complaints about Google.

Simply owning a majority of market share is not the only question. Fact is that MS has the resources to put up a fair fight against Google and the barrier for consumers to switch is very low (unlike MS and Windows in the 90s and 00s). If you don't like Google's services, switch to Bing. Consumers are choosing not to, and Microsoft has pushed it pretty hard.

This gets into dangerous territory. Are you only going to hold Google to this standard? Should MS be disallowed to bundle Bing with Xbox and Windows? What about all the Apple services you are pushed into when you buy one of their products? Does this discourage the development of an "ecosystem".

If EU wants to enforce rules to ensure Google isn't holding down competitors, that's fine. They already did it with shopping results. Breaking them up is a terrible idea.


Ironically, too, the EU forcing MS to offer other browsers with Windows was one of the biggest reasons Chrome was able to become so popular.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Sure, why not?

 

[jelly]

It's not about penalizing successful companies. It's about preventing the companies from exploiting their success in that industry to stifle competition in another. Nothing to do with America either, they go after anyone regardless.

 

[Kreed]

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.

As an example, Internet Explorer/Microsoft products use Bing as their default search engine and Firefox is switching to Yahoo now.

 

[vwnut13]

One does not tell a political organization that can fine you 5 billion at will to "fuck off". What are you, 12?

Sounds like European Parliament has too much power. Oh, and a monopoly over Europe, time to split up European Parliament!

 

[KevinRo]

It's not about penalizing successful companies. It's about preventing the companies from exploiting their success in that industry to stifle competition in another. Nothing to do with America either, they go after anyone regardless.

So you break off the search part from the rest of the company and then what? The search still dominates the industry?

Pretty sure it's because it's an American company.

Previous examples of monopoly break ups show geographic location plays a big part in it.

 

[jelly]

Ironically, too, the EU forcing MS to offer other browsers with Windows was one of the biggest reasons Chrome was able to become so popular.

The browser ballot was actually Microsoft 's idea and the EC agreed with it.

Chrome being plastered all over Google properties probably helped it more than anything. I didn't see Firefox getting too much love with the ballot choice after it was introduced.

 

[Sarcasm]

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.

Dunno what yea smoking but I needed to use an extension in Chrome to even make YT usable.

 

[Kinitari]

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.

Of course google didn't have to compete with facebook in social. It didn't have to compete with anyone in mobile. It didn't have to compete with anyone when it made gmail. However, for companies to survive they always have to diversify and try new things. Google could have just stuck to search engine with smart ads - but... like that doesn't make sense.

That a company who tries to break into a very difficult to break into market needs to leverage its other strengths isn't a shot against it, in my opinion. If some company wants to provide a better service, it should in fact find every way possible to sell this to customers.

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.

This gets back to the complicated nature of software. Google+ profiles were Google's 'new' profile system - if you look at the Google of today vs the Google of a few years ago, you'll of course see a lot of differences, including an attempt to unify platforms - Google+ is/was supposed to be the focal point of that push. It didn't work out exactly and so they pivoted a bit, but the thrust was the same. This isn't a dig against a software company, and its good software that has the sort of apis that can allow for easy communication amongst its siblings.

When it comes to Android - this is again, more weird software stuff. The strengths of the platform are tied to its software as well as its hardware. 'Android' is basically Google on phones, so of course there is going to be Google software on there. They are a service and providing their service through mobile means meant making an operating system and creating mobile apps. Google Now for example is an integral part of Android, and it's tied to Google's software... how do you decouple that from the system? I mean you can choose to not opt in, but you can't for example say "Would you like to base your Google Now results on Bing?" - and further, why would there even be an obligation for Google to create software on their platform that benefits competition?

Software is really weird and this is way looking at it with the same lens as you would other services can be troublesome.

edit: Further, I would look at Android as an example of how Google already goes further than any other large software company to provide opportunities for it's competition. You the core of android is based on open source software that anyone can (and some have) fork and create their own platforms independent of any of Google's major services. You can download other applications on your mobile device and set them as your defaults for a significant portion of Google's Android. You will soon be able to even physically customize these phones using parts from a variety of vendors... I mean when you look at the competition in the same space, it doesn't look like Google is leading the pack in 'competitive' behaviour.

 

[M3d10n]

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

It's supposed to be a search engine after all. If something exists and I search for it, relevant results should be displayed. Not doing so would be equivalent of my ISP removing the DNS entry for competing ISPs from their DNS servers. But from your post I suppose you think there's no problem with that, since it's "their internet" after all.

As an example, Internet Explorer/Microsoft products use Bing as their default search engine and Firefox is switching to Yahoo now.

You actually have to jump through hoops to make Google the default search in IE nowadays (while Yahoo is just two clicks away), which hints at how unfriendly their current relationship is. Safari on IOS also defaults to Yahoo since the maps fallout.

 

[Sakura]

Sounds ridiculous to me. There are somethings Google does I'm not fond of, but I don't think the European parliament is in their place to call for this just because everyone prefers Google over other engines. In any case I don't see how splitting the search engine part would erode its market share.
I bet if this was a European company then they wouldn't be doing this.

 

[Joni]

Not by splitting up the company.

That is on Google to prevent by taking other measures.

Sounds ridiculous to me. There are somethings Google does I'm not fond of, but I don't think the European parliament is in their place to call for this just because everyone prefers Google over other engines. In any case I don't see how splitting the search engine part would erode its market share.
I bet if this was a European company then they wouldn't be doing this.

They take regular measures against anti-competitive behaviour by European companies. That just doesn't get as much international attention

 

[A-V-B]

Yeah... no one's splitting Google.

 

[slit]

Yeah... no one's splitting Google.

Well they could be split up eventually but the EU doing it is laughable.

 

[Kinitari]

It's supposed to be a search engine after all. If something exists and I search for it, relevant results should be displayed. Not doing so would be equivalent of my ISP removing the DNS entry for competing ISPs from their DNS servers. But from your post I suppose you think there's no problem with that, since it's "their internet" after all.

So what is the alternative? You have a macbook, and it comes with safari. You can go to yahoo or bing or whatever (and in fact duckduckgo is now the default isn't it?) to do your research to decide what search engine to use and what browser to install or whatever.

That people instead go to Google, download chrome and set up Google as their default is somehow something that Google needs to help resolve?

 

[vwnut13]

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.

95% of Germans use Google.com, but that doesn't mean other search engines don't exist.

80% of cell phones bought are Android, but that doesn't mean that iPhones aren't available.


I don't see how Google is a monopoly because people CHOOSE to use their products,and not the competition.

 

[Sciz]

It's supposed to be a search engine after all. If something exists and I search for it, relevant results should be displayed.

But... that's what happens. Go search for search engines on Google, most of the first page is links to other ones.

 

[jelly]

Worth a read.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Community_competition_law

Can we move past the America talk, they go after anyone, Samsung, Siemens etc. and the rare one to give Intel some deserved fines.

http://thenextweb.com/eu/2012/12/05...on-over-tv-and-computer-monitor-price-fixing/

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2001/nov/22/8

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/12/intel_amd_ec_fine_stands/

 

[Jonm1010]

Not by splitting up the company.

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




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

Google doesn't need a defense force, let alone one that is injecting statements I didn't write to batter down an argument I didn't make.

If Google is guilty of these allegations then measures rightfully deserve to be taken. Depending on the level of damning behavior and how effective that behavior is at creating barriers to entry or shedding competitors the consequences should mirror that. I specifically left off calling for a particular form of justice like breaking them up or flat out condemning them because I don't have all the facts. If you don't either you might consider taking a similar stand.

Because to take a firm stand on what punishment should or shouldn't be administered without a justifiable amount of evidence at your disposal to draw from is just partisanship.

 

[M3d10n]

So what is the alternative? You have a macbook, and it comes with safari. You can go to yahoo or bing or whatever (and in fact duckduckgo is now the default isn't it?) to do your research to decide what search engine to use and what browser to install or whatever.

That people instead go to Google, download chrome and set up Google as their default is somehow something that Google needs to help resolve?

This is not about access to competing with other search engines, it's about Google using their search engine to stifle competition in other areas, like video, email, smartphones, tablets, browsers, cloud computing, etc.

 

[Prototype]

But google is awesome. Why the hate?

Can you seriously not see the problem of a single entity controlling an entire market? I love Google but it's not healthy for for competition when one company is so dominant. Innovation will slow down in such conditions, it's only a matter of time. I don't want innovation to slow down.

Edit.

I don't see how Google is a monopoly because people CHOOSE to use their products,and not the competition.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on. How can people choose another competitor if they can't find them?

 

[vwnut13]

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.

"Google has a monopoly because my shitty non-Google laptop can't run Firefox, so I have to use Chrome."

Say what? lol.


Might as well say...

"Walmart has a monopoly because I don't have a car and the closest Target is too far of a walk."

 

[M3d10n]

But... that's what happens. Go search for search engines on Google, most of the first page is links to other ones.

Yes, that's what happens now, but it's out of Google's own apparent goodwill. There's no safety measures to keep it that way.

Just because a monopoly hasn't made full use of it's abilities (yet) doesn't mean it won't do it in the future.

 

[maeh2k]

I don't see how Google is a monopoly because people CHOOSE to use their products,and not the competition.

No one is proposing to split Google in order to decrease Google's market share in search and to get people to CHOOSE something else.
They propose splitting up Google so that they can't use their dominance in search to push all their other stuff. People may choose Google search, but do they really choose Chrome, or do they just use it because Google search told them it would be better? Or Maps, because those are the maps that Google search uses?

 

[Cømet]

People keep talking about this in terms of a big corporation vs. small companies. The biggest benefit from this move would just go to other large corporations, such as MS, Apple, and Facebook. And it would be naive to think they aren't the ones lobbying for this most behind the scenes. MS, in particular, is always feeding EU regulators complaints about Google.

Simply owning a majority of market share is not the only question. Fact is that MS has the resources to put up a fair fight against Google and the barrier for consumers to switch is very low (unlike MS and Windows in the 90s and 00s). If you don't like Google's services, switch to Bing. Consumers are choosing not to, and Microsoft has pushed it pretty hard.

This gets into dangerous territory. Are you only going to hold Google to this standard? Should MS be disallowed to bundle Bing with Xbox and Windows? What about all the Apple services you are pushed into when you buy one of their products? Does this discourage the development of an "ecosystem".

If EU wants to enforce rules to ensure Google isn't holding down competitors, that's fine. They already did it with shopping results. Breaking them up is a terrible idea.


Ironically, too, the EU forcing MS to offer other browsers with Windows was one of the biggest reasons Chrome was able to become so popular.

I'm still sick of most laptops being bundled with Windows!




They can split it, change it's name, make it wear a tutu. I use Google cos it works and works well and that's not going to change.
I'd take Google for evil overlords over MS any day.

No one is proposing to split Google in order to decrease Google's market share in search and to get people to CHOOSE something else.
They propose splitting up Google so that they can't use their dominance in search to push all their other stuff. People may choose Google search, but do they really choose Chrome, or do they just use it because Google search told them it would be better? Or Maps, because those are the maps that Google search uses?

I use chrome because it's smooth and intuitive and doesn't take an age to do anything *coughIEcough*

Tried Firefox, not for me. Looks like a Chrome rip off without the stability.

 

[Jonm1010]

This is not about access to competing with other search engines, it's about Google using their search engine to stifle competition in other areas, like video, email, smartphones, tablets, browsers, cloud computing, etc.

Exactly, this is about how deep(or shallow) does Google's anti-competitive rabbit hole go and how much of an effect is that having in the marketplace.

 

[Sciz]

Yes, that's what happens now, but it's out of Google's own apparent goodwill. There's no safety measures to keep it that way.

Just because a monopoly hasn't made full use of it's abilities (yet) doesn't mean it won't do it in the future.

Enacting regulation to prevent that from happening strikes me as the simplest way to address the concern, then.

 

[Sakura]

Yes, that's what happens now, but it's out of Google's own apparent goodwill. There's no safety measures to keep it that way.

Just because a monopoly hasn't made full use of it's abilities (yet) doesn't mean it won't do it in the future.

So if Google already controls 90% of the search engine market, and that is without making full use of its 'monopoly abilities', how does this proposal help other search engines? Google is still going to be number 1 by far. It's what people use. When people think search engine, they think Google. It doesn't matter what they do that's not going to change.

No one is proposing to split Google in order to decrease Google's market share in search and to get people to CHOOSE something else.
They propose splitting up Google so that they can't use their dominance in search to push all their other stuff. People may choose Google search, but do they really choose Chrome, or do they just use it because Google search told them it would be better? Or Maps, because those are the maps that Google search uses?

I don't get this. How is Google doing this?
I searched 'web browser' and Firefox was higher in the results than Chrome. I'm not seeing this anti-competitive behaviour.

 

[Scrooged]

It's supposed to be a search engine after all. If something exists and I search for it, relevant results should be displayed. Not doing so would be equivalent of my ISP removing the DNS entry for competing ISPs from their DNS servers. But from your post I suppose you think there's no problem with that, since it's "their internet" after all.

It's their search engine. They shouldn't be required to promote other search engines. And no, that is not a valid comparison. Google isn't outright banning competition from showing up in their searches. It's just down the page a bit.

 

[Scrooged]

No one is proposing to split Google in order to decrease Google's market share in search and to get people to CHOOSE something else.
They propose splitting up Google so that they can't use their dominance in search to push all their other stuff. People may choose Google search, but do they really choose Chrome, or do they just use it because Google search told them it would be better? Or Maps, because those are the maps that Google search uses?

Why is it wrong for a company to promote their products on their most prominent website? Step back and listen to what you are saying.

 

[Joni]

Why is it wrong for a company to promote their products on their most prominent website? Step back and listen to what you are saying.

The EU disagrees. By your same statement, there is nothing wrong with WIndows only including IE

 

[entremet]

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...).

Exactly.

The EU is so biased it's crazy.

However, I do agree with them, just not their reasoning.

It won't happen. We're in the age of the corporation.

 

[Scrooged]

The EU disagrees. By your same statement, there is nothing wrong with WIndows only including IE

I don't see how that's equivalent. Windows is an OS, not a website. You have a better case with Android I guess, but even then...it's their hardware.

 

[Funky Papa]

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...).

Exactly.

The EU is so biased it's crazy.

However, I do agree with them, just not their reasoning.

It won't happen. We're in the age of the corporation.

I'm on mobile. Somebody *please* make me a solid and stop this nonsense by digging through previous threads and posting the GARGANTUAN list of massive European corporations severely punished by anticompetitive behaviour.

If any, Americans claims of bias only highlight how little Washington is doing in terms of antitrust enforcement and consumer protection in comparison. Not a single month passes without a major European player getting a scolding (or worse).

 

[Joni]

I don't see how that's equivalent. Windows is an OS, not a website. You have a better case with Android I guess, but even then...it's their hardware.

Google Search is Google's most prominent product. Windows is Microsoft's most prominent product. How don't you see the equivalent?

 

[Aureon]

ITT: There is no monopoly problem!
Ten minutes later: "comcast!!!!"
You need to curb monopolies BEFORE they degenerate.

we need to split Facebook up, they have a monopoly on social networking

I don't know you, but i would very much welcome a law that forced different social networks \ chat services to inter-operate, like phone companies are forced to.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

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.

They've bent over backwards to curb MS and Google and done nothing to slow down Apple though.

 

[Heigic]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there is nothing wrong with being a monopoly. It is when you abuse your monopolistic power you get into trouble.

 

[Joni]

They've bent over backwards to curb MS and Google and done nothing to slow down Apple though.

We had a huge topic a couple of weeks ago where many people were saying Apple doesn't need to be stopped.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there is nothing wrong with being a monopoly. It is when you abuse your monopolistic power you get into trouble.

Indeed.

 

[Kinitari]

I think the idea that a company shouldn't diversify, or rather, shouldn't be successful in its diversification is sort of what's being discussed here.

The jury is still out as to whether or not Google has conducted anti competitive behaviour, what makes this hard is what is considered anti competitive is vague, and might not have any precedent.

That being said, some of you seem to think that Google just leveraging some of its software to improve its other software is anti competitive. Can any of you elaborate? Specifically, where is the line?

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

They've bent over backwards to curb MS and Google and done nothing to slow down Apple though.

Exactly. Why is Safari able to be bundles with macs and iPhones as the default search browser but MS and Google needs correction? Why does iTunes have a huge monopoly on digital sales that can force other competitive to get content later?

Apple really is slipping through the cracks and no one has yet to bring a sound argument to how Google is a monopoly when choice is still valid. If I search MSN.com, it's the first, same with all other competitors, so where is this power crazy search engine that's putting it's services first above all?

 

[maeh2k]

Why is it wrong for a company to promote their products on their most prominent website? Step back and listen to what you are saying.

Let's say Google wants to compete in another area they currently do not occupy. Say they want to compete with Uber. So They create their own Uber competitor Goober, advertise for it on Google.com, integrate it into Google Maps, put the Goober app on the home screen of every new Android phone, ... They could create a really nice, user-friendly service. They already know where all their users are and if someone searched for a location, they could add a 'go get me a Goober' button directly into their search results; Google Now could learn what transportation you use and suggest Goober if they thought it could get you somewhere cheaper.
... and Uber would be royally fucked. If Google wants something and leverages all their products to make it happen, they become quite hard to compete with -- and that's called being anti-competitive.

 

[Klotera]

If the EU wants to do something g drastic, they can do it without splitting Google. Just take a page from Windows and IE. Make Google include links to other search engines under their own search bar (and even pass through the query). Other search engines get prominent placement and consumers who do want to utilize the Google ecosystem still have a choice.

That's my big concern. By splitting them up, you're removing a choice that some consumers actually do want.

ITT: There is no monopoly problem!
Ten minutes later: "comcast!!!!"
You need to curb monopolies BEFORE they degenerate

Terrible comparison. Not any company can just start laying wire and run an ISP, especially one available to all consumers. Google itself is proof of that. It's taking them forever to build out Google Fiber in just a couple markets.

Anyone, however, can run a website accessible by every Internet user.

 

[Kinitari]

Let's say Google wants to compete in another area they currently do not occupy. Say they want to compete with Uber. So They create their own Uber competitor Goober, advertise for it on Google.com, integrate it into Google Maps, put the Goober app on the home screen of every new Android phone, ... They could create a really nice, user-friendly service. They already know where all their users are and if someone searched for a location, they could add a 'go get me a Goober' button directly into their search results; Google Now could learn what transportation you use and suggest Goober if they thought it could get you somewhere cheaper.
... and Uber would be royally fucked. If Google wants something and leverages all their products to make it happen, they become quite hard to compete with -- and that's called being anti-competitive.

You also describe why this is made weirder with software. Goober sounds like an amazing product, and it's only that amazing because it leverages all of Google's other services.

 

[twobear]

Anyone, however, can run a website accessible by every Internet user.

Uh huh. I guess I'll just start a Google competitor in my basement, since it's so easy that anyone can do it.

 

[Joni]

You also describe why this is made weirder with software. Goober sounds like an amazing product, and it's only that amazing because it leverages all of Google's other services.

Yet Uber would also be amazing if Google gave them that same access, at which point you could chose based on which service is actually better.

 

[Klotera]

Uh huh. I guess I'll just start a Google competitor in my basement, since it's so easy that anyone can do it.

It's not easy to break into any industry. Even without Google, you're probably not starting a search engine in your basement.

There is no infrastructure limitation to you doing so, though. You can buy a domain and Web hosting. If you have the right algorithm and get some investors, who knows.

 

[twobear]

It's not easy to break into any industry. Even without Google, you're probably not starting a search engine in your basement.

There is no infrastructure limitation to you doing so, though. You can buy a domain and Web hosting. If you have the right algorithm and get some investors, who knows.

How is needing datacentres not an infrastructure limitation?

 

[Joni]

How is needing datacentres not an infrastructure limitation?

You can always get one at Google or Amazon.

 

[tokkun]

Yet Uber would also be amazing if Google gave them that same access, at which point you could chose based on which service is actually better.

How would Google giving third parties access to their customers' data work with EU privacy laws?