Support NeoGAF

[Kinitari]

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.

If Google gave them the same access? Essentially opening up all their APIs? That is... Well, unrealistic but also maybe happening more than you realize.

Uber, specifically, has strong ties to Google. They use Google maps, and use Google's oAuth (as well as Facebook I think). In general Google as a platform is very permissive.

However, having free reign of Google now and all of Google's user info for example is probably not on the table. For many many different reasons.

 

[ICKE]

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.

You are basically "looking out for my buddy" even though Google probably pays close to no taxes within the United States as they are very efficient at maximizing profits via offshoring. The Commission and CJEU have been aggressive in many instances and so they should, the market needs to be safeguarded from monopoly power and excessive concentration of wealth.

Of course this is also about ideology. If you are a libertarian, and a lot of people seem to be in the tech-world, you are probably against government intrusion. Let the market decide and to the winner go the spoils. I mean we have people here saying that it's not a big deal if Google is looking out for their own profit margins and using their own search engine to promote other services.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I hate these cunts.

 

[Klotera]

How is needing datacentres not an infrastructure limitation?

There are cloud hosting companies out there (Amazon and MS among then). A lot of popular services use or at least started out using them.

You can't tell me that building out an ISP and starting a Web based service are even remotely comparable in terms of infrastructure limitations. Do you need government easements to build a website? Does it cost even remotely as much to buy cloud resources as laying miles and miles of wire?

Look at Facebook. They started small and became huge. Do you think Zuckerberg could have built out an ISP, too? Hell, they probably couldn't do it now.

 

[AmFreak]

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?

Cause Apple has no monopoly. Mac's have a market share of like 5% in the EU.
The iphone has like 20%.
There are many more ways to get music than the itunes store, streaming is growing fast.
Spotify already surpassed itunes in royalties in Europe.

 

[twobear]

There are cloud hosting companies out there (Amazon and MS among then). A lot of popular services use or at least started out using them.

You can't tell me that building out an ISP and starting a Web based service are even remotely comparable in terms of infrastructure limitations. Do you need government easements to build a website? Does it cost even remotely as much to buy cloud resources a saying miles and miles of wire?

Look at Facebook. They started small and became huge. Do you think Zuckerberg could have built out an ISP, too? Hell, they probably couldn't do it now.

Building an ISP might be more difficult than building a website, but building a genuine competitor to Google is probably as difficult as building an ISP.

In fact, history suggests it's more difficult, because new ISPs appear every so often, but the last company that did what Google have done was...Google. And even Google couldn't build a genuine competitor to Facebook, but they could start an apparently competitive and successful ISP.

 

[Joni]

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

It would pobably be okay as long as people give permission through Uber, if actual data transfer is needed at all.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

This topic makes me sad, we have people defending huge corporations and basically "looking out for their own buddy" even though Google probably pays close to no taxes within the United States as they are very efficient at maximizing profits via offshoring. The Commission and CJEU have been aggressive in many instances and so they should, the market needs to be safeguarded from monopoly power and excessive concentration of wealth.

Where are you getting this from? No one is defending a huge corporation but just showing the fallacy in what the EU is trying to break them up over. Google isn't no more different than any other company in the world so it's not even about them not paying taxes. This is literally about breaking them up over something that they really aren't doing anything wrong in. If they are favoring their search engine over others in results when you are looking for Yahoo, you have a point. If they are forcing you to download Gmail to your computer. Then you have a point. If they completely out right ban all other competitors, even those who use Apple devices, Amazon devices, Microsoft device and etc from using their services, then you have a point.... But they aren't doing that.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Does anyone genuinely believe this would be happening if Google were French or German?

 

[Kinitari]

It would pobably be okay as long as people give permission through Uber, if actual data transfer is needed at all.

I mean, most of that fake Goober service can be accomplished (minus the Google now stuff) using Google services. If you develop, just look at their APIs. It's ridiculous how much you can do with that and how much Google is giving away for free.

So that service, minus Google now could exist. However if Google did the same thing but WITH Google now, and advertised it on their other websites, that would cross a line? What if they didn't advertise this product?

 

[ICKE]

Where are you getting this from? No one is defending a huge corporation but just showing the fallacy in what the EU is trying to break them up over.

The consequences are severe if you let one company dominate the market, regardless how benevolent they might come across as? We have government regulations and competition law in place to keep the market competitive and efficient. It does not matter if Google acts with evil intent so to speak, just like some big mining company might provide excellent products but at some point we might need adjustments in order for the local community to flourish. Microsoft had to face the music and it might be time for Google to do the same, if not now then perhaps later. I

Does anyone genuinely believe this would be happening if Google were French or German?

Yes, the authorities have repeatedly gone after companies within the internal market.

 

[Klotera]

Building an ISP might be more difficult than building a website, but building a genuine competitor to Google is probably as difficult as building an ISP.

In fact, history suggests it's more difficult, because new ISPs appear every so often, but the last company that did what Google have done was...Google.

Not even remotely as difficult. You have to already be huge to even think about building an ISP. You need tons of cash. Then you have to get the right government approvals, easements, build out the network infrastructure (both software and hardware). You likely have to have TV service to compete with other ISPs. So, now you're negotiating with media companies. The list goes on and on.

It's not about the difficulty. It's difficult to compete with ANY large company in ANY industry. But, there is no physical barrier to entry like there is with an ISP.

If Comcast wants to screw us, we have no choice. It will be years before a competitor can build infrastructure to all the people that use Comcast. If Google tries to screw you, you fire up bing.com in your browser and move on with your life.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Cause Apple has no monopoly. Mac's have a market share of like 5% in the EU.
The iphone has like 20%.
There are many more ways to get music than the itunes store, streaming is growing fast.
Spotify already surpassed itunes in royalties in Europe.

You can't buy music off of Spotify. It directs you to iTunes or Amazon or Google Play. However iTunes is 100% guaranteed to have it vs the others.

Secondly, iPhone are the most selling smartphone in the world and in history. Just because iOS doesn't have a huge market share does not mean that they are above getting slapped on the wrist for bundling Safari with Macs. If Microsoft got busted for it, it shouldn't lead to a clear monopoly for that to even be considered.

It's unfair to clamp one and not the other.

 

[Joni]

I mean, most of that fake Goober service can be accomplished (minus the Google now stuff) using Google services. If you develop, just look at their APIs. It's ridiculous how much you can do with that and how much Google is giving away for free.

So that service, minus Google now could exist. However if Google did the same thing but WITH Google now, and advertised it on their other websites, that would cross a line? What if they didn't advertise this product?

Most of the others couldn't do it on Google themselves. Google wouldn't give that automatic reference to Uber like they would be giving for Goober. That is the difference. You can put Google Maps on your site, but Google won't give you a link to it if you search for a location. For instance, if I go to Google, I can get the route description saying which bus lines I need to use. Google could put Goober there next to it. Uber couldn't do that.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Do you understand what the consequences are if you let one company dominate the market, regardless how benevolent they might come across as? We have government regulations and competition law in place to keep the market competitive. It does not matter if Google acts with evil intent so to speak, just like some big mining company might provide excellent products but at some point we might need more regulations.

Then that's the point at which they should have regulations slapped on them - not in anticipation of some future potential abuse. If they've conducted abuse already - and broken the law - charge them with it. If not, write new laws if you think they've behaved badly. But breaking up a company just because they have the means to be abusive is ridiculous.

Yes, the authorities have repeatedly gone after companies within the internal market.

This amounts to them breaking up a company because it's too successful. This would never happen if it were a company from within the EU - they practically said as much when they went out of their way to point out how Google was American.

 

[Kinitari]

Most of the others couldn't do it on Google themselves. Google wouldn't give that automatic reference to Uber like they would be giving for Goober. That is the difference. You can put Google Maps on your site, but Google won't give you a link to it if you search for a location. For instance, if I go to Google, I can get the route description saying which bus lines I need to use. Google could put Goober there next to it. Uber couldn't do that.

So the major difference is that if Google made a competing services and advertised it through their services, that would be bad? Is this for any established industry? What about unestablished, or even previously unheard of industries? Is Google allowed to make new products and advertise them at all?

 

[Joni]

Then that's the point at which they should have regulations slapped on them - not in anticipation of some future potential abuse. If they've conducted abuse already - and broken the law - charge them with it. If not, write new laws if you think they've behaved badly. But breaking up a company just because they have the means to be abusive is ridiculous.



This amounts to them breaking up a company because it's too successful. This would never happen if it were a company from within the EU - they practically said as much when they went out of their way to point out how Google was American.

Could you give a link to the draft motion so we can see how much they refer the fact it is an american company?

So the major difference is that if Google made a competing services and advertised it through their services, that would be bad? Is this for any established industry? What about unestablished, or even previously unheard of industries? Is Google allowed to make new products and advertise them at all?

If Google abuses their market position in other fields to promote and kick out competitors of a field, that is market abuse.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Do you understand what the consequences are if you let one company dominate the market, regardless how benevolent they might come across as? We have government regulations and competition law in place to keep the market competitive. It does not matter if Google acts with evil intent so to speak, just like some big mining company might provide excellent products but at some point we might need more regulations

But you aren't getting it.

We have choice. Unlike Comcast or the Gas Company's or Verizon etc, we actually have choice. Google isn't forcing everyone to use their products. You can or you can not. They allow you to opt out if you want to. It's not forced. They are heavily regulated by the government as it is, to be able to take down whatever they (the government) want if they don't agree with it.

Can Google get out of hand? Surely, but they aren't getting out if hand to the point where other players are unable to do anything to compete with them. Off the top of my head, everything Google has so far, Apple, Microsoft has as well. I don't see how hard they need to be regulated to the point of separation that would change that. Unless you are saying tech companies are not allowed to improve on their services then, I think you are wrong.

Edit: Also, if they were caught doing something anti-competitve... It would be charged as such... But they really aren't in regards to EU claims.

 

[Mysterious]

The internet is for everyone everywhere, but when it comes down to it, Americans were the inventors of the Internet so if they want to cut themselves off they are free to make an EU only internet.

Yes, but what about the World Wide Web, which you are using right now?

Timothy John Berners-Lee
8 June 1955 (age 59)
London, England
United Kingdom

 

[Chezzymann]

European politicians have grown increasingly concerned about Google's and other American companies' command of the Internet industry, and have sought ways to curb their power.

.

 

[Lucumo]

But google is awesome. Why the hate?

Not really. But I'm somewhat against it because I want to see Google becoming a megacorp.

 

[Joni]

.

You realize you're focussing on a sentence written by the journalist. And that the increased focus on Google also involves their tax avoidance schemes?

 

[cartesian]

Does anyone genuinely believe this would be happening if Google were French or German?

Yes.

 

[twobear]

You can't buy music off of Spotify. It directs you to iTunes or Amazon or Google Play. However iTunes is 100% guaranteed to have it vs the others.

Secondly, iPhone are the most selling smartphone in the world and in history. Just because iOS doesn't have a huge market share does not mean that they are above getting slapped on the wrist for bundling Safari with Macs. If Microsoft got busted for it, it shouldn't lead to a clear monopoly for that to even be considered.

It's unfair to clamp one and not the other.

Not really, because Microsoft were totally dominating the market with an effective monopoly whereas Mac have something like, what, 15% of the home PC market and 30% of the mobile phone market?

This is the whole point of antitrust laws, no? To punish companies that abuse market dominance, not to slap every company with the same penalties in the interests of 'fairness'.

 

[Kinitari]

If Google abuses their market position in other fields to promote and kick out competitors of a field, that is market abuse.

So, this hasn't happened and there seems to be an inquiry as to whether or not it has, but for the sake of argument, let's say it hasn't. If Google then made Guber, and advertised it through Google now or whatever, you wouldn't have a problem with it? I guess my question is, what is abuse? Advertising Guber through their own services?

 

[Joni]

So, this hasn't happened and there seems to be an inquiry as to whether or not it has, but for the sake of argument, let's say it hasn't. If Google then made Guber, and advertised it through Google now or whatever, you wouldn't have a problem with it? I guess my question is, what is abuse? Advertising Guber through their own services?

It isn't advertising. They would be posing their own commercial solution as the one true one through their other services. it gives an unfair advantage because users wouldn't be getting a ballot to say they actually want to show Uber. They wouldn't be throwing the occassional ad on Google, they would be delivering that information as part of their services. And personally, it seems very user-friendly for them to do it. As I said on the first page, one way it is interesting what the EU is doing and on the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily like it.

 

[perfectchaos007]

I'm pretty sure it already does by a couple of trillion.

Not even close. The US and EU economy have been at a virtual deadlock for years.

CIA world factbook 2013 (USD)
United States $16,720,000,000
European Union $15,850,000,000

International Monetary Fund 2013 (USD)
Euopean Union $17,578,400,000
United States $16,768,100,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
The only way for the EU to take a definitive lead is to add more countries or force the US to split

 

[Hexa]

Fuck off EU.
They're planning on forcing major changes on a corporation they have no jurisdiction on? Once again, fuck off.
Google has one of the biggest lobbies on Washington, so any attempts to do will result in major condemnation by the US. Under those circumstances, I don't see it could possibly happen.

 

[ICKE]

Not even close. The US and EU economy have been at a virtual deadlock for years.

CIA world factbook 2013 (USD)
United States $16,720,000,000
European Union $15,850,000,000

International Monetary Fund 2013 (USD)
Euopean Union $17,578,400,000
United States $16,768,100,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
The only way for the EU to take a definitive lead is to add more countries or force the US to split

This is all off topic but :

Or perhaps for the Southern-European countries to overcome their financial difficulties eventually. Europe has been in a mess for a long time and it is still the largest economic zone on the planet. Then again, many specific states in the US have similar problems but I doubt they can be compared to Greece, youth unemployment in Spain etc? These statistics are irrelevant though as the global economy will go through major changes in the near future (At this rate Africa will have a huge population after the next generation and who knows, French as a language might become slightly more important again and other little things like that).

I just hope that Europe can build more bridges to Latin America for example and avoid any comprehensive free trade treaties with the United States as it exists today.

 

[Joni]

Fuck off EU.
They're planning on forcing major changes on a corporation they have no jurisdiction on? Once again, fuck off.
Google has one of the biggest lobbies on Washington, so any attempts to do will result in major condemnation by the US. Under those circumstances, I don't see it could possibly happen.

Google has major headquarters all over Europe. It means they have to follow EU law.
Microsoft also has one of the biggest lobbies in Washington. They still got in trouble. Their lobby is also telling the US government that Google is in the wrong.
Guess which lobby group was against the deal that was on the table earlier - http://www.computerworld.com/articl...ying-groups-blast-talk-of-google-eu-deal.html

 

[ISOM]

Google has major headquarters all over Europe. It means they have to follow EU law.
Microsoft also has one of the biggest lobbies in Washington. They still got in trouble. Their lobby is also telling the US government that Google is in the wrong.

Microsoft has been building a coalition of anti-google companies to accuse Google of anti-competitive behavior. I would take their complaints with a grain of salt. I still think the EU proposal is stupid. Splitting up a company because they are successful? Ridiculous.

 

[Joni]

Microsoft has been building a coalition of anti-google companies to accuse Google of anti-competitive behavior. I would take their complaints with a grain of salt. I still think the EU proposal is stupid. Splitting up a company because they are successful? Ridiculous.

Just saying that if Google's lobby group could accomplish something, Microsoft's bigger lobby group can always do better.

 

[AmFreak]

You can't buy music off of Spotify. It directs you to iTunes or Amazon or Google Play. However iTunes is 100% guaranteed to have it vs the others.

You don't need to buy, that's why it is bigger than itunes now.
2013 was the first year ever were digital music sales declined.
But itunes is not only loosing marketshare to streaming services. they are also loosing marketshare to amazon. I even doubt that itunes is bigger than amazon in europe.

Secondly, iPhone are the most selling smartphone in the world and in history. Just because iOS doesn't have a huge market share does not mean that they are above getting slapped on the wrist for bundling Safari with Macs. If Microsoft got busted for it, it shouldn't lead to a clear monopoly for that to even be considered.

It's unfair to clamp one and not the other.

I would agree it is kind of unfair, but that's how it works. The monopolist get's slapped.

 

[Klotera]

In reality, surely no one thinks this will really happen. This is really more of a threat to get leverage for regulators to get more concessions from Google. Just like MS. Threatened to break them up, got huge concessions.

It would be pretty uncharted territory to break up a web based company based in the U.S. Unlike breaking up the telecoms in the U.S. in the 80s, which only really affected the U.S., this would have worldwide effects. It would be dangerous territory to force an organizational change on a foreign company, especially and American one, and the EU knows that.

 

[neshcom]

Making moves to avoid monopolistic Google isn't inherently a bad thing, but I don't understand how breaking out Search will make any concrete change, especially if the issue is with Google's data being harder to access by not-Google and Google prioritizing/integrating their own services.

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

"may propose"

...

Reminds me of this one time at another forum where I was "warned" that my next offense would result in a warning.

 

[Kinitari]

It isn't advertising. They would be posing their own commercial solution as the one true one through their other services. it gives an unfair advantage because users wouldn't be getting a ballot to say they actually want to show Uber. They wouldn't be throwing the occassional ad on Google, they would be delivering that information as part of their services. And personally, it seems very user-friendly for them to do it. As I said on the first page, one way it is interesting what the EU is doing and on the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily like it.

But Google services aren't like... Public infrastructure or anything. A company advertising or promoting its products through its other products is a thing that's happened forever. I think where it gets weird is well, some people look at Google services like they are a required utility. Which changes the relationship significantly. Can a company have a product that is so good that it has to treat itself like a public utility?

If we go to bing.com with Chrome, it tells us, hey ie is the best, use our browser. This isn't offensive because IE is in a terrible position and it's marketshare is shrinking (as a web developer, fuck ie). But Google for example advertising its products on its website seems wrong to people because Google is doing so well. That it is now almost obligated to give is competition a leg up by advertising competing products side by side with any of its new products.

This whole thing is weird, and it's softwares fault. Software is eating the world.

 

[Hexa]

Just saying that if Google's lobby group could accomplish something, Microsoft's bigger lobby group can always do better.

Google's lobby is more than twice as big as Microsoft's.
At this point Google also has incredibly strong ties to the US government.
So I still think it'll never happen.
If they go through with this EU can go fuck itself.

 

[Quidam]

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.

I'm only up to page 7 of this thread, but there have been so many misconceptions so far, and this one in particular seems to be a view that lots of people in here (not just MartyStu) believe to be true.

In antitrust law in the EU, there is a massive distinction between 'being a monopoly' and 'being a monopoly that abuses that position'. The notion that you can only be a monopoly if you abuse your position is totally, 100% false.

Furthermore, you don't have to literally be the only supplier of a good/service to be a monopoly. The antitrust definition of monopoly is significantly wider than a pure economic definition, and the EU has held that companies are dominant in their market with market shares as low as 40% (and, at the other extreme, they have held that 80-90% can sometimes NOT amount to dominance).

 

[Scrooged]

I'm only up to page 7 of this thread, but there have been so many misconceptions so far, and this one in particular seems to be a view that lots of people in here (not just MartyStu) believe to be true.

In antitrust law in the EU, there is a massive distinction between 'being a monopoly' and 'being a monopoly that abuses that position'. The notion that you can only be a monopoly if you abuse your position is totally, 100% false.

Furthermore, you don't have to literally be the only supplier of a good/service to be a monopoly. The antitrust definition of monopoly is significantly wider than a pure economic definition, and the EU has held that companies are dominant in their market with market shares as low as 40% (and, at the other extreme, they have held that 80-90% can sometimes NOT amount to dominance).

You're basically admitting that the EU punishes companies for being successful without abusing their power. Why is this something that should be championed?

 

[Joni]

You're basically admitting that the EU punishes companies for being successful without abusing their power. Why is this something that should be championed?

He is saying there is a difference, but the EU doesn't look at someone being a monopoly. It looks at someone abusing that position. Or better said, it looks at monopolies to see if they might be abusing it.

 

[ICKE]

You're basically admitting that the EU punishes companies for being successful without abusing their power. Why is this something that should be championed?

It is not quite what he said but I don't see a problem with your assumption either. A competitive market better serves society. Just like emission trading and certain restrictions are seen as important for the well being of our environment. It is not always a question of malevolent abuse but certain economic realities and ideological approaches. It just depends how our institutions view Google at this point in time, I personally believe action needs to be taken but even if nothing happens in the immediate future, eventually it will.

 

[Quidam]

You're basically admitting that the EU punishes companies for being successful without abusing their power. Why is this something that should be championed?

I may have been unclear, but that is not what I'm saying. To rephrase in a hopefully clearer way:

1. The EU distinguishes between 'being a monopoly' and 'being a monopoly which abuses its position'

2. The EU has no issue at all with companies being a monopoly.

3. They do however care about companies which are both monopolies and abusive of this position.

This is true of most antitrust regimes around the world, and is completely logical.

 

[Durante]

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?

This is not at all about "optimizing for competition".
It's about damaging your competition in an area you do not yet dominate by making your service in another area you do dominate worse for them, without any technical justification.
It's the very definition of antitrust.

Google is very clearly abusing their position, in multiple matters.

 

[enzo_gt]

Sounds like there isn't really a benefit to consumers here, especially if they don't break up competitors as well. Seems very short-sighted.

 

[Cole Slaw]

Europe doing what USA too gridlocked or cowardly to do.

I personally don't care about anything that happens to Google or Apple or Microsoft after I read a while back that they were fucking with the free market by colluding to limit salaries for workers.

Seems to me to be pretty hypocritical to complain about government regulation when private companies are already trying to control wages and thus competition in the first place. Fuck them and their freedoms when they plan on picking and choosing which suit their "needs" and which don't.

 

[StreetsAhead]

Sounds like there isn't really a benefit to consumers here, especially if they don't break up competitors as well. Seems very short-sighted.

Google's consumers are, by and large, its advertisers. So I suppose you're right.

 

[Khaos_Knight]

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?

Honestly man that doesn't look at all like an unfair advantage. All companies want their products/services to stand out from the rest. Google has accomplished that by improving their own services and products. You can't blame Google because Chrome has features or optimizations that FF and IE lack.



The real problem here is not Google for wanting to improving their products, its the competition for sitting on their asses and not doing anything to provide consumers with comparable alternatives.

 

[m_shortpants]

But you aren't getting it.

We have choice. Unlike Comcast or the Gas Company's or Verizon etc, we actually have choice. Google isn't forcing everyone to use their products. You can or you can not. They allow you to opt out if you want to. It's not forced. They are heavily regulated by the government as it is, to be able to take down whatever they (the government) want if they don't agree with it.

Can Google get out of hand? Surely, but they aren't getting out if hand to the point where other players are unable to do anything to compete with them. Off the top of my head, everything Google has so far, Apple, Microsoft has as well. I don't see how hard they need to be regulated to the point of separation that would change that. Unless you are saying tech companies are not allowed to improve on their services then, I think you are wrong.

Edit: Also, if they were caught doing something anti-competitve... It would be charged as such... But they really aren't in regards to EU claims.

Yeah this is exactly it. I can choose to go to bing or Yahoo. A monopoly that needs to be broken up is one that you simply cannot avoid.

This is really dumb. I'm with Google on this one.

 

[sangreal]

Honestly man that doesn't look at all like an unfair advantage. All companies want their products/services to stand out from the rest. Google has accomplished that by improving their own services and products. You can't blame Google because Chrome has features or optimizations that FF and IE lack.



The real problem here is not Google for wanting to improving their products, its the competition for sitting on their asses and not doing anything to provide consumers with comparable alternatives.

tell that to skyhook