4 ms·

Much of this debate centers on the premonition that Google highlights their own content and services in order to fight competition and maximize their own profit

Much of this debate centers on the premonition that Google highlights their own content and services in order to fight competition and maximize their own profits. They are acting intentionally and rationally. But their monopoly is hurting others, so we (er, the EU) convict(s) Google of malice. However, another plausible position is that Google is merely behaving negligently. There are some studies (paid by competitors, sure) showing users dislike Google promoted content and products. Those products should probably have their A/B tests ended, but nobody has the guts to pull the plug (and willpower to evolve the effort into something else). Knowledge Base has sucked away ~30% of Wikipedia's traffic, which thankfully has not yet hurt donations. Google certainly doesn't want Wikipedia to fall apart. If we want to draw a parallel to Microsoft's monopoly, we could point out how IE was initially a good product but then fell behind the competition. Pushing it on consumers not only hurt consumer choice, but (over time) locked users into a poor experience. But did we really need to carry out a lengthy (and ineffective) anti-trust case? Building a legal case is expensive and highly political. If discovery doesn't uncover evidence of malicious intentions, then one must prove competitors and consumers were harmed. But if the monopoly has been held for so long, how can one prove those damages without resorting to small, expensive, and contrived studies? We should begin to embrace an expectation that the producer of any successful product will eventually become negligent. Protecting consumer choice is not just about fair discovery, but ensuring the diversity needed for markets to evolve (for better or, perhaps in the short term, for worse). Why do we have to go to such effort to show how Google is specifically doing harm? Why can't we say they had their turn, and here are places where they have concentrated marketshare and thus places in need of diversity?

bobajeff 11y ago
Probably because being able to have your monopoly ended by government for no other reason than you're dominant goes against the concept of a free market. The fear I think is such a move would disincentize people from building companies.
scholia 11y ago
> Google is merely behaving negligently For one example, Google started showing results linked to G+ while not showing superior results from Twitter. That looked like an open-and-shut case of Google using its search monopoly to promote one of its own properties to the disadvantage of a rival. I really don't think it counts as negligence... > IE was initially a good product but then fell behind the competition. Pushing it on consumers not only hurt consumer choice, but (over time) locked users into a poor experience. I'm not sure there is a useful analogy with the Google case. However, IE6 was initially a good product and fell behind out of neglect. That was partly because Microsoft didn't do a new browser until it did a new OS, and the new OS -- Vista -- was (a) delayed and then (b) unsuccessful. Mistakes were made, as they say. The point is that Microsoft wasn't "pushing [IE6] on consumers". Microsoft was desperate to get consumers off IE6 and XP, but consumers (and businesses) didn't want to move. Either way, Microsoft's mistakes left the door open for Firefox and, later, Chrome. The anti-trust action didn't solve the problem -- and it didn't help Netscape, which started it. The market solved the problem by creating better browsers.
iribe 11y ago
This reminds me of the EU imposing browser choice on Microsoft's European customers. The result was a larger market share for google in the EU. In the USA, where no choice was mandated, Microsoft push forth bing and as a result, it has ~9% market share and growing. Given the choice, everyone chooses Google. I think Google would be fine with giving users a choice of default maps when searching a location, default reviews, etc. But the EU would not like the outcome and they would come back for more regulation when their intent, to harm google aka knock em down a peg aka "bring diversity" is not met. The fallacy with the EU's position is the notion of 'diversity'. Code word for "let our companies compete better". If the free market doesn't want that, any 'remedy' will in fact harm users. What the EU must do is simply focus on the question, "are consumers harmed". Anything else is begging for problems. EU bureaucrats are not smarter than the market. If EU companies are able to attract the capital and users to them, wonderful. But the fundamental problem is 'attracting capital' to a rigid (and apparently protectionist) market.

bobajeff 11y ago

Probably because being able to have your monopoly ended by government for no other reason than you're dominant goes against the concept of a free market. The fear I think is such a move would disincentize people from building companies.

scholia 11y ago

> Google is merely behaving negligently For one example, Google started showing results linked to G+ while not showing superior results from Twitter. That looked like an open-and-shut case of Google using its search monopoly to promote one of its own properties to the disadvantage of a rival. I really don't think it counts as negligence... > IE was initially a good product but then fell behind the competition. Pushing it on consumers not only hurt consumer choice, but (over time) locked users into a poor experience. I'm not sure there is a useful analogy with the Google case. However, IE6 was initially a good product and fell behind out of neglect. That was partly because Microsoft didn't do a new browser until it did a new OS, and the new OS -- Vista -- was (a) delayed and then (b) unsuccessful. Mistakes were made, as they say. The point is that Microsoft wasn't "pushing [IE6] on consumers". Microsoft was desperate to get consumers off IE6 and XP, but consumers (and businesses) didn't want to move. Either way, Microsoft's mistakes left the door open for Firefox and, later, Chrome. The anti-trust action didn't solve the problem -- and it didn't help Netscape, which started it. The market solved the problem by creating better browsers.

iribe 11y ago

This reminds me of the EU imposing browser choice on Microsoft's European customers. The result was a larger market share for google in the EU. In the USA, where no choice was mandated, Microsoft push forth bing and as a result, it has ~9% market share and growing. Given the choice, everyone chooses Google. I think Google would be fine with giving users a choice of default maps when searching a location, default reviews, etc. But the EU would not like the outcome and they would come back for more regulation when their intent, to harm google aka knock em down a peg aka "bring diversity" is not met. The fallacy with the EU's position is the notion of 'diversity'. Code word for "let our companies compete better". If the free market doesn't want that, any 'remedy' will in fact harm users. What the EU must do is simply focus on the question, "are consumers harmed". Anything else is begging for problems. EU bureaucrats are not smarter than the market. If EU companies are able to attract the capital and users to them, wonderful. But the fundamental problem is 'attracting capital' to a rigid (and apparently protectionist) market.