4 ms·

On the one hand, Google using it's app store advantage to strengthen search seems to me like it might be a monopoly abuse. On the other hand, Google gave away

On the one hand, Google using it's app store advantage to strengthen search seems to me like it might be a monopoly abuse. On the other hand, Google gave away an OS and built a whole ecosystem to protect their search (to the benefit of consumers). Consumers are actually winning from the arrangement (and aren't anti-trust laws supposed to protect consumers?). The losers are corporations that are less generous and less innovative than Google. Since I'm a consumer, and not Yandex or Microsoft, I'm cheering for Google.

outside1234 11y ago
The problem with that is that it is a self perpetuating cycle and that the current situation is only better for consumers in the short run. Google is better because they have more data from consumers, which gets them more installs, which makes them better. It would be better in the long run for consumers if there is a real credible second source of search, since it keeps both parties honest and competing on the quality of the results -- and stuff like pushing your own sites doesn't start to creep in.
- thedevil 11y ago
  In theory, I agree with you. Everything I know about economics and organizational behavior seems to agree with you. But it seems that's not how it's worked out in the past ten years, and probably not how it will work out in the next ten years. Google's incredible pace of innovation has not apparently been slowed by lack of powerful competition.
- sangnoir 11y ago
  > The problem with that is that it is a self perpetuating cycle and that the current situation is only better for consumers in the short run The "short run" is typically the scope relevant to laws and regulations, for good or for bad.
cscurmudgeon 11y ago
> Since I'm a consumer, and not Yandex or Microsoft, I'm cheering for Google. Monopolies are only good for the consumer in the short term and good for only the monopolist in the long term. The same situation played out a 100 years or so back with Standard Oil.
- icebraining 11y ago
  The same situation played out a 100 years or so back with Standard Oil. Good example. In 1904, Standard Oil controlled 85%-90% of the market. By the time the lawsuit was filed, mere two years later, they had already lost 15% of that, and by the time it was concluded, they only controlled 64%, due the the 147 competitors that were eating their business. Also, there no evidence that they actually raised prices to the consumer.
Zigurd 11y ago
I'm cheering-ish for Google. I believe they've done things in good faith and even with an affirmative goal of fairness. It's fair to have to choose between making Google logo devices and making devices that support other ecosystems. Google has to balance openness against keeping OEMs that are not good for the ecosystem from polluting it. But they may have pushed too far with Google Play Services. GPS has many benefits in terms of being able to update older devices, but it also makes it more difficult to sell a non-Google-logo product because you have to duplicate much of what's in GPS for it to be viable. Hopefully the result will be to add the platform-oriented features of GPS to AOSP or another open source project. A worse outcome would be to have Google required to enable uglier forks of Android that also carry Google Play Services and Google's proprietary app suite.
flinty 11y ago
American Anti trust laws are present to protect consumers. European anti trust laws are present to protect competitors.
on_and_off 10y ago
Also, some of the things they are pushing are genuine additions to search : -when I type weather, a weather card is all I want, I don't actually want to visit a weather site. -age/height/birthdate of [name] -> all I want is the info card .

outside1234 11y ago

The problem with that is that it is a self perpetuating cycle and that the current situation is only better for consumers in the short run. Google is better because they have more data from consumers, which gets them more installs, which makes them better. It would be better in the long run for consumers if there is a real credible second source of search, since it keeps both parties honest and competing on the quality of the results -- and stuff like pushing your own sites doesn't start to creep in.

thedevil 11y ago
In theory, I agree with you. Everything I know about economics and organizational behavior seems to agree with you. But it seems that's not how it's worked out in the past ten years, and probably not how it will work out in the next ten years. Google's incredible pace of innovation has not apparently been slowed by lack of powerful competition.
sangnoir 11y ago
> The problem with that is that it is a self perpetuating cycle and that the current situation is only better for consumers in the short run The "short run" is typically the scope relevant to laws and regulations, for good or for bad.

cscurmudgeon 11y ago

> Since I'm a consumer, and not Yandex or Microsoft, I'm cheering for Google. Monopolies are only good for the consumer in the short term and good for only the monopolist in the long term. The same situation played out a 100 years or so back with Standard Oil.

icebraining 11y ago
The same situation played out a 100 years or so back with Standard Oil. Good example. In 1904, Standard Oil controlled 85%-90% of the market. By the time the lawsuit was filed, mere two years later, they had already lost 15% of that, and by the time it was concluded, they only controlled 64%, due the the 147 competitors that were eating their business. Also, there no evidence that they actually raised prices to the consumer.

Zigurd 11y ago

I'm cheering-ish for Google. I believe they've done things in good faith and even with an affirmative goal of fairness. It's fair to have to choose between making Google logo devices and making devices that support other ecosystems. Google has to balance openness against keeping OEMs that are not good for the ecosystem from polluting it. But they may have pushed too far with Google Play Services. GPS has many benefits in terms of being able to update older devices, but it also makes it more difficult to sell a non-Google-logo product because you have to duplicate much of what's in GPS for it to be viable. Hopefully the result will be to add the platform-oriented features of GPS to AOSP or another open source project. A worse outcome would be to have Google required to enable uglier forks of Android that also carry Google Play Services and Google's proprietary app suite.

flinty 11y ago

American Anti trust laws are present to protect consumers. European anti trust laws are present to protect competitors.

on_and_off 10y ago

Also, some of the things they are pushing are genuine additions to search : -when I type weather, a weather card is all I want, I don't actually want to visit a weather site. -age/height/birthdate of [name] -> all I want is the info card .