5 ms·

I can't imaging they would do that intentionally and on their own will. It's too obvious and just provides more arguments for the anti-trust complaint.

quickben 10y ago
What, like this one? http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/19/google-could-face-3-separate-antitrust-cases-eu-competition-chief.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/19/google-could-face-3-separate-...
ubernostrum 10y ago
Google has already been getting away with giving unfair priority and treatment to their own properties for years. Why not take the next step and just start outright hiding competitors?
- frogpelt 10y ago
  Google is not required to provide you search results. And they should be expected to market their own products. To expect otherwise is foolish.
  - cooper12 10y ago
    It's a different story when they're the most popular search engine. They have the power to control what others see and unfairly prioritizing their services disadvantages competitors, a big no-no for such a big company like Google. Also, to many people, Google is the internet. Everyone I know just types stuff into the search bar to get where they want to go, not foo.com. If you don't show up in the first page of the Google search results, you don't exist.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    > Google is not required to provide you search results. Yes, they are, if they want to access the market at all, they have to provide results to everyone, and can’t discriminate. > And they should be expected to market their own products. No. They have > 90% of the market, which is used by > 50% of the population, meaning they’re automatically a public utility, and can not provide any positive or negative discrimination to their own or other services. Any treatment has to be completely fair and equal, and if their own services can get integration, so any competitors have to be able to do. (For a fair price, of course).
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      >they’re automatically a public utility // Is that your assertion or is that through legislation where you are (which is where?)? Thanks.
      - kuschku 10y ago
        The laws do not directly express the definition "public utility", but the very same restrictions and regulations, and their creators specified that this was the intent.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    US antitrust law has some things to say about using a dominant position in one market to forcibly create a dominant position in another market, y'know.

quickben 10y ago

What, like this one? http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/19/google-could-face-3-separate-antitrust-cases-eu-competition-chief.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/19/google-could-face-3-separate-...

ubernostrum 10y ago

Google has already been getting away with giving unfair priority and treatment to their own properties for years. Why not take the next step and just start outright hiding competitors?

frogpelt 10y ago
Google is not required to provide you search results. And they should be expected to market their own products. To expect otherwise is foolish.
- cooper12 10y ago
  It's a different story when they're the most popular search engine. They have the power to control what others see and unfairly prioritizing their services disadvantages competitors, a big no-no for such a big company like Google. Also, to many people, Google is the internet. Everyone I know just types stuff into the search bar to get where they want to go, not foo.com. If you don't show up in the first page of the Google search results, you don't exist.
- kuschku 10y ago
  > Google is not required to provide you search results. Yes, they are, if they want to access the market at all, they have to provide results to everyone, and can’t discriminate. > And they should be expected to market their own products. No. They have > 90% of the market, which is used by > 50% of the population, meaning they’re automatically a public utility, and can not provide any positive or negative discrimination to their own or other services. Any treatment has to be completely fair and equal, and if their own services can get integration, so any competitors have to be able to do. (For a fair price, of course).
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >they’re automatically a public utility // Is that your assertion or is that through legislation where you are (which is where?)? Thanks.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      The laws do not directly express the definition "public utility", but the very same restrictions and regulations, and their creators specified that this was the intent.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  US antitrust law has some things to say about using a dominant position in one market to forcibly create a dominant position in another market, y'know.