4 ms·

The problem is not Google. The problem is that the government is unable to get his head around an internet based monopoly. Google shouldnt be allowed to host mo

by modi15 8y ago

The problem is not Google. The problem is that the government is unable to get his head around an internet based monopoly. Google shouldnt be allowed to host more than 50% of searches by law. In any other industry enjoying a monopoly position in search as google has enjoyed all these years would have reason enough to break it up into smaller pieces.

themagician 8y ago
What?! How does that work? How does Google “host” searches? 70% of searches go to Google because 70% of people type in “google”. The other 30% open IE/Edge and use Bing to search for google. Are you suggesting that when someone types in “google.com” it redirect them?
- realusername 8y ago
  The vast majority of browsers are still defaulting to Google, you used almost the only example (IE/Edge) which does not do that.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Microsoft could easily outbid Google to be the primary search engine on iOS and they could pay carriers to make Bing the primary search engines on the Android phones they sell.
    - mrep 8y ago
      Yep, and mozilla makes almost all of its revenue from google by setting the default search engine to google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing I find this funny since Google directly finances a competing browser.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        Neither Firefox nor iOS are “competitors” for Google. Google’s main business is advertising and collecting data. Both Chrome and Android are means to that end. Google wants to be wherever the users are, whether that’s on Android, iOS, Chrome, or Firefox. For years, Google made more money on iOS than Android even after Androids market share eclipsed iOS’s market share.
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      I don't think Google still permits Android phones to select a different default search. They used to, several Verizon phones used to ship with Bing as default, before Google locked it down via the MADA. (And this is true even of Android phones Microsoft sells, if they have the Play Store, which Microsoft's own Android apps depend on, they must follow MADA terms.) They could on iOS, but it's likely outbidding Google would make Bing unprofitable. (Currently, it turns a profit, and has for years.) Satya Nadella doesn't seem to be a big fan of keeping products or services that don't make money on their own, hence his willingness to chop off entire arms of Microsoft's prior strategy.
      - jacksmith21006 8y ago
        It is Google mobile platform and can therefore chose whatever default they want even though they do not force it. Just like on Windows the default search is Bing and default browser Edge just no body uses them because they suck. Bing is even two characters less and still not used. Are we honestly going to penalize a company for creating better products?
  - jacksmith21006 8y ago
    What in the world are you talking about? MS owns Windows the dominate desktop platform. Huge advantage. Yet Google won because their browser and search is so much better. We in Earth would we penalize someone for creating a superior product?
dragonwriter 8y ago
> In any other industry enjoying a monopoly position in search as google has enjoyed all these years would have reason enough to break it up into smaller pieces. No, it wouldn't. Formation of monopolies is not illegal or grounds for breakup. Anticompetitively leveraging market power in one market to monopolize another market is illegal, and a variety of remedies, including breakup, may be available for that.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- modi15 8y ago
  Firstly, It doesnt have to be illegal. Monopolies decrease choice for the customer and hamper innovation. That reason should be good enough and has been good enough in the case of telecom. Secondly, if there is enough competition than why has Google enjoyed overwhelming market share for such a long time ? This doesnt happen in any other industry, not with any other company and definitely not in any industry as lucrative as search ads. Thirdly, Search is critical infrastructure. Google is known to hire lobbyist to supress research unfavourable to it. How do we know that publishers do not self-censor content critical to Google lest they get bumped from search.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Firstly, It doesnt have to be illegal. Yes, in the US, for government to break up a company, there must be something illegal done. > This doesnt happen in any other industry, not with any other company and definitely not in any industry as lucrative as search ads. Clearly, you are posting from an alternative universe where Microsoft, who has held overwhelmingly long-term dominance in at least two different markets significanlty longer than Google has existed (desktop OS and enterprise productivity suite.) > Thirdly, Search is critical infrastructure. If true, that would be a reason for it to be a public utility, not to break a Google. But if we can't even get a consensus that actual internet access should be a public utility, good luck making the case that search is. > How do we know that publishers do not self-censor content critical to Google lest they get bumped from search. In systems with due process, punishments aren't based on “how do we know X is not true”, but instead in “here is the evidence by which we know X is true”.

by modi15 8y ago

themagician 8y ago

What?! How does that work? How does Google “host” searches? 70% of searches go to Google because 70% of people type in “google”. The other 30% open IE/Edge and use Bing to search for google. Are you suggesting that when someone types in “google.com” it redirect them?

realusername 8y ago
The vast majority of browsers are still defaulting to Google, you used almost the only example (IE/Edge) which does not do that.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Microsoft could easily outbid Google to be the primary search engine on iOS and they could pay carriers to make Bing the primary search engines on the Android phones they sell.
  - mrep 8y ago
    Yep, and mozilla makes almost all of its revenue from google by setting the default search engine to google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing I find this funny since Google directly finances a competing browser.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      Neither Firefox nor iOS are “competitors” for Google. Google’s main business is advertising and collecting data. Both Chrome and Android are means to that end. Google wants to be wherever the users are, whether that’s on Android, iOS, Chrome, or Firefox. For years, Google made more money on iOS than Android even after Androids market share eclipsed iOS’s market share.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    I don't think Google still permits Android phones to select a different default search. They used to, several Verizon phones used to ship with Bing as default, before Google locked it down via the MADA. (And this is true even of Android phones Microsoft sells, if they have the Play Store, which Microsoft's own Android apps depend on, they must follow MADA terms.) They could on iOS, but it's likely outbidding Google would make Bing unprofitable. (Currently, it turns a profit, and has for years.) Satya Nadella doesn't seem to be a big fan of keeping products or services that don't make money on their own, hence his willingness to chop off entire arms of Microsoft's prior strategy.
    - jacksmith21006 8y ago
      It is Google mobile platform and can therefore chose whatever default they want even though they do not force it. Just like on Windows the default search is Bing and default browser Edge just no body uses them because they suck. Bing is even two characters less and still not used. Are we honestly going to penalize a company for creating better products?
- jacksmith21006 8y ago
  What in the world are you talking about? MS owns Windows the dominate desktop platform. Huge advantage. Yet Google won because their browser and search is so much better. We in Earth would we penalize someone for creating a superior product?

dragonwriter 8y ago

> In any other industry enjoying a monopoly position in search as google has enjoyed all these years would have reason enough to break it up into smaller pieces. No, it wouldn't. Formation of monopolies is not illegal or grounds for breakup. Anticompetitively leveraging market power in one market to monopolize another market is illegal, and a variety of remedies, including breakup, may be available for that.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
modi15 8y ago
Firstly, It doesnt have to be illegal. Monopolies decrease choice for the customer and hamper innovation. That reason should be good enough and has been good enough in the case of telecom. Secondly, if there is enough competition than why has Google enjoyed overwhelming market share for such a long time ? This doesnt happen in any other industry, not with any other company and definitely not in any industry as lucrative as search ads. Thirdly, Search is critical infrastructure. Google is known to hire lobbyist to supress research unfavourable to it. How do we know that publishers do not self-censor content critical to Google lest they get bumped from search.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Firstly, It doesnt have to be illegal. Yes, in the US, for government to break up a company, there must be something illegal done. > This doesnt happen in any other industry, not with any other company and definitely not in any industry as lucrative as search ads. Clearly, you are posting from an alternative universe where Microsoft, who has held overwhelmingly long-term dominance in at least two different markets significanlty longer than Google has existed (desktop OS and enterprise productivity suite.) > Thirdly, Search is critical infrastructure. If true, that would be a reason for it to be a public utility, not to break a Google. But if we can't even get a consensus that actual internet access should be a public utility, good luck making the case that search is. > How do we know that publishers do not self-censor content critical to Google lest they get bumped from search. In systems with due process, punishments aren't based on “how do we know X is not true”, but instead in “here is the evidence by which we know X is true”.