4 ms·
The article mentions that the real focus of anticompetitive behaviour in Google's case should be the acquisition or integration of additional aggregators. In th
by jcfrei 6y ago
The article mentions that the real focus of anticompetitive behaviour in Google's case should be the acquisition or integration of additional aggregators. In this case the Android app store. I think one of the most blatant anticompetitive behaviours is how Google has integrated the play store framework into lots of applications which means disabling it breaks them (or causes apps to show warning notifications). At the same time privacy features for apps themselves keep increasing limiting the possibility for new entrants to collect data on consumer behaviour. This gives Google itself an unfair advantage - which is entirely unrelated to the quality of their service (in this case the play store). This I believe should be the main focus of this DOJ lawsuit.
- mjevans 6y agoGoogle's search results are probably (I speculate for lack of data) as good as they are because of all of the privacy problems. Surely Google either knows who I am, or has cross referenced my interests over the years to similar individuals. Google also knows my emails. On mobile Google probably knows my GPS position, and anything with a maps context benefits from that. == The search has a lot of implicit input that, apart from just the keywords alone which would still be problematic enough from a privacy standpoint, would be insanely consumer harming to share at all.
- mjevans 6y agoI as a consumer find value in the quality of Google's results and consider that the bigger harm is probably worsening this index on the repository of all knowledge we know. Therefore as competition in this space is naturally limited I would rather see a third option than status quo or break-up; recognition as a natural monopoly and regulations to benefit consumers.