3 ms·

Other options are available and are good enough BUT people aren't using those other options. I mean an average guy doesn't even know about DDG and some educated

Other options are available and are good enough BUT people aren't using those other options. I mean an average guy doesn't even know about DDG and some educated guys do know about Bing but don't bother to use it. In real world, Google is synonymous with search. I don't have the data available right now but I believe more than 70% Aussies are using Google. That is almost a monopoly.

filoleg 6y ago
>Other options are available and are good enough BUT people aren't using those other option People choosing to not use other options that are easily available doesn't seem like something that should qualify Google as a monopoly that needs to be broken up (am not a lawyer, just a disclaimer). Like, what is Google supposed to do here? Make their own search engine worse, so that users are incentivized to switch? Show people ads, recommending them to use competing search engines? Mind you, I am not alleging that Google is not a monopoly or that it shouldn't be broken up. There could be other things that could qualify them for that, like bundling of Google Search as the default search engine with Chrome, semi-mandatory nature of Play Store on android just to be able to use google apps, etc. However, just the sheer fact alone that most people prefer to use Google search (when there are plenty of easily available alternatives out there that the general public isn't willing to look into) shouldn't be valid grounds for an anti-monopoly lawsuit.
- viraptor 6y ago
  > what is Google supposed to do here? We've seen this with MS already. Install Chrome - get either a random search engine assigned, or a randomised-order choice box.
  - filoleg 6y ago
    Not arguing with you about this one, because I am trying to understand what you meant by "seen this with MS already" first. What did MS do? Asking because when you open the new Microsoft Edge browser, Bing is the default search engine.
    - viraptor 6y ago
      I mean the browser antitrust case that forced IE alternatives years ago: https://www.news.com.au/technology/microsoft-windows-forced-to-offer-12-browsers-as-eu-antitrust-case-ends/news-story/6369c947f9e7585c0f4b54fc0735d565 https://www.news.com.au/technology/microsoft-windows-forced-... This could be applied to the default search engine in Chrome (since it's Google owned as well)
      - filoleg 6y ago
        I read the article in your link with the ruling regarding IE. All Microsoft had to do as the result was to offer a default browser choice screen during the installation experience for Windows OS (with IE still being there), and only in select 27 EU countries + 3 Scandinavian countries. And on top of that, they don't have to do it anymore either, and MSFT is able to have (and actually does have) IE set as the default browser in EU again since late 2014 [0]. Which eventually transformed into Edge as the default browser, but you get the idea. 0.https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather/microsoft-no-longer-needs-remind-151402711.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather/microsoft-no-longer-needs...

filoleg 6y ago

>Other options are available and are good enough BUT people aren't using those other option People choosing to not use other options that are easily available doesn't seem like something that should qualify Google as a monopoly that needs to be broken up (am not a lawyer, just a disclaimer). Like, what is Google supposed to do here? Make their own search engine worse, so that users are incentivized to switch? Show people ads, recommending them to use competing search engines? Mind you, I am not alleging that Google is not a monopoly or that it shouldn't be broken up. There could be other things that could qualify them for that, like bundling of Google Search as the default search engine with Chrome, semi-mandatory nature of Play Store on android just to be able to use google apps, etc. However, just the sheer fact alone that most people prefer to use Google search (when there are plenty of easily available alternatives out there that the general public isn't willing to look into) shouldn't be valid grounds for an anti-monopoly lawsuit.

viraptor 6y ago
> what is Google supposed to do here? We've seen this with MS already. Install Chrome - get either a random search engine assigned, or a randomised-order choice box.
- filoleg 6y ago
  Not arguing with you about this one, because I am trying to understand what you meant by "seen this with MS already" first. What did MS do? Asking because when you open the new Microsoft Edge browser, Bing is the default search engine.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    I mean the browser antitrust case that forced IE alternatives years ago: https://www.news.com.au/technology/microsoft-windows-forced-to-offer-12-browsers-as-eu-antitrust-case-ends/news-story/6369c947f9e7585c0f4b54fc0735d565 https://www.news.com.au/technology/microsoft-windows-forced-... This could be applied to the default search engine in Chrome (since it's Google owned as well)
    - filoleg 6y ago
      I read the article in your link with the ruling regarding IE. All Microsoft had to do as the result was to offer a default browser choice screen during the installation experience for Windows OS (with IE still being there), and only in select 27 EU countries + 3 Scandinavian countries. And on top of that, they don't have to do it anymore either, and MSFT is able to have (and actually does have) IE set as the default browser in EU again since late 2014 [0]. Which eventually transformed into Edge as the default browser, but you get the idea. 0.https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather/microsoft-no-longer-needs-remind-151402711.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather/microsoft-no-longer-needs...