4 ms·

This brought back memories of the browser wars. Back then it was "Should Microsoft be allowed to use its control of the desktop to bundle Internet Explorer with

by theoj 15y ago

This brought back memories of the browser wars. Back then it was "Should Microsoft be allowed to use its control of the desktop to bundle Internet Explorer with Windows?" Now it's "Should Google be allowed to use its control of search to bundle Google+ data with search results?"

yanw 15y ago
No it doesn't, it's not bundling if both products are free and it's not bundling when you don't actually own any of them. There are important nuances between the two cases that some people choose to overlook.
- theoj 15y ago
  >> it's not bundling when you don't actually own any of them In legal terms you don't own Windows either - MS gives you a license to use it.
  - yanw 15y ago
    Which you pay for. If money doesn't change hands no contract is made thus no contract will be broken.
    - landhar 15y ago
      Since when money changing hands is the sine qua non of contracts ?
      - yanw 15y ago
        IANAL so I'm just speculating that if you don't pay for a service you can't claim that you're owed anything, in this case those being freely indexed by Google feeling that they are entitled to a placement in search results.
- EGreg 15y ago
  I think the culture has simply shifted (in the tech world, that happens quickly). Apple bundles Safari with its OS, yet no one cries foul. Yet when Microsoft did this 10 year ago it was investigated for antitrust. The question is, can you use your ownership of the platform to destroy competitors of apps on that platform? When does it cross into "monopoly"? I have no idea. It seems fair to me that the creator of a platform should be able to introduce new applications and place them in a preferred spot for all to see (e.g. facebook's own apps). As long as this was clear to everyone from the beginning. However, strong-arming OEMs and others into specifically doing anti-competitive things on your behalf is probably wrong.

by theoj 15y ago

yanw 15y ago

No it doesn't, it's not bundling if both products are free and it's not bundling when you don't actually own any of them. There are important nuances between the two cases that some people choose to overlook.

theoj 15y ago
>> it's not bundling when you don't actually own any of them In legal terms you don't own Windows either - MS gives you a license to use it.
- yanw 15y ago
  Which you pay for. If money doesn't change hands no contract is made thus no contract will be broken.
  - landhar 15y ago
    Since when money changing hands is the sine qua non of contracts ?
    - yanw 15y ago
      IANAL so I'm just speculating that if you don't pay for a service you can't claim that you're owed anything, in this case those being freely indexed by Google feeling that they are entitled to a placement in search results.
EGreg 15y ago
I think the culture has simply shifted (in the tech world, that happens quickly). Apple bundles Safari with its OS, yet no one cries foul. Yet when Microsoft did this 10 year ago it was investigated for antitrust. The question is, can you use your ownership of the platform to destroy competitors of apps on that platform? When does it cross into "monopoly"? I have no idea. It seems fair to me that the creator of a platform should be able to introduce new applications and place them in a preferred spot for all to see (e.g. facebook's own apps). As long as this was clear to everyone from the beginning. However, strong-arming OEMs and others into specifically doing anti-competitive things on your behalf is probably wrong.