3 ms·
The article really misses the point that the agreements are anti-competitive behavior. We can allow Google to naturally dominate search if it truly can, while
by daft_pink 3y ago
The article really misses the point that the agreements are anti-competitive behavior.
We can allow Google to naturally dominate search if it truly can, while still restricting anti-competitive behavior and if that doesn't work you can simply break Google into parts so one company isn't dominating so many search (Google)/video (Youtube)/phones(Android)/browser(Chrome). It's what they did with the phone companies before.
I'm not saying that this is what should happen. I'm just saying the article really misses the issues and what suggested remedies there could be.
- tantalor 3y ago> the agreements are anti-competitive Can you elaborate? The article shows that Yahoo outbid Google for the default in Firefox. So the evidence shows companies are competing for these agreements.
- daft_pink 3y agoExclusivity agreements are a form of anti-competitive behavior, because they are paying to deny their competitors access. Your turning the whole thing on it's head by saying they are competing for the exclusive contract. The competition is for one search engine to be better than another search engine and the user chooses the best. It's not for vendors to compete to limit other vendors access to the market.