3 ms·

I don't know a lot about the requirements of these operations; how can the European Union guarantee that each Subgoogle does not agree with the rest to provide

I don't know a lot about the requirements of these operations; how can the European Union guarantee that each Subgoogle does not agree with the rest to provide services to each other that I can't access to? I don't see how they can enforce that any company can be playing a level field against another subgoogle competitor...

justin66 12y ago
That's not what it's really about. It's going to end up being about the fine, which the article suggests could amount to five billion dollars. That buys a lot of limousine tires and office chairs.
- kjjw 12y ago
  What unsubstantiated, loaded dross. Sorry but what point is there in saying what you have? How does progress any discussion at all?
Tyrannosaurs 12y ago
That would be an oligopoly and illegal. They could no more do that than oil companies could (legally) conspire to fix prices.
tomwilde 12y ago
That's the real problem; they don't know what to do about it, but they'll rather do anything instead of nothing. Either it's gonna be a lot of hot air or turn out for the worse. What's funny is that Google already operates as separate legal entities in different European countries (though some countries share one HQ and hence legal identity). How they plan to further "break it up" I can't imagine.
- arethuza 12y ago
  I don't think HQ location has much to do with legal entities - don't you need a local legal entity in a country if you actually have any "operations" there (offices, staff etc.) as you need to comply with local statutory reporting etc.
- rtpg 12y ago
  It says it right there: break the search engine component from the rest of the company. This would mean that Gmail and Yahoo Mail would be on the same playing field if someone searches for "free webmail client". I can't even begin to imagine the engineering nightmare that would be though, especially now that accounts are unified.
- soneil 12y ago
  I don't think the aim is geographic boundaries, but functional boundaries. eg, Google Advertising is the only ad network allowed on Google Search. To use a loose analogy with the Microsoft trials; msft having a monopoly on the desktop wasn't the problem. They earned it. Using that monopoly to create a second monopoly in the browser space, was the issue. Hence the unbundling. In this case, Google having a monopoly in search isn't the problem - again, they've earned it fairly. But using that monopoly to prop up additional monopolies in, eg, advertising, is problematic. I don't think they'll actually try to split Google up. It's so-far sabre rattling, and this decision just ensures they actually have a sabre to rattle. But if, eg, third-party advertisers were allowed to compete with Google on Google's own properties? That'd be interesting.
netheril96 12y ago
If Google is broken into parts, then each parts will be owned and operated by different people, and different people will have different interests. In addition, people generally don't willingly cede their power for the common good. That is why they will probably not cooperate. Of course, your imagined scenario could totally happen. But I think the opposite is more likely.

justin66 12y ago

That's not what it's really about. It's going to end up being about the fine, which the article suggests could amount to five billion dollars. That buys a lot of limousine tires and office chairs.

kjjw 12y ago
What unsubstantiated, loaded dross. Sorry but what point is there in saying what you have? How does progress any discussion at all?

Tyrannosaurs 12y ago

That would be an oligopoly and illegal. They could no more do that than oil companies could (legally) conspire to fix prices.

tomwilde 12y ago

That's the real problem; they don't know what to do about it, but they'll rather do anything instead of nothing. Either it's gonna be a lot of hot air or turn out for the worse. What's funny is that Google already operates as separate legal entities in different European countries (though some countries share one HQ and hence legal identity). How they plan to further "break it up" I can't imagine.

arethuza 12y ago
I don't think HQ location has much to do with legal entities - don't you need a local legal entity in a country if you actually have any "operations" there (offices, staff etc.) as you need to comply with local statutory reporting etc.
rtpg 12y ago
It says it right there: break the search engine component from the rest of the company. This would mean that Gmail and Yahoo Mail would be on the same playing field if someone searches for "free webmail client". I can't even begin to imagine the engineering nightmare that would be though, especially now that accounts are unified.
soneil 12y ago
I don't think the aim is geographic boundaries, but functional boundaries. eg, Google Advertising is the only ad network allowed on Google Search. To use a loose analogy with the Microsoft trials; msft having a monopoly on the desktop wasn't the problem. They earned it. Using that monopoly to create a second monopoly in the browser space, was the issue. Hence the unbundling. In this case, Google having a monopoly in search isn't the problem - again, they've earned it fairly. But using that monopoly to prop up additional monopolies in, eg, advertising, is problematic. I don't think they'll actually try to split Google up. It's so-far sabre rattling, and this decision just ensures they actually have a sabre to rattle. But if, eg, third-party advertisers were allowed to compete with Google on Google's own properties? That'd be interesting.

netheril96 12y ago

If Google is broken into parts, then each parts will be owned and operated by different people, and different people will have different interests. In addition, people generally don't willingly cede their power for the common good. That is why they will probably not cooperate. Of course, your imagined scenario could totally happen. But I think the opposite is more likely.