4 ms·

You are completely wrong. Apple has a small market share, so it doesn't matter that they abuse it by disallowing e.g rival browsers and certain apps. It sucks,

by blub 12y ago

You are completely wrong. Apple has a small market share, so it doesn't matter that they abuse it by disallowing e.g rival browsers and certain apps. It sucks, but one can use Android without too many headaches. But Google search is more like a public utility than a service. It has extreme market penetration which they abuse for various reasons like prime placing for their own products. And that not only hurts competitors but in the end also consumers which will end up with only one option for maps, video sharing, etc. And hypothetically speaking, at this point Google could just shove whatever they want down their throats and tell them to deal with it. Oh wait they already did that with Google+

DannyBee 12y ago
"It has extreme market penetration which they abuse for various reasons like prime placing for their own products. And that not only hurts competitors but in the end also consumers which will end up with only one option for maps, video sharing, etc." Assuming they did prime place their own products, this is not a recognized antitrust harm (it is not bundling or tying, despite random claims on HN).
- blub 12y ago
  The fact that the bits are shipped on a CD or downloaded as a webpage should not make a difference. Google gives its own services a major advantage while burying the competition. Harmful indeed.
- everydaypanos 12y ago
  lol. Assuming Google did this is illegal and unethical in every way since Google does no evil. 90% market share + hiding competitor sites to eg Google Places is punishable by EXISTING EU law.
- gress 12y ago
  Assuming you're right and it's not a recognized antitrust harm, what's your opinion of it? Do you think it's ethical or good for society simply because it hasn't yet been ruled illegal?
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    If you want to base this on "good for society" or "ethical", i don't suspect you'll actually get anywhere in terms of coming to a conclusion. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. My opinion on things related to competition/antitrust are based mainly on evolution of law and economic viewpoints. Basically, over the past hundred years, courts have moved away from (and economists have strongly supported) declaring these kinds of things as "per-se" illegal precisely because evidence has not shown that you can simply point at them and say "yeah, this hurts competition" or "yeah, this hurts consumers", despite what one may think. In some cases, this evolution of law/economy has pretty clearly turned out bad for consumers price-wise (with the return of folks requiring retailers to sell at certain minimum prices). In some cases it hasn't. This particular thing, hard to say.
    - gress 12y ago
      I know there are reasonable arguments on both sides - I'm really wanting to understand your personal view. It sounds as though you might think that ideas about ethics or good societies are things you prefer not to hold a view on given the quotes. The second part of your comment only mentioned prices as a factor in terms of what is good or bad for 'consumers'. I realize that you leave room for other ideas of what is good or bad, but in lieu of mentioning anything else, it seems as though this is all you are willing to put forward as a criterion. I guess I understand a little more about your perspective, but not much.
      - DannyBee 12y ago
        I don't really have a personal view on the ethics or societal good, to be honest. I try not to hold uninformed views, and i haven't had the time or honestly, desire, to do the research into history necessary to have an informed one. Truthfully, this kind of stuff is only tangentially interesting to me: Companies without physical resource monopolies (ie oil, diamonds, whatever) tend to come and go despite all efforts to the contrary. I don't expect Google, Facebook, or anyone else will be any different.
snuxoll 12y ago
> And hypothetically speaking, at this point Google could just shove whatever they want down their throats and tell them to deal with it. Or the new GMail app on the Lollipop ROM for my Nexus 5. My email address was originally on Google Apps. I switched to Windows Phone from my Palm Pre in 2011 and they discontinued Exchange ActiveSync support shortly thereafter, so I moved everything over to Windows Live Domains, keeping my Google Apps login as my Google account. I recently took a foray to Android in June and picked up the Nexus 5 I'm currently using, and I had no issues setting up my now Outlook.com account (same email address I used for my Google account) in the stock AOSP email app, I removed GMail and there was no trace of my no longer used Google Apps services on my device. Now with Lollipop, I always see two email accounts, one of which is the Google Apps account that no longer has email routed to it but I have no way to hide, and since it shares the same address getting my Outlook.com account added was a pain in the ass (it errored saying I cannot add multiple accounts with the same email address, had to use my @outlook.com alias). Google used its search monopoly to wedge its way into other areas, the two big ones being email (I see way more active @gmail.com users than I do @yahoo.com or @hotmail.com/@outlook.com and ISP emails today) and online video (youtube). They then used these markets to push their way into the mobile space, which now has the opposite effect (their mobile OS is pushing people into using Google services exclusively). Both iOS and Windows Phone use their own account systems (Apple ID and Microsoft Account respectively) to provide access to platform-specific services (Store, Synchronization, etc) but both allow users to sign up without requiring they create an email account with them, and both platforms have easy setup for the wealth of other email/calendar/contact sync services most people use. Honestly, anyone who DOESN'T see Google abusing their monopoly position to prevent or at least actively discourage people from using competitive services is lying to themselves.

by blub 12y ago

DannyBee 12y ago

"It has extreme market penetration which they abuse for various reasons like prime placing for their own products. And that not only hurts competitors but in the end also consumers which will end up with only one option for maps, video sharing, etc." Assuming they did prime place their own products, this is not a recognized antitrust harm (it is not bundling or tying, despite random claims on HN).

blub 12y ago
The fact that the bits are shipped on a CD or downloaded as a webpage should not make a difference. Google gives its own services a major advantage while burying the competition. Harmful indeed.
everydaypanos 12y ago
lol. Assuming Google did this is illegal and unethical in every way since Google does no evil. 90% market share + hiding competitor sites to eg Google Places is punishable by EXISTING EU law.
gress 12y ago
Assuming you're right and it's not a recognized antitrust harm, what's your opinion of it? Do you think it's ethical or good for society simply because it hasn't yet been ruled illegal?
- DannyBee 12y ago
  If you want to base this on "good for society" or "ethical", i don't suspect you'll actually get anywhere in terms of coming to a conclusion. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. My opinion on things related to competition/antitrust are based mainly on evolution of law and economic viewpoints. Basically, over the past hundred years, courts have moved away from (and economists have strongly supported) declaring these kinds of things as "per-se" illegal precisely because evidence has not shown that you can simply point at them and say "yeah, this hurts competition" or "yeah, this hurts consumers", despite what one may think. In some cases, this evolution of law/economy has pretty clearly turned out bad for consumers price-wise (with the return of folks requiring retailers to sell at certain minimum prices). In some cases it hasn't. This particular thing, hard to say.
  - gress 12y ago
    I know there are reasonable arguments on both sides - I'm really wanting to understand your personal view. It sounds as though you might think that ideas about ethics or good societies are things you prefer not to hold a view on given the quotes. The second part of your comment only mentioned prices as a factor in terms of what is good or bad for 'consumers'. I realize that you leave room for other ideas of what is good or bad, but in lieu of mentioning anything else, it seems as though this is all you are willing to put forward as a criterion. I guess I understand a little more about your perspective, but not much.
    - DannyBee 12y ago
      I don't really have a personal view on the ethics or societal good, to be honest. I try not to hold uninformed views, and i haven't had the time or honestly, desire, to do the research into history necessary to have an informed one. Truthfully, this kind of stuff is only tangentially interesting to me: Companies without physical resource monopolies (ie oil, diamonds, whatever) tend to come and go despite all efforts to the contrary. I don't expect Google, Facebook, or anyone else will be any different.

snuxoll 12y ago

> And hypothetically speaking, at this point Google could just shove whatever they want down their throats and tell them to deal with it. Or the new GMail app on the Lollipop ROM for my Nexus 5. My email address was originally on Google Apps. I switched to Windows Phone from my Palm Pre in 2011 and they discontinued Exchange ActiveSync support shortly thereafter, so I moved everything over to Windows Live Domains, keeping my Google Apps login as my Google account. I recently took a foray to Android in June and picked up the Nexus 5 I'm currently using, and I had no issues setting up my now Outlook.com account (same email address I used for my Google account) in the stock AOSP email app, I removed GMail and there was no trace of my no longer used Google Apps services on my device. Now with Lollipop, I always see two email accounts, one of which is the Google Apps account that no longer has email routed to it but I have no way to hide, and since it shares the same address getting my Outlook.com account added was a pain in the ass (it errored saying I cannot add multiple accounts with the same email address, had to use my @outlook.com alias). Google used its search monopoly to wedge its way into other areas, the two big ones being email (I see way more active @gmail.com users than I do @yahoo.com or @hotmail.com/@outlook.com and ISP emails today) and online video (youtube). They then used these markets to push their way into the mobile space, which now has the opposite effect (their mobile OS is pushing people into using Google services exclusively). Both iOS and Windows Phone use their own account systems (Apple ID and Microsoft Account respectively) to provide access to platform-specific services (Store, Synchronization, etc) but both allow users to sign up without requiring they create an email account with them, and both platforms have easy setup for the wealth of other email/calendar/contact sync services most people use. Honestly, anyone who DOESN'T see Google abusing their monopoly position to prevent or at least actively discourage people from using competitive services is lying to themselves.