6 ms·

I'm surprised there haven't been more lawsuits like this. I expect we'll see more suits like this, plus some about bundling of Chrome, and even about making Goo

by podgib 12y ago

I'm surprised there haven't been more lawsuits like this. I expect we'll see more suits like this, plus some about bundling of Chrome, and even about making Google the default search engine in Chrome.

daddykotex 12y ago
What I can't understand from this is why would there be a lawsuit about the default search engine in a browser built by a search engine company? If you install Google Chrome, you do it voluntarily. It's not like the browser was forced up on you. I do understand why they sue for Android issue, as it is quite hard to find a good phone, running Android, that is not bundled with all the Google services.
- anon1385 12y ago
  >If you install Google Chrome, you do it voluntarily. Maybe you downloaded some software that also bundled Chrome by default: http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-chrome-bundled-with-realplayer/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-chrome-bundled-with-real...
- thesehands 12y ago
  Android is still an O/S built by a search engine company. If a phone manufacturer isn't making a build specific to their device and using the 'vanilla' version provided by Google then it is the device maker limiting free choice of search engine by using a limited O/S. Google should not be forced to cater for lazy manucfacturers.
- task_queue 12y ago
  Chrome came bundled and set as the default browser on my phone.
  - daddykotex 12y ago
    I guess it's a manufacturing decisions because it didn't on my Nexus 5, or I'm just lucky :P
    - task_queue 12y ago
      Nexus 7 doesn't even have the default Browser application installed. It's Chrome and only Chrome.
      - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        Heck, the original Nexus 7 even includes a "join Google+" step in it's initial device setup. o_o
- blumkvist 12y ago
  Why was Microsoft split in two? Same fate will catch Google. Unfortunately for them, they are a one-trick pony, which tries to play everywhere and all the other circus animals hate it for it. Vertical apps are challenging google search in a serious way and this trend will only continue. Microsoft will seriously challenge search with win10 too. Both on the desktop and mobile. Display is facebook's turf and this will only continue too. Cloud is not a feasable option for Google to compete in. Home automation seems kinda desperate. Google effectively has not competed ever for anything. Also, their leadership has a track record for sinking companies with poor partner relations. The once mighty google doesn't seem so invulnerable now.
  - Oletros 12y ago
    Microsoft splited in two? It says a lot of the rest of your message
- legohead 12y ago
  Chrome comes pre-installed as of 4.1 -- so with that mind, it is anti-competitive. MS got in big trouble for doing pretty much the same thing. I don't think the old browser is even available on the newer versions.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Chrome comes pre-installed as of 4.1 -- so with that mind, it is anti-competitive. MS got in big trouble for doing pretty much the same thing. No, they didn't. Bundling IE with Windows was one component of a wider pattern of behavior which, as a whole, Microsoft got in trouble for. They didn't get in trouble for pre-installing IE alone.
    - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
      Behavior which Google also practices?
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Behavior which Google also practices? If you want to make that case, comparing the actual basis of the MS antitrust case to behavior you can show Google engaging in, feel free.
        ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        Well, in addition to the actual basis of the case indeed being "tying" with regards to Internet Explorer, whether you like it or not, being tame compared to Google's voracity for the same behavior, forcing 20 apps to be tied on Android devices. They do indeed form restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs. Through the MARA, anyone who dares create an Android device that doesn't have Google's blessing is permanently cut off from Google services. Google's APIs no doubt favor their own services over competitors, where many features of synergistic behavior between services exist which are not represented in their public API. And Google has absolute intent on continuing these practices. New marketing campaigns and shilled blog articles regularly advertise about the brilliance of their current direction, and they continue to add more and more restrictions on OEMs with every passing year. (Using "Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct." from the Wikipedia article as a source for the other parts of the Microsoft case. Note the article clearly defines the IE tying issue as the principal claim.)
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
>I'm surprised there haven't been more lawsuits like this. Why? Attacking Microsoft in the 90s didn't make Netscape financially viable ($40 for a browser?), didn't fix Windows, didn't make the web better, and didn't do anything but guarantee an IE6-like wasteland as motivation to innovate was destroyed by the DOJ. The deal MS cut with the DOJ lead to OEM empowerment, thus guaranteeing that the laptop you buy is full of crapware. EU-like policies of "browser pickers" are asinine annoyanceware that help no one and confuse non-techies. I think this nerd friendly activism about browser choice is positively anachronistic. I mean, this like clamoring for zip choice or image viewer choice. Those ships have long sailed. Browsers are boring commodities. End users who want a different one can get one trivially.

by podgib 12y ago

daddykotex 12y ago

What I can't understand from this is why would there be a lawsuit about the default search engine in a browser built by a search engine company? If you install Google Chrome, you do it voluntarily. It's not like the browser was forced up on you. I do understand why they sue for Android issue, as it is quite hard to find a good phone, running Android, that is not bundled with all the Google services.

anon1385 12y ago
>If you install Google Chrome, you do it voluntarily. Maybe you downloaded some software that also bundled Chrome by default: http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-chrome-bundled-with-realplayer/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/google-chrome-bundled-with-real...
thesehands 12y ago
Android is still an O/S built by a search engine company. If a phone manufacturer isn't making a build specific to their device and using the 'vanilla' version provided by Google then it is the device maker limiting free choice of search engine by using a limited O/S. Google should not be forced to cater for lazy manucfacturers.
task_queue 12y ago
Chrome came bundled and set as the default browser on my phone.
- daddykotex 12y ago
  I guess it's a manufacturing decisions because it didn't on my Nexus 5, or I'm just lucky :P
  - task_queue 12y ago
    Nexus 7 doesn't even have the default Browser application installed. It's Chrome and only Chrome.
    - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
      Heck, the original Nexus 7 even includes a "join Google+" step in it's initial device setup. o_o
blumkvist 12y ago
Why was Microsoft split in two? Same fate will catch Google. Unfortunately for them, they are a one-trick pony, which tries to play everywhere and all the other circus animals hate it for it. Vertical apps are challenging google search in a serious way and this trend will only continue. Microsoft will seriously challenge search with win10 too. Both on the desktop and mobile. Display is facebook's turf and this will only continue too. Cloud is not a feasable option for Google to compete in. Home automation seems kinda desperate. Google effectively has not competed ever for anything. Also, their leadership has a track record for sinking companies with poor partner relations. The once mighty google doesn't seem so invulnerable now.
- Oletros 12y ago
  Microsoft splited in two? It says a lot of the rest of your message
legohead 12y ago
Chrome comes pre-installed as of 4.1 -- so with that mind, it is anti-competitive. MS got in big trouble for doing pretty much the same thing. I don't think the old browser is even available on the newer versions.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Chrome comes pre-installed as of 4.1 -- so with that mind, it is anti-competitive. MS got in big trouble for doing pretty much the same thing. No, they didn't. Bundling IE with Windows was one component of a wider pattern of behavior which, as a whole, Microsoft got in trouble for. They didn't get in trouble for pre-installing IE alone.
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    Behavior which Google also practices?
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Behavior which Google also practices? If you want to make that case, comparing the actual basis of the MS antitrust case to behavior you can show Google engaging in, feel free.
      - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
        Well, in addition to the actual basis of the case indeed being "tying" with regards to Internet Explorer, whether you like it or not, being tame compared to Google's voracity for the same behavior, forcing 20 apps to be tied on Android devices. They do indeed form restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs. Through the MARA, anyone who dares create an Android device that doesn't have Google's blessing is permanently cut off from Google services. Google's APIs no doubt favor their own services over competitors, where many features of synergistic behavior between services exist which are not represented in their public API. And Google has absolute intent on continuing these practices. New marketing campaigns and shilled blog articles regularly advertise about the brilliance of their current direction, and they continue to add more and more restrictions on OEMs with every passing year. (Using "Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct." from the Wikipedia article as a source for the other parts of the Microsoft case. Note the article clearly defines the IE tying issue as the principal claim.)

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

>I'm surprised there haven't been more lawsuits like this. Why? Attacking Microsoft in the 90s didn't make Netscape financially viable ($40 for a browser?), didn't fix Windows, didn't make the web better, and didn't do anything but guarantee an IE6-like wasteland as motivation to innovate was destroyed by the DOJ. The deal MS cut with the DOJ lead to OEM empowerment, thus guaranteeing that the laptop you buy is full of crapware. EU-like policies of "browser pickers" are asinine annoyanceware that help no one and confuse non-techies. I think this nerd friendly activism about browser choice is positively anachronistic. I mean, this like clamoring for zip choice or image viewer choice. Those ships have long sailed. Browsers are boring commodities. End users who want a different one can get one trivially.