Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

France convicts Google Maps for unfair competition

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 160 posts

Re: France convicts Google Maps for unfair competition

#141

Post by eldude »

rickmb wrote: post #133
eldude wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A monopoly does not kill competition, it disuades it. Nobody competes with the monopoly because the incentives are not great enough to do so. The same incentives for success do not disappear because a monopoly emerges. The monopoly must still sell their item to a free market that's free to refuse their goods on moral or pragmatic grounds. A monopoly means solely that they are not challenged by a competitor and can th…

In a democracy, free markets don't make the choices. The people do. And the means by which they do it is with their voice and their vote, not their wallets. People are more than just consumers. Consumer behavior is driven by many other factors then what people actually want , and the free market does not necessarily reflect the will of the people. Free will is more than just being able to decide whether or not to con…

Then God bless that the United States is a Republic[1] and not a Democracy, such that my rights should never be beholden to such contemptible motives.

Also, this is a very materialistic view of money. You falsely assume that money's sole use is the acquisition of material goods, and not what it really is, the transfer of value.

Wealthy and poor alike choose to donate to and support causes they see as perpetuating their values. Are you really suggesting that an individual that wants for no goods to consume has no use of money? No.

What you are proposing is that to those who refuse, by virtue of their property rights, to give you what you want, you would take from them at the point of a gun upon non-compliance that which they would not give you. _This_ is the tyranny of the majority, a true democracy, a form of government our founding fathers held in disdain.

I suspect that you hold this view of money because you find that no amount of it would grant you the power to take that which you desire to obtain through a democracy, the violation of other rights.

[1] Art. 4 Sec. 4 Par. 1 http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html

Re: France convicts Google Maps for unfair competition

#143

Post by Zakharov »

oh_sigh wrote: post #122
msluyter wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you're getting downvoted because your suggestion suffers from the free-rider problem: everyone who chooses to continue shopping at Carrefour free rides off those who don't, yet they still obtain any supposed social benefits.

How? How is someone who buys at Carrefour free riding off of those who don't? Carrefour has very efficient supply chains set up, and can therefore provide cheap goods. I don't pay more for a tomato from my neighborhood farm because Carrefour imports tomatoes from Algeria

You're suggesting these people are paying more because Carrefour was "onerous and damaging to their society". In other words, they're treating competition to Carrefour as a social good. Society is better off if enough people shop at competing stores, but no individual customer has an incentive to shop at competing stores.

Re: France convicts Google Maps for unfair competition

#144

Post by myko »

potatolicious wrote: post #120
mlinsey wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google maps includes sponsored locations when you search for things on the map. Are we going to also prosecute Google for providing free web search, making it impossible to make a competing search engine that charges users 10 Euro cents per query?

You've missed the point entirely. If Google provided free web search, killing off all commercial competitors, and then started charging fees for searches now that all competitors are dead, then yes, they would probably be prosecuted. If GMaps had remained free this whole shebang might have been avoided.

Wait, I thought Google charging for Maps was a direct result of being sued by a French company?

http://www.techspot.com/news/35632-google-sued-in-france-ove...

Re: France convicts Google Maps for unfair competition

#145

Post by ekianjo »

mattmanser wrote: post #62
ekianjo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about prices. It was only about prices, then there would be McDonalds everywhere and nothing else. If farmers were to open their own stores, they could still manage to have reasonable prices, and make their point on "best quality", "organic food", plus offering some plants / species you would never be able to find in a big supermarket. You can't go head to head against Carrefour by just providing the sa…

You do realise you're actually arguing against your own point 2 up? You said the reason the small traders went out of business is price, but now they suddenly shouldn't differentiate on price? You don't really seem to understand monopolies or free markets or how they operate. 1. Monopoly emerges 2. Competitor opens 3. Monopoly slashes prices in local store, while maintaing prices in all others 4. Competitor runs out…

Nope, I　was not arguing about my own previous point. In the first one, I replied to the idea that Carrefour is overcharging for food, and that then nothing prevents producers from selling their own products at a cheaper price. They can start small and setup their own distribution.

My second point was to reply to another idea floating around, that "if a new competitor enters the market, Carrefour will slash their prices to kill them off". Then, the small producer has the choice to differentiate if they cannot fight on price.

By the way, since I'm French, I may as well remind you that in every small town and big city of France, there are still weekly markets where local producers come and sell their products, very often for a higher (and not just a little higher) price than what you would pay in Carrefour or other supermarkets. And guess what ? Some people STILL buy their food there. Not everyone, but quite a lot do. So, there's nothing preposterous about the idea I was proposing, because there's clear precedent, even in the current market situation. Some people will always be paying to pay more for "quality", "traceability" and direct-relationship of trust between the buyer and the seller.

Now, for most people (not the ones I just mentioned), you also have to realise that Food has become a commodity, and therefore for those people, they are not going to be interested in paying more, they simply want to get their food as cheap as they can, so they can spend their money somewhere else (ipad, new tv, vacations, etc...).

It's all about knowing your consumers in the end, and finding out how you can better serve (some of) them.

Coming back to the discussion, the competitors of Google Maps should be thinking of how they can provide more value to users than the "free" Google Maps. By the way, in other markets, like video games, some online services like Steam have no problem fighting against free offers (i.e. piracy) just because they provide more convenience to the end users. They get it, and they don't bitch about piracy or whoever else killing their business.

When you start pointing fingers around, it's usually your product/offer/service is simply not good enough, or nobody cares about it.

Re: France convicts Google Maps for unfair competition

#146

Post by ekianjo »

mattmanser wrote: post #124
paulhauggis wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That's how it works. You can also replace 3 with 'Monopoly slashes prices everywhere and relies on its cash reserves'." So are we going to have laws now where big companies can't lower and raise their prices? If you want to blame anyone, blame the consumers that only shop for the lowest price. Walmart is a good example of this in the US. The other problem is that as a small business, you just don't have the resource…

I didn't say that, I was just pointing out that when you get to the point of a monopoly it's very hard to get back. Worse still the big company then starts lobbying to make sure it stays a monopoly, America's phone networks are a good example of that. Also the other big problem with monopolies is that they squeeze their supplier dry as they're the only game in town. So here in the UK the supermarkets are squeezing th…

I wouldn't compare phone networks with retail, it's a totally different situation. Phone networks are nothing but state-allowed monopolies. Retail chains win by other means.

I can relate with how you feel, that it's sad to see small stores disappear and all. But it has never been easier than now to actually go and get your products directly at the farmer, if you really want to. Most people have a car and the countryside is not 3 hours drive from where they live. It is technically possible to go and get your food outside of the retail chains if you want to spend the time to do it.

Most people have no interest in doing so, because they want convenience. They want to save time. They do not think it's worth it. It's pretty much a cultural problem, not a market problem.

In France you still have lots of bakeries around because people still value Bread quality over price. Since bakeries are widely spread, they are reasonably convenient to access. So the business thrives, no matter if the big chain sells the bread dirt cheap next door.

How do we stop it ? Start with education. Tell your children what's the difference between the supermarket food and the rest. Explain why it's important to eat well. It's the same thing as explaining to a kid why it's necessary to save for the time when they are old and cannot work anymore. Education is especially important since most people nowadays are born in cities or suburbs, have completely lost contact with the culture of food production, and just see the end product. It's going to be tough to change that state of things, if cities continue to grow.

Re: France convicts Google Maps for unfair competition

#147

Post by shmulkey18 »

potatolicious wrote: post #127
oh_sigh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why couldn't competition spring up once google starts charging ridiculous rates? It's not as if competition dies forever. It dies until someone else figures out how to do it better.

Certain markets have high barriers to entry. If the local sandwich shops start charging ridiculous rates, it's not very difficult for someone to move in and do it for cheaper. When Google owns all the cartographic data, how exactly do you intend to compete as a newcomer? Where are you going to get the 8-figure investment to even begin to make the smallest dent against the massive dataset you need to collect? This is…

I fail to see how you can own all the cartographic data, does Google have a special power which allows it to prevent people from drawing maps?

Also if the barrier to entry was so high you would think that mapquest or bing maps wouldn't exist, but magically they do.

I would be surprised that someone who is active on a tech site would find it odd that a startup could raise millions of dollars in funding.

Re: France convicts Google Maps for unfair competition

#148

Post by arg01 »

eldude wrote: post #137
arg01 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The governments are (local) monopolies that supply a product(customers) to businesses on the governemnts terms. So, using your logic businesses can choose on moral or pragmatic grounds not to buy from these monopolies (i.e. set up in another country). Please continue to argue how a single incumbent asserting its market dominance is a good thing while arguing a single incumbent asserting its market dominance is a bad…

Monopolies which no one is free to compete against (e.g., the federal government) are corrupt monopolies. They use the force of a gun to force the will and goods of other to serve their own selfish greed. The founding fathers of the United States understood this, and instituted a federal system in which states were not only free, but expected to compete against each other. Unfortunately, those who seek power and cont…

So you change your argument from monopolies are fine to monopolies are fine unless they're corrupt, that's fine I'm happy with that clarification, but you must realise that these regulations are there to stop abuse by the corrupt monopolies. So guess what a judge found that google had a monopolistic grip and in this particular instance were abusing it. It's fine to disagree with the judge or even these specific regulations but you obviously believe large enterties(such as the US government) should have restrictions placed on them to stop abuse yet seem to say a little later that large entities (businesses) should not have restrictions on them to stop abuse. I can't understand how this is logically coherent.

I'm also confused by your highlighting of the definition of the word monopoly, are you saying that equating governments to regional monopolies is a flawed analogy or are you just highlighting that one form of monopoly relies on legal enforcement and therefore pointing out that governments are monopolies. Maybe you are saying that google is not a monopoly in this instance, I'd be inclined to agree but would point out that "exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action" as far as geographic data and infrastructure in place would be an arguable position. If you argue against that on the grounds that others could sink in capital to create there own method of supplying data, then I'd argue that the government is about equally removable in that the customers can vote for change (I to believe that's a joke just like your statement on how reliant the monopoly is to any given customer).

Re: France convicts Google Maps for unfair competition

#149

Post by whateverer »

eldude wrote: post #141
rickmb wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a democracy, free markets don't make the choices. The people do. And the means by which they do it is with their voice and their vote, not their wallets. People are more than just consumers. Consumer behavior is driven by many other factors then what people actually want , and the free market does not necessarily reflect the will of the people. Free will is more than just being able to decide whether or not to con…

Then God bless that the United States is a Republic[1] and not a Democracy, such that my rights should never be beholden to such contemptible motives. Also, this is a very materialistic view of money. You falsely assume that money's sole use is the acquisition of material goods, and not what it really is, the transfer of value. Wealthy and poor alike choose to donate to and support causes they see as perpetuating the…

Self-righteous indignation ahoy! We must have entered yet another ideal-free-markets vs. everything else discussion on Hacker News.

Frustrated as you may be that others don't share your ideals here, your entire comment is huge, deep red, herring.

And there is much more to monopolies than just 'success', you silly. Ever heard of the Microsoft tax? Every OEM was in a losing position if they dared to offer a non-Microsoft OS among their product lines, as they would be sold their licenses at a higher cost (i.e., not at a monetary discount resulting of a virtuous association between entrepreneurs) than every other player in the game.

Thus, even if there was demand for alternatives, if it didn't overtake the loss incurred by higher cost-licenses then it wouldn't be viable to offer say, Linux machines.

Re: France convicts Google Maps for unfair competition

#150

Post by eldude »

arg01 wrote: post #148
eldude wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monopolies which no one is free to compete against (e.g., the federal government) are corrupt monopolies. They use the force of a gun to force the will and goods of other to serve their own selfish greed. The founding fathers of the United States understood this, and instituted a federal system in which states were not only free, but expected to compete against each other. Unfortunately, those who seek power and cont…

So you change your argument from monopolies are fine to monopolies are fine unless they're corrupt, that's fine I'm happy with that clarification, but you must realise that these regulations are there to stop abuse by the corrupt monopolies. So guess what a judge found that google had a monopolistic grip and in this particular instance were abusing it. It's fine to disagree with the judge or even these specific regul…

I'm distinguishing between a "monopoly" as is used commonly (and loosely) like in this case to describe Google and a true monopoly, which by definition no one is able to compete with equally, like the US federal government. I think that "monopolies" (Google, any entity that doesn't use the government backed by force to protect it from having to compete equally) are okay, but a monopoly is not, and is prone to corruption, thus our founding fathers' belief in limited government.

This isn't my disagreeing with the judge, this is my disagreeing with their right to try Google in the first place, a power which _no_ government should have: the right to try and punish someone for a future intention of exercising one's property rights. It is France's violation of these human rights which I find reprehensible.

Regarding "monopolies" having no restrictions placed on them, this is true in the extent that the government is concerned. The government should neither help nor restrain individual businesses, and should instead create an equal environment where property and contract rights are enforced, and companies are not found guilty of success by the greed of others with a government that sanctions such greed.

I highlighted the definition of a monopoly, because everyone is throwing that word around without any regard for its meaning. Google does not have exclusive ownership of maps through any legal sanction; It does not have command of supply as a Google map is a combination of bits and knowledge of information that is freely available to _anyone_ that would take the time and had the incentive to assemble them; There is no concerted action as there's no 2nd party with which Google has been acting with.

Finally, I never said a monopoly is beholden to _a_ customer, but instead to _its_ costomer_s_. A company in a free market cannot exist in perpetuity without providing some value for which someone will trade their money for. So long as both parties are free to trade value for value, no monopoly exists.

I enjoyed your response by the way.

Post reply on HN