Why Is Obama's Top Antitrust Cop Gunning for Google?
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: Why Is Obama's Top Antitrust Cop Gunning for Google?
#2I actually think he has a point. Google's motto may be "don't be evil," but they're extraordinarily powerful. And an evil entity that everyone thinks is good is a lot more dangerous than an evil entity that everything thinks is evil.
This is not to say that Google is evil, but if they were, we could all be quite screwed. I have a security minded friend (re: paranoid) that refuses to use any Google products at all, except for search. (The same friend was POed at YN for offering clickpass for this site. I got yelled at for using it.)
Re: Why Is Obama's Top Antitrust Cop Gunning for Google?
#3I actually think he has a point. Google's motto may be "don't be evil," but they're extraordinarily powerful. And an evil entity that everyone thinks is good is a lot more dangerous than an evil entity that everything thinks is evil. This is not to say that Google is evil, but if they were, we could all be quite screwed. I have a security minded friend (re: paranoid) that refuses to use any Google products at all, ex…
If Microsoft Word sent information about the documents you were writing directly to Microsoft, or Outlook informed them of whom you were meeting when, there would be a huge outcry.
Google has all this information about people who use Docs and Calendar. It also has access to all the e-mails you've sent and received if you use GMail, and where you're travelling from and to if you use Maps. With search, it's knows which APIs your company is using, who's working on your projects and what you're trying to create.
Re: Why Is Obama's Top Antitrust Cop Gunning for Google?
#4Schmidt is in with Obama. Schmidt was an "advisor" during his campaign. They wont be gunning for Google (unless something super monopolistic happens)
Re: Why Is Obama's Top Antitrust Cop Gunning for Google?
#5The notion of antitrust law is fundamentally flawed to begin with. What constitutes a monopoly? Is it having a large share of the marketplace? The government grants monopolies in the form of patents so how is that different than a company serving its customers well and thus reaping the rewards of that service? And what's wrong with that?
Has anyone been forced to use Google? You have options of course and you always will.
I didn't support Netscape's complaint against Microsoft when that happened for the same reason I don't support any complaint against Google now-namely that the whole idea of a free market generated monopoly is absurd. This is just another case of someone wanting to advance their career who understands nothing of free market economics.
I think this time though a lot more people are more supportive of Google and realize that Google improves the quality of their lives tremendously. I'll be interested to see what sort of reaction occurs if a trial ever even happens. My guess is that threats will go on for awhile and if Obama is reelected you might see something happen.
Re: Why Is Obama's Top Antitrust Cop Gunning for Google?
#6The biggest issue I see here is that we are in the middle of a mess caused by lack of monopoly enforcement in the banking and finance sector by previous administrations, and the Justice Dept. makes no signs of fixing that problem or even admitting it exists. In fact, financial institutions are even more consolidated coming out of this crisis.
Re: Why Is Obama's Top Antitrust Cop Gunning for Google?
#7Simple: They forgot to invest in people who can lobby their side in Washington. Microsoft had the same problem in the 90'ies. If you aren't spending 20% of your income on lobbism as a big company, you are a sitting duck. A startup don't have to, since they are mostly invisible anyway.
Yes, this sucks and I would love a world in which it was not. Being realistic, however this is the way out of it.
Re: Why Is Obama's Top Antitrust Cop Gunning for Google?
#8The biggest issue I see here is that we are in the middle of a mess caused by lack of monopoly enforcement in the banking and finance sector by previous administrations, and the Justice Dept. makes no signs of fixing that problem or even admitting it exists. In fact, financial institutions are even more consolidated coming out of this crisis.
Monopoly enforcement? Really? Which bank has a monopoly on which industry?
Re: Why Is Obama's Top Antitrust Cop Gunning for Google?
#9I actually think he has a point. Google's motto may be "don't be evil," but they're extraordinarily powerful. And an evil entity that everyone thinks is good is a lot more dangerous than an evil entity that everything thinks is evil. This is not to say that Google is evil, but if they were, we could all be quite screwed. I have a security minded friend (re: paranoid) that refuses to use any Google products at all, ex…
If Microsoft Word sent information about the documents you were writing directly to Microsoft, or Outlook informed them of whom you were meeting when, there would be a huge outcry. Google has all this information about people who use Docs and Calendar. It also has access to all the e-mails you've sent and received if you use GMail, and where you're travelling from and to if you use Maps. With search, it's knows which…
Ad sense lets them know which page you just viewed.
iPhone voice interface for maps gives them your voice biometrics.
Search history must be a treasure trove for a psychological analysis and profile.
Lets hope Google is not an NSA operation.
Re: Why Is Obama's Top Antitrust Cop Gunning for Google?
#10Simple: They forgot to invest in people who can lobby their side in Washington. Microsoft had the same problem in the 90'ies. If you aren't spending 20% of your income on lobbism as a big company, you are a sitting duck. A startup don't have to, since they are mostly invisible anyway. Yes, this sucks and I would love a world in which it was not. Being realistic, however this is the way out of it.
Google has invested in lobbying - for at least the past few years. You can read a 2007 Washington Post article about it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06...
It would have been careless for them to avoid this.