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

Google should be broken up, say European MPs

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 153 posts

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#111

Post by xtrumanx »

tomp wrote: post #104
xtrumanx wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quick (and perhaps stupid) question; how is Google a monopoly? There are other alternatives to search available. If people really wanted to, they could use Bing. It's not like Google is using some horrendous anti-competitive practices to prevent other search engines from gaining market share. Two characteristics of monopolies (as per wikipedia) are "High barriers" and "Single seller" both of which don't apply to Goog…

Nobody is complaining that Google is a monopoly/has a huge market share in search. The problem is that they're (ab)using their monopoly in search to boost the market share of their other services. Is Google Maps really that better than OpenStreetMap or Apple Maps or Bing Maps, or do people just use it because it's a default result in Google?

That sounds like a good point on the surface but then I wonder why shouldn't Google have a right to order their search results however they wish.

Isn't every search results listing ordered based on essentially Google's opinion anyways?

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#112

Post by bryanlarsen »

tomp wrote: post #110

Why is this already on the second page? Google should be broken up, say European MPs (bbc.com) 55 points by alexbash 1 hour ago | flag | 107 comments This story is currently on the first page: Inside the Dynomak: A Fusion Technology Cheaper Than Coal (ieee.org) 39 points by ohaal 2 hours ago | flag | 16 comments

This story has 2:1 comments:points. The other you link has 1:2 comments:points. A high comment:point ratio is considered an indicator of an unproductive flame war.

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#113

Post by probably_wrong »

rtpg wrote: post #30

I know a lot of people kind of scoff at the idea of breaking up Google because they happen to offer the best product, but here are the 4 points mentioned >The manner in which Google displays its own vertical search services compared with other, competing products > How Google copies content from other websites - such as restaurant reviews - to include within its own services > The exclusivity Google has to sell adver…

> I don't see how Google gets away with the second point for non-CC'd material.

This is how I've been told it went by in Germany: there was a law drafted[1] that said publishers should get compensation for snippets of their articles in search results. This was a law apparently drafted directly in response to Google's practices.

So Google sent a letter to most publishers, asking for royalty-free access to their content, or otherwise they would not show up anymore on Google's services. All publishers agreed to sign that, because being removed from Google means losing a decent amount of your ad income.

That's how they get away with it.

[1] https://gigaom.com/2013/03/01/german-parliament-passes-googl...

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#114

Post by xtrumanx »

kaolinite wrote: post #52
xtrumanx wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quick (and perhaps stupid) question; how is Google a monopoly? There are other alternatives to search available. If people really wanted to, they could use Bing. It's not like Google is using some horrendous anti-competitive practices to prevent other search engines from gaining market share. Two characteristics of monopolies (as per wikipedia) are "High barriers" and "Single seller" both of which don't apply to Goog…

Google isn't a monopoly for the users of the search engine - you're right, they can move to whichever search engine they like - many which are almost or as good as Google. The problem is for advertisers and website owners. If you are advertising on search engines and you don't have your adverts on Google, you're missing out on 90% of users. That's why they're a monopoly. Moving your adverts to Bing just isn't an alte…

True but those users aren't stuck on Google and can easily move on to Google. Also why have you restricted yourself to advertising on search engines?

It's like complaining that if I'm advertising on basketball games and I don't have my adverts on NBA games then I'm missing out on 90% of people who watch basketball games. Should we break up the NBA?

By the way, I don't mean to be argumentative. The closest reason I could comprehend is the abuse angle mentioned by tomp but I don't really see Google as being abusive as compared to say a corporation who has complete control of a natural resource and begins to set prices extremely high.

Google has Search, Valve has Steam, Apple has the App Store. They developed these products, have a extremely large market share and are reaping the rewards of developing a successful product. That on its own doesn't make them a monopoly worth breaking up.

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#115

Post by tomp »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #112
tomp wrote: post #110

Why is this already on the second page? Google should be broken up, say European MPs (bbc.com) 55 points by alexbash 1 hour ago | flag | 107 comments This story is currently on the first page: Inside the Dynomak: A Fusion Technology Cheaper Than Coal (ieee.org) 39 points by ohaal 2 hours ago | flag | 16 comments

This story has 2:1 comments:points. The other you link has 1:2 comments:points. A high comment:point ratio is considered an indicator of an unproductive flame war.

Hm... well that's weird, to say the least. I mainly go to HN for the comments. A lot of comments doesn't meant that there is a flame war, or that it's unproductive. In this case, the story, as written, isn't that remarkable, but the ideas behind it, and the comments, are.

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#116

Post by ionised »

datashovel wrote: post #47

I kind of feel sorry for Europe, that their leaders can't see the enormous positive impact Google is having on the world. And in general I hate behemoth corporations. Google is different. The moment they start behaving like other Fortune 100 companies is the moment I stop rooting for them. There are still too many complacent monopolies in the world to break up Google. Unfortunately Google is the only one with the mon…

> the enormous positive impact Google is having on the world.

They're having a lot of negative impact as well. They're not the paragon you believe they are.

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#117

Post by lotsofmangos »

jjt555 wrote: post #102
oblio wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When debating pro-against EU, we should never forget how pre-EU Europe looked like. We've been incredibly good at killing each other. I'd pick a huge beauracracy over arms races any day of the week.

> "We've been incredibly good at killing each other." No, what you mean is that Germans and Austrians (and only Germans and Austrians) have recently been rather fond of invading neighbouring countries and also genociding their own populations. The other European countries, Balkans excepted, have actually got along rather well for the past 150 years. So why should Holland, Belgium, France, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark an…

All the countries with empires were proxy-warring it around the globe. The first and second world wars were wars of empire coming home.

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#119

Post by throwawayaway »

pjc50 wrote: post #57
throwawayaway wrote: post #10

If they actually knew what they were talking about, they would be voting to decentralize the internet, not break Google up. I don't think trying to break up Microsoft or fine them for bundling internet explorer achieved a whole lot. They are looking at the problem the wrong way.

The strange thing is that Microsoft got hit for bundling IE while the two big mobile/tablet OSs both not only ship with their own web browser but also (for iOS) grant the platform-preferred browser powers that no other application is allowed (JIT compilation). The question of "a market" versus "two distinct markets" is a vexed one. Is "phone browser" a seperate market from "phone"?

There was no follow through to back up that decision and it was merely a "get at microsoft any way that we can" scenario. The precedent was set that you can't bundle a program in a program but yet nobody else has ever been called up on it. I think the decision was ridiculous at the time, the fine achieved nothing and firefox achieved temporary dominance not because of that decision but the poor implementation of internet explorer.

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#120

Post by throwawayaway »

rvschuilenburg wrote: post #19
throwawayaway wrote: post #10

If they actually knew what they were talking about, they would be voting to decentralize the internet, not break Google up. I don't think trying to break up Microsoft or fine them for bundling internet explorer achieved a whole lot. They are looking at the problem the wrong way.

> I don't think trying to break up Microsoft or fine them for bundling internet explorer achieved a whole lot. I don't know. Is Internet Explorer still the most used webbrowser?

I think you are a bit blind if you think that decision is why people started to use other browsers.
Post reply on HN