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

121–130 of 153 posts

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#121

Post by [deleted] »

probably_wrong wrote: post #113
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 conten…

[deleted]

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#122

Post by pgodzin »

mbel wrote: post #107
dghf wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is competition. Bing, DuckDuckGo, even Yahoo's still hanging in there. There are no technological or commercial barriers to switching search engines: no-one is making people use Google search (except I guess maybe on Android devices or Chromebooks -- I don't have and have never used either, so I don't know). People use it because either (a) it returns better results or (b) inertia. If it's (a), using it is…

> But there is competition. Bing, DuckDuckGo, even Yahoo's still hanging in there. Only if you are English speaker and are looking for English sites (which is the case only for minority of Europeans). Apart form Google other search engines are localized either poorly or not at all.

Which sounds like a great service that Google provides that greatly differentiates it from its competition, not a monopolistic barrier.

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#124

Post by Thimothy »

oblio wrote: post #84
Dewie wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think that if the EU disbanded, there would be more wars (and/or arms-races) in Europe? Between which nations?

1. Yes. 2. Don't know - we're good at surprising people!

My only bets are that this time Norway would be in the middle, they are sitting on a shitload of money, and Germany invades Poland, just for keeping traditions.

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#125

Post by bad_user »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #38
gchp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that its a monopoly, though I find it funny that serious time & consideration is being given to discuss breaking them up. Google are a company who have a product (search, among many). Their product is successful (many people use search). Competitors obviously find it hard to break into the market, and want to make that easier. Is this not how business works? A company creates a product and tries to make it as…

You're misunderstanding the issue here – monopoly isn't a problem, but abuse of it is. To use your example – your company makes car types, and has a monopoly. You then branch out, and start making cars as well. And you redesign your tyres such that they're only compatible with your car. Oh, and the roads everywhere only work with your tyres. That's an abuse of monopoly, and that's what the target is. Look at that fac…

Microsoft was beaten by technological disruption and while they are still big, they are no longer a problem. So I don't get this line about being super vigilant. You served it as an example, so I guess something really bad must have happened there.

It's been 10 years since I stopped using Microsoft's products and now I've switched off many of Google's products, plus I just received an iPhone 6 as a gift and I'm giving it away because I refuse to use it. Yes, 10 years ago it was painful moving off Microsoft's stuff and right now it is painful moving off Google's or Apple's stuff, but so what?

Governments intervening in such matters are doing more harm than good and what really works is voting with your wallet and technological disruption. So while I applaud vigilance, I don't really get this attitude.

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#126

Post by cowls »

dghf wrote: post #76
fear91 wrote: post #24

Google's grip on search is absolutely enormous, especially in Europe. They literally decide lives of thousands of people when they change their algorithms. With one update, they kill thousands of websites someone lives off and then they replace them with big brands or their own services. This isn't healthy for anyone and I wish there was more competition. It would do a lot of good to everyone.

But there is competition. Bing, DuckDuckGo, even Yahoo's still hanging in there. There are no technological or commercial barriers to switching search engines: no-one is making people use Google search (except I guess maybe on Android devices or Chromebooks -- I don't have and have never used either, so I don't know). People use it because either (a) it returns better results or (b) inertia. If it's (a), using it is…

I believe the parent comment is talking about website owners. A quick check of a website I run says 96% of hits come from Google. If Google decide to block that site or put it on page 10, the site is dead.

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#127

Post by bad_user »

rtpg wrote: post #88
dghf wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is competition. Bing, DuckDuckGo, even Yahoo's still hanging in there. There are no technological or commercial barriers to switching search engines: no-one is making people use Google search (except I guess maybe on Android devices or Chromebooks -- I don't have and have never used either, so I don't know). People use it because either (a) it returns better results or (b) inertia. If it's (a), using it is…

I would say that the technological barrier exists for google just like with IE and MSFT: Google is the default browser in Firefox + Chrome. The IE solution was to offer an explicit browser choice in EU versions of windows. A similar one could be imagined here. The "solution" would be to disallow Google from making an exclusivity agreement with FF and to have a choice screen in Chrome. Unfortunately this would cause i…

> The IE solution was to offer an explicit browser choice in EU versions of windows.

And what did that solve, really?

> to disallow Google from making an exclusivity agreement with FF

They do not have an exclusive agreement with Firefox and in Firefox Google's Search is only the default, not the only one. Mozilla is also switching to Yahoo as the default in the US, Yandex in Russia and other local search engines where it applies. That doesn't sound exclusive to me.

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#128

Post by DannyBee »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #38
gchp wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that its a monopoly, though I find it funny that serious time & consideration is being given to discuss breaking them up. Google are a company who have a product (search, among many). Their product is successful (many people use search). Competitors obviously find it hard to break into the market, and want to make that easier. Is this not how business works? A company creates a product and tries to make it as…

You're misunderstanding the issue here – monopoly isn't a problem, but abuse of it is. To use your example – your company makes car types, and has a monopoly. You then branch out, and start making cars as well. And you redesign your tyres such that they're only compatible with your car. Oh, and the roads everywhere only work with your tyres. That's an abuse of monopoly, and that's what the target is. Look at that fac…

"That's an abuse of monopoly, and that's what the target is. "

Actually, the situation you describe is not abuse of a monopoly unless you were the one who made the roads everywhere only work with your tyres.

"Look at that fact that Google products are starting to demand Chrome, or to push their other services through their monopoly search engine."

Assume for a second this was true. This is not monopoly abuse because it's not related to the area in which they have significant market share (unless you plan on trying to argue that in mail, maps, or whatever you also believe they have high market share).

You can't say "well, they have a popular search engine, so if they do unrelated thing x, it's abuse". Monopolies and their abuse are related to specific markets. The abuses take very specific forms, with very specific requirements. The law is generally very careful, because often things like "tying" is actually pro-competitive to a market (or so economists think :P).

" or to push their other services through their monopoly search engine."

Also not a recognized form of antitrust harm :) There is no ban on "pushing", only "tying" (IE actually requiring, and requiring in a way that competitively harms the market).

Even then, the tying generally has to be between products not naturally related. So your example above fails anyway.

(The things you are thinking about, that MS did, was bundling and tying. Google is doing neither in a market which they may be considered to have monopoly market share)

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#129

Post by DannyBee »

Sigh, the number of people here who think they understand antitrust law because they followed the news of the Microsoft case is sad. It kind of makes having a serious discussion about it really hard, because people don't understand the legal requirements for being a monopoly, various forms of antitrust harms, etc, and so end up simply disagreeing because they have a "wrong" view of what the law says.

I'd put together an "engineer's guide to not sound silly when arguing about antitrust law on the internet", but i'd get raked over the coals for my affiliation.

Re: Google should be broken up, say European MPs

#130

Post by Kurtz79 »

youngtaff wrote: post #92
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.

Yes, this often put forward as a case for why the EU is a good thing but the reality is we probably stopped killing each other because we finally had a war that was large enough to put many people off war for life. Those who repeat the line that the EU prevented wars in Europe seem to forget what happened in the Balkans

According to your reasoning, WW2 should not have existed at all, since it came on the heels of another devastating conflict.

If anything, it's the post WW1 that was taken as a lesson: instead of further afflicting the defeated, fomenting nationalism and isolationism, a more conciliatory path was taken.

The union has its warts and boils, but the fact that the member nations have been at peace between themselves for the longest time span ever is hard to attribute to other factors.

Post reply on HN