691–700 of 702 posts
This is despicable. Google is a private company who cannot force anyone to use its services. It is successful because consumers and advertisers have chosen to use its services because it makes their lives better. Google's investors risked and are risking their own money to build the company in hopes of earning a return by providing better services than other companies. Now come government bureaucrats, moral pygmies w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Google has systematically given prominent placement to its own comparison shopping service: when a consumer enters a query into the Google search engine in relation to which Google's comparison shopping service wants to show results, these are displayed at or near the top of the search results. Google has demoted rival comparison shopping services in its search results: rival comparison shopping services appear in G…
From this sentence? > Google has included a number of criteria in these algorithms, as a result of which rival comparison shopping services are demoted. Sounds like a jump to conclude they were doctoring results from "they modify their ranking algorithms".
" Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google's search results, and others appear even further down. Google's own comparison shopping service is not subject to Google's generic search algorithms, including such demotions."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From this sentence? > Google has included a number of criteria in these algorithms, as a result of which rival comparison shopping services are demoted. Sounds like a jump to conclude they were doctoring results from "they modify their ranking algorithms".
did you miss: " Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival service appears on average only on page four of Google's search results, and others appear even further down. Google's own comparison shopping service is not subject to Google's generic search algorithms, including such demotions."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1. They may benefit more from better services. 2. As far as I know Google operates a lot of services which are not profitable by themselfs. So what? Billion dollar companies subsidizing tech for the masses (even selfishly) is not a bad thing. That's one of the best thing about capitalism. > It's a bit like when (in the old days) the major phone company No, it's not like that, phone companies were granted monopolies…
Erm, Microsoft lost it’s dominance in part because it too lost an anti-trust case. Are you saying you wish Microsoft had been powerful enough to stifle Google the way Google is now powerful enough to stifle its competitors? What’s another 15 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Erm, Microsoft lost it’s dominance in part because it too lost an anti-trust case. Are you saying you wish Microsoft had been powerful enough to stifle Google the way Google is now powerful enough to stifle its competitors? What’s another 15 years?
Microsoft lost because they lost mobile to apple and google because they released better products, same thing for bing etc. Not because of anti-trust.
For that matter, Apple only exists today because of Microsoft’s investment, which was in part done only to keep their competitor alive so that they could claim not to have a complete monopoly.
Apple and Google’s products certainly were better, but they would have been crushed by anti-competitive practices if Microsoft had not already lost their antitrust case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The funny thing is that Google Maps is even worse than the shopping comparison IMO. But I think the shopping thing got traction as a few competitors bundled their forces and sued them. I like it and hope that Google will stop promoting their services without listing alternatives for lots of things that they promote on the search page (Google Maps, Android, Chrome, Youtube, ...). See 'other cases' in the document that…
My hope is that they provide an opt-in method to bundle in google services. I want google maps, youtube, shopping links, and largely view the search as a portal to the google platform. Removing this is removing a feature customers and the company wants, because other companies want to compete on individual products that may or may not be better while google is providing a platform with products you want integrated to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why shouldn't they? It's their site! See the OP. It's not a utility.
Just because I own my own house doesn't mean I can blast a jet engine I'm testing inside it... there are rules and laws that exist in the world. If you think those rules and laws have a negative impact, then work to fix them.