EU recommends breaking up Google

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Google should be broken up, say European MPs

 

Monopolistic practices have become blatant.  But we already knew that.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Meh, its politicians talking hot air. As the article said, this 'decision' is not a law, nor is it automatically enforced. The EU Commission is the only one that can do this. And even then, Google operates from the US, I very much doubt the EU can technically force the company to be broken up in a bunch of smaller companies. 

 

Overall, I think its a stupid move. Every time the EU has gone after tech giants, it A) didn't change anything and B) made stuff more expensive. 

 

Finally, I feel that some of competition laws do not really apply all that well to software products and the way things operate on the internet. 

[Xenocity 343]

Meh, its politicians talking hot air. As the article said, this 'decision' is not a law, nor is it automatically enforced. The EU Commission is the only one that can do this. And even then, Google operates from the US, I very much doubt the EU can technically force the company to be broken up in a bunch of smaller companies. 

 

Overall, I think its a stupid move. Every time the EU has gone after tech giants, it A) didn't change anything and B) made stuff more expensive. 

 

Finally, I feel that some of competition laws do not really apply all that well to software products and the way things operate on the internet. 

The EU Commission will follow suit soon.

Google is currently blocked in many countries including China and censored in most of SouthEast Asia. 

Google was just allowed back into Brazil, and I do believe is still blocked/highly censored in India, Pakistan, and most of Africa. 

 

Google was caught prioritizing it's ads over the competition and non competitors as well. 

They also forceable bundled Chrome with their products, Adobe's products, Avast, and others by leveraging their position. 

This was to make Chrome the #1 browser in market share and stifle Fire Fox, IE, Opera. 

 

Also Google still puts their ads above the Google logo on non Chrome browsers in many regions. 

Even when I use Safari and other mobile browsers, I get the banner for the Google Search app above the Google logo. 

 

Add in Google's massive breach of privacy laws via data collection, you have a company that deserves a beat down. 

 

With all this said, Google cannot afford sanctions or being banned from the EU, because it will only leaves them with North America for now (Canada is worried about Google too).

[LexusInfernus 908]

The EU Commission will follow suit soon.

Google is currently blocked in many countries including China and censored in most of SouthEast Asia. 

Google was just allowed back into Brazil, and I do believe is still blocked/highly censored in India, Pakistan, and most of Africa. 

 

Google was caught prioritizing it's ads over the competition and non competitors as well. 

They also forceable bundled Chrome with their products, Adobe's products, Avast, and others by leveraging their position. 

This was to make Chrome the #1 browser in market share and stifle Fire Fox, IE, Opera. 

 

Also Google still puts their ads above the Google logo on non Chrome browsers in many regions. 

Even when I use Safari and other mobile browsers, I get the banner for the Google Search app above the Google logo. 

 

Add in Google's massive breach of privacy laws via data collection, you have a company that deserves a beat down. 

 

With all this said, Google cannot afford sanctions or being banned from the EU, because it will only leaves them with North America for now (Canada is worried about Google too).

 

I bet that if you look at Facebook, Apple, Opera, Firefox, Sony, Samsung, etc they do the exact same thing. Only there are less successful at it. 

 

And Google breaches your privacy? Yeah sure. But again, EVERYONE does that. Microsoft does it. Facebook does it. Apple does it. There is hardly any tech company that doesn't do it. And honestly, if all are bad, the one I trust to be the least bad it would be Google. 

 

And no, the EU wouldn't ban Google. At worst Google has to build in some extra safeguards that make it appear they are no longer 'abusing' their market position. Which of course means that the price of any Google product or service will go up significantly. Thanks EU for looking out for the consumer interest, you just made stuff more expensive. 

[mrsmartman 200]

Obviously, Google rocks the marketplace of search engines.

Honestly, I am a true believer of Google since it has become the global default search engine.

Undeniably, Google significantly improves our XPerience in the information superhighway.

Arguably, monopolistic conglomerates are the natural product of a post-modern economy.

[Xenocity 343]

 

The EU Commission will follow suit soon.

Google is currently blocked in many countries including China and censored in most of SouthEast Asia. 

Google was just allowed back into Brazil, and I do believe is still blocked/highly censored in India, Pakistan, and most of Africa. 

 

Google was caught prioritizing it's ads over the competition and non competitors as well. 

They also forceable bundled Chrome with their products, Adobe's products, Avast, and others by leveraging their position. 

This was to make Chrome the #1 browser in market share and stifle Fire Fox, IE, Opera. 

 

Also Google still puts their ads above the Google logo on non Chrome browsers in many regions. 

Even when I use Safari and other mobile browsers, I get the banner for the Google Search app above the Google logo. 

 

Add in Google's massive breach of privacy laws via data collection, you have a company that deserves a beat down. 

 

With all this said, Google cannot afford sanctions or being banned from the EU, because it will only leaves them with North America for now (Canada is worried about Google too).

 

I bet that if you look at Facebook, Apple, Opera, Firefox, Sony, Samsung, etc they do the exact same thing. Only there are less successful at it. 

 

And Google breaches your privacy? Yeah sure. But again, EVERYONE does that. Microsoft does it. Facebook does it. Apple does it. There is hardly any tech company that doesn't do it. And honestly, if all are bad, the one I trust to be the least bad it would be Google. 

 

And no, the EU wouldn't ban Google. At worst Google has to build in some extra safeguards that make it appear they are no longer 'abusing' their market position. Which of course means that the price of any Google product or service will go up significantly. Thanks EU for looking out for the consumer interest, you just made stuff more expensive. 

 

Actually only Samsung is guilty of the same practices as Google (and many that are worse. 

You don't get Facebook, Apple software, Opera, Firefox or Sony software bundled with third party software.

You also don't encounter ads from them unless you are in their store buying something (which is perfectly acceptable and Google does have store that sells physical items).

 

The only products Google sells are lamps, mousepads, calendars, Google Adwords, Google Analytics Premium accounts, Premium Youtube accounts (now rolling out), and Youtube movie rentals). 

 

Microsoft actually was punished for privacy breaches and was forced to change the way they did business. 

The U.S. DOJ, claims Apple's security on their software and devices preventing the collection of data is helping terrorists and killing children. 

Sony doesn't bother to collect your data outside of billing information, but their SEN, PSN and online store are riddled with security holes, which in turn causes them to get hacked on regular basis. 

 

Facebook was punished in court over their data collection forcing them to end it and offer an opt in for certain areas. 

Fire Fox and Opera force you to opt in to send statistics to them, while they both implemented better security for data. 

 

Samsung as already mentioned is said to be the most corrupt company in the world, who breaks laws left and right for profit. 

They only get away with it, due to the South Korean government shielding them.

 

Google's cash cow is big data. 

 

In then end most users won't see a huge change, nor will they see a price increase because they don't pay for it (nor do the Android OEMs).

I highly doubt they will raise their adwords costs due to the competition playing cut throat pricing. 

 

It's nice to see someone cracking down on companies who violate privacy. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Apple probably breaks as many laws and patents (then turns around and sues competitors for doing the same) as other major companies. Firefox is bundled with Linux but I don't see this as a problem since both are open-source (and linux has a small market share anyway). The reason Google is banned or censored in many parts of Asia and Africa is because totalitarian regimes don't want their oppressed citizens from finding out about all the bad stuff done. Facebook and twitter are also banned or censored in the same areas. Yahoo is in every single search bar of every browser I have ever seen (besides chrome) even if it is not the default search engine. Firefox for linux doesn't use Google as an included search engine at all because Google did not want to share ad revenue.

However, I believe that the privacy problems of Google and Facebook are very bad and that these need to be fixed. The US government is corrupt and greedy so it is only angry with Apple because Apple is an American company that doesn't want to bow down to the government agencies who have already overstepped their bounds and spit on the constitutional rights of American citizens.

--Ocram

[Xenocity 343]

Apple probably breaks as many laws and patents (then turns around and sues competitors for doing the same) as other major companies. Firefox is bundled with Linux but I don't see this as a problem since both are open-source (and linux has a small market share anyway). The reason Google is banned or censored in many parts of Asia and Africa is because totalitarian regimes don't want their oppressed citizens from finding out about all the bad stuff done. Facebook and twitter are also banned or censored in the same areas. Yahoo is in every single search bar of every browser I have ever seen (besides chrome) even if it is not the default search engine. Firefox for linux doesn't use Google as an included search engine at all because Google did not want to share ad revenue.

However, I believe that the privacy problems of Google and Facebook are very bad and that these need to be fixed. The US government is corrupt and greedy so it is only angry with Apple because Apple is an American company that doesn't want to bow down to the government agencies who have already overstepped their bounds and spit on the constitutional rights of American citizens.

--Ocram

Actually Apple has been found to be compliant in nearly every area except for aiding law enforcement, digital music, phone pricing and ebooks. 

Apple just happens to have customers who regularly file anti trust issues with the government bodies, instead of being accepting like the Android and Windows users. 

 

Google is also an American company, that was founded in the U.S. and is HQ'ed in Mountain View, CA. 

Nearly all of Google's employees and tech are in CA. 

 

Any patent/copyright lawsuit out of East Texas is normally filed by patent trolls and overturned on appeal. 

 

The two main differences between Apple and their competitors including Google are the following:

 

1a) Their competitors have convoluted contracts which makes it very hard to determine who owns what and is responsible for what. 

Google had a very convoluted structure on their Android licenses with the OEMs. Microsoft, Nokia, Apple and the rest had to spend days in their perspective trials figuring out who was responsible for the patents violations of the hardware and software on Android phones. 

Samsung, HTC and the rest claim Google is fully responsible for all legal and patent costs in regard to Android phones, while Google claims the OEMs are. 

 

Microsoft is still fighting Samsung over patent royalties regarding the Samsung Android phones. 

Apple is still fighting Samsung on multiple fronts.

Many of the Android OEMs are fighting Samsung on the same fronts as Apple. 

 

b) Microsoft and Intel have similar agreements with the PC OEMs, to avoid legal issues. 

 

c) Apple has straight contracts that spells everything out in the clear and makes for easy operations and ownership. Downside it makes you an easy target for litigation. 

 

2) Apple is tied with Exxon-Mobile for the most valued and profitable company in the world. Apple also spends very little on lobbying compared to their competition, which encourages the U.S. government to come after them. 

 

The U.S. government regularly goes after companies based on public opinion and actual issues. Over the past few years this is targets:

• GM's ignition switch recall - Toyota was let off easy for their unknown acceleration issues (the the other Japanese are finally getting their dues for lying and hiding defects). 
• Nintendo was raked over the coals for unhealthy side effects of gaming, child safety (including parental controls), underage children getting M rated games,  and consumer prices - Microsoft and Sony weren't even brought into the discussion. 
• Apple is currently under investigation for keeping music prices too low, while Amazon, Sony, and Microsoft aren't even mentioned
• Metro Detroit dealership are still fighting a 30 year anti trust suit over being closed on Sundays. 

The E.U. isn't as bad though it has made questionable decisions as of late:

• Intel anti trust was dropped, even though they have all the retailers bound by rebates which allows the retailers to sell the Intel branded products below market price and profit. They also have the PC OEMs bound by a similar agreement. This is to prevent AMD and the rest from gaining market share around the world
• Nintendo was found guilty of monopoly tactics due to the result of their prices pre Gamecube.
• Nintendo is under investigation over parental controls (parents don't use them) and stranger danger. 
• eBay is in trouble for something
• Apple is in trouble for not allowing older iPhone to run the current OS - Android is left unscathed. 
• Apple is also in trouble for making it too easy for children to purchase Apps. 
• etc...

The point is even the EU overreaches due to consumer!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

 

<snip>

The point is even the EU overreaches due to consumer!

 

Sorry, this sentence seems incomplete.  What did you really intend to say here?  "consumer" what?

[Sabretooth78 808]

Overall, I think its a stupid move. Every time the EU has gone after tech giants, it A) didn't change anything and B) made stuff more expensive. 

 

Which is the typical end result any time a government butts its way into some industry.

[Compdude787 916]

 

Overall, I think its a stupid move. Every time the EU has gone after tech giants, it A) didn't change anything and B) made stuff more expensive. 

 

Which is the typical end result any time a government butts its way into some industry.

 

Precisely!!

[Duke87 1,070]

I find it interesting that one of the sticking points is Google pushing people into using Chrome by bundling it with other products. There was a similar hubub in the late 90s over Internet Explorer with Microsoft, where MS was forced to change some of their practices.

 

Thing is, the IE debacle was worse. IE came not only bundled with Windows but integrated with the OS such that it was impossible to uninstall. It also kept automatically making itself the default browser whenever Windows updated if you tried to use something else. (both of these things have since changed)

 

Google, at least, allows you to opt out of installing Chrome, but of course most people just do a quick install which is "(recommended)" and lack the wherewithal to select custom and opt out of the extra crapware. They also won't keep putting Chrome back as your default browser if you go into the settings and select otherwise... but again, a lot of people don't do this.

 

Also unlike with IE, there are a decent number of people who have consciously and deliberately decided to use Chrome since it is actually a good browser.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Which is the typical end result any time a government butts its way into some industry.

Yes and at the same time its absolutely necessary that they do so in a number of areas. An economy run by monopolists and cartels isn't exactly healthy either. 

[MushyMushy 3,618]

I'm certainly not going to rush to Google's defense. I put them in the same bunch as Facebook, Twitter, (all other social media-type stuff), Microsoft, Samsung (gross), and Amazon (gross(er?)).

 

Breaking up Google doesn't seem like a terrible idea. They cover too much ground. They're a search engine, a browser, a mobile OS, they own robotics companies apparently (among many other things), and now they're trying to get Glass out there (some jazzed up tracking device). Hell, fast forward 10 years and we'll probably be driving Google cars the send us target ads (while driving) based on our location and previous purchases, as well as going to Googlemarts that sell practically everything (like Amazon) and ruin small businesses all at the same time! Those robotics companies? Eh. That'll probably end up as Google spybots/drones or military death machines (same difference, right?).

 

All this talk about Smasung and I haven't seen somebody mention the fact that all their "smart" TVs have cameras in them. Said-cameras must be functioning for your TV to function according to a TV repairman I know. Smart TVs are basically like paying somebody to spy on ya. Great concept, right?

 

 

With all this said, Google cannot afford sanctions or being banned from the EU, because it will only leaves them with North America for now (Canada is worried about Google too).

 

 

Says something about good ol' Murica if we're the last ones not questioning something, right? Kinda like how we're the last major country using inches and feet, right? It's even better because even the country that invented that measurement system ditched it for the metric system. Now ain't we just special?

[LexusInfernus 908]

All this talk about Smasung and I haven't seen somebody mention the fact that all their "smart" TVs have cameras in them. Said-cameras must be functioning for your TV to function according to a TV repairman I know. Smart TVs are basically like paying somebody to spy on ya. Great concept, right?

Well that bit is nonsense. We got a Samsung smart tv and yes it has a camera. Which you can collapse into the tv and the tv works just fine. I also strongly recommend that you do that, not only out of privacy concerns but also because their cameras don't work well. They have a habit of activating for no $%&^! reason which results in stupid pop up messages on your tv screen. Really annoying. 

 

Really all that motion control using cameras is technology that has not been fine tuned to properly work, nor has the law caught up with it. About time the EU makes some law that completely ban companies using cameras to spy on people for whatever reason. 

 

Oh as for Google being a danger to small businesses, really we should stop fetishising those small businesses. They suck. Face it, they are more expensive and got a far smaller selection of products to choose from. The reason they get out competed by superstores is simply because superstores are infinitely better in nearly every respect. The law of economies of scale simply favor large businesses over small businesses and those small businesses, those small shops that are not highly specialized and don't actually offer something superstores don't are simply from an outdated time. Trying to preserve the small businesses over the large businesses does not in the end benefit you the consumer or the economy at large. The problem with large businesses is when there is only a couple of them. If its just Google or Amazon where I can buy stuff, its a problem. If its Google, Amazon and 10 other superstores? Well, thats good. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

 

Which is the typical end result any time a government butts its way into some industry.

Yes and at the same time its absolutely necessary that they do so in a number of areas. An economy run by monopolists and cartels isn't exactly healthy either. 

 

No.  And another thing industry by itself isn't good at, as we're learning, is building in the full life-cycle cost of some product into the selling cost - especially environmental costs.  For example, how many instances do we have where some industry came in, did it's thing, everybody was happy but they eventually left/went out of business and left behind a total scum hole not suitable for habitation even by insects and of course who is then ask to foot the bill to clean the mess up?

 

But by and large most government intervention is little more than needless meddling ranging from well-intentioned but misguided to malicious.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

<snip>

 

Oh as for Google being a danger to small businesses, really we should stop fetishising those small businesses. They suck. Face it, they are more expensive and got a far smaller selection of products to choose from. The reason they get out competed by superstores is simply because superstores are infinitely better in nearly every respect. The law of economies of scale simply favor large businesses over small businesses and those small businesses, those small shops that are not highly specialized and don't actually offer something superstores don't are simply from an outdated time. Trying to preserve the small businesses over the large businesses does not in the end benefit you the consumer or the economy at large. The problem with large businesses is when there is only a couple of them. If its just Google or Amazon where I can buy stuff, its a problem. If its Google, Amazon and 10 other superstores? Well, thats good. 

 

Generalities like this are, like most, false.

 

Small businesses that offer no serious advantage are welcome to go to the wall.  On the other hand, small business that offer a difference from the big boys in quality of service and/or product are deserving of all the attention they can get.

 

In a big box store you are either your own salesperson, or you are badgered by some jerk on commission.  It is often difficult to find anyone to discuss a product and answer questions.  Not my bag, thanks.  I only purchase stuff in big box stores when I know they have exactly what I want.

[Compdude787 916]

 

Which is the typical end result any time a government butts its way into some industry.

Yes and at the same time its absolutely necessary that they do so in a number of areas. An economy run by monopolists and cartels isn't exactly healthy either. 

 

Right, and that is NOT capitalism when you have monopolies in every industry. Government is right to prevent that from happening. In this case, Google bundling Chrome with other products when you can choose whether you wanted it or not is nowhere near as bad as Microsoft bundling IE with Windows where you were forced to take Windows with IE pre-installed or no OS at all. Even in that case, it still makes sense to at least provide an internet browser so that users can go and download a different browser. For most people that's all they ever use Internet Explorer for. Though, yes, it would be nice to be able to get rid of that piece of bloatware.

 

Oh as for Google being a danger to small businesses, really we should stop fetishising those small businesses. They suck. Face it, they are more expensive and got a far smaller selection of products to choose from. The reason they get out competed by superstores is simply because superstores are infinitely better in nearly every respect. The law of economies of scale simply favor large businesses over small businesses and those small businesses, those small shops that are not highly specialized and don't actually offer something superstores don't are simply from an outdated time. Trying to preserve the small businesses over the large businesses does not in the end benefit you the consumer or the economy at large. The problem with large businesses is when there is only a couple of them. If its just Google or Amazon where I can buy stuff, its a problem. If its Google, Amazon and 10 other superstores? Well, thats good. 

 

Why are you hating on small businesses? How do they not benefit the consumer? Every business started small, you know, like that company that made your iPhone that you're probably reading this forum from started small; its original manufacturing facilities was Steve Jobs' garage! Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was a huge corporation. As for small businesses being outdated, you must be thinking of small-town shops and whatnot being forced out by the new Walmart opening up. Small businesses are not outdated and most people will prefer to patronize a local business over a big-box store that offers the same product or service.

 

Mom-and-pop stores on Main Street are certainly not the only kind of 'small business,' though. Many small businesses consist of a guy in his garage making a product that fills a void in the market, and then selling it to people over the Internet. That dude is an entrepreneur, and it is amazing that capitalism allows any old schmuck with a great idea for some new product to get it out to market, even if he isn't properly educated on how to do it. For any knowledge this random schmuck needs to make his product, there is Google. Also, Google's search function is not a danger to small businesses at all, and it helps them succeed by getting their name out to prospective customers who are searching for a particular item that this new business makes.

 

From personal experience, it is so awesome to realize "screw it, I don't need a frickin' job at a grocery store that I've been trying to get for over a year, I can just invent something myself and get money that way!" Yes, my friend and I are about to start a small business that will invent stuff. I won't provide any other details right now since this is not the place to be advertising stuff, but it is awesome to just be able to rely on my own creativity and ingenuity for money rather than a corporation that most likely won't hire me to do a job that I'd only do for the money, and not because I enjoy what I'm spending my time on. Small businesses are really the innovators.

 

Once 3D printing becomes big, many more people will be able to come up with products. All they'll have to do is come up with a design, charge a bit of money for people to download the file containing the design for their 3D printer to "print." I mean, that's going to be the ultimate revolution in manufacturing and it will allow many more people to become entrepreneurs. Modern technology is looking good for capitalism! (and conservatism, too)

[LexusInfernus 908]

Generalities like this are, like most, false.

 

Small businesses that offer no serious advantage are welcome to go to the wall.  On the other hand, small business that offer a difference from the big boys in quality of service and/or product are deserving of all the attention they can get.

 

In a big box store you are either your own salesperson, or you are badgered by some jerk on commission.  It is often difficult to find anyone to discuss a product and answer questions.  Not my bag, thanks.  I only purchase stuff in big box stores when I know they have exactly what I want.

 

But those kind of stores don't get out competed by large stores, since they compete on a different level. You don't need to protect them. 

 

Why are you hating on small businesses? How do they not benefit the consumer? Every business started small, you know, like that company that made your iPhone that you're probably reading this forum from started small; its original manufacturing facilities was Steve Jobs' garage! Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was a huge corporation. As for small businesses being outdated, you must be thinking of small-town shops and whatnot being forced out by the new Walmart opening up. Small businesses are not outdated and most people will prefer to patronize a local business over a big-box store that offers the same product or service.

 

There is nothing wrong with small businesses in and by themselves. But the small businesses you are talking about are either working their way towards becoming a big business, or they are competing in some kind of niche market, where they have the competitive advantage. Thats great. But those kind of businesses generally don't need the protection from big businesses. They aren't hurt by big businesses. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

 

 

<snip>

 

Right, and that is NOT capitalism when you have monopolies in every industry. Government is right to prevent that from happening. In this case, Google bundling Chrome with other products when you can choose whether you wanted it or not is nowhere near as bad as Microsoft bundling IE with Windows where you were forced to take Windows with IE pre-installed or no OS at all. Even in that case, it still makes sense to at least provide an internet browser so that users can go and download a different browser. For most people that's all they ever use Internet Explorer for. Though, yes, it would be nice to be able to get rid of that piece of bloatware.

 

<snip>

Well, it is a matter of knowledge and guts, I suppose.  This machine was purchased naked with only its BIOS chips from a co-operative OEM.  Reduced the price by around $200 for not taking windoze.  These guys are busier than a one-armed paper hanger, based in a small town quite a bit north of London, Ontario.  Funny thing, my Ubuntu live boot came up on the first try.  Took about five minutes.

 

Ubuntu, by the way, comes with at least three browsers.  The default one is group ware, so I loaded firefox.  Chrom(ium) is available directly from the software catalogue as are several others.  The difference between Chrome and Chromium is that the Ubuntu distributor has added a home page to it.  Tried Chrome, didn't like it.  Browsers are a matter of taste close to being a religious faith.  I was a firefox user long before I switched to Linux.