TBH, when it comes to arguments on here, Google is getting worse and worse. They promote trash third-hand mainstream news articles so heavily to the top of the results that tracking down good sources is easier on basically every other search engine.
DoJ, Antitrust and Google
- Thread starter Trunkage
- Start date
USA
That is exactly what it keeps doing to me when it updates. It is irritating as hell. It makes it so much worse that I have to then go to everyone's computer after updates and have to fix it not just one or two, but 11 computers so by the time I am about half way through doing so, I am to the point of wanting to throw them all out in the yard. ;x
I thought what google promotes is often different depending on where you live and your own search history.
Good, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple are monopolies whether the media wants to admit it or not. The problem is that some countries like South Korea, but primary China doesn't care about monopolies as having monopolies enhances the power of their state as giant companies due to economies of scale in some if not all cases make them more efficient. We need some sort of global anti-trust regulation, and for those industries with unlimited economies of scale, we need price-gorging rules.
Also, you are never going to get me to use firefox let alone whatever trash internet explorer Microsoft is cooking up the same goes for Google, and bing, and yahoo search.
Also, you are never going to get me to use firefox let alone whatever trash internet explorer Microsoft is cooking up the same goes for Google, and bing, and yahoo search.
Calling Google's search engine a monopoly is essentially trying to punish them for making a superior product than others. There is nothing preventing people from using Bing, Duckduckgo or anything else they want to. google doesn't prevent people from doing so. People just CHOOSE to use google. That is not a monopoly.
A monopoly is like when At&T is the only ISP you can have because you live in an a certain area and that is all you can receive in that area and At&T wont share the fiber with anyone else so you have no choice.
What search engine DO you use?
I use google, but I am not looking at choices, I am looking at Market-share, and the Google search engine is a monopoly in it of itself by this definition.
ISPs are definite monopolies, and it's funny you mention AT&T, the only reason I use them is that I have two choices(Spectrum, and At&t), and Spectrum keeps increasing prices.
Also, ISPs are local monopolies like a cabin company in a woodlands area is, and I think those do need more regulation. The problem is Comcast buys the democrats, and Verizon and AT&T buy the Republicans.
ISPs are definite monopolies, and it's funny you mention AT&T, the only reason I use them is that I have two choices(Spectrum, and At&t), and Spectrum keeps increasing prices.
Also, ISPs are local monopolies like a cabin company in a woodlands area is, and I think those do need more regulation. The problem is Comcast buys the democrats, and Verizon and AT&T buy the Republicans.
Last edited:
The difference though is Google have more people choosing to use them, that doesn't mean they should downgrade their product so others can compete with them, others should just step up their game. People have choices, however, it is not googles fault those choices suck. There is no improper conduct on Googles part, which is required to be an illegal monopoly.
I don't use Comcast, Verizon or At&T... none of them should have special treatment by the government regardless.
It's not their fault, but they are still a monopoly. We should break up Google into their search engine, android, their phones, and etc.
That makes no sense and that isn't even what is being addressed in this suit. Their other branches are not even involved with their search engine in the first place. That would be singling them out when we have other companies doing a variety of things. You are just trying to punish them for their success. They are actually owned under Alphabet.
Alphabet Inc. - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
We have a good number of companies that own a ton of other companies as well. There is no reason to single them out for this.
I hate to side with Epic games here but google does have a bit of a stranglehold in some areas. Epic managed to do a deal with a mobile provider to install Epic Game mobile store by default but Google managed to fight them on it and I think took them to court over it (I'm not 100% on that last bit) but they did stop it happening.
Also part of Google's power is it's big enough it can undercut most other opposition services and controls so much of the market.
They do need to go after ISP (from what I've heard of USA ISPs)
The problem here is more likely to be multiple services. It Google dominates the search engine business because it's better, given alternatives are there, okay. But if it (well, Alphabet) also owns YouTube, and its web brower (which is the default on a gazillion mobile phones), and maps, and all the other gazillion software systems, there's a risk it creates a "synergy" that, whilst useful for users, also creates a substantial obstruction to other entrants to the marketplace, as their products are always inferior to Google's because they don't have the same advantage of tying into everything else that people are using, or that Google gives its own systems favour.
Apple, Microsoft, Amazon.. they all have similar synergy though. It isn't like Google is the only one in the game here.
Samsung internet is the default on my Samsung phones. I had to add google to use it. Is if default from the manufacture or added by the mobile carriers? I always buy my phone outright elsewhere and then change carriers at will so I have no idea what phone carriers add to them. I thought they tended to add a good deal of apps on there a lot of the time. How is that any different than any other app having a contract with manufacture or carrier? Is that any different than Microsoft having edge as default? Apple with apple products? Is that preventing other search engines from being added?
I am not singling them out, I am in support of doing this to every company like the companies you mentioned.That makes no sense and that isn't even what is being addressed in this suit. Their other branches are not even involved with their search engine in the first place. That would be singling them out when we have other companies doing a variety of things. You are just trying to punish them for their success. They are actually owned under Alphabet.
.Alphabet Inc. - Wikipedia
We have a good number of companies that own a ton of other companies as well. There is no reason to single them out for this.
If it is not resulting in a higher quality product at a lower price then there is no point in really doing so is there? The purpose should always be to improve. If that isn't the goal here it is not serving a beneficial purpose.
I mean, even if google didn't pay company to be the default option in many case, people would just naturally change it to google if not have company naturally do it themselves. The only time when that wouldn't be the case would be when company have their own search engine (ie bing being the default search engine for edge) which is hardly what I'd consider pro consumer move.
I don't see how splitting search from other google aspect would help. It'd be quite the pain in the ass if searching on google couldn't give you maps or youtube link. Beside plenty of other company were able to emerge, Twitch is very similar to youtube (and youtube quickly implemented twitch like feature) yet Twitch managed to carve it's own niche and afaik google doesn't discriminate against twitch in its search.
Or do they want to force google search to split some other way, like you could only search certain thing on google and would need to use another search engine for anything else?
Things like search engine will always end up with few dominant player, there's just no reason it wouldn't happen since they're free and accessible anywhere. The only group that could potentially benefit from google being weakened are advertisers, since they could probably pay less if the market was full of small company rather than one dominant one. But should consumer really care about that?
I don't see how splitting search from other google aspect would help. It'd be quite the pain in the ass if searching on google couldn't give you maps or youtube link. Beside plenty of other company were able to emerge, Twitch is very similar to youtube (and youtube quickly implemented twitch like feature) yet Twitch managed to carve it's own niche and afaik google doesn't discriminate against twitch in its search.
Or do they want to force google search to split some other way, like you could only search certain thing on google and would need to use another search engine for anything else?
Things like search engine will always end up with few dominant player, there's just no reason it wouldn't happen since they're free and accessible anywhere. The only group that could potentially benefit from google being weakened are advertisers, since they could probably pay less if the market was full of small company rather than one dominant one. But should consumer really care about that?
I would see them trying to tell google you can't have this in your search results would be overstepping their bounds and harmful to consumers. Trying to FORCE consumers to use one search engine or another would be more of a problem then just allowing them to compete on the quality of their own products. People will use what they feel best suits their needs.
Trying to downgrade google would be like saying "well those shoes are too good for your feet so you have to stop making good shoes and make crappier shoes that hurt your feet so these other crappier shoe makers can compete with you." that is a horrible precedent to set.
