Poll: Is it time for the government to kill Google?

[DoPo]

*50% of smart phone usage - It's actually more 70%, and they did that by creating a fantastic, open mobile OS that everyone can use

Can I have a source for that? I can't seem to find reliable info on the matter, I thought Android had ~50% or so (40-something last I've seen it) and Apple had approximately as much. That was a while ago, though, still, I expected them to be fairly similar figures still.

 

[Griffolion]

-snip-

[a href="http://www.androidguys.com/2013/01/29/strategy-analytics-android-gobbled-up-70-of-global-market-share-in-q4-2012/"]Here you go.[/a]

"Android is the undisputed volume leader of the smart phone industry at the present time."

 

[DoPo]

-snip-

[a href="http://www.androidguys.com/2013/01/29/strategy-analytics-android-gobbled-up-70-of-global-market-share-in-q4-2012/"]Here you go.[/a]

"Android is the undisputed volume leader of the smart phone industry at the present time."

Wow, thanks. It seems that Android has always been ahead (there are stats from as far back as 2011) so I suppose I've been wrong for being on par with iOS. I think the figures I've seen would have been for the USA not global - that would actually make way more sense, since iPhones aren't as popular in all countries.

 

[Griffolion]

-snip-

Contrary to what the usual poop-flinging pro-Apple blogs would have you believe, Android's been ahead for a long time. Back in May, they hit the 1M activations a day landmark, which they announced at I/O.

iOS is incredibly popular, but the open nature of Android allows it to get onto so many devices, and thus just swamp the market. In terms of "single devices" being popular, the iPhone still reigns. The only thing that holds a candle is the Galaxy S3.

 

[Sotanaht]

I figure the reason Google owns as much as they do is because they are good at it. I mean for example I personally like their web browser more than Firefox, and I used to think Firefox was great. It's a difference between forcing the competition out of the market through business practices (I'm sure they do but I just don't see it) and simply providing a better product or service than anybody else can.

"Breaking up" Google essentially means diminishing the quality of many of the goods and services we currently get from them. Just because they are "killed" doesn't mean anyone else will be able to provide any of the same things as well, let alone better. I understand the perfectly legitimate fears of what they can do, but then there's really no guarantee we would be any better off without them anyway.

 

[gigastar]

I'm going to watch this thread with a big nice [citation needed] tag over here.

Here, i got a bigger one.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

- Smart phones: No, possibly the most rapidly expanding, but nowhere near a monopoly.
- Web browsers: No. Growing in popularity, but again nowhere near.
- Internet searching: Maybe, it's popular, but there are certainly still competitors.
- E-mail provider: Popular in some countries, but as pointed out above severely lacking in others.
- Internet videos: Okay, probably this one, though again in some countries it has serious competition.
- Advertising: It advertises. That's how it makes it's money. It doesn't own advertising.
- Website statistics: It does a good chunk of it, but again it has it's competitors.
- Map and route making: It's popular, but there's still TomTom and Garmin holding a big chunk of the market, plus Apple is trying to get into the market.
- Whole world image map: It's the easiest available, but not the only, first, last or best. Offered for others to use and modify.
- Video map: If this is a thing I can't find it.
- Social Network: Oh god are they lagging behind with this compared to FB and twitter.
- Chrome OS: Nowhere near.

Several of your assessments I agree with; however, there are pertinent ones I do not. In past Anti-Trust cases, it has never been necessary for the company to literally be the only one in the market. It simply requires that the company be so massive that competition is all but impossible. Google is currently in this position for searching and other areas fall directly into this area. The data required to build the search engine for example is a big part of what's included in the statistics they provide. And there are certainly other video servies but none with anywhere near the clout of youtube. Include in that massive gains in mail, both private and professional and widely used cloud services and it starts to paint the picture of a company that does, in fact, dominate many of their fields. In some areas, they are a relatively minor player certainly - desktop OS, first party phone sales and the rest.

The part where you start arriving at problems is, of course, that Google provides many of these services either for free or at a staggering subsidy - a fact that, as much as anything, accounts for their meteoric rise.

That said, given the basis of the success lie in technology, I think it's finally time that we examine laws that say that broad software concepts cannot be patented and return to an era where specific implementations of that concept are protected. That alone is a major source of douchebaggery in the software industry on all fronts.

 

[DoPo]

-snip-

Contrary to what the usual poop-flinging pro-Apple blogs would have you believe[...]

On the day, *I* start visiting pro-Apple blogs, faint oinking sounds will be heard from far overhead. I merely saw some statistics lest year or the one before that with the two sort of equal in market share - 40-something percent each. On reflection, as I said, it must have been a US statistic, as Apple are way more prominent there, it makes sense that they would have less of a foothold globally.

 

[Eomega123]

My opinion on Google is about the same as my opinion on Valve. Yes they have a scary ammount of power. Yes I trust them a little too much. Yes they've got a lot of money flowing into their coffers. Yes they're grabbing some powerful monopolies. But...I don't really care, because they don't seem to want to do anything evil with it. When they expand and make boatloads of money their product improves and I end up having a better time, so why stop the party?

 

[afroebob]

Considering I believe in a free market, until Google becomes a monopoly (which it is NOT) or starts making an army of robot soldiers (which it CAN) I am against 'killing' Google. Sometimes companies make a lot of money for a reason... they are a good company. Or they have an Apple logo.

 

[Fisher321]

Punish a successful company for being successful?

Good thinking

 

[MammothBlade]

Yes, just because they're playing nice guy at the moment, it doesn't prevent them from turning around and using the immense power they have accumulated for less than benevolent purposes. Power is there to be used, you can't really abuse it unless it has a specified function in the first place. Google has power Microsoft could only dream of. Beware the oo in google, for it is always watching. It is far too fond of giving out everything for free seemingly for nothing in return. Something smells off. And I don't even mean selling data to companies. That could be considered a symbiosis.

 

[Olas]

I don't understand why Google being such a large company is a bad thing. For one the idea that they would 'take over the world' is completely absurd, why would anyone in their right mind want to do that? You are the boss of one of the most successful companies in the world so you try and 'take over the world'? No, you retire and you spend the rest of your days flying helicopters or swimming in chocolate or whatever you find fun. Taking over the world is too much work.

Why is a company regarded as evil simply because it is large and powerful? They made it to the top because they did a damn good job, not because they shot anyone who didn't buy their products. Would Google 'taking over the world' even necessarily be a bad thing? Maybe they want to help the world out and make it a better place.

This is the kind of misconception that irks me. Nobody is accusing Google of being 'evil' or wanting to 'take over the world', at least OP isn't. It's about maintaining a competitive marketplace where a multitude of separate companies battle to win over consumers. Competition drives down price, drives up quality, and gives consumers more options, it's a fundamental cornerstone to a healthy marketplace. That's why monopolies are always seen as a bad thing, they tend to cause stagnation and rigidity.

The problem is that while Google may have risen to the top on superior services, they're starting to reach the point where they dominate because nobody else is even capable of competing with them, since the necessary technology and information is simply unattainable to anyone who isn't already a software giant. This is called a barrier to entry, and it's what leads to monopolization.

So, without opposition adequately capable of producing a competing service, Google has less pressure to improve upon itself or try to innovate and take risks. This is not generally what people want. As of right now Google is doing a pretty good job, but they're not gods. And what happens when Google makes a change to Youtube that you don't like? What are you going to do? Use a different online video service? Ha, I laugh at the thought. No, you're just going to suck it up and continue using Youtube because Youtube is practically a monopoly and you have no alternatives.

 

[BrassButtons]

Your argument is probably the one thats persuading me the most.

Yay--I'm helping!

I've learnt a lot of things today about how not to structure debate topics and from now I will cut the silly titles and comics and flippant jokes let me assure you =D but because I've managed to create such a negative framing (and I really would like you to believe it was from me being a colossal idiot than any malice)

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor] (not really calling you stupid--it was just a perfect opportunity to use that quote).

The US and the EU do create privacy laws to restrict this sort of thing, do you disapprove of this behaviour?

Depends on the kind of law you mean. If it's a law to prevent getting private information without the consent of the person in question, then I'm generally against it (obviously there are exceptions, such as when there's a warrant). But if that information is being freely offered by the person then I don't think that should be any government's business.

Would it be fair to take it that you disapprove of governmental anti-smoking campaigns or would that be okay on the basis that they aren't restricting choice but merely trying to be persuasive.

I disagree with them on the basis that I don't think it's the government's role to try to influence the behavior of it's citizens unless that behavior is criminal. It's not my parent (and I wouldn't want my actual parents trying to persuade me away from smoking if I were a smoker--I'm an adult, I can make my own decisions).

And I mean there are a lot of people who haven't made a careful cost-benefit analysis, and of those people who have and made intelligent decisions, may just not have been aware of the facts (the ppl asking for citations on the government stuff). Does that affect the decision?

Either we trust adults to run their own lives, or we don't. If we do, then the government shouldn't be making laws to prevent people from making the "wrong" decision. If we don't, then we can't trust the lawmakers either (they're adults too, so their judgement is no more trustworthy than the judgement of the people they're passing laws to protect).

Or should the correct response just be to raise public awareness on these issues?

I have no problem with a private citizen launching some kind of campaign to raise awareness of these issues. But again, I don't think that's the government's place. I'm very much for limited government if that's not obvious by now.

And I don't know, to me it seems like this might exploit a weakness in our programming where we slightly overcompensate on short term goals over longer more nebulous affairs (there are plenty of people who wished they hadn't started smoking) so I'm thinking that maybe a government as a body of representative body has some responsibility to try and safeguard people, what would you say?

I want my government to safeguard me by keeping a police force and military, not by trying to make my decisions for me or by attempting to influence my decisions so that I do what the government thinks is right.

Besides, what happens when what the government thinks is the right decision turns out to be wrong? It's certainly happened before (check out "A History of Freedom of Thought" for an in-depth look at this problem. The book is mainly about censorship as it relates to religion, but a lot of the concepts carry over to this discussion). If I make a bad decision I suffer the consequences. When a government makes a bad decision all of it's citizens suffer the consequences.

 

[BrotherRool]

snip

Thanks, I'm not traditionally a supporter in light governments to the extent you are(I feel that there are just some imbalances the come out of the systems we work with that we need to consciously collaborate to reduce) but I'm fairly persuaded now that in this matter at least, any restrictions would probably be better directed at the governments limiting their power to make requests of Google than Google itself.

Oh well, in 24 hours I've gone from the sort of person who would create a thread like this to the sort of person who'd rather throw a bucket of water over my face the next time I get carried away, but I'm fairly content with the answers people have given me to something thats been bothering me for a while, so I guess it's been productive at least =D

 

[Baneat]

Please do not rely on the government splitting up google to prevent monopoly. As it stands Google is a great method for them to obtain information (Kind of illegally too) and, so long as they comply aid them greatly.

 

[aba1]

And finally, I believe that people like the CIA can force Google to hand over any data they need. We're in a situation where intelligence agencies don't have to spy on people because Google has all the information they'd ever need.

Well the CIA is a US agency and if the US government got in their face it would only push another company out of the US which is the last thing they need at this point. Also what data does google have exactly that the government would be so interested in? The only thing I can think of is internet search traffic which as far as I am aware is open to the public and they are very open with their results. Hopefully you don't think Google runs most websites I hear people always saying that Google gives them all this information and such but Google doesn't give any information it only leads you to a place that can. Google is like a car it gets you to the store which has everything you need but it isn't the store it is only a way to get there.

 

[Zantos]

Several of your assessments I agree with; however, there are pertinent ones I do not. In past Anti-Trust cases, it has never been necessary for the company to literally be the only one in the market. It simply requires that the company be so massive that competition is all but impossible.

If I remember correctly, in practice a monopoly is considered to be holding three quarters of the market share. You're right that searching at about 80%, and youtube is only competed against locally in places like Japan. Mail services are fairly balanced globally between Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail, as of the end of last year, with Yahoo still being most popular in the US market. I cannot find any info on cloud services. So it holds the search monopoly, it holds the video monopoly, but only since it's own failed and it bought another.

The thing is that they aren't doing this by the usual dodgy business practices though. Chrome search options can use any search engine, video searches bring up results from all video hosting, android has apps for yahoo and hotmail, they aren't limiting anything on their platforms. They are as popular as they are because they are quite simply the best.

I definitely agree that the laws are not suitable for our technology based world though. There are plenty of instances where the law simply isn't adequate for modern times.

 

[jackpipsam]

I am still more worried about Apple.

Personally I just stick with Microsoft stuff, however Google Chrome is nice.

I understand where you're coming from, however Google hasn't seem to do anything major for me to distrust them.
Even if they do, I can simply ignore their products.

I had pressure to get IOS for the apps, but I have no pressure to get Android.