German minister considers breaking up Google

[jes]

German minister considers breaking up Google

Germany’s economy minister says Google may have such a dominant market position that a breakup of the company “must be seriously considered.”

 

[abandonallhope]

in b4 ghoti and other google nerds

 

[entrepr]

I'm glad there's talk of this and that the 400 companies are lodging a complaint. It is tempting to believe when something is free there is no exploitation going on, but in reality customers could be being prevented from access to a whole range of new services from smaller providers without realising.

 

[Baxteen]

breaking up google is a silly idea.

hey here is this really awesome thing, that makes money not from users, but from people who want to get the users attention. lets break it up.

oh here is our services for free. manage your email and documents for free, with no clause. oh but if you are going to be an entire company of people using it here is the paid for version, it does the same as the desktop application at a quarter of the price.


Google is skynet.
also i will sue as a internet user, preventing me from expressing my freedom of religion, I am a google-ist. i pray to the church of google. if you dont know what that is try and bing it. that sentance seem a bit weird to you?

 

[Viva]

I'm glad there's talk of this and that the 400 companies are lodging a complaint. It is tempting to believe when something is free there is no exploitation going on, but in reality customers could be being prevented from access to a whole range of new services from smaller providers without realising.

How are they prevented? Who prevents them?

If competitors come up with products which are truly better, they will beat Google. Dropbox is a perfect example of this. Dropbox realized the importance of cloud storage for the everyday consumer before Google did (and implemented it brilliantly), which is the reason they are still going strong today, and many people do not make the switch to Google Drive, even though thay have accounts. Facebook understood the future of social better than Google did at the time, which is why they are so incredibly successful and Google+ is having a hard time competing with Facebook. Whatsapp understood something about the importance of a simple straight-forward IM platform, which is why they are why they are - beating Hangouts by far.

Competitors do succeed. But only when their ideas are novel, or their implementation is miles ahead. Google itself started out in the same way by drastically improving search.

So please help me understand why some argue Google is not competing fairly, outside of often developing better products than the competitors (Google Chrome, Google Translate, Android, Google Now, Gmail), or being the first to research and bring to market new technology (like Google Glass, Google Loon, Knowledge Graph, Google Contact Lens, Google Driverless car).

 

[Taranis]

The Germans have a well developed sense of fair play. Big up to them for challenging the giant.

 

[upup]

One thing we need from google, is to pay for apps via airtime, {android}

 

[Viva]

The Germans have a well developed sense of fair play. Big up to them for challenging the giant.

Can someone please help me understand in what sense Google is preventing fair play? By developing better products and services than other companies in some cases?

 

[Vrotappel]

As a customer I don't like this one bit. Google costs me nothing an if other companies cannot compete they should fail.

 

[Viva]

As a customer I don't like this one bit. Google costs me nothing an if other companies cannot compete they should fail.

And even if Google started to charge for their services, I'd be happy to pay a reasonable fee. The fact is that this company added incredible value to the internet. I don't choose it because I don't know about the alternatives. I choose it because it tends to be the best. When a Google product is not the best (Google Drive for instance) I don't use it (I use Dropbox).

 

[HavocXphere]

As a customer I don't like this one bit. Google costs me nothing an if other companies cannot compete they should fail.

Except your privacy of course.

 

[Viva]

Except your privacy of course.

As long as we don't pretend someone at Google is reading your emails, or looking at your pictures stored in Google+ or Drive. It "costs" you your privacy in the sense that it allows their automated systems to better target ads, which makes them a more compelling platform for advertisers to utilize.

 

[Taranis]

Can someone please help me understand in what sense Google is preventing fair play? By developing better products and services than other companies in some cases?

It's called fair competition. Go research Microsoft business tactics to see how bad it can get and the negative effect it has on products we buy.

 

[HavocXphere]

As long as we don't pretend someone at Google is reading your emails, or looking at your pictures stored in Google+ or Drive. It "costs" you your privacy in the sense that it allows their automated systems to better target ads, which makes them a more compelling platform for advertisers to utilize.

lol - yes thats the official google party line.

Its the subtle things that freak me out. e.g. I listen to progressive trance mixes on youtube in the background. Cool.

Then I switch to Chrome's "Privacy mode" (!) and navigate to youtube...what do I get...a bunch of suggested trance videos...hmmm...strange. So clearly Google is tracking & linking my activities to my main account despite me just having clicked on one of their features supposedly offering "privacy". That is Google's notion of privacy and frankly they can shove it.

All of the privacy promises these big corp internet companies make (google, facebook, microsoft, EA etc)...its just PR bullsht....the tech still screws over privacy at every point (as above) & they hire lawyers to cover it where necessary.

 

[Viva]

lol - yes thats the official google party line.

Its the subtle things that freak me out. e.g. I listen to progressive trance mixes on youtube in the background. Cool.

Then I switch to Chrome's "Privacy mode" (!) and navigate to youtube...what do I get...a bunch of suggested trance videos...hmmm...strange. So clearly Google is tracking & linking my activities to my main account despite me just having clicked on one of their features supposedly offering "privacy". That is Google's notion of privacy and frankly they can shove it.

All of the privacy promises these big corp internet companies make (google, facebook, microsoft, EA etc)...its just PR bullsht....the tech still screws over privacy at every point (as above) & they hire lawyers to cover it where necessary.

Interesting - I just tried it and only see really generic and popular suggested videos when in incognito mode. Some has a South African connotation, but that's just IP-based I guess. But please try to reproduce this behaviour and report back. Download and install Chromium and see if incognito mode give you the same results as Chrome's incognito mode. Surely this should be a satisfactory test to determine whether or not Google indeed tracks browsing in incognito mode.

Apart from this example, are there any other instances of Google violating your reasonable expectation of privacy? If you make the above (bolded) claim, this must surely be a regular thing?

 

[Viva]

It's called fair competition. Go research Microsoft business tactics to see how bad it can get and the negative effect it has on products we buy.

Help me understand, in Google's case and in specific terms, where they are behaving anti-competitively.

It seems many people equate general success in business with anti-competitive behaviour, while failing to point to concrete instances of said behaviour.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Without endorsing the idiocies of attempting to "regulate competition" beyond instances where genuine questions of public equity* arises the issue with Google and competitive behaviour - especially in Germany - is that it is generally considered an anti-competitive practice to make products and services available at a price below cost in order to compel consumers to bundle or to lock out competitors by cornering the market.
Google has been providing certain services for free to drive purchasing of others and it has bundled products and services and moved to limit consumer choice. On the basis of what ORDO liberalism demands Google is highly anti-competitive


*to explain what I mean by public equity will entail walls and walls of text but for now let me limit it to the following distinction:
Microsoft, Google etc ... are private companies built by individuals voluntarily placing capital into a company with limited regulatory issue at stake whereas SAA has a position to conduct itself anti-competitively without feeling the consequences because of the regulatory burdens and a historic state monopoly and preference. I couldn't care less about Vodacom and Telkom trying to corner the market in ping pong balls in 2014 (its coming watch) by selling at below cost to draw market share, but I do care very much about Vodacom and MTN abusing CTRs to benefit from subsidization from Telkom and to lock out new entrants during the state licensed duopoly era. I similarly care about engineering firms price fixing on tenders involving the government.

On this approach - and the position I advocate - an autonomous competition authority (in SA the Comp Comm) is necessary to deal with the final stages of dismantling state granted monopoly problems and should be limited to cases where it can be shown at onset that any competition issue originates in the regulatory environment or a state granted monopoly and for action to be taken against the enterprise that it did abuse same. Our courts (particularly the SCA but not the CC) have largely read purposiveness into the competition act and departed from the deeply protectionist nature of earlier competition statutes.

 

[Syphonx]

I'm glad there's talk of this and that the 400 companies are lodging a complaint. It is tempting to believe when something is free there is no exploitation going on, but in reality customers could be being prevented from access to a whole range of new services from smaller providers without realising.

I had no idea Google was now blocking the sites of competitors
I have another proposal, Government has a dominant market position and should be broken up to allow competition from other governments. this monopoly must end.

 

[HavocXphere]

Interesting - I just tried it and only see really generic and popular suggested videos when in incognito mode. Some has a South African connotation, but that's just IP-based I guess. But please try to reproduce this behaviour and report back.

Bingo. That is exactly whats happening. Add a hint of browser fingerprinting and you can easily identify individual users. See how this went from "automated systems to better target ads" to you suggesting they might be tracking via IP (in my case despite privacy mode).

Still don't believe me when I say they are screwing you over privacy wise?

And even if Google started to charge for their services, I'd be happy to pay a reasonable fee.

Behold...this product you envision does actually exist. Once you pay this additional fee you fall under a different set of privacy policies...but it still doesn't prevent tracking. Damn...you just forked over 500 buck and still get tracked...its almost like you're not entitled to privacy. Funny...Its in the fkin SA constitution for heaven sake...right to privacy...

Apart from this example, are there any other instances of Google violating your reasonable expectation of privacy?

Well just exactly how many examples would you like - just to allow me to quantify this? Would say 5 violations of privacy be OK but 6 would not?

Surely you can see how fkin ridiculous this is?

 

[Syphonx]

Bingo. That is exactly whats happening. Add a hint of browser fingerprinting and you can easily identify individual users. See how this went from "automated systems to better target ads" to you suggesting they might be tracking via IP (in my case despite privacy mode).

Still don't believe me when I say they are screwing you over privacy wise?



Behold...this product you envision does actually exist. Once you pay this additional fee you fall under a different set of privacy policies...but it still doesn't prevent tracking. Damn...you just forked over 500 buck and still get tracked...its almost like you're not entitled to privacy. Funny...Its in the fkin SA constitution for heaven sake...right to privacy...


Well just exactly how many examples would you like - just to allow me to quantify this? Would say 5 violations of privacy be OK but 6 would not?

Surely you can see how fkin ridiculous this is?

So why don't you stop using google and switch over to one of the other numerous search engines, cloud storage providers, paid email providers and mapping companies?
I don't give a damn that some bot is using my search history/email scanning to deliver adds and content that I actually want to see, you seem like one of those people that will complain either way. Either Google is invading your privacy by suggesting things you may actually like or on the other hand Google only shows annoying adverts about stuff you're not interested in. There are certain terms and conditions you need to accept to use their services, if you don't accept them use someone else. Google Now is really great at using my past searches to suggest articles that I may be interested in.