German minister considers breaking up Google

[HavocXphere]

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?

lol - yes the thought did cross my mind. Let me know when DuckDuckGo launches their cellphone OS.

>>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,

Nor do I.

>>you seem like one of those people that will complain either way.

Did you even read the post? If it were simple bots scanning my mails and posting ads (as you suggest) then I'd give it a big thumbs up too...as I did when that particular monetization model was launched back in what 2004 or something?

You say Google Now is great. Indeed it is. You've given it the right to all your info 10 times over via app permissions upgrades and what not...and yet you seem to think that google restricts itself to the 2004 practice of just scanning your mails by bots?!? Really...

>>if you don't accept them use someone else.

Yep - I'm awaiting deliver of my DuckDuckGo driven cellphone...oh wait...it does not exist. Its either endure Apple's restrictive BS or endure Google's invasive BS. Or forget the whole smartphone story as a whole.

>>you seem like one of those people that will complain either way.

When all the options are bad & everyone else seems to just roll over & comply...damn straight I'll complain.

 

[Syphonx]

Did you even read the post? If it were simple bots scanning my mails and posting ads (as you suggest) then I'd give it a big thumbs up too...as I did when that particular monetization model was launched back in what 2004 or something?

You say Google Now is great. Indeed it is. You've given it the right to all your info 10 times over via app permissions upgrades and what not...and yet you seem to think that google restricts itself to the 2004 practice of just scanning your mails by bots?!? Really...

I really don't mind, I don't post stuff I'm worried about online, and it's not like google is going to start offering private messages in their searches are they?

Yep - I'm awaiting deliver of my DuckDuckGo driven cellphone...oh wait...it does not exist. Its either endure Apple's restrictive BS or endure Google's invasive BS. Or forget the whole smartphone story as a whole.

Well there's windows phone, blackberry, Sailfish OS and Ubuntu soon. Lots of options, you could also just remove all the google services from your phone.

 

[ngwe23]

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?

Ooh no, that would make too much sense.

 

[Taranis]

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.

They were manipulating the search engine to favour their own sites (YouTube) in search results.

 

[Syphonx]

They were manipulating the search engine to favour their own sites (YouTube) in search results.

But all companies do that, any company that offers any additional services (insurance, internet etc.) will point you in that direction instead of competitors. Obviously if you're requesting a video on google they are gonna offer Youtube first, if you don't want Youtube then add in a term for another video service. How can you not expect a company to punt their own service? Anyway Youtube is the most popular video service so I would expect it to appear first anyway, how do they prove that search results were manipulated when logically youtube results should appear first.

 

[Viva]

They were manipulating the search engine to favour their own sites (YouTube) in search results.

Has this been proven?

Anyway, I don't see Apple promoting Samsung's services on their site, or BMW promotions on Mercedes's site.

 

[Viva]

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.

Thanks for this - its really helpful.

So it sounds to me like a problem arises when a company sells a product below cost, thereby undercutting competitors which allows them to own the market in the long run. I understand how this can be problematic.

However, if Google not simply cross-subsidising the cost of products? Meaning we get Search, Gmail and Maps for free, but they make their real money with ads, which are paid for by other companies who needs to advertise a product. How do you differentiate between selling below cost and the subsidisation of one product by another?

 

[Space_Chief]

Google have become a bunch of w@nkers.

Now you need a cell phone number to create a gmail account.

One could use a service like k7.net for that but still it's a PITA.

And for privacy, surely https://startpage.com/ is better? (or maybe it's also data mined.)

 

[Viva]

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?

You're misunderstanding me. There is a big difference between a site that looks at the IP in order to tailor content to match the local context (what Youtube and countless other sites seems to be doing), and tracking the individual IP's of persons who are using incognito mode. Did you give Chromium a try? Please conduct the experiment.

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...

That's Google Apps for business. I'm an individual. Anyway, if you do not agree with the terms and conditions, don't use their service. I choose to use it. Bizarrely enough, you do too.

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?

More than one uncomfirmed example, please.

 

[Viva]

Google have become a bunch of w@nkers.

Now you need a cell phone number to create a gmail account.

One could use a service like k7.net for that but still it's a PITA.

And for privacy, surely https://startpage.com/ is better? (or maybe it's also data mined.)

Sure. So don't use it, and then you don't have to complain about it.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Thanks for this - its really helpful.

So it sounds to me like a problem arises when a company sells a product below cost, thereby undercutting competitors which allows them to own the market in the long run. I understand how this can be problematic.

However, if Google not simply cross-subsidising the cost of products? Meaning we get Search, Gmail and Maps for free, but they make their real money with ads, which are paid for by other companies who needs to advertise a product. How do you differentiate between selling below cost and the subsidisation of one product by another?

This is some of the difficulty which ORDO liberalism runs into, the idea that a company can undercut competitors to gain control of the market makes sense but if you don't have negative externalities of fraud or violence a really innovative business model is needed to survive. In Microsoft's case for example, Microsoft cornered the PC desktop\laptop market because all of the other companies with the sort of OS muscle to boot had focused on other more profitable markets. It was the tying up of BSD in litigation (which was not a Microsoft issue), the failure of IBM to drive OS/2 properly to market and the lack of a full GNU option in 1994 that allowed Microsoft to get their massive hold with Windows 95. Ironically both Unix and OS/2's failure to compete could be attributed to competition law interference - the AT&T suit (in the Reagan administration) and IBMs split up.
Microsoft's dominance in some markets is because of the fact that Microsoft gives the market what it wants, and if it can't deliver it changes the markets mind ... And the same can be said for Google.
I am dead opposed to a break-up of Google on this sort of premise, it is market interference of the worst kind.

 

[Taranis]

But all companies do that, any company that offers any additional services (insurance, internet etc.) will point you in that direction instead of competitors. Obviously if you're requesting a video on google they are gonna offer Youtube first, if you don't want Youtube then add in a term for another video service. How can you not expect a company to punt their own service? Anyway Youtube is the most popular video service so I would expect it to appear first anyway, how do they prove that search results were manipulated when logically youtube results should appear first.

It depends on the position of the company in the market. If they dominate and are not allowing much competition by abusing their position or stifling growth then they get sanctions. Look at Microsoft bundling IE with Windows. No company was able to even enter the browser market. Netscape went under as a result. As I said before, you end up with a bad product when there is no incentive to improve it.

Has this been proven?

Anyway, I don't see Apple promoting Samsung's services on their site, or BMW promotions on Mercedes's site.

Yes, they had to modify it by one of the competition commissions.

 

[semaphore]

And what exact power does germany have over an American company... umm none. Shutup germany go home you are drunk.

 

[Flowerhat]

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).

I also enjoy all the free services that google provides.

But I believe the majority of their income is by spying on users, using search based marketing etc.

 

[Paul Hjul]

And what exact power does germany have over an American company... umm none. Shutup germany go home you are drunk.

the same power the US Federal Government has over a German company. The US DoJ has had serious ability to influence Daimler-Benz corporate affairs which largely subsided when the Chrysler angle stepped in in 1998.

If Google is thobbed in Germany it will have serious ramifications for all of their European business.

 

[semaphore]

the same power the US Federal Government has over a German company. The US DoJ has had serious ability to influence Daimler-Benz corporate affairs which largely subsided when the Chrysler angle stepped in in 1998.

If Google is thobbed in Germany it will have serious ramifications for all of their European business.

I still don't see it as the right for a foreign country to start making these types of demands.

 

[Paul Hjul]

I don't see the right of a "home government" to make the demands either - unless public equity is established

However the Germans are at least consistent on the point of competition law relative to the French and Americans. US DoJ matters under anti-trust law are horrendously done and always have a protectionist objective

 

[semaphore]

I don't see the right of a "home government" to make the demands either - unless public equity is established

However the Germans are at least consistent on the point of competition law relative to the French and Americans. US DoJ matters under anti-trust law are horrendously done and always have a protectionist objective

So basically just because germans are slow to the game, google must now submit.

 

[Paul Hjul]

So basically just because germans are slow to the game, google must now submit.

O no not at all
My point is that I don't see how the fact that Google is an American company makes any difference at all.

 

[semaphore]

O no not at all
My point is that I don't see how the fact that Google is an American company makes any difference at all.

So you're saying the Americans should have forced them to split up before this minister opened his mouth?