Is Google abusing its power?

koeksGHT said:
Fine people, leave gmail, get rid of your android phone, delete all your google apps.

Wait, when did they force to you to use their services?

Personally I don't mind Google having some of my info, allows them to better design products to fit your needs.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point of anti-trust laws. Since Google has the advantage of search - everybody uses them. That's fine, you may use Bing.

But what's illegal is using that dominance to force people to use your other services and in the process, hurt other companies' bottom line. The best recent example I have experienced first hand is Google's new Hangouts app. I use Chrome at work, my colleague uses Firefox. Cool. But then, our team leader upgrades his GTalk to Google Hangouts so that we can start using the group chat features (which was in Talk always, but pretty sucky).

I upgrade mine and chat along.
My Firefox colleague gets a link in his normal GTalk window saying that he should upgrade to the new Hangouts app. He clicks the link, only to be told that he can only use it using Google Chrome. Guess what, he's "forced" to upgrade to another service of Google's, to use one of their services. Mozilla gets hurt in the process because Google's forced us to move to Chrome to use one of their services.

It is using your market dominance (say using Android) to force people to use other services (say Google search). Even though people still have a choice, it is just easier due to integration to continue using the services thrown at you by the monopoly. It is exactly why MS was fined in the 90's - they used their desktop advantage to push people to IE (by not offering you a clear choice).

Fine, Google doesn't have a monopoly in desktop IM apps. But they are becoming dangerously close to MS of the 90's in how they force people to use their services.

Others that I can think of:
- stopping support for mobile Maps on Windows phone - thereby forcing people to use Android
- displaying their own G+ results in search instead of say Facebook / Twitter - thereby pushing their social network using their dominance in search.
 
Last edited:
ebendl, I cannot agree with you.

Your use of the word "force" is unwarranted. It does not help by putting it in scare quotes.

Are you forced by car makers to buy petrol?
Are you forced by banks to use money?
Are you forced by your ISP to use their SMTP server?
Are you forced by Whatsapp to chat only to other Whatsapp users?
Are you forced by Linux to use only Linux apps?
Are you forced by Apple to use Safari?
Are you forced by Intel to run only x86 operating systems?
Are you forced by MyBroadband to comply with their Ts&Cs?

Can you not draw the essential distinction between real force and liberty? Between property rights and compulsion?

Using Google is entirely voluntary. If you don't like it, use something else. And if the something else doesn't quite do the same ... well, shamepies. That's just the way the universe works. Trying to pass human laws to alter that will destroy the industry, law itself, and ultimately even us.

BUT PLEASE KEEP THE GOVERNMENTS OUT OF MY SOFTWARE. AND GOOGLE'S SOFTWARE. AND MICROSOFT'S SOFTWARE. LEAVE US ALONE!! IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR STUFF, USE SOMETHING ELSE. OR GO WITHOUT.

If you answer yes to any of the above, I despair. With that sort of thinking, civilisation is doomed.

No-one is compelled to use Google. There's no law that removes your choice.

Besides, it is a very good and desirable thing for companies to use their dominance in one area to extend and expand into others. It is morally and ethically licit. I think it is fantastic that Google uses its dominance in Search to do a browser, or a messaging service, or a mobile OS. Consumers benefit. Google benefits. Competitors have to get sharper and shape up or lose out. If they don't, tough luck. In a free world, Google or anyone else can only dominate as long as they deliver superior value.

Using the police to protect Google's competitors from Google's expanding services and products would be a serious violation of Google's property rights and a great miscarriage of justice.

It would debilitate and defocus Google. Consumers would not benefit. And the entire industry would be weakened.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
ebendl, I cannot agree with you.

Your use of the word "force" is unwarranted. It does not help by putting it in scare quotes.

Are you forced by car makers to buy petrol?
Are you forced by banks to use money?
Are you forced by your ISP to use their SMTP server?
Are you forced by Whatsapp to chat only to other Whatsapp users?
Are you forced by Linux to use only Linux apps?
Are you forced by Apple to use Safari?
Are you forced by Intel to run only x86 operating systems?
Are you forced by MyBroadband to comply with their Ts&Cs?

Can you not draw the essential distinction between real force and liberty? Between property rights and compulsion?

Using Google is entirely voluntary. If you don't like it, use something else. And if the something else doesn't quite do the same ... well, shamepies.

BUT PLEASE KEEP THE GOVERNMENTS OUT OF MY SOFTWARE. AND GOOGLE'S SOFTWARE. AND MICROSOFT'S SOFTWARE. LEAVE US ALONE!!

If you answer yes to any of the above, I despair. With that sort of thinking, civilisation is doomed.
Click to expand...

I hear ya... but none of those are monopolies. What if BMW starts becoming the defacto car and everybody drives them. Busses are BMW. Taxi's are BMW. As you said, you have to buy petrol and you love putting in petrol at say Engen because you feel they give you the best service.

Then, BMW introduces their own petrol and petrol stations and forces you to use their petrol. Yes, you can use another car company but who gives you less satisfaction/performance/fuel efficiency/unliked by everybody because everybody uses BMW. But the point is, BWM would be using their monopoly to force you to support one of their other services (their petrol stations) - and since you want to use a BMW you have no "choice" . Further more, the other petrol companies who don't have their own car-lines (or might even have, but aren't the monopoly) are being forced out of business by the monopoly. Let's say BMW's petrol was compatible with every car - they could even give away their petrol at a loss to force smaller players out of the market.

The point is, when does a monopoly become an "essential service" - i.e., was Windows the only way of doing computer-based business in the 1990's? OR is Google search the only real way of getting essential search? And let's assume they are - if Google then uses that power to "force" you to use their browser (which might or might not be superior - that's beside the point), then you have anti-trust on your hands.

BTW, I use GMail at home and for work, Hangouts for global chat/video conf., Chrome as my browser and like everybody, searches using Google. I don't have an Android - iPhone at the moment. I'm just saying I don't like where Google is heading...
 
Here's the heart of it:

Monopolies are not bad.

What is bad is monopolies established or protected by State (ie police) power. These are bad because State power is used to favour some and disadvantage others, and it always involves a mitigation of property rights, which is unjust.

So, de facto monopolies are good.

Coercive monopolies are bad.

Google (in a narrow field) is a de facto monopoly. No problem.
Microsoft (in a narrow field) is a de facto monopoly. No problem.
The single chemist in Clarens has a de facto monopoly. No problem.

Eskom is a State-erected and protected monopoly. Big problem, because even the most competent and lowest cost competitors are prevented by law from competing. Their ordinary human property rights are reduced and restricted.

This is the crucial difference.
 
Last edited:
Arthur said:
Here's the heart of it:

Monopolies are not bad.

What is bad is monopolies established or protected by State (ie police) power. These are bad because State power is used to favour some and disadvantage others, and it always involves a mitigation of property rights, which is unjust.
Click to expand...

Monopolies are almost always bad for consumers as well as competitors and prices (Economics 101). In this case, since you're getting the services for free, you're not the customer - you're the product Google is selling, so you don't really feel it.

Google has been behaving itself until now though - but things are starting to appear that have governments (and users like myself) worried. For example, the new image display on Google's Image search, which shows you the image in high-res without showing you the originating website. Previously, it redirect you to the website where it originated from.

So if I'm a photographer and I sell images for a living, Google used to be my friend as they directed users to my site who might download my image and eventually buy a print (perhaps). Users also got a photo which they liked and Google got traffic / ad revenue - everybody was happy.

Now, however, users get the picture and just displays it - without ever telling anybody how to get to my site. The users are happy as is Google. But I don't have a competing search engine of my own, so I have to play by Google's rules. Now people get my pictures without ever seeing my additional services. I can stop listing my results on Google, but then I risk not getting any exposure whatsoever as the other search engines don't drive enough traffic. How is that good for me (and ultimately, the consumers of my images if I have to close down)?

The governments in the US and the EU want to investigate if Google has been misusing their monopoly and limit that power - not extend it (like our public services companies).

Edit: sorry, just saw your edit, but I think my point still mostly stands. I agree, a passive monopoly might not be too bad, but a monopoly abusing their power (forcing you to use their services, pushing up prices, putting competitors out of business) is a bad thing. Google being investigated shows signs that this may be starting to occur.
 
Last edited:
I'm on a little phone so can't continue typing with one finger ...

Short response: Monopolies per se are not bad for consumers. Coercive monopolies are bad for consumers, and the bad is in "coercive". This is Liberty 101.

It is not Economics 101. What you quote is Keynesianism 101, Socialism 101, Statism 101.
 
Meh, Google can continue down their current path as far as I am concerned. As Arthur put it- volenti non fit injuria.
 
ebendl said:
Google has been behaving itself until now though - but things are starting to appear that have governments (and users like myself) worried. For example, the new image display on Google's Image search, which shows you the image in high-res without showing you the originating website. Previously, it redirect you to the website where it originated from.

So if I'm a photographer and I sell images for a living, Google used to be my friend as they directed users to my site who might download my image and eventually buy a print (perhaps). Users also got a photo which they liked and Google got traffic / ad revenue - everybody was happy.

Now, however, users get the picture and just displays it - without ever telling anybody how to get to my site. The users are happy as is Google. But I don't have a competing search engine of my own, so I have to play by Google's rules. Now people get my pictures without ever seeing my additional services. I can stop listing my results on Google, but then I risk not getting any exposure whatsoever as the other search engines don't drive enough traffic. How is that good for me (and ultimately, the consumers of my images if I have to close down)?
Click to expand...

Two problems with this:

  1. You are in complete control in telling Google which images it displays in its Image Search results.
  2. Page hits will take a drop, sure, but on the flip side of the coin- how many of those previous hits were inaccurate due to previous image search results?

People really wanting your pictures will get them, without ever seeing your additional services, regardless. Google has basically made it one less click away, if you are naive enough to publish high resolution photos on your website...
 
Nobody forces me to use Google products, in fact, I love Google!
I'm sure we all do...

I'm just thinking it's a bad idea if they own everything (Search Engine, Mail, Browser, Phone, ISP, GPS, Wallet, Social Networks, etc)

I'm not exactly sure WHY I think this is a bad thing, I just have a bad vibe. All i'm saying is we should look out.
 
I haven't read every post so don't know if this was covered - personally don't like where this Google Glass is going re privacy issues.

Expect me to turn my back on you, if you're talking to me with one of these on (when they come out in 2014) & there's even a hint you're recording or taking pics. In fact, I forsee quite a few pairs being smashed to pieces, especially in the larger cities where they'll be far more prevalent.

Most recent article on this (20 May 2013) :
http://thesecuretimes.wordpress.com...-first-step-towards-legislating-google-glass/
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X