Time To Loosen Google's Grip?

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Is it time to "loosen Google's grip?" Is the company getting too big? Should regulators get involved and chop the company into smaller pieces? Maybe just chop Schmidt into smaller pieces?

The question now is how much bigger and more dominant we want this innovative and ambitious company to become. Google has already achieved a near-monopoly in Web search and search advertising, and has cleverly used that monopoly and the profits it generates to achieve dominant positions in adjacent or complementary markets. Success in those other markets, in turn, further strengthens Google's Web search dominance and reduces the chance that any other competitor will be able to successfully challenge it.
 
Prove they are being anti-competetive or just deal with the fact that they have a successful business model.
 
Prove they are being anti-competetive or just deal with the fact that they have a successful business model.

++

That's the long and short of it and there's not much else to say. It's amazing where that simple search page led.
 
Microsoft has already proven all you have to do in order to avoid being regulated is appeal until the current president is out of office and whoever they donated campaign funds to, is in office. So they can talk all the junk they want. Everybody knows big companies run the country and they can't really do anything about it.
 
Steve, have you ever considered a career in comedy?



and no, they should not chop google up. They provide many valuable free services to us, and they are the center of the universe. Chop them up, and it's the end of the world. apocalypse
 
As evil as I think Google is going to end up, I dislike the idea of the government breaking it up.

</goes back to browsing the web using Chrome, talking to friends on an Android smartphone, checking mail on gmail, searching the web using their search engine, etc etc>
 
meh. Who knows if anything other than fines can be done even if anti-competitve practice is proven.

The only thing that seems to take apart monster web companies is a change in whats popular. Take Yahoo and Digg for example

All I know is I really don't miss the days of needing to use several search engines to find what I want. Remember Dogpiling Lycos, Yahoo, Altavista, etc etc ?

I don't like Bing but I do use Hotmail rather than Gmail. Like MS or not, as long as they keep the competition up Google can't enslave the entire planet. It's just like Coke and Pepsi or GM and Ford.
 
We're seeing the web equivalent of "natural selection," and as long as the company provides the best that can possibly be, it makes no sense to cripple both them and us to be "fair."

It's the complete antithesis of the Bell breakup. We're not being charged anything.

I'd vote to break up the government first. It's the most costly monopoly we've got.
 
Right after they break up Microsoft...oh wait.

I see what you did there...
:rolleyes:

I wonder if we can have a battle royal between them, MS, Oracle (are they evil enough?) and Apple. (throw in more names of monopoly like companies, AIG?)

And who ever wins, get to be chopped up into smaller pieces.
 
I'd rather have Google take over the world instead of Microsoft. Leave them alone.

and VIC-20, damn.. I miss the old dogpile on many occassions. it's just not the same anymore for some reason. :(
 
Microsoft has already proven all you have to do in order to avoid being regulated is appeal until the current president is out of office and whoever they donated campaign funds to, is in office. So they can talk all the junk they want. Everybody knows big companies run the country and they can't really do anything about it.

Well, Microsoft was forced to start playing the political game. They didn't want to. Now they have a huge lobbying effort, apparently. The reason regulators came after them is that they weren't donating to campaigns and paying mafia-like dues to the system. Congress *wants* corporations to need to contribute to campaigns because it means more power for them.
 
Is it time to "loosen Google's grip?" Is the company getting too big? Should regulators get involved and chop the company into smaller pieces? Maybe just chop Schmidt into smaller pieces?

Unlike many other sectors there's no real monopoly on the internet. Google simply has the best search. I can guarantee you once somebody else actually has a better search Google will be toast. Unlike the pc desktop there's nothing stopping anyone form using a different search other than choice.
 
Is it time to "loosen Google's grip?" Is the company getting too big? Should regulators get involved and chop the company into smaller pieces? Maybe just chop Schmidt into smaller pieces?

No, this is typical Washington Post communist bullshit. There always seems to be some ambitious self-righteous group on a witch hunt. Why don't we go after Washington Post instead?
 
No, this is typical Washington Post communist bullshit. There always seems to be some ambitious self-righteous group on a witch hunt. Why don't we go after Washington Post instead?

Err...the Washington Post is Communist? Interesting.

And of course, the only danger is from the US Gov't. Companies that have budgets larger than the average country and all of your personal data...nothing to worry about, move along, nothing to see here. :rolleyes:
 
What a suprise. Anti capitalist media against anything that succeeds. Capitalism is indeed survival of the fittest. Unfortunately many would rather tax or regulate superior business models into equality with inferior ones.
 
I don't agree that Microsoft and Google became so powerful "fair and square". They became so powerful because excessive IP laws in this country that make it difficult for others to compete against dominate companies. But, I think Google is much more deserving of its success than Microsoft ever was.
 
The big difference between Microsoft and Google is with Microsoft, moving away from their products can be difficult. A lot of software still requires Windows to run and having documents in Office (especially 2007/2010) makes transition to anything else difficult. Google on the other hand really doesn't have any vendor lockin. It takes less than 10 seconds to change the search provider to something else and everything from Google Docs / Gmail can be exported. Nothing is really forcing anyone to use Google's services, they just tend to kick ass. :)
 
If Google is such a monopoly tool, why did it take a monopoly like MS over a decade to decide to compete with a product like Bing?

Makes you wonder what MS would (or wouldn't) be today had Bing been born in 1995.

I imagine MS would have been successfully broken up by now. Which suggests that's also where Google's headed.

Otherwise there's going to come a point where your ISP would have been/will be named your MSP/GSP.

After all, if things all try to go cloud, isn't your ISP at some point technically your computer provider? No network, no computer.

I don't like where this is headed, but this obviously wasn't even MS's vision, otherwise they would have started-up Bing before Google was ever even around.
 
What stupid non-sense is that, they give use users lots for free stuff... for wait... free!

Only Bing, Yahoo, Apple want it broke up, because Goggle has a business model that doesn't screw the users!

Screw the users! Screw the Users...break up Google...

Ya right.
 
As evil as I think Google is going to end up, I dislike the idea of the government breaking it up.
I see no reason to break up Google myself, but I do like the idea of breaking up companies.

Anyone remember when one phone company existed, and we had to rent phones? This didn't end until the government broke them up? You want capitalism to properly work, then you need healthy competition. Something you don't find a lot today.

If anything, Microsoft should be cut to pieces. Everything Google does, has competition. They aren't the only search engine. They aren't the only GPS provider. Androids competition is iPhone, blackberry, and Windows Phone 7. YouTube has a plethora of competition. Most importantly, THESE ARE ALL FREE!

Windows on the other hand has no real competition. The only competition for Windows is Linux, and 1% is hardly worth mentioning. So, if anyone deserves a break up, it's certainly Microsoft.
 
But history shows that the more Schmidt tightens his grip, the more cloud based services will slip through his fingers. So basically loosening the grip is unproductive.
 
What a suprise. Anti capitalist media against anything that succeeds. Capitalism is indeed survival of the fittest. Unfortunately many would rather tax or regulate superior business models into equality with inferior ones.

You mean very "capitalism" like actions like using patents on "1-click" to provide artificial barriers based on an private monopoly (capitalism and monopoly on the same sentence ?!) or "disney" copyrights with 70 years after creators death to have almost infinite monopoly on the use of a creation?

Or do you mean mafia like actions like MPAA, RIAA or similar, lobbying for laws to mantain their failing business?

Somehow I don't think the modern world, USA in special, is doing good use to the capitalism mantras.

Flavio
From Brazil (not doing so well on capitalism too, for other reasons)
 
My initial reaction to the headline and summary:

Some Microsoft PR flack put a lot of effort into finding a friendly journalist to write this piece.

Which leads to the second reaction: Microsoft is the only entity on the planet that suffers any injury from Google's present or future success. The beauty of everything Google offers is that it is funded by advertising and the end-user pays nothing. Not only has this proven to be a financially successful strategy, but it is one that is a tremendous boon to users.

The main focus of antitrust is harm to the consumer. A business charges x for its product/service, but without competition it would charge 2X. That issue simply doesn't apply to Google. If Google started charging after becoming more dominant, it would become LESS dominant overnight. That doesn't address Google's relationship with advertisers, but there is no shortage of places other than Google where advertisers can buy ad space. Google doesn't own the websites it helps you find.
 
Asking big, arrogant government to help control big, arrogant business doesn't work. You guys seem to realize that. What you don't seem to realize is that we, the citizens of the world, have the power to control big companies like microsoft and google. It is easy to do, and it is our responsibility to do.

Here's how:

Minimize how much of their stuff you buy or use. During the past 12 years the only microsoft stuff I've directly purchased is windows 7 for $29. The only other microsoft stuff I've purchased is pre-installed windows. I use startpage.com for 95% of searches and I've blacklisted all of those nasty google scripts that run on nearly every web site. If most people did as much, those two companies would never have grown out of control. And the egos of their owners would have never grown out of control either.

Here's why:

When people become super-rich, they change. The prevailing belief is that they don't want anyone else becoming rich and diluting their god-like power. So they become supporters of communism under the guise of caring about the little people. And they manipulate governments to their own ends. The irony that free enterprise got them rich doesn't seem to bother them. It is in our best interests to prevent people from becoming super-rich, even if they do make the best widget.

Flame-On
ArTcher
 
Damn Europeans with their left wing interfering meddling,trying to destroy American..... Wait a minute
 
Prove they are being anti-competetive or just deal with the fact that they have a successful business model.
+1000000

If Google gets broken up, the antitrust groups that broke Google up should also be broken up. :D
 
Traditional business model:
"We need to make money. What product can we make to get money?"

Google business model:
"We need to make a good product. Now how do we make money off of it?"

They are the leading example of what every corporation should be and how it should behave. I'm not saying they don't have their faults here and there, but their overall behavior is better than every other megacorporation in every aspect of their business. They treat their customers well, they treat their employees well, they are charitable, they have a sense of humor, and they fight for what is right when it comes to the information world.

If the government wants to break up some monopolies, they need to start with the telecoms and big media, not the one who is on their best behavior.
 
Back
Top