Google Faces Renewed U.S. Antitrust Scrutiny

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It looks like the feds might be looking into allegations against Google claiming the search giant unfairly uses its Android system to hurt rivals.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has opened a preliminary investigation into whether Google Inc. uses its Android operating system to dominate competitors as more consumers go mobile, two sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.
 
So unfairly uses Android to hurt rivals, is Apple upset that people are buying phones that don't cost $700? Is Microsoft upset that they aren't the ones winning the market?
 
sfsuphysics said:
So unfairly uses Android to hurt rivals, is Apple upset that people are buying phones that don't cost $700? Is Microsoft upset that they aren't the ones winning the market?
Click to expand...

Came here to post just that.

Sounds like apple and ms paid someone in DC for this crap to come up.
 
I'm not a google fan or anything.... but wtf with all these stupid ass shit lately?
 
I have no problem with what Google is requiring. If a device manufacturer wants to run Android without gmail, etc. bundling requirements they can use ASOP.
 
This is a case of RTFA ppl.

<<The FTC probe focuses on Google's requirements that its search, maps and other products be given a prominent place on handsets. The demands make it impractical for handset makers to put Google rivals on their smartphone's home screen.>>

That actually does seem to have merit, heck, i wish i could just delete a bunch of Google "apps" that are *standard* for my phone without having to root it (yeah i don't even care to use Google's rivals, just, let me choose to not use anything... closest is to degrade the apps to factory settings)
 
This is very similar to what happened with Microsoft and Internet Explorer a long time ago, hence why it may have merit.

Had to make a new post because we can't edit our posts in the news forum :)
 
As Revdarian noted this is about integration of Android with Google Search and other integrated apps ... that said, it should be none of the government's business ... Google gives their product away for free (for both the users and the companies using it) ... any free product should be exempt from anti-trust in my opinion ... if they continue down the current path it will be just as disastrous as the MS ruling was that screwed up browser integration and prevented MS from including fully features products in the OS (like media player) for fear of incurring another antitrust ruling ... if you want to compete with Google then make a better product ... don't use the government to force Google to produce a broken and incomplete OS because you can't train your users how to install an App :cool:
 
Im glad something is finally being done. Im sick of Google being a monopoly. If only, somehow, somebody, somewhere, some way could come out with another search engine that I could use. You'd think as big as companies like Microsoft and Yahoo are that they could put out a competing search engine so Google wouldn't have their monopoly anymore.

bmh.gif
 
Bing and Yahoo are ......... horrible to use.

When I do a Google search, what I was looking for pops up.
 
SixFootDuo said:
Bing and Yahoo are ......... horrible to use.

When I do a Google search, what I was looking for pops up.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I suspect part of this is because google has more user input. MS use to have a page where you could run a search and they'd give you the results from Bing and Google.

For programming/Admin searches, Google was better (which makes sense to me).

When I started searching for more pop culture, current events and similar topics, there was no difference from my POV.
Part of why I like google results better is it comes up with things from stackexchange at the top. I like the articles on stack exchange, because that's what Google always gave me. I'm sure some of the other sites were great too, but I was used to SE (thanks to google).

OTOH, I didn't care about it on other searches, because there wasn't an authoritative place to go. When I search for Tune Yards album review, I don't have a certain site in mind, but for a programming, compiler or system problem, I want a solution (or ideas on how to solve the problem).
 
Bing is not bad and actually their Bing Maps is a little better than Google Maps at least where I live. I use it for work all the time because we've got a bunch of back country roads that never show up on Google but always do on Bing.

Either way, point is there is no monopoly or anti trust violations. There are other search engines and other choices. Yeah Google is better but are we really saying that a monopoly now just means your product is better than the other guy's and so it's not fair and an anti-trust violation?
 
MacLeod said:
Bing is not bad and actually their Bing Maps is a little better than Google Maps at least where I live. I use it for work all the time because we've got a bunch of back country roads that never show up on Google but always do on Bing.

Either way, point is there is no monopoly or anti trust violations. There are other search engines and other choices. Yeah Google is better but are we really saying that a monopoly now just means your product is better than the other guy's and so it's not fair and an anti-trust violation?
Click to expand...

The problem seems to be that companies are trying to use Anti-Trust to offset a stupid consumer base ... when MS was dinged by the EU for browser integration in their OS being an anti-trust violation, we all laughed because most of us here knew how to install the browser of our choice (and a lot of us were using non-MS browsers) ... but because the Europeans couldn't figure out how to perform basic computer functions this forced MS into a decade long spiral where they were unable to effectively compete because they couldn't add any new features or programs that competed with 3rd party offerings

We are seeing the same thing here now on the American side with Google ... anyone with half a brain knows how to use the search engine they like best and how to install 3rd party applications if they want them ... stupid users who don't know how to use their devices shouldn't force companies to remove useful features simply so that a 3rd party can try and sell you the same function that you had access to for free before ... if an app is better than the free version or a free offering I will buy it ... if it is not I will not ... these companies don't want to compete on a level field so they are trying to cripple the leading company (Google in this case) so that they can compete without actually being better ... there is definitely something wrong with that model
 
kbrickley said:
As Revdarian noted this is about integration of Android with Google Search and other integrated apps ... that said, it should be none of the government's business ... Google gives their product away for free (for both the users and the companies using it) ... any free product should be exempt from anti-trust in my opinion ... if they continue down the current path it will be just as disastrous as the MS ruling was that screwed up browser integration and prevented MS from including fully features products in the OS (like media player) for fear of incurring another antitrust ruling ... if you want to compete with Google then make a better product ... don't use the government to force Google to produce a broken and incomplete OS because you can't train your users how to install an App :cool:
Click to expand...

If you want to blame someone for Microsoft's lost decade, blame the election of George W. He's the one who largely stopped the plan to break the company up.

This isn't Netscape again. Everyone this time is largely free, but they are at the mercy of discovery. You can argue that the alternatives that Samsung and others have offered to Google services are inferior, but often users just don't know they exist, and that's largely is because you have to put G-Services first. That's very similar to how Microsoft forbid companies to put alternative apps on the desktop.

There's other instances such as discontinuing Activesync support which crippled Apple and Microsoft mail clients, or how Microsoft made a Youtube client for their phone and Google kept moving the goalposts on what was acceptable. The issue isn't if there's alternatives, is if they are actively discouraging people from using them.
 
Revdarian said:
That actually does seem to have merit, heck, i wish i could just delete a bunch of Google "apps" that are *standard* for my phone without having to root it (yeah i don't even care to use Google's rivals, just, let me choose to not use anything... closest is to degrade the apps to factory settings)
Click to expand...

I would disagree. One of the biggest complaints with Android has been fragmentation. The main thing that causes this problem is that HTC, Samsung, Sony, etc all reskin Android. Some carriers like Verizon even go further than that. Bought a HTC One for a family member and found out pretty quickly that aside from search, all of the other programs were replaced by alternatives. Maps was replaced by something from Nuvo or Garmin, the Camera app was something entirely different.

The rooting requirement is there because you aren't removing an "app" but you are attempting to remove actual services that are used for other things. If you have ever tried alternate roms like Cygenomod back in the day it came without any Google Apps at all. You could call people, send email. But if you wanted the most popular stuff you had to download Gapps core services.

I think earlier comments about competitors using the government to compete is right on the money here. Hell the latest version of Windows sends all kind of crap to Microsoft can we control what it sends, or who sends it? Nope. iOS is even worse.
 
Ryokurin said:
If you want to blame someone for Microsoft's lost decade, blame the election of George W. He's the one who largely stopped the plan to break the company up.

This isn't Netscape again. Everyone this time is largely free, but they are at the mercy of discovery. You can argue that the alternatives that Samsung and others have offered to Google services are inferior, but often users just don't know they exist, and that's largely is because you have to put G-Services first. That's very similar to how Microsoft forbid companies to put alternative apps on the desktop.

There's other instances such as discontinuing Activesync support which crippled Apple and Microsoft mail clients, or how Microsoft made a Youtube client for their phone and Google kept moving the goalposts on what was acceptable. The issue isn't if there's alternatives, is if they are actively discouraging people from using them.
Click to expand...

We'll see if the government can prove all that ... I am more of a laissez faire capitalist so I like it best when government leaves business alone to do business ... I also dislike when companies have to dumb things down to suit the lowest common denominator of users ... I sometimes like more complicated systems that favor the superuser ... if a person is too dumb to use an Android phone then there is the iPhone and MS phones ... so there is competition without savaging Android and forcing Google into unprofitable business models that make it impossible for them to innovate
 
kbrickley said:
The problem seems to be that companies are trying to use Anti-Trust to offset a stupid consumer base ... when MS was dinged by the EU for browser integration in their OS being an anti-trust violation, we all laughed because most of us here knew how to install the browser of our choice (and a lot of us were using non-MS browsers) ... but because the Europeans couldn't figure out how to perform basic computer functions this forced MS into a decade long spiral where they were unable to effectively compete because they couldn't add any new features or programs that competed with 3rd party offerings

We are seeing the same thing here now on the American side with Google ... anyone with half a brain knows how to use the search engine they like best and how to install 3rd party applications if they want them ... stupid users who don't know how to use their devices shouldn't force companies to remove useful features simply so that a 3rd party can try and sell you the same function that you had access to for free before ... if an app is better than the free version or a free offering I will buy it ... if it is not I will not ... these companies don't want to compete on a level field so they are trying to cripple the leading company (Google in this case) so that they can compete without actually being better ... there is definitely something wrong with that model
Click to expand...

I think that the difference in browser market share between the EU and U.S. shows that's not true. In the U.S., IE is still has more than 50% market share. In the E.U., it's in 3rd place behind Chrome and FF with just 11% market share.
 
nilepez said:
I think that the difference in browser market share between the EU and U.S. shows that's not true. In the U.S., IE is still has more than 50% market share. In the E.U., it's in 3rd place behind Chrome and FF with just 11% market share.
Click to expand...

How much of that is driven by Enterprise though ... some of the companies I worked for required IE to access company websites and intranet ... if American consumers haven't switched then I still don't see a role for the government to force it ... changing browsers is ridiculously easy compared to many computer tasks ... if a user doesn't know how to change their browser they might be too dumb to own a computer anyway and they should go get a Chromebook or a tablet :cool:
 
kac77 said:
I would disagree.
Click to expand...

No, i do wish to remove APPS, not services, and you know what? all in all the services are shitty.

Why Google Play Services creates a 60mb+ empty database the microsecond i tie an account to my phone?, it has to be empty because no, it hasn't downloaded shit when it is already 60mb+ bigger. Similarly with Chrome, the simple act of telling it your gmail account then the phone creates another 60mb+ database, that must be empty for starters.

If this was a proper Service then they wouldn't need to setup duplicate databases.

Also it is about time that their OS stops being stupid and learns to first load all "storage" including SD storage and then load the apps, so that you can use it natively to install crap. This is beyond basic.
 
kbrickley said:
How much of that is driven by Enterprise though ... some of the companies I worked for required IE to access company websites and intranet ... if American consumers haven't switched then I still don't see a role for the government to force it ... changing browsers is ridiculously easy compared to many computer tasks ... if a user doesn't know how to change their browser they might be too dumb to own a computer anyway and they should go get a Chromebook or a tablet :cool:
Click to expand...

I can't speak for all companies. I know where I work, only a few vertical apps require IE. Others required FF or Chrome.

The issue is that by forcing people to put your browser on, most non-technical users (which is the vast majority of computer users) are going to use what's in front of their face. What's more a high percentage leave the home page on the default home page (can you say MSN?). When you're the dominant player and you leverage that position to promote other parts of your business at the expense of competitors, anti-trust suits follow.

If the world worked the way you want, the only telecom would be AT&T (not the SBC AT&T, the original one) and everyone would get their gas from stations owned by Standard Oil and by now, Comcast would be the only ISP (assuming AT&T didn't own that business too).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top