Google Must Pay $660k For Offering Google Maps For Free

Zarathustra[H];1038337084 said:
Ahh, I think I always just had a floppy kicking around with it or something, or maybe I got it from a BBS.

Can't remember.

Either way, I never recall having to pay for it, and I used it from the initial release, and at no point was there any piracy involved...
Click to expand...

Or, I probably got it on a disk on a cover of a computer magazine, or downloaded free from the netscape webpage at a friends house and put it on a floppy.

I honestly can't remember. It's been so long.

Either way, I always had an old version kicking around on a floppy somewhere I could use to get online and get the latest version.

It was always free for me and always legal.

Internet access in those early days was another story all together. Let's just say that we had one phone line at the house, and my parents did not see the value in blocking up the phone line with the computer.

I used to have to sneak and stay up late to get online, but I'd always get caught, cause we didn't have local flat rate phone service, so the phone bill always gave me away.

Oh, the joys of being a misunderstood computer geek in the early 90s, always being asked why I wasn't out playing sports like "normal" kids. :rolleyes:
 
Trepidati0n said:
Churches are non-profit...Google is definately about profit. Try again.


Note: I do agree the ruling is asinine..but your comparison is equally so. :)
Click to expand...

So I suppose the billions of dollars that the Catholic church has spent settling child abuse claims worldwide were just manifested out of thin air by God? And the upkeep on the Vatican (or any other church for that matter) is done totally by indentured servants? :confused:


TheWeazmeister said:
Heh, I am waiting for Garmin to sue them in the EU courts for providing a free and superior product in Google Navigation...
Click to expand...

I had this very same thought. I am positive there is a lawsuit brewing there somewhere they're probably just looking for a sympathetic court to file it in.
 
This is easy to solve.

France, you get bare bones Android while the rest of the world gets a version of the OS worth a crap.

Seriously, its not like you're forced to use Google Maps. You have the option of buying a separate map or GPS, all without the use of Google Maps, unlike the Netscape/IE ordeal.
 
Monkey God said:
Its similar I suppose, but if a company owns an operating system, they should be able to include whatever functionality they wish in that OS.
Click to expand...
By that logic, if a company owns a web portal, they should be able to include whatever web applications they wish on that portal.

Zarathustra[H];1038337002 said:
The question is, is this truly anti-competitive practices, or is it just that Google is more competitive than its competitors in this space?

If it were like they claim, and Google was intentionally absorbing losses trying to put their smaller competitor out of business, with the intent of charging a fee at a later time, then I would agree with he finding.

The actual case - however - is very different. Google has a different business model. Their income comes from the data they collect when people use their services and the advertising they are able to do with that data.

This is - IMHO - a little bit like suing car manufactuers because you can no longer sell your horse drawn carriages.

Google has a more modern competitive business model. There is nothing wrong with that. The French are just being protective douchebags as usual, finding with the local boys instead of the Americans at any cost.

At least now with the EU as integrated as it is when it comes to business laws, this can be appealed up to a court outside of France which likely will allow for more favorable results.
Click to expand...
You're not getting it. Google gets money from advertisers. They get more money if they push people toward those advertisers.

Obviously, search results can be skewed to make advertising companies appear more relevant. But so can map results. Enter "Hotels near <your location>" in Google Maps and see what pops up. A B C aren't always the closest to your location, nor the most relevant for your needs. And the maps themselves call out businesses around your route if you zoom in closely enough, completely unsolicited.

Not to mention that this is just more data Google gets to collect about you. Where you are; where you're going.

Other map applications aren't as likely to use Google's algorithms and advertising links, are they? This means less potential revenue as long as those companies exist. So... make your own map and integrate it with the world's most popular search engine (hey, that's us!)

That's what's anti-competitive: Using your dominance in one area (search) to stifle competition in another (map) in order to increase your business (advertising).
 
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.. That sets a dangerous prospect for any company doing business in france that has a competitor if there business models are different.

Tomorrow you will read about how a solar panel manufacturer was sued in france because they were hurting the power company's profits.
 
srangara said:
You're not getting it. Google gets money from advertisers. They get more money if they push people toward those advertisers.

Obviously, search results can be skewed to make advertising companies appear more relevant. But so can map results. Enter "Hotels near <your location>" in Google Maps and see what pops up. A B C aren't always the closest to your location, nor the most relevant for your needs. And the maps themselves call out businesses around your route if you zoom in closely enough, completely unsolicited.

Not to mention that this is just more data Google gets to collect about you. Where you are; where you're going.

Other map applications aren't as likely to use Google's algorithms and advertising links, are they? This means less potential revenue as long as those companies exist. So... make your own map and integrate it with the world's most popular search engine (hey, that's us!)

That's what's anti-competitive: Using your dominance in one area (search) to stifle competition in another (map) in order to increase your business (advertising).
Click to expand...

In this context the lawsuit makes much more sense. I hadn't thought of it. More scarily, majority of us in [H] hadn't thought of this either, which makes Google very successful in suppressing their competition and alienating businesses who don't pay them protection money, so to speak.
 
bastage said:
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.. That sets a dangerous prospect for any company doing business in france that has a competitor if there business models are different.

Tomorrow you will read about how a solar panel manufacturer was sued in france because they were hurting the power company's profits.
Click to expand...
Still not getting it. If the solar panel company was dominant in an area that the power company relied upon for their business, then you might have a point.
 
Reminds me of a law here in Maryland regarding the sale of gasoline. By law you cannot sell a gallon of gas for less than you bought it for. This keeps large "convenience store" gas station combos from undercutting the mom and pop gas shops to attract customers.
 
bastage said:
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.. That sets a dangerous prospect for any company doing business in france that has a competitor if there business models are different.

Tomorrow you will read about how a solar panel manufacturer was sued in france because they were hurting the power company's profits.
Click to expand...
Most definitely agree here. I'm not sure if France/EU is thinking about the future on this one.

If Google were doing this "on purpose" that could be "anti-competitive". How hard will that be to prove though. Especially when the majority of Google's other services are also "free". Mail, docs, search and so on.

Obligatory reference to Bastage killing his 5 year old daughter's dog.
 
Dwango said:
So when new technology makes your business plan unsustainable you get to sue the company providing that technology? I suppose EU courts would have sided with the horse buggy makers against Henry Ford.
Click to expand...

This isn't a phenomenon original or limited to EU countries. This is par for the course in the US also.
 
Wow this is totally sad.

So I think I missed the memo. Is it now illegal to compete with another business model?
 
So quick, something think of something a large corporation offers for free, start a business trying to charge money for whatever that is, then sue that company because you are unable to compete. I think i might start a pay per use email service, and get my lawyers on yahoo and hotmail for about a mil each.
 
srangara said:
Still not getting it. If the solar panel company was dominant in an area that the power company relied upon for their business, then you might have a point.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's not quite right... If the solar company was so dominant in one area that they could afford to give away a separate product or service that is the basis for a competitors business, then you might have a point.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 80% of the population had this company's solar panels installed, and that those panels fed into the grid controlled by the power company. Customers are getting some of their power from solar, some from conventional.

Now let's pretend that the power company's margin depends upon selling new smart meters (it helps them sell power when it's more profitable; gives them better predictive capability; the meters themselves are profitable to install; whatever).

Solar company decides to make their own smart meter, give it away to its 80% customer base for free, and tunes them so that customers are encouraged to consume a greater proportion of power from solar. Also, the data they collect is now hidden from the other power company (or made available for a fee).

Solar is losing money on the meters, but gaining market in the 20% of non-customers who want free meters and gaining a new revenue stream from metered data.
 
pigpen said:
So quick, something think of something a large corporation offers for free, start a business trying to charge money for whatever that is, then sue that company because you are unable to compete. I think i might start a pay per use email service, and get my lawyers on yahoo and hotmail for about a mil each.
Click to expand...

Easy; WiFi internet. Starbucks and McDonalds both offer free WiFi, I'm sure plenty of other places do as well. How will startup WiFi internet providers survive when companies like McDonalds are using their dominance in the fast-food industry to squash competition?
 
srangara said:
Actually, that's not quite right... If the solar company was so dominant in one area that they could afford to give away a separate product or service that is the basis for a competitors business, then you might have a point.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 80% of the population had this company's solar panels installed, and that those panels fed into the grid controlled by the power company. Customers are getting some of their power from solar, some from conventional.

Now let's pretend that the power company's margin depends upon selling new smart meters (it helps them sell power when it's more profitable; gives them better predictive capability; the meters themselves are profitable to install; whatever).

Solar company decides to make their own smart meter, give it away to its 80% customer base for free, and tunes them so that customers are encouraged to consume a greater proportion of power from solar. Also, the data they collect is now hidden from the other power company (or made available for a fee).

Solar is losing money on the meters, but gaining market in the 20% of non-customers who want free meters and gaining a new revenue stream from metered data.
Click to expand...

So basically, don't design your business model to make money on the back end. Charge your customers for everything.

I'm sorry. If I as a company can leverage my size (within reason) I don't understand the big issue. Am I going to these mom and pop shops, seeing what they charge, and charging way, way less?

My brother and I both have Android phones. We BOTH just bought GPS nav. systems. Why? Because they have their advantages. Google Maps is great for the real quick "where am I? How do I go to <xyz>?" But if you're planning a road trip, or even if you're going to be on the road for 3-4 hours, I've found the battery life Navigation eats isn't worth it.

What Garmin/TomTom/etc should be competing on is quality of maps, battery life, reception, and other things that make their physical products that much better than a smartphone with a GPS reciever. All things I've found suck with Google Maps and Google Navigation.
 
Monkey God said:
While I would be the first to jump on the EU for fining American companies as a source of revenue model, they kind of have a point here. Google can offer map services for free, because they are so huge. They offer it at a loss, preventing other competitors from entering the space.
Click to expand...

That is their prerogative to offer their service or product at any price point they desire. The fact that someone else can't compete is not Google problem nor fault. Even if they offer it at a loss they didn't prevent anyone from coming into the space. Compete or die out, size is irrelevant. Offer a better product then. Distinguish yourself from the competition.
 
you know i'm very surprised that they didn't just give up half way through the hearing just like in ww2
 
BigJayDogg3 said:
So basically, don't design your business model to make money on the back end. Charge your customers for everything.

I'm sorry. If I as a company can leverage my size (within reason) I don't understand the big issue. Am I going to these mom and pop shops, seeing what they charge, and charging way, way less?

My brother and I both have Android phones. We BOTH just bought GPS nav. systems. Why? Because they have their advantages. Google Maps is great for the real quick "where am I? How do I go to <xyz>?" But if you're planning a road trip, or even if you're going to be on the road for 3-4 hours, I've found the battery life Navigation eats isn't worth it.

What Garmin/TomTom/etc should be competing on is quality of maps, battery life, reception, and other things that make their physical products that much better than a smartphone with a GPS reciever. All things I've found suck with Google Maps and Google Navigation.
Click to expand...

It isn't about navigation on the fly. Most of us know that you cannot compare Google Navigation with a real GPS unit. It's about planning your trips in advance. Google is suppressing relevant information in favor of businesses who give them money. As a mapmaker, Google must remain objective.
 
I believe the point is that because this is business related. Google might even get away with it if they offered a "commerical version" for 1 euro a year subscription.
 
BigJayDogg3 said:
All things I've found suck with Google Maps and Google Navigation.
Click to expand...
That's the problem, philosophically. Google arguably doesn't have to innovate as much (in their secondary business lines) as the other companies (in their primary lines) because they have a captive audience in an unrelated service. So the free application is theoretically bad for the customer over the long run.

All this being said, I don't think the free market system really exists... if it did, we wouldn't need all this regulation, right?
 
Azhar said:
It isn't about navigation on the fly. Most of us know that you cannot compare Google Navigation with a real GPS unit. It's about planning your trips in advance. Google is suppressing relevant information in favor of businesses who give them money. As a mapmaker, Google must remain objective.
Click to expand...

Aah. I misread the op. Should have RTFA.

In the bigger picture though, my point stands. The company sells maps, correct? Either produce a product that has advantages over Google Maps, or close up shop. What Boffin should have been doing in the entire time they were operating was try and figure out how they could continue to improve their map making.
 
srangara said:
That's the problem, philosophically. Google arguably doesn't have to innovate as much (in their secondary business lines) as the other companies (in their primary lines) because they have a captive audience in an unrelated service. So the free application is theoretically bad for the customer over the long run.

All this being said, I don't think the free market system really exists... if it did, we wouldn't need all this regulation, right?
Click to expand...

Except instead of continuing to just live with the crappy service Google provides, I went to one of their competitors, and bought their product.
 
Which is great, as long as the competitor can stay alive in the face of a free product as long as Google can keep offering it (which is forever, given their size). Google Maps was pretty spiffy and competitive when it first came out.
 
mjcutri said:
Being able to download it meant having a way to get online already...before IE was packaged with windows, you actually had buy physical software to install on your computer to get onto the internet. I remember going to CompUSA in the early 90s with my parents to buy Netscape (in a box with either a floppy or cd, not sure which) to install on their Gateway2000 running Windows 3.1. They had just signed up for internet service with a local ISP using a 14.4k modem...:eek: (The only other options were AOL or natinoal ISPs like Prodigy with non-local access numbers that were long-distance calls!)
Click to expand...

FTP. Most OSes worth a shit have a client.
 
1) no one likes you anyway france, you're probably the MOST hated country in the whole world

2) if I was google, dont allow them access to google anymore until charges are dropped (region block them)

3) fucking bullshit :eek:
 
Ehren8879 said:
Reminds me of a law here in Maryland regarding the sale of gasoline. By law you cannot sell a gallon of gas for less than you bought it for. This keeps large "convenience store" gas station combos from undercutting the mom and pop gas shops to attract customers.
Click to expand...

Is there a law against supermarket loss leaders too? You cannot sell a chicken for less than it cost?

Shut down all these illicit chicken selling bastards!
 
I don't think that the church example works because in order for a church to give away groceries, someone had to buy them at some point. Either the church bought them and then gave them away or an individual bought them and donated them to the church which then gave them away. The grocery store still gets paid. If you are a grocery store you don't care if an individual or a church buys your goods as long as you get paid.
 
justinope said:
1) no one likes you anyway france, you're probably the MOST hated country in the whole world
Click to expand...

You're a Te^^or!$T if you don't hate the country your government is currently hating on.
France has nothing we(not we, the rich) need. Iran has oil and gold, DEATH TO IRAN!
 
And so without ACTA even ratified as a treaty yet, the internet begins to die as different countries start seeing companies using the internet as infringing on their own borders because someone from that country can type in a web address.
 
Inu said:
I believe the point is that because this is business related. Google might even get away with it if they offered a "commerical version" for 1 euro a year subscription.
Click to expand...

- this is only good explanation !

google have personal experience google maps which will be always free
google also have business service with google maps, which is expensive, but it is temporarily free right now

so, other company sued google beause their (temporarily) "free" business offer can kill them, and when free trial period will end - there will be no competition
 
That's an illogical ruling. It's not like google is setting prices so low, driving other competitors out, then jacking up prices. Google does what it does, offering services to the public for free via ad revenue.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038337647 said:
Actually, I get the distinct impression that dubious honor falls either to us, or Israel :p
Click to expand...

I was joking with him but you actually just nailed it. I'd actually say the US is 1. and Israel is 2...lol
 
AnonymousUser said:
I was joking with him but you actually just nailed it. I'd actually say the US is 1. and Israel is 2...lol
Click to expand...

Iran and Pakistan are up there.

Regardless, this is the same thing that happened to Microsoft. Except they are viewed as evil... double standard.
 
Trepidati0n said:
Churches are non-profit...Google is definately about profit. Try again.


Note: I do agree the ruling is asinine..but your comparison is equally so. :)
Click to expand...

I live in a country where catholics show their devotion by nailing themselves to crosses. I can tell you that Churches make a ton of money, tax free. Especially the exclusive ones. They also have political weight, politicians are all too eager to 'donate', that's an extra 10,000-500,000 guaranteed votes per parish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top