Bill Gates gave antitrust regulators the same self-serving argument: Apple is proof Microsoft doesn't have an OS monopoly. And this was BEFORE iOS.
Which is why Microsoft was found guilty of being a Monopoly and it took the Bush Administration and a 250k fine to keep Microsoft from being broken up, all due to the heavy lobbying effort by Microsoft and all it's Government ties.
Microsoft has become a relic and might rethink their approach to being broken up if given a do over.
To be fair, Google simply offers a better product and superior experience in terms of search. It's the widespread goes-without-saying integration with other platforms and products that gives it an unfair advantage. They need to tone it down a bit.
Personally I don't care about Google's monopoly status. If it works for consumers and gives us a better experience, great. What worries me is how this ties into privacy violations and selling things that people didn't think could be sold. Essentially the public is giving away something of value and Google turns around and sells it. Not really cool.
To be fair, Google simply offers a better product and superior experience in terms of search. It's the widespread goes-without-saying integration with other platforms and products that gives it an unfair advantage. They need to tone it down a bit.
That's partially true. Google offered a better product and experience. However, now that Apple is offering something that might supersede Google's experience, Google is trying to manipulate the government to extend their position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo
Personally I don't care about Google's monopoly status. If it works for consumers and gives us a better experience, great. What worries me is how this ties into privacy violations and selling things that people didn't think could be sold. Essentially the public is giving away something of value and Google turns around and sells it. Not really cool.
The problem is that your view is very short-sighted. Mussolini got the trains running on time, too. If Google had stuck to providing search results, no one would have any objection. But they are growing their power and using their monopoly in one arena to extend to attempting to strengthen their position in unrelated markets - which is illegal in the U.S. That's what Microsoft got in trouble for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Surprisingly civil discussion so far involving the Anti-Chri...I mean Google...sorry I get confused when I come on these boards...
You'd swear sometimes that Google supported Osama. -_-
Your lack of an intelligent argument and attempt to turn the discussion into something stupid and unrelated is noted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Anywho, I don't see how Google is in violation of Anti-Trust laws.
Of course not. Google pays you to tell everyone they're perfect.
Besides, you admit below that you don't know anything about the law, so why would anyone care whether you think Google is breaking the law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Buzz probably as you were automatically enrolled in that craptastic attempt at a social network simply by having Gmail.
But I was never forced to join any of their services except that.
The only thing they do is create more products that compete in more markets and try and expand their business...
Not unlike Apple.
Like with tablets, mp3 players, computers, phones, TV boxes, and probably TVs in the future you are free to buy another item. If Apple is what you prefer then you buy it.
It's entirely unlike Apple. Google is using a monopoly in one area to leverage its way into new markets - which is illegal. Apple has never had a monopoly in any area and can therefore not be said to have done that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Like someone said if Apple forced you to have a Mac in order to use other Apple products then they'd have a problem.
I don't need Gmail, G+, Youtube, etc to use search (or any other item)
I don't see how they are in violation but I'm not that savvy on the laws at play.
Then stop commenting on things that you don't understand.
I don't need Gmail, G+, Youtube, etc to use search (or any other item)
I don't see how they are in violation but I'm not that savvy on the laws at play.
The first thing you have to understand is that you are not Google's customer. You are their product. Google's customer's are companies that use their products (not services) to serve advertisements to their products.
With this lens in place, you can now understand why none of your examples really mean anything. You are looking at the wrong relationships. You are looking at the Google-product relationship and not the Google-customer relationship.
When you look at the various Google-customer relationships, things look really different. Suppose you are a handset manufacture that wants to use a higher quality location service on your handset. Guess what, Google uses their power in mobile-OS to force manufactures to use their specific location service. There are dozens of examples when you look at Google's relationships with their customers that mirror this example.
That's partially true. Google offered a better product and experience. However, now that Apple is offering something that might supersede Google's experience, Google is trying to manipulate the government to extend their position.
The problem is that your view is very short-sighted. Mussolini got the trains running on time, too. If Google had stuck to providing search results, no one would have any objection. But they are growing their power and using their monopoly in one arena to extend to attempting to strengthen their position in unrelated markets - which is illegal in the U.S. That's what Microsoft got in trouble for.
Your lack of an intelligent argument and attempt to turn the discussion into something stupid and unrelated is noted.
Of course not. Google pays you to tell everyone they're perfect.
Besides, you admit below that you don't know anything about the law, so why would anyone care whether you think Google is breaking the law?
It's entirely unlike Apple. Google is using a monopoly in one area to leverage its way into new markets - which is illegal. Apple has never had a monopoly in any area and can therefore not be said to have done that.
Then stop commenting on things that you don't understand.
You feel better about yourself now that that attack of a response is over?
Are you implying that me not being an expert on anti-trust laws disallows me to comment on a message board teeming with other non experts offering opinions? (You are arguing this)
Hilarious.
Ignore me like the rest of these people have if my opinions are so irksome that you are completely incapable of refraining from spewing childishness thinly veiled by mature prose.
The first thing you have to understand is that you are not Google's customer. You are their product. Google's customer's are companies that use their products (not services) to serve advertisements to their products.
With this lens in place, you can now understand why none of your examples really mean anything. You are looking at the wrong relationships. You are looking at the Google-product relationship and not the Google-customer relationship.
When you look at the various Google-customer relationships, things look really different. Suppose you are a handset manufacture that wants to use a higher quality location service on your handset. Guess what, Google uses their power in mobile-OS to force manufactures to use their specific location service. There are dozens of examples when you look at Google's relationships with their customers that mirror this example.
Oh, when I GO to Dashboard, the yellow box underneath wherever my mouse was in, say, Safari, shows up on the Dashboard and doesn't go away until I go back out and move my mouse BACK OVER whatever it was to dismiss the box.
Sorry off topic ... I can't reproduce this at all. Does this happen if you boot in after a safe boot, i.e. holding the shift key at start up?
There is no law against having a monopoly. The problem is if you abuse that monopoly. At this stage people are just buying more of Apple's tablet because they want to; Apple isn't forcing them.
So show us all where the abuse comes in and we may listen. At this stage your words are just fragments in the wind.
Not agreeing that iPad is a monopoly. But playing devils advocate- windows was in trouble for using IE exclusively and not installing any other web browser (although you could download it later). iOS 5 on iPad and iPhone only use safari exclusively... So that is a pretty similar parallel.
Either way, I'm not a fan of anti-trust stuff... Kind of bugs me on a philosophical standpoint (no need for someone to argue their point)
Apple couldn't compete effectively in search because being effective in search requires a lot of information. Google has a lot. Microsoft was struggling at first because of the lack of information. As it gathers more information, its engine is becoming quite competitive. It currently is my default engine.
Currently, Siri uses the default search engine on iOS, which I suspect many people have set as Google. Google still gains information from the search, but I don't think Siri shows the ads. Apple, however, will be gaining a lot of information on 1) people's voice commands, and 2) what search results Google returns. What Google fears is Apple 1) not showing the ads, 2) denying it information when it uses third party apps such as Yelp to gain the data bypassing Google.
Keep in mind, however, Google has over a 90 percent market share everywhere else in the world. In the US it is in the 70 percent range. Apple's Siri doesn't' work in most other Countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
And this is the whole point. I love it. Apple really should get into search. They won't, but they should. Just to piss Google off.
Currently, Siri uses the default search engine on iOS, which I suspect many people have set as Google. Google still gains information from the search, but I don't think Siri shows the ads.
I still don't see any search results showing up in Siri's screen that are from Google, Bing, Yahoo! or any of the default search engines you choose for Safari. The only time that looks to come into play is when Siri can't parse the info from Yahoo! for weather, Wolfram-Alpha for calculations, or Yelp for reviews that it will then give you a way to search in Safari which will, of course, show ads as the search provider intends.
Again, the only Google service I can find that Siri parses is Google Maps, but that's already a part of Maps in iOS, not something above and beyond the search the previous iPhones offered.
Apple couldn't compete effectively in search because being effective in search requires a lot of information. Google has a lot. Microsoft was struggling at first because of the lack of information. As it gathers more information, its engine is becoming quite competitive. It currently is my default engine.
Currently, Siri uses the default search engine on iOS, which I suspect many people have set as Google. Google still gains information from the search, but I don't think Siri shows the ads. Apple, however, will be gaining a lot of information on 1) people's voice commands, and 2) what search results Google returns. What Google fears is Apple 1) not showing the ads, 2) denying it information when it uses third party apps such as Yelp to gain the data bypassing Google.
Keep in mind, however, Google has over a 90 percent market share everywhere else in the world. In the US it is in the 70 percent range. Apple's Siri doesn't' work in most other Countries.
isearch , if apple is going to enter the search business, it will take some time and i bet that you will only be able to do it in apple's products. spotlight is great, they can do it (with time). As time goes by and more people enter into apple's ecosystem (iPhone than a mac, iPad then a mac, iPhone iPad mac) it can really make apple a much bigger company (with isearch). they would really be fighting everywhere, with one little detail... what apple is doing is almost the same as ferrari outselling or fighting for sales directly mercedes, bmw, audi, fiat, using their own fuel, etc. do people realize how great this is?
basically we are going to a strange place.. a place where when you buy a computer, tablet, smartphone tv etc, the real question won't be if that product comes from hp, samsung, dell, apple, sony etc.
the real question will be: Apple (good, stylish, great) or not(meh)?
p.s: waiting for apple to reinvent fridges, microwaves, and kick samsung's arse everywhere. lol
Microsoft was in trouble because it used it monopoly in the OS market to compete unfairly in another market, namely the internet browser market. Netscape was the market leader. It created the internet browser. It didn't have other products yet. It had to pay to develop Netscape, and so it had to charge for the product. Microsoft felt threatened by Netscape and gave Explorer away for free. The only reason it could do that is because of the money it was making with Windows and Office. Moreover, Microsoft pressured companies like Dell and HP to install Explorer as the default by threatening to revoke its bulk purchasing discounts it received from Microsoft on the sale of Windows and Office.
Google is arguably doing the same thing with some services like Places, which Google borrowed the idea from Yelp. When a company does a search on Google, it puts its own Places above in the search rankings and even uses Yelp's information in its own Place's service thereby denying Yelp ad revenue all the while benefiting from Yelp's user reviews. Google is doing the same thing with its new Groupon competitor as well.
Microsoft and Google's actions kill innovation. Why create something, when a company like Microsoft or Google is going to use its leverage in another market to kill your product?
Having a monopoly in and of itself is not bad. Apple arguably had a monopoly in music players. It, however, hasn't used that monopoly to gain a competitive advantage in another unrelated market. Your examples about Safari are not relevant because Apple doesn't have a monopoly. Psystar unsuccessful tried to argue that Apple did have a monopoly, but lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
Not agreeing that iPad is a monopoly. But playing devils advocate- windows was in trouble for using IE exclusively and not installing any other web browser (although you could download it later). iOS 5 on iPad and iPhone only use safari exclusively... So that is a pretty similar parallel.
Either way, I'm not a fan of anti-trust stuff... Kind of bugs me on a philosophical standpoint (no need for someone to argue their point)
Comments
Bill Gates gave antitrust regulators the same self-serving argument: Apple is proof Microsoft doesn't have an OS monopoly. And this was BEFORE iOS.
Which is why Microsoft was found guilty of being a Monopoly and it took the Bush Administration and a 250k fine to keep Microsoft from being broken up, all due to the heavy lobbying effort by Microsoft and all it's Government ties.
Microsoft has become a relic and might rethink their approach to being broken up if given a do over.
Personally I don't care about Google's monopoly status. If it works for consumers and gives us a better experience, great. What worries me is how this ties into privacy violations and selling things that people didn't think could be sold. Essentially the public is giving away something of value and Google turns around and sells it. Not really cool.
Nice try quoting Android vs all of iOS. You'd otherwise be touting Android vs iPhone, no?
Is it illegal to win in the US now? What a strange place.
Nope, it's still legal. Charlie Sheen is cruising along quite well.
Okay, he's talking to an antitrust committee. Does that mean Google's being searched for having a search monopoly?
Is he claiming Siri is a competitor in this field, ending the monopoly?
Because Siri only uses Wolfram|Alpha for conversions and whatnot. Google is still used for everything else?
Agree, he is making it sound worse than it is, and lowering expectations at the same time.
Is it illegal to win in the US now? What a strange place.
Agreed!
Google promised Apple NOT to enter the phone business and Apple promised Google NOT to enter the search business.
Google did not fulfill their promise. What is Google talking about now? They have what they deserve.
This promise is documented? Apple knew since at least 2005. Why didn't they seem to mind until 2008?
To be fair, Google simply offers a better product and superior experience in terms of search. It's the widespread goes-without-saying integration with other platforms and products that gives it an unfair advantage. They need to tone it down a bit.
That's partially true. Google offered a better product and experience. However, now that Apple is offering something that might supersede Google's experience, Google is trying to manipulate the government to extend their position.
Personally I don't care about Google's monopoly status. If it works for consumers and gives us a better experience, great. What worries me is how this ties into privacy violations and selling things that people didn't think could be sold. Essentially the public is giving away something of value and Google turns around and sells it. Not really cool.
The problem is that your view is very short-sighted. Mussolini got the trains running on time, too. If Google had stuck to providing search results, no one would have any objection. But they are growing their power and using their monopoly in one arena to extend to attempting to strengthen their position in unrelated markets - which is illegal in the U.S. That's what Microsoft got in trouble for.
Surprisingly civil discussion so far involving the Anti-Chri...I mean Google...sorry I get confused when I come on these boards...
You'd swear sometimes that Google supported Osama. -_-
Your lack of an intelligent argument and attempt to turn the discussion into something stupid and unrelated is noted.
Anywho, I don't see how Google is in violation of Anti-Trust laws.
Of course not. Google pays you to tell everyone they're perfect.
Besides, you admit below that you don't know anything about the law, so why would anyone care whether you think Google is breaking the law?
Buzz probably as you were automatically enrolled in that craptastic attempt at a social network simply by having Gmail.
But I was never forced to join any of their services except that.
The only thing they do is create more products that compete in more markets and try and expand their business...
Not unlike Apple.
Like with tablets, mp3 players, computers, phones, TV boxes, and probably TVs in the future you are free to buy another item. If Apple is what you prefer then you buy it.
It's entirely unlike Apple. Google is using a monopoly in one area to leverage its way into new markets - which is illegal. Apple has never had a monopoly in any area and can therefore not be said to have done that.
Like someone said if Apple forced you to have a Mac in order to use other Apple products then they'd have a problem.
I don't need Gmail, G+, Youtube, etc to use search (or any other item)
I don't see how they are in violation but I'm not that savvy on the laws at play.
Then stop commenting on things that you don't understand.
I don't need Gmail, G+, Youtube, etc to use search (or any other item)
I don't see how they are in violation but I'm not that savvy on the laws at play.
The first thing you have to understand is that you are not Google's customer. You are their product. Google's customer's are companies that use their products (not services) to serve advertisements to their products.
With this lens in place, you can now understand why none of your examples really mean anything. You are looking at the wrong relationships. You are looking at the Google-product relationship and not the Google-customer relationship.
When you look at the various Google-customer relationships, things look really different. Suppose you are a handset manufacture that wants to use a higher quality location service on your handset. Guess what, Google uses their power in mobile-OS to force manufactures to use their specific location service. There are dozens of examples when you look at Google's relationships with their customers that mirror this example.
That's partially true. Google offered a better product and experience. However, now that Apple is offering something that might supersede Google's experience, Google is trying to manipulate the government to extend their position.
The problem is that your view is very short-sighted. Mussolini got the trains running on time, too. If Google had stuck to providing search results, no one would have any objection. But they are growing their power and using their monopoly in one arena to extend to attempting to strengthen their position in unrelated markets - which is illegal in the U.S. That's what Microsoft got in trouble for.
Your lack of an intelligent argument and attempt to turn the discussion into something stupid and unrelated is noted.
Of course not. Google pays you to tell everyone they're perfect.
Besides, you admit below that you don't know anything about the law, so why would anyone care whether you think Google is breaking the law?
It's entirely unlike Apple. Google is using a monopoly in one area to leverage its way into new markets - which is illegal. Apple has never had a monopoly in any area and can therefore not be said to have done that.
Then stop commenting on things that you don't understand.
You feel better about yourself now that that attack of a response is over?
Are you implying that me not being an expert on anti-trust laws disallows me to comment on a message board teeming with other non experts offering opinions? (You are arguing this)
Hilarious.
Ignore me like the rest of these people have if my opinions are so irksome that you are completely incapable of refraining from spewing childishness thinly veiled by mature prose.
The first thing you have to understand is that you are not Google's customer. You are their product. Google's customer's are companies that use their products (not services) to serve advertisements to their products.
With this lens in place, you can now understand why none of your examples really mean anything. You are looking at the wrong relationships. You are looking at the Google-product relationship and not the Google-customer relationship.
When you look at the various Google-customer relationships, things look really different. Suppose you are a handset manufacture that wants to use a higher quality location service on your handset. Guess what, Google uses their power in mobile-OS to force manufactures to use their specific location service. There are dozens of examples when you look at Google's relationships with their customers that mirror this example.
Surprisingly off topic.
Oh, when I GO to Dashboard, the yellow box underneath wherever my mouse was in, say, Safari, shows up on the Dashboard and doesn't go away until I go back out and move my mouse BACK OVER whatever it was to dismiss the box.
Sorry off topic ... I can't reproduce this at all. Does this happen if you boot in after a safe boot, i.e. holding the shift key at start up?
There is no law against having a monopoly. The problem is if you abuse that monopoly. At this stage people are just buying more of Apple's tablet because they want to; Apple isn't forcing them.
So show us all where the abuse comes in and we may listen. At this stage your words are just fragments in the wind.
Not agreeing that iPad is a monopoly. But playing devils advocate- windows was in trouble for using IE exclusively and not installing any other web browser (although you could download it later). iOS 5 on iPad and iPhone only use safari exclusively... So that is a pretty similar parallel.
Either way, I'm not a fan of anti-trust stuff... Kind of bugs me on a philosophical standpoint (no need for someone to argue their point)
Currently, Siri uses the default search engine on iOS, which I suspect many people have set as Google. Google still gains information from the search, but I don't think Siri shows the ads. Apple, however, will be gaining a lot of information on 1) people's voice commands, and 2) what search results Google returns. What Google fears is Apple 1) not showing the ads, 2) denying it information when it uses third party apps such as Yelp to gain the data bypassing Google.
Keep in mind, however, Google has over a 90 percent market share everywhere else in the world. In the US it is in the 70 percent range. Apple's Siri doesn't' work in most other Countries.
And this is the whole point. I love it. Apple really should get into search. They won't, but they should. Just to piss Google off.
This promise is documented? Apple knew since at least 2005. Why didn't they seem to mind until 2008?
Documented by Steve Jobs recorded on video. Search the Internet for it.
Currently, Siri uses the default search engine on iOS, which I suspect many people have set as Google. Google still gains information from the search, but I don't think Siri shows the ads.
I still don't see any search results showing up in Siri's screen that are from Google, Bing, Yahoo! or any of the default search engines you choose for Safari. The only time that looks to come into play is when Siri can't parse the info from Yahoo! for weather, Wolfram-Alpha for calculations, or Yelp for reviews that it will then give you a way to search in Safari which will, of course, show ads as the search provider intends.
Again, the only Google service I can find that Siri parses is Google Maps, but that's already a part of Maps in iOS, not something above and beyond the search the previous iPhones offered.
Apple couldn't compete effectively in search because being effective in search requires a lot of information. Google has a lot. Microsoft was struggling at first because of the lack of information. As it gathers more information, its engine is becoming quite competitive. It currently is my default engine.
Currently, Siri uses the default search engine on iOS, which I suspect many people have set as Google. Google still gains information from the search, but I don't think Siri shows the ads. Apple, however, will be gaining a lot of information on 1) people's voice commands, and 2) what search results Google returns. What Google fears is Apple 1) not showing the ads, 2) denying it information when it uses third party apps such as Yelp to gain the data bypassing Google.
Keep in mind, however, Google has over a 90 percent market share everywhere else in the world. In the US it is in the 70 percent range. Apple's Siri doesn't' work in most other Countries.
isearch
basically we are going to a strange place.. a place where when you buy a computer, tablet, smartphone tv etc, the real question won't be if that product comes from hp, samsung, dell, apple, sony etc.
the real question will be: Apple (good, stylish, great) or not(meh)?
p.s: waiting for apple to reinvent fridges, microwaves, and kick samsung's arse everywhere. lol
Like what... Phones?
So... Google can't spend the money they make from searches? Are they forced to give it away or just sit on it?
Well since other mobile OS charges phone makers a license fee, all of a sudden Google gives it away for free. Free does sound better for phone makers.
Google is arguably doing the same thing with some services like Places, which Google borrowed the idea from Yelp. When a company does a search on Google, it puts its own Places above in the search rankings and even uses Yelp's information in its own Place's service thereby denying Yelp ad revenue all the while benefiting from Yelp's user reviews. Google is doing the same thing with its new Groupon competitor as well.
Microsoft and Google's actions kill innovation. Why create something, when a company like Microsoft or Google is going to use its leverage in another market to kill your product?
Having a monopoly in and of itself is not bad. Apple arguably had a monopoly in music players. It, however, hasn't used that monopoly to gain a competitive advantage in another unrelated market. Your examples about Safari are not relevant because Apple doesn't have a monopoly. Psystar unsuccessful tried to argue that Apple did have a monopoly, but lost.
Not agreeing that iPad is a monopoly. But playing devils advocate- windows was in trouble for using IE exclusively and not installing any other web browser (although you could download it later). iOS 5 on iPad and iPhone only use safari exclusively... So that is a pretty similar parallel.
Either way, I'm not a fan of anti-trust stuff... Kind of bugs me on a philosophical standpoint (no need for someone to argue their point)