|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
The point I was making is that the only
mobile device OS that has choice is
Android. The device manufacturer and the
user has choices as to which app store to
use. Others have made the point that there
choices for other stuff like the default
search engine, search apps, etc.
Also, another point is the question, so
does Apple not have a "quasi monopoly" in
the mobile device arena? What about the as
pp store for iOS devices? Does Microsoft
not have a "quasi monopoly"on desktop
computers? Actually the courts said they
did have a monopoly. So why don't they
have a choice as to what app store to use
for their OS? Especially since they are
using a"single" OS across their services
or so says the MS propaganda machine.
Yes, I want the government agencies to be
fair and apply the same rules to
Microsoft, Apple, Google and every other
company. So to be fair if they look into
Google's Play Store they should also look
into Microsoft's and Apple's app stores as
well.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 11:33 PM EDT |
True up to a point. In the US, if your
monopoly is the result of superior offering,
there is no penalty or restriction. You
have to act in certain ways to be found
guilty of antitrust wrongdoing. It's not
just being large.
Second, Microsoft was a monopoly in a different
area, one where it was nearly impossible for
competitors to find users, because Microsoft
controlled the environment of what got placed
on computers by OEMs.
Google doesn't control the Internet. You are
not restricted to search by Google. If you don't
like the results, you have choices. Use another
search engine.
The issue is that some want to be higher in
results. Others don't want Google to be in
certain types of specialty searches, because
they are in that area. If anyone thinks Foundem
for example does a better job than Google, sing
out.
cricket noise
They just are not better. They are asking
regulators to force themselves on a public
that isn't interested in using their services
anyway but might be tricked into doing so by
regulations requiring Google to show them
in results higher than they merit.
That's not the same at all as in the Microsoft
picture.
And if you truly believe that governments
should regulate what *content* a search
engine should show, you are living in a
fantasy world, where good things happen
that way.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 20 2013 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
Because customers CHOOSE Google.
The point of monopoly regulation is to prevent companies from denying users a
choice. When I want to search for something, I have to type the search-engine
url in my address bar. Or select the search engine in my search bar - by the
way, that search bar spends most of its life set to wikipedia.
But the point is, I CHOOSE Google. Anti-monopoly law is there to prevent Apple,
Microsoft et al from taking that choice away from me. It is not there to force
me to use Apple or Microsoft products if I don't want to.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 21 2013 @ 05:35 AM EDT |
Google's monopoly is in knowing the psycho-epistemological demographics of
Internet users. It acquired that data, from its ability to convince people to
use its products, including, but not limited to search, navigation, and travel.
As a side effect of knowing that psycho-epistemological data, Google has a
monopoly in Internet advertising.
Somebody else can write the essay explaining the reasons why Microsoft can't
complain about psycho-epistemological demographic data to any judicial
authority.
A different essay can explain why third party attacks on semi-related aspects of
that psycho-epistemological demographic data monopoly won't automatically
backfire, totally destroying Microsoft.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
