French Court Calls Free Google Maps Unfair Competition 238
jfruh writes "A French court has ruled that Google is unfairly subsidizing its free mapping products, making for unfair competition with paid services. This might seem ridiculous, but keep in mind that Google started charging for use of its mapping API once the free version had come to dominate the market."
Re:This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:5, Informative)
Still trolling, I see. A few quick notes:
* Google doesn't have a monopoly anywhere, even in search.
* Google Maps is not given away, it sports ads, and the API costs money to access
* You fail to mention Mapquest, or MS maps. Why just sue Google for its maps? Because it is the best one out there?
* Why should Bottin be kept alive? Why not Garmin?
In short, you're wrong on two fundamental counts: that this is anything but protectionism of the most basic nature, and that somehow Google Maps is both special, and not, in the world of online map services.
True depending how you consider the whole issue (Score:5, Informative)
As somebody working on the remote sensing/mapping/gis field for 10+ years. I tend to agree.
It's a long debate, but clearly the new concept of "paid api" it's confusing.
I perceived gmaps as a free tool in the beginning, but now, as they charge, it's no longer a tool, but a competitor.
Many hi definition data available "freely" on google maps/google earth, it's the result of a private customer paying for that data, and the by some weird agreement between the companies that run the satellites and google, the information ended up "FREE" on google maps.
A real life story:
I paid 250+K for 1 meter imagery (ikonos) for a project that was covered in google maps using old 30m imagery (90's landsat). Months later google has the 1m coverage i ordered and paid for, available for FREE to anyone else.
So i'm not only competing against google, but against people who no longer needs to order a quality work, since now it's there FREE.
Duh! That's certainly UNFAIR.
Re:This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:5, Informative)
Still trolling, I see. A few quick notes:
* Google doesn't have a monopoly anywhere, even in search.
Google search most certainly is a monopoly. A legal monopoly does not require 100% market share. Companies have been deemed monopolies with under 50% share and Google is way higher then that - go google it if you don't believe me.
Now, having a monopoly is not illegal, but using your monopoly profits to corner other markets is illegal. This is exactly the same thing that MS was convicted of a decade ago. Google it. When MS was killing Netscape it took the authorities years to act and the trial also took forever to end - Google just hasn't been doing this long enough to end in court yet.
Re:This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry but Google Maps was not a new product and neither was internet map services when Google acquired it. Mapquest was around since 1996 and even OpenStreetMap predates it and there were plenty of other services. But hey we gotta keep up the Google defenses!
Re:This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:5, Informative)
You are confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market [wikipedia.org]
Re:This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:5, Informative)
It became extremely popular, and is still FREE to use for anyone.
No, it's not. Not for DEVELOPERS, which is the entire point of this suit. The Maps API used to be free. Now that they have a dominant market position, it's not.
OpenStreetMap (Score:5, Informative)
If you want a really free map source, try openstreetmap.org & some of the apps which use their maps. Still a work in progress, but much improved over even a year ago. If every geek on /. cleaned up their neighborhood map it would be better than the paid maps - I've certainly added features like weird one way streets and things around me which don't show up on commercial maps.
Re:This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:2, Informative)
but apparently standards change when it's a Linux-based company
Or, and I know this is a crazy suggestion, maybe Slashdot actually has more than one user!
Maporama (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Slashdot is dead (Score:4, Informative)
Where I to still have mod points I'd try to get rid of the troll score. You make some valid points. I do wish folks would stop with the "I know I'll be modded down" statements though, it is self serving. Modded up or down, speak your peace and don't tell the world what it may do.
I've been with /. since the mid 90's (skulker at first, joined later) and I do see a trend of less open discourse, more childish rantings, and news that does seem skewed. With that said, it still has good comments I can learn from, it still tends to have more thoughtful comments then other places, and generally the mod system works (see point above).
As to the topic on hand, I agree fully that Google's actions are not in line with their original foundation. This is what happens in the life cycle of business. A great book I read years ago was Titled "From barbarian to Bureaucracy", which talked about the process of business from innovation to fossilized monolith. Once Finance becomes the controlling interest of a company the origins are swept away.
What's started to concern me is that within the tech realm, three companies have reached a point where they are the controlling factor for information access and dissemination. Google, Twitter, and Facebook. While they may be minor offshoots, these three control a massive majority of personal data, communication, and information. We now see Google and Twitter complying with countries to limit access to information. Was there a point they might have said "go suck it"? Now its about money and since governments are all about money, control, and power, can we trust one company to search, to twit, or to organize?
The argument may be that the market will adjust. If Google gets to evil, if it gets to chummy with governments people will go to another search engine or map function....yet where are they? The one attempt to Open Source Facebook is a failure due to social inertia and I would suspect that Google's recent now you pay approach is based on the basic fact that they hit market saturation. So let me go one step further and consider that the World Wide Web (www) is no longer what was originally imagined, but has become a tool for manipulation of societies by government and corporate interests and not the other way around. Innovation, that which created Google, Facebook, and twitter is either dead or dying. Smothered by patent law, IP overkill, and simple greed.
Well, have a good day.
Re:This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:4, Informative)
I'm don't know the specifics of French competition law, but if it's harmonised with EU competition law (like the UK is) then the point of law under which Google will have been caught out is on *abuse* of a dominant position. It's absolutely correct to say that having a large market share isn't illegal in its own right, but your behaviour once you're in a dominant position (for whatever reason) can be. Yes, this does mean that (for example) the same behaviour that you've been doing for years is perfectly legal one day and then anti-competitive the next through no fault of your own.
Using profits gained in one market to force out competition in another definitely is illegal under EU competition law (which, as said above, I'm applying by analogy, which may be incorrect). Using it to enter a market is fine - more undertakings in a given market should ultimately be pro-competitive, to the benefit of consumers - but continuing to cross-subsidise to force out competitors can very much be illegal.
It should also be noted that the test(s) used for establishing predatory pricing isn't set in stone as "below cost", but crudely speaking being very close to that point will create the rebuttable presumption of abuse of dominance.
Re:This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:5, Informative)
What the hell are you talking about? What ads? There's no ads in Google maps that I'm aware of. I use Google Maps' API on my own little website on one page plus "geoxml" to show some data; there certainly aren't any ads shown. I'm only required to show the copyright notices at the bottom of the map, saying who has the copyright for the map data or images.
Google does use ads for their search engine product, and their Gmail product, but those are separate products and irrelevant to the maps API.
Re:This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:3, Informative)
Funny, I have multiple websites that use the Maps API and I've yet to see a bill from Google for usage or the functionality made unavailable. What crack pipe are you smoking?
READ THE FUCKING MANUAL [google.com] noob.
Maybe you should read the manual. See the usage limit column? The pricing starts above that. So, Google provides the API for free, until you start leeching off it. Fair enough. Why should Google subsidise others' businesses?