Microsoft was punished for pumping a market with a free product, with its development supported by revenues from a monopoly product, so that they could afford to give it away where competitors could not. If Google offers something for free, kills off its competitors who were charging for their version, and then starts charging when they're the only ones left, then the French court has a point.
Even the headline in the linked article is absurd: "French court protectionis
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 n
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 fore
Your right, it's not all about market share. It's about being able to control the market, and abusing that control.
I certainly have a choice to not use google maps, or google search. I can easily switch from google maps, to yahoo maps, or to mapquest; it takes seconds. Absoluty nothing ties me to google.
This is not true with OSes. If I switch from windows, to linux, I will not be able to run my applications. OS makers have much more potential than search engines, to abuse their monopoly positions.
Yes, but why would you switch from Google to some other provider? Especially now that they have this wonderful free maps service bundled with the free search service - why would you switch?
It was always possible and actually pretty easy to install Netscape on Windows and still MS lost in court. In the same way I can use Google search and some other map service, but it's just so nice to use Google maps because it's integrated to the same page and all. So because I use the Google search (monopoly and really g
Wrong. It's not the maps that's the question here, it's the Google Maps API.
It'll take you far longer than "seconds" to switch your web application to a different mapping API.
This is similar to running your Windows applications on Linux. All you have to do is run them under Wine, and then fix the problems with Wine where it doesn't quite get the API interpretation right for your particular application. That'll only take "seconds", right?
The more cordial the buyer's secretary, the greater the odds that the
competition already has the order.
This was predicted to happen two years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would it?
Microsoft was punished for pumping a market with a free product, with its development supported by revenues from a monopoly product, so that they could afford to give it away where competitors could not. If Google offers something for free, kills off its competitors who were charging for their version, and then starts charging when they're the only ones left, then the French court has a point.
Even the headline in the linked article is absurd: "French court protectionis
Re: (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 n
Re: (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 fore
By your own definition Google is not a monopoly (Score:3)
Your right, it's not all about market share. It's about being able to control the market, and abusing that control.
I certainly have a choice to not use google maps, or google search. I can easily switch from google maps, to yahoo maps, or to mapquest; it takes seconds. Absoluty nothing ties me to google.
This is not true with OSes. If I switch from windows, to linux, I will not be able to run my applications. OS makers have much more potential than search engines, to abuse their monopoly positions.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but why would you switch from Google to some other provider? Especially now that they have this wonderful free maps service bundled with the free search service - why would you switch?
It was always possible and actually pretty easy to install Netscape on Windows and still MS lost in court. In the same way I can use Google search and some other map service, but it's just so nice to use Google maps because it's integrated to the same page and all. So because I use the Google search (monopoly and really g
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. It's not the maps that's the question here, it's the Google Maps API.
It'll take you far longer than "seconds" to switch your web application to a different mapping API.
This is similar to running your Windows applications on Linux. All you have to do is run them under Wine, and then fix the problems with Wine where it doesn't quite get the API interpretation right for your particular application. That'll only take "seconds", right?