If Google's rivals are being unfairly treated by Google's search results, then they should make their own search engines that are fair. Yes, I understand Google has an advantage by having a head start, but that hasn't stopped for example Facebook from overthrowing MySpace for social networking. A rival company with a better idea or better results could challenge or even defeat Google without getting even more government involvement in the internet.
People voluntarily choose to use Google, at least on deskt
The problem with that sentiment is that Google's rivals aren't other search engines. Their rivals are any business whose model Google finds favorable, then copies copies, and then promotes it using its own search engine. For example, let's say you want to fly to Toronto from NYC. If you google "nyc to toronto", one of the first and biggest search results is from Google Flights showing you a wide range of flights and prices. In this case, Google's rivals are Orbitz, Expedia, Travelocity, etc.
Same thing goes for review services. No matter what one thinks of Yelp, they were one of the first few place review services around. Then Google tried to buy them and, when that failed, copied their business model and turned it into Google Places which held top place in any location search.
No matter what one thinks of Yelp, they were one of the first few place review services around. Then Google tried to buy them and, when that failed, copied their business model and turned it into Google Places which held top place in any location search.
I'm failing to see the problem. That is how competition is supposed to work: doing something better than someone else.
Did Google threaten anyone, or did Google just provided a better service/experience?
Did Google conspire with other companies to put Yelp out of business?
Did Google somehow leverage a monopoly position in search to gain a monopoly position in reviewing stuff?
As far as I know, Google is just a better competitor.
I'm failing to see the problem. That is how competition is supposed to work: doing something better than someone else.
Except that Google Places was not better. Google utilized its (well-deserved) virtual monopoly in search to promote its own service above everyone else. Plus the services was integrated into Google Maps. Even then it took at least a year before they got everything working right.
Did Google threaten anyone, or did Google just provided a better service/experience?
I doubt they threatened anyone. They did *not*, however, provide a better experience. In fact, their review services were pretty unreliable which is one of the main reasons why they bought Zagat. They've been using their search monop
Only ads come up before Google Flights so odds are you were seeing an ad instead of a search result. Furthermore, Google Flights places all the data you would need without needing to go to any other site. It pre-empts clicking on anything else.
I just asked myself... what would John DeLorean do?
-- Raoul Duke
Again? (Score:2, Informative)
Again? (Score:1)
Re:Again? (Score:4, Insightful)
No matter what one thinks of Yelp, they were one of the first few place review services around. Then Google tried to buy them and, when that failed, copied their business model and turned it into Google Places which held top place in any location search.
I'm failing to see the problem. That is how competition is supposed to work: doing something better than someone else.
Did Google threaten anyone, or did Google just provided a better service/experience?
Did Google conspire with other companies to put Yelp out of business?
Did Google somehow leverage a monopoly position in search to gain a monopoly position in reviewing stuff?
As far as I know, Google is just a better competitor.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm failing to see the problem. That is how competition is supposed to work: doing something better than someone else.
Except that Google Places was not better. Google utilized its (well-deserved) virtual monopoly in search to promote its own service above everyone else. Plus the services was integrated into Google Maps. Even then it took at least a year before they got everything working right.
Did Google threaten anyone, or did Google just provided a better service/experience?
I doubt they threatened anyone. They did *not*, however, provide a better experience. In fact, their review services were pretty unreliable which is one of the main reasons why they bought Zagat. They've been using their search monop
Re: (Score:1)