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
google doesn't just have a head start, they have a monopoly position, once you are a monopoly the rules of fairness change and it isn't enough to simply say someone can start their own business.
It's not a monopoly. Switching search engines is free. It's not like Microsoft where it's (almost) impossible for you to buy a computer without it, and replacing windows is getting more difficult each passing year. And on desktops, Google is a voluntary choice, and even on android, you can change the default search engine, or simply set your home page to yahoo or bing if you'd like.
It's not a monopoly. Switching search engines is free.
Netscape was free too, and it was easy to switch from IE for anyone who wanted to... And yet MS was rightly convicted.
Never overerestimate the inability of ordinary people from doing the most basic things. You may think it's trivial to switch search engines, but for most people it isn't. And antitrust is all about bringing about a good outcome for most people, not for people like you or me who can take care of ourselves.
Netscape was free too, and it was easy to switch from IE for anyone who wanted to... And yet MS was rightly convicted.
For most parts, IE4+ was better than Netscape and people would have chosen it even when given a fair choice. In fact, Microsoft may have played dirty but they still had the overall best browser. Only with Firefox we started to have serious competition. Opera was very good too but it wasn't free at the time.
And now, the IE market-share is declining and I don't think it is because of some stupid ballot screen (it started earlier). It is just that there are now better alternatives.
Competition work well in this field : Google didn't need regulations to take over the search engine business and Facebook didn't need regulations to take over the social network business.
Again? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
google doesn't just have a head start, they have a monopoly position, once you are a monopoly the rules of fairness change and it isn't enough to simply say someone can start their own business.
Re: Again? (Score:0)
Re: (Score:2)
Netscape was free too, and it was easy to switch from IE for anyone who wanted to... And yet MS was rightly convicted.
Never overerestimate the inability of ordinary people from doing the most basic things. You may think it's trivial to switch search engines, but for most people it isn't. And antitrust is all about bringing about a good outcome for most people, not for people like you or me who can take care of ourselves.
So no, switching search engi
Re: Again? (Score:2)
Netscape was free too, and it was easy to switch from IE for anyone who wanted to... And yet MS was rightly convicted.
For most parts, IE4+ was better than Netscape and people would have chosen it even when given a fair choice.
In fact, Microsoft may have played dirty but they still had the overall best browser. Only with Firefox we started to have serious competition. Opera was very good too but it wasn't free at the time.
And now, the IE market-share is declining and I don't think it is because of some stupid ballot screen (it started earlier). It is just that there are now better alternatives.
Competition work well in this field : Google didn't need regulations to take over the search engine business and Facebook didn't need regulations to take over the social network business.