FTC To Recommend Antitrust Case Against Google 195
NeutronCowboy writes with news that a majority of top staff members from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission have become convinced that Google "illegally used its dominance of the search market to hurt its rivals." The FTC is now drafting a memo that recommends the U.S. government begin an antitrust case against Google.
"The agency’s central focus is whether Google manipulates search results to favor its own products, and makes it harder for competitors and their products to appear prominently on a results page. ... The memo is still being edited and changes could be made, but these are mostly fine-tuning and will not alter the broad conclusions reached after an inquiry that began more than a year ago, said these people, who spoke on the condition that they not be identified. ... The FTC staff memo does not mean that the government will sue Google for antitrust violations. Next, the vote of three of the five FTC commissioners would be required. And each step is a further prod for Google to make concessions to reach a settlement before going to court. Last month, Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the FTC, said a final decision on whether to sue Google would be made before the end of this year.
What? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you were in the business of advertising...
Wouldnt it be 100% your control AND your business to do exactly this? determine which ads to put where and why to get the best result?
Google is being investigated for doing their job... lol
Re: (Score:2)
Rather seems like if (from the summary, I don't read articles ..) say I search for smartphones Google may give me an Android hit rather than an iPhone hit first?
As in since most people use their search engine they can also make it so people choose their products because they get a better place.
(I search for mail and gmail shows up and so on.)
I can kinda get that point. But if they put their own hits in "recommended" (maybe not), sponsored or Google products bubbles separate from the other hits I think that
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)
Hell, I searched for Smartphone and I got a wiki article on smartphones, CNET review of smartphones, and an AT&T site that lists iPhone first. On the side bar "Shop by Brand", in this order, Blackberry, Samsung, Apple, HTC, Nokia. If they were "stuffing the ballot", wouldn't Nexus be at least front page?
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I spent 45 minutes tonight trying to search for what the dial does on an HDTV antenna. Fine tuning knob they say. It allows you to fine-tune something so your something comes in better. Every hit was either a review or some shopping site.
I even removed some by adding "-purchase -buy -store" and the top 5 never changed. I don't want to buy it, I want to know what the fuck it does.
In the AltaVista days, I could find what I wanted in the first page. Northern lights, I could find it in t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They end up promoting things that they have a lot of data about (there was a realtime search that searched twitter, it was awesome. Twitter ended the agreement and it went away). Facebook and twitter have thrown fits and actively blocked googlebot from their sites for a lot of things, and even if they didn't, that site (www.facebook.com/ladygaga) when I fetch it with wget returns a crapton of javascript (referring to 'bootloader' and stuff like that) and no actual information - to index the visible conten
Facebook, Twitter, perceive little value to selves (Score:2)
It's a little more actively blocked than that:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/facebook-blocks-google-chrome-extension-for-exporting-friends/1935 [zdnet.com]
The value that facebook and twitter bring to the advertising table is the network graph of user relationships. They actively block Google from getting this information, and as a result, the information Google has on the network relationships from its Google+ product is better information in terms of better representing the connectivity between people, and theref
Re: (Score:3)
Shouldn't a complaint from at least one customer be a basis for an anti trust suit given that this is meant to prevent harm to consumers? I'm getting the feeling here that the only people doing the complaining are the competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any link to elaborate on that?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you can decide what is the best search result (for example, you search for phone upgrade from an android and it sends to to an android comparison site, and if you search from an iphone it sends you to apple), but you cannot manipulate the results so that the best result is what helps your *OTHER* businesses, such as a search for a review on a local restaurant goes to your places site instead of other more popular sources.
This will be interesting. Microsoft was crucified for giving away a browser for free,
Re: (Score:3)
There was nothing wrong with Microsoft giving away IE free per se. The problem what that it unfairly gave IE advantages that other browsers couldn't take advantage of. From the Wikipedia page:
"It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interface
Re: (Score:1)
wasn't that what I said? Giving away IE to kill Netscape.
Was the intent of giving away Android to kill other phones, in order to maintain and extend its search monopoly on mobiles?
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. Microsoft used its existing Windows monopoly to create a browser monopoly and in that they convicted themselves. How is Google using its search monopoly to create a mobile monopoly? How does Google Search push Android and exclude competitors? Showing competitors lower down the page isn't the same as not showing competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that is required is that you use your dominant market position to gain benefits in a different market, so that means unless Google treats everybody else exactly the same as it treats it's own products or it treats it's own products worse then Google is using it's dominant market share in search to gain an advantage in whatever else and are thus in
Re: (Score:3)
Of course now-adays, Firefox and Chrome have reamed their user-interface, IE has too to some extent
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like how Apple restricted other browser apps from using the Nitro Javascript engine.
For that matter, Apple has removed certain apps from their App Store just because they compete with built-in apps. How are they not on the hook for monopolistic behavior?
(This coming from a guy who overall likes Apple and owns several of their products. But I like competition more than I like Apple.)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple does not have a monopoly that it is leveraging in one market to give itself an advantage in another.
It has no monopoly on mobile phones, or mobile phone applications, or mobile phone operating systems. It runs the App Store, and is free - until and unless it becomes a monopoly in the mobile space and runs afoul of antitrust regulations - to set its own terms & conditions on what products it will and will not sell in its app store.
Is it crappy that they do this? Yes, it'd be nice if they would op
Re: (Score:2)
Also how do define the limits to a market, is it global? or is it EU only? or US only? or is it 1st world countries only?
A lot of these questions depends on in which jurisdiction you are and what sort of business you are running and how that relates to
Re: (Score:2)
Are you having a stroke?
"competing media players from itunes"? You can buy from itunes, and load those songs in any other media player that supports AAC format. You can buy from other stores, and load them easily into itunes (and thus into your ipod, ipad, itunes match, etc.)
You want a competitor for iCloud? Google drive. Dropbox. Amazon's storage locker service.
iMessage? Aol IM. MSN im. Sametime. Jabber. Yahoo IM. skype. A host of others.
iTunes cloud match - Google Play service, and I'm sure th
Re: (Score:2)
One was a monopoly and one was not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Google has about 2/3 of the search market, while Comcast has about 1/3 of the connectivity market. Now zoom in a little bit and you get a bunch of regions where Comcast has 100% market share, because they are the only provider.
There's nowhere in the world where Google has 100% market share, or where users do not have a choice but to use Google.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need 100% market share to wield monopoly power. You don't even need 50% to wield it in some cases.
Does google wield monopoly power in search? Yes. I don't think there is much of an argument there. They probably wield it in other segments too, but those may be less obvious.
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody forces anyone to use Google to search. They don't sell search. I fail to see a case, but IANAL.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm inclined to agree with you.
I'm as entrenched as anyone could possibly be in the Google ecosystem, and it's not because they're force-feeding me their products. I frequently try alternatives when comes to stuff like online calendars, documents, email, whatever.
The reason my attempts to use other services never stick is simple: they're just not as good as Google's offerings.
I can kind of see where they're coming from if Google is in fact promoting their own services in their search, but I suspect that their own algorithms are picking out their own services because the most people use and talk about them...again because they're just the best offering.
Personally it's tough to sell me on the idea of a provider of free web services getting into antitrust territory, because a different search engine is always one different URL away. The same goes for all their other services. It's tough to even call them out on vendor lock-in, because thanks to the data liberation front they're one of the best companies I've ever seen on the internet when it comes to avoiding lock-in.
I'm dubious.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
To me, it looks like the lobbying by various competitors (hi, Microsoft, Expedia!) has finally paid off. There is no stickyness to Google services, outside of their quality. Switching is a click away, especially when it comes to search and maps. The complaints I've read? Nothing but sour grapes that Google didn't completely shaft their UI and search algorithm, just so that every competitor has the same or better page position (note that I didn't say search position) as any Google service listed on any of Google's pages.
If this goes through, it's the end of search algorithms: if someone is upset they aren't high-placed on the dominant search engine du jour (and there will ALWAYS be one), they can just sue for extra income.
Let me rephrase that: it will be the end of search engines in the US. China, I'm sure, will be happy to supply quality search engines that give a big middle finger to shenanigans like these.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder, though, if this case might be about services embedded in the search? Unit conversions, translations, and stock quotes are all automatically displayed upon a search. While (IMO) finding this anti-competative would be bad for consumers, I understand that it might prevent users from trying competing products.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm leery of Googles intentions when it comes to my personal data, but I continue to use their services for the reasons you state. They're simply the best I can find. If there was something at least as good I'd move over to them and use a different provider for each of the different services I use from Google.
I was around (like many people on /.) back when Microsoft was force feeding us IE. I chose to use other browsers, but they made it a real pain in the ass. Even web sites would intentionally break when
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
No but they sell ads. And people want to put their ads where people will see them. So it isn't much of a stretch to claim that they sell search.
They also sell sponsored results in their search results.
Re: (Score:3)
But they do not force anyone to use their search. I can use whatever search engine I want ever from my Asus Transformer Prime.
Re: (Score:2)
On top of that outright monopoly abuse
Google does not have a monopoly. There are major meaningful competitors, such as Bing and Yahoo.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No but they sell ads. And people want to put their ads where people will see them.
Right, and the people who want to buy ads have to agree to Google's terms.
And it's ultimately Google's discretion as to what ads get placed, and what gets placed in their search engine.
Noone can force Google to display a certain message, or take out a certain message, because it would be a violation of Google's freedom of speech right.
Re: (Score:2)
No but they sell ads. And people want to put their ads where people will see them. So it isn't much of a stretch to claim that they sell search.
They also sell sponsored results in their search results.
They sell ads. They do not sell search. Sponsored results yes, but no matter how you stretch it, they do NOT sell search.
So stretch your anus as far as you like, it's still an anus, might be the goat.se anus, but it's an anus, not a vagina or a back hole.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, don't they sell search results? I mean isn't that what adwords are? You pay, and your result appears up on top of the result where it normally would not have been if you didn't pay?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, really?
Please begin with enforcing the anti-trust case brought against Microsoft, which in this case was justified, proven and concluded, and then we might perhaps consider those new claims by the FTC against Microsoft's rival, which Ballmer promised to destroy. Doing otherwise might likely bring shame and discredit to the FTC itself, and the current Democrats administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and furthermore, what an interesting timing, just when Google in under concerted attack by Apple and others, in view of destroying Android!
I really do hope some Democrats will wake up and tell someone responsible in this administration that they should check what kind of crap some civil servants are moving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? As far as I can tell, even the legal definition of monopoly requires "exclusive control of a market," not "being a clear leader."
Lying about the PageRank of a page, while slimy, is not illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
I totally agree with you although I don't think you need to sell something to change the "moral" here.
For instance, if Google advertising their own products on their own services makes for an anti-trust case, then perhaps TV channels should also be forced to advertise the competion's schedule? No one forces you to use/watch either services and some channels are paid, so I fail to see the distinction here.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, where is the obligation of google to not offer services other than search when they generate results for free? Unless these whiners like Yelp can show that google is purposely altering their search algo to downrank them they should just learn how to compete betere. Ironically I did a serach for oil change places in my area and the first listing was a review on yelp.
There are no barriers to entry for search either. Certainly google itself dethroned yahoo, excite, altavista, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not *quite* true. You don't feel like you're being forced because the decision isn't yours to see.
Google is an advertising company, and acts like an advertising company. That means, you the end-user are being horse traded at a higher level, among the companies that supply your service.
For example, if you're an average Firefox user, you're using Google. Why? Because Google pays Mozilla to force (statistically) the users to use Google's search engine
Re: (Score:2)
as I see it, google has no advantage
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand, IE was baked into the OS in a way that gave it special capabilities and advantages over other browsers. As for Windows, I believe they had tied up the market in such a way that it was difficult to purchase a laptop without it. "Difficult" - not impossible.
Those are very different from a completely optional service like Google.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it can't. Explorer will simply launch the default browser because it's not capable of displaying web pages.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what is being claimed Google is doing: leveraging their dominant position in the search market to gain unfair advantages in other, unrelated markets. If they really are doing this, it certainly is worthy of investigation.
What will be really interesting is if, as I strongly suspect, Google does not give its own products any extra "boost" in search results, or even in ads -- but Google's products come out on top because they're what Google's algorithms predict is of most interest to the searchers.
What then? Is that unfair dealing? Should Google be obligated to artificially lower the visibility of its own products in search?
In case it isn't clear to some how algorithms could be deciding the placement of Google's products in ads, keep in mind that all Google ad-views are a result of a real-time auction in which tens of thousands of candidate ads "compete" for the spot. Google's algorithms select the winning ad based on a combination of factors including the ad's observed effectiveness and the price the advertiser bids. So, if the Google Chrome team, for example, decides to run ads on Google and submits their ads along with a bid, and the normal algorithms are then applied to decide when to show that ad... is there any way that Google can be accused of anti-competitive use of its search dominance?
I mean, Google effectively even has to pay for the advertising space given to its own products on its site. There may or may not be any transfer of money between divisions, but if Google's algorithms decide that the Chrome team's bid beats out some other advertiser's bid for a given ad spot, Google is foregoing the revenue from that other advertiser, so there is a real financial cost to the decision to display the Chrome ad. Actually, that would be true even if Google were artificially boosting the placement of its own products, rather than just using high bids (though given the ability to use the bid as a handle to tweak visibility, I can't think why anyone would feel the need to introduce a different boosting parameter into the algorithm).
Where it gets a little fuzzier is when we look at Google's decision to build specialized search engines like Maps and Shopping, which have their own specialized search competitors, and then to give the results of those engines prominent placement in the general web search page. Is that leveraging Google's general-search dominance to gain share in other markets? Or is it a logical extension to general search, to provide more useful results to general query? I think the latter, but others might disagree.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but I don't have anything to do with ads, or search, and don't know anything about how Google decides to handle ads for its own products.)
Re: (Score:2)
BS! that is not true, e.g., Google always gives prominent placement for its "Google Shopping" in ads.
I addressed that point.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. If I search for "Web Search" on Google, Google Search is result number 6 or so, after Yahoo, MyWebSearch, and frakking Dogpile. If I search for Webmail, Gmail isn't even on page one (though if I search for Email, Gmail is #1 followed by Outlook.com). News? Google is #2. Shopping, ok, Google is #1 there too. Ditto for Maps. Online Advertising? Not even page 1, though they do have an AdWords sponsored link.
Basically, Google doesn't seem to be going to very much effort to push their item
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the number of other FTC "probes" I've seen which are ridiculous and politically-driven, I see no reason why I should lend any credence to their decision, at all. That's not to say that the FTC shouldn't perform a real investigation, but what's been done so far clearly isn't one -- and they're not even claiming it is, just a preliminary inquiry to decide if a real investigation is warranted.
And I note that you also haven't made any counter-arguments to what I originally posted... and you also appare
Re: (Score:2)
It is false to claim that an algorithm is neutral because algorithms can be discarded until a favourable algorithm is found.
Assuming there's some evidence that such a selection criterion was used. And I doubt there's *that* much freedom in algorithm selection... remember that the chosen algorithm has to work for all of the rest of the cases in a fashion that's not too sub-optimal.
Re: (Score:3)
REALLY!?!? (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Apple has less than 20% of the PC market, less than 50% of the smartphone market. The iPhone is no more closed than the Wii, PS/3, or XBox 360. Frankly they should be going after Comcast, Time Warner, and Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
On the Microsoft front they should specifically be going after Microsoft AND Intel together.
Re: (Score:2)
And what % of the revenues in the smartphone market? And what about patent abuse?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"Lobby" more, like Apple (Score:3)
You get the government you pay for.
Re:"Lobby" more, like Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
That used to be true. Today I get the government someone else pays for.
Re: (Score:2)
I have modpoints, but I wish I hadn't commented!!!! :)
I can save them a lot of trouble (Score:2, Funny)
If I go to Google and search for "web browser" the results are:
1. Wikipedia
2. Opera
3. Opera again
4. Mozilla
5. News for web browser
6. Chrome
7. Safari
8. Webopedia (of all things)
9. Maxthon
10. Flock
11. docs.python.org
Those bastards!
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, AC. Disable adblock and try again.
Re: (Score:2)
I use Firefox and googling for "web browser" with adblock disabled gave me a huge yellow ad on top of the search results, suggesting me to try chrome.
not only that. every time i go go google.com it nags me to install chrome.
and look, now it's the most used browser. oh, google used its dominant position to advertise its own browser! how is it any diferent from microsoft "bundling" a web browser with Windows?
cue in the "durr, durr, google isn't forcing you to install chrome". and MS didn't force you to use IE
Re: (Score:2)
My list:
Web browser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mozilla Firefox Web Browser — Free Download — mozilla.org
Opera browser | Faster & safer internet | Free download
Chrome Browser
Apple - Safari - Browse the web in smarter, more powerful ways.
Then it goes into random stuff. Mine seems pretty good, actually. IE doesn't show up at all as of page 5, though Mosaic did on page 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny. If i search, the top hits are:
1: Wikipedia
2: Wikipedia
3: Opera
4: Opera
5: "News for webbrowser"
6: "Firefox"
7: "Firefox"
8: webopedia.com
9: Chrome.
And it might be a personalized search, but I have newer used or searched for opera before.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't use Google anymore, precisely because of the "search bubble". My Google result just now was:
1. Wikipedia
2. Firefox
3. Opera
4. Chrome
Somewhat interesting, given that I don't use Firefox or Opera. My DuckDuckGo search gives me a bunch of web browser definitions, reviews, comparisons...and Firefox. So I guess some things are the same. It's all a plot by Mozilla.
Total BS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Create a page that competes directly with a google service and try again.
Re: (Score:2)
. Disgusting that FTC is being bought by other businesses which is likely MS.
That is how the federal government works now: He with the cash, makes the rules.
Proof? (Score:2)
This is a strong claim, I wonder if there's any proof to back it up. I've never noticed a bias towards Google's services in search, the only time I remember is when they displayed a warning on Youtube saying that it only works in Chrome. That was somewhat distasteful but has been removed since, and in fact I used Google to find another email service without much problem. Can someone show search terms that have a bias?
I do not like Bing (Score:2, Funny)
So blame Google for it...
Poor Microsoft (Score:1)
That is what they are supposed to do (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the legal responsibility of any public corporation was to do any thing ethical and legal to earn money for shareholders.
Since when was there an "Ethical" qualifier?
The legal responsibility of the board and officers of a public corporation is to do any legal thing to execute their charter. Unless they are a non-profit, it typically says something about achieving maximum possible return for the shareholders, by any legal means.
Google - google products (Score:1)
Is it just me that suspects that this will turn out as a giant waste of tax payer money?
If I go TO GOOGLE's SEARCH ENGINE to find a service, I don't generally go there expecting that a search for "webmail" is going to find my corporate OWA page...
If someone want's to find Yahoo's offerings, they would search for "yahoo mail"
and if you weren't sure (or didn't care) you'd likely be one of the stupidly large percentage of people that just use the built-in-bing search in IE to "search" for email.
(which to my su
PJ from Groklaw comments (Score:5, Informative)
I'd say its quite the opposite of what they think (Score:2)
I am inclinded to think that Google has is manipulating their search results but opposite from what they are assuming in the article.
Think about it this way: Googles algorithm bumps up the most popular results page rank. If people are using Google Search to find other Google products (very common, seeing as how Google Search is integrated in most browsers by default) then the PageRank for those products will be higher. One way around this (as mentioned above by someone else) is to use what is called "google
Ads not search... (Score:2)
When google bought doubleclick then admobi who was left as a major player in the online ads market? Especially since Google has a massive amount of data on you from all your searches, email, documents, and other services you may use from them or others use via them (analytics anyone?).
iAds competes, but only on iOS. Facebook has ads, but it's only on facebook. If I want to do online advertising for a widget or a branding campaign using online ads on a non-specific platform, there's pretty much google.
So.. (Score:2)
Google isn't supposed to use their web site to promote their own products?
Well shit, my own company's website does that too. I thought that was why we had the site in the first place, to be honest. Guess I'm doing it wrong.
No one forces you to use Google (Score:2)
Why am i not surprised? (Score:3)
Sounds like typical status quo for this administration: punish those that succeed.
Hardest case they will ever try... (Score:3)
This will be the hardest case the FTC has ever attempted.
In a normal anti-trust case you have a company that has and established product with barriers to entry to the market that typically include:
1. Cost of replacement products (Microsoft is an example of this because the cost of replacement was significant to the cost of the computer).
2. Difficult interoperability (Microsoft again is a good example because the software market made it difficult if not impossible for competitors).
3. Difficult customer access (AT&T is a perfect example of this, building out a last mile telecom network is a huge undertaking, even long distance competitors couldn't access their customers without government intervention).
4. Business collusion and exclusion that prevented competition (almost every FTC case involved this because it's a necessary aspect of enforcement of the sherman-anti trust rules, in the case of MS it was contracts and such that involved the punishing and rewarding of other companies in the business that worked with the competitor).
The FTC might be able to prove that Google is putting their results at the front but they are going to have a hell of time given the facts. No one, not a single soul is forced to use google products. Not only that but the startup costs and difficulty in creating competitive products is nearly non-existent. There are dozens of competing products in almost every single category Google works in and the only reason they haven't been replaced is that they continue to innovate their core products. I really don't think they have case against Google in any of their core markets. Now I do think that what Google did with maps pro (don't jump to conclusions, if you don't know what I'm talking about don't reply) was a dirty evil act right ouf of Microsoft's play-book but I don't think outside that the government even has a case. Everyone could decide to use a different search engine, advertising, maps, calendar, email, phone (android open source doesn't require Google products) tomorrow and there is absolutely nothing stopping people from doing so other than the fact that Google generally offers the better product. With the exception of the maps pro incident Google has none of the barriers to entry that the government hung their hat on during other anti-trust cases.
Personally, I don't think the government will win and I pray Google doesn't just give in.
so is everyone else (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't go to the same extremes you do in describing google. I do agree that google's business model is built on exploiting consumer's habit for profit, but the issue with the FTC, is that the other creepy uncles of the world are demanding their chance to go through your things. Getting the FTC involved will only make things worse.
Re: (Score:3)
The analogy that I prefer is that of a creepy, too-friendly neighbor who hires a private detective to thoroughly investigate you, so that it knows what kind of housewarming gift to give you.
I'm not sure that Google has plans to go all Big Brother on us (that seems more like an Apple or Microsoft thing). Google strikes me as more like an awkward, autistic person who just doesn't realize how creepy his behavior is. He means well, but he's just to damn creepy for me to be comfortable around him.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is spot on.
Unlike companies such as Microsoft, Apple or even Facebook, Google is mainly identified with "Googlers," that is their engineers, rather than with the leader of the corporation. Google's engineers add creepy features because they actually think it's great if their friends can all track their locations in real time.
Re: (Score:1)
You forget that he gets shitloads of money from selling information about you to his clients.
Google does not sell user data.
Google uses user data to target advertising, but doesn't really even give advertisers much control over what demographics to hit... instead Google's algorithms learn which demographics tend to favor what kinds of products and does the targeting itself. Google doesn't provide much feedback to advertisers about what those algorithms have decided, and certainly doesn't give them information about particular users.
Actually giving any of the information to clients would reduce
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, but it just shifts the trust problem to data storage.
Re: (Score:3)
I have noticed that those who defend government intrusion into both the private lives of citizens and into the market come up with the wildest, most asinine examples to justify their intrusion. When bad things happen as a result of thier intrusion, they then use those to justify more intrusion. There is a disgusting metaphor that is apt here, but I will leave it b
Re: (Score:2)
If Google ever tried that people would just switch to other services. The entry cost is relatively low and Google doesn't really have a monopoly on anything, there are other search engines, email providers, browsers and phones. Competition ensures that they never can pull a stunt like that.
Re: (Score:2)
There are more things in heaven and earth, Romeo,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Although, I will the first to admit that you're a persistent little cuss.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent up. How does it help business for the government to set the example of: "Oh, if you become too successful, we'll sue the shit out of you. Because it's unfair to your competitors that you did a better job than they did. Unless, of course, you've donated sufficiently to some of our campaigns; then we'll probably leave you alone."
Mod parent down (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
When I type in ANAL, I get your Mom's phone number...
Re: (Score:2)
The DOJ isn't involved yet, so cut the conspiracy bullshit.
Whether a monopoly is illegal isn't decided by how you acquired the monopoly. It's what you do after you achieve monopoly level market share which determines whether your monopoly is legal or illegal. You can be as anticompetitive as you want, but once you dominate any market segment, you have to be careful how you use that dominance.
I agree Google is probably fine, but for different reasons.