What happens when you upset Google

[Tanj]

Youtube is a pretty clear example of a monopoly. You can argue that there are alternative video upload sites, but none of them are viable for most purposes. In the same way you could argue that there were alternatives to Windows on PCs, but that didn't stop Microsoft from getting hammered by Anti-Trust judgments on the issue (though technically they settled).

That's just one place they could get hit.

Microsoft got hammered because they were leveraging their dominance in OS by making other web browsers crappy on their system compared to IE. In other words they were using their dominance in one area to directly and intentionally (through their code) unfairly influence the market.

Just being the best at something doesn't mean you are breaking anti-trust laws. Google does nothing to hamper Bing or other search engines and youtube does nothing to hinder other upload sites.

At any rate, "hitting" google by making them sell off youtube will in no way stop youtube from being the only effective supplier for that market.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Microsoft got hammered because they were leveraging their dominance in OS by making other web browsers crappy on their system compared to IE. In other words they were using their dominance in one area to directly and intentionally (through their code) unfairly influence the market.

You could just easily argue that Microsoft wasn't doing anything to make those browsers run worse on Mac or Linux variants, so they were in the clear.

But if it was a problem for them just to unjustly leverage their powers within the windows OS (and the courts decided that it was), then it would be a problem for Google to unjustly leverage their powers within their own services, such as youtube, Google Docs, Google AdWords, etc.

 

[Tanj]

You could just easily argue that Microsoft wasn't doing anything to make those browsers run worse on Mac or Linux variants, so they were in the clear.

Well, only if you were really bad at arguing, I guess, or didn't understand the word "dominance".

But if it was a problem for them just to unjustly leverage their powers within the windows OS (and the courts decided that it was), then it would be a problem for Google to unjustly leverage their powers within their own services, such as youtube, Google Docs, Google AdWords, etc.

Only if said unjust leverage is being used to squash competitors... which it isn't.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Well, I can say google maps is superior to the Iphone navigation, and Waze is a little too jerky of a ride.

...Whatever google is doing, it seems to be working. Now if they could just expand on google translate a little better, we could one day, possibly communicate with non-English speakers right here on this very forum.

Noone else is even trying that.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Well, only if you were really bad at arguing, I guess, or didn't understand the word "dominance".

Microsoft Windows was far less dominant in the 90's than youtube is today.

Only if said unjust leverage is being used to squash competitors... which it isn't.

Is not Opera a direct competitor to Google?

 

[Landon Caeli]

I say we make sure they've pulled all the rabbits out of their hat before we go break them down.

 

[Sketcher]

Google's essentially engaging in a much more benign, watered down version of what the Koch brothers do with "Americans for Prosperity". Key difference being, google's activities seem to be confined to protecting and promoting their brand, as to where the latter attempts to sway elections and federal policy.

With Soros being the majority stockholder, don't count on it to stay limited to that.

 

[Tanj]

Microsoft Windows was far less dominant in the 90's than youtube is today.

Arguable but irrelevant. For the umpteenth time, what unjust leverage is youtube applying to squash competition?

Is not Opera a direct competitor to Google?

Dunno, never heard of it. For the umpteenth +1 time, what unjust leverage is google applying to squash opera?

 

[Tanj]

With Soros being the majority stockholder

Evidence please.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Dunno, never heard of it. For the umpteenth +1 time, what unjust leverage is google applying to squash opera?

Opera's been around for a while and is still a good browser. If you've never heard of it, it's because you haven't been keeping up.

As for what they are doing to quash it, I'll admit that I misread the article the first time. It actually describes actions taken against Vivendi, which is a different browser developed by some of the same people. But in any case read the article before posting.

 

[Tanj]

Opera's been around for a while and is still a good browser. If you've never heard of it, it's because you haven't been keeping up.

oooh, a palpable ad-hom hit for MoonlessNight. Bravo!

As for what they are doing to quash it, I'll admit that I misread the article the first time. It actually describes actions taken against Vivendi

You also misread it the second time, it's Vivaldi.

which is a different browser developed by some of the same people. But in any case read the article before posting.

I did. For your edification, there's a difference between monopolization and having a fight with a competitor. If there was evidence Google was doing to Safari, Opera, Firefox or any of the others what it was doing to Vivaldi, you might have a case. I'd agree Google's being a bully in this instance, but that is a far cry from monopolization. If you'd like to see what that actually looks like, you should read up on the action against google in Europe...before posting.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

With Soros being the majority stockholder, don't count on it to stay limited to that.

Unless something has changed in the last month since this article was published...I don't see where Soros is the majority stockholder.

The Top 5 Google Shareholders
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/goog/ownership-summary



Far-right conservatives love to make Soros their "boogeyman" that they can use in an attempt to counterbalance any criticisms about the Koch brothers or Americans for Prosperity.

The reality is, thus far, Soros (though, still throwing huge sums of money at causes...roughly 70% of what the Koch brothers do), is more transparent in his fiscal influences than the Koch's are. The majority of his are done via personal contributions with his name on it (so you know where the money is coming from), while the Koch brothers attempt to hide the lion's share of their dealings behind PACs, corporate lobbying, and Think Tank groups like AFP.

While it may be true that Soros is the closest thing to the Koch's on the left side of the spectrum, they're by no means equivalents and overall, he maybe 2nd place, but he's a distant 2nd...

 

[Rion]

Into what? Which bits of Googles' products should go into which part of the split?


In what way are they engaging in monopolization?

First, start with the parent company, Alphabet.

Google Fiber, DeepMind, GV, Nest Labs, Jigsaw, and Waymo existing side-by-side with Google is a problem.

As for Google itself: Google Search Engine, Ad Sense, Google Docs, Google Hangout, Youtube, GMail, Google Play, Android*, ReCAPTCHA, Google Maps, Chrome OS, Chrome Browser, Chromebook, Nexus phones, and the Google Car (see Waymo)... and lots, lots more. In fact, there's more stuff here than when Microsoft got hit with monopoly accusations. How should they be broken up? I'm not an expert on that, it just seems that's way too many fingers into way too pies.

Technically free, but has things like GMail and Google Play required as part of it.