# Google must change search business practices



## teckk (Jan 3, 2013)

http://www.zdnet.com/google-must-ch...ces-after-ftc-decision-7000009350/?s_cid=e589


----------



## Persephone (Jan 3, 2013)

teckk said:
			
		

> http://www.zdnet.com/google-must-ch...ces-after-ftc-decision-7000009350/?s_cid=e589



The FTC is giving up and throwing in the towel on the case.

Effectively a complete victory for Google.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 4, 2013)

I've always been mildly suspicious of this and my thoughts are bolstered by this article that shows all this is fueled by Microsoft actions.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Jan 4, 2013)




----------



## roddierod (Jan 4, 2013)

I'm not a fan of Google and I don't use it's "products", but at least in case of the search, I don't understand or think it's correct of the FTC to tell Google you have to include competitors or you can penalize people for not paying to be higher in search rankings.  That would be like making Ford make all their parts interchangeable with all Chevy, yeah bad analogy.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Jan 8, 2013)

roddierod said:
			
		

> I'm not a fan of Google and I don't use it's "products", but at least in case of the search, I don't understand or think it's correct of the FTC to tell Google you have to include competitors or you can penalize people for not paying to be higher in search rankings.  That would be like making Ford make all their parts interchangeable with all Chevy, yeah bad analogy.



The difference is that Ford doesn't have >95% of the car market. Google has >95% of the search market, which is the real problem.


----------



## sossego (Jan 8, 2013)

Google has become like kleenex.


----------



## kpa (Jan 8, 2013)

Carpetsmoker said:
			
		

> The difference is that Ford doesn't have >95% of the car market. Google has >95% of the search market, which is the real problem.



If their service is clearly the best and most popular there is, why should they be penalized for that?

My stance is that the competitors should eat the humble pie and try harder instead of whining that they are treated unfairly, clearly they are doing something very wrong if they can not compete against google in an open market.


----------



## Savagedlight (Jan 8, 2013)

kpa said:
			
		

> If their service is clearly the best and most popular there is, why should they be penalized for that?
> 
> My stance is that the competitors should eat the humble pie and try harder instead of whining that they are treated unfairly, clearly they are doing something very wrong if they can not compete against google in an open market.



There's a difference between an open market and an unregulated market. An unregulated market will, eventually, become a defacto closed market due to monopolies in various market segments.

Do you remember the thing about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows to squeeze out Netscape? That's why we need regulations.


----------



## kpa (Jan 8, 2013)

Savagedlight said:
			
		

> There's a difference between an open market and an unregulated market. An unregulated market will, eventually, become a defacto closed market due to monopolies in various market segments.
> 
> Do you remember the thing about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows to squeeze out Netscape? That's why we need regulations.



It was Microsoft's operating system so they had every right to bundle IE with it. It was never an issue whether the user was forced to use IE or could choose an alternative browser. It's one of the funniest and also saddest examples how far the lawmakers have distanced themselves from the real world. Ask yourself a question, why is no one complaining now that Apple is bundling iTunes with OS X, clearly with the attempt to monopolise the market?

It's clearly double standards and a need to find a big bad that can be pointed at saying, "look they are at it again".


----------



## roddierod (Jan 8, 2013)

kpa said:
			
		

> It was Microsoft's operating system so they had every right to bundle IE with it. It was never an issue whether the user was forced to use IE or could choose an alternative browser. It's one of the funniest and also saddest examples how far the lawmakers have distanced themselves from the real world. Ask yourself a question, why is no one complaining now that Apple is bundling iTunes with OS X, clearly with the attempt to monopolise the market?
> 
> It's clearly double standards and a need to find a big bad that can be pointed at saying, "look they are at it again".



I agree with kpa on everything said.

The bundle of IE was not the real issue it just became, I suspect by some back room deal. The issue was microsoft charging computer manufacturers a license fee for Windows for every computer they sold no matter if it had Windows or not -  how that lost focus and became a non issue is still a mystery to me. Perhaps because it did not effect most people and there be no glory in winning that case, who knows?

I don't agree that just because google has 95% of the market they should be forced to allow competitors into there results...I mean after all your just fighting on who gets to sell your data in the end anyway.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 8, 2013)

I'd have to look it up again but I believe Google only has about 65% of the market.

EDIT: StatCounter shows 90%. Within the last year I'm sure I read 65% but who knows who that was.


			
				kpa said:
			
		

> Ask yourself a question, why is no one complaining now that Apple is bundling iTunes with OS X, clearly with the attempt to monopolise the market?
> 
> It's clearly double standards and a need to find a big bad that can be pointed at saying, "look they are at it again".



The difference is Microsoft dominates and monopolizes the desktop. Apple does not. A monopoly cannot restrict competition and that is where Microsoft got themselves in trouble on two continents.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jan 8, 2013)

roddierod said:
			
		

> The bundle of IE was not the real issue it just became, I suspect by some back room deal.


Microsoft did not allow access to Windows APIs by other browser vendors which their partners and IE had access to. Netscape claimed this is one of the reasons that crippled them.


> The issue was microsoft charging computer manufacturers a license fee for Windows for every computer they sold no matter if it had Windows or not -  how that lost focus and became a non issue is still a mystery to me.


They also told Dell and others they would not sell Windows to them if they put any other operating systems on their computers.


----------



## kpa (Jan 8, 2013)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> Microsoft did not allow access to Windows APIs by other browser vendors which their partners and IE had access to. Netscape claimed this is one of the reasons that crippled them.



Well, this is the heart of the matter. Why would they have to share the private API details to outsiders that haven't signed a deal with them? Not everything is up for sosialication, no matter how good the open source idea must have sounded at the time.

There's no such thing as free lunch.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Jan 8, 2013)

Once a company is in a monopoly position, it's much harder for competitors to enter the market, even if they have good or better products.


----------



## Persephone (Jan 8, 2013)

kpa said:
			
		

> It was Microsoft's operating system so they had every right to bundle IE with it. It was never an issue whether the user was forced to use IE or could choose an alternative browser. It's one of the funniest and also saddest examples how far the lawmakers have distanced themselves from the real world. Ask yourself a question, *why is no one complaining now that Apple is bundling iTunes with OS X*, clearly with the attempt to monopolise the market?
> 
> It's clearly double standards and a need to find a big bad that can be pointed at saying, "look they are at it again".



No, it's clearly your failing to bother to learn the facts of the case against Microsoft.

Microsoft was leveraging its desktop monopoly to force OEMs *not to bundle* Netscape.

Apple is doing no such thing.
Google is doing no such thing.


----------



## Persephone (Jan 8, 2013)

Carpetsmoker said:
			
		

> The difference is that Ford doesn't have >95% of the car market. Google has >95% of the search market, which is the real problem.



Not even close.

Google has ~70 percent of the US search marketshare.


----------

