Especially since use of these analogies seems to directly contradict the claim that one can’t use knowledge about how B&M businesses operate to draw conclusions about internet companies.
Again though I think it misses the fact that consumers, in the sense of Joe Blow sitting in front of his computer or swiping his phone, are not the only people with an interest in what Google shows people.
In fact, they’re not clients of Google at all.
Location services was actually what taught me about the replacement thing; I was hoping to use something location based this spring.
Yeah, you can’t use a basic features of the phone (GPS) without letting Google know your location these days, because who knows when they’ll rip the Android location API out.
DING DING DING
We have a winner!
FWIW arguments from a position of economics which are dated at best in regards to the law being unable to catch up with technological progress are, well, dated…
And that is the first problem in their (and your) analysis. If a business becomes dominant in their market through buying up competitors, making anti-competitive moves, etc. then they definitely need to be reined in. If they become dominant simply because consumers chose their product, that’s consumer choice and shouldn’t be fucked with. …And this is an information service where you can’t actually have a real monopoly unless you control most or all of the ISPs, DNS services, and/or hosting services, which Google doesn’t.
No, driving is something everyone on the road does. Not everyone in a market is dominant.
I have argued, practically ad nauseam, that it’s impossible for it to abuse its position because an information service is not the same as a brick and mortar company. Why would I argue under an incorrect premise, that an information service on the internet is the same as a brick and mortar? A brick and mortar can literally buy up the means of production and all the retailers/contractors/vendors who sell a product or service (except for when antitrust laws are applied). Google can’t and won’t buy up all the ISPs, DNS services, hosting services, the W3C, ICANN, or the FCC. They can’t buy up every network and computer hooked up to the internet. There will always be competition for information services unless a government (like the EU?!?) tries to control it unilaterally (like telling information services to remove results from around the world…).
This is akin to the EU expecting Google search to even bother to list their competitors in their search results. It shouldn’t be forced. It should be considered a courtesy. If you don’t like Google’s results, customers will look somewhere else. It also highlights the bias of the EU against a dominant American company that is doing better than local EU companies.
But this isn’t happening. The consumers are running the unsuccessful ice cream parlor out of town by not patronizing their business. The successful parlor isn’t blocking the entrance to another parlor or tearing down their building or buying it and evicting them or raising their rent to crazy levels to force them out. They are failing due to consumer choice.
But there’s a difference between paid advertising and search results. This is about search results. The ice cream in this analogy is the search result, not the ads. The ads are just how the business makes money. The EU is saying that Google prioritized giving away its own price comparison ice cream flavor over a competitor’s price comparison ice cream flavor.
Because you don’t seem to understand the nuances in the real example, so I thought explaining in other words would help, but you seem to not understand the nuances in the analogies either.
Have you been on the internet a long time? In many cases, I would say we haven’t really evolved beyond this as a species. We just use multisyllabic words instead of “ook.”
And if the businesses don’t like Google’s results, they can renogotiate or stop doing business with them.
Don’t misquote me. I want consumers to decide everything. The market is an intangible complicated system that can’t decide shit because it’s not a sentient being.
I’ve said it multiple times, but I went into more detail earlier in this post. Information services cannot actually have a monopoly like a brick and mortar company can. A brick and mortar company can literally keep competition out of the market (and often uses corrupt politicians and corporate-written laws/regulations to do it).
That’s false on the face of it. The fact that it’s known to be possible proves that someone has done so. I’ve done so. I buy shit on Amazon about three times a week from my Chrome browser.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=price+comparison+sites
Google lists articles that reference Google’s price competitor’s in the first page (for me at least).
Definitely not. Net neutrality is very important. But the government shouldn’t fuck with consumer choices. They also shouldn’t ruin services for users just because their local companies aren’t doing as well as someone else’s. The EU has no right to tell Google to not show a particular result to a person who is not a citizen of the EU.
As I said before, neither of us going to learn anything further from each other. I’m done here.
Toodlepip.
As far as I read, it seems you think Google abused its power as a search engine. Did you not notice the real world example I pointed out earlier in a major market where both Google and Yahoo failed at this and the success of a local price search company? (reminder, its kakaku.com)
Your arguments kind of fail to hold water given the counter example.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
