Originally published at: Judge rules Google has illegal monopoly on search - Boing Boing
…
9 Likes
This part:
and show full post worked. woohoo
16 Likes
Break up the Alphabet! Make new words. All of them very, very, very short.
If you ever wondered at the power of monopoly just marvel at the dominance Google has while at the same time being utterly useless at its supposed job.
16 Likes
Google’s job is to make money for Google’s owners.
Google is very good at its job.
Whether Google does this in a way that benefits anyone who uses Google is irrelevant in this context.
11 Likes
Supposed, not actual.
I’m very aware of what Google is, it’s not a search engine for a start, this knowledge is shockingly absent in mainstream discourse. Most young people can articulate it if prompted, but it isn’t the first thing in everyone’s mind when the semantic advertising network is mentioned.
4 Likes
Bullshit! (Aimed at the NYT, not at you, @beschizza ).
The EU has been at this for decades. American media likes to portray it as jealousy and an attempt to extract money out of American tech companies. Maybe now that their own courts are catching up they’ll realise how necessary anti-trust regulation is.
16 Likes
I’m old enough to remember when the Baby Bells were spawned. I was young so I don’t know the full impact, but it seemed to me that this was a good thing. Of course, loose regulation and regulating since then means that it took about 25 years for them to all merge back.
Breaking up these giant corporate monopolies, ones who have too much control of your life - besides Google, I mean ones like Nestle, Unilever, Mondelez, etc - would be great. Will that happen in a world where money votes? Most likely no, sadly.
11 Likes
“Brand X – making life shitty for everyone but stakeholders.”
1 Like
You’re the product. Giving the search result you’re looking for is just coincidence.
Supposed again. Please. Don’t assume I’m not a professional. Sure it’s a semantic advertising network but the disparity between their paper on Backrub and what it does now is something that the ordinary person who uses the verb “to Google” simply does not understand.
1 Like
I’m not opposed, but I think that proposed split wouldn’t do anything interesting.
Search isn’t self funding, so the search company with no revenue from ads doesn’t even have time to lose the slow war with SEO, it stops after the first server farm and network bandwidth bill.
Which is ok there are other search engines & Google is no long vastly better then all of them.
Advertising sticks around, I mean maybe not nearly as profitable without search, but it funds so much of what exists on the intertubes…
“Everything else” at Google isn’t profitable, it always lapped at the slop ads generated. So no more pixel phones, Android, home, GCP, two new chat apps a year, maps, to say nothing of the long stream of products and services announced and shutdown two to seven years later.
Or if search can use the ads company to place and profit from ads maybe they survive, and maybe YouTube does the same, the vast majority of stuff Google gives away goes away. Or at least goes away if it can’t survive a transition to being a paid product.
Maybe it will in the long run improve the quality of that kind of stuff in general because it won’t need to compete with Google’s free version?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
