Google and the world it's creating

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Long story short:
I'm writing a paper on Google and some of it's anticompetitive actions, including the potential stronghold it could develop on the technology market.

Some points I'm going to make are:
Eric Schmidt and Art Levinson both being on Google's and Apple's boards. Although Schmidt left Apple and Levinson left Google it was still cause for concern.

Google's products overshadowing the independent competition, including GoogleDocs, GoogleMail, GoogleMaps, GoogleReader, GoogleNews, GoogleSearch, etc.

The fact that Google doesn't disclose the algorithm used for its search engine, so there is no way of knowing how it decides which sites are first. <<-- This potentially could be Google's most anticompetitive product if Google artificially inflates the relevance of its own sites or its partners.

and the fact that Google allows other competing companies to use its technologies to gain more mindshare.


Things I would like to know:
are there any, or have there been, other high profile board members part of multiple competing boards. And is there anything notable about this?

key figures in anticompetitive cases perhaps similar to Google's.

Any other relevant facts and information.

Thanks so much! I know that this is just for a paper I have to do, but I figured it was interesting enough that it could be discussed here as well.

 

[Consultant]

MS =/= google.

MS got its market share using anti-competitive practices.
Google didn't. Google won its market share based on merit.

Board, no longer the case

Google's products doesn't prevent users from using competitor products
On Anti-trust claims and what is not illegal: http://obamapacman.com/2009/11/cour...se-apple-wins-summary-judgement-highlights/7/

About algorithm, ever heard of intellectual property? Look up TRADE SECRET.

You just disproved your theory. Yes google allows other competing companies to use google services.

Boards thing is common.

Read the Psystar article from the first page. Your theory is similar to Psystar's claims against Apple, which is failing in court.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

MS =/= google.

I never meant to imply that, nor is it anywhere near my thesis I meant to simply discuss the power google is gaining over its users.

MS got its market share using anti-competitive practices.
Google didn't. Google won its market share based on merit.

that has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about the Bell System grew from merit, yet that was still one of the most anticompetitive situations in American history. Just because google isn't Microsoft doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to what they're doing.*

Board, no longer the case

that doesn't mean it wasn't an issue, and potentially something extremely anticompetitive considering the markets Google and Apple are in. You claim that this isn't the first of such instances, but fail to bring up a single case where companies competing in such similar markets have board members in common.*

Google's products doesn't prevent users from using competitor products.

I'm more than aware of what is considered anticompetitive and that is not the only key piece.

About algorithm, ever heard of intellectual property? Look up TRADE SECRET.

I never said they NEED to give up their method I just said that google could really take advantage of their users.

You just disproved your theory. Yes google allows other competing companies to use google services.

and what is my theory? This paper I'm writing is a discussion piece, it's to tell both sides of this situation.*

Boards thing is common.

could you give a relevant example? You're being pretty negative.*

Obviously I'm not the only one who is wary of Google. The Obama administration plans to investigate them and it's not like they haven't had hearings for antitrust issues.*

 

[MTI]

By it's very nature, business is akin to empire building. Unchecked by laws and governmental penalty, every business has the potential for monopolization and abuse of market position, so how different is the corporate morality from the individual morality?

In your thesis, is big inescapably bad?

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

By it's very nature, business is akin to empire building. Unchecked by laws and governmental penalty, every business has the potential for monopolization and abuse of market position, so how different is the corporate morality from the individual morality?

In your thesis, is big inescapably bad?

I haven't decided on my thesis, but that is a very good point that I will definitely explore.

 

[Wakashizuma]

MS =/= google.

MS got its market share using anti-competitive practices.
Google didn't. Google won its market share based on merit.

Board, no longer the case

Google's products doesn't prevent users from using competitor products
On Anti-trust claims and what is not illegal: http://obamapacman.com/2009/11/cour...se-apple-wins-summary-judgement-highlights/7/

About algorithm, ever heard of intellectual property? Look up TRADE SECRET.

You just disproved your theory. Yes google allows other competing companies to use google services.

Boards thing is common.

Read the Psystar article from the first page. Your theory is similar to Psystar's claims against Apple, which is failing in court.

Intel also abuses its monopoly against their competitor which is AMD to hurt them when AMD had superior products

Do you also complain about Intel's monopolistic practices as you do about Microsoft or Intel's okay for now because Apple happens to kiss their ass for now?

 

[thejamesshow]

Google Is the Inspiration

As an Artist Google has made it possiple to see a picture of anything at anytime. It Inspires me to create ART!

 

[Chwisch87]

MS =/= google.

MS got its market share using anti-competitive practices.
Google didn't. Google won its market share based on merit.

Not exactly.. Google hardly got its market on the bases of Merit, search market share is basically irrelevant, its the datamining and the ad revenue its creates where google makes ALL is money, and by that my friend, it bought up pretty much ALL the competition in the internet ad space. If you want to put an ad on the net, you go through Google.

About algorithm, ever heard of intellectual property? Look up TRADE SECRET.

Yes but it potentially allows google to give favorable results to someone on the basis of their share of the market in search alone, which is actually a way that search itself could make money. Currently what is done in this area is "sponsored" results, however the main results are given most prominence ... that one day could change and one day you may not know you are clicking on a sponsored link.

 

[Cerebrus' Maw]

So by theory, does this mean that any company should refrain its market ideas in the case that they get too big/successful? And by default create a monopoly?

No one forces users to use Google. There are other search engines out there that do exactly the same thing. The fact of the matter that Google did it better then everyone else, does not allow opposition to cry wolf and accuse them of mal-practice. Business see's the revenue generating results of Google, and pander to get every last trick in the book/rumors to get on that coveted top 3 placing.

The point about Google abusing their own system would, in fact, not be beneficial to them at all. If anything, it would be a detriment. Simply because Google thrives on the competition that business's do to compete with each other. If they were to favor some website, said website can drop its ad pricing campaign, decreasing significantly its revenue to Google. Even organic content would proably suffer from pro-rated weighting, even on the content network.

I use the big G for a lot of things, and I think the internet would be a very poorer place without Google pushing it. It provides services. The fact that they are very wide ranging (search, mail, analytics, adwords, optimizer, maps, docs, calendar, to name a few) but also very good, just give an indication that Google is what it set out to be. A very successful business. If someone can come up with better products, I will gladly use them. Until that, I will use what I got.

In a slightly off topic point, I would like a express my view on their data sharing. Quite frankly, I don't care what they know about little ol' me. I've got nothing to hide, and 'targeting me with better ads' is nothing as they dont intrude (unlike some flash ads even here) and I dont pay attention to them regardless. People suggest that they have too much information on them. Disconnect from the internet. Because everything you do can be logged, even ssh tunneling will get you nowhere unless you are in a closed system environment. Your ISP, your Facebook profile, every post you make on a website all leave a footprint online.

If you do manage to write this thesis, I would be interesting in reading it.

 

[ArrowSmith]

It's ok for Apple to build an empire and walled gardens, but not for Google or Microsoft. Why because Apple fanbois said so and Al Gore sits on the Apple board.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

It's ok for Apple to build an empire and walled gardens, but not for Google or Microsoft. Why because Apple fanbois said so and Al Gore sits on the Apple board.

What does this have to do with the thread? Did you bother to read it?