News - MP blasts Google monopoly

[HEXUS]

Calls for restriction of search giant’s power.

Read more.

[Saracen]

I completely agree with many of his concerns.

However, I'm not sure the government (or at least our government) is in a position to do much about it. Maybe the US government could, or the EU courts, but I'm far from convinced either will, or even much want to.

Ultimately, Google is so big and so powerful because so many people (including, sadly, me) choose to use it much of the time.

[Jonatron]

Google is only a monopoly because it is the best. Bing and hotmail are a joke compared to Google and Gmail. If google start placing inferior results above others for their own interests, then people will use something else, so I can't see any need for legislation around search results. People can, will and do just move to whatever website provides the best service eg myspace and myspace.

[iworrall]

Is he calling for Google to be restricted, or for Google to hand all its data to Gov't spooks?

[aidanjt]

Google is only a monopoly because it is the best.

This, tbh. While Google may be leveraging it's search presence to promote it's other products, they only have that position because their search product is superior. They aren't forcing users to use Google over Bing, or Yahoo, or whatever. It's 100% voluntary.

[Funkstar]

Although, with the rise of Android, they are kind of forcing you to use Google services if you have one of those phones. They don't untegrate with any other provider like they do with the Google services.

This is what I can see being the stick the US or EU beats them with.

[aidanjt]

Meh, other services are free to integrate with android through the app market.

[cameronlite]

Yes, but other phone OSes allow easy integration with rival products. Google are in the position with Android and Google services that Microsoft was in with windows and internet explorer.

[aidanjt]

Oh no, Google using Google technologies in Google products. The IE bundling complaint was stupid then and stupid now, nobody was forced to use IE, but IE was necessary to access a competitors browser installer. This is doubly stupid, especially considering that Microsoft was engaging in actual anti-competitive practices with the entire OS. The same can't be said of Google. As long as Google isn't blocking consumers from accessing services from competitors, I don't see a problem.

I see no reason why a software vendor should be compelled to support, promote, and install a competitors product. If they can't do that themselves, then the reason why they're not #1 is evident.

This is just another example of a condescending politician treating the people like they don't have a mind of their own to decide what they want, and trying to force others to do what he thinks is best. And in all likelihood, pocketing competitor cash.

Google may be growing in power and scope, and that may be a deep concern for people, but that's another subject for another day. Ultimately, Google is a private sector company and they're legally accountable to their shareholders, their job is to get bigger and richer, so they do that by giving people what they want.

Government can't just legally compel a company to grow and beat out competitors then punish them for doing the same, that's just irrational.

[BobF64]

Government can't just legally compel a company to grow and beat out competitors then punish them for doing the same, that's just irrational.

Of course they can, its why things like the Competition Commission exists, and various other anti-monopoly laws in other countries.

Funny thing is, people keep going on about "free market economies", but surely if others cant compete, thats their fault, as long as the monopolistic company hasnt done anything illegal.

MPs should look at themselves first, we should demand more choice in MPs, 2 or 3 per seat, each fighting for our selection at votes.

[crossy]

Although, with the rise of Android, they are kind of forcing you to use Google services if you have one of those phones. They don't untegrate with any other provider like they do with the Google services.

Sorry, I'm going to slightly disagree here - my daft SE X10 phone has it's own SE-provided sync/backup system that can run instead or, as well as, the standard Google sync service seamlessly. I've got ALK CoPilot installed (dead easy) to provide navigation services a la Google Maps. Opera is also easily installable instead of the Google-supplied browser. Twitter and Facebook (especially the latter) can be integrated.

No my view is that if there were sufficiently "better" alternatives then someone would figure out how to include those. The problem is that Google does tend to offer "best of breed" - that's why they're as large as they are at the moment. Dammit I've desperately tried using Bing instead of Google, but it was just too limited. Sigh.

As to this MP, sounds like he's just trying to make a name for himself. After all, if he'd got actual evidence of position-leveraging then surely the Competition Commission would be interested. I would suggest that no-one expects Google to not push their product lines at every opportunity - it's common sense that if you walk in Google's front door that you'll be expecting to play by their house rules. That's not the same as excluding the competition.

[Spud1]

Of course they can, its why things like the Competition Commission exists, and various other anti-monopoly laws in other countries.

I've no doubt that they /can/ jump in here and do something retarded like force google to put in a popup saying "would you like to have google search or bing search on your google phone?", but I think it's just wrong and absolutely crazy.

There is precedent in the Microsoft case - unbelievable that the CC decided to tell Microsoft that they are not allowed to bundle their products together - but they did it, and probably will again here. imo this only harms consumers - it makes non techie consumers lives more difficult, and ultimately does absolutely nothing to increase competition. A bit like anti piracy measures really..makes it more difficult to watch/use the content without making a dent on piracy..hmm.

[BobF64]

I've no doubt that they /can/ jump in here and do something retarded like force google to put in a popup saying "would you like to have google search or bing search on your google phone?", but I think it's just wrong and absolutely crazy.

Agree, it is stupid and unhelpful, but bureaucrats dont care about that sort of thing.

There is precedent in the Microsoft case - unbelievable that the CC decided to tell Microsoft that they are not allowed to bundle their products together - but they did it, and probably will again here. imo this only harms consumers - it makes non techie consumers lives more difficult, and ultimately does absolutely nothing to increase competition. A bit like anti piracy measures really..makes it more difficult to watch/use the content without making a dent on piracy..hmm.

Well, in the Microsoft case, its more than just consumer choice, it was abusing a market position to ensure their product would remain dominant.

But I do agree there, it actually makes it more confusing for average computer users, especially considering that most of them have very little clue at all.

[McEwin]

Using Google Shopping as an example of market manipulation is a distorted view of what was going on at the time in my opinion. I was working for the largest Shopping comparison site in Europe at the time and we could see it going down the pan and being overtaken. CPC was far to high, decent merchants left and with an infirioir pool of merchants to price-compare it wasn't long before users looked elsewhere. Because, as people stated, others had a better product and people are free to choose.