Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Even though my knowledge of Antitrust law is very limited, I do have to agree with the Google guy. I haven't seen anything where Google is preventing anyone from going somewhere else to do their searches, or to get advertising, so unless there is a smoking email someone where that implicates them with nefarious deeds, I just don't see this one flying very far.
Google is absolutely dominant, there's no doubting that, but the reason they're able to dominate in such a way is because they either make a better product (Search, webmail, etc.) or they're the they get in on the ground floor of new concepts (Google earth, Google apps, etc.) before their competitors.
As far as I know, Google hasn't been showing any of the typical monopolistic behaviors. They haven't been trying to eliminate competitors, simply out compete them. If Google really wanted to go down the monopoly path they could easily wipe out quite a few of their competitors in the ad market simply by dropping their price to a point where they would make a very small profit simply due to volume but smaller competitors wouldn't be able to pay bills.
@gecko7jlk: Well, by that definition Google has a monopoly on online advertising. If google drops their prices, everyone else has to follow suit, they have enough control over that market to single handedly influence price.
Pretty embarrassing situation given that the heads of Google were pretty big Obama supporters. Shouldn't Obama have hired someone who though HP was the problem?
@Jrsy Devil's Food Cake®: Did you even read the article? The only mention of Microsoft is saying that Microsoft isn't in a monopolistic position anymore.
@Jrsy Devil's Food Cake®: Last time I checked Firefox and a plethora of other browsers work just fine in windows. I fail to see how Microsoft is forcing me to use something?
@UnexpectedEOF: Perhaps you should re-read it and then re-read my comment.
"When all our enterprises move to computing in the clouds and there is a single firm that is offering a comprehensive solution, you are going to see the same repeat of Microsoft," she said."
And I said what Microsoft did, not what they are doing now.
@Jrsy Devil's Food Cake®: Netscape crippled itself by not having a diversified catalog. Not only that, but Navigator increasingly worse product, failing to adopt to standards. Netscape was on the way down before the effects of the Monopoly were seen, they just accelerated it.
@Jrsy Devil's Food Cake®: I still fail to see how microsoft was a monopoly. There was always a choice between operating systems and microsoft has no control over anything that you install or remove from windows machines. Google is a looming threat of monopolization because their systems are usually more widely used, but they still have plenty of competition in every aspect of their business.
"microsoft has no control over anything that you install or remove from windows machines"
And then read IE, specifically the part about Removal.
Granted it may not be so much an issue now with Vista and W7 on the way. That was the whole point of my post anyway, regarding what was and not what is currently.
"Google is a looming threat of monopolization because their systems are usually more widely used, but they still have plenty of competition in every aspect of their business."
They do have plenty of competition and no one is forcing you to use any of Google's products or services.
@AcceptingTheAward_GitEmSteveDa...: I want to find this mysterious hacker, and give him a large cookie. If there is someone out there who has taken it as their mission to systematically seek out and destroy facebooker's accounts, then that person needs a large government stipend, a corner office, and a secretary named Freida to help him with his exploits.
If this means that people will have to start paying for their music again, like they pay for everything else that they love and costs money to produce, that would truly be an affront to freedom and democracy everywhere. Wait. What?
It's only when you realize the lengths the recording and motion picture industry will go to make a buck, that you will truely understand the problem.
A small proportion of the public downloading movies and music for free is not hurting the industry near as much as they would like you to believe. They're still getting rich and we're still getting poor. The fact that the average Joe the Plumber doesn't know a torrent from a turnip pretty much ensures that the respective industries will still get paid.
If they maid music and movies easier and cheaper to acquire legally by means other than expensive cds and dvds or movie tickets, and got that message out to the public on how easy it is and made the media DRM-free, we'd be ok. iTunes, Zune Marketplace, etc. are making that dream come truer every day and I have no problem paying a buck for a song because I can freely move it around and burn it to a disc if I want. Movies on the other hand are a bit trickier and you still have unnecessary restrictions on what you can do with them in many cases. Make the price fair and don't worry about what we do with the files. At the right price point, paying for a quality copy and downloading is much better than pirating, music or movies.
@fsusmithc2: "A small proportion of the public downloading movies and music for free is not hurting the industry near as much as they would like you to believe."
@ShrutiHamlegs: Really? Has it been dismantled? That's the first I am hearing of this. You should talk to the New York Times about it. Breaking news and all that.
Really? I didn't know the New York Times printed anything other then pinko commie leftest propaganda. In an effort to infect our population and have the populous reject and surrender our Republic values. All done in the name of Fairness.
These guys arent avengers. Theres nothing personal to them other then the fact they love their MONEY they will work for whoever has the most money. They will side with whoever they think will help them get the most money after their little bout of public service is over. money money money. Take the money out of the RIAA by any means neccessary and they will work for someone else.
@IMWylde: Exactly! The only way you'll make RIAA bend backwards at your will is through sales. Giz posted an article a while ago where Universal became Jobs' bitch with iTunes.
While Biden bills himself as a friend of the "little man", history has proven otherwise. Remember, this is the guy who pushed forward the 2005 bankruptcy bill which prevents credit card debt from being discharged through bankruptcy.
@OMG! Ponies!: Wow, check you facts, I know he is pro CC-Company and that bill did make it harder for people to qualify for bankruptcy, but it didn't make it ANY harder to get rid of CC debt.
There are ONLY TWO THINGS that filing for bankruptcy can't get rid of under any circumstances:
Back Taxes (but if handled correctly they can be renegotiated and settled for much less)
Hahahahahaha...this sucks, but anyone who didn't expect this sort of thing is going to get a real quick lesson how politics works over the next new months.
07/06/09
02/25/09
02/23/09
02/22/09
Would anyone like another piece of pie?
02/22/09
As far as I know, Google hasn't been showing any of the typical monopolistic behaviors. They haven't been trying to eliminate competitors, simply out compete them. If Google really wanted to go down the monopoly path they could easily wipe out quite a few of their competitors in the ad market simply by dropping their price to a point where they would make a very small profit simply due to volume but smaller competitors wouldn't be able to pay bills.
02/22/09
[dictionary.reference.com]
MONOPOLY- exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
"When all our enterprises move to computing in the clouds and there is a single firm that is offering a comprehensive solution, you are going to see the same repeat of Microsoft," she said."
And I said what Microsoft did, not what they are doing now.
Reading Is Fundamental indeed...
02/22/09
02/22/09
Forgot that last bit there.
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
" I still fail to see how microsoft was a monopoly"
Read US v. MS.
"microsoft has no control over anything that you install or remove from windows machines"
And then read IE, specifically the part about Removal.
Granted it may not be so much an issue now with Vista and W7 on the way. That was the whole point of my post anyway, regarding what was and not what is currently.
"Google is a looming threat of monopolization because their systems are usually more widely used, but they still have plenty of competition in every aspect of their business."
They do have plenty of competition and no one is forcing you to use any of Google's products or services.
02/22/09
fcbk s grt!
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
Agreed - there should be a community driven voting system that makes posts like that invisible.
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/22/09
Then you really will be the "biotch."
02/22/09
02/22/09
02/23/09
02/05/09
02/05/09
02/05/09
02/05/09
It's only when you realize the lengths the recording and motion picture industry will go to make a buck, that you will truely understand the problem.
A small proportion of the public downloading movies and music for free is not hurting the industry near as much as they would like you to believe. They're still getting rich and we're still getting poor. The fact that the average Joe the Plumber doesn't know a torrent from a turnip pretty much ensures that the respective industries will still get paid.
If they maid music and movies easier and cheaper to acquire legally by means other than expensive cds and dvds or movie tickets, and got that message out to the public on how easy it is and made the media DRM-free, we'd be ok. iTunes, Zune Marketplace, etc. are making that dream come truer every day and I have no problem paying a buck for a song because I can freely move it around and burn it to a disc if I want. Movies on the other hand are a bit trickier and you still have unnecessary restrictions on what you can do with them in many cases. Make the price fair and don't worry about what we do with the files. At the right price point, paying for a quality copy and downloading is much better than pirating, music or movies.
02/05/09
Actually, 95% of all downloads are illegal!
95% !!!
[techfragments.com]
02/05/09
02/05/09
02/05/09
02/05/09
Really? I didn't know the New York Times printed anything other then pinko commie leftest propaganda. In an effort to infect our population and have the populous reject and surrender our Republic values. All done in the name of Fairness.
02/06/09
02/05/09
02/05/09
02/05/09
02/06/09
There are ONLY TWO THINGS that filing for bankruptcy can't get rid of under any circumstances:
Back Taxes (but if handled correctly they can be renegotiated and settled for much less)
and
Student Loans
02/05/09