This house would stop Google from taking over the world.
There has often been worries of a single tech giant becoming too powerful and gaining too much control over a vital sector of the economy that allows it to abuse its position. In particular there was this worry with Microsoft and its dominance of operating systems allowing it to abuse this to force PC manufacturers to include its Internet explorer browser. Microsoft went through long court battles to prove it was not abusing its position and was forced to unbundle its browser however it was really the advance of technology that reduced the position of Microsoft. Now despite its motto of ‘don’t be evil’ Google is quite possibly the most powerful tech company and is aggressively expanding into areas beyond internet search. Google has bought Motorola Mobile—the mobile phone sector of Motorola. It provides Google with 14,600 patents which will help “enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies”. Google will use the new acquisition to step up its competition with Apple’s iPhone, by building Motorola phones with Google’s Android mobile operating system. The company has been on a steady march towards becoming a dominating presence on the Internet. In recent years, in addition to its more than 80% share of the Internet search engine market, Google has launched its own email client, acquired YouTube and just recently released Google +, a social network in competition with Facebook. Is there any limit to what Google knows and what it can do? Should it be stopped?
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
Hypocrisy, Google criticized Apple and Microsoft for same Patent Turf war it is now indulging in
" Last year, Google accused its competitors of buying up what it called "bogus patents" in order to slow the development of its Android operating system.
However, the company now appears to have succumbed to the same approach as it adds the IBM patents to a portfolio that also includes technology for driverless cars." [[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16409081]]
What makes it worse when Google does it is that Google has pointed out that these practices of buying out patents, engulfing star-ups and slimming down the chances of a new company ever entering the industry, are wrong and unjust. Now Google goes ahead and indulges in the same evil. At least Apple and Microsoft are not playing the 'nobler than thou' card.
"Google is just one of many technology companies involved in patent lawsuits which seek to slow down competition or strike lucrative licensing fee settlements.
On Wednesday, US mobile operator AT&T was forced to pay Tivo - the digital video recorder specialist - $215m plus additional undisclosed monthly licensing fees.
The fee will vary depending on AT&T meeting growth targets for digital video recording customers until 2018.
"No matter which projections you take, they all involve AT&T paying us significantly higher revenue than $215m," Tivo chief executive Tim Rogers said."
And then there's the matter of "undisclosed licensing fees", this is unfair to people using Google products already. And while this diabolical sneakiness is making Google money now, in the long run this will only give the company a bad reputation and drive customers away. The reason Apple and Microsoft both have a loyalist following is that despite making a number of blunders blocking competition, they are honest with their customers and do not bombard people with hidden charges.
These charges are not hidden, the problem is that companies and individuals do not bother to read licensing agreements before using products and services. If Google really did not inform companies of their charges, the company would suffer a gigantic loss coming from all the lawsuits it would be losing. Google has not yet lost a lawsuit concerning 'hidden charges' and this is testament to the fact that these claims are not entirely true.
Google is currently under investigation in Europe, Asia, North America, South Africa and Australia
"After being told by customers that Google, claiming to be a partner of Mocality, were offering paid-for website services, Magdalinski assumed he was being targeted by a rogue call-centre employee. Further investigation into the source of the website visits found that Google sales staff from Kenya, and later India, were using Mocality to target companies for their Kenyan-based product Get Kenyan Business Online.
Suspecting something was amiss, Mocality staff set their website to automatically change the telephone numbers on the directory to their own, whenever the page was loaded by one of the suspected IP addresses. They then recorded Google sales staff attempting to sell web hosting services, and in one case accusing Mocality of "bait-and-switch" tactics in order to discredit them."
"Google has been accused of methodically interfering with an anti-competition investigation into Android by South Korea's Fair Trade Commission.Google deleted files and made its employees work from home in an attempt to frustrate the investigation, alleges the commission in an interview with a South Korean newspaper. The non-co-operation allegedly came after Google's Seoul office was raided by the commission's officials in September. The anti-competition probers were looking into whether Google's Android phones unfairly prioritise Google search and are "systematically designed" to make it difficult to switch to another option.
According to the newspaper report, the South Korean watchdog is considering imposing its maximum fine for non-compliance. "[[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/05/ftc_considering_broad_google_antitrust_probe/]] "Bloomberg reports that before launching a probe, the FTC is waiting to see if the Department of Justice will challenge Google's proposed acquisition of flight data outfit ITA Software."
None of these many trials have been consummated but since there are so many, spanning five major continents by democratic justice Google should be guilty of something pretty serious.
Point being, it's a dog eat dog town, Google is only doing what it has to do to survive: "When you can't beat 'em join 'em" [[http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2843615]]
Literary Nightmare, out to destroy copyright
Google did not ask publishers permission before posting pages for its library project, Googlebooks. The whole publishing industry is threatened in the same way the music industry was threatened by Napster.
"The fear factor first came into public view over copyright issues, when Google began digitizing millions of books at various libraries starting in 2004. The company built scanning machines from scratch and hired workers to run them. Still in test mode, Google Book Search, which includes both the library project and separate agreements with publishers, lets users search for words within the books it plans to scan. Searches bring up a table of contents and snippets containing the words; publishers can agree to make sample pages available.The problem was, Google chose not to ask publishers' permission before it launched the library project, claiming that copying books to provide snippets of text in searches was fair use under copyright law. And it took few pains to ease publishers' concerns: Why would people buy a whole book when all they need is a few paragraphs from a simple search? If that's what potential buyers end up doing, Google destroys their whole economic model. As a result, the Authors Guild and a group of publishers, including BusinessWeek owner The McGraw-Hill Companies (MHP ), each filed lawsuits in 2005 against the library scanning project, charging that it violates their copyright."[[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_15/b4029001.htm]]
Libraries do not give books or pages of books out for free, and/or without publisher permissions.
Amazon does the same thing, the only difference is that Google didn't 'originally' take publisher permissions. Google does not display entire books but sample chapters, and this is a kind of free advertising.
Monopolies are illegal in Europe
"The Financial Times reports that "Google is being blamed for multiple and multifaceted abuses".
Schmidt met Joaquín Almunia, the commission's antitrust chief, to follow up discussions they had in January, when the commission began contacting companies about their experience of Google's handling of competition in search and advertising.
Almunia's department formally began the antitrust investigation on 30 November 2010 into "allegations that Google Inc has abused a dominant position in online search, in violation of European Union rules".
In Europe, companies which dominate a market have to tread carefully so that they do not lock out other potential rivals – unlike the US, where having and defending a monopoly is legal but using it to monopolise new sectors is not. The commission can impose serious strictures or fine companies for non-compliance." -[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/05/google-antitrust-inquiry-eric-schmidt]] Google owns 80% of search engine market and is as such a monopoly in that industry, Europe is bound to fine Google for this not that the fine will damage the company or its continuing success.
Google is an American company and is such bound by American not European laws. Paying a fee to the European commission should and will not damage Google in any way however
the European Commission should be wary that this Tariff is akin to bribery.
Advertisers paying for top placement have to work for it as well
"Even some of Google's advertising customers complain that the company sometimes appears cavalier about their concerns. That's partly because of the very technology on which it's built. Its search-ad business runs on a pointedly opaque set of complex mathematical formulas that give high placement to ads based not simply on which marketers pay the most but on how many people click on them and other factors. That prods advertisers to create better ads and more relevant Web pages to which the ads send them. But such a system leaves advertisers to guess which ads work best and how much to pay for top placement, and the ranking can change without warning. "Yeah, they say they're not evil, but you have to trust them," says Anil Kamath, chief technology officer at Efficient Frontier, which helps advertisers run search ad campaigns. "It's difficult for advertisers to figure out what's going on." The secrecy surrounding the "black box" of search advertising remains particularly galling to some advertisers when it comes to the issue of click fraud. That refers to an array of schemes by which nefarious Web site operators generate fake clicks on Google ads to make money or hurt competitors. Until recently, Google said only that it believed the incidence of click fraud was very low. Some advertisers believe Google ignored their claims. In early March the company released more data on click fraud and said it would offer more tools to combat it."- [[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_15/b4029001.htm]]
Google's policies are so fair/libertarian that it's unfair to Google's customers. When a customer pays to get website views, that customer expects his/her website to be in one of the top results. The problem is that the placement of related search results is contingent upon how many views/hits the website is already getting, which makes paying for a top spot largely pointless. The other issue is ofcourse that Google should not be selling top search result slots and it should all be based on merit. (how popular a website really is)
Everybody wants top placement, Google can only do so much to satisfy customers. As for the morals of selling top placement, why shouldn't Google have the right to do that?
The thing is, if customers were not okay for buying top placement and making the effort to maintain their position they would not buy Google's services.
Google is striking a balance between merit and paid advertising.
Google helps us in every segment of our life.
Google will not take the world to itself, it is impossible. Nobody can take the world to itself. Just because of that fact we should'nt stop google from taking over the world. It is good. Google is good. Every fact we can see in this debate is true, but no one is bad. We need to support google because of many facts like: Google is common used browser in the world, so it can't be bad. (Something that mostly people like, can't be bad) Google+ is good for many reason, but let put this into this way: Existence of google+ will make facebook to be better. Competition is always good. Conclusion is: If we let google+ to try to take the world to itself (imposible), facebook, twitter and other social network will be forced to be better, and that is good. Something about android. Well, it is a fact that apple is one big corporation. But, it is corporation that exist on advertising. It is bad if we pay some product (apple) 1000$, than if we pay the same thing (android) 300$. The main conclusion is that it is very good if we let google to take the most of the world to itself because of two things:
1. Success of Google will make other companies to be better, and we, as humanity, will have a great products.
2. If google make its product to the best, we will have a great products we can use.
World dominance has nothing to do with helping or not helping people. It has to do with controlling what people do, use and work with. It has to do with unfairly driving business away from competitors who sell better products and services. It has to do with ensuring that no other company can be allowed to compete.
World domination is the infringement of borders, Google has been accused of espionage by China, By several European countries and Google's copyright violations are a given. Most of the internet world uses Google as our primary search engine and Youtube as their primary video-sharing/viewing resource. Why don't we trust other video sharing sites? Why is it always Youtube first?
The same goes for search engines.
"Googlezon, GoogleWorld, just plain Google ;whatever you call it, it's scaring the wits out of everyone from the power lunchers of Hollywood to Madison Avenue ad moguls to Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Now, after years of hand-wringing and thumb-twiddling, some of them are pulling out the heavy artillery and firing one round after another on the Googleplex, the company's headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. The latest salvo: On Mar. 22, NBC Universal and News Corp. (NWS) announced big plans for a rival to Google's enormously popular YouTube video site that will run not only television show clips but even full-length movies on Yahoo! (YHOO ), AOL (TWX ), Microsoft's MSN, MySpace.com, and other partner sites.
JUST THE WEEK BEFORE, Viacom sued Google for a headline-grabbing $1 billion, charging YouTube with willfully infringing on copyrights by allowing users to upload clips of The Colbert Report, South Park, and other TV shows. A couple of weeks earlier, Copiepress, a group representing Belgian and German newspapers, won a copyright case that could sharply limit Google's usefulness if it sets a precedent. And get this: In the Valley and Washington, D.C., there's even cocktail party chatter about whether the search giant's power needs to be reined in by antitrust regulators. It's unlikely to happen but is an indication of rivals' growing trepidation about Google. Says Paul Martino, chief executive of the search service Aggregate Knowledge Inc.: "We're beginning to see the Anything But Google' backlash." [[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_15/b4029001.htm]]
1. The success of Google will only make other companies better, if these other companies are allowed to compete on a fair and legal platform.
We're not simply talking about competitors though, many Start-ups use Google freeware and are delivered Patent fee charges within a week of their launch because the freeware is free to the public and not companies. Google needs to stop being sneaky and implicit.
2. By unfairly and deviously flushing out competition, Google is not expending its resources on making it's product better (or the best it can be) instead it is making sure that no better products/services which are made, can be launched from/by any other company.
What do you think?