teckk said:
roddierod said:I'm not a fan of Google and I don't use it's "products", but at least in case of the search, I don't understand or think it's correct of the FTC to tell Google you have to include competitors or you can penalize people for not paying to be higher in search rankings. That would be like making Ford make all their parts interchangeable with all Chevy, yeah bad analogy.
Carpetsmoker said:The difference is that Ford doesn't have >95% of the car market. Google has >95% of the search market, which is the real problem.
kpa said:If their service is clearly the best and most popular there is, why should they be penalized for that?
My stance is that the competitors should eat the humble pie and try harder instead of whining that they are treated unfairly, clearly they are doing something very wrong if they can not compete against google in an open market.
Savagedlight said:There's a difference between an open market and an unregulated market. An unregulated market will, eventually, become a defacto closed market due to monopolies in various market segments.
Do you remember the thing about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows to squeeze out Netscape? That's why we need regulations.
kpa said:It was Microsoft's operating system so they had every right to bundle IE with it. It was never an issue whether the user was forced to use IE or could choose an alternative browser. It's one of the funniest and also saddest examples how far the lawmakers have distanced themselves from the real world. Ask yourself a question, why is no one complaining now that Apple is bundling iTunes with OS X, clearly with the attempt to monopolise the market?
It's clearly double standards and a need to find a big bad that can be pointed at saying, "look they are at it again".
kpa said:Ask yourself a question, why is no one complaining now that Apple is bundling iTunes with OS X, clearly with the attempt to monopolise the market?
It's clearly double standards and a need to find a big bad that can be pointed at saying, "look they are at it again".
Microsoft did not allow access to Windows APIs by other browser vendors which their partners and IE had access to. Netscape claimed this is one of the reasons that crippled them.roddierod said:The bundle of IE was not the real issue it just became, I suspect by some back room deal.
They also told Dell and others they would not sell Windows to them if they put any other operating systems on their computers.The issue was microsoft charging computer manufacturers a license fee for Windows for every computer they sold no matter if it had Windows or not - how that lost focus and became a non issue is still a mystery to me.
drhowarddrfine said:Microsoft did not allow access to Windows APIs by other browser vendors which their partners and IE had access to. Netscape claimed this is one of the reasons that crippled them.
kpa said:It was Microsoft's operating system so they had every right to bundle IE with it. It was never an issue whether the user was forced to use IE or could choose an alternative browser. It's one of the funniest and also saddest examples how far the lawmakers have distanced themselves from the real world. Ask yourself a question, why is no one complaining now that Apple is bundling iTunes with OS X, clearly with the attempt to monopolise the market?
It's clearly double standards and a need to find a big bad that can be pointed at saying, "look they are at it again".
Carpetsmoker said:The difference is that Ford doesn't have >95% of the car market. Google has >95% of the search market, which is the real problem.