Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Chairman To Testify At Antitrust Hearing

Posted by timothy on from the what-about-the-congressional-monopoly? dept.

bonch writes "Following a threat of subpoena, Google chairman Eric Schmidt will be testifying at a Senate antitrust subcommittee in September. Google has denied acting anticompetitively and cites its success as the cause of the increased scrutiny. The Federal Trade Commission and European Commission have both launched antitrust investigations into the company, and the Justice Department is also conducting a criminal probe into their acceptance of ads from rogue web pharmacies, an investigation Google has set aside $500 million to settle."

21 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. why do people still use google, given tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given that they track EVERYTHING you do, and there are other competing search engines which do not do that, why would anyone use google any more?

    If google is a monopoly (not saying they are or are not), they are so because it's what people made them. This isn't like Standard Oil where one company can make it impossible to buy from others. There are a bunch of search engines just a URL away. Google hasn't removed them from the internet.

    1. Re:why do people still use google, given tracking? by RasputinAXP · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean one blue bar across the top and an "install Chrome" button on the top right? That ain't spammy. The MSN homepage, now that's spammy.

    2. Re:why do people still use google, given tracking? by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given that they track EVERYTHING you do, and there are other competing search engines which do not do that, why would anyone use google any more?

      Why would I care if they track my searches? Will they e-mail porn searches to my parents? Because that would be rather awkward, but otherwise it doesn't matter.

      There are search engines that don't track me, have equal or better methods of keeping junk from polluting the top hits, don't actually track me, don't have intrusive ads, and scout's honor don't really track me? Well then, I'll use them if I have any reason to.

    3. Re:why do people still use google, given tracking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For example, go to Google and type in "mortgage interest rates." Google gives itself the #1 ad, at the very top. Additionally, it allows itself three lines for the ad text beneath the headline (which no other Adwords advertiser can have), it has that special "compare rates" button (which no other Adwords user can have), and it allows itself to have its ad copy in columns, which are also against Adwords' rules.

      The keyword "mortgage interest rates" is extremely valuable, and Google is leveraging its monopoly in search to push its other businesses and disadvantage its competitors. That's the kind of shit that the FTC gets interested in.

    4. Re:why do people still use google, given tracking? by Noughmad · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google is only as evil as WE allow them to be. Stop giving them business, and they won't be able to abuse their position. If you keep giving them business in spite of their near-monopoly, then don't complain when the obvious abuse happens.

      Microsoft is only as evil as WE allow them to be. Stop giving them business, and they won't be able to abuse their position. If you keep giving them business in spite of their near-monopoly, then don't complain when the obvious abuse happens.

      There is still an important difference, known as the "Microsoft tax". It's difficult to find a computer without Windows installed, mostly because of Microsoft's licensing policies to OEMs. Google has a monopoly because people (the end users) voluntarily choose their services. Microsoft has a monopoly because of agreements with other large companies, not because of the users' choice.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    5. Re:why do people still use google, given tracking? by Moryath · · Score: 4, Informative

      You left out the part where Microsoft used hidden program hooks, undocumented, in their OS to make it so that Lotus couldn't perform as well as Office (whose development team had access to ALL of the operating system and optimized calls).

      The same crap Microsoft did to Netscape when they started trying to take over with Internet Explorer.

      The same crap Microsoft did as recently as 2009 to Firefox.

      Now run along and get yourself an education. You obviously don't know crap about what you are talking about.

    6. Re:why do people still use google, given tracking? by Bengie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Given that they track EVERYTHING you do, and there are other competing search engines which do not do that, why would anyone use google any more?"

      It's the tracking that makes them so good. Next you'll be complaining about how Google indexes the internet.

    7. Re:why do people still use google, given tracking? by bonch · · Score: 2

      That bar appears on multiple Google services and never goes away unless you log into an account or run Chrome. The only reason Chrome exists is to get more users onto their closed-source search and advertising platform, which is why it defaults to their search engine, for example.

  2. Chrome is becoming a problem by Animats · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Chrome is getting to be as intrusive as IE used to be.

    1. Re:Chrome is becoming a problem by flimflammer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...how is that even possible? IE was pre-installed and impossible to completely remove. How is Chrome anywhere near as "intrusive" as that? Not only that but Google never forces you to install Chrome to use any of their services.

      I smell bullshit.

    2. Re:Chrome is becoming a problem by npsimons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Chrome is getting to be as intrusive as IE used to be.

      How do you mean? Are there websites which require you to use to Chrome to access them? Has Google intentionally broken standards in Chrome to "enhance" its users web experience? Does GMail or any of Google's other services turn you away if you're not using Chrome? Does Google use undocumented APIs to make Chrome run faster than other browsers? Is Chrome so deeply embedded in the OS (on purpose) that you can't uninstall it completely without using a third party hack?

      --
      Nathan's blog
    3. Re:Chrome is becoming a problem by bonch · · Score: 2

      It's intrusive in that Google spams the hell out of it if you use a non-Chrome browser. The Google homepage has a Chrome advertisement in the upper-right every single time.

    4. Re:Chrome is becoming a problem by bonch · · Score: 2

      Are there websites which require you to use to Chrome to access them?

      Yes.

      Has Google intentionally broken standards in Chrome to "enhance" its users web experience?

      Yes. It's called bundling Flash and adopting some esoteric video codec.

      Does GMail or any of Google's other services turn you away if you're not using Chrome?

      They don't turn you away, but they spam Chrome links all the damn time, talking about a "better, faster web."

      Does Google use undocumented APIs to make Chrome run faster than other browsers?

      Only because WebKit is open source. Google is not an open source company as they are often portrayed. Their search engine is a closed source and proprietary as Windows, and they've withheld Android source from non-priveleged partners.

      Is Chrome so deeply embedded in the OS (on purpose) that you can't uninstall it completely without using a third party hack?

      Hello? Chrome OS.

    5. Re:Chrome is becoming a problem by Lanteran · · Score: 2

      Since when? Taken about 5 seconds ago.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
  3. I call shenanigans. by Helpadingoatemybaby · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not even the Senate could reach a human at Google.

    --

    The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.

    1. Re:I call shenanigans. by Compholio · · Score: 2

      Ain't that the truth. Talk all you want about Microsoft; however, at least they have a real, live, functioning telephone number.

      MS: What is the nature of your call sir?
      Caller: We'd like to get a representative of your company to show up to a senate hearing.
      MS: That'll be $200 for an incident report sir, would you like me to charge your credit card?

  4. Re:Eric the clown by bonch · · Score: 2

    Eric Schmidt is the guy who said only people who have something to hide care about privacy. I'll side with chair-throwing Ballmer over that one.

  5. Why people still use google... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google is also evilly leveraging their monopoly position to get marketshare in other areas. The very same thing that Microsoft did in the 90's.

    Just to correct a critical part of your argument: in the 90's there was essentially no viable alternative to Microsoft's monopoly OS; however, there are any number of alternative web search services as viable alternatives to Google. To the extent that Google has a monopoly, it is one they are either (i) voluntarily granted by consumers, or (ii) retain only by inertia. Either way, the alternatives in search are viable and a Google monopoly can persist only if the alternatives are worse. This is in stark contrast to the Microsoft monopoly, which was truly evil (and apparently still strives to remain a monopoly).

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:Why people still use google... by RazorSharp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention that it cost businesses a whole lot of money to switch away from Microsoft. It doesn't cost me anything to type in the URL of an alternate search engine. The only reason I stopped using AltaVista when Google came out was because Google's search results were much better. People figured out how to abuse the meta tag system and Google's algorithm side-stepped that abuse. Give me another minimalist-design search engine that does what Google does better and I'll use that instead (as long as it isn't owned or partnered with Microsoft or Oracle, that is).

      In the 90s I would always get so angry when Bill Gates said stuff like, "The government is trying to punish us for our success." That was bullshit and he knew it. But that statement seems valid when applied to Google today. These politicians are in the pocket of Google's competitors. Namely, Microsoft.

      Hopefully Schmidt sticks it to these fuckers on camera: "Well, gee, Senator, what I'd like to know is why you're on this panel when you take such large campaign donations from my largest competitors. Don't you think there's a conflict of interest here?"

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  6. Nothing to gain, lots to lose by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem, of course, is that testifying before the Senate is a lose-lose situation.

    These are public events that are really grandstanding occasions for senators to work on soundbites for their campaigns. Whoever is "testifying" is just a target for those soundbites. Play target well, and they will shoot you down - "look, we politicians are for the common man and against big business". Defend yourself effectively - show the Senators to be wrong or (more likely) totally uninformed - and suffer the dagger through the cloak instead of the public hanging.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  7. Re:Monopoly? by bonch · · Score: 2

    There are free, easy, and viable alternatives to every single thing Google does.

    That was also true for Microsoft software.