Google Accused of Interfering With South Korean FTC Investigation

New submitter DCTech writes "South Korea's Fair Trade Commission is accusing Google of methodically interfering with an anti-competition investigation into Android. '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 [machine translation]. The non-cooperation 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 prioritize Google search and are "systematically designed" to make it difficult to switch to another option'. Now the South Korean watchdog is considering maximum fines for Google's non-compliance. Google is currently under investigation for similar anti-competition issues in Europe and the U.S."

Comments

"If this was Microsoft"

[bonch]

The responses to these stories are always interesting. Because it's Google, there will be criticisms of the South Korean commission and questioning of their claims. If this was Microsoft, however, the accusations would be taken at face value as more proof of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Google is being investigated all over the world for anti-competitive behavior, but you can't even suggest that Google has a monopoly on web search around here without getting pounded with downmods. Even the lead counsel who prosecuted Microsoft in their antitrust case believes Google is a monopoly.

It seems as if some people just can't believe that Google would ever do anything wrong. This isn't the cute little search engine from 2000. They went public and became an ad company; 97% of their revenue comes from web advertising. But I think they're really good at appealing to tech communities, using feel-good phrases like "openness" to make themselves more endearing to those demographics.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Smallpond]

Whereas Samsung, whoops, I mean the South Korean Government, is just looking into this to provide a fair market for telecom products.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[lorenlal]

1) It took a long time for Microsoft to run through its goodwill and become the monster it is today. We all hated IBM back in the day... Perception changes slowly.
2) Now that Google has a "monopoly," they're still trying to add products to the marketplace. They're still trying to make their existing products, services, and everything they do better. Compare that to Microsoft and IE6, which set us back at least 4 years in the web space. Name me 1 (as in a single) feature Microsoft introduced to comply with standards or make our lives any better between Netscape dying and Firefox showing up.
3) Google doesn't have a slimy history of creating contracts with PC makers excluding the bundling of products that aren't made by Google. Microsoft leveraged their market position in search to hold PC makers hostage, and kill products that competed with Office. Show me a case where Google did any of that, and I'll eat my words.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[merchant_x]

Even Google admits that they are probably in monopoly territory. Monopolies are not illegal though. Abusing your monopoly position to inhibit competition is illegal.

If you don't want to get down-modded perhaps you should point out areas where you think they have abused their monopoly position rather than just say "see, Google is a monopoly!"

Microsoft are convicted monopolists and there are numerous examples of the anti-competitive behavior. Point to Google's ant-competitive behaviors then perhaps there can be a discussion.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[DCTech]

3) Google doesn't have a slimy history of creating contracts with PC makers excluding the bundling of products that aren't made by Google. Microsoft leveraged their market position in search to hold PC makers hostage, and kill products that competed with Office. Show me a case where Google did any of that, and I'll eat my words.

That's what the whole story is about. There's also another such thing, and it's why EU is investigating Google for monopoly abuse. Most slashdotters stupidly think it's because of their search engine and users, but it's not, because you're not Google's customers. EU is investigating Google for disallowing advertisers to run same ads on competing ad networks. Since Google maintains such a huge market share in online advertising, that is outright monopoly abuse. Google is directly leveraging it's market position to kill competing ad networks.

Interestingly, recently Google changed their "Ads by Google" advertisements on websites to AdChoices. This is the very exact "soft" approach Google takes. Use cute and soft names and marketing. Hey, it's AdChoices, so there's clearly choices for advertisers! On top of that they wanted to change it from "Ads by Google" because all those advertisements were hurting Google's image. Not to worry - Just change it to different name and now people don't directly associate with the clean Google anymore!

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[slack_justyb]

Actually it's pretty cut and dry here. I really don't see room for question. The main problem that South Korea has with Android is that magnifying glass in the top left corner. You tap it and it seems to only get its results from either local machine or Google.com. The first isn't the problem and neither is the second. What the problem seems to be is that there doesn't see a way to change where Internet results as received from.

Now this wouldn't have been that big a fuss, if someone hadn't made such a big fuss about IE being so tightly integrated with Bing, which it really isn't but I digress; that's really a different conversation altogether. Anyway, so if we are going to slap Microsoft's hands for IE/Bing, then we need to slap the hands of Android/Google.

Also the South Korean office of Google's has been pretty up in arms as of late. Now this one office could or could not be a representation of Google as a whole, again that's up for debate and not really what I came to comment on. However, it is clear that Google's South Korean office has been acting a bit mighty fishy and the one thing police don't like is when people start acting funny.

However, I agree, I think Google should provide some options for changing up the search engine for the search button. It's not like I would ever change it, but it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside when I get options.

Now I know what people would say about Google and Android tied together like they are, but we have to remember, tablet's and phone's are being held as the way casual computing is heading. Now a lot wasn't done until after the fact with Microsoft and ever since their antitrust case, I think people have been trigger happy to protect end-users. When in reality I think that the people who proclaim to be protecting end-users seem to understand computers less. Anyway, this shouldn't come as a surprise.

I'd be surprised if South Korea actually did the same thing to say Apple! Apple usually argues that their stuff isn't a phone or a tablet or a computer. It's an Apple product and changing the options, search, or OS on an Apple product is like asking a microwave maker to provide a method for installing custom software on their microwave.

Anyway, not trying to start a war here. Just wanted to say: 1. Not surprised, 2. S. Korean office is indeed acting fishy which tends to agitate police.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Smallpond]

3) Google doesn't have a slimy history of creating contracts with PC makers excluding the bundling of products that aren't made by Google. .

To catch up, google "skyhook lawsuit".

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[stanlyb]

Name me even 1 feature that Google introduced to comply with standards.These guys even messed with the well accepted TCP/IP packet size just to make their main page to load faster, screwing all the rest of the world. What the........

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[stanlyb]

He does not have to. The monopoly is by definition evil. Please, name me even one "good" monopoly, and i will beg for mercy.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[miltonw]

[citation needed]

Accusations of wrongdoing are not proof.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look, modded to -1, shocking.

If this post had read something like "lol must be submitted by apple fanboi why u mad bro google rocks why dont u go blow steve jobs", it would be +5 Insightful.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[AlecC]

The government's monopoly on the use of force. Having competing private armies would definitely be a bad thing.

Linus Torvald's monopoly on the name "Linux".

The IETF's monopoly over Internet standards.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[UnknowingFool]

Well the first problem is that MS, a direct competitor, is complaining. The second is while there are examples of possible anti-competitive behaviors, I don't think there is anything approaching what MS did. Let's take the three examples that are mentioned in the article.

1. Google does not provide the same access to YouTube data that they have. So while competitors can get the results to look like Google, they aren't exactly the same. This is a fair complaint.
2. Google doesn't provide the same data to relating ads and searches to competitors as they do internally. Well considering that this is the core of Google's business, I don't see why they should let their competitors have it.
3. Google enters into exclusive search agreements with sites. Considering that MS also does this (FaceBook), this isn't a valid complaint. The only thing MS is griping about is that since Google has the majority of the search, they shouldn't be allowed to do this. Well, where MS got into trouble wasn't they had exclusive contracts but how they leveraged them against their competitors. For instance, OEMs were "hinted" not to install Netscape or their OEM Windows pricing might go up. In this case if MS wants more agreements, compete. Just because many prefer to enter agreements with Google does not mean they are forced into them.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

Heya, bonch, why do post anonymously? It's not like everybody knows that's you, anyways.

By the way, read on confirmation bias a little, other Apple fans, who don't post same "Apple Apple Apple Brand protection I love Apple Revolutionary innovations Everybody copies Apple Seamless experience Why do you all hate Apple Apple Apple Did I tell you I love Apple" in every thread like you, don't get modded down to -1 Asshat scores.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[jeffmeden]

It seems as if some people just can't believe that Google would ever do anything wrong. This isn't the cute little search engine from 2000. They went public and became an ad company; 97% of their revenue comes from web advertising. But I think they're really good at appealing to tech communities, using feel-good phrases like "openness" to make themselves more endearing to those demographics.

Gasp, not ad revenue! Did you expect their revenue to come from people paying for search results? Please try to grasp this: Every company that solely works in the Internet space is an Ad company. That's how money is made on the internet, if you think this makes something evil then you probably should be unplugging your computer from your 56k modem right about now. I mean Slashdot (the site you apparently abhor but can't stop posting on) relies on web advertizing, and OH SHIT most of it is in the form of Google Ads to boot!

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[oxdas]

Interestingly enough, Google is not a monopoly in search in South Korea. In fact, I think they are third behind Naver and Daum. Google is in single digits in search market share (Naver has something like 60%). This clearly is not about monopolistic practices.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's bullshit. There was never any good will to run through with Microsoft. They've been crap from day one.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

If Fandroids looked in the mirror once in awhile, they would see that they have become the fanboys they hate about apple.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Ihmhi]

Or, in short, Microsoft used up all of their goodwill a long time ago. Google hasn't - yet. Geeks are skeptical by nature and are willing to give a company or person that is fundamentally good the benefit of the doubt.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[oxdas]

I hate to reply to myself, but I am mistaken. After further consideration, I think this is about monopolies. This about South Korean search monopolies Naver and Daum losing marketshare because Google Android directs mobile searches through their portal. This is South Korean using the law to try and protect Naver. I wonder what Samsung thinks of Naver pushing around their partner?

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[theshowmecanuck]

Use cute and soft names and marketing. Hey, it's AdChoices, so there's clearly choices for advertisers!

Carl Rove used that technique a lot. IIRC one that stands out was one of GW Bush's assaults on the EPA that they gave a warm fuzzy name to. Something like 'green environment policy'. That name is probably way off, but it is the idea. And then they say it over and over in the media until the (generally lazy) public believes it, even though they were doing the harmful opposite.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[stanlyb]

Actually, with the new NDAA bill, the government has the monopoly on the use of force......Do you consider it a good thing?
Linus Torvald does have monopoly on the name linux......i have monopoly on my name.....but there are hundreds of thousands of people with the same name, but so what? do i really have monopoly???
The IETF's monopoly over Internet standards.......sorry man, did you just said that all the human beings on earth have monopoly on everything on earth!!!! Please, be more specific.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

He said ONE GOOD monopoly.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[oxdas]

Samsung is not pushing this, Naver is behind this.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[ljw1004]

2) I don't know what timeline you want, since Firefox showed up in Feb 2004 well before the end of Netscape in 2008. But let's pick 1998 as your "Netscape" year, since that was when the source code of Netscape was abandoned.

1999 -- Microsoft introduces "AJAX". It made our lives significantly better. (or at least, it was what turned the Internet from Web1.0 static pages into Web2.0 interactive pages).

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Synerg1y]

I think part of the difference between MS anti-trust and google is that MS directly hits your pocket book, when you HAVE TO buy windows for $XXX, while all google services are free. The ads come with them. In that sense it's very very tough to call google a monopoly because technically they're not directly making money off their search from the consumer standpoint. If Linux broke through on a feature and started strangling MS, and became available on MOST devices, would you call it a monopoly like you can w MS?

You are 100% right though, google changed when they went public, as do most companies. They are in a slightly different position, their data + government = insta 1984. So idk, best bet is to not worry about it I guess. I'd still recommend blocking google when possible w noscript though. A solution useless to most of the non-IT crowd.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[mkiwi]

Please take the following as a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the parent's comment:

Vampires have often found it advantageous to maintain a hidden presence in humanity’s most powerful institutions. In the 1600s, it was the Catholic church, and today, as you all know, it’s Google and Fox News.
— ‘True Blood’ vampire king Bill Compton

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked for a major PC maker. Google paid us a lot of money to put Google all over the desktop and remove all references to competing products (e.g. remove all links to IE and make Chrome the default browser). I think you will have to eat your words.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Locutus]

maybe it's because Google does not make a phone as the headline states,("Google's Android phones") and Google does not force vendors to use their operating system. The operating system is free and open source so vendors can use it without opting to use Google's apps, market, or search defaults if they so desire. Unlike Microsoft's vast history of signing exclusionary deals and all the court documents which so they purposefully opt for designs which excluded others from competing on their platform.

So if Android, the open source/free version is not capable of using another search engine they might have something. But I doubt that is the case so WTF are they crying about? What do you expect a license from Google to use their Android applications and app store needs to provide apps and access to Microsoft's applications and app store?

And besides, Google as a search engine works great and consistently provides great service while Microsoft has always been technical laggards and in many cases technically inept yet their licensing and contracts prevented people from choosing other products. Somewhat related, a lot of my friends are complaining about their Windows Vista computers when I told them to request Windows XP instead but were told they would have to pay extra for the older software. Microsoft forced computer makers to ship Windows Vista and eliminated the option to put Windows XP on the computers without added costs. This was monopoly manipulation of the market choices even though it was the same companies product. And Microsoft allowed some OEMs to pre-load Windows XP and even paid them incentives to do it( netbooks ).

And didn't I see that Google only has 60% or so of the search market? Microsoft was at 80% of the PC market and stomped on all kinds of hardware and software companies with that share as they did with 90% market share too. There are lots of examples of this like Go Inc in the late 80s and early 90s, OS/2, Java, Netscape etc.

They are liked because they make good products and when they do throw ads at you they're not massively annoying and many times they are actually related to what you are on the web pages for. What an amazing feat. The television industry still can't realized a feminine hygiene commercial during a Saturday morning cartoon is not well targeted. They got the beer and truck thing down for football and most sports though. amazing.

LoB

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they demand to install Chrome OS as well? Did they require complete uninstallation of any product and forbid installing anything except Google's products on the PC, or did they only maliciously delete IE shortcut? Did they deny you installation of Chrome if you failed to comply?

The word you're looking for is "OEM customization". Requirements are clearly documented by MS and anyone can indulge in this malice if he so pleases.

Other word you're looking for is "Microsoft tax". You should look it up and compare.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

I mostly agree, but Android is open source. Any manufacturer could modify it to include alternative search engines. Can you really blame Google if they don't write the code specifically? Unless they are cracking down for the Google phone, in which case Google would be the manufacturer, but looking at that phone specifically, can Google really be considered a monopoly?

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[increment1]

Whether Google has a monopoly on web search is irrelevant to the issue raised in the article. The present accusations concern their use of Android to drive search, not vice-versa. For that to be illegal / anti-competitive in the US, they would have to have a monopoly on smart phones (it is illegal to use the influence of a monopoly to drive other products, however, it is not illegal to use other products to push your monopoly).

Obligatory Apple comparison: shouldn't the iphone only working with iTunes be similarly anti-competitive?

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Since Google maintains such a huge market share in online advertising, that is outright monopoly abuse. Google is directly leveraging it's market position to kill competing ad networks."

That's fine, but what I don't get is why Apple hasn't been chased for the same thing regarding the digital music market which they clearly leveraged to lock people into their platform, forcing anything that wanted to interop with iTunes, and hence the users music library through a gimped interface such that everyone had to give up even trying. This coupled with the further abuse of the likes of the eBook market certainly does leave me wondering "why Google". Sure their practices may be problematic, but they're still nowhere near as anti-competitive as Apple's actions have been for the best part of a decade now.

I don't think it's that Slashdotters have an inherent bias towards Google, I think it's because they simply recognise that the issues with Google are far less problematic in the world than the likes of Oracle's grab of MySQL and Java with it's Sun purchase, Apple's decade of monopoly abuse in the digital music player, digital music, eBook market, and general platform lock-in. Facebook's blatantly criminal breaches of the Europe's various data protection acts, and it's monopoly on social networking being used to now also drive in to other areas.

The problem is that there are bigger, far more problematic fish to fry.

So excuse me if I can't help but feel that perhaps it's more about the fact Apple cosies up to governments, offering some good PR to the government of the day, and giving corrupt governments whatever they desire, whilst Google produces the transparency index, and stands up to the likes of China.

Someone once said Microsoft's mistake in suffering it's anti-trust investigation was not cosying up enough to the politicians - it was an upstart, an outsider to the system that had done too well too quickly, and the establishment just doesn't like that. Companies like Apple and Microsoft both learnt from that that lesson which is why they face no issues now. Google in contrast still seems to detest the idea that to do business in a market, you have to effectively engage in corrupt practices with politicians and the like, it's mistake is a repeat of that Microsoft made.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory Apple comparison: shouldn't the iphone only working with iTunes be similarly anti-competitive?

You might have a point if this were true. However, there is a published API to interface with iPods/iPhones and anyone can write software to interface with it. The only potential monopoly would be the iTunes Store, and I don't know if third-party software can interface with that to put apps on the phone. For music/videos/pictures, you aren't limited to iTunes though.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be surprised if South Korea actually did the same thing to say Apple! Apple usually argues that their stuff isn't a phone or a tablet or a computer. It's an Apple product and changing the options, search, or OS on an Apple product is like asking a microwave maker to provide a method for installing custom software on their microwave.

with regards to the Apple comment, you can actually change the search provider. At least for safari you have the options of Google, Yahoo!, and Bing. In other countries Apple may have other providers listed but I'm not sure about that. However there is precedent for Apple allowing search provider changes on iOS.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[quacking duck]

You can change the default search engine on iOS easily.

Difficulty in changing the OS or other options like alternate browsers (engines, not using the WebKit back-end), can't install Flash, etc... while it can be frustrating for some users, is not monopoly abuse, or indications of such. Abuse on Apple's part would be if they contractually prevented app authors from re-publishing their apps on Android, Blackberry or WinPhone, which has not happened.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[increment1]

Thank you for clarifying that. I did mean the Store / app market (as being an online service from which Apple generates revenue it is the most comparable to the Google search service on Android), unfortunately I just tend to lump the iTunes software and online component into just iTunes.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Google admits that they are probably in monopoly territory. Monopolies are not illegal though. Abusing your monopoly position to inhibit competition is illegal.

that's the way US law treats monopolies; EU law doesn't require abuse of monopoly power.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

"NO CARRIER"?

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

1 - Specify exactly when people's view of MS started changing? MS's big success was Windows 95... but by 1998 Bill Gates was getting pied in the face in public. Three years between huge success and being hated. How long has does Google get? How long ago did GOOG sell people out to try and get Buzz jumpstarted?

2 - Trying to say that MS was trying to stifle the internet with IE6 is downright wrong. IE6 was the best browser around. It is well-known that MS was tying their browser to their OS, and thus IE7 was to appear with Longhorn. The reason why IE6 stagnated was because Longhorn ran into huge problems and caused delays.

3 - This point is silly. You needlessly narrowed the definition of sliminess, and furthermore you ignored examples of Google doing this very thing. Does "Skyhook" ring a bell? Google did everything they could to make Motorola get rid of Skyhook on their phones. What about other things like stealing Yelp reviews, putting them in their own product, and then specially placed their own product atop search results. Is that slimy? There are tons of examples of Google's sliminess. The funny thing is that the "digerati" simply don't care. They're stuck in a time warp where Microsoft is the eternal enemy.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[anonymov]

Actually, it does.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior hurted normal consumers by slowing inovation and raised prices. In a global view, they had a negative effect on society at large and earned large amount of money doing so.

Google on other hand is hurting other ad-networks, which in turn has a minor effect on the advertisment costs, which in turn has even smaller effect on the normal consumer. The global effect is likely to be less than statitical detectable.

Yes, what google is doing is wrong, but lets not compare that to what Microsoft did or it will just shrink to nothingness in comparison.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[hairyfeet]

I'd like to know when this whole "Treat corps like ballclubs" shit started and can we all just stop it please? I use products from dozens of companies but frankly i don't give a shit if they go up, if they go down, as long as it does what i want it to I'm gonna use it. If a company acts like a prick, like Intel with their compiler rigging and bribery? i just don't buy their product, is that so damned difficult?

And lets get one thing clear, okay? GOOGLE IS A MONOPOLY when it comes to search PERIOD. You don't have to have 100% of a market, merely be able to cause significant changes in that market. Apple is a monopoly when it comes to PMPs with the iPod having close to 90% of the market, that makes them a monopoly. MSFT is a monopoly when it comes to desktops and Intel is damned close to a monopoly on x86. Does that mean we should break out the pitchforks? Noooo, what that means is these corps need to be watched like a hawk because a monopoly gives a company enormous power which they can then use to slaughter competition. They can try to block competitor's products like the famous "Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run" or in this case give away a product (similar to how MSFT gave away IE) and use it to further lock in their market.

So can we please stop this "All go to hell except for cave 76!" bullshit and just accept ALL corporations are neither good nor evil and are nothing to be rooted for or booed, but simply should be monitored to make sure they don't use their power to destroy the free market? Doesn't that sound nice and rational?

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Mr. McGibby]

Actually it's pretty cut and dry here. I really don't see room for question. The main problem that South Korea has with Android is that magnifying glass in the top left corner. You tap it and it seems to only get its results from either local machine or Google.com. The first isn't the problem and neither is the second. What the problem seems to be is that there doesn't see a way to change where Internet results as received from.

You're thinking about this backwards. That's not monopoly abuse because they don't have a monopoly in mobile operating systems. You have to be abusing a monopoly position to impact competition. They're not in the case you cited. How exactly are they using their monopoly in *search* to keep Android competition out? If you can't fill in the blanks of "Google is using their monopoly in ___ to keep the competition out of ___.", then you don't have a case.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anne Thwacks]

You must be very young and foolish. Many of us who had used Unix, VMS and even CPM were as pissed as f*&$ when DOS appeared and we had to use it. We wanted an OS that worked properly, and all we got was sh*te.

Any goodwill to MS was confined to people who knew nothing else from day 1. As for Windows 1.0 - you can't handle the truth <throws ninja sword at screen>

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Locutus]

so it's a local monopoly trying to protect their position using government pressure against a competitor. interesting. I also find it interesting there is even anything they can do given that Google does not force any vendor to use their OS let along use the OS( for free ) and license the Google software apps(gmail, maps, etc) along with the Google Market. Google doesn't even make phones.

My first reaction to the article was that SK was looking to get some $ from Google and was pissed they didn't just open the door and pour money into their hands.

LoB

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

(A So does Microsoft and many large sites
(B This doesn't hurt anything and is not part of the TCP standard
(C You are free to use this technique yourself caveat: it doesn't always improve performance
(D screwing all the rest of the world? You drank too much haterade

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

hey idiots:

stop making everything about microsoft. you look like axe grinding fools. like a jealous ex girlfriend who turns every conversation into a "fuck him!" rant.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, Microsoft STILL is a monopoly, so they should shove it.

Second, I find it strange that the Koreans would actually do something about it, since a lot of their phones USE Android and thus any loss affects them directly. Regardless, considering how things progress in the USA, Microsoft suing and bribing left and right to remove competition, is it that much of a stretch to believe they had something to do with this?

Oh yeah, Google most likely does some juggling, but nothing outright illegal like MS, so I still think them good guys.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

I love you ! haha :D Its fun to see the google cheerleaders running around trying to shut down criticism of Google.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[jmerlin]

They patented it before they released it. They also didn't create it to comply with standards. But technically you can implement AJAX without XHR, using iframes or script tags, and the most browser-independent methods originally did this because IE wasn't compliant with what everyone else was doing. To this day, even IE9 and proposed IE10 is still dramatically different than every other browser in regards to standards (for eg. the handling of XHR request data, the browser still enforces control over MIME which may cause really-fucking-weird behavior on IE but nothing else, forcing you to sterilize the MIME type of your response). This is the reason IE is losing market share at an astronomical rate despite having the advantage of first-install and 100% availability to windows users. They don't advance web technology. They stand in its way.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[oxdas]

I think this is about pressuring vendors, particularly Samsung and LG. Samsung is too big and influential for Naver to pursue directly, so they are attacking Google. If they can get the Korean government to mandate more search options on LG and Samsung phones, then Naver wins. Naver has revenues of about $2 billion per year, Samsung about $220 billion per year. The Korean government would never side with Naver against Samsung. Google, on the other hand, is much smaller than Samsung at about $30 billion, has little influence in South Korea, and, most importantly, is a foreign company. This looks to me like an indirect attack on Samsung (and to a lesser extent LG) in an effort to defend their turf.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[TheNextCorner]

In so many arguments I hear: "But Google is open, they are providing a useful service to the customer". Just read this really great article: http://www.seobook.com/transparency and judge for yourself how open Google is. The reason the EU anti-trust commission is interested in Google, is because of abuse of dominant power in one industry, entering and killing off competition in another industry through free- or predatory pricing.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[datavirtue]

Yes, but google is a monopoly because people fucking navigate under their own fucking free will to their website and run a search. Why? Because THEY FUCKING WANT TO RUN THEIR SEARCH ON GOOGLE!! ZOMG! Do they want Bing? No. Do they want Alta Vista? No. Do they want Dogpile? No. Let's stop pretending this is AT&T or Microsoft where everyone got locked in by chance and they no longer have a choice. A lot of established businesses are upset because Google ganked their industry due to their superior innovation. Notice the attack on Google while all kinds of assholes run rough shod over other aspects of our lives. Who's beating down Verizon's door? Who's kicking in teeth on Wall Street? Where is the big investigatory hoopla aimed at Congress? Let Google dominate the world of search information and ads. Out of the regular people in the world who is it going to hurt? Hell, Google is handing the average Joe a piece of the advertising world cake. I make money serving a couple measly Google ads on my website. Years ago the money I make would have landed in the coffers of a multinational publishing conglomerate. You people and your Google bashing suck dick. STFU!

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[datavirtue]

Since when does and ad network enjoy a right to exist? This is all off base.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

When you serve an ad on your website Google pays you 66% of the cost/price of the click paid by the advertiser. Google keeps 33%. The "establishment" is freaking haywire over Google and they, the "establishment," are trying to reign them in. I hope Google holds out and beats these fuckers. I'll help in any way I can.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical post from a Google fanboy

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[idontgno]

google "skyhook lawsuit".

Irony, much?

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[10101001 10101001]

And I'd say, you're missing the point. Granted, the GP is almost certainly wrong about the issue of anti-competitive monopolistic tying in Google's case. However, it's still a problem that "there doesn't [seem] to be a way to change where internet results [are] received from". If it's Google's policy to "not be evil", then one would also hope part of its policy would also be "do what the customer wants". Clearly there are people who don't want to use Google for various reasons*. Now, I'm sure there are plenty at Google (probably not the majority but I'd assume a lot, given the popularity of Google search) who don't see a real problem with it because they simply see the feature as a value added feature.

But, that's the same mindset that caused MS to tie IE into Windows. Sure, at first, it was great because it provided a pretty guaranteed vehicle for web access as well as html content. So, of course, some parts of the OS started using IE for things even though (a) there was already an extant web browser for Windows that the majority liked (Netscape) and (b) a critical component of what Windows was about was allowing a user to define what application opened what file format. Now, MS kept with it for a long while trying to fight having to treat IE as just another application and not a first-class component of Windows and that hurted the goodwill of people precisely because IE (and web browsers in general) became was such a swiss cheese of security which made MS's efforts seem almost intent on causing Windows machines to be vulnerable.

So, Google shouldn't really shouldn't fight this. Because the "wave of the future" is concerns of privacy online, be it Facebook or through Google's collection and mining of data through their web service. If Google fights the ability of people to opt-out of Google, even if most people never will (just like most people still choose IE) then it sets the standard that they wish all the negative consequences that arise from that lack of privacy. So, the major catalyst really is the if and when of Google's collected data being visibly abused, be it multiple times or one very grand scandal (be it a Google employee or a third-party associate or a massive data leak/hack resulting in a nefarious act).

*Not everyone trusts Google, especially the more all encompassing its search tools become to devices one uses every day. Part of that can mean simply disabling the ability to search using a Google tool you don't trust. Part of that can mean switching to a competitor in part or hold to at least mitigate the potential damage and cross-linking of data (say Google for personal and Bing for business). Personally, I just like the feeling of control I have in choosing if or if not to give out the data, even if I'm pretty sure I'm too irrelevant to really matter. Because in the end, it was never that Microsoft did an evil act against a single person that made people hate them. It was the seeming ambivalence and dedication to their own end against the seeming wishes of masses as a whole that ticked people off. The law part of it shouldn't really matter, given you want to have loyal customers who choose you. Only an arrogant, monopolistic bastard would act like it doesn't matter what the average person thinks as if they had no choice.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[bananaquackmoo]

As an Android user, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never even seen a magnifying glass in the top left corner. I'm not trying to be annoying, I'm genuinely curious what you're talking about.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[lorenlal]

^This

I picked my word "history" for a reason.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Cyberllama]

Except that Microsoft has a phone OS and Bing is it's default search. So Microsoft does do this, and nobody has raised a peep about it. Google is the new Microsoft, for no other reason than because they're big. Corporations are bad. Big ones must therefore be worse. It's really quite simple.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

But remember folks, Apple is the one with the fanboys!

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[lorenlal]

Since it may affect employment, I'd be fine with just knowing which PC maker it was, or have some specifics so that the claim can be moderately verifiable.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus Torvald does have monopoly on the name linux......i have monopoly on my name.....but there are hundreds of thousands of people with the same name, but so what? do i really have monopoly???

Not so. If you're using his Kernel, you can refer to it as Linux because he lets you do so, you still have no ownership over the name. You can't start Linux, Inc. and start selling Linux Cubes and license QNX and call it Linux Plus.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Cyberllama]

The EU is investigating Google because large corporate targets are a good way to channel the electorates anger safely away from the people who want to be elected. If its going to be us vs them, we need a them--and European's natural distrust of large corporations makes Google a natural target. Ignore that they flat out deny doing most of the things they're accused of by various EU investigative bodies--and there's no evidence to suggest they do either.

It's been pointed out that Americans trust corporations and not the government, while Europeans trust the government and not corporations. Personally I'm not a huge fan of either, but its pretty clear to me that the their case against Google is a bunch of nonsense. They've got people freaking out over street view but not over live video cameras on your street corner? Give me a break, Europe.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[UnknowingFool]

The legal definition of monopoly has never been "highest marketshare only.". Highest marketshare is only one of the criteria but a more complete definition would be high enough market share to control the market; no suitable competitors exist; and high barrier to entry. In the case of both Google and Apple, a consumer can easily use a competitor. Where there are limitations they are external factors like copyright which do not make the question so cut and dry.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[lorenlal]

1 - It was when Microsoft used my example in #3. Their attempts to ensure non-compatibility with any non-Microsoft product just furthered the case.
2 - The fact that you defend IE6 and say it was the best browser around is suspicious. You say it as fact, which I just can't concede. IE6 was notorious for a lack of any semblance of security. Further integration with the OS just made that situation worse.
3 - According to details I've read, Motorola thought it was more important to call the OS on their phones "Android" than to not. They could have continued with Skyhook, made their phones and everything, but then they just wouldn't be able to call it Android. I think Google handled it in a backhanded manner, and I don't like it. But that's not undercutting core business by jacking up prices across the board... and essentially costing a company its next quarter, half, or fiscal year.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[theshowmecanuck]

Now I have to defend this one. This is exactly the stuff Rove used to specialize in. So how does the truth make it a troll? Karl Rove was Bush's strategist when they came up with their "Clean Air Plan" and their "Healthy Forest Plan." The first rolled back much of the Clean Air Act and the second allowed for logging on government/national Parks. So when is pointing out that a technique that the parent observes Google using was also used by Bush's former strategest a troll? Or does the truth hurt mf?

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[DCTech]

That's a really great article for everyone to read, and see the links on it for ex-Googlers opinions.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[John Saffran]

You're mistaken, the original investigation against Google was in regards to illegal data collection.

Both local and foreign companies are under investigation for this type of activity, per

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2011/05/03/28/0302000000AEN20110503005600315F.HTML

Hours later, SMPA investigators also conducted a surprise raid on the headquarters of local portal site Daum on similar suspicions. The investigators confiscated hard drives and other documents during their raid on Daum's Seoul office in Hannam-dong, central Seoul.

Google seems to have hindered the investigators from what's being said, something that none of the other companies under investigation have done. Not sure how you can link that with protectionism or some kind of bias.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[hairyfeet]

And people buy Windows computers because they want to run Windows programs, and they buy Apple devices because they are slick...is there a point there junior? Or was the foam spewing from your mouth so badly you had to write "All go to hell except cave 76!" so damned badly you couldn't think?

I'd like to thank you though, you gave almost a texbook typical fanboi response and your post should be used as a great example of treating corps like ballclubs. But I hate to break the news to you, but Google is NOT your friend, they are NOT "for" you, and if they could make an extra 15% by having you assraped by gorillas you'd be getting some gorilla loving at this very moment. The ONLY people Google is for is Google, no different than IBM, or MSFT, or Apple, or Oracle, or any other tech company. So stop treating them like a fucking ballclub, okay?

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[slack_justyb]

"Google is using their monopoly in _ANDROID__ to keep the competition out of _SEARCH__." I know it doesn't make sense, but politicians rarely make sense. Basically, Android "in the eyes of people who love to regulate things here" should allow anyone to change anything, even if that breaks the whole concept of what Android does or works. So if Google creates an OS, then it is a monopoly (not to a sane person but then again we're not talking about those) for Google to make their OS use Google services. Google's OS should be allowed to use whoever's services. Does that break it down as to where I was trying to go with my comment? Simply because we slapped someone on the wrist, we've made it okay to just start saying monopoly all over the damn place, even when we know that's not all too much the case. Yeah it would be nice if Google allowed Yahoo search integrated with Android, but that's like saying that Ford has to allow GM parts to be installed on their cars. It's half crazy, half... Well mostly crazy. It's being noncompetitive in the name of monopoly, and its the type of environment that governments have fostered because they know jack about how computers work.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[slack_justyb]

Here's a picture top left corner

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

AdChoices is NOT a Google thing, but refers to this initiative for allowing the consumer to understand what is going on behind the scenes -- ESPECIALLY about behavioural targetting: http://www.aboutads.info/ . For example, http://www.pgatour.com/company/ad.choices/index.html . It clearly states on the page the advertising is NOT Google. Using Ghostery, I don't even see AdSense cookies being dropped on the pgatour site.

EVEN ASSUMING ADCHOICES was a Google specific thing: If you click on the AdChoicess logo, it takes you directly (and non-obfuscatedly) to google's website where you can learn more about what exactly AdChoices are and moreover change some of your preferences (hence "choices"): http://adsense.blogspot.com/2011/03/new-in-ads-notice-label-and-icon.html . Even looking down the left hand side of YOUR "AdChoices" link on bytelib: I see 2 ads on the right and one at the bottom splitting the comments from the article. Of these, two of the are "by" AdChoices. If you mouseover the AdChoices link, you can CLEARLY see it goes to Google. The third one is an ad for some sort of Blood tester, but has no clear marking on or near the advertisement as to which ad service it's from.

Also, what does the consumer have to worry about what advertisers are being used (as long as they know the thing is an advertisement)? End-users have NO choice in what company serves up the advertisements they see: the website owner does.

Also, can you link where you read that EU is investigating Google for disallowing identical-adverts-on-competing-services? (And yes, I did notice how you phrased it however sneakily: Google is NOT disallowing companies-as-a-whole. They just don't want the identical advertisement being broadcasted by both networks. This actually makes sense to me, since people who are easily confused and misled like you would automatically assume both identical advertisements are from the same company (i.e. Google); any weird behaviours / unethical actions done by one (linking to a malicious site, for example) would be associated with Google. Bottom line: Companies are free to advertise with whoever and however many companies they like, they just have to make multiple ads.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, a couple of things.
Google is not behaving like microsoft.

Monopolies are not illegal. When a company uses its monopoly of the market to set prices, lock out competition, or otherwise behave badly, that behaviour is illegal.

Saying that the prosecution of Microsoft justifies a similar prosecution of Google is only true if Google has been executing the same illegal activities as Microsoft. I don't have an issue with saying that when Microsoft forced hardware manufacturers to buy windows for every machine, or when it broke competing applications on purpose with a new version of windows, that constituted anticompetitive, illegal behaviour.

Companies complaining about Google are saying that when Google does not include them in a search result or list them higher, that that is an anticompetitive behaviour. These companies are not being prevented from either providing a free search page of their own, or being listed by a competing search engine like Bing.

I'm watching Google argue with Oracle about whether or not android encroaches on java (oracle claims that when you write an api that works the same, it infinges on their code) , Google argue with Microsoft on whether or not features of Android infringe some Microsoft patents (Microsoft is using these patents to force hardware manufacturers to pay licensing fees) , Google argue with companies who want free advertising on Google's web page (by claiming that when Google does not list them on their free service), while noting all of the things that these lawsuits have in common. Google has a working product, while known of these complainers have delivered anything.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[NicknameOne]

Hairy, it's because of idiots like you that think all corporations are the same that the US is in such a pitiful state.

Here let me help you: ALL CORPORATIONS ARE NOT THE SAME!

Some corporations try to maintain a good image in the public and align their interests to the majority of their users' interests so that when they make money, the users also benefit. Other corporations like Microsoft cannot do that. When Microsoft makes a lot of money, their users inevitably get screwed over. Get that into your think skull!

Stop trying to repeat the same old shit that Google is only in it to make money. No fucking shit. Every corporation is the same but that is not the fucking point.

I apologize for all the invective to others but this is the only way I can get a point across to someone like hairy.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[oxdas]

I think you need to read the article. According the link above, this is about anti-trust allegations from last April and not the illegal data collection investigation.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[sonicmerlin]

Google search isn't even a monopoly in Korea. They have like 10% market share.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[dudpixel]

Google OWNS android.

The first blank needs to be an industry, not a product. "search" is an industry. android is not. you could say "android phones" is an industry (except the correct industry is "smart phones") but then that wouldn't work because right now google doesn't make any phones, and if you say "smart phones" then google does not have a monopoly.

The only potentially valid case I've heard against google relates to search advertising, but it gets pretty complicated which is why not much has been pinned on them in the courts yet.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[slack_justyb]

Google OWNS android.

Yes and Apple owns Mac. I think you are missing the point. Google does own Android does that mean they get to say that Yahoo search cannot be used on their phones and tablets? Likewise, Ford owns well Ford vehicles, does that mean that Ford can prevent generic parts from working on their vehicles?

It's a pretty heated debate no doubt. Does ownership mean you can prevent others from working with you? Some say yes, some say no. However, the yahoos (no pun) that are calling the shots about it seem to be the ones less educated about the matter (not saying their dumb, they just have bigger fish to fry.)

Coke has a monopoly on Coke and Pepsi has a monopoly on Pepsi but neither have a monopoly on soft drinks. Likewise, Google has a search advertising business, so does Bing. So like you I fail to see the monopoly. However, where politicians gets their wires crossed is they see Android like they see PCs. So Android just like PCs in the EU should offer a ballot for picking who you want to search with, because that means money in ad revenue. So by forcing PCs with Microsoft to ballot up the search and web browser, they (incorrectly) think the same should apply to Android.

Just like Windows is to PC, Android is being blurred to mean tablet. Just like Mac is opposite to PC, iPad is opposite to tablet. People who own an iPad don't say check out my tablet, they say check out my iPad. That's how Apple has avoided monopoly on their systems because they present it as a complete package, just about as much as PLCs and traffic lights are presented. Google has gone the way of Microsoft with their OS. They don't tie it to just one machine, they allow it to branch out to hardware vendors. Just like Windows isn't tied to one type of Dell or better yet, MS PC.

So draw enough parallels and high up figure heads will start to think the two are exactly the same, which we know they aren't but how are you going to tell that to some bureaucrat? MS = monopoly - Google = monopoly. So like it or leave it, the image is getting a bashing from people who don't understand things, especially things like Google OWNS Android.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[mjwx]

The responses to these stories are always interesting. Because it's Google, there will be criticisms of the South Korean commission and questioning of their claims. If this was Microsoft, however, the accusations would be taken at face value as more proof of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.

Here's the problem with that assertion.

Microsoft have a history of anti-competitive behaviour and interfering with federal investigations in multiple jurisdictions (EU, US, even South Korea). Google has no such history.

But nice try to start some baseless Google bashing.

But I think they're really good at appealing to tech communities,

This is because they've been very good to tech communities. High performance databases would be years behind if it weren't for contributions from Google. Not to mention coding competitions like Summer of Code and providing some of the best products available. But I like Google best because they challenged the idea that someone else had to own my phone.

Point in short, Google earned their reputation through action, much like how Microsoft earned theirs

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[Anonymous Coward]

The responses to these stories are always interesting. Because it's Google, there will be criticisms of the South Korean commission and questioning of their claims. If this was Microsoft, however, the accusations would be taken at face value as more proof of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Google is being investigated all over the world for anti-competitive behavior, but you can't even suggest that Google has a monopoly on web search around here without getting pounded with downmods. Even the lead counsel who prosecuted Microsoft in their antitrust case believes Google is a monopoly.

It seems as if some people just can't believe that Google would ever do anything wrong. This isn't the cute little search engine from 2000. They went public and became an ad company; 97% of their revenue comes from web advertising. But I think they're really good at appealing to tech communities, using feel-good phrases like "openness" to make themselves more endearing to those demographics.

Why the hell would anyone want to use any other search engine to start with i mean the rest of them are just plain old crap i have played with the bulk of the rest of them and thanks but no thanks pile of Poohhhh to put it very politely
   

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[hairyfeet]

And I bet you TRULY believe that Apple "thinks different" and MSFT cares what you want to do today, don't you? Its called MARKETING slick, some companies kick ass at it, some suck, some are in between. what is sad is despite the antitrust investigations, investigations into their rigging search to cut out competitor's products you REALLY believe because somebody slapped a "do no evil" slogan that that somehow makes them better or different than any multinational corporation don't you?

You are a perfect example of treating companies like ballclubs though, I will give you that. I mean when given a choice of Linux netbooks or Windows ones folks chose Windows but because they are in competition with "your" company that can't be right, that HAD to have been market manipulation, yet when Google spams chrome by attaching it to every piece of crapware on the planet, why that's just making the world a better place with a superior browser, isn't it?

Step away from the keyboard and take the koolaid away from your lips friend, Google is NOT "for" you, they frankly don't give a wet fart about you one way or another and i repeat if they could make an extra 15% profit by having you assraped by silver-backs i'd be watching Gorilla loving on YouTube this very day, its about MONEY friend and to get it they use MARKETING which apparently you swallow hook, line, and sinker. Its truly amazing to see someone who otherwise sounds rational treat a corporation as a ballclub, you do make a textbook example of the fanboi though so thanks again for illustrating my point better than i ever could, congrats.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[John Saffran]

Perhaps we're talking about different aspects of the probe but as you can see the probes against Google are not part of some grand conspiracy, korean companies are investigated just as closely if there's suspicion that they've broken the law.

Grand conspiracies might exist but I'm pretty sure that this is not one.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[oxdas]

This investigation is in response to requests by Naver and Daum, according to the article. I don't see a grand conspiracy of Korean companies in general. I see two Korean companies attempting to use the government to hold onto their dominant positions. This kind of action happens in the U.S., Korea, Japan, China, everywhere. Companies look to their government to protect them when they are in trouble, particularly from foreign competition. In this instance, the government has listened.

All that said, the chaebol have a power in Korea greater than any company can command in the United States, most European countries, etc. It is similar to the zaibatsu system that used to dominate Japanese business. Unlike the zaibatsu system, however, Korea has only begun to dismantle the chaebol. Remember that it was only a few years ago that the chairman of Samsung was convicted of felonies in Korea and the verdict was turned aside by the government in the interest of the economy. Now that is power.

Re:"If this was Microsoft"

[NicknameOne]

Oh yeah Google is not for you but Microsoft is definitely for you?

Give me a fucking break!

Corporate Corruption

[na1led]

It seems that every Big Company eventually turns evil at some point.

Re:Corporate Corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

The goal of a corporation is to maximize profits, not to be "good" or ethical (or whatever the opposite of evil is).

Corporations also have much less liability than an individual human.

Corporations don't turn evil, they're evil by definition.

Leave Google alone!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm serious you guys, leave Google alone!

OH... RALLY?

[AtomicAdam]

What about anti-competitive acts done by Microsoft or apple.... never seems to be much legal action against them now days..

Really?

[Moheeheeko]

It still blows my mind that anyone would want to use Bing anyway.

Re:Really?

[AtomicAdam]

Yeah I saw someone with a "I bing" t-shirt. I just didn't know what to say...

Re:Really?

[DCTech]

It still blows my mind that anyone would want to use Bing anyway.

There's actually many slashdotters who suggest using them. Now, they suggest using DuckDuckGo, but as DDG uses Bing back-end the results are the same. Of course for Slashdotters if it's Microsoft it sucks, but if it's basically the same but they don't figure out it uses MS back-end, then it's superb. Go figure!

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

DuckDuckGo sucks anyway lol.

Re:Really?

[amnesia_tc]

Hey, if I'm going to use an awful search engine, I might as well use the awful search engine that doesn't think it knows what I'm searching for better than me. The free Microsoft FunBucks don't hurt either...

Re:Really?

[Archangel Michael]

I'm afraid that Google has 100% share of my brain. When I think "search" I go straight to Google, and start typing. I don't think Yahoo, or Bing or other search engine. Hell, I don't even know if Yahoo runs its own search anymore or not. And I've gone to "Bing" and find it distractingly pretty. I don't even want to go there, I just want the mostly white space of Google, where I can find what I want and not let my ADD get the better of me.

I do get "Bing" for a certain group of people who want "pretty". Yeah, I get that, it just isn't for me. It is going to be hard for me ever switch from Google.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo is just a wrapper around the Bing search engine. I think that Bing and Google are the only two serious search crawlers left, and all the other "search engines" just use their results.

I still have trouble taking Bing seriously after Microsoft changed the product name like three times. Maybe that will eventually wear off for me, I dunno. I still remember that it used to be MSN Search, and nobody used it, and then it became Live Search and Microsoft was totally serious this time, guys, and then nobody used it, and now it's Bing, a totally new product that will really beat Google this time, and...

Reminds me of Chevy's compact cars. Toyota's been making the "Corrola" since the seventies, and it's been unexciting but basically competent, whereas Chevrolet had the Vega, then the Monza, then the Cavalier, then the Cobalt, and now the Cruze, and they all sucked to varying degrees. Changing the name every couple of years gives the perception (usually accurate) that the company isn't really all that serious.

Re:Really?

[Idbar]

And, since Bing uses Google's results, everyone uses google anyways. Go Figure! ;-)

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

For US, may be. China, for example, has Baidu and Russia has Yandex (which has a good share in all ex-USSR as well).

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true, but the set of websites that satisfies a user's search criteria are going to be heavily language- and location-dependent. Yandex probably indexes well for Russian internet users but I doubt I'd find what I was looking for on there easily, and vice versa for their users and our search indexes. My point was that the English-language market is pretty big and there are only two real search engines for it.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello cmdrpony/ge7/tech4,

people suggest using ddg because of their stance on privacy. Not because their results are anywhere near acceptable.

besides I hear their privacy stance is changing these days. so I'm not sure how long people will continue suggesting them.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

If everybody was going to use Google anyway why does Google pay computer manufacturers/ISPs/Browsers and other companies hundreds of millions of dollars to force Google's search engine as the default?

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google died to me the day it thought it knew what I was searching for better than I did...

Too much of a good thing turns it into crap. This honeymoon is over.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

While DDG uses bing, it's results are unique as it displays common things first. Like I can search for a php function and get docs right in the results. Bing and Google don't do that.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

nice try, shill.

Re:Really?

[dudpixel]

you're referring to "mind share" not "market share"

Re:Really?

[dudpixel]

yes, DDG does use bing as "a" backend but it is not the only backend.

http://help.duckduckgo.com/customer/portal/articles/216399-sources

I had this pointed out to me just the other day...reading that makes DDG sound pretty good if you ask me, but the reality is that I still haven't used it. Google does what I need and in actual fact I rarely even use search for anything essential...so getting the _best_ result usually isn't as important as getting the _fastest_good_enough_ result.

Re:Really?

[dudpixel]

just tried it - yeah that's kinda cool :)

Re:Groan

[DCTech]

Just like you could download any other browser on Windows. And that still doesn't change the fact that Google is working with manufacturers to keep competitors away. Google also owns AdMob, which specializes in mobile advertising and has 90% market share. That's a huge monopoly. And Google has used their monopoly to restrict advertisers from using other platforms for the same ads if they want to use Google's ad platforms. That's outright monopoly abuse.

Re:Groan

[Anonymous Coward]

Just you wait for searchchoice.mob.sk

It's the default

[walterbyrd]

A lot of people are not interested if fighting MS. Computer come with Windows installed. Windows comes with MSIE installed. MSIE defaults to Bing.

Re:Groan

[Anonymous Coward]

And the fact that Samsung was the biggest one of those vendors you mention and Samsung is also one of three companies (Hyundai and LG being the other two) that basically runs the South Korean government couldn't possibly influence the investigation either, right?

Systematically designed?

[Chibi Merrow]

That's funny, until I rooted it, my Motorola Backflip would ONLY let me use one search... Bing.

What are these guys smoking?

Re:Systematically designed?

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Even funnier is that the one and only Apple product I ever owned, an iPhone 3G was set to Google search.

If it's good enough for their main competitor, why is it not good enough for them? And as the PP points out, this is all customizable by the hardware maker.

And apparently, South Koreans have never installed Chrome, which immediately gives you a simple choice of Google, Yahoo, or Bing.

Install the latest Internet Explorer and see how hard it is to not choose Bing.

Re:Systematically designed?

[DCTech]

And apparently, South Koreans have never installed Chrome, which immediately gives you a simple choice of Google, Yahoo, or Bing.

I've never got this and I've installed Chrome to lots of computers. Maybe it's different to my country, but it really doesn't ask me what search engine I want to use. It's always Google.

Re:Systematically designed?

[Dog-Cow]

1. Click the arrow next to the search box.
2. Click Find More Providers...
3. Choose Google from the resulting list.
4. Click Add to Internet Explorer.
5. Check "Make default provider..." (paraphrase).
6. Click Add

That was pretty simple. Writing up the process took me at least an order of magnitude more time.

Re:Systematically designed?

[shutdown -p now]

It won't ask at startup (which, if I remember correctly, IE8+ does if it's the first launch on a clean machine), but it's Options->Basics->Search Engine.

Re:Systematically designed?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Obligatory: (maybe not. y'all can decide )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbOfnj67ZwM

NSFW:L

Re:Systematically designed?

[shutdown -p now]

... actually, sorry, I'm wrong - Chrome will ask on first start if you don't carry over settings from an old install. And, unlike IE, it readily offers the three choices listed by GP, whereas in IE you get the choice of Bing, or going to a website where you can "install" other search providers.

There was one case where Google deliberately removed search engine selector - it was done for Russian language builds of Chrome, and there was a scandal when people found out (it was an explicit locale check in source code with a comment explaining exactly what it is). It was said that Google did that because they're having a hard time competing against Yandex on Russian market, where the latter has about 60% of it. They have since removed that check.

Android is Open...

[jesseck]

Since Android is open, the device manufacturers / Microsoft / South Korea / Anyone Else can modify it to not use Google for search results. At that point it may not be "Android Powered by Google", but that seems to be what South Korea wants. So, let device manufacturers modify Android, change the default search provider, and not include GApps. That way, every person who purchases a new phone gets to install a market, search for packages to do what they need, and the world will be happier since the monopoly has been crushed.

Of course this will never happen... South Korea isn't breaking up a "monopoly". They see a chance to extort money from another business, and use the "monopoly" threat to do so. They do this because the device manufacturers won't abandon Google's version of Android- it's exactly what 99% of their (the device manufacturers) customers want. Pre-installed apps, GMail, Facebook, and the Google Marketplace so they can easily find the latest app their friend told them about./P.

Re:Android is Open...

[gl4ss]

well, it depends how they made it.

if south korean google offices used dirty tricks and lies to keep for example LG on the google search boat by trying to take away app market if they don't keep using bing, then the SK googlers might be pretty fucked.

otoh, google's motorola bid could be seen because moto used bing on some phones.

though, because it's the smaller korean search providers that are the cause of the investigation (which can lead to a ridiculously small fine, mind you) it might be because you can't change the defaults without rooting(or providing an entire homescreen replacement, I suppose). but there's so many other things you can provide plugins for without rooting that it might indeed seem strange.

Re:Android is Open...

[slew]

Although the source code is open, part of the value proposition is to access the Android store. Google, by tying together search and access to the android store, is doing "bundling". Since they are probably a monopoly, this bundling of services may be illegal as is reduces competition (in search and in store services).

Not saying that SK doesn't have any alterior motive, but there is quite a bit of precident (e.g., the browser wars of the PC-age) that indicate that perhaps there is some thing to be said about unbundling services. If you are so enamored with google, perhaps you should google "rule-of-reason" sometime...

Perhaps some device manufacturer might want to strike deals with alternate email, social network or marketplace that give them back a share of the profits. For instance, on a notebook I recently purchased, it had Chrome pre-installed. I'm sure that the OEM got a better deal for that than microsoft was offering...

Re:Android is Open...

[maccodemonkey]

"At that point it may not be "Android Powered by Google", but that seems to be what South Korea wants."

Well that's the point, isn't it? It's a question if Google refusing to bless devices not using Google search an abuse of monopoly power. Much like Microsoft refusing to bless (or giving bad terms) to manufacturers who wanted to bundle Netscape instead of IE.

Re:Android is Open...

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly is it tying search to the market? I see no such requirement in the CTS.

Re:Android is Open...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sure, Android is open...
> pull an Amazon and make their own Android

So... Is it closed, or is it open enough for anyone to "make their own Android"? Make up your mind!

Re:Android is Open...

[oxdas]

Google is the smaller search provider in South Korea (with less than 10% market share). This is about Google taking market share from domestic search monopolies because Samsung and LG are selling android phones which default to Google. Naver can't take on Samsung for political reasons, so they are using the government to go after Google.

Re:Android is Open...

[anonymov]

Google, by tying together search and access to the android store, is doing "bundling"

Motorola Backflip is an Android device, uses Bing as default search and has Android Market. Your argument is invalid.

Re:Android is Open...

[Anonymous Coward]

The OS is being given away for free here, which is very different than what MS was doing by effectively offering to make the price-point of the PCs too high to compete.
Your analogy to MS and Netscape is very different than what is happening here.

Re:Android is Open...

[jesseck]

Personally, I don't worship Google, and I use Microsoft products on a daily basis. My take is this: If Google builds a service, and offers additional services which tie into this, what is wrong? Google isn't blocking Bing apps from the store and device makers can chose "default" apps on phones. This is not a monopoly... it's laziness on the device manufacturers' / users' part to not install an alternative. When I purchased a new Windows PC, I would install FireFox and set that as my default browser. I didn't complain that IE was on there, and that the MSN home page sucks. I solved my problem.

Device owners can do the same. Solve your own problems. If you care enough that Google is your default search engine, then you care enough to download another app to use in its place. If Android isn't released quick enough for you, make a fork based on the latest (publicly available) version and publish that. Solve your problem, and don't blame a company for promoting itself (does Target advertise Walmart's or KMart's prices? Then why should Google, or Microsoft, or Apple?).

The problem with your premise is one Korean device manufacturer is in a great position to abandon Google's version of Android--Samsung, which sells 55% of Android phones. With HTC and LG going down, that percentage is only going to increase. Samsung is in a position to not only threaten Google but to decide to pull an Amazon and make their own Android.

This doesn't make sense... what I infer from this statement is that Samsung is going to make its own Android (i.e. "solve its problem"), threaten Google to use their new version (like Amazon), and then... what? So is South Korea stepping in and accusing Google of a monopoly to save Google (the monopoly claim thereby stopping Samsung from rolling its own flavor of Android)?

Re:Android is Open...

[Anonymous Coward]

And there are dozens of stores selling PCs with Linux pre-installed. That doesn't stop Linux cheerleaders whining about Windows coming pre-installed?

Re:Android is Open...

[alteran]

Although the source code is open, part of the value proposition is to access the Android store. Google, by tying together search and access to the android store, is doing "bundling". Since they are probably a monopoly, this bundling of services may be illegal as is reduces competition (in search and in store services).

There's nothing that forces the device to use Android Market. Cell companies can and do provide alternatives, sometimes making them the dominant app store or eliminating the Android Market entirely.

Re:Android is Open...

[Ash-Fox]

And there are dozens of stores selling PCs with Linux pre-installed. That doesn't stop Linux cheerleaders whining about Windows coming pre-installed?

I don't really recall seeing any whining last year actually. Surprising since I visit Slashdot daily.

The proof is in the possibility

[Saishuuheiki]

"Google denies that its employees deleted documents or that it instructed them to work from home in order to impede the investigation."

Only evil corporations have their employees work from home...

And everyone knows the damning evidence wasn't there because they deleted it.

If there were real consequences this might matter

Re:The proof is in the possibility

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is, people who listed the article said it was a SURPRISE raid. How can you prepare (send people home) for a surprise raid? Lead them out the back door?

What about Apple, Microsoft ?

[unity100]

There has never been such cases about them. they didnt have to be raided, they didnt have to delete files to escape investigation ........ they just dont get investigated. microsoft got bothered approx. 2 times in this entire 30 year period in its history. nothing more. freaking 30 years, total domination of personal computer compatibles, and just 2 times. one is the ie thing, and the other is eu's browser ballot box.

and dont get me started on apple.

maybe google also should start buying representatives and bureaucrats ........

Re:What about Apple, Microsoft ?

[Dog-Cow]

Both MS and Apple have been repeatedly investigated by the EU. MS has had a trial in the US (which they lost). Apple was investigated a time or two, but not so much for monopoly practices (which is reasonable, given that they don't have one). Just because SK hasn't done so (and I don't know they haven't), means nothing. Governments rarely bother investigating trade practices of any corporation unless someone complains.

Re:What about Apple, Microsoft ?

[unity100]

i dont know whether you are incapable of reading comprehension. in case you havent noticed, i have recounted the incidents. 'repeatedly investigated' -> does not mean shit. what happened with the investigations ? how many times were they raided ? how many fines they got ?

apple - never. microsoft 2 times. that's that.

Re:What about Apple, Microsoft ?

[unity100]

im going to slap the same reply i made to someone who had reading comprehension problems like you.

i dont know whether you are incapable of reading comprehension. in case you havent noticed, i have recounted the incidents. 'repeatedly investigated' -> does not mean shit. what happened with the investigations ? how many times were they raided ? how many fines they got ?

apple - never. microsoft 2 times. that's that.

Re:What about Apple, Microsoft ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know whether you are incapable of reading comprehension. In case you haven't noticed, your very own post asserted:

they just dont get investigated

Then when proven wrong, you move the goalposts with:

'repeatedly investigated' -> does not mean shit.

If you're going to be a braindead blabbermouth, at least try not to contradict yourself in your own posts.

Re:What about Apple, Microsoft ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, so this Trolly McTrollerson and all his WHARRRRGARRRBBBLLL posts are modded up, and the responses of "no, they got investigated" are all flamebait?

I would ask what color the sky is in the world some of you are moderating from, but I don't think you've left your basement in a long time.

Re:What about Apple, Microsoft ?

[chrb]

the only product Apple arguably could have been accused of having a monopoly on was portable music players, where there were plenty of competitors in the market.

Of course - with Apple there is no monopoly at 70%+ of a market, but if Google gets 65% of a market, then it has a monopoly!

Google search U.S. market share: 65.6% Nov 2011 [bloomberg.com]
Google search global market share: 69.7% q2 2010
iPad U.S. tablet market share: 82% May 2011
iTunes U.S. digital music market share: 66.2% q3 2010
iPod U.S. mp3 player market share: 76% July 2010

Re:What about Apple, Microsoft ?

[unity100]

one has to be an idiot not to be able to understand that 'being investigated twice lightly in THIRTY freaking years', counts as 'not investigated' in this context.

Re:What about Apple, Microsoft ?

[Anonymous Coward]

One has to be an idiot to claim a company investigated and taken to court by the freaking DOJ was 'not investigated' or 'investigated lightly'.

Of course you seem to be the king of idiots so wear that derp crown proudly your majesty.

History repeats

[Comboman]

Just like you could download any other browser on Windows.

But you couldn't uninstall IE because it was a "vital part of the OS" (at least until they were forced to). You could also install any office suite you wanted, but only MSOffice had access to hidden APIs that made it run at a decent speed (a huge advantage in the early days of Windoze). Despite all that (and plenty more), Microsoft ended up with a slap on the wrist that didn't even pay for a fraction of the costs the DOJ put into the investigation. I suspect Google will end up the same and once again the taxpayers will get the bill for some ambitious government lawyer's need to make a name for himself.

Re:History repeats

[TheRealMindChild]

But you couldn't uninstall IE because it was a "vital part of the OS" (at least until they were forced to)

It WAS/IS a vital part of the OS. We aren't talking the kernel, or the drivers, but the shell, Explorer.exe used the IE components for doing close to everything. You did have sillyness like 98lite that removed IE by actually installing the old windows 95 shell from disk. However, due to the fuss about being forced to have IE, Microsoft just component-ized the hell out of it, so if you were to "uninstall" IE, you are actually only getting rid of the executable, not the essential OS components.

Wow. I guess we're next.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of our employees sometimes work from home, and we regularly delete files (because it's cheaper than buying more storage).

This is going to offend someone

[Osgeld]

BUT

I worked for a south Korean company for quite a few years, you were expected to know exactly what they wanted with little to no detail (like one day the main manager walked in told me I was going to make him a parts sales forecast and walked out ... I was a 12$ an hour box monkey in the warehouse), and every single time they would act like pissy little babies when they did not get exactly what was in their mind, call you names and threaten your job.

so I don't find this surprising at all

First, do no harm

[Black Parrot]

Fine print:

Unless you stockholders' monetary interests are at stake.

You first

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm serious you guys, leave Google alone!

Okay, then, if you want Google to be left alone, let's all boycott Google, that should be alone enough ;^)
Bzzt, try again troll!

Fair Play, Google

[MacGyver2210]

Ridiculous nonsense inquests deserve ridiculous nonsense responses. +1 Google, WTG!

Oops....didn't read the fine print.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops....didn't read the fine print.....

"Don't be (caught being) evil."

But AppleSoft did XY and Z!

[justdiver]

This isn't Microsoft or Apple. This is Google and only Google's actions are in question here. Whether or not Microsoft or Apple are/were guilty of anything is far from the point.

It's a Korean thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me, I've worked in South Korea and with South Korean nationals in the US. Corruption, bribery, ignoring regulations, covering up when things go wrong... it's all a cultural thing in South Korea. They think Americans are too uptight, suing each other all the time. They prefer that everything is a backdoor deal.

Delete files, work from home

[kikito]

"Google deleted files and made its employees work from home"

How do they know they "deleted files", if they were deleted?

How does an employee working from home hinder an investigation?

I work in IT and I'm fortunate enough to be able to work from home from time to time. My job also involves deleting files some times. You know, outdated code, and the like. So, suit me.

bonch,DCTech,etc all same person's troll acounts

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/~bonch
http://slashdot.org/~SharkLaser
http://slashdot.org/~DCTech

and countless others that have been modded into oblivion for trolling.

Re:bonch,DCTech,etc all same person's troll acount

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, bonch is Apple fanboi, SharkLaser etc. is MS shill.

Here's a list of MS accounts I'm aware of, in chronological order.

http://slashdot.org/~CmdrPony
http://slashdot.org/~InsightIn140Bytes
http://slashdot.org/~InterestingFella
http://slashdot.org/~SharkLaser
http://slashdot.org/~DCTech

Google is a godsend to S. Korea.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see, 478 GAZILLION dollars of product sold from Samsung, LG, Hyundai, etc for Android and other devices.
Talk about biting the hand that has helped feed them.
Handle North Korea on your own then.

they poor?

[Anonymous Coward]

why'd they have to raid google's office? couldn't afford to pickup a few handsets and check them out? :D

scroll... scroll... scroll...

[Kamiza Ikioi]

1. Click the arrow next to the search box.
2. Click Find More Providers...
3. Choose Google from the resulting list.
4. Click Add to Internet Explorer.
5. Check "Make default provider..." (paraphrase).
6. Click Add

That was pretty simple. Writing up the process took me at least an order of magnitude more time.

"Choose Google from the resulting list." is a bit of a gloss over, if we're being honest with ourselves.

During setup, if you tell it that you want a new search provider, you are presented with a catalog with pages and pages of search providers. http://www.ieaddons.com/en/addons/?feature=accelerators

Then click the "Search" category.

Then scroll sideways. Yes, it's very non-intuitive and confusing to scroll sideways, without a scroll bar, by mousing over the right side of the screen. But hey, why make it easy? .... keep scrolling... keep scrolling... keep scrolling.

When you reach the 68th listing, it will be Google.

There was nothing simple about that.

Multi-Account Troll bonch

[Anonymous Coward]

How pathetic does this foaming at the mouth Apple zealot have to be to sit here day after day creating new shill accounts desperately trying to build up mod points for his anti-Google tirades.

Go cry in your Starbucks in your black turtle neck you nutcase. Google's Android destroyed your precious outdated iPhone in the market. Get the fuck over it.

Re:Multi-Account Troll bonch

[Anonymous Coward]

How pathetic does this foaming at the mouth Google zealot have to be to sit here day after day posting conspiracies about multiple accounts and trying to spin healthy competition between major vendors who all offer good products as one "destroying" another for his anti-Apple tirades.

Go cry in your Mountain Dew and Cheeto-stained neckbeard you nutcase. Android, iOS, and WP7 are all viable products with satisfied customers and a few outspoken radicals. Nobody is destroying anybody's smartphone, unless your name is RIM.

Re:Groan

[UnknowingFool]

The problem the DOJ had with respect to IE and MS was not at the consumer level but at the OEM level where MS did all they could keep Netscape out of the market by hinting, paying, and threatening them not to install Netscape. In this case if Google had did the same to every app store or manufacturer to keep Bing out you would have a point. It appears in the worse case, Google is paying to make theirs the default which isn't the same.

biggest sidetrack is your comment

[poetmatt]

Why are we comparing google to Microsoft?

If they did badly, let it shine on them in court. If they didn't, let it shine on them in court.

Why are you trying to make it sound like we demonize Microsoft when we have facts that prove (as opposed to a fake claim in an antitrust case from someone convicted of antitrust) that microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust?

Also, how is google a monopoly over anything? How hard is it to go to www.bing.com instead of www.google.com? What prevents you?

Re:biggest sidetrack is your comment

[anonymov]

Yes, and you're free to install Linux on your desktop or buy a Mac.

You're mistaking "market dominance abuse" and "monopoly".

There are almost no literal monopolies, but there are companies dominant in some markets. Competition laws, among other things, are meant to prevent the abuse of such dominance.

MS clearly has such dominance in desktop OS market and abused it by forcing uneven terms on OEMs. Google's current EU investigation, for example, is due to dominance in web ads market and alleged abuse in refusal to deal form.

Re:biggest sidetrack is your comment

[Anonymous Coward]

So why didn't people just download Netscape if they wanted to ? I guess Netscape just sucked.

anti-competitive behavior is the norm

[Anonymous Coward]

All this talk about anti-competitive behavior and monopoly positions in phones are a joke. Itune and App Store in iphones? Xbox Live Marketplace? A single, monopoly seller is the norm and it will just get worse.

Re:Groan

[Anomalyst]

Google also owns AdMob

That's some nice marketing you got there, be a shame if something were to happen to it.

AJAX According to WIKI

[Anonymous Coward]

The term Ajax was coined on 18 February 2005 by Jesse James Garrett in an article entitled "Ajax: A New Approach to Web Applications", based on techniques used on Google web pages.[1] However, a patent application covering this type of user interface was filed on 3 September 2003, thus predating the term itself by two years. This application resulted in US Patent #7,523,401 being issued to Greg Aldridge of Kokomo, IN.[9]

On 5 April 2006 the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) released the first draft specification for the XMLHttpRequest object in an attempt to create an official web standard.[8]

Re:AJAX According to WIKI

[Anonymous Coward]

Also according to Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

The concept behind the XMLHttpRequest object was originally created by the developers of Outlook Web Access (by Microsoft) for Microsoft Exchange Server 2000.[4] An interface called IXMLHTTPRequest was developed and implemented into the second version of the MSXML library using this concept.[4][5] The second version of the MSXML library was shipped with Internet Explorer 5.0 in March 1999, allowing access, via ActiveX, to the IXMLHTTPRequest interface using the XMLHTTP wrapper of the MSXML library.[6]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest

Re:AJAX According to WIKI

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft invented the XMLHttpRequest, the technology that would later lead us to the AJAX technique.

It's the GOOGLE phone.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the mobile search bar, with a phone and operating system added. It's what it was intended for. Can Slacker be held as anti-competitive because they produce a device that logs into their servers and plays their music?

Motherfucking slope-eyed yellow ratbastards

[Anonymous Coward]

Abandon the dog-eating shitbags to the "grorious reader". Then maybe the slanty bastards will develop a sense of gratitude.

"If this were Apple"

[chrb]

you can't even suggest that Google has a monopoly on web search around here without getting pounded with downmods.

monopoly
The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.
The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something: "men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love".

Google has lower market share in search than many Apple products do in their respective categories (figures latest I can find for each product):

Google search U.S. market share: 65.6% Nov 2011
Google search global market share: 69.7% q2 2010
iPad U.S. tablet market share: 82% May 2011
iTunes U.S. digital music market share: 66.2% q3 2010
iPod U.S. mp3 player market share: 76% July 2010

It seems to me that Google does not have a monopoly in search; it would be a funny monopoly that had 30% to 35% of the market controlled by its competitors. But if you insist that they do, then you should also say that Apple has various monopolies in its respective markets, and should similarly be subject to anti-trust scrutiny.

Re:bonch,DCTech,etc all same person's troll acount

[lorenlal]

What about TechLA: http://slashdot.org/~TechLA

Does this even need investigating?

[No, I am Spratacus!]

"The anti-competition probers were looking into whether Google's Android phones unfairly prioritize Google search and are "systematically designed" to make it difficult to switch to another option'."

Android, a nice free operating system made possible by Google. Charity? Altruism? I find that improbable. Google actually pays manufacturers to put Android on phones.
I have an Android phone. Of the FOUR buttons on the front, one of them brings up Google search. There is no setting to change that.

Draw your own conclusions.

Re:Does this even need investigating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is. It's called apps. On my Nexus One -- Google's own phone -- I have an app here called "Autorotate Switch" (I think it's called that) which turns off and on the automatic rotation. Note: I am not rooted and am using stock firmware.

Whenever I press the search icon (especially after I install or update it), it will pop up with the "Complete Action Using" option with the "Set as Default" because Autorotate was specifically programmed to intercept the Search intent. If I check "Set as default" and pick "Autorotate Switch", tapping the Search button now automatically toggles the autorotate instead of taking me to Google.

If you want to use Bing, Yahoo, or any other search service, get off your ass and check out the market to see if they already support that function. If not, yell at Microsoft, Yahoo, or whoever else to do so, because you want to give them money or offer them your behavioural tracking information.

Incidentally, the home button is also customizable in this fashion, and the back button is regularly reprogrammed by apps (games especially)

Remember, almost everything in Android is customizable, even without hacking your phone. If you have an issue with it, most likely someone's already written an app for it. If not, write one yourself or hire someone. There's only a few things you need to root or use custom firmware for.

Google and Korea

[Anonymous Coward]

Google may or may not be abusing their monopoly. The issue here is that the Korea FTC is a political instrument, not necessarily focused on what is best for the consumer. In western countries these type of committees are often abused by competitors and others to gain leverage (Microsoft starting the FTC case against Google in Europe for instance) In western countries, a form of openness makes this relatively hard, though it still happens. In Korea the line between politics and national economy is even thinner. it is difficult to trust such an organisation. Is it truly trying to find out if Google has broken the law or is it used for other gain such as insights into key technology or leverage in negotiation?

I work for a western consumer electronics company. One of our biggest competitors is Samsung. I have first hand experience in some of the tactics they use to conquer markets and become the dominant player. It seems to me that a battle is heating up between Samsung and other phone makers. And in extension to that Samsung and Google. Samsung is taking over the market as they have done in many industries. They are the ultimate predator in electronics land. They have excellent technical minds, little scrupulous and a government that helps them more then we in the west would consider fair (or legal).

How do you know that Samsung is not building their own search engine and advertisement platform? They are the dominant player in Smartphones, digital signage and TVs. They are building a hold on the tablet market. They control all the channels. What is to stop them from using that to become the dominant player in the advertisement market? Today they lack the technology and have a large and powerful competitor. One who is trying desperately to build up other phone makers to compete (Motorola) so that the market stays balanced.

Samsung conquered the TV and phone market in similar manner. Who is to say these are not the first signs of a similar battle in the advertisement market?

I dont know if Google asked people to work from home or delete key evidence. I do know these statements say nothing. In my company we work from home all the time and it is difficult to prove key evidence was deleted as it is difficult to prove something incriminating was there if you cant find it anymore. Government officials know this. They wouldnt just leak messages without legally underpinning without purpose. All this sounds like a hustle to me.

Re:Groan

[dudpixel]

Which advertisers were restricted from using other platforms? I'm pretty sure I can advertise where I want without penalty.

Which manufacturers has Google worked with to keep competitors away? Pretty much all android phone manufacturers also have windows phone offerings and some even have symbian or other OS offerings too.

Just because you can say it, doesn't make it true.

Re:Groan

[DCTech]

Which advertisers were restricted from using other platforms? I'm pretty sure I can advertise where I want without penalty.

You cannot run ads you run on AdWords on any other ad network. It's forbidden by TOS and they will ban your account.

Which manufacturers has Google worked with to keep competitors away? Pretty much all android phone manufacturers also have windows phone offerings and some even have symbian or other OS offerings too.

Beside the point. They keep competitors away from Android phones. And no, I'm not talking about Symbian or WP7 or other phone OS', I'm talking about search and other service providers. Google works in many areas and uses that as advantage illegally.