Google Accused of Interfering With South Korean FTC Investigation

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Accused of Interfering With South Korean FTC Investigation

Posted by Unknown on Monday January 9, 2012 @05:10AM from the only-do-evil-occasionally dept.

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."

110 of 186 comments (clear)

"If this was Microsoft" by bonch · 2012-01-09 05:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by lorenlal · 2012-01-09 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by merchant_x · 2012-01-09 05:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by DCTech · 2012-01-09 05:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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!
4. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by slack_justyb · 2012-01-09 05:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
5. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Smallpond · 2012-01-09 05:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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".
6. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by stanlyb · 2012-01-09 05:38 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  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........
7. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by miltonw · 2012-01-09 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  
  Accusations of wrongdoing are not proof.
8. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by AlecC · 2012-01-09 05:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
9. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by UnknowingFool · 2012-01-09 05:50 · Score: 1
  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.
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
10. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by jeffmeden · 2012-01-09 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  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!
11. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by oxdas · 2012-01-09 05:54 · Score: 2
  
  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.
12. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Ihmhi · 2012-01-09 05:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
13. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by oxdas · 2012-01-09 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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?
14. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by theshowmecanuck · 2012-01-09 06:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
15. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by oxdas · 2012-01-09 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Samsung is not pushing this, Naver is behind this.
16. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by ljw1004 · 2012-01-09 06:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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).
17. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Synerg1y · 2012-01-09 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  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.
18. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by mkiwi · 2012-01-09 06:30 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  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
19. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Locutus · 2012-01-09 06:41 · Score: 2
  
  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
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
20. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  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?
21. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by increment1 · 2012-01-09 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  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?
22. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by quacking+duck · 2012-01-09 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
23. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by increment1 · 2012-01-09 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
24. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  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.
25. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by anonymov · 2012-01-09 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it does.
26. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by hairyfeet · 2012-01-09 07:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
27. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Mr.+McGibby · 2012-01-09 07:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
28. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Anne+Thwacks · 2012-01-09 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  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>
  
  --
  Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
29. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Locutus · 2012-01-09 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  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
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
30. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by jmerlin · 2012-01-09 08:20 · Score: 2
  
  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.
31. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by oxdas · 2012-01-09 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  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.
32. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by TheNextCorner · 2012-01-09 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  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.
33. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by datavirtue · 2012-01-09 08:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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!
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
34. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by datavirtue · 2012-01-09 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Since when does and ad network enjoy a right to exist? This is all off base.
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
35. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by idontgno · 2012-01-09 09:13 · Score: 2
  
  google "skyhook lawsuit".
  Irony, much?
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
36. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by 10101001+10101001 · 2012-01-09 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
37. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by bananaquackmoo · 2012-01-09 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  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.
38. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by lorenlal · 2012-01-09 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  ^This
  I picked my word "history" for a reason.
39. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Cyberllama · 2012-01-09 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  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.
40. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 09:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  But remember folks, Apple is the one with the fanboys!
41. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by lorenlal · 2012-01-09 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  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.
42. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by Cyberllama · 2012-01-09 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  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.
43. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by UnknowingFool · 2012-01-09 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
44. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by lorenlal · 2012-01-09 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  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.
45. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by theshowmecanuck · 2012-01-09 10:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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?
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
46. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by DCTech · 2012-01-09 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  That's a really great article for everyone to read, and see the links on it for ex-Googlers opinions.
47. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by John+Saffran · 2012-01-09 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  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.
48. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by hairyfeet · 2012-01-09 11:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
49. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by slack_justyb · 2012-01-09 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
50. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by slack_justyb · 2012-01-09 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  Here's a picture top left corner
51. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by oxdas · 2012-01-09 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  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.
52. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by sonicmerlin · 2012-01-09 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  Google search isn't even a monopoly in Korea. They have like 10% market share.
53. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by dudpixel · 2012-01-09 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
54. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by slack_justyb · 2012-01-09 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  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.
55. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by mjwx · 2012-01-09 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  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
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
56. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by hairyfeet · 2012-01-10 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
57. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by John+Saffran · 2012-01-10 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  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.
58. Re:"If this was Microsoft" by oxdas · 2012-01-10 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  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.
Corporate Corruption by na1led · 2012-01-09 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Re:Groan by DCTech · 2012-01-09 05:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

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:Really? by AtomicAdam · 2012-01-09 05:20 · Score: 1

Yeah I saw someone with a "I bing" t-shirt. I just didn't know what to say...
Re:Really? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 05:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!
It's the default by walterbyrd · 2012-01-09 05:23 · Score: 1

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:Really? by amnesia_tc · 2012-01-09 05:26 · Score: 1

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...
Systematically designed? by Chibi+Merrow · 2012-01-09 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's funny, until I rooted it, my Motorola Backflip would ONLY let me use one search... Bing.
What are these guys smoking?

--
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
1. Re:Systematically designed? by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2012-01-09 05:40 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  I8-D
2. Re:Systematically designed? by DCTech · 2012-01-09 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  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.
3. Re:Systematically designed? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-09 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  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.
4. Re:Systematically designed? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-01-09 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Obligatory: (maybe not. y'all can decide )
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbOfnj67ZwM
  NSFW:L
5. Re:Systematically designed? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-01-09 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  ... 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... by jesseck · 2012-01-09 05:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Android is Open... by gl4ss · 2012-01-09 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
2. Re:Android is Open... by slew · 2012-01-09 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  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...
3. Re:Android is Open... by maccodemonkey · 2012-01-09 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  "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.
4. Re:Android is Open... by oxdas · 2012-01-09 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  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.
5. Re:Android is Open... by anonymov · 2012-01-09 07:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
6. Re:Android is Open... by jesseck · 2012-01-09 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  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)?
7. Re:Android is Open... by alteran · 2012-01-09 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
8. Re:Android is Open... by Ash-Fox · 2012-01-10 00:24 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:Really? by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-09 05:31 · Score: 1, Troll

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.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The proof is in the possibility by Saishuuheiki · 2012-01-09 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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
What about Apple, Microsoft ? by unity100 · 2012-01-09 05:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 ........

--
Read radical news here
1. Re:What about Apple, Microsoft ? by Dog-Cow · 2012-01-09 05:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:What about Apple, Microsoft ? by unity100 · 2012-01-09 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
3. Re:What about Apple, Microsoft ? by chrb · 2012-01-09 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  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
4. Re:What about Apple, Microsoft ? by unity100 · 2012-01-09 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
History repeats by Comboman · 2012-01-09 05:39 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.

--
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
1. Re:History repeats by TheRealMindChild · 2012-01-09 06:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
This is going to offend someone by Osgeld · 2012-01-09 05:43 · Score: 1

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
Re:Really? by Idbar · 2012-01-09 05:55 · Score: 4, Funny

And, since Bing uses Google's results, everyone uses google anyways. Go Figure! ;-)
Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 06:01 · Score: 1

For US, may be. China, for example, has Baidu and Russia has Yandex (which has a good share in all ex-USSR as well).
Fair Play, Google by MacGyver2210 · 2012-01-09 06:02 · Score: 2

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

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
But AppleSoft did XY and Z! by justdiver · 2012-01-09 06:12 · Score: 1

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.
scroll... scroll... scroll... by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2012-01-09 06:32 · Score: 1
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.
--
I8-D
Re:Groan by UnknowingFool · 2012-01-09 07:06 · Score: 1

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.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
biggest sidetrack is your comment by poetmatt · 2012-01-09 07:11 · Score: 1

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?
1. Re:biggest sidetrack is your comment by anonymov · 2012-01-09 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  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:Groan by Anomalyst · 2012-01-09 07:38 · Score: 1

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

--
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Re:AJAX According to WIKI by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 08:03 · Score: 4, Informative

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:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 08:44 · Score: 1

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?
"If this were Apple" by chrb · 2012-01-09 09:16 · Score: 1

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 by lorenlal · 2012-01-09 09:40 · Score: 1

What about TechLA: http://slashdot.org/~TechLA
Does this even need investigating? by No,+I+am+Spratacus! · 2012-01-09 10:01 · Score: 1

"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:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-09 10:31 · Score: 1

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:Groan by dudpixel · 2012-01-09 15:04 · Score: 1

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.

--
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Re:Really? by dudpixel · 2012-01-09 15:06 · Score: 1

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

--
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Re:Really? by dudpixel · 2012-01-09 15:10 · Score: 1

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.

--
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Re:Really? by dudpixel · 2012-01-09 15:13 · Score: 1

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

--
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Re:Groan by DCTech · 2012-01-09 21:49 · Score: 1

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.