Slashdot Mirror
French Court Calls Free Google Maps Unfair Competition
jfruh writes "A French court has ruled that Google is unfairly subsidizing its free mapping products, making for unfair competition with paid services. This might seem ridiculous, but keep in mind that Google started charging for use of its mapping API once the free version had come to dominate the market."
Why would it?
Microsoft was punished for pumping a market with a free product, with its development supported by revenues from a monopoly product, so that they could afford to give it away where competitors could not. If Google offers something for free, kills off its competitors who were charging for their version, and then starts charging when they're the only ones left, then the French court has a point.
Even the headline in the linked article is absurd: "French court protectionism fines Google Maps for succeeding". No, that's not what they were fined for. They were fined for what French competitor Bottin claimed would happen two years ago--Google would offer Maps for free, make their competitors go bankrupt, and then start charging for Maps once they controlled the market. That's precisely what ended up happening!
Infiltrated by Google employees and well-wishers, Slashdot consistently offers justifications for every bad behavior and terrible decision coming from Google. Just look at the privacy changes article in which fanboys banded together to make sure Google was perceived as the good guy and that anyone critical of them was modbombed.
Just to recap, Google is a multibillion dollar advertising megacorporation that was caught by the German government sniffing people's wifi data (they "accidentally" did it for three years before admitting it only when authorities threatened an investigation), forced people to use real names on Google+ and admitted it was an identity service and not a social network, stuffed Google+ results into the search engine without any competing social networks even though they have those networks indexed by the search engine (hello, Microsoft tactics), said that the only people who care about privacy "have something to hide," hacked into Mocality to call its customers, removed H.264 support in Chrome out of "openness" only to turn around and ship the closed-source Flash plugin, withheld Android source from the public but shared it with privileged hardware partners so they could have a leg up, abused their Android compatibility program to make things difficult for smartphone makers who chose Bing over Google, and on and on and on.
With all this crap they pull that would get them completely trashed if they were Microsoft or any other company, there's one reason and one reason only that they have been propped up as the good guy on Slashdot all these years--Linux. They use Linux. Slashdot is a Linux advocacy site, and so because Google uses Linux, they are good guys and get a pass for everything. That's all it takes to get Slashdot to love you. Just use Linux.
Hypocrites. When Microsoft used their Windows monopoly revenues to fund development of Internet Explorer and release it for free to try to dominate the web market, everyone here cried "antitrust!" But when Google uses its web search monopoly revenues to fund development of Android and release it for free to try to dominate smartphones, everyone defends it. For anyone who was on Slashdot during those times, to see Google doing all the very same things Microsoft did but get a completely different reaction is surreal.
Slashdot is a bubble. You only get pro-Google, pro-Linux news. Major news occurring elsewhere is often days late, if it gets reported at all. The Google+ search results fiasco is huge all over the tech sites right now, but there's nothing about it here, as if it doesn't even exist as a controversy. And did you know iOS surpassed Android in marketshare by the end of 2011 according to three research firms? With how obsessed Slashdot is over marketshare, and how they constantly trumpeted Android's marketshare all the time as a victory last year, you'd think it would be big news. But, no. This is pro-Google territory, pro-Linux territory. Gotta keep the natives happy for more page views.
This will get modded down because trolls have taken over the moderation system and openly subvert it. That's fine. It just proves my point about how Slashdot reacts to anything outside the partyline. This site's news reporting is old, antiquated, and slow, but the news isn't even why people come here anymore. The part of the community still remaining (after its years-long exodus to Reddit, Hacker News, and other sites, which is why traffic has decreased so dramatically on most Slashdot stories today) only comes here to pat themselves on the back for thinking a certain way. "Yeah, Microsoft is still evil! Yeah, Google is still the good guy! Yeah, Apple is still for chumps!" It's the year 2000 forever on Slashdot.
The last few months I have been doing some research into the trolling phenomenon on slashdot.org. In order to do this as thoroughly as possible, I have written both normal and troll posts, 1st posts, etc., both logged in and anonymously, and I have found these rather shocking results:
* More moderator points are being used to mod posts down than up. Furthermore, when modding a post up, every moderator seems to follow previous moderators in their choices, even when it's not a particularly interesting or clever post. There are a LOT more +5 posts than +3 or +4.
* Logged in people are modded down faster than anonymous cowards. Presumably these Nazi Moderators think it's more important to burn a user's existing karma, to silence that individual for the future, than to use the moderation system for what it's meant for : identifying "good" and "bad" posts (Notice how nearly all oppressive governments in the past and present do the same thing : marking individuals as bad and untrustworthy because they have conflicting opinions, instead of engaging in a public discussion about these opinions)
* Once you have a karma of -4 or -5, your posts have a score of -1 by default. When this is the case, no-one bothers to mod you down anymore. This means a logged in user can keep on trolling as much as he (or she) likes, without risking a ban to post on slashdot. When trolling as an anonymous user, every post starts at score 0, and you will be modded down to -1 ON EVERY POST. When you are modded down a certain number of times in 24 hour, you cannot post anymore from your current IP for a day or so. So, for successful trolling, ALWAYS log in.
* A lot of the modded down posts are actually quite clever, funny, etc., and they are only modded down because they are offtopic. Now, on a news site like slashdot, where the number of different topics of discussion can be counted on 1 hand, I must say I quite like the distraction these posts offer. But no, when the topic is yet another minor version change of the Linux kernel, they only expect ooohs and aaahs about this great feat of engineering. Look at the moderation done in this thread to see what I mean.
* Digging deep into the history of slashdot, I found this poll, which clearly indicates the vast majority does NOT want the moderation we have here today. 'nuff said.
Feel free to use this information to your advantage. I thank you for your time.
Anonymous cowards are... well, cowards.
Just sayin. France is being hypocritical.
All i got to say is that if Google wants to make the mistake of charging too much for their product let them face the consequences of decreased market share. Capitalism FTW!
... It just say "France"...
Make Google offer Maps indefinitely for free.
Are they going to make all loss leaders illegal? Seems to me it works the same for everyone, regardless of the industry.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
For as long as I can remember, it was a paid service unless you where going to use under a given number of hits per month (and it was not a large number last time I checked). That let people play with it, but any serious work required a license.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
As somebody working on the remote sensing/mapping/gis field for 10+ years. I tend to agree.
It's a long debate, but clearly the new concept of "paid api" it's confusing.
I perceived gmaps as a free tool in the beginning, but now, as they charge, it's no longer a tool, but a competitor.
Many hi definition data available "freely" on google maps/google earth, it's the result of a private customer paying for that data, and the by some weird agreement between the companies that run the satellites and google, the information ended up "FREE" on google maps.
A real life story:
I paid 250+K for 1 meter imagery (ikonos) for a project that was covered in google maps using old 30m imagery (90's landsat). Months later google has the 1m coverage i ordered and paid for, available for FREE to anyone else.
So i'm not only competing against google, but against people who no longer needs to order a quality work, since now it's there FREE.
Duh! That's certainly UNFAIR.
So...you're mad because you hang out in slashdot?
So...you're mad because open-source can have some triumph?
So...you're mad because there are people out there who believe in supporting a cause?
So...you're mad because a site with a high density of Linux users seems to support Linux some more?
So...you're mad because Microsoft isn't paying you?
So...what the fuck is up in your fucking twisted mind?
Have you heard about SoylentNews?
Just put ads around or in maps. Broadcast TV is free because it's ad supported. Or, does France ban that too?
Table-ized A.I.
The first thing you must NOT do in a free market is give your product away for free! You gotta charge for it so that means it's not for free. It's all linguistics as far as I can see. See.... in a free market things arn't for free.....things you get for free are in a "for free"market! And things you pay for are in a "free" market! OK?
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Duh! That's certainly UNFAIR.
If you meant that a huge publicly traded company under enormous scrutiny somehow directly or through arrangements with other people violeted contracts to which you were a party, then, sure. But you don't seem to be saying that. You seem to be saying that the marketplace has changed, and that you wish it hadn't.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Similar example: The EU sells cheap food (subsidised exports) in developing African countries, forcing local farmers out of business. That is clearly unethical.
In the map service case it's not unethical (a map service is not critical to ones survival), but of course it isn't "fair" to kill a market with a free but closed and proprietary product (free as in subsidised by the manufacturer with money made elsewhere).
If you want a really free map source, try openstreetmap.org & some of the apps which use their maps. Still a work in progress, but much improved over even a year ago. If every geek on /. cleaned up their neighborhood map it would be better than the paid maps - I've certainly added features like weird one way streets and things around me which don't show up on commercial maps.
If so, why wasn't mapquest a monolopy? I think yahoo maps were also around before google maps? Why wasn't yahoo fined?
See Google Maps lures in unsuspecting users, whose eye balls are then sold to advertisers. Now these eye balls are not sold for free by any means.
Your right, it's not all about market share. It's about being able to control the market, and abusing that control.
I certainly have a choice to not use google maps, or google search. I can easily switch from google maps, to yahoo maps, or to mapquest; it takes seconds. Absoluty nothing ties me to google.
This is not true with OSes. If I switch from windows, to linux, I will not be able to run my applications. OS makers have much more potential than search engines, to abuse their monopoly positions.
... keep in mind that Google started charging for use of its mapping API once the free version had come to dominate the market.
I'm not really seeing the problem here.
Seriously, search for yourself. Many of the google smears, that slashdot loves so much, come from extremely dubioius sources (anti-google bloggers); but slashdot publishes them anyway, as if they were real news.
Sorry if slashdot does not smear google enough for you, but really I think enough is enough.
Google should just immediately start charging everyone in France for access to Maps. If their government wants to play these kinds of protectionist games- give them what they want...
If something is supported by advertisements, is it "free?"
Why do you think I have this outrageous lawsuit, you silly king?
Now go away or I shall sue you a second time.
Other free map services were around for years before google maps. Why weren't they monopolies?
Google may be dominate, but that does tie anybody to google. I can easily switch to another free map service.
I think you know that. But you are clearly an MS shill, so I won't try to argue with you.
After all, they're undercutting pay-to-view outlets like HBO, Cinemax, etc.
This seems to me the real analogy. The traditional broadcast networks get their revenue from advertising, like Google, and their product available to the end-user free-of-charge. HBO gets its revenue from the end-user directly.
I don't think anyone would make the argument CBS is unfairly subsidizing their product and I don't think Google is either even if the temporary market condition is such that Google is most popular.
>This might seem ridiculous, but keep in mind
replace "but" with "because"
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
A French company called Maporama was producing free maps before Google Maps ever turned up. It was like Mapquest for non US destinations and pretty decent for it too. The innovation Google brought to maps was you could interactively drag them around rather than the clumsy d-pad style controls that most map sites including Maporama used. So I don't really buy the idea that free was anticompetitive because it was entering a market where free was the precedent already.
bonch is mad that his submissions were not accepted.
The fact that ACs are posting those same submissions in stories with a bonch first post are, of course, entirely coincidental.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I never thought I'd see the day when legal action was taken against a company because they were offering something for free instead of charging for it. Of course nobody will want to buy mapping software when you can get it for free, but it's like trying to sell bottled tap water. Oh wait... I forgot they already do that (Dasani).
Too bad for us evil is subjective.
that France as a country is more of a joke than any other non-third-world nation. What fucktards. Perhaps if they worked more than 30 hours a month...
The concepts of monopoly and antitrust are deeply flawed. But even so, this is the cherry on the cake. Clearly, a free service is not what constitutes monopolistic behavior (raising price, lowering quality) in mainstream economics. What is the supposed consumer harm?
Is it illegal?
Let's see which markets it has cornered:
education, law enforcement, price of money...
Oooh, but Microsoft bundled a browser!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Pretty sure Map Quest predates Google... I recall using their "free" service years ago.
btw, were you aware that web search was free (= funded by ads) for a decade before google?
No I wasn't. I was under the impression that WebCrawler, the first publicly accessible full-text World Wide Web search engine, predated Google by only four and a half years.
Companies should be forced to sell their services for at the amount of money they need to provide it. While the Google search engine could be free for searches it has has to cost for the advertisers (which it does). However, with the same logic the map service could be free for watchers if other people have to pay for their location. For email it is you data you provide (pay) so that should not be a problem.
If Microsoft wins its case against Barnes and Noble over the Android patents, watch the ITC block imports of mobile Linux devices.
Don't tell them about Nokia Maps.
You are basically right. Google is practically using a classical dumping strategy here. Well, almost, when the product or service is dumped there usually is a certain price tag but considerably lower price than that of the competitors. Now the price is zero.
The end product is offered for free for consumers although Google certainly has expenses on the map service. This is therefore unfair competion and the end result will be monopoly. On the other hand Google also has an advantage in its service that it may couple advertising into it as well as other free and non-free services.
So, is the unfairness in price or in that the product or service is better than the competitor's products or service?
I think that kind of monopoly is just not important enough for our life to regulate it. If somebody had a monopoly on food, or water, air, or gas, that would be real bad. Granted, it is nice to use maps on mobile devices. But it is not life threatening not to have it. People can adopt to availability of such stuff. If Google Maps gets too expensive to use, people will stop using it. On non-vital goods, market regulates itself. I think governments should stay out of the web. It was not meant for them first place.
My friends, stop the brain f**king. They all decided everything on hahaped.
That appears to be a clear example of Dumping, a predatory price policy ilegal in several countries.
http://backstreetboysfan.com/ http://leonardowilhelmdicaprio.com/
INAL, but;
Giving away free content/service/etc to put competitors out of business and then charging once you have a monopoly is fairly common. And its not allowed. Its not allowed in the U.S. It is an illegal practice banned under the monopolies law; and it has been banned for like 135yrs.
Proving someone has done this, in common law U.S. Well, that's another story entirely. Proving it in France? Well there system is a little different, they can concentrate on effects of acts more and spend less time divining intent. France, is the right place to bring this complaint.