That's because people like google maps. And they don't like bing maps, etc.
Do they? Personally, so long as I get the most relevant results to my query, I don't care where it comes from.
how do you tell a successful product from wanton abuse of the search system? That's that point. In my opinion, google maps is way better then bing maps, and integration into the search system is part of the search system. I'd expect Bing to do the same -- to add value to their services..
Well yes, that's the problem - it's a fuzzy line. Thats why the EU are *investigating* rather than just slapping them with a fine - its not clear cut and needs due consideration from the governing body, and negotiation with Google to come to a mutually satisfactory answer.
You can take the "how much integration is too much" to the extremes. Lets take an operating system vendor, for example: Is integrating a web browser into the OS "too much"? What about integrating anti-virus software and a firewall? What about integrating a top of the line word processor? How about integrating a professional quality photo editor? You can keep going and going - in the case of relatively small-time OS vendors, bundling all this stuff together is fine (indeed, most Linux distros do exactly this). On the other hand, if a company such as Microsoft started doing this, many would argue that they had completely crossed the line because they would have put a whole load of vendors out of business in one go purely because they are able to leverage their dominance in the OS market in order to encroach on all of these other markets.
Integration is good in the short term in terms of the user interface; but putting everyone out of business and ending up with a single megacorp in control of everything is very very bad in the long term. Historically the EU have shown that they are happy to create short term pain in order to protect the consumer in the long term.
And you know this because it sounds like a neat argument? Go learn something about what your talking about and get back to me.
Would you like to calmly explain what was wrong with my comment rather than just making vague attacks against me because I happen to have a world view that doesn't entirely line up with yours?
That's like saying "When I go to Mapquest and type an address, why doesn't Google Maps come up?"
Last I checked, Mapquest wasn't a web search engine. If I go to mapquest, I expect it to give me results from mapquest, if I go to google maps I expect it to give me results from google maps, and if I go to google web search I expect it to give me results from *the web*, not results from google's random other products promoted above everything else.
Why would you expect them to offer other companies' services through their own site?
Because thats what web search engines do - they search the web (i.e. other companies services). The problem isn't that Google is offering links to their own services, it is that they are artificially placing them towards the top of the results based purely on the fact that they are Google products.
Its basically product bundling - they have a popular product (web search) and are leveraging it to make their other products more popular. That's fine until the product you are leveraging becomes dominant in its market, then you have to comply with antitrust legislation to prevent you using that position to muscle your way into other markets.
it also brings up copyright issues, where if Google is just serving up Bing maps and results without any attribution(free advertising for competitors) they can get in trouble for plagiarism, fraud, and far worse things than this retarded EU commission seems to think they do.
If they were so scared of copyright, plagiarism, fraud, they wouldn't offer a web search either. Time and time again its been shown that offering a service to search other people's data is legal (especially if you give them a way to stop you doing it).
Don't be a complete retard like these EU folks: If you want Mapquest, go to Mapquest. If you want Bing, go to Bing. If you want Google, go to Google. If you can't understand this, stay the fuck off the internet.
Not once have I said that what Google do is wrong, I'm simply explaining why the EU has a problem with it. I can certainly see the EU's point, but I have no strong opinions on it either way. I do, strongly, disagree with the the idea that the EU are "retards" though - the EU have laws and it is up to Google to comply with them if they want to do business in the EU. A government is not "retarded" for investigating a company operating in the local economy for a possible breach of local laws.
As for what I *personally* want: 1. I want a web search engine to give me *the most relevant* results for what I'm searching for. For me, "the most relevant" isn't the same as "is another property of the company that runs the search engine". This isn't some entitlement thing - I don't believe I'm entitled to that, and I don't believe (in the general case) governments should legislate for vendors to provide that service. It's just what I, as a consumer, would like. 2. I want a competitive market across the board. Products should be competing on their their own merit, not just succeeding because they're being pushed by a big popular brand. This is something I believe should be regulated in order to prevent a megacorp from cornering markets and pushing out other businesses. I don't know whether Google has crossed the line - I have no particularly strong opinions on it at the moment, but I do see why the EU are investigating and I support the investigation of this sort of thing (note: investigation is not the same as enforcement - just because you're investigating a company doesn't mean they've actually done something wrong and need to be punished, it just means you're keeping an eye on them and are ready to act in case they do cross the line).
Fine, but when you go to GOOGLE and search for MAPS...don't piss and moan when the first result that comes up is Google Maps. Not only are they the most popular mapping service by a mile, but it is owned and promoted by GOOGLE...the search engine you are using at the time. Of course Google is going to put a little map in your results and say "Hey, we've got this map service...".
When you go to WINDOWS and open the BROWSER...don't piss and moan when it starts IE. Not only is it the most popular web browser by a mile, but it is owned and promoted by MICROSOFT...the operating system you are using at the time.
Well, if they "fix" this I SERIOUSLY hope they make it an option to "unfix" it. If I search for something and a map is relevant I'd like to see a map, not just a bunch of SEO'ed sites.
Isn't "being part of Google and therefore being automatically shoved to the top of the results" basically the ultimate SEO?
Oh, and I'd like the map to be google maps, not flybynite maps.
Why? If flybynite maps happens to have more useful and relevant results then why not use them? You do of course need some kind of quality control, but the assuming that Google products are always the most relevant ones seems bogus. (For that matter, Google's pushpins for local businesses are frequently extremely inaccurate, so its not too far of a stretch to imagine that another mapping service might have better results).
Do you support the notion that Google web search should only show up results from their own properties because other websites are always going to be less relevant? No? Then why are maps any different?
But what Google is doing is no different than what other search engines are doing. If I search for "Starbucks" on Bing, I get the web results I'd expect. I also get a Bing Map for Starbucks in the area. I also get Bing News results for articles about Starbucks.
Yes, and the point of antitrust legislation is that if you get big enough to unfairly distort markets then you have to play by different rules to ensure you don't distort the markets. Google is far more dominant than Bing, so they get hit with the antitrust stick for their troubles. Guess what? Apple gets away with stuff MS could only dream of because they aren't the dominant player.
I dont think that that MS would allow to include bing results in the same way than google does with google maps.
Possibly not, but at the moment they don't have an option (and we're not just talking about Microsoft - we're talking about *all* google's competitors, some of whome might want their results to be included).
At the moment, if you run a website, you have a choice about whether or not you are included in the results (set up a robots.txt or use Google's webmaster tools), and if you are included then your website is (theoretically) considered at the same level as Google's websites. If you run a mapping service, you don't get any kind of a choice, you are automatically excluded, meanwhile Google's mapping service is automatically included towards the top of the search results.
Ultimatly, google searches googles databases. They should not be obliged to provide interfaces to other databases.
Why not? If Google is artificially pushing their own products over their competitors because of the design of their software, this seems like something worth fixing, given Google's position in the search industry.
If you think that google is not doing a good enough job of providing your the most relevent results, you are free to go where ever else you want. You are also free to build your own search engine that will give you "relevent" results for yourself. I just dont get the "entitlement" that you think that you have on something you have not build, not paid for and are not forced to use.
Hold on there, when did I say I was entitled to anything? The original poster said "when I go to Google I want $foo" and I replied with "when I go to Google I want $bar" - neither of us said we were entitled to either $foo or $bar, we just expressed what we wanted out of the service. No different from someone saying "I want cheaper bandwidth from my ISP" or "I want a cup of tea" - they aren't saying they are entitled to it, they are just saying what they would *like*.
It's their castle and hence their rules - if you dont like it, get out and never come back.
It is indeed - I don't make their rules. Similarly, they are playing in the EU's castle and hence need to abide by the EU's rules. If they don't like it they can get out and never come back.
So the lesson here is that if you build a business, develop something that's really awesome and becomes the go-to choice for nearly everyone on the planet, your reward is to be considered a monopoly and regulated as a utility?
Your reward is that you have a business that is worth billions. There is a very minor penalty that you have to adhere to slightly stricter regulations as a result. Its good for the consumer for the dominant company to have to work at staying dominant rather than sit back and stagnate since no one can compete.
There are always penalties associated with being successful, but the success generally outweighs the penalties. Or are you going to complain that successful high-profit companies shouldn't have to pay more tax than low-profit businesses because that would be a penalty on their success?
When using Google to search for stuff I expect & want google's associated services to come up as they are also generally the market leaders. The EU seems to think that is is unfair that badly known competing services do not come up first in Google's results which shows only that they badly understand how people want search to work.
No, I think the EU probably understands things quite well. When I use a search engine I expect & want the most relevant results to come up. Something doesn't suddenly become more relevant to me just because it is also a property of the same company that owns the search engine I'm using. If I wanted to search Google Maps, I'd go to Google Maps, but for the generalised search function I want relevant results from *anywhere*.
If I go to Burger King, should I complain that they don't have a Big Mac on the menu? When I go to Google, I go there because I WANT a Google Maps result!
I don't. I go to Google because I want relevant results. I don't want to have to redo my search on several sites because they are all arrogant enough to each consider their own services to always be the most relevant results.
And is Microsoft in a similarly dominant market position to Google? No? Then antitrust legislation doesn't affect them. Exactly the same reason as Apple gets away with stuff that Microsoft can only dream of.
Microsoft is lobbying here because the clown Ballmer is so obsessed with destroying Google.
[Citation needed]
If you're going to make crazy conspiracy theory claims, you're going to need to produce some evidence to back them up, otherwise you just come across as a crackpot. The EU has a history of going after big corporations that they think are abusing their position, no lobbying required.
Google includes Google maps in their results to make their results as useful as possible. If the EU makes that a crime, I would hate to have to use whatever search engine that the EU thinks is ideal. Because my bet is that it wouldn't be very useful.
On the contrary. If, instead of displaying a Google Maps link, they displayed a link to a mapping site that has a result that is more relevant to my query then I would say that's an improvement. I don't think anyone is saying that Google shouldn't display relevant links, they are saying that links shouldn't be considered more relevant just because they are operated by Google themselves.
So, they're saying that when I use Google to search for a place, Google isn't allowed to respond with a map showing the place because there are competitors who also offer a map application.
No, its saying that when you search for a place, other vendors should be considered to be at a similar level to google. So if you search for a place that google maps doesn't know about but bing maps does, it would show you a link to bing maps. Scraping map data from other sites to include in searches isn't as simple as scraping web pages, but Google could provide an API to allow other vendors to publish their data to Google. Google's search results are supposed to show you the most relevant results for your search, yet google maps is artificially placed higher in the search results than other mapping sites, because it is google's not because it necessarilly has more relevant results.
So what you're saying is, if Google is just using an algorithmic search method, and it happens to select their own sites because they are popular in their own right and legitimate results, they're not doing anything wrong?
No. If you go to google's web search and you search for a local business, amoungst all the search results, fairly near the top, it will give you a link to Google Maps showing you where that business is. It won't give you a link to bing maps, openstreetmap, etc. This isn't because google maps is more popular, its because google integrate their own mapping product with their search engine but don't integrate competing products with it. Google *could* provide an API to allow other services to integrate, but they don't.
Sponsored results are usually marked as being separate from the "real" results of the search query, at least in my experience. Google used to but changed that at some point so it's hard to tell the difference.
I think the issue here isn't the "sponsored results" (which are marked as such) but the results that are pulled from google's other services and therefore artificially promoted over similar services run by other companies without being marked as such.
It looks like they're talking about doing stuff like including results from Google Maps in your web search results (whilst not doing the same for results from Bing Maps, etc.).
This is not an antitrust violation. It's normal business practice for every search engine.
Firstly I'm not saying it is an antitrust violation (IANAL and don't have any particularly strong opinions either way anyway), I'm just explaining what the EU appears to be saying.
However, I'm not convinced that you can say its completely innocent behaviour either. A search engine is supposed to find the most relevant results for what a user is searching for. Google is intentionally adding in results relating only to their own services, even though similar services exist from other companies. Using the maps example, if I search for a business then I'll get: 1. that business's home page on the web 2. people talking about that business on the web 3. a link to google maps showing me where the business is In the case of (3), Google has intentionally included a link to a relevant page on a separate service that they also own. They haven't provided a similar link to other map services, such as Bing, Openstreetmap, etc. Whether this is right or wrong is debatable, but it is clear that they are using their search engine to promote their own maps service over their competitors', and this search result appears amoungst all the normal results, not as a "paid advertisement" (which is what happens to all the other artificially promoted responses).
And yes, you can say that other search engines do the same, but the point is that other search engines aren't in the same dominant position and therefore antitrust legislation doesn't apply to them. This is the same as pointing at things Microsoft isn't allowed to do and saying "well Apple/Ubuntu/Fedora does them" - dominant companies have to play by different rules to everyone else in order to keep the playing field more level.
You're misusing the Microsoft example. Microsoft wasn't just the dominant vendor, they were actively engaged in anti-competitive practices. At the time they got slapped with antitrust fines you could not buy a computer without windows. It wasn't possible. Any computer you purchased from a store came with their system preinstalled.
This is untrue. You have *always* been able to buy computers without Windows. There have been several antitrust cases against Microsoft; the one you seem to be referring to was where MS were pressuring OEMs to only supply machines preinstalled with windows by offering them substantial discounts for doing so. There were ways the vendors used to get around this, and so you could still buy machines without Windows, but it was more difficult to do so than it should have been.
More recently, there was an antitrust case against Microsoft because they shipped IE with the OS by default, in a way that prevented the OEMs from removing it and replacing it with a competing browser. The EU decided that this was unfair since MS were using their dominant position in the OS market to push their browser in detriment to other browser vendors. This is very similar to what the EU is suggesting that google is doing - using their dominance in the search engine market to bundle other products at the detriment to their competitors.
This is quite the opposite from someone firing up their computer and oh look Internet Explorer is the default browser and Bing is the default search engine and the end user is forced to make an informed choice.
In your example, someone made a choice to buy a Windows machine and found that IE and Bing were bundled by defaults. So long as they stick with Windows, they have to go out of their way to use a different vendor's browser or search engine.
Similarly, someone made a choice to use Google and found that Google Maps, etc. were bundled into the search results by defau
What the hell do they mean by "diverting traffic", and why would it not be allowed?
It looks like they're talking about doing stuff like including results from Google Maps in your web search results (whilst not doing the same for results from Bing Maps, etc.).
What, exactly, does Google have a monopoly of, and how are they abusing monopoly power in any way?
They are the dominant search engine, and the EU appears to be deciding that they are using that dominance to help gain dominance in other markets (e.g. the aforementioned maps, amoungst others).
TFA suggests they have a monopoly on "search" which is nonsensical, since there are many competitors
They are the dominant search engine. I think you are misunderstanding antitrust legislation: - Antitrust legislation doesn't care whether or not you have competitors, it only cares whether you are the *dominant* vendor. As a well known example, Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violations in their operating system business, but there have always been other operating system vendors. The key was that they were the *dominant* vendor. - Antitrust legislation doesn't say there's anything wrong with being the dominant vendor (or even the only vendor). All it says is that if you are dominating the market, you're nor allowed to use that dominance to help you gain dominance in other markets. So going back to the Microsoft example, they were dominant OS vendors, and by shipping certain freebies with the OS (e.g. a web browser) they were unfairly using their existing position to gain dominance in the browser market. Netscape, on the other hand, could never have hoped to do this since they weren't shipping anything which already dominated the market, with which to bundle their browser to compete. The EU is saying Google is using their dominance in the search engine market to push their other products in a way that is unfair to their competition.
and no barrier to entry
There's always a barrier to entry - setting up a search engine is going to involve R&D and then a hell of a lot of time and bandwidth to spider the web. However, that isn't what this is about - this isn't about Google doing anything to stop people competing in the search engine business, this is about using their existing search engine position to make it harder for people to compete in other sectors.
and they give the "product" away for free, so it would hard to claim any monopoly pricing power is even being used or existing.
No one said anything about pricing. It isn't relevant to this discussion.
So, all in all, it looks like either a blatant cash grab by the EU, or a bullshit legal attack funded by the likes of Microsoft.
Or the EU is trying to level the playing field for the smaller businesses. Whilst having everything run by a single megacorp is convenient, historically it has always been better for the consumer in the long run to have many smaller businesses offering services. The EU usually takes the attitude that a bit of short term pain (inconveniencing people by preventing the "convenient" integration of services from a single vendor) is better than the long term pain of having a single megacorp in control of huge markets and no chance for a smaller business to survive.
Use the XMPP Jingle extension supported by Asterisk and Freeswitch amongst many others
How well do Asterisk and an IM server integrate together for that? i.e. If I run Asterisk for SIP telephony (calls to sip:foo@example.com go there) and ejabberd for XMPP IM (IMs to xmpp:foo@example.com go there), can I sensibly make instant messages for xmpp:foo@example.com still go to ejabberd and phone calls for xmpp:foo@example.com go to Asterisk (and therefore integrate with the existing phone system)?
so you have to remember five thousand and some odd feet in a mile.
And I get so wound up by Google Navigation which tells me to do things like "turn left in 500 feet" - I have literally *no clue* what 500 feet looks like and there is no "switch to metric" setting (as far as I know it uses whatever units Google think are "standard" in whatever locality you start your journey from, and unfortunately Google seems to think everyone in the UK wants to use imperial...)
The metric pint (the size of a typical bottle of ale) is 550ml, which is slightly less than the 568ml of a real pint, but quite a bit more than a US pint (473ml). I can't easily tell the difference between it and a proper pint, but the difference between a real pint and a US pint is quite noticeable.
I've never seen a 550ml bottle of ale - most are 500ml...
Slashdot Mirror
How is this bad? I sometimes exploit this by typing a location into the general search bar, fully expecting a google maps result to click on.
If i wanted BingMaps i would have used bing instead.
Its bad because it has the potential to kill off competing businesses.
That's because people like google maps. And they don't like bing maps, etc.
Do they? Personally, so long as I get the most relevant results to my query, I don't care where it comes from.
how do you tell a successful product from wanton abuse of the search system? That's that point. In my opinion, google maps is way better then bing maps, and integration into the search system is part of the search system. I'd expect Bing to do the same -- to add value to their services..
Well yes, that's the problem - it's a fuzzy line. Thats why the EU are *investigating* rather than just slapping them with a fine - its not clear cut and needs due consideration from the governing body, and negotiation with Google to come to a mutually satisfactory answer.
You can take the "how much integration is too much" to the extremes. Lets take an operating system vendor, for example: Is integrating a web browser into the OS "too much"? What about integrating anti-virus software and a firewall? What about integrating a top of the line word processor? How about integrating a professional quality photo editor? You can keep going and going - in the case of relatively small-time OS vendors, bundling all this stuff together is fine (indeed, most Linux distros do exactly this). On the other hand, if a company such as Microsoft started doing this, many would argue that they had completely crossed the line because they would have put a whole load of vendors out of business in one go purely because they are able to leverage their dominance in the OS market in order to encroach on all of these other markets.
Integration is good in the short term in terms of the user interface; but putting everyone out of business and ending up with a single megacorp in control of everything is very very bad in the long term. Historically the EU have shown that they are happy to create short term pain in order to protect the consumer in the long term.
And you know this because it sounds like a neat argument? Go learn something about what your talking about and get back to me.
Would you like to calmly explain what was wrong with my comment rather than just making vague attacks against me because I happen to have a world view that doesn't entirely line up with yours?
That's like saying "When I go to Mapquest and type an address, why doesn't Google Maps come up?"
Last I checked, Mapquest wasn't a web search engine. If I go to mapquest, I expect it to give me results from mapquest, if I go to google maps I expect it to give me results from google maps, and if I go to google web search I expect it to give me results from *the web*, not results from google's random other products promoted above everything else.
Why would you expect them to offer other companies' services through their own site?
Because thats what web search engines do - they search the web (i.e. other companies services). The problem isn't that Google is offering links to their own services, it is that they are artificially placing them towards the top of the results based purely on the fact that they are Google products.
Its basically product bundling - they have a popular product (web search) and are leveraging it to make their other products more popular. That's fine until the product you are leveraging becomes dominant in its market, then you have to comply with antitrust legislation to prevent you using that position to muscle your way into other markets.
it also brings up copyright issues, where if Google is just serving up Bing maps and results without any attribution(free advertising for competitors) they can get in trouble for plagiarism, fraud, and far worse things than this retarded EU commission seems to think they do.
If they were so scared of copyright, plagiarism, fraud, they wouldn't offer a web search either. Time and time again its been shown that offering a service to search other people's data is legal (especially if you give them a way to stop you doing it).
Don't be a complete retard like these EU folks: If you want Mapquest, go to Mapquest. If you want Bing, go to Bing. If you want Google, go to Google. If you can't understand this, stay the fuck off the internet.
Not once have I said that what Google do is wrong, I'm simply explaining why the EU has a problem with it. I can certainly see the EU's point, but I have no strong opinions on it either way. I do, strongly, disagree with the the idea that the EU are "retards" though - the EU have laws and it is up to Google to comply with them if they want to do business in the EU. A government is not "retarded" for investigating a company operating in the local economy for a possible breach of local laws.
As for what I *personally* want:
1. I want a web search engine to give me *the most relevant* results for what I'm searching for. For me, "the most relevant" isn't the same as "is another property of the company that runs the search engine". This isn't some entitlement thing - I don't believe I'm entitled to that, and I don't believe (in the general case) governments should legislate for vendors to provide that service. It's just what I, as a consumer, would like.
2. I want a competitive market across the board. Products should be competing on their their own merit, not just succeeding because they're being pushed by a big popular brand. This is something I believe should be regulated in order to prevent a megacorp from cornering markets and pushing out other businesses. I don't know whether Google has crossed the line - I have no particularly strong opinions on it at the moment, but I do see why the EU are investigating and I support the investigation of this sort of thing (note: investigation is not the same as enforcement - just because you're investigating a company doesn't mean they've actually done something wrong and need to be punished, it just means you're keeping an eye on them and are ready to act in case they do cross the line).
Fine, but when you go to GOOGLE and search for MAPS...don't piss and moan when the first result that comes up is Google Maps. Not only are they the most popular mapping service by a mile, but it is owned and promoted by GOOGLE...the search engine you are using at the time. Of course Google is going to put a little map in your results and say "Hey, we've got this map service...".
When you go to WINDOWS and open the BROWSER...don't piss and moan when it starts IE. Not only is it the most popular web browser by a mile, but it is owned and promoted by MICROSOFT...the operating system you are using at the time.
Well, if they "fix" this I SERIOUSLY hope they make it an option to "unfix" it. If I search for something and a map is relevant I'd like to see a map, not just a bunch of SEO'ed sites.
Isn't "being part of Google and therefore being automatically shoved to the top of the results" basically the ultimate SEO?
Oh, and I'd like the map to be google maps, not flybynite maps.
Why? If flybynite maps happens to have more useful and relevant results then why not use them? You do of course need some kind of quality control, but the assuming that Google products are always the most relevant ones seems bogus. (For that matter, Google's pushpins for local businesses are frequently extremely inaccurate, so its not too far of a stretch to imagine that another mapping service might have better results).
Do you support the notion that Google web search should only show up results from their own properties because other websites are always going to be less relevant? No? Then why are maps any different?
But what Google is doing is no different than what other search engines are doing. If I search for "Starbucks" on Bing, I get the web results I'd expect. I also get a Bing Map for Starbucks in the area. I also get Bing News results for articles about Starbucks.
Yes, and the point of antitrust legislation is that if you get big enough to unfairly distort markets then you have to play by different rules to ensure you don't distort the markets. Google is far more dominant than Bing, so they get hit with the antitrust stick for their troubles. Guess what? Apple gets away with stuff MS could only dream of because they aren't the dominant player.
I dont think that that MS would allow to include bing results in the same way than google does with google maps.
Possibly not, but at the moment they don't have an option (and we're not just talking about Microsoft - we're talking about *all* google's competitors, some of whome might want their results to be included).
At the moment, if you run a website, you have a choice about whether or not you are included in the results (set up a robots.txt or use Google's webmaster tools), and if you are included then your website is (theoretically) considered at the same level as Google's websites. If you run a mapping service, you don't get any kind of a choice, you are automatically excluded, meanwhile Google's mapping service is automatically included towards the top of the search results.
Ultimatly, google searches googles databases. They should not be obliged to provide interfaces to other databases.
Why not? If Google is artificially pushing their own products over their competitors because of the design of their software, this seems like something worth fixing, given Google's position in the search industry.
If you think that google is not doing a good enough job of providing your the most relevent results, you are free to go where ever else you want. You are also free to build your own search engine that will give you "relevent" results for yourself. I just dont get the "entitlement" that you think that you have on something you have not build, not paid for and are not forced to use.
Hold on there, when did I say I was entitled to anything? The original poster said "when I go to Google I want $foo" and I replied with "when I go to Google I want $bar" - neither of us said we were entitled to either $foo or $bar, we just expressed what we wanted out of the service. No different from someone saying "I want cheaper bandwidth from my ISP" or "I want a cup of tea" - they aren't saying they are entitled to it, they are just saying what they would *like*.
It's their castle and hence their rules - if you dont like it, get out and never come back.
It is indeed - I don't make their rules. Similarly, they are playing in the EU's castle and hence need to abide by the EU's rules. If they don't like it they can get out and never come back.
So the lesson here is that if you build a business, develop something that's really awesome and becomes the go-to choice for nearly everyone on the planet, your reward is to be considered a monopoly and regulated as a utility?
Your reward is that you have a business that is worth billions. There is a very minor penalty that you have to adhere to slightly stricter regulations as a result. Its good for the consumer for the dominant company to have to work at staying dominant rather than sit back and stagnate since no one can compete.
There are always penalties associated with being successful, but the success generally outweighs the penalties. Or are you going to complain that successful high-profit companies shouldn't have to pay more tax than low-profit businesses because that would be a penalty on their success?
When using Google to search for stuff I expect & want google's associated services to come up as they are also generally the market leaders. The EU seems to think that is is unfair that badly known competing services do not come up first in Google's results which shows only that they badly understand how people want search to work.
No, I think the EU probably understands things quite well. When I use a search engine I expect & want the most relevant results to come up. Something doesn't suddenly become more relevant to me just because it is also a property of the same company that owns the search engine I'm using. If I wanted to search Google Maps, I'd go to Google Maps, but for the generalised search function I want relevant results from *anywhere*.
If I go to Burger King, should I complain that they don't have a Big Mac on the menu?
When I go to Google, I go there because I WANT a Google Maps result!
I don't. I go to Google because I want relevant results. I don't want to have to redo my search on several sites because they are all arrogant enough to each consider their own services to always be the most relevant results.
Microsoft does the same thing with Bing Maps.
And is Microsoft in a similarly dominant market position to Google? No? Then antitrust legislation doesn't affect them. Exactly the same reason as Apple gets away with stuff that Microsoft can only dream of.
Microsoft is lobbying here because the clown Ballmer is so obsessed with destroying Google.
[Citation needed]
If you're going to make crazy conspiracy theory claims, you're going to need to produce some evidence to back them up, otherwise you just come across as a crackpot. The EU has a history of going after big corporations that they think are abusing their position, no lobbying required.
Google includes Google maps in their results to make their results as useful as possible. If the EU makes that a crime, I would hate to have to use whatever search engine that the EU thinks is ideal. Because my bet is that it wouldn't be very useful.
On the contrary. If, instead of displaying a Google Maps link, they displayed a link to a mapping site that has a result that is more relevant to my query then I would say that's an improvement. I don't think anyone is saying that Google shouldn't display relevant links, they are saying that links shouldn't be considered more relevant just because they are operated by Google themselves.
This puzzles me.
So, they're saying that when I use Google to search for a place, Google isn't allowed to respond with a map showing the place because there are competitors who also offer a map application.
No, its saying that when you search for a place, other vendors should be considered to be at a similar level to google. So if you search for a place that google maps doesn't know about but bing maps does, it would show you a link to bing maps. Scraping map data from other sites to include in searches isn't as simple as scraping web pages, but Google could provide an API to allow other vendors to publish their data to Google. Google's search results are supposed to show you the most relevant results for your search, yet google maps is artificially placed higher in the search results than other mapping sites, because it is google's not because it necessarilly has more relevant results.
So what you're saying is, if Google is just using an algorithmic search method, and it happens to select their own sites because they are popular in their own right and legitimate results, they're not doing anything wrong?
No. If you go to google's web search and you search for a local business, amoungst all the search results, fairly near the top, it will give you a link to Google Maps showing you where that business is. It won't give you a link to bing maps, openstreetmap, etc. This isn't because google maps is more popular, its because google integrate their own mapping product with their search engine but don't integrate competing products with it. Google *could* provide an API to allow other services to integrate, but they don't.
Sponsored results are usually marked as being separate from the "real" results of the search query, at least in my experience. Google used to but changed that at some point so it's hard to tell the difference.
I think the issue here isn't the "sponsored results" (which are marked as such) but the results that are pulled from google's other services and therefore artificially promoted over similar services run by other companies without being marked as such.
It looks like they're talking about doing stuff like including results from Google Maps in your web search results (whilst not doing the same for results from Bing Maps, etc.).
This is not an antitrust violation. It's normal business practice for every search engine.
Firstly I'm not saying it is an antitrust violation (IANAL and don't have any particularly strong opinions either way anyway), I'm just explaining what the EU appears to be saying.
However, I'm not convinced that you can say its completely innocent behaviour either. A search engine is supposed to find the most relevant results for what a user is searching for. Google is intentionally adding in results relating only to their own services, even though similar services exist from other companies. Using the maps example, if I search for a business then I'll get:
1. that business's home page on the web
2. people talking about that business on the web
3. a link to google maps showing me where the business is
In the case of (3), Google has intentionally included a link to a relevant page on a separate service that they also own. They haven't provided a similar link to other map services, such as Bing, Openstreetmap, etc. Whether this is right or wrong is debatable, but it is clear that they are using their search engine to promote their own maps service over their competitors', and this search result appears amoungst all the normal results, not as a "paid advertisement" (which is what happens to all the other artificially promoted responses).
And yes, you can say that other search engines do the same, but the point is that other search engines aren't in the same dominant position and therefore antitrust legislation doesn't apply to them. This is the same as pointing at things Microsoft isn't allowed to do and saying "well Apple/Ubuntu/Fedora does them" - dominant companies have to play by different rules to everyone else in order to keep the playing field more level.
You're misusing the Microsoft example. Microsoft wasn't just the dominant vendor, they were actively engaged in anti-competitive practices. At the time they got slapped with antitrust fines you could not buy a computer without windows. It wasn't possible. Any computer you purchased from a store came with their system preinstalled.
This is untrue. You have *always* been able to buy computers without Windows. There have been several antitrust cases against Microsoft; the one you seem to be referring to was where MS were pressuring OEMs to only supply machines preinstalled with windows by offering them substantial discounts for doing so. There were ways the vendors used to get around this, and so you could still buy machines without Windows, but it was more difficult to do so than it should have been.
More recently, there was an antitrust case against Microsoft because they shipped IE with the OS by default, in a way that prevented the OEMs from removing it and replacing it with a competing browser. The EU decided that this was unfair since MS were using their dominant position in the OS market to push their browser in detriment to other browser vendors. This is very similar to what the EU is suggesting that google is doing - using their dominance in the search engine market to bundle other products at the detriment to their competitors.
This is quite the opposite from someone firing up their computer and oh look Internet Explorer is the default browser and Bing is the default search engine and the end user is forced to make an informed choice.
In your example, someone made a choice to buy a Windows machine and found that IE and Bing were bundled by defaults. So long as they stick with Windows, they have to go out of their way to use a different vendor's browser or search engine.
Similarly, someone made a choice to use Google and found that Google Maps, etc. were bundled into the search results by defau
The internet still exists, it's just awfully hard to find.
I know this might be hard to believe, but Google isn't the only search engine...
The EU apparently don't need the internet.
Yes, because the Internet doesn't exist without Google... </sarcasm>
What the hell do they mean by "diverting traffic", and why would it not be allowed?
It looks like they're talking about doing stuff like including results from Google Maps in your web search results (whilst not doing the same for results from Bing Maps, etc.).
What, exactly, does Google have a monopoly of, and how are they abusing monopoly power in any way?
They are the dominant search engine, and the EU appears to be deciding that they are using that dominance to help gain dominance in other markets (e.g. the aforementioned maps, amoungst others).
TFA suggests they have a monopoly on "search" which is nonsensical, since there are many competitors
They are the dominant search engine. I think you are misunderstanding antitrust legislation:
- Antitrust legislation doesn't care whether or not you have competitors, it only cares whether you are the *dominant* vendor. As a well known example, Microsoft was found guilty of antitrust violations in their operating system business, but there have always been other operating system vendors. The key was that they were the *dominant* vendor.
- Antitrust legislation doesn't say there's anything wrong with being the dominant vendor (or even the only vendor). All it says is that if you are dominating the market, you're nor allowed to use that dominance to help you gain dominance in other markets. So going back to the Microsoft example, they were dominant OS vendors, and by shipping certain freebies with the OS (e.g. a web browser) they were unfairly using their existing position to gain dominance in the browser market. Netscape, on the other hand, could never have hoped to do this since they weren't shipping anything which already dominated the market, with which to bundle their browser to compete. The EU is saying Google is using their dominance in the search engine market to push their other products in a way that is unfair to their competition.
and no barrier to entry
There's always a barrier to entry - setting up a search engine is going to involve R&D and then a hell of a lot of time and bandwidth to spider the web. However, that isn't what this is about - this isn't about Google doing anything to stop people competing in the search engine business, this is about using their existing search engine position to make it harder for people to compete in other sectors.
and they give the "product" away for free, so it would hard to claim any monopoly pricing power is even being used or existing.
No one said anything about pricing. It isn't relevant to this discussion.
So, all in all, it looks like either a blatant cash grab by the EU, or a bullshit legal attack funded by the likes of Microsoft.
Or the EU is trying to level the playing field for the smaller businesses. Whilst having everything run by a single megacorp is convenient, historically it has always been better for the consumer in the long run to have many smaller businesses offering services. The EU usually takes the attitude that a bit of short term pain (inconveniencing people by preventing the "convenient" integration of services from a single vendor) is better than the long term pain of having a single megacorp in control of huge markets and no chance for a smaller business to survive.
Use the XMPP Jingle extension supported by Asterisk and Freeswitch amongst many others
How well do Asterisk and an IM server integrate together for that? i.e. If I run Asterisk for SIP telephony (calls to sip:foo@example.com go there) and ejabberd for XMPP IM (IMs to xmpp:foo@example.com go there), can I sensibly make instant messages for xmpp:foo@example.com still go to ejabberd and phone calls for xmpp:foo@example.com go to Asterisk (and therefore integrate with the existing phone system)?
Do you have an intuitive sense of how far 150m is?
Yes. I would expect most people who have used metric all their lives to have that...
so you have to remember five thousand and some odd feet in a mile.
And I get so wound up by Google Navigation which tells me to do things like "turn left in 500 feet" - I have literally *no clue* what 500 feet looks like and there is no "switch to metric" setting (as far as I know it uses whatever units Google think are "standard" in whatever locality you start your journey from, and unfortunately Google seems to think everyone in the UK wants to use imperial...)
Switching from driving on the left to the right could be a tad harder though...
The trick is to do it progressively. First start by having the trucks drive on the right for a few weeks... :)
The metric pint (the size of a typical bottle of ale) is 550ml, which is slightly less than the 568ml of a real pint, but quite a bit more than a US pint (473ml). I can't easily tell the difference between it and a proper pint, but the difference between a real pint and a US pint is quite noticeable.
I've never seen a 550ml bottle of ale - most are 500ml...