European Parliament votes to split Google search from its other businesses
-
It makes me think back to the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuits. I don't understand how a company wouldn't return its own search results, but I can see why the argument is being made. I think in the case of Google, there are such a diverse number of products being made there, it's hard for them not to become so inextricably linked that such a situation would occur.
You have been warned.Source: http://mashable.com/2014/11/27/european-parliament-google-search/
-
I can understand the Micro$oft case, but the Google case makes little sense.
Google doesn't require you to use any of it's services. If you decide to use just a single service, so be it. So it's not an antitrust (monopoly) case in the sense the Micro$oft case was.
A majority of Europeans decide that Google is the search engine of choice, so the company, as a whole, has to be broken up. It shows that being successful is bad for business, if you do it in the EU.
No one is forced to use Google, there are plenty of other options. This situation is the polar opposite of the Ma Bell break up of the late 1970s.
It's like saying Coca Cola has to be broken up because it's more popular than Dr Pepper.
-
The Ma Bell break up would be exactly what I would liken it to. The internet is a utility. Everyone knows it. It's only a matter of time before it is treated as such.
-
True, the internet is a utility.
However, unlike the Ma Bell breakup, you have plenty of choice in services/companies to use.
With the Ma Bell case, you have no choice, it was Ma Bell or nothing. You can use one of many search engines, you aren't limited to only Google.
As far as I know, there isn't a single part of Google's business that you have no other choices.
Oddly, many things in the EU are monopolies, especially utilities and they do nothing about that. In the UK, while there are many water companies, you have zero choice because only 1 company serves your area.
