▲ | bjt 9 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sincerely asking... help me connect the dots there? Suppose Google is broken up into separate businesses, one for search and one for ads. Is the idea that the search side would have no incentive to show hotel search results on a map? I'm not seeing the connection between the breakup proposal and the features discussed in the post. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | fargle 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
what this is showing is simply more of google abusing their monopoly. making linking to maps from search harder and inconvenient for users does not help the users, nor smaller independent companies, nor really anybody at all. but that's because even with complying with the law, google is purposefully using its monopoly to make compliance as annoying and unhelpful as possible. what should be happening is that the provider of the maps app is nothing to do with google search and then if your favorite map provider can plug-in to the search results in a seamless way it wouldn't be an anti-trust issue at all. it would benefit all parties. instead google opts to, and who can expect different, maximize the annoyance to their already captive users and minimize their negative business impact (e.g. sending anyone to somebody else's map app). but they certainly aren't going to voluntarily break themselves up because some regulation that can be implemented in a way that's annoying to their users. who still have no viable other options, btw. the root cause of the annoyances the users are now facing is both caused by googles monopolistic behavior in the first place and then them weaponizing their own captive users to push back on any regulations trying to stem it. a significant contributing factor is regulations like these are do more harm than good. the right answer for abusive monopolies is to 1) don't let them form and 2) break them up when they do. chicken-shit regulation like this will only have the predictable result - avoidance, annoyance, no-real-change. and, as you alude, simply make everything worse for everyone. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | foobarian 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Presumably the affiliate links (including hotel booking links) would not be there to create a perverse incentive. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | bbqfog 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No the idea would be that the search would lose its ability to be a monopoly because Chrome + Search + Maps + Android... would stop artificially propping it up in the market. There would be many search engines and the ability for one to drastically impact other industries with UI changes would go away. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|