Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda
'Google has been called a “predator” and “monopoly giant” by a Labour MP, complaining the internet heavyweight was ruining the chances for British companies to get ahead.'
'Graham Jones, MP for Hyndburn, secured a debate on UK search engines in the House of Commons this week and used the opportunity to document all his concerns surrounding the US company.'
'However, Ed Vaizey, the Government’s communications minister, said: “It is open to the consumer to choose the product that best suits them, but it is also open to individual companies to partner with whichever companies they choose.”
“Consumers want a service that offers good performance and enables them to find what they want quickly and easily. Google has entered a market and gained market share by giving consumers what they want.”
MP slams Google for anti-competitive practices | IT PRO
I'm suprisingly with Ed Vaizey on this one.
We live in a free market economy.
If a company are providing a service that people want to use, you can't really do a lot about it.
Unless of course you limit free enterprise, and we are to have old style eastern European state run bodies. Limiting peoples' choice to one option, with no competition.
Google are the most successful company, providing people with what they want.
This will continue until this is no longer the case. |
No one else wants to disagree with you; so, I might as well.
People who have responded to this thread have, in the main, stated that Google is a good product. There is no doubt about that. However, I don't think that this is the issue. It is more of a question of trans global, or multi-national corporations (call 'em what you like; we all know what they are) cornering a market to the detriment of smaller, national companies, and those national economies. And it is these mega corporations, not national governments, who are limiting free enterprise. Other companies, Walmart is a prime example, also do this. Limiting free enterprise in certain sections of the economy quite reasonbaly falls within the role of national governments. And they can play this role without having to resort to the kind of state capitalism that was the downfall of the Soviet Union. In Canada, fairly recently (I could google it to find out exactly when, but I'm feeling lazy
) an Australian mining company made a $40 billion bid for Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which out numbers the govt., supported by tories in Saskatchewan and Alberta called upon the government to block the sale. In effect, to put the value of a Canadian resource before free enterprise. Under pressure, the government did block the sale, putting purely national interests first. By the way, if anyone doesn't know what potash is, ask a farmer.
Another point is that relating to the erosion of national economies by eliminating jobs. Many on here complain about how well-paid jobs are disappearing from the UK. Surprise, surprise. Of course they are. Industrial giants are moving their operations overseas to take advantage of low wages, horrendous working conditions, and no-questions-asked governments. You might like to wear Nike, but you don't want to hear about the conditions the workers have to put up with. It is the loss of these jobs that was the root cause of the collapse of the US economy, and quite possibly your own. The banks fueled the economy with NINJA loans which gave the impression of a strong consumer economy without the substance.
I think Mr. Jones has it right ... but I believe that his focus on google is a little too narrow.