Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 5th Jan 2013 14:53 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y And so this situation is starting to get ridiculous - and consumers are, as usual, caught in the middle of it all. Google has just blocked Windows Phone devices from accessing Google Maps on their phones. In addition, it also seems Windows Phone users are now restricted to the basic HTML version of the mobile GMail website. While understandable from a defensive perspective - Microsoft's extortion scheme targeting Android device makers and all that - it's still a massive dick move that only hurts consumers. Update: the media attention has worked - Google is backpedalling, and will remove the redirect. "We periodically test Google Maps compatibility with mobile browsers to make sure we deliver the best experience for those users. In our last test, IE mobile still did not offer a good maps experience with no ability to pan or zoom and perform basic map functionality. As a result, we chose to continue to redirect IE mobile users to Google.com where they could at least make local searches. The Firefox mobile browser did offer a somewhat better user experience and that’s why there is no redirect for those users. Recent improvements to IE mobile and Google Maps now deliver a better experience and we are currently working to remove the redirect. We will continue to test Google Maps compatibility with other mobile browsers to ensure the best possible experience for users."
Thread beginning with comment 547661
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Stupid Google
by JAlexoid on Mon 7th Jan 2013 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Stupid Google"
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

I gave you the definition of what is anti-competitive and you chose to interpret that as a pass for Google? (You seem to think that any action that harms your competitor in any way is anti-competitive, which is not true)

Microsoft was never condemned for pulling IE from Mac, even though IE had the dominant position as the browser. You know why? Because removing yourself from a market segment is not anti-competitive.

The fact that Apple could write an app that is in direct competition to Google's app only reinforces the claim that Google has done nothing to restrict competition in that market. Therefore is not anti-competitive by definition.

Edited 2013-01-07 14:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Stupid Google
by Slambert666 on Tue 8th Jan 2013 09:34 in reply to "RE[5]: Stupid Google"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

I gave you the definition of what is anti-competitive and you chose to interpret that as a pass for Google? (You seem to think that any action that harms your competitor in any way is anti-competitive, which is not true)

Microsoft was never condemned for pulling IE from Mac, even though IE had the dominant position as the browser. You know why? Because removing yourself from a market segment is not anti-competitive.

The fact that Apple could write an app that is in direct competition to Google's app only reinforces the claim that Google has done nothing to restrict competition in that market. Therefore is not anti-competitive by definition.


You obviously has no real knowledge about competition law yet you feel compelled to express views and opinions as if you do... I just do not understand that attitude.
For the record: Googles actions in this case are highly anti competitive, and illegal (besides immoral). That's why it only took them a day to "fix the problem".. Obviously cheaper than paying a $Billion$ fine.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Stupid Google
by JAlexoid on Thu 10th Jan 2013 12:19 in reply to "RE[6]: Stupid Google"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You obviously has no real knowledge about competition law yet you feel compelled to express views and opinions as if you do... I just do not understand that attitude.

Maybe because I have enough to form an opinion and these views are not only my own?

For the record: Googles actions in this case are highly anti competitive, and illegal (besides immoral).

I'd like to see an actual reasoning behind the whole "You're wrong" comment.

That's why it only took them a day to "fix the problem".. Obviously cheaper than paying a $Billion$ fine.

Is that your only proof? I mean, you could link to the appropriate legal document that explains it(like proper scholars do). Not just cite circumstances.

My reference is:
Communication from the Commission — Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings (2009/C 45/02) <- The whole document explains what and how.

THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Art 102

Reply Parent Score: 2