I have always been impressed by the striking parallels between historical events. Today's history lesson involves the East India Company and Google. The US government's current stance on breaking up Google can be seen as part of a broader effort to regulate and control the power of large tech companies. This is driven by concerns over monopolistic practices, data privacy issues, and these companies' influence on various aspects of society and the economy. The US government and Governments worldwide are concerned with ensuring fair competition and protecting consumers from potential abuses of power by these tech giants. The UK government had issues with the East India Company (possibly the world's 2nd richest company). The Dutch East India Company was worth the equivalent of $7.6TN, making it a contender for the richest ever). During the 18th and 19th centuries, the EIC was viewed as having too much power and being monopolistic. In addition, it had a standing army of 250,000 soldiers rivalling and surpassing many states. The East India Company was granted a royal charter by Queen Elizabeth I in 1600, which gave it a monopoly on trade between England and the East Indies. Over time, the company grew economically and politically powerful, effectively ruling large parts of India. The British government initially supported the company's activities, as they brought significant wealth and resources to Britain. However, as the company's power grew, so did concerns over its governance and the impact of its actions on both British and Indian societies. We miss a more sinister truth when we talk about the British conquering India. It was not the British government that seized India but a dangerously unregulated private company headquartered in London. It was managed in India by an unstable sociopath—Clive (Clive of India), who could be seen as Elon Musk's role model. By the mid-19th century, the British government had had enough and decided to privatise the company. The Government of India Act of 1858 dissolved the East India Company and transferred its powers and territories to the British Crown. I asked Microsoft's Copilot to assist with this post and comment on the parallels. According to Microsoft Copilot, the contexts and motivations differ. The US government's actions towards Google and the UK government's treatment of the East India Company involve regulating powerful entities. The US is focused on maintaining fair competition and protecting consumer rights in the digital age. In contrast, the UK's actions were driven by the need to address governance issues and retain control over its colonial territories. Hmm, I wouldn't be so certain about that MS Copilot! https://lnkd.in/eXmSHhnt #googlebreakup #history
Gary Johnston’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
Introduction by Croakey: The power of Big Tech companies like Google/Alphabet and Meta is a critical determinant of health and exerted in many ways, some of which are obvious and others that are not. An important federal court judgement in the United States recently found Google/Alphabet had breached antitrust legislation in two areas of operations: general search services and general text advertising. The judgement mentions “power” 141 times, mostly in relation to monopoly power, “the power to control prices or exclude competition”. It also examines the “power of default”; for example, how Google pays vast sums (more than $US 26 billion in 2021) to browser developers, mobile device manufacturers and wireless carriers to ensure the Google search engine is installed as the default option and that no other search engines are loaded. The implications of these arrangements probably are not widely understood or appreciated by general community, much less how they shape access to information, advertising and news, and thus influence the health of people and planet. Below, Dr Aimee Brownbill and Lauren Hayden, encourage Croakey readers to engage with current policy opportunities to address the power of Big Tech.
Investigating the power of Big Tech: from a landmark judgement to changing research paradigms
https://www.croakey.org
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Big Tech's dominance continues to stifle innovation. As I highlight in this @MSNBC op-ed with Ketan Ahuja, the DOJ’s antitrust case against Google isn’t just about a browser monopoly—it’s about reclaiming a digital economy that serves us all. The Justice Department proposed remedies--including forcing Google to sell its Chrome web browser--are a great start. But to fully restore innovation in search, Chrome and other internet browsers need a business model that lets them serve the needs of their users, rather than serve their corporate backers. Check out the whole piece: https://lnkd.in/eAnBtT_u
Opinion | We’re still at the beginning of the end of Google’s monopoly
msnbc.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
In order to comply with the Digital Markets Act, Google must present its users with a "choice screen" for them to decide on default #services, such as internet browsers or #searchengines. Google insists it wants to comply with the rules and that it believes in giving users “choice and control” and in competing “on the merits”. 😉 The rules dictate how the largest, systemic companies (defined as “gatekeepers”) must compete in the EU’s market. 😎 They are being closely watched around the world as a test of whether the #tech giants that have dominated the economies of the early 21st century can be successfully regulated. This week brings a pivotal moment. The six gatekeepers — Alphabet Inc., Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft — were given until March 7 to show they are obeying the rules. But even if they can, there is little evidence yet to suggest that the law is having the desired effect. 🙄 Industry groups representing travel apps such as Airbnb and Booking.com, and entertainment apps like Spotify and Deezer, complain the tech companies are focused on the letter of the #law rather than the spirit of it, and it is having no meaningful impact on their businesses. #technology #innovation #markets #tech #marketing #management #strategy #digitalmarketing #socialmedia #europe #europeanunion #law #digital #growth #competition #future #searchengine #business
Will Big Tech agree to play by Europe’s rules?
ft.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Tech giants face deadline to comply with EU's Digital Markets Act "The EU’s new competition rules are going live — here’s how tech giants are responding" March 6th is the deadline for tech companies like Alphabet Inc., Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft to comply with the European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA). The DMA requires these companies to allow more interoperability and avoid favoring their services. The EU has designated these companies as "gatekeepers" and they must submit compliance reports to the EU by March 7th. The DMA rules aim to make digital markets fairer and more open by requiring gatekeepers to allow third-party interoperability and avoid preferencing their products. Failure to comply can result in fines of up to 10% of global revenue. Each gatekeeper has made changes in response to the DMA, such as Google's choice screens and more links to competing sites, Apple's opening up of its ecosystem to third-party app stores and browsers, Meta's plans for third-party cross-platform messaging, Amazon's changes in data collection and advertising, and Microsoft's options to disable built-in apps and allow third-party feeds. ByteDance is the only non-US company designated as a gatekeeper and has made changes to comply with the DMA for its social network TikTok. https://lnkd.in/ddzunGFf Platform: The Verge #socialmediaplatforms #socialmedia #techpolicy #digitalmarketsact #datacollection #data #compliance #techgiants #europeanunion #technews #regulations #governmentregulations
The EU’s new competition rules are going live — here’s how tech giants are responding
theverge.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
In a new piece for MSNBC, Director of Corporate Power Niko Lusiani and Ketan Ahuja, a fellow at The Growth Lab at Harvard Kennedy School, argue that the DOJ’s proposed remedy for Google to sell off its Chrome Browser is a good first step, but not nearly enough to combat monopoly power. "Forward-looking pro-public tech innovation requires more than a slap on the wrist. It requires leveraging this opportunity to create a digital ecosystem that actually fosters innovation and protects public interests. This is a role that antitrust enforcement has often played, as in previous actions around AT&T and Microsoft." Learn more about how we can reclaim a digital economy that serves us all. ⤵️ https://lnkd.in/eKck6H3h
Opinion | We're still at the beginning of the end of Google's monopoly
msnbc.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
This long read on the antitrust action against Google made me wonder if the tech landscape is losing its innovative edge in the areas dominated by tech giants. The recent antitrust cases against Google underscores a worrying trend in the digital space. When dominant players leverage their influence to stifle competition, the whole ecosystem suffers. We all love the innovation the US free-market model has given us. But here's the thing: True innovation depends on a diversity of voices, approaches... and a fair playing field. Google's alleged practices (bundling defaults, limited search visibility, etc.) raise serious concerns about whether that's happening anymore. And it's the same for many other big tech companies. The risk? We get stuck in a cycle of less groundbreaking ideas, and smaller players struggle to compete for space. That's bad for everyone in the long run. Europe's approach has been more focused on regulations protecting competition. There's a risk of overdoing it, but could the US learn something here? Maybe it's about striking a balance: Encouraging innovation while actively preventing the kind of market control that leads to stagnation. Thoughts? Where do you stand on this free-market vs. regulation debate? https://lnkd.in/exFvUpPe
Antitrust Action Against Google May Transform the Internet
newlinesmag.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
US federal judge ruled that Google acted illegally to maintain its monopoly over online search. This is a big news for every internet user, here is why https://lnkd.in/dXNwg2QT Google search is the dominant online search engine with an estimated 90% of market shares. While this dominance can be explained by the quality of Google search (it "just works"), that's not the whole story... For years Google has paid billions of dollars to other companies such as Apple and Samsung to be set as the default search engine. So if you buy a new phone, chances are Google search will be the first thing you see opening a browser This is problematic for 2 reasons: 1/ it prevents competitors from capturing new market shares 🔒. If you've always been presented with Google search in a browser, you might not even realise there are other search engines like DuckDuckGo, Bing or Kagi. This becomes even more of a problem as search results are in part informed by users' behaviour. If a link is repeatedly clicked for a particular query, it should rank better. Less users means less data to improve your product 📉 2/ Google's empire is built on ads, including the ones that appear in Google search. By monopolising the online search market, they also control the distribution of ads on this market This has allowed Google to raise ad prices beyond reasonable rates in order to create greater profit - typical monopolistic behaviour 👹💰 In the end, it's users that pay the final price. Weak competition means less opportunities for better products and more chances of abusive practices such as lowering the bar for privacy protections. No remedy has been proposed yet, and Google intends to appeal the ruling. But this is a strongdecision that gives us hope that this behaviour is unacceptable Big tech companies have acquired too much power in online markets, at the expense of our privacy. Read more on our website: https://lnkd.in/eGQ8g6pN
‘Google Is a Monopolist,’ Judge Rules in Landmark Antitrust Case
https://www.nytimes.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
No one knows how the recent antitrust ruling against Google will affect the search engine market. But one thing's for sure: this antitrust process, whatever the final result, will open up some space for new and innovative companies. Google itself benefited from the antitrust action against Microsoft, which began in the late 90's. Though Microsoft ultimately settled to avoid being broken up, the company culture changed significantly as a result of the legal scrutiny of its aggressive monopolistic practices. As Microsoft was less willing to use its market dominance of Windows on the desktop to "encourage" hapless users to "chose" its abysmal Internet Explorer browser, some space opened up for a slew of innovative internet startups, including a scrappy search engine called Google. Other companies founded in the wake of the Google antitrust case include: Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, LinkedIn and Dropbox, all founded between 2003 - 2007. Google itself was founded in 1998, the year the feds opened their case against Microsoft. We're in the middle of a similar seismic shift, as the traditional search engine, defined by Google over a quarter century ago, now face new competition from AI, especially LLMs, and antitrust scrutiny from the US and EU. Although history doesn't repeat itself, it often rhymes. We're living through a major shift in how we use the internet, and some of the most important companies that will create this new internet are either tiny startups right now, or haven't even gotten started yet.
Google illegally maintains monopoly over internet search, judge rules
apnews.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
1. Why pursue competitive benefits at great risk that may be coming anyway because of Google’s own delay/inaction on AI and eagerness to monetise (https://lnkd.in/eKdtKmcE) at the expense of user experience. 2. If Google are having to pay for the use of distribution channels, then where is the control? Of the FANGAMs, there is none that is in less control of its distribution - Meta, Microsoft, Netflix, Apple, Amazon products are primary destinations that depend much less on channels. Google's only strength is in their product and user experience (for now). Many of the top originators for Google traffic would gladly serve their search users with their own search if they could. They don’t have equal capability to search, distribute and monetize (yet). This type of rumour keeps surfacing every year or so - https://lnkd.in/e8FpqqRb 3. The correct goal is to promote the creation of credible alternatives OR to impose common carrier (search neutrality + ad revenue redirected?) requirements if search is judged to be a utility. Google itself is doing a great job of the former by preventing its best from releasing their work, making them wealthy enough to take risks, and thus passively encouraging them to exit to create competitors and further providing a soft landing if their startups don’t work out. https://lnkd.in/eXg57P42 Deeming search a utility is a big intervention in a huge market to be taken up with great care. It will also have the effect of deflecting research dollars currently being invested in search by potential competitors. 4. Google is the company that could acquire DeepMind and Hinton’s group in 2013-2015 and support them through long periods of internal doubt https://lnkd.in/ehe37vTm. Is there any other credible BellLabs type entity that funds futuristic endeavours that are unlikely to be profitable till even 15 years later (OpenAI expects to lose 44 billion till 2029 before turning profitable https://lnkd.in/e27bhaZY) 5. China, meanwhile, feels private sector entities are too small and too focused on short-term profit to harness what they call “new quality productive forces” (deeptech, science and AI) https://lnkd.in/e3DQy3wb . It is pushing for progress on these fronts with the entire might of the state and SOEs coordinating capital allocation under a “new national system” https://lnkd.in/ehFykxiN Found this article later - https://lnkd.in/eZrGJsii https://lnkd.in/e8bEDvJ2
Google faces US government attempt to break it up
theguardian.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
23/24 Tax Returns for Self-employed. Book a call now
2moInteresting, EIC had so much influence yet so many have never heard of it now