Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... (Score 1) 95

by Macthorpe (#47860459) Attached to: European Commission Reopens Google Antitrust Investigation

Maps was an example rather than the only definitive place that it happens. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I don't have a strong opinion on SEO either way, but it's clear that companies believe it helps and are willing to invest in it, where Google doesn't need to as they control the results and the algorithm. Regardless if SEO was paid for or not, I can see why companies wouldn't consider the current situation ideal.

Comment: Re:Again? (Score 3, Interesting) 95

by Macthorpe (#47860349) Attached to: European Commission Reopens Google Antitrust Investigation

The trouble is in this instance, is that the people who have the decision making power (you, in this instance) aren't the same as the people who are being abused (the provider of the thing you're searching for). To say that it's okay because you have the power to change what you do, doesn't change the fact that you won't change because you're not the one being screwed.

Comment: Re:Because it sucks when you can't compete..... (Score 2) 95

by Macthorpe (#47860345) Attached to: European Commission Reopens Google Antitrust Investigation

I don't really understand - it's googles product (phones, search, etc) why can't they do what they like with it? I'm sure people would go elsewhere if other products were any good?

Because it doesn't affect the person searching if Google's results don't show correctly the most popular results, it affects the company being pushed down the rankings - and the person searching is the person with decision-making power.

- Person A searches for "maps", either on the site, on the phone or on Chrome.
- Google promotes their own maps to the top regardless of whether they're the best choice, ahead of company B's solution, whether that solution is better or not.
- Person A sees that Google Maps is top and assumes they're better than company B, as you would when looking at a link in the #1 spot.

Company B's previous recourse was basically, to live with it - Google have control over the entire stack, top to bottom. Companies can't go elsewhere because Google index them, not the other way around, and Google keep how they calculate popularity hidden, so SEO for them is a combination of guesswork and research (costs which Google don't have to pay, incidentally). It's therefore up to the searchers to go elsewhere to get search results, but because Google are trusted to provide the correct answers, why would people do that? It's not the user's fault that Google dishonestly reports their results as the best even if others are better, it's Google's.

Anyway, in Europe it's against the law for Google to act in that way considering their position as provider of 66% of searches, so it was challenged. Google's solution in response to that legal action was to allow companies to pay Google to be promoted to top spot, but companies (naturally) thought that it was unfair that they would have to pay for equal consideration when Google do it to themselves for free. Now they have to come up with another idea.

Comment: Re:Irrelevent (Score 1) 232

"Myopic geeks"? I can't help thinking I've been trolled.

Anyway, I read the blog post, as the AusGamers article was slashdotted before I got there. It mentioned nothing about what Facebook can bring to the Oculus Rift other than "resources". They also talk about long-term commitment, though I guess you would have to ask Zynga on how Facebook have delivered on their commitment to a stable gaming platform previously.

Comment: Re:Irrelevent (Score 1) 232

Though it's plain you didn't read the blog post he wrote (he actually states specifically that VR is ideal for social, he just doesn't trust Facebook to push the platform for games development given their history of arbitrarily changing the playing field), I was using Notch as an example. Try having a browse around, and see if you can find a game developer who is genuinely excited about Facebook's involvement.

Comment: Re:Future regulation (Score 3, Insightful) 396

No it's not. Only an idiot actually believes that. In order to be a real currency, you kinda have to have a lot of people use it to directly buy and sell things.

You can already buy and sell things with Bitcoin. Example: Bitlasers. So where is the line? How many items have to be sold before it becomes a currency? The logical answer would probably be "one".

Comment: Re:Not about apple (Score 1) 327

This article is about google and amazon in the UK. In an attempt at link baiting, there is a single line about apple in the US in the article so they would write Apple in the headline for clicks.

And slashdot fell for it - and so did I.

Actually the summary refers to the fact that Apple do this too.

Just because it's not specifically mentioned in the linked article, doesn't mean it's not happening.

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors