3 ms·

> I wonder if, when a company crosses a threshold we all think violates a Nash equilibrium, we start to oppose the company. Do you mean "we, the people" or "we

> I wonder if, when a company crosses a threshold we all think violates a Nash equilibrium, we start to oppose the company. Do you mean "we, the people" or "we, the people who think in terms of Nash equilibria"? ;) More seriously: I don't think I care about how big the company is. Rather, I care about the quality of the product, and whether I am free to leave it for a competitor's product. Google is actually trying to make it easy for you to leave if you choose to, and take your data with you - they're even inviting you to report their failures in that regard at www.dataliberation.org - so that's quite good. If they don't make it easy for me to interact with Facebookers/Twitterers/whateverers, I'll end up visiting Facebook/Twitter/whatever instead, and vice versa - what's wrong with that? I'm not an economist, but this sounds like a healthy competitive landscape to me?

MikeCapone 17y ago
Indeed. There are small companies that are horribly restrictive with their products/services, a lot more than some big companies. It's about quality, not size.
sketerpot 17y ago
> Do you mean "we, the people" or "we, the people who think in terms of Nash equilibria"? ;) The latter, of course. WE ARE A NEW PEOPLE! WE WILL PREVAIL! More seriously, I don't care about how big the company is either, as such -- but I do worry about a company that gets so big and so diversified that it may become anticompetitive and stifle innovation. Remember when Microsoft had the power to hold back innovation, and we were stuck with IE6 for years and years? Didn't that just suck? Google is being a lot better about this, mind you. They seem to genuinely care about interoperability and making it possible for competitors to beat them by being better. And they've got good products and smart people and a non-broken management structure. I feel good about Google. Nevertheless, a Google-dominated web is something to worry about. I hope that there are always viable alternatives. Not because I think Google is evil and corrupt, but because I worry that they could become so.
- andreyf 17y ago
  Seriously, what does this have to do with Nash equilibria, and how is Google "violating" one?

MikeCapone 17y ago

Indeed. There are small companies that are horribly restrictive with their products/services, a lot more than some big companies. It's about quality, not size.

sketerpot 17y ago

> Do you mean "we, the people" or "we, the people who think in terms of Nash equilibria"? ;) The latter, of course. WE ARE A NEW PEOPLE! WE WILL PREVAIL! More seriously, I don't care about how big the company is either, as such -- but I do worry about a company that gets so big and so diversified that it may become anticompetitive and stifle innovation. Remember when Microsoft had the power to hold back innovation, and we were stuck with IE6 for years and years? Didn't that just suck? Google is being a lot better about this, mind you. They seem to genuinely care about interoperability and making it possible for competitors to beat them by being better. And they've got good products and smart people and a non-broken management structure. I feel good about Google. Nevertheless, a Google-dominated web is something to worry about. I hope that there are always viable alternatives. Not because I think Google is evil and corrupt, but because I worry that they could become so.

andreyf 17y ago
Seriously, what does this have to do with Nash equilibria, and how is Google "violating" one?