3 ms·

Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure nobody saw Larry and Sergey coming either. Just because you don't see how it can be done, doesn't mean it can't be. But either way,

by eloff 11y ago

Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure nobody saw Larry and Sergey coming either. Just because you don't see how it can be done, doesn't mean it can't be. But either way, that's not causing Google to break any anti-trust laws. They don't have to make it easy for competitors, just not unfairly use their power to stomp on them. One could even make the argument that the reason Google has done such a good job at search over the years is because Larry and Sergey are very afraid of being disrupted by another Larry and Sergey. They have to stay on their toes and they know it.

vertex-four 11y ago
> But either way, that's not causing Google to break any anti-trust laws. Sure, I'll agree that they're not breaking any laws.
bahmboo 11y ago
I worked in search in late 98. When our team saw the first google search page results we talked for an hour and we all agreed that our company should purchase them for $10 million. We talked some more and decided $100 million would still be cheap and would absolutely seal the deal (who knows?). But not invented here prevailed of course. It's better it went the way it did.
JackFr 11y ago
If you consider that the product is not search, but rather eyeballs for advertisers (for which they give away the search for free), Facebook has already disrupted the heck out of them.
- TulliusCicero 11y ago
  From a consumer perspective, the product is search. If tomorrow, Safeway stopped charging money for groceries and instead had extremely intrusive ads all throughout its stores, their product would still be groceries.
  - steego 11y ago
    > If tomorrow, Safeway stopped charging money for groceries and instead had extremely intrusive ads all throughout its stores, their product would still be groceries. From an accounting perspective, their products would be ads. The groceries would be a cost of good to sell their actual product, ads. This is how 99% of the business world works. > From a consumer perspective, the product is search. I'm sure cows think the product is grass/hay/corn from a "consumer perspective", but cows are beautiful dumb inventory with kind eyes.

by eloff 11y ago

vertex-four 11y ago

> But either way, that's not causing Google to break any anti-trust laws. Sure, I'll agree that they're not breaking any laws.

bahmboo 11y ago

I worked in search in late 98. When our team saw the first google search page results we talked for an hour and we all agreed that our company should purchase them for $10 million. We talked some more and decided $100 million would still be cheap and would absolutely seal the deal (who knows?). But not invented here prevailed of course. It's better it went the way it did.

JackFr 11y ago

If you consider that the product is not search, but rather eyeballs for advertisers (for which they give away the search for free), Facebook has already disrupted the heck out of them.

TulliusCicero 11y ago
From a consumer perspective, the product is search. If tomorrow, Safeway stopped charging money for groceries and instead had extremely intrusive ads all throughout its stores, their product would still be groceries.
- steego 11y ago
  > If tomorrow, Safeway stopped charging money for groceries and instead had extremely intrusive ads all throughout its stores, their product would still be groceries. From an accounting perspective, their products would be ads. The groceries would be a cost of good to sell their actual product, ads. This is how 99% of the business world works. > From a consumer perspective, the product is search. I'm sure cows think the product is grass/hay/corn from a "consumer perspective", but cows are beautiful dumb inventory with kind eyes.