7 ms·

>while contributing nothing themselves They contribute a service, in this case a search engine that's miles ahead of its closest competitor, Bing. They don't "

>while contributing nothing themselves They contribute a service, in this case a search engine that's miles ahead of its closest competitor, Bing. They don't "take" anything, they offer something that you're free not to use. Unlike nation states, which are happy to take whatever they want (claiming they're owed it for providing you things you may never have asked for, which are paid for by other people potentially against their will, and for which you're probably not allowed to solicit alternative providers) and your only option if you don't like it is to emigrate. Google doesn't throw black people in prison for recreational drug use, Google doesn't prevent people from marrying who they want, Google doesn't send people to die fighting pointless wars in the middle east, or drone bomb weddings. >but if I have to pay company tax, why don't they If you're uncomfortable with how much taxes you pay, then blame whoever's taxing you, not Google.

cscurmudgeon 10y ago
Except Google was heavily dependent on funding from various branches of the USG in its early stages. Search for it. > case a search engine that's miles ahead of its closest competitor, Bing Thats debatable. Any blind studies?
- logicchains 10y ago
  >Except Google was heavily dependent on funding from various branches of the USG in its early stages. Search for it. But that funding could have came from anywhere. Just because the government funded something, doesn't mean that the thing would never be funded if the government didn't fund it. >Thats debatable. Any blind studies? Entirely anecdotal, but I've never met anyone who tried Bing and didn't switch back to Google after finding it flounders with more complex searches. I'm not sure how one'd go about designing such a study, to avoid favouring one search engine by inadvertently testing queries it's more suited to (or picking people who make queries more suited to one than the other). Or how quality of results would be measured. One somewhat empirical measure: Google has a much larger market share.
  - cscurmudgeon 10y ago
    By the same logic Bing, Yahoo and DuckDuckGo (much better for technical searches) could provide Google's services if they disappeared from the face of the earth. The USG was wise enough to fund them when they were extremely risky.
    - logicchains 10y ago
      What I meant was Google's founders could still have founded it without government money, it would just have taken them longer to obtain the funding. Money isn't enough to make a search engine; Baidu for instance has the Chinese government behind it but still produces worse results even for Chinese language searches than Google. Bing's had quite a lot of funding from Microsoft put into it.
      - byroot 10y ago
        Even besides that early governmental founding. Companies aren't created nor exist in a vacuum. Tax payer's money payed for most of the infrastructures, research and education those companies requires to operate. How can you run a company like Google or any other without educated employees, roads, internet, etc. Entrepreneurs love to think they built themselves alone, but they are just a product of the society they lives in. Now as a society you can choose to either socialize or privatise your infrastructures, but you'll have to pay for them either way.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  Do you need blind studies to know that you like Chocolate? To know that it's raining? Yes, a study could show that Bing's results are x% less useful that Google's, but who would want to keep using Bing long enough to quantify the suck?
  - cscurmudgeon 10y ago
    How scientific of you! :) > but who would want to keep using Bing long enough to quantify the suck? 20% of the market?
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      Even if we believe the 20% figure, what's the chance that they made that choice? Considering Microsoft popularized the dark pattern of changing preferences during auto-updates...
      - cscurmudgeon 10y ago
        Sigh. > Even if we believe the 20% figure, Those are widely accepted. > Considering Microsoft popularized the dark pattern of changing preferences during auto-updates... You think Google never does anything like that? http://hothardware.com/news/google-paid-apple-1-billion-for-default-search-engine-status-in-ios http://hothardware.com/news/google-paid-apple-1-billion-for-... http://www.wired.com/2016/04/eu-accuses-google-antitrust-violations-android/ http://www.wired.com/2016/04/eu-accuses-google-antitrust-vio... > According to the complaint, Google requires companies that want to bundle Google’s apps with their products to make Google Search the default search engine on those devices. They’re even offered financial incentives to not even include any other search engines, European authorities allege. When Google does it, it is all kosher I guess.
        EdHominem 10y ago
        >> the 20% figure, > Those are widely accepted. Almost every time I saw IE, or MSN, and now Bing, I'd been tricked into using it. MS users are rarely voluntary users, I know because I've been one. > When Google does it You're getting pretty defensive. Does that means you admit MS does it and the only defense is that other companies might as well? What's your estimate of people who have tried two or more search or mapping engines and have intentionally settled on the Microsoft product?
cmdkeen 10y ago
Google aren't in France in order to better serve up search results - that can be done from anywhere. Google are in France to sell advertising, they are carrying on a business selling services to French companies. One of the big things in the UK was Google claiming they sold all their adverts from the Republic of Ireland not the UK and thus could pay Irish taxes. This was despite having lots of sales staff at their London office...
- logicchains 10y ago
  >Google aren't in France in order to better serve up search results - that can be done from anywhere. Google are in France to sell advertising, they are carrying on a business selling services to French companies. This doesn't contradict my point that Google are providing service to people (or the businesses people run) in France.
nametakenobv 10y ago
Google makes money in France. Given France's economy size, it's probably billions. They need to pay taxes to the french government for the privilege of doing business there, so the government can sped it on schools and other infrastructure, so the french citizens can be prosperous.
- mike_hearn 10y ago
  The idea that doing business is a "privilege" granted by the state is exactly why France's economy is famously bad, with unemployment double that of the UK.
  - nametakenobv 10y ago
    This idea is in place for every government, everywhere in world, at any point in history.
    - JBReefer 10y ago
      Can you cite that? That's certainly not the opinion of ~50% of Americans
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Which might explain why Americans are driven slave labor with little to no protections and a laughable excuse for social safety net. Just because an opinion is majority, does not make it intelligent, nor right.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - chillacy 10y ago
    Is doing business not a privilege elsewhere? In the US you need to register your business and pay taxes (money from corporations are doubly taxed as well). The only businesses here who don't do that are drug dealing / crime enterprises.

cscurmudgeon 10y ago

Except Google was heavily dependent on funding from various branches of the USG in its early stages. Search for it. > case a search engine that's miles ahead of its closest competitor, Bing Thats debatable. Any blind studies?

logicchains 10y ago
>Except Google was heavily dependent on funding from various branches of the USG in its early stages. Search for it. But that funding could have came from anywhere. Just because the government funded something, doesn't mean that the thing would never be funded if the government didn't fund it. >Thats debatable. Any blind studies? Entirely anecdotal, but I've never met anyone who tried Bing and didn't switch back to Google after finding it flounders with more complex searches. I'm not sure how one'd go about designing such a study, to avoid favouring one search engine by inadvertently testing queries it's more suited to (or picking people who make queries more suited to one than the other). Or how quality of results would be measured. One somewhat empirical measure: Google has a much larger market share.
- cscurmudgeon 10y ago
  By the same logic Bing, Yahoo and DuckDuckGo (much better for technical searches) could provide Google's services if they disappeared from the face of the earth. The USG was wise enough to fund them when they were extremely risky.
  - logicchains 10y ago
    What I meant was Google's founders could still have founded it without government money, it would just have taken them longer to obtain the funding. Money isn't enough to make a search engine; Baidu for instance has the Chinese government behind it but still produces worse results even for Chinese language searches than Google. Bing's had quite a lot of funding from Microsoft put into it.
    - byroot 10y ago
      Even besides that early governmental founding. Companies aren't created nor exist in a vacuum. Tax payer's money payed for most of the infrastructures, research and education those companies requires to operate. How can you run a company like Google or any other without educated employees, roads, internet, etc. Entrepreneurs love to think they built themselves alone, but they are just a product of the society they lives in. Now as a society you can choose to either socialize or privatise your infrastructures, but you'll have to pay for them either way.
EdHominem 10y ago
Do you need blind studies to know that you like Chocolate? To know that it's raining? Yes, a study could show that Bing's results are x% less useful that Google's, but who would want to keep using Bing long enough to quantify the suck?
- cscurmudgeon 10y ago
  How scientific of you! :) > but who would want to keep using Bing long enough to quantify the suck? 20% of the market?
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    Even if we believe the 20% figure, what's the chance that they made that choice? Considering Microsoft popularized the dark pattern of changing preferences during auto-updates...
    - cscurmudgeon 10y ago
      Sigh. > Even if we believe the 20% figure, Those are widely accepted. > Considering Microsoft popularized the dark pattern of changing preferences during auto-updates... You think Google never does anything like that? http://hothardware.com/news/google-paid-apple-1-billion-for-default-search-engine-status-in-ios http://hothardware.com/news/google-paid-apple-1-billion-for-... http://www.wired.com/2016/04/eu-accuses-google-antitrust-violations-android/ http://www.wired.com/2016/04/eu-accuses-google-antitrust-vio... > According to the complaint, Google requires companies that want to bundle Google’s apps with their products to make Google Search the default search engine on those devices. They’re even offered financial incentives to not even include any other search engines, European authorities allege. When Google does it, it is all kosher I guess.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        >> the 20% figure, > Those are widely accepted. Almost every time I saw IE, or MSN, and now Bing, I'd been tricked into using it. MS users are rarely voluntary users, I know because I've been one. > When Google does it You're getting pretty defensive. Does that means you admit MS does it and the only defense is that other companies might as well? What's your estimate of people who have tried two or more search or mapping engines and have intentionally settled on the Microsoft product?

cmdkeen 10y ago

Google aren't in France in order to better serve up search results - that can be done from anywhere. Google are in France to sell advertising, they are carrying on a business selling services to French companies. One of the big things in the UK was Google claiming they sold all their adverts from the Republic of Ireland not the UK and thus could pay Irish taxes. This was despite having lots of sales staff at their London office...

logicchains 10y ago
>Google aren't in France in order to better serve up search results - that can be done from anywhere. Google are in France to sell advertising, they are carrying on a business selling services to French companies. This doesn't contradict my point that Google are providing service to people (or the businesses people run) in France.

nametakenobv 10y ago

Google makes money in France. Given France's economy size, it's probably billions. They need to pay taxes to the french government for the privilege of doing business there, so the government can sped it on schools and other infrastructure, so the french citizens can be prosperous.

mike_hearn 10y ago
The idea that doing business is a "privilege" granted by the state is exactly why France's economy is famously bad, with unemployment double that of the UK.
- nametakenobv 10y ago
  This idea is in place for every government, everywhere in world, at any point in history.
  - JBReefer 10y ago
    Can you cite that? That's certainly not the opinion of ~50% of Americans
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Which might explain why Americans are driven slave labor with little to no protections and a laughable excuse for social safety net. Just because an opinion is majority, does not make it intelligent, nor right.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- chillacy 10y ago
  Is doing business not a privilege elsewhere? In the US you need to register your business and pay taxes (money from corporations are doubly taxed as well). The only businesses here who don't do that are drug dealing / crime enterprises.