5 ms·

Did the invention of printing press made them a monopoly? Google does not generate information; they facilitate it. The more the information is free, the more

Did the invention of printing press made them a monopoly? Google does not generate information; they facilitate it. The more the information is free, the more it will be converted to knowledge by these same schools and students. Your comparison of it to your values of buying things for yourself, is misleading.

toyg 9y ago
If Guthenberg had invented the printing press in the current legislative framework, he would have enjoyed a monopoly for decades.
- webwanderings 9y ago
  Thank you. That's exactly my point.
danblick 9y ago
I'm glad you're questioning that assertion, but I don't think your counter-argument is very convincing. The economics of the printing press were different than the economics facing Google. For example: Google search benefits from network effects (clicks are used to improve future search results). Google mostly provides information goods (zero marginal cost of production), but books aren't really a perfect information good. Google is darn near close to a monopoly on search (at least, Peter Thiel made that the premise of Zero to One), which isn't to say they're also a monopolist in every other field they're in.
- jorvi 9y ago
  They're a semi-monopoly (~80%) in the following markets: mail, search, online advertisements, browser, smartphones, mapping, layer data (it's $AMOUNT busy at place X right now) I like Google since they're one of the few companies that has a 20+ year record of being careful with user data, but how much they control (or at least facilitate) is pretty scary from an objective viewpoint.
- webwanderings 9y ago
  I don't know what your definition of "perfect information good" really is, but books have been converting information into knowledge for hundreds of years. Before the printing press, scribes used to hand-duplicate. The invention of printing press effectively changed the whole scene (just as the searching on the Internet changed Internet). Irrespective of the concerns of privacy etc, Google provides the best sauce of technology which facilitates searching the information (which converts to knowledge). As far as I can see, Google isn't in the business of creating knowledge.
  - danblick 9y ago
    The term "information good" is from economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_good An information good is one for which it's very cheap to produce additional units. Unfortunately, I'm probably abusing the term, since books are listed as an example of information goods. The idea is that most of the cost of producing the book goes into the content (writing, editing, etc.) and actually printing one additional book is cheap. (When I said books are "imperfect" information goods I meant that they still require paper and shipping and retailing and such, but it's probably just a bad use of the term.) There's a fantastic book about the economics of information goods called "Information Rules" ( https://www.amazon.com/dp/087584863X https://www.amazon.com/dp/087584863X ). Software is an information good so this covers some topics relevant to the digital economy. My favorite part is the chapter on lock-in. In particular the discussion around the equation: profits from a customer = quality advantage + switching costs which puts "(marginal) goodness of your product" on equal footing with "pain you can inflict on your customer for leaving".
    - webwanderings 9y ago
      The original topic was not on the topic of economics, rather, the monopolies any invention creates. The economics of things have existed alongside everything else in human history. The point was whether Google is a monopoly in the context of information. My contention was to identify the fact that Google only facilitates the information (like what printing press did to the information people were keeping orally, or through scribes). If Google is the monopoly in the sense that the OP describes, then a unified Internet itself is a bigger monopoly. Break apart the monolith of the Internet itself, and you have more player contending equally in facilitating search etc.
giomasce 9y ago
The comparison with press does not fully stand. After the invention of printing lots of different publishers were born, while we still have essentially just one Google. So they actually have quite a strong monopoly and quite some power with it. If they decide to not "facilitate" you, you become invisible.
- webwanderings 9y ago
  Even though lots of different publishers were born, they were using the same technology, which is the printing press. Google's core technology is search facility. If someone does this better than them, then there will be no monopoly. The core feature of printing press stood as is for longest period of time (even Xerox did not bring anything "new" to the table). That's, until the Internet in fact, was able to put a dent on the core invention of printing press. People are now reading on their screens, where as previously, they used to read only on the paper. You are stuck with the short-term view of monopolies and privacy issues. We wouldn't be surprised if there was a big brouhaha over privacy during the time of the invention of printing press (ask any religious scholar what they have to say about the history of churches against the advancement of technology and knowledge).
  - dhimes 9y ago
    If someone does this better than them, then there will be no monopoly The problem is, this isn't necessarily true. Microsoft used to make the same argument in the '90s. The point is when you get entrenched in so many areas it becomes hard to switch. It's a network effect of information rather than people. There would have to be a significant improvement in order for people to switch (with some other motivation, like political).
    - dhimes 9y ago
      ^^ s/with some other motivation/without some other motivation/
    - webwanderings 9y ago
      If there were only 100 people on the planet, you'd only need one government. Would you call it monopoly? Internet as a whole is monolithic in nature. You are hitting the boundaries with the potential of one product delivering whatever it is supposed to deliver, in the best possible manner which satisfies everyone. If Internet could be broken down and become diverse, you'll naturally see more diversity of choices easily cohabiting.
bamboozled 9y ago
If you don't pay for the product, you are the product. That's how these services are funded, by selling your personal information at scale, which you generate. Now, your kids are the next product.
- johnsmith21006 9y ago
  Tim Cook is that you? Really this line is rather ridiculous. Google charges per month per child for the software.
  - bamboozled 9y ago
    Google declined to provide a breakdown of the exact details the company collects from student use of its services. Bram Bout, director of Google’s education unit, pointed to a Google privacy notice listing the categories of information that the company’s education services collect, like location data and “details of how a user used our service. Mr. Rochelle, the Google executive, said that it was important for the company to have large, diverse sets of educational users giving feedback — otherwise it might develop products that worked for only a few of them. Why would they fail to provide that breakdown? Because then they would have to admit they're building a profile of that child from the minute they start early school, and how strange that would be.
taneq 9y ago
They no longer just facilitate it, they gather it with an ever-more-naked avarice and disregard for personal privacy. And I say that as a long time fan who has become increasingly creeped out by them over the past few years.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Google gatekeeps information by ranking algorithms, and information payments by advertising. In bothe these areas, and others, they benefit by network effects, which I'm coming to see as foundational to natural monopoly and rent-seeking. I simply don't understand what you're trying to say by mentioning the printing press in this context, though you might want to look up its particular disruptive history. Elizabeth Eisenstein is recommended reading.

toyg 9y ago

If Guthenberg had invented the printing press in the current legislative framework, he would have enjoyed a monopoly for decades.

webwanderings 9y ago
Thank you. That's exactly my point.

danblick 9y ago

I'm glad you're questioning that assertion, but I don't think your counter-argument is very convincing. The economics of the printing press were different than the economics facing Google. For example: Google search benefits from network effects (clicks are used to improve future search results). Google mostly provides information goods (zero marginal cost of production), but books aren't really a perfect information good. Google is darn near close to a monopoly on search (at least, Peter Thiel made that the premise of Zero to One), which isn't to say they're also a monopolist in every other field they're in.

jorvi 9y ago
They're a semi-monopoly (~80%) in the following markets: mail, search, online advertisements, browser, smartphones, mapping, layer data (it's $AMOUNT busy at place X right now) I like Google since they're one of the few companies that has a 20+ year record of being careful with user data, but how much they control (or at least facilitate) is pretty scary from an objective viewpoint.
webwanderings 9y ago
I don't know what your definition of "perfect information good" really is, but books have been converting information into knowledge for hundreds of years. Before the printing press, scribes used to hand-duplicate. The invention of printing press effectively changed the whole scene (just as the searching on the Internet changed Internet). Irrespective of the concerns of privacy etc, Google provides the best sauce of technology which facilitates searching the information (which converts to knowledge). As far as I can see, Google isn't in the business of creating knowledge.
- danblick 9y ago
  The term "information good" is from economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_good An information good is one for which it's very cheap to produce additional units. Unfortunately, I'm probably abusing the term, since books are listed as an example of information goods. The idea is that most of the cost of producing the book goes into the content (writing, editing, etc.) and actually printing one additional book is cheap. (When I said books are "imperfect" information goods I meant that they still require paper and shipping and retailing and such, but it's probably just a bad use of the term.) There's a fantastic book about the economics of information goods called "Information Rules" ( https://www.amazon.com/dp/087584863X https://www.amazon.com/dp/087584863X ). Software is an information good so this covers some topics relevant to the digital economy. My favorite part is the chapter on lock-in. In particular the discussion around the equation: profits from a customer = quality advantage + switching costs which puts "(marginal) goodness of your product" on equal footing with "pain you can inflict on your customer for leaving".
  - webwanderings 9y ago
    The original topic was not on the topic of economics, rather, the monopolies any invention creates. The economics of things have existed alongside everything else in human history. The point was whether Google is a monopoly in the context of information. My contention was to identify the fact that Google only facilitates the information (like what printing press did to the information people were keeping orally, or through scribes). If Google is the monopoly in the sense that the OP describes, then a unified Internet itself is a bigger monopoly. Break apart the monolith of the Internet itself, and you have more player contending equally in facilitating search etc.

giomasce 9y ago

The comparison with press does not fully stand. After the invention of printing lots of different publishers were born, while we still have essentially just one Google. So they actually have quite a strong monopoly and quite some power with it. If they decide to not "facilitate" you, you become invisible.

webwanderings 9y ago
Even though lots of different publishers were born, they were using the same technology, which is the printing press. Google's core technology is search facility. If someone does this better than them, then there will be no monopoly. The core feature of printing press stood as is for longest period of time (even Xerox did not bring anything "new" to the table). That's, until the Internet in fact, was able to put a dent on the core invention of printing press. People are now reading on their screens, where as previously, they used to read only on the paper. You are stuck with the short-term view of monopolies and privacy issues. We wouldn't be surprised if there was a big brouhaha over privacy during the time of the invention of printing press (ask any religious scholar what they have to say about the history of churches against the advancement of technology and knowledge).
- dhimes 9y ago
  If someone does this better than them, then there will be no monopoly The problem is, this isn't necessarily true. Microsoft used to make the same argument in the '90s. The point is when you get entrenched in so many areas it becomes hard to switch. It's a network effect of information rather than people. There would have to be a significant improvement in order for people to switch (with some other motivation, like political).
  - dhimes 9y ago
    ^^ s/with some other motivation/without some other motivation/
  - webwanderings 9y ago
    If there were only 100 people on the planet, you'd only need one government. Would you call it monopoly? Internet as a whole is monolithic in nature. You are hitting the boundaries with the potential of one product delivering whatever it is supposed to deliver, in the best possible manner which satisfies everyone. If Internet could be broken down and become diverse, you'll naturally see more diversity of choices easily cohabiting.

bamboozled 9y ago

If you don't pay for the product, you are the product. That's how these services are funded, by selling your personal information at scale, which you generate. Now, your kids are the next product.

johnsmith21006 9y ago
Tim Cook is that you? Really this line is rather ridiculous. Google charges per month per child for the software.
- bamboozled 9y ago
  Google declined to provide a breakdown of the exact details the company collects from student use of its services. Bram Bout, director of Google’s education unit, pointed to a Google privacy notice listing the categories of information that the company’s education services collect, like location data and “details of how a user used our service. Mr. Rochelle, the Google executive, said that it was important for the company to have large, diverse sets of educational users giving feedback — otherwise it might develop products that worked for only a few of them. Why would they fail to provide that breakdown? Because then they would have to admit they're building a profile of that child from the minute they start early school, and how strange that would be.

taneq 9y ago

They no longer just facilitate it, they gather it with an ever-more-naked avarice and disregard for personal privacy. And I say that as a long time fan who has become increasingly creeped out by them over the past few years.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Google gatekeeps information by ranking algorithms, and information payments by advertising. In bothe these areas, and others, they benefit by network effects, which I'm coming to see as foundational to natural monopoly and rent-seeking. I simply don't understand what you're trying to say by mentioning the printing press in this context, though you might want to look up its particular disruptive history. Elizabeth Eisenstein is recommended reading.