4 ms·
> It seems obvious to me that this is just an artificial product to make more revenue. If a product is actually generating more revenue, what makes it "artific
by dsacco 9y ago
> It seems obvious to me that this is just an artificial product to make more revenue.
If a product is actually generating more revenue, what makes it "artificial"? Do you disagree with the use of products to complement an ecosystem, or do you disagree with the use of products that are not intended to turn a profit on their own, like loss leaders?
- prepend 9y agoGood point. Not artificial for Google as it makes money. I meant artificial for users as there is no need and it replaced a better product that made less revenue. For example, have a free water fountain and then replacing it with a coin operated water fountain that dispenses warm water is using artificial with my original intent. My main disagreement is in the use of verticialy integrated products that reduce consumer value but yield higher marginal value to the producer. I’m a huge fan of complementary products within an ecosystem that increase consumer value. I’m also fine with loss leaders, but again I prefer ones that lead to increased consumer value.
- bomb199 9y agoIs it really replacing better products? If those products were better, I'd be interested in using them. Instead, Google gets me the same results, quicker, 99% of the time.
- prepend 9y agoMy example was froogle vs. shopping. I agree on search and Google superiority. That’s what froogle was. Their new shopping site doesn’t use their search engine and instead only searches advertisers. Instead of the web.