4 ms·

> In a fair world, there would be an option in Google… In a fair world, if you don't like the results Google's service provides, you'll choose a better service

> In a fair world, there would be an option in Google… In a fair world, if you don't like the results Google's service provides, you'll choose a better service provider. Google's search service has always used a business model like “give us your query; we'll apply our proprietary algorithm and return results”. If you don't like those results, you don't like Google's service. You can ask them to change their service so that you like it better; but they have never agreed to do so for you, and they're under no obligation. Google should be able to do what they like; users can choose not to use Google's services.

telltruth 8y ago
One can argue that Microsoft may put whatever they want as default on their OS and customers always have choice to vote with their wallet. In real world, most of the population is too naive to change default or learn something new just because of technology ideology differences. Furthermore, if I want to switch over to something else, I would lose other dozens of apps that are not available there. So customer is effectively tied up with dominant product and accept it as benevolent dictator. The apparent choice in theory is not really a choice in reality.
- gregknicholson 8y ago
  Yes, this is precisely the problem. Capitalism does not produce good quality products and services without genuine competition.
- dougfelt 8y ago
  And the point of this reference to MS and Explorer is...? I don't see how it relates to Google and search at all.
annabellish 8y ago
>if you don't like the results Google's service provides, you'll choose a better service provider In the real world, this isn't always a clear option. If I run a restaurant I cannot cause everyone who might visit it to switch to a different maps provider. For the users, there _isn't_ a comparable service to Google Maps. The competition is fairly incomparable. This is a scenario which is only going to keep happening more often and worse as we move deeper into systems where _data_ is the differentiating factor. Competition becomes impossible when you're starting from zero and the entrenched player has decades of good, clean data.
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  Power companies are regulated by PUCs; Google probably should be.

telltruth 8y ago

One can argue that Microsoft may put whatever they want as default on their OS and customers always have choice to vote with their wallet. In real world, most of the population is too naive to change default or learn something new just because of technology ideology differences. Furthermore, if I want to switch over to something else, I would lose other dozens of apps that are not available there. So customer is effectively tied up with dominant product and accept it as benevolent dictator. The apparent choice in theory is not really a choice in reality.

gregknicholson 8y ago
Yes, this is precisely the problem. Capitalism does not produce good quality products and services without genuine competition.
dougfelt 8y ago
And the point of this reference to MS and Explorer is...? I don't see how it relates to Google and search at all.

annabellish 8y ago

>if you don't like the results Google's service provides, you'll choose a better service provider In the real world, this isn't always a clear option. If I run a restaurant I cannot cause everyone who might visit it to switch to a different maps provider. For the users, there _isn't_ a comparable service to Google Maps. The competition is fairly incomparable. This is a scenario which is only going to keep happening more often and worse as we move deeper into systems where _data_ is the differentiating factor. Competition becomes impossible when you're starting from zero and the entrenched player has decades of good, clean data.

scottlocklin 8y ago
Power companies are regulated by PUCs; Google probably should be.