7 ms·

if they're _purposefully_ ranking their own services above competing services, then yes, I agree they should be fined until they stop. _however_, more often tha

if they're _purposefully_ ranking their own services above competing services, then yes, I agree they should be fined until they stop. _however_, more often than not, their own service is _exactly_ what I'm looking for - be it GPM/YouTube/Maps/etc. It's not really their fault they're head and shoulders above the competition/the de-facto provider for most of the content people search for every day (well, maybe it is their fault, but it's not a bad thing).

bepotts 8y ago
Exactly. I really don't understand why people try and muddy the waters around Google products. I'm not forced to use Google; Google products are just damn good. Having a monopoly in a market due to the fact that your product is just that good isn't a bad thing, and punishing companies for being successful sets an awful precedent (which is why breaking up Google isn't going to happen). From search, maps, email, YouTube, and to photos, Google products are widely used because they're completely free (aside from the data collection portion) and they're best in class. Please don't lie to us and act like Google's monopoly position is hurting the market. I'm sure Google is doing some shady stuff on the edges, but nothing so egregious to warrant antitrust action.
- zjaffee 8y ago
  Why are their products that good? What is it that makes content creators publish on youtube rather than on other platforms. I'd argue that a huge part of this is the fact that youtube gives creators more visibility than other places, and since google is able to leverage search in addition to their advertising business to bring more eyes to youtube is the reason for the platforms success. I think your confusing googles monopoly not hurting the market with not hurting their consumers. But to suggest that they don't make it near impossible for anyone to compete against them is absolutely them hurting the market. Namely, the equity value of google would be more balanced with other smaller firms, and in turn we'd see more very rich people rather than fewer people with net worths well over 10 billion.
  - ur-whale 8y ago
    >Namely, the equity value of google would be more balanced with other smaller firms, and in turn we'd see more very rich people rather than fewer people with net worths well over 10 billion. Why would that be a good thing? Or rather, a better thing than the current situation? Why would that even be desirable? Again, antitrust laws exist for one reason: to protect consumers. Not to implement someone's idea of an ideal society or market. If you believe e.g. that company equity should be more uniformly distributed, go talk to your congressman, have him draft a law to that effect and get congress to vote on it.
    - stuckinarut 8y ago
      > Why would that be a good thing? Or rather, a better thing than the current situation? Why would that even be desirable? Because wealth inequality is massively harmful for society. It's the sort of thing that leads to revolution. > If you believe e.g. that company equity should be more uniformly distributed, go talk to your congressman, have him draft a law to that effect and get congress to vote on it. and then Google writes him a check and the whole thing goes away. Biggest lobbyist around.
      - ur-whale 8y ago
        > Because wealth inequality is massively harmful for society. Nope. Hunger, poverty, lack of education, lack of access to medical care, etc.. is harmful to society and leads to revolutions and whatever root cause leads to those is to be fought against. Except that wealth inequality isn't such a root cause. Wealth inequality isn't and has never been a problem except in the minds of utopian ideologues, collectivists or people with a basic jealousy problem.
        jazzyjackson 8y ago
        You're pretty dismissive of a theory I find interesting, I wonder if you've ever really entertained the idea that a wealthy country will cater its services to those who can pay, leaving those who can't pay behind. So USA has a high median income, so we have high education outcomes, high healthcare outcomes, right? We certainly have the best schools and the best hospitals. But only the top few percentile can afford the best schools and best hospitals, everyone else gets left behind. But we have higher infant mortality than many countries with lower incomes, and we don't compete so well when it comes to average assessment scores. Naturally I was exposed to this thinking via a TED talk years ago, from this guy: https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson Maybe you want to offer a rebuttal, or maybe you just want to insist he's jealous.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  Google Photos was horrendous for years, and they aquihired several best-in-class companies (Picasa, and then a few mobile photo editing apps) and killed their products.
- stuckinarut 8y ago
  Is it because their products are that good, or because they have one monopoly that also functions as a money hose that they can aim as needed to decimate competition in other areas.
  - bepotts 8y ago
    Yes, because all Google has to do is use their search money to destroy the competition; it's not like Google has any failed products or anything. /s Also, being a multibillion dollar company and using your billions in one product line to either prop up or build another product isn't illegal. It's just business.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    Did you ever use Excite/Alta Vista/Yahoo, MapQuest, Hotmail, etc? Because if you had, you wouldn't have to ask that question. Every product Google has had success with was better than the competition by a large margin. When it failed (Google+) it gained zero traction. The competition sucked and they have yet to make something better.
- mbesto 8y ago
  > I'm sure Google is doing some shady stuff on the edges, but nothing so egregious to warrant antitrust action. And when they do do stuff that is so egregious but they are too big ($$$) how are you going to stop them from abuse? Isn't this why, for example, people absolutely loathe telecom/ISPs? Sure they were great when the internet first came out ("it was just that good"), but now look how abusive they are since only a few co's own the copper that runs into your house.
zjaffee 8y ago
We have to think deeper as to why their service is the one that's preferred though. Part of it is the fact that they had historically been able to subsidize the monetization potential of their other services in order to out compete those who needed their services to make money. The other half is more speculation, but certainly very possible, that they've been able to play this game for a long enough time that they have been able to use search to build these brands in such a way that makes us think of them first for all of these services. Brand power is a very powerful thing, and considering the fact that they have a subsidized ability to advertise to us (both through promoting things in search, and by not needing to pay themselves for adsense/adwords) is what has made these the more high quality services over time since we have given our data to them.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  VC funded startups also subsidize product development and marketing.
GauntletWizard 8y ago
Travel search engines used to be big business. They still are, but they're hurting, and not a small part of it is due to Google having a onebox of flight info. I personally love that onebox - I book all my flights through it - but I'd have a hard time explaining how it's not anticompetitive. Vertical integration can have some great efficiencies, but it can also destroy once healthy markets, and I only see that getting worse with modern supply chain management and similar technologies.
- zjaffee 8y ago
  Are travel search engines hurting? priceline's stock is higher than ever? This said, I agree with you on everything else you've said.
  - GauntletWizard 8y ago
    As is Expedias, though Trivago has been terrible since ipo; my assertion was not well founded.
BRAlNlAC 8y ago
>well, maybe it is their fault, but it's not a bad thing I'd argue that having a single entity have such power over something so critical as being bad by nature. Concentrated power is the root of evil.
stuckinarut 8y ago
Worth noting they have been fined int he EU for this behaviour. They destroyed some guys business with their self promotion. Google has too much power. They should be broken up for hte good of society.
- bepotts 8y ago
  So what? Businesses are born and die every day. Every major US tech company is being fined in the EU nowadays. Poor EU regulation shouldn't dictate US policy.
  - alluro2 8y ago
    So if your business doesn't stand a chance and goes under due to unfair competition, you'd be fine with it, since "businesses are born and die every day"? And what exactly would "US policy" be in this context?

bepotts 8y ago

Exactly. I really don't understand why people try and muddy the waters around Google products. I'm not forced to use Google; Google products are just damn good. Having a monopoly in a market due to the fact that your product is just that good isn't a bad thing, and punishing companies for being successful sets an awful precedent (which is why breaking up Google isn't going to happen). From search, maps, email, YouTube, and to photos, Google products are widely used because they're completely free (aside from the data collection portion) and they're best in class. Please don't lie to us and act like Google's monopoly position is hurting the market. I'm sure Google is doing some shady stuff on the edges, but nothing so egregious to warrant antitrust action.

zjaffee 8y ago
Why are their products that good? What is it that makes content creators publish on youtube rather than on other platforms. I'd argue that a huge part of this is the fact that youtube gives creators more visibility than other places, and since google is able to leverage search in addition to their advertising business to bring more eyes to youtube is the reason for the platforms success. I think your confusing googles monopoly not hurting the market with not hurting their consumers. But to suggest that they don't make it near impossible for anyone to compete against them is absolutely them hurting the market. Namely, the equity value of google would be more balanced with other smaller firms, and in turn we'd see more very rich people rather than fewer people with net worths well over 10 billion.
- ur-whale 8y ago
  >Namely, the equity value of google would be more balanced with other smaller firms, and in turn we'd see more very rich people rather than fewer people with net worths well over 10 billion. Why would that be a good thing? Or rather, a better thing than the current situation? Why would that even be desirable? Again, antitrust laws exist for one reason: to protect consumers. Not to implement someone's idea of an ideal society or market. If you believe e.g. that company equity should be more uniformly distributed, go talk to your congressman, have him draft a law to that effect and get congress to vote on it.
  - stuckinarut 8y ago
    > Why would that be a good thing? Or rather, a better thing than the current situation? Why would that even be desirable? Because wealth inequality is massively harmful for society. It's the sort of thing that leads to revolution. > If you believe e.g. that company equity should be more uniformly distributed, go talk to your congressman, have him draft a law to that effect and get congress to vote on it. and then Google writes him a check and the whole thing goes away. Biggest lobbyist around.
    - ur-whale 8y ago
      > Because wealth inequality is massively harmful for society. Nope. Hunger, poverty, lack of education, lack of access to medical care, etc.. is harmful to society and leads to revolutions and whatever root cause leads to those is to be fought against. Except that wealth inequality isn't such a root cause. Wealth inequality isn't and has never been a problem except in the minds of utopian ideologues, collectivists or people with a basic jealousy problem.
      - jazzyjackson 8y ago
        You're pretty dismissive of a theory I find interesting, I wonder if you've ever really entertained the idea that a wealthy country will cater its services to those who can pay, leaving those who can't pay behind. So USA has a high median income, so we have high education outcomes, high healthcare outcomes, right? We certainly have the best schools and the best hospitals. But only the top few percentile can afford the best schools and best hospitals, everyone else gets left behind. But we have higher infant mortality than many countries with lower incomes, and we don't compete so well when it comes to average assessment scores. Naturally I was exposed to this thinking via a TED talk years ago, from this guy: https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson Maybe you want to offer a rebuttal, or maybe you just want to insist he's jealous.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
Google Photos was horrendous for years, and they aquihired several best-in-class companies (Picasa, and then a few mobile photo editing apps) and killed their products.
stuckinarut 8y ago
Is it because their products are that good, or because they have one monopoly that also functions as a money hose that they can aim as needed to decimate competition in other areas.
- bepotts 8y ago
  Yes, because all Google has to do is use their search money to destroy the competition; it's not like Google has any failed products or anything. /s Also, being a multibillion dollar company and using your billions in one product line to either prop up or build another product isn't illegal. It's just business.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  Did you ever use Excite/Alta Vista/Yahoo, MapQuest, Hotmail, etc? Because if you had, you wouldn't have to ask that question. Every product Google has had success with was better than the competition by a large margin. When it failed (Google+) it gained zero traction. The competition sucked and they have yet to make something better.
mbesto 8y ago
> I'm sure Google is doing some shady stuff on the edges, but nothing so egregious to warrant antitrust action. And when they do do stuff that is so egregious but they are too big ($$$) how are you going to stop them from abuse? Isn't this why, for example, people absolutely loathe telecom/ISPs? Sure they were great when the internet first came out ("it was just that good"), but now look how abusive they are since only a few co's own the copper that runs into your house.

zjaffee 8y ago

We have to think deeper as to why their service is the one that's preferred though. Part of it is the fact that they had historically been able to subsidize the monetization potential of their other services in order to out compete those who needed their services to make money. The other half is more speculation, but certainly very possible, that they've been able to play this game for a long enough time that they have been able to use search to build these brands in such a way that makes us think of them first for all of these services. Brand power is a very powerful thing, and considering the fact that they have a subsidized ability to advertise to us (both through promoting things in search, and by not needing to pay themselves for adsense/adwords) is what has made these the more high quality services over time since we have given our data to them.

fjsolwmv 8y ago
VC funded startups also subsidize product development and marketing.

GauntletWizard 8y ago

Travel search engines used to be big business. They still are, but they're hurting, and not a small part of it is due to Google having a onebox of flight info. I personally love that onebox - I book all my flights through it - but I'd have a hard time explaining how it's not anticompetitive. Vertical integration can have some great efficiencies, but it can also destroy once healthy markets, and I only see that getting worse with modern supply chain management and similar technologies.

zjaffee 8y ago
Are travel search engines hurting? priceline's stock is higher than ever? This said, I agree with you on everything else you've said.
- GauntletWizard 8y ago
  As is Expedias, though Trivago has been terrible since ipo; my assertion was not well founded.

BRAlNlAC 8y ago

>well, maybe it is their fault, but it's not a bad thing I'd argue that having a single entity have such power over something so critical as being bad by nature. Concentrated power is the root of evil.

stuckinarut 8y ago

Worth noting they have been fined int he EU for this behaviour. They destroyed some guys business with their self promotion. Google has too much power. They should be broken up for hte good of society.

bepotts 8y ago
So what? Businesses are born and die every day. Every major US tech company is being fined in the EU nowadays. Poor EU regulation shouldn't dictate US policy.
- alluro2 8y ago
  So if your business doesn't stand a chance and goes under due to unfair competition, you'd be fine with it, since "businesses are born and die every day"? And what exactly would "US policy" be in this context?