3 ms·

> It has a giant stash of patents related to search Patents are not an antitrust violation. Breaking up google doesn't revoke their patents. > On top of that

> It has a giant stash of patents related to search Patents are not an antitrust violation. Breaking up google doesn't revoke their patents. > On top of that it continues to extract behavioral and structural data about both users and the web from things like analytics, Android, etc. with gigantic reach. Breaking up google doesn't mean all this insight disappears. We need better data privacy laws to address this. > These are gigantic barriers to entry and Google created them. You haven't described a barrier to entry, you've described a product that is so far ahead of the rest of the market that it's difficult to compete, but there is nothing preventing a competitor from giving it their best shot. If somehow a group of genius polymath programmers developed a superior search product, nothing about google's current business practices (besides brand awareness) would hinder their success.

zepto 8y ago
A barrier to entry is something a competitor cannot acquire. I have clearly described multiple of those. It’s not just difficult to compete. It is impossible for competitors to acquire the insight that Google has amassed, since it is based on historical data that is not available anymore. Breaking up google wouldn’t make this insight disappear, but the fact that you acknowledge it exists proves my point that barriers to entry are present. Your claim that I haven’t described a barrier to entry is therefore false based on the implications of your own statements. I am not arguing that the remedy should be the breakup of Google, and your complaints about that remedy are irrelevant to what I am saying, and do not refute the contention that Google is in a monopoly position. Nevertheless I am arguing that Google has critical resources that cannot be replicated by this mythical group of genius polymaths because they are now owned by Google exclusively, and that this is certainly a consequence of their market position, power and business practices. It is ridiculous to suggest that the only thing preventing this is ‘brand awareness’. It’s hard to believe you are serious about that.
- root_axis 8y ago
  > A barrier to entry is something a competitor cannot acquire. This is 100% incorrect. By that definition every company's private source code is a barrier to entry for their competitors. Clearly this is wrong. > It is impossible for competitors to acquire the insight that Google has amassed, since it is based on historical data that is not available anymore. I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong about what constitutes a barrier to entry. "The product is so advanced that nobody can compete" is not a barrier. "All you have to do" is produce a better product; just because that is hard does not make it a barrier. > I am arguing that Google has critical resources that cannot be replicated by this mythical group of genius polymaths because they are now owned by Google exclusively I am just going to repeat myself with emphasis since you don't seem to be understanding that patents are not an antitrust violation. I am going to repeat it again: patents are not an antitrust violation. If you want to discuss the ethics of software patents that's a different topic where I likely agree with you, but within the context of anti-competitive behavior owning patents does not qualify. By your logic I suppose you want to break up Tesla since they are a market leader with a massive patent-warchest. If not, why not? > it is ridiculous to suggest that the only thing preventing this is ‘brand awareness’. This is a misreading of what I wrote. I'll assume it wasn't deliberate. What I said was that if a group of engineers produced a better product, the only thing that would prevent their product from being successful is google's ubiquitous branding, there is nothing about google's business practices that would prevent a superior product from being successful. Your argument is that google is so advanced that nobody can produce a superior product, but even if thats true, producing a superior product is not anti-competitive.
  - zepto 8y ago
    > This is 100% incorrect. By that definition every company's private source code is a barrier to entry for their competitors. Clearly this is wrong. Nope. In the case of source code, a competitor has just as much opportunity to solve the same problem in either the same way or a better way. In the case of data which is no longer available, there is no equivalent way to reproduce it. You either took advantage of it when it was available, or you never can. These are two different things. Google’s code may be replicable, but their data and access to data are not. You place "The product is so advanced that nobody can compete" in quote marks as if it’s what I’m saying, but in reality, nobody is saying this. It’s just a straw man that you can keep railing against, as if it’s what other people are saying. You can repeat your misunderstandings again and again with additional emphasis if you like.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      > In the case of source code, a competitor has just as much opportunity to solve the same problem in either the same way or a better way. Same is true of google source code. > In the case of data which is no longer available, there is no equivalent way to reproduce it. You either took advantage of it when it was available, or you never can. The data is available through the same mechanism that google used to acquire it, i.e. by tracking user behavior; it's a common practice for just about every business with a web presence. > Google’s code may be replicable, but their data and access to data are not. True of literally every software company. > It’s just a straw man that you can keep railing against It's not a straw man, it's your semantic equivocation in order to make the claim that tracking user behavior to improve the product is somehow disjoint from the product itself. Based on that reasoning we should stop every company from tracking user behavior because that somehow creates a barrier to entry for their competition. Before you move the goalposts any further away from patents into data collection, any answer for my Tesla question?
      - zepto 8y ago
        There is no moving of goalposts. Data collection was part of my argument from the start. It seems like you have a problem with basic comprehension. You say “Same is true of google source code“ as a retort to my first paragraph. Can you not see that I am actually saying that? Notice that the first two paragraphs are actually connected as part of an argument. The argument is that although a competitor can potentially produce code that competes with Google’s code, a competitor cannot collect historical information about the web and searches. Why do I say they can not collect this information? Because it’s historical - i.e. it was available in the past, but is no longer available. Google has the advantage of having not only a huge head start, but all the data available up to how about the structure of the web and user searches. Patents are a separate issue, I did mention them in my original post, but it doesn’t matter whether we agree or disagree on that, since there it only takes one barrier to entry for you to be wrong. Google isn’t just an algorithm. It is also data. Data which is not available to competitors because it isn’t present anymore. Your statement that we should ban user tracking is another example of you creating an absurd remedy as a strawman. Nobody is proposing that remedy. That doesn’t mean we have to deceive ourselves into believing that there are no barriers to entry to compete with Google.

zepto 8y ago

A barrier to entry is something a competitor cannot acquire. I have clearly described multiple of those. It’s not just difficult to compete. It is impossible for competitors to acquire the insight that Google has amassed, since it is based on historical data that is not available anymore. Breaking up google wouldn’t make this insight disappear, but the fact that you acknowledge it exists proves my point that barriers to entry are present. Your claim that I haven’t described a barrier to entry is therefore false based on the implications of your own statements. I am not arguing that the remedy should be the breakup of Google, and your complaints about that remedy are irrelevant to what I am saying, and do not refute the contention that Google is in a monopoly position. Nevertheless I am arguing that Google has critical resources that cannot be replicated by this mythical group of genius polymaths because they are now owned by Google exclusively, and that this is certainly a consequence of their market position, power and business practices. It is ridiculous to suggest that the only thing preventing this is ‘brand awareness’. It’s hard to believe you are serious about that.

root_axis 8y ago
> A barrier to entry is something a competitor cannot acquire. This is 100% incorrect. By that definition every company's private source code is a barrier to entry for their competitors. Clearly this is wrong. > It is impossible for competitors to acquire the insight that Google has amassed, since it is based on historical data that is not available anymore. I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong about what constitutes a barrier to entry. "The product is so advanced that nobody can compete" is not a barrier. "All you have to do" is produce a better product; just because that is hard does not make it a barrier. > I am arguing that Google has critical resources that cannot be replicated by this mythical group of genius polymaths because they are now owned by Google exclusively I am just going to repeat myself with emphasis since you don't seem to be understanding that patents are not an antitrust violation. I am going to repeat it again: patents are not an antitrust violation. If you want to discuss the ethics of software patents that's a different topic where I likely agree with you, but within the context of anti-competitive behavior owning patents does not qualify. By your logic I suppose you want to break up Tesla since they are a market leader with a massive patent-warchest. If not, why not? > it is ridiculous to suggest that the only thing preventing this is ‘brand awareness’. This is a misreading of what I wrote. I'll assume it wasn't deliberate. What I said was that if a group of engineers produced a better product, the only thing that would prevent their product from being successful is google's ubiquitous branding, there is nothing about google's business practices that would prevent a superior product from being successful. Your argument is that google is so advanced that nobody can produce a superior product, but even if thats true, producing a superior product is not anti-competitive.
- zepto 8y ago
  > This is 100% incorrect. By that definition every company's private source code is a barrier to entry for their competitors. Clearly this is wrong. Nope. In the case of source code, a competitor has just as much opportunity to solve the same problem in either the same way or a better way. In the case of data which is no longer available, there is no equivalent way to reproduce it. You either took advantage of it when it was available, or you never can. These are two different things. Google’s code may be replicable, but their data and access to data are not. You place "The product is so advanced that nobody can compete" in quote marks as if it’s what I’m saying, but in reality, nobody is saying this. It’s just a straw man that you can keep railing against, as if it’s what other people are saying. You can repeat your misunderstandings again and again with additional emphasis if you like.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    > In the case of source code, a competitor has just as much opportunity to solve the same problem in either the same way or a better way. Same is true of google source code. > In the case of data which is no longer available, there is no equivalent way to reproduce it. You either took advantage of it when it was available, or you never can. The data is available through the same mechanism that google used to acquire it, i.e. by tracking user behavior; it's a common practice for just about every business with a web presence. > Google’s code may be replicable, but their data and access to data are not. True of literally every software company. > It’s just a straw man that you can keep railing against It's not a straw man, it's your semantic equivocation in order to make the claim that tracking user behavior to improve the product is somehow disjoint from the product itself. Based on that reasoning we should stop every company from tracking user behavior because that somehow creates a barrier to entry for their competition. Before you move the goalposts any further away from patents into data collection, any answer for my Tesla question?
    - zepto 8y ago
      There is no moving of goalposts. Data collection was part of my argument from the start. It seems like you have a problem with basic comprehension. You say “Same is true of google source code“ as a retort to my first paragraph. Can you not see that I am actually saying that? Notice that the first two paragraphs are actually connected as part of an argument. The argument is that although a competitor can potentially produce code that competes with Google’s code, a competitor cannot collect historical information about the web and searches. Why do I say they can not collect this information? Because it’s historical - i.e. it was available in the past, but is no longer available. Google has the advantage of having not only a huge head start, but all the data available up to how about the structure of the web and user searches. Patents are a separate issue, I did mention them in my original post, but it doesn’t matter whether we agree or disagree on that, since there it only takes one barrier to entry for you to be wrong. Google isn’t just an algorithm. It is also data. Data which is not available to competitors because it isn’t present anymore. Your statement that we should ban user tracking is another example of you creating an absurd remedy as a strawman. Nobody is proposing that remedy. That doesn’t mean we have to deceive ourselves into believing that there are no barriers to entry to compete with Google.