3 ms·

> 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 googl

> 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.
- root_axis 8y ago
  > There is no moving of goalposts. Data collection was part of my argument from the start. It's moving the goalposts because when I countered the argument you dropped it, ignored it, and redoubled on data collection. > Because it’s historical - i.e. it was available in the past, but is no longer available. Every company that collects data collects "historical" data. > advantage of having not only a huge head start A headstart is not a barrier to entry for your competitors. > all the data available up to how about the structure of the web and user searches. Data collection is not a barrier to entry for your competitors. Google isn't stopping you from crawling the web to determine its structure. Just because google collected data on user searches in the past doesn't mean you can't collect data on user searches on your own platform today. > Your statement that we should ban user tracking is another example of you creating an absurd remedy as a strawman. I did not propose it as a remedy, it is a deliberately absurd conclusion meant to illustrate the flaw in your reasoning, i.e. the fact that every company collects user data and nobody ever views that practice as barrier to entry for competitors. > That doesn’t mean we have to deceive ourselves into believing that there are no barriers to entry to compete with Google. For someone that deigns to project insults about reading comprehension you sure are bad at it yourself. Re-read what I wrote. I never said there are no barriers to entry, I said that google's business model does not create barriers to entry for their competitors. If we're using every single competitive advantage as an example of a "barrier to entry" then the term is meaningless because it applies to every market leader.
  - zepto 8y ago
    You just said ‘I never said there are no barriers to entry’. But earlier you said: > ‘All you have to do" is produce a better product; just because that is hard does not make it a barrier.’ Which is it - are you claiming there are no barriers to entry, or do you concede that there actually are? As to your dismissal or the argument about collecting data. That’s also a false comparison. Lots of people collect data yes, but they don’t have what Google has, and they aren’t trying to use it to compete with Google. It’s not relevant, and it’s another example of you creating a straw man. The point is that the corpus that enables Google’s search quality to be so high is not available.

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.

root_axis 8y ago
> There is no moving of goalposts. Data collection was part of my argument from the start. It's moving the goalposts because when I countered the argument you dropped it, ignored it, and redoubled on data collection. > Because it’s historical - i.e. it was available in the past, but is no longer available. Every company that collects data collects "historical" data. > advantage of having not only a huge head start A headstart is not a barrier to entry for your competitors. > all the data available up to how about the structure of the web and user searches. Data collection is not a barrier to entry for your competitors. Google isn't stopping you from crawling the web to determine its structure. Just because google collected data on user searches in the past doesn't mean you can't collect data on user searches on your own platform today. > Your statement that we should ban user tracking is another example of you creating an absurd remedy as a strawman. I did not propose it as a remedy, it is a deliberately absurd conclusion meant to illustrate the flaw in your reasoning, i.e. the fact that every company collects user data and nobody ever views that practice as barrier to entry for competitors. > That doesn’t mean we have to deceive ourselves into believing that there are no barriers to entry to compete with Google. For someone that deigns to project insults about reading comprehension you sure are bad at it yourself. Re-read what I wrote. I never said there are no barriers to entry, I said that google's business model does not create barriers to entry for their competitors. If we're using every single competitive advantage as an example of a "barrier to entry" then the term is meaningless because it applies to every market leader.
- zepto 8y ago
  You just said ‘I never said there are no barriers to entry’. But earlier you said: > ‘All you have to do" is produce a better product; just because that is hard does not make it a barrier.’ Which is it - are you claiming there are no barriers to entry, or do you concede that there actually are? As to your dismissal or the argument about collecting data. That’s also a false comparison. Lots of people collect data yes, but they don’t have what Google has, and they aren’t trying to use it to compete with Google. It’s not relevant, and it’s another example of you creating a straw man. The point is that the corpus that enables Google’s search quality to be so high is not available.