5 ms·

Google invested a shit ton into marketing when they launched Chrome. I have pictures from 2012 (I think) when they had the entire grand hall of Paris' Gare de

Google invested a shit ton into marketing when they launched Chrome. I have pictures from 2012 (I think) when they had the entire grand hall of Paris' Gare de Lyon hung with dozens of huge Chrome banners. That alone must have cost them tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Euros. That said I think the web's under Google's thumb screws (AMP, mail, DNS, browser-almost monopoly, etc) is in a bad place. But they did invest a hell of a lot in pushing Chrome.

vanderZwan 7y ago
Technically you are just stating facts, and I do not wish to put words into your mouth, so I am saying this with caution: if you mean to imply that "investing a shit ton into marketing" legitimizes their dominance, then I have to respectfully disagree. Economic might does not make right.
dTal 7y ago
Your comment reads strangely and I can't tell what you're trying to say. I'm not sure why you frame these things as being at odds ("That said... But...). They were willing to pay to bundle Chrome with installers - it's not surprising they also invested in "conventional" marketing. And it directly led to the browser-almost-monopoly you cite.
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  Summarized : They spent a ton of money on promoting Chrome But essentially defending them on that specific issue doesn't make it a nice, or admirable company in my book. Edit, to clarify some more: I was "defending" them on some accusations that they promoted Chrome with dirty tricks and dark patterns. Initially, I'd wager, they didn't. Does that clarify it?
  - dTal 7y ago
    Ah, I see. You were saying that because they marketed Chrome "legitimately", they probably didn't market Chrome with dirty tricks and dark patterns "at first", am I right? But I don't really think that's how it went - I think they used every trick in the book, as early and as often as possible. If that's not true, and some marketroid in Google woke up one day and thought "hey, we could get a lot more bang for our buck by being super scummy!", then that would be an interesting tale. But it seems more likely that what happened was that Google just pulled out all the stops. At any rate it's not much of a defense. Their "legitimate" marketing in no way absolves them for their "illegitimate" marketing.
    - CaptainZapp 7y ago
      At any rate it's not much of a defense. Their "legitimate" marketing in no way absolves them for their "illegitimate" marketing. I think we are in general agreement here. Spending a lot of money on legitimate marketing certainly doesn't absolve scammy tacticts at all. One of my more recent pet peevees is their fiddling with GMail in a way that a lot of mails from external sources are flagged as spam. Even though they're sure as shit and very obviously not. And not only that. They're constantly moving the goal posts on what is "legitimate" mail. Having such a big slice of global email this is super scummy and I really hope that (probably European, if any) regulators crack down hard on them yet again. But I'm digressing here, I'm afraid.

vanderZwan 7y ago

Technically you are just stating facts, and I do not wish to put words into your mouth, so I am saying this with caution: if you mean to imply that "investing a shit ton into marketing" legitimizes their dominance, then I have to respectfully disagree. Economic might does not make right.

dTal 7y ago

Your comment reads strangely and I can't tell what you're trying to say. I'm not sure why you frame these things as being at odds ("That said... But...). They were willing to pay to bundle Chrome with installers - it's not surprising they also invested in "conventional" marketing. And it directly led to the browser-almost-monopoly you cite.

CaptainZapp 7y ago
Summarized : They spent a ton of money on promoting Chrome But essentially defending them on that specific issue doesn't make it a nice, or admirable company in my book. Edit, to clarify some more: I was "defending" them on some accusations that they promoted Chrome with dirty tricks and dark patterns. Initially, I'd wager, they didn't. Does that clarify it?
- dTal 7y ago
  Ah, I see. You were saying that because they marketed Chrome "legitimately", they probably didn't market Chrome with dirty tricks and dark patterns "at first", am I right? But I don't really think that's how it went - I think they used every trick in the book, as early and as often as possible. If that's not true, and some marketroid in Google woke up one day and thought "hey, we could get a lot more bang for our buck by being super scummy!", then that would be an interesting tale. But it seems more likely that what happened was that Google just pulled out all the stops. At any rate it's not much of a defense. Their "legitimate" marketing in no way absolves them for their "illegitimate" marketing.
  - CaptainZapp 7y ago
    At any rate it's not much of a defense. Their "legitimate" marketing in no way absolves them for their "illegitimate" marketing. I think we are in general agreement here. Spending a lot of money on legitimate marketing certainly doesn't absolve scammy tacticts at all. One of my more recent pet peevees is their fiddling with GMail in a way that a lot of mails from external sources are flagged as spam. Even though they're sure as shit and very obviously not. And not only that. They're constantly moving the goal posts on what is "legitimate" mail. Having such a big slice of global email this is super scummy and I really hope that (probably European, if any) regulators crack down hard on them yet again. But I'm digressing here, I'm afraid.