3 ms·

Microsoft said the same thing about internet exploror and it's operating system..

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> Microsoft said the same thing about internet exploror and it's operating system And breaking Microsoft's attempted browser monopoly required the DoJ. To be clear, I believe we will eventually have to break apart--at the very least--Google and Facebook. But there are advantages to the author's proposed tactic of making the index public. It's a cleaner, cheaper, and quicker solution and doesn't harm the odds of a future break-up.
scarface74 7y ago
And when it all came down to it, it didn’t matter. Chrome didn’t become dominant on the desktop because of government intervention and Safari didn’t become important because of DOJ either. Apple and Google competed. Government intervention is rarely the right answer. A bunch of people who are both beholden to lobbyists and ignorant to technology won’t produce the outcome people think it will. Besides, the last thing anyone should want is more government power. Given the choice between trusting the government - that has the power to take away my liberty and my money - with more power or trusting private corporations, I have much more to fear about government.
- traderjane 7y ago
  That which the market does not naturally provide... does one just morally expect?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Two points. The slap on the wrist from the DOJ didn’t lead to decreasing dominance on Microsoft. Google/Facebook/Apple competing did. A search engine is not life or death. Google doesn’t stop anyone from creating a website and reaching consumers other ways.
    - Loughla 7y ago
      >A search engine is not life or death. Google doesn’t stop anyone from creating a website and reaching consumers other ways. As someone outside of the tech bubble, this statement always confuses me. I see it once a week or so on this site. Someone will say 'well, company x is doing y, what's to stop you from just disrupting them and working around?" Because people get their information in consistent, and predictable ways. And one of those main ways is to search for it using a popular website, so popular it's literally called 'googling' something. If you are an unknown, a search engine is literally life and death for your company, from what I can tell. Again, I'm outside the tech sphere, so maybe I'm just ignorant. But I don't think so.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Its not about “disrupting” anyone. There are other forms of advertising than Google - there is Facebook, Amazon, commercials on TV, guerrilla marketing, getting “1000 true fans” and let your product spread organically, etc. if you are completely dependent on Google you are just one algorithm change from becoming invisible and you may need to rethink your business plan. It's kind of silly to start a business with your only method customer acquisition is depending on Google. I’ve worked for B2B companies that actually had a sales team.

> Microsoft said the same thing about internet exploror and it's operating system And breaking Microsoft's attempted browser monopoly required the DoJ. To be clear, I believe we will eventually have to break apart--at the very least--Google and Facebook. But there are advantages to the author's proposed tactic of making the index public. It's a cleaner, cheaper, and quicker solution and doesn't harm the odds of a future break-up.

scarface74 7y ago

And when it all came down to it, it didn’t matter. Chrome didn’t become dominant on the desktop because of government intervention and Safari didn’t become important because of DOJ either. Apple and Google competed. Government intervention is rarely the right answer. A bunch of people who are both beholden to lobbyists and ignorant to technology won’t produce the outcome people think it will. Besides, the last thing anyone should want is more government power. Given the choice between trusting the government - that has the power to take away my liberty and my money - with more power or trusting private corporations, I have much more to fear about government.

traderjane 7y ago
That which the market does not naturally provide... does one just morally expect?
- scarface74 7y ago
  Two points. The slap on the wrist from the DOJ didn’t lead to decreasing dominance on Microsoft. Google/Facebook/Apple competing did. A search engine is not life or death. Google doesn’t stop anyone from creating a website and reaching consumers other ways.
  - Loughla 7y ago
    >A search engine is not life or death. Google doesn’t stop anyone from creating a website and reaching consumers other ways. As someone outside of the tech bubble, this statement always confuses me. I see it once a week or so on this site. Someone will say 'well, company x is doing y, what's to stop you from just disrupting them and working around?" Because people get their information in consistent, and predictable ways. And one of those main ways is to search for it using a popular website, so popular it's literally called 'googling' something. If you are an unknown, a search engine is literally life and death for your company, from what I can tell. Again, I'm outside the tech sphere, so maybe I'm just ignorant. But I don't think so.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Its not about “disrupting” anyone. There are other forms of advertising than Google - there is Facebook, Amazon, commercials on TV, guerrilla marketing, getting “1000 true fans” and let your product spread organically, etc. if you are completely dependent on Google you are just one algorithm change from becoming invisible and you may need to rethink your business plan. It's kind of silly to start a business with your only method customer acquisition is depending on Google. I’ve worked for B2B companies that actually had a sales team.