6 ms·

Nothing you said is wrong, but that is part of the problem right? To do anything online, you have to use google to some extent, so how can you compete in the fi

Nothing you said is wrong, but that is part of the problem right? To do anything online, you have to use google to some extent, so how can you compete in the first place? Google is already a monopoly in search which makes it impossible to make something online that requires search (ie., almost everything) and have it properly compete.

defen 7y ago
Hey, if you want to compete with Standard Oil just build your own railroad line.
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
  Until Standard Oil builds pipelines. That literally happened.
darkpuma 7y ago
Exactly. You may as well try to compete with a railroad monopoly while at the same time not using any of their existing rail infrastructure. Good fucking luck.
dageshi 7y ago
Pornhub probably could. They've got the tech, the traffic, the money, the advertising infrastructure, they've got everything they need to launch a youtube competitor because the big tech companies don't really touch porn.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  > "the big tech companies don't really touch porn." Isn't that the case because mainstream American advertisers don't want anything to do with it? I don't think it's a matter of west coast tech companies being prudes, but rather tech companies appeasing big consumer goods companies that spend billions on advertising, like P&G, J&J, PepsiCo, etc. And those companies are in turn likely appeasing 'middle america' by trying to keep their brands as bland and "family friendly" as possible. Edit: (And now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure Amazon sells pornography, so that's one of the big tech companies at least that is willing to. And I don't think it's a coincidence that advertising from those big consumer goods companies isn't nearly as important to Amazon... Then again Amazon doesn't allow nudity on twitch, which perhaps could be considered roughly analogous to Google's similar ban of pornography on youtube. Perhaps twitch, as a consumer brand, is subject to the same social pressures from the American public as PepsiCo?)
  - izzydata 7y ago
    Anyone else find it mildly strange how such a huge portion of the economy functions solely on the production and consumption of terrible products such as soda?
    - Chris_Chambers 7y ago
      It’s retardation juice. You have to keep people in a permanent malnutrition-induced malaise of retardation to grease the path for them to accept all of the even worse things you want to throw at them.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      I'm more worried about the huge supporting portion of the economy that is advertising. Seems to have much more harmful effects on everything around us, including but not limited to making people consume more terrible products such as soda than they otherwise would.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      Sugar and caffeine, it's addictive twice over. Although that also describes another beverage, coffee. The difference between the coffee and soft drink industries is interesting though. Two massive corporations dominate almost the entire soft drink industry, with a handful of minor providers (notably Keurig Dr Pepper) and a long tail of much smaller 'boutique', novelty, or regional brands. Comparatively, no coffee company controls as much of the industry as either the Coca Cola Company or PepsiCo do. (Also, PepsiCo in particular owns a ton of other non-beverage brands. Their subsidiary Frito-Lay produces the brands Lay's, Cheetos, Doritos, etc. PepsiCo is huge for American consumers. To your point though, snack food isn't much better than sugar water.)
    - sneak 7y ago
      Pop isn’t a terrible product. The issue, like anything, is overuse. You can make the same argument for anything, from butter to guns to video games to literally anything that plugs into the wall and consumes electricity. Use anything beyond reason and it becomes destructive.
  - 7y ago
bduerst 7y ago
Not quite. First, Google isn't a monopoly on search. Popular? yes. Best product? For most use cases, yeah. The fact that the search competition is a click away makes it dominant in the market but not a monopoly or monopsony. Second, companies are doing fine in this regard by bypassing Google. There are online businesses that exist solely on Amazon and Instagram. Building out a strong social presence is one way to get traffic without relying on Google search. Several major content hosting sites (images/gifs) have taken off in part because of their social saturation. Is it easy? No, but to GP's point it doesn't sound like they were being strategic in this regard either.
- noobermin 7y ago
  I should rephrase my argument. What I really meant to highlight is you cannot have a business online that google does not approve of without great difficulty, given to be online you must use google in some extent. That is a problem and decidedly anti-competitive. Also I don't care too much about the OP's attitude or lack of strategy, actors don't have to be paragons of virtue in order to be wronged and their situation be an example of a larger problem. Also, finally, why do you need to dispute the basic facts, no one in their right mind thinks Google isn't a monopoly on search, I think that is more or less an established fact at this point.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > What I really meant to highlight is you cannot have a business online that google does not approve of without great difficulty I disagree. I have worked at several companies with very successful sales and marketing departments where referrals from google were a noticeable but ultimately unimportant part of the revenue picture. I have also worked at a place that literally lived and died by the grace of a top ranking on google, once we hit the 2nd and then 3rd page, the business was basically dead. This sucked, but it was very nice for the company that replaced us. There is no inherent reason why one company should be entitled to the slot any more than any other (besides the google algorithm that determines ranking).
  - mrep 7y ago
    > no one in their right mind thinks Google isn't a monopoly on search, I think that is more or less an established fact at this point. "A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" [0]. Bing exists so by definition, you are wrong. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

defen 7y ago

Hey, if you want to compete with Standard Oil just build your own railroad line.

HeWhoLurksLate 7y ago
Until Standard Oil builds pipelines. That literally happened.

darkpuma 7y ago

Exactly. You may as well try to compete with a railroad monopoly while at the same time not using any of their existing rail infrastructure. Good fucking luck.

dageshi 7y ago

Pornhub probably could. They've got the tech, the traffic, the money, the advertising infrastructure, they've got everything they need to launch a youtube competitor because the big tech companies don't really touch porn.

darkpuma 7y ago
> "the big tech companies don't really touch porn." Isn't that the case because mainstream American advertisers don't want anything to do with it? I don't think it's a matter of west coast tech companies being prudes, but rather tech companies appeasing big consumer goods companies that spend billions on advertising, like P&G, J&J, PepsiCo, etc. And those companies are in turn likely appeasing 'middle america' by trying to keep their brands as bland and "family friendly" as possible. Edit: (And now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure Amazon sells pornography, so that's one of the big tech companies at least that is willing to. And I don't think it's a coincidence that advertising from those big consumer goods companies isn't nearly as important to Amazon... Then again Amazon doesn't allow nudity on twitch, which perhaps could be considered roughly analogous to Google's similar ban of pornography on youtube. Perhaps twitch, as a consumer brand, is subject to the same social pressures from the American public as PepsiCo?)
- izzydata 7y ago
  Anyone else find it mildly strange how such a huge portion of the economy functions solely on the production and consumption of terrible products such as soda?
  - Chris_Chambers 7y ago
    It’s retardation juice. You have to keep people in a permanent malnutrition-induced malaise of retardation to grease the path for them to accept all of the even worse things you want to throw at them.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I'm more worried about the huge supporting portion of the economy that is advertising. Seems to have much more harmful effects on everything around us, including but not limited to making people consume more terrible products such as soda than they otherwise would.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Sugar and caffeine, it's addictive twice over. Although that also describes another beverage, coffee. The difference between the coffee and soft drink industries is interesting though. Two massive corporations dominate almost the entire soft drink industry, with a handful of minor providers (notably Keurig Dr Pepper) and a long tail of much smaller 'boutique', novelty, or regional brands. Comparatively, no coffee company controls as much of the industry as either the Coca Cola Company or PepsiCo do. (Also, PepsiCo in particular owns a ton of other non-beverage brands. Their subsidiary Frito-Lay produces the brands Lay's, Cheetos, Doritos, etc. PepsiCo is huge for American consumers. To your point though, snack food isn't much better than sugar water.)
  - sneak 7y ago
    Pop isn’t a terrible product. The issue, like anything, is overuse. You can make the same argument for anything, from butter to guns to video games to literally anything that plugs into the wall and consumes electricity. Use anything beyond reason and it becomes destructive.
- 7y ago

bduerst 7y ago

Not quite. First, Google isn't a monopoly on search. Popular? yes. Best product? For most use cases, yeah. The fact that the search competition is a click away makes it dominant in the market but not a monopoly or monopsony. Second, companies are doing fine in this regard by bypassing Google. There are online businesses that exist solely on Amazon and Instagram. Building out a strong social presence is one way to get traffic without relying on Google search. Several major content hosting sites (images/gifs) have taken off in part because of their social saturation. Is it easy? No, but to GP's point it doesn't sound like they were being strategic in this regard either.

noobermin 7y ago
I should rephrase my argument. What I really meant to highlight is you cannot have a business online that google does not approve of without great difficulty, given to be online you must use google in some extent. That is a problem and decidedly anti-competitive. Also I don't care too much about the OP's attitude or lack of strategy, actors don't have to be paragons of virtue in order to be wronged and their situation be an example of a larger problem. Also, finally, why do you need to dispute the basic facts, no one in their right mind thinks Google isn't a monopoly on search, I think that is more or less an established fact at this point.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > What I really meant to highlight is you cannot have a business online that google does not approve of without great difficulty I disagree. I have worked at several companies with very successful sales and marketing departments where referrals from google were a noticeable but ultimately unimportant part of the revenue picture. I have also worked at a place that literally lived and died by the grace of a top ranking on google, once we hit the 2nd and then 3rd page, the business was basically dead. This sucked, but it was very nice for the company that replaced us. There is no inherent reason why one company should be entitled to the slot any more than any other (besides the google algorithm that determines ranking).
- mrep 7y ago
  > no one in their right mind thinks Google isn't a monopoly on search, I think that is more or less an established fact at this point. "A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity" [0]. Bing exists so by definition, you are wrong. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly