3 ms·
> on a platform that Google has invested so much money for years to reach to this place? Because it is meant as a punishment for Googles abusive practices. It
by eitland 6y ago
> on a platform that Google has invested so much money for years to reach to this place?
Because it is meant as a punishment for Googles abusive practices.
It is less of a punishment if Google can extract money from it.
- piyush_soni 6y agoI don't see it as a punishment. I actually see it as a fair practice ruling. So they can't ask a company to bear all the costs of raising and maintaining platform so huge and just "give it away" for free because some users think that's a better option for them and thus for the world as well. Why would they even run a business if that's the case?
- FeepingCreature 6y agoThey're free not to. They're not free to monetize by any means. If they can't monetize without breaking monopoly laws, they're free to not exist. Nobody is owed a business model.
- sratner 6y agoThis isn't the punitive part - that's what fines are for. I see this particular requirement more as a corrective action - to actually give back to users the choice that Google took away through abuse of their market position. Users don't particularly care who is making money in the process, while their rights are not infringed. I am perfectly fine with the corrective action being dollar-neutral for Google, or even slightly positive. There is nothing wrong with incentivising good behaviour, as long as those incentives themselves don't become abused. If the right thing to do by your users is also the better thing to do from a business perspective, we might not have to wait for a court decision next time.