3 ms·

> Google only develop Android and Chrome to fuel their ad business Maybe, maybe not. Loss leaders are definitely a thing. Nothing forces them to be "doomed to

> Google only develop Android and Chrome to fuel their ad business Maybe, maybe not. Loss leaders are definitely a thing. Nothing forces them to be "doomed to fail" however. > those two product can’t turn a profit on their own, as proven by Mozilla Proven? Mozilla failed, sure. That does not mean its a foregone conclusion.

beiller 6y ago
Actually your comment brings an idea into my head. What if loss leaders could be a great probe into whether or not the behavior is anti-competitive. I know loss leaders exist, but how do they exist in a positive aspect? They seem to purely exist in order to siphon off capital from one business arm in order to extinguish competition in the loss-leader's sector. It seems to be it gets at the crux if this issue.
- salawat 6y ago
  Ding ding ding, we have a winner. At least until you realize most bars utilize the same mechanism. It needs to be more of a combination of a high degree of departure from one's primary industrial/service vertical as well to really work as a canary though.
- dannyw 6y ago
  Loss leaders are fine when they’re the same business. Like McDonalds offering a loss leading burger or drink; or even a cinema offering a slightly loss leading ticket to make up on concessions.
- numpad0 6y ago
  The act of using loss leaders to destruct a market, beyond growing a business, is called “dumping”. It’s a very old tactic, some regulations do exist against it...
vimax 6y ago
To add to it not being a forgone conclusion: One anti-trust argument is that Mozilla couldn't succeed against Chrome due to Google's use of a monopoly position in Android and search results. The beta version of Firefox was released in 2002, the same year that the final ruling came down on the Microsoft anti-trust case. The first release of Firefox was 2004, and it quickly beat out IE, and was the market leader until Chrome overtook it. It is hard to say what would happen if Chrome were not the default browser on Android, and Chrome ranking above Firefox in search results and Google Play.
- rleigh 6y ago
  Chrome was also advertised relentlessly, for years. For something which isn't being sold as a product, Google certainly spend a lot of time and money promoting it. And that was certainly not out of altruism. They wanted the control and influence, and let's face it, they have got it. Unfortunately, I don't think antitrust covers strong-arming web "standards" and related influences.

beiller 6y ago

Actually your comment brings an idea into my head. What if loss leaders could be a great probe into whether or not the behavior is anti-competitive. I know loss leaders exist, but how do they exist in a positive aspect? They seem to purely exist in order to siphon off capital from one business arm in order to extinguish competition in the loss-leader's sector. It seems to be it gets at the crux if this issue.

salawat 6y ago
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. At least until you realize most bars utilize the same mechanism. It needs to be more of a combination of a high degree of departure from one's primary industrial/service vertical as well to really work as a canary though.
dannyw 6y ago
Loss leaders are fine when they’re the same business. Like McDonalds offering a loss leading burger or drink; or even a cinema offering a slightly loss leading ticket to make up on concessions.
numpad0 6y ago
The act of using loss leaders to destruct a market, beyond growing a business, is called “dumping”. It’s a very old tactic, some regulations do exist against it...

vimax 6y ago

To add to it not being a forgone conclusion: One anti-trust argument is that Mozilla couldn't succeed against Chrome due to Google's use of a monopoly position in Android and search results. The beta version of Firefox was released in 2002, the same year that the final ruling came down on the Microsoft anti-trust case. The first release of Firefox was 2004, and it quickly beat out IE, and was the market leader until Chrome overtook it. It is hard to say what would happen if Chrome were not the default browser on Android, and Chrome ranking above Firefox in search results and Google Play.

rleigh 6y ago
Chrome was also advertised relentlessly, for years. For something which isn't being sold as a product, Google certainly spend a lot of time and money promoting it. And that was certainly not out of altruism. They wanted the control and influence, and let's face it, they have got it. Unfortunately, I don't think antitrust covers strong-arming web "standards" and related influences.