4 ms·

> It doesn't take a time traveller to tell you what is going to happen once it reaches a particular point. Just like it didn’t take a time traveler to know tha

> It doesn't take a time traveller to tell you what is going to happen once it reaches a particular point. Just like it didn’t take a time traveler to know that Kodak, Microsoft, and Sears would grow to be unstoppable?

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Microsoft was the subject of an antitrust proceeding, and is currently the largest US company by market capitalization. Kodak (film photography) and Sears (mail order catalogs) failed because the markets they had dominated effectively ceased to exist, not because anybody unseated them in those markets.
- aikinai 6y ago
  That’s exactly why those examples are relevant. There’s not a single, static market for browser-accessible website search engines that Google is bound to dominate indefinitely. Google’s been very clever to survive and thrive up until now, but has had to navigate a number of life-threatening hurdles to do so. Had either Chrome or Android failed, neither of which were inevitable, Google would already be on the way out. It did lose social networks and messaging which opened the way for Facebook to eat half their lunch. More people are using Amazon directly to search for products. Apple’s charging a fortune for access to iOS users while simultaneously funneling more searches to the Siri backend. Google’s losing in cloud even though they invented it. There are plenty of ways Google can, and eventually will, lose power without anti-trust. Edit: Also, Microsoft belongs with the other examples as well since the anti-trust action had nothing to do with their fall. They also dominated a market that became no longer relevant and missed the pivot. They really still have that monopoly but no one cares anymore. And they became huge again because they were successful in catching the next pivot. They’re a great example of how the anti-trust action was irrelevant and just an distraction compared to the realities of the dynamic markets and their competition.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    But that's not really what it's about. The problem isn't that they came to dominate search, it's about what they do now that they have. They leverage it into control over browsers, video hosting, mobile operating systems. Which makes the monopoly stickier, and creates more of them which reinforce each other, because Google is the default search engine on Android and Chrome is the default browser on Android and Google is the default search engine on Chrome and Chrome is the browser promoted on Google. And here's a fun one for them: Android has an effective monopoly on mobile phone operating systems from the customer of the OS itself (i.e. the device OEM), because Apple won't sell them iOS licenses. So what's the implication of that when they leverage it into the dominance of Google Play for Android apps, or Chrome?
    - aikinai 6y ago
      I wasn’t arguing for or against everything Google has done, but pointing out that these dynamics are neither trivial nor inevitable as many people (like lucasyvas above) want to believe, and it absolutely does take a time-traveler to know which of today’s rocket ships will still be cruising in five or ten years. But one specific point, you mentioned leveraging Search to win in mobile operating systems, which stood out since that’s one case where they definitely did not. Quite the opposite, they provided the iPhone with all of their best features from day one; no one bought Android phones because it was the only way to get Google search or any Google service. If anything, Google just leveraged having a lot of skilled engineers handy and the strategic foresight to come up with the Android business model. The entire industry was caught flat-footed and Google was the first one to make a viable me too (and gave it away for free).
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > they provided the iPhone with all of their best features from day one iPhone is the competing platform that wasn't flattened. Do they also provide all their best features on Tizen, Ubuntu Touch, PostmarketOS, PureOS etc.? Were they on Windows Phone before it was abandoned?
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Your argument in these last two posts only works if one believes technical innovation can continue happening at a roughly constant rate. I'm not sure that's the case, and I'd certainly not like to rely on it. If, on the contrary, you view the rise of Computers and Internet as a once in 500 years event, then the Kodak of the world were very unlucky to have achieved power at the wrong time. Looking at technologies today, I see plenty of inefficiencies, but not too many potentials for a large scale market turnover. IMO Facebooks is weakest since social media is subject to changes fashion. The rest are deep seated with pretty foundational roles. I see the political climate or larger economy more suited for rapid change than the tech giants being unseated in the current political economy.
- ralfd 6y ago
  > and is currently the largest US company by market capitalization Nitpicking: Apple has that crown

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Microsoft was the subject of an antitrust proceeding, and is currently the largest US company by market capitalization. Kodak (film photography) and Sears (mail order catalogs) failed because the markets they had dominated effectively ceased to exist, not because anybody unseated them in those markets.

aikinai 6y ago
That’s exactly why those examples are relevant. There’s not a single, static market for browser-accessible website search engines that Google is bound to dominate indefinitely. Google’s been very clever to survive and thrive up until now, but has had to navigate a number of life-threatening hurdles to do so. Had either Chrome or Android failed, neither of which were inevitable, Google would already be on the way out. It did lose social networks and messaging which opened the way for Facebook to eat half their lunch. More people are using Amazon directly to search for products. Apple’s charging a fortune for access to iOS users while simultaneously funneling more searches to the Siri backend. Google’s losing in cloud even though they invented it. There are plenty of ways Google can, and eventually will, lose power without anti-trust. Edit: Also, Microsoft belongs with the other examples as well since the anti-trust action had nothing to do with their fall. They also dominated a market that became no longer relevant and missed the pivot. They really still have that monopoly but no one cares anymore. And they became huge again because they were successful in catching the next pivot. They’re a great example of how the anti-trust action was irrelevant and just an distraction compared to the realities of the dynamic markets and their competition.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  But that's not really what it's about. The problem isn't that they came to dominate search, it's about what they do now that they have. They leverage it into control over browsers, video hosting, mobile operating systems. Which makes the monopoly stickier, and creates more of them which reinforce each other, because Google is the default search engine on Android and Chrome is the default browser on Android and Google is the default search engine on Chrome and Chrome is the browser promoted on Google. And here's a fun one for them: Android has an effective monopoly on mobile phone operating systems from the customer of the OS itself (i.e. the device OEM), because Apple won't sell them iOS licenses. So what's the implication of that when they leverage it into the dominance of Google Play for Android apps, or Chrome?
  - aikinai 6y ago
    I wasn’t arguing for or against everything Google has done, but pointing out that these dynamics are neither trivial nor inevitable as many people (like lucasyvas above) want to believe, and it absolutely does take a time-traveler to know which of today’s rocket ships will still be cruising in five or ten years. But one specific point, you mentioned leveraging Search to win in mobile operating systems, which stood out since that’s one case where they definitely did not. Quite the opposite, they provided the iPhone with all of their best features from day one; no one bought Android phones because it was the only way to get Google search or any Google service. If anything, Google just leveraged having a lot of skilled engineers handy and the strategic foresight to come up with the Android business model. The entire industry was caught flat-footed and Google was the first one to make a viable me too (and gave it away for free).
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > they provided the iPhone with all of their best features from day one iPhone is the competing platform that wasn't flattened. Do they also provide all their best features on Tizen, Ubuntu Touch, PostmarketOS, PureOS etc.? Were they on Windows Phone before it was abandoned?
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Your argument in these last two posts only works if one believes technical innovation can continue happening at a roughly constant rate. I'm not sure that's the case, and I'd certainly not like to rely on it. If, on the contrary, you view the rise of Computers and Internet as a once in 500 years event, then the Kodak of the world were very unlucky to have achieved power at the wrong time. Looking at technologies today, I see plenty of inefficiencies, but not too many potentials for a large scale market turnover. IMO Facebooks is weakest since social media is subject to changes fashion. The rest are deep seated with pretty foundational roles. I see the political climate or larger economy more suited for rapid change than the tech giants being unseated in the current political economy.
ralfd 6y ago
> and is currently the largest US company by market capitalization Nitpicking: Apple has that crown