6 ms·
One of the main things that makes me think Google is a harmful monopoly is how they cancel products just for not going to the moon. It's like search+ads is suc
by cashewchoo 6y ago
One of the main things that makes me think Google is a harmful monopoly is how they cancel products just for not going to the moon.
It's like search+ads is such a dang money printer that they just churn products over and over looking for something that goes to the moon and anything that doesn't, even if it would be a stable, competitive, profit-generating product if it were its own company, they just bin it because it doesn't even register on their enormous operating profit from search.
I think that definitely hurts consumers. And isn't that the main measure of if a monopoly is bad? Demonstrating harm to consumers?
- henryfjordan 6y agoIsn't it a little ironic to complain about Google wanting their new products to go to the moon on a forum run by a VC with the exact same goals?
- mcintyre1994 6y agoThere are plenty of successful YC companies that wouldn't register on Google's financials and would probably be shut down/ignored by Google if they owned them though. Obviously YC would like all their portfolio companies to be massive but I don't think they force companies to shut down if they don't become Google massive.
- slow_donkey 6y agoNot YC itself, but other investors that have an actual board seat and invested more than 125k likely have a vested interest in seeking a lucrative acquisition.
- rdsubhas 6y agoBy that kind of judgement, this forum should be just fund raising? No more open source or tech heavy articles? A lot of us who are in this forum are here for the "news", not for the "ycombinator".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sct202 6y agoOn the other side of this, it can be beneficial for startups and competition if Google does shut down products. If Google keeps services running that lose them money, they are also basically closing off entire markets to start ups who have to compete against a service that doesn't need to be profitable with an endless money pit behind it.
- xref 6y agoThe parent specifically says: > “even if it would be a stable, competitive, profit-generating product if it were its own company, they just bin it because it doesn't even register on their enormous operating profit”
- Nasrudith 6y agoThat seems a bit witch-hunty given that doing the opposite and putting out new products to flood the market place even if they aren't successful would also be called monopolistic subsidization. Just because a business practice sucks for consumers and it is done by a big company doesn't make it monopolistic. Anti-trust shouldn't be a "free for all gripes welcome" fest.