4 ms·

The only redeeming quality of Google Maps is that it is incredibly good product. But at the same time it’s extremely anti-competitive: essentially very few com

by vl 6y ago

The only redeeming quality of Google Maps is that it is incredibly good product. But at the same time it’s extremely anti-competitive: essentially very few companies can invest many billions of dollars it took Google to collect the data for a product which is still very poorly monetized. Instead Google chooses to offer it for free to moat Search/Ads.

madrox 6y ago
I mean, that's a pretty great redeeming quality! I don't see how a high cost of entry is anti-competitive...at least in a way that's google's fault. Many industries have a high cost of entry, and there's entire businesses that crop up to lower it. Technology used to have a much higher cost of entry before cloud computing, for example. If you were doing anything at scale before 2005 or so, you had to own and maintain your own metal. Even Google Maps is one of those cost lowerers. A lot of companies were able to build their business on the back of google maps APIs.
- cordellwren 6y ago
  Predatory pricing is the issue here, not high cost of entry. Anti-competitive activities have specific definitions rooted in the study of industrial organization. You can't go around making judgment calls based on what seems intuitively good or bad to you.
  - calciphus 6y ago
    The anti-competitive question varies country to country, but in the US (where Google, the example given, is based) the question is: "does this cause consumer harm?" not "does this make it hard for another company to make money at it?". Taking information that used to be locked up, re-discovering it from the "ground truth" (literally driving every road in some cases), and then giving it to the world for free does ruin some business models based on gate keeping, but it doesn't harm the consumer. So should society force Google to charge for Maps? How much?
    - cordellwren 6y ago
      No, anticompetitive behavior is not determined with a single question. It's a whole field of study. You may as well say companies evaluate their code by the single criteria of "how fast does it run?" With a price artifically approaching zero in a product with high margnial cost and higher long run average cost, product tying with android and google search at the least, dominant and uncontestable market power, there's a lot of bells ringing here, and more than enough to suspect significant deadweight loss to society and, yes, "harm" to consumers. All of these terms have specific definitions, by the way. They don't just mean good or bad. And that list is far from exhaustive.
llarsson 6y ago
As a user, I honestly prefer Open Street Maps, because it has a much finer level of detail. For instance, it shows playgrounds, which is great if you are a parent.

by vl 6y ago

madrox 6y ago

I mean, that's a pretty great redeeming quality! I don't see how a high cost of entry is anti-competitive...at least in a way that's google's fault. Many industries have a high cost of entry, and there's entire businesses that crop up to lower it. Technology used to have a much higher cost of entry before cloud computing, for example. If you were doing anything at scale before 2005 or so, you had to own and maintain your own metal. Even Google Maps is one of those cost lowerers. A lot of companies were able to build their business on the back of google maps APIs.

cordellwren 6y ago
Predatory pricing is the issue here, not high cost of entry. Anti-competitive activities have specific definitions rooted in the study of industrial organization. You can't go around making judgment calls based on what seems intuitively good or bad to you.
- calciphus 6y ago
  The anti-competitive question varies country to country, but in the US (where Google, the example given, is based) the question is: "does this cause consumer harm?" not "does this make it hard for another company to make money at it?". Taking information that used to be locked up, re-discovering it from the "ground truth" (literally driving every road in some cases), and then giving it to the world for free does ruin some business models based on gate keeping, but it doesn't harm the consumer. So should society force Google to charge for Maps? How much?
  - cordellwren 6y ago
    No, anticompetitive behavior is not determined with a single question. It's a whole field of study. You may as well say companies evaluate their code by the single criteria of "how fast does it run?" With a price artifically approaching zero in a product with high margnial cost and higher long run average cost, product tying with android and google search at the least, dominant and uncontestable market power, there's a lot of bells ringing here, and more than enough to suspect significant deadweight loss to society and, yes, "harm" to consumers. All of these terms have specific definitions, by the way. They don't just mean good or bad. And that list is far from exhaustive.

llarsson 6y ago

As a user, I honestly prefer Open Street Maps, because it has a much finer level of detail. For instance, it shows playgrounds, which is great if you are a parent.