3 ms·

1. Google shuttering products because they're not profitable 2. Google adjusting product terms to ensure they can continue running it Pick one.

by libria 6y ago

blackoil 6y ago
Option 3: Google not dumping product for 'free' with unfeasible business model, that kills the competition to oligopoly.
- estaseuropano 6y ago
  Even worse, there's a reasonable assumption that they earn per Chromebook and that that finances the storage.
  - gowld 6y ago
    Is the problem that product is sold below cost or above cost?
taeric 6y ago
3. Google should stop entering markets with free products, evaporating competition in the market, and then leaving it. This is made more extreme as many of the "products they shutter because they are not profitable" were never profitable. Such that, at this point, any market they "enter" with a free product is viewed as a bad faith burning of it.
- gowld 6y ago
  Google for Education has been running for 15 years, longer than most of its users have been alive.
  - taeric 6y ago
    I'm... not sure what the point of this is. The cynical take from that is that they can burn on non-profitable choices for far longer than your average competitor. Since, as you say, they can do this for a long time. Note that this isn't really new, either. MS used to (still does?) give ridiculously reduced/free offerings to students, only to build an entrenched mindshare that "this is the way." Nor is this just MS. Fusion 360 recently made headlines by changing their "reduced" option. I recall for years it was open speculation that Adobe used to turn a massive blind eye to piracy, as long as it was growing the demand that shops have to use their product. Now, I think a valid criticism of me on this, is that I don't have an alternative. I don't know how to really regulate the behavior I think should be the norm here. My pipe dream would be that they have to use open standards for data exchange. If you are trying to build a new foundation, it has to be one that either pays for itself, or has an exit that is not encumbered by vendor lockin.

1. Google shuttering products because they're not profitable 2. Google adjusting product terms to ensure they can continue running it Pick one.

by libria 6y ago

1. Google shuttering products because they're not profitable 2. Google adjusting product terms to ensure they can continue running it Pick one.

blackoil 6y ago

Option 3: Google not dumping product for 'free' with unfeasible business model, that kills the competition to oligopoly.

estaseuropano 6y ago
Even worse, there's a reasonable assumption that they earn per Chromebook and that that finances the storage.
- gowld 6y ago
  Is the problem that product is sold below cost or above cost?

taeric 6y ago

3. Google should stop entering markets with free products, evaporating competition in the market, and then leaving it. This is made more extreme as many of the "products they shutter because they are not profitable" were never profitable. Such that, at this point, any market they "enter" with a free product is viewed as a bad faith burning of it.

gowld 6y ago
Google for Education has been running for 15 years, longer than most of its users have been alive.
- taeric 6y ago
  I'm... not sure what the point of this is. The cynical take from that is that they can burn on non-profitable choices for far longer than your average competitor. Since, as you say, they can do this for a long time. Note that this isn't really new, either. MS used to (still does?) give ridiculously reduced/free offerings to students, only to build an entrenched mindshare that "this is the way." Nor is this just MS. Fusion 360 recently made headlines by changing their "reduced" option. I recall for years it was open speculation that Adobe used to turn a massive blind eye to piracy, as long as it was growing the demand that shops have to use their product. Now, I think a valid criticism of me on this, is that I don't have an alternative. I don't know how to really regulate the behavior I think should be the norm here. My pipe dream would be that they have to use open standards for data exchange. If you are trying to build a new foundation, it has to be one that either pays for itself, or has an exit that is not encumbered by vendor lockin.