5 ms·

Google has a social network and a [mobile] operating system. Who’s going to have the best mobile social user experience? While this is an attractive bet, as

by noibl 15y ago

Google has a social network and a [mobile] operating system. Who’s going to have the best mobile social user experience? While this is an attractive bet, as Google you would have to hope that neither your OS or network got too popular or you could quickly end up in anti-trust territory. Android being open-source changes things slightly but it doesn't solve your competitors' problem (deep integration access to your own stock devices). Zynga’s IPO filing shows $597.5M in revenue and $90.6M in earnings in 2010. If Facebook had around $2B in revenue and $250 million in earnings in 2010, and 99% of Zynga’s revenue comes from Facebook, the math says Zynga could be nearly a third of of FB’s top and bottom line. That's some funny accounting. $1 invested in Google (at a $167B market cap) will make it to $2 before $1 invested in Facebook (at $80B market cap) makes it to $2. That's not so funny.

the1pato 15y ago
>While this is an attractive bet, as Google you would have to hope that neither your OS or network got too popular or you could quickly end up in anti-trust territory. Sadly, this is probably true. Such integration may prove too useful to consumers and too game-changing for Google's competitors. I wouldn't put it past them to use the federal government to makeup for their lack of innovation.
- Sapient 15y ago
  I have seen this claim a few times, but noone ever gives any real reasons as to why. A monopoly born through a superior product is not the same as a monopoly born through anti-competitive practises. Noone is forcing or coercing anyone to use Google+. Facebook and twitter are only a click away, and both are massively more popular. Could we say the same if Facebook launched an email service? Or if Twitter launched some sort of search engine?
  - noibl 15y ago
    We're not talking about a mere monopoly, we're talking about exclusive API integrations in, hypothetically, an OS with majority market share. That's not something that has historically been tolerated well by courts.
    - Sapient 15y ago
      They haven't done a whole lot about MS (which is basically the definition of this behaviour) though, even looking at Europe.

by noibl 15y ago

the1pato 15y ago

>While this is an attractive bet, as Google you would have to hope that neither your OS or network got too popular or you could quickly end up in anti-trust territory. Sadly, this is probably true. Such integration may prove too useful to consumers and too game-changing for Google's competitors. I wouldn't put it past them to use the federal government to makeup for their lack of innovation.

Sapient 15y ago
I have seen this claim a few times, but noone ever gives any real reasons as to why. A monopoly born through a superior product is not the same as a monopoly born through anti-competitive practises. Noone is forcing or coercing anyone to use Google+. Facebook and twitter are only a click away, and both are massively more popular. Could we say the same if Facebook launched an email service? Or if Twitter launched some sort of search engine?
- noibl 15y ago
  We're not talking about a mere monopoly, we're talking about exclusive API integrations in, hypothetically, an OS with majority market share. That's not something that has historically been tolerated well by courts.
  - Sapient 15y ago
    They haven't done a whole lot about MS (which is basically the definition of this behaviour) though, even looking at Europe.