6 ms·
This is a direct result of their monopoly, which is why Google should be broken up. Because they have such a huge monopoly, they can afford to ignore customers
by ping_pong 5y ago
This is a direct result of their monopoly, which is why Google should be broken up. Because they have such a huge monopoly, they can afford to ignore customers and have a draconian approach to people, and can get away with it. If there were better competition, they wouldn't have been able to ignore their customers. Breaking them up will alleviate this by ensuring that each company needs to be able to survive on their own, of which one aspect is having better customer support and service.
- izacus 5y agoExcept that this behaviour shows up in non-monopolistic markets as well. Apple does it. PayPal does it. Heck, our European banks have started doing it despite there being ample competition. What the competition did, is made sure EVERY competing entity does that because it's cheaper and costs were brought down with race to the bottom. I don't get where this bizarre belief that "moar free market" will solve issues. Let's setup proper legal framework where these companies must have a good reason to terminate contract instead - and properly explain it with the ability to appeal.
- dantheman 5y agoFreedom of association is important, and you shouldn't have to do business with people you don't want to.
- mc32 5y agoSo it’s okay for banks to choose who they’ll let bank with them? In any case, I disagree. Some things are basic necessities.
- paddez 5y agoYes. Banks close accounts all the time of clients they no longer want to risk business with.
- leetcrew 5y agoyes...? if you overdraw your account and/or bounce checks over and over, it's not unreasonable for the bank to close that account eventually.
- asiachick 5y agobanks do that all the time. try writing a few checks over your balance and not paying up. they will definitely terminate your account. https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/banking/can-my-bank-close-my-account https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/banking/can-my-bank-close... That said I do wish there was some regulation for accounts for Apple, Microsoft, Google, Steam, etc as closing an account can have huge reprocussions.
- zdragnar 5y agoCredit unions frequently have exclusive membership, typically a certain geographical area though many started out specifically for members of certain unions.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago"Sorry Mr. Jones, we've decided your, ahem alternative lifestyle and beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with the views of our company. Your electrical service will be discontinued in three to five business days."
- aaron-santos 5y agoI may be misunderstanding this. Does this mean "You [a business] shouldn't have to do business with people you don't want to"? If so, why should rights of people extend to businesses? People already have the freedom of association of employment that seems to cover this. ie: if someone doesn't want to associate with someone else as an employee of a business, they can simply not work at that business.
- thegrimmest 5y ago> You [a business] Businesses aren't people, they're legal fiction. The individuals who make these decisions do and should have the right to do business with whomever they want, based on any criteria they deem appropriate. This constitutes the distinction between the private and public sphere.
- bumby 5y ago>should have the right to do business with whomever they want, based on any criteria they deem appropriate. There's a subtle distinction where you may have layered your own individual beliefs onto this statement by using the word "should", rather than indicating what is actually the law. While you may feel they "should" have that right based on your own feelings and personal morality, there are specific laws that say they do not. In many jurisdictions within the U.S., for example, businesses generally do not have the right to refuse business to a person based on that person being part of a protected class.
- gwright 5y agoDue process is also important. A balance is needed.
- brigandish 5y agoThat’s why selling as a private individual is different to setting up a company, in the first you can choose not to sell to whomever for whatever reason with no legal comeback. Try denying service to someone in a protected class if you’re in the second and you may well end up with real legal problems.
- mclightning 5y agoYou need to find the person whose KPI would be effected by you leaving as a customer. Go find them on LinkedIn, message your experience and statement that you're leaving. When corporations put up higher and higher walls around their official channels of communication, you either need to get louder or go around the wall. I am working for a big e-commerce corp., we are made to read/go-through customer feedback occasionally. That is just to find a %1~ of potential conversion improvement we can make. Companies do care about conversion/retention. Problem is only the communication between the customer and the right team of people inside.
- gumby 5y ago> ...their monopoly, which is why Google should be broken up. Not denying their monopoly position, but how could Google meaningfully be broken up? It's really just a single business (advertising) with a gaggle of loss leaders adding up to less than 20% of revenue. Even pushing advertising down to 80% took a huge amount of effort. It's not like Standard Oil which was a vertically integrated trust of several points in the value chain, or the bell system which could be broken up geographically (and manufacturing spun out). Or FB which could divest business units like Instagram and WhatsApp.
- ericmay 5y agoEven just divesting YouTube would be a start.
- bananabreakfast 5y agoYouTube is hardly profitable. They would barely be able to afford their own infrastructure under their current revenue. They would immediately be acquired by a competitor or declare bankruptcy.
- ericmay 5y agoI'm sure they can figure it out.
- alxlaz 5y agoWell, tough luck. Not all business plans are destined for success.
- russian-hacker 5y agoGood. This’ll even the playing field for competitors. It’ll be a net win for humanity.
- SonicScrub 5y agoThat's an argument for the break-up, not one against it. If Google is using their monopoly powers to create wholly unprofitable endeavors, then they are likely choking out competition. There can be no Youtube Killer if Youtube does not have to make money.
- bmmayer1 5y agoHow is Google a monopoly? Serious question.
- tyingq 5y agoSenator Herb Kohl: But you do recognize that in the words that are used and antitrust kind of oversight, your market share constitutes monopoly, dominant -- special power dominant for a monopoly firm. You recognize you're in that area? Eric Shmidt: I would agree, sir, that we’re in that area....I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of monopoly findings is this is a judicial process. From: https://www.businessinsider.com/is-google-a-monopoly-were-in-that-area-admits-schmidt-2011-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/is-google-a-monopoly-were-in... Also, the FTC's initial memo from 2012 that somebody higher up in the food chain quashed is pretty interesting: http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/ http://graphics.wsj.com/google-ftc-report/ In short, dominant market share in web search. Though I think you could argue other things, like dominance in affordable smart phones. Android is effectively a monopoly for people that can't afford an iPhone.
- bananabreakfast 5y agoGoogle would argue that web search is not their market. They are in the business of online advertising in which they most definitely do not have dominant market share.
- tyingq 5y agoI can't say for sure whether they have a monopoly, but it's interesting that Eric Schmidt can't either.
- croes 5y agoYeah, that's why to google something means advertising and not searching for something on the internet. No, wait ...
- sneak 5y agoGoogle also doesn't have a monopoly on search.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]