4 ms·

Lots of ways? Better features, better support, better performance. If you can't beat the free offering, then go home.

reaperducer 4y ago
If you can't beat the free offering, then go home. In the real world of physical goods, there are laws against this. But Google's a tech company, so anything goes.
- foota 4y ago
  It's not illegal to give things away for free unless it's dumping.
  - reaperducer 4y ago
    It's not illegal to give things away for free unless it's dumping. Which is exactly my point. "[Dumping] occurs when manufacturers export a product... at a price below the normal price with an injuring effect. The objective of dumping is to increase market share in... by driving out competition and thereby create a monopoly situation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) That's exactly what's happening here. Google prices Analytics at $0 to prevent any competition from starting up. While an argument can be made that Google doesn't need to charge money for the product because that cost is made up in other areas, there is no way of knowing that, because those costs are not public. We don't know if it's fully made up by other means, or partially made up by other means, or not at all. Like you, IANAL, but it's my understanding that legally, it's not about the price, it's about the intent.
    - wvenable 4y ago
      > Google prices Analytics at $0 to prevent any competition from starting up. It's not dumping because, in the absence of any competition, the price hasn't changed. It just turns out the market price for this service is $0.
      - quickthrower2 4y ago
        I would say it has more in common with the Microsoft antitrust case. In that they gave IE away for free. I think you can show Google has monopoly on search and search data and GA is the only analytics allowed to connect with that. Is it dumping? Yes. They don’t intend to raise the price, but they get paid not in cash but in terms of increasing their monopoly by having so much data on us. Now a lot of things are like this (anything where you give your email for a discount code). But they are not intended to get a global monopoly or make it impossible for anyone else to do business competing with you.
        wvenable 4y ago
        IE is no more but the price for browsers is still free. Most consumers even at the time also did not pay for their browser. Now these days it would be ridiculous if your device or operating system didn't come with a browser. > They get paid not in cash but in terms of increasing their monopoly by having so much data on us Yes, and anyone else can do the same.
        quickthrower2 4y ago
        The landscape has changed (or to pun... the netscape?). We now have genuine browser competition. I think Safari and Firefox are just enough to say Chrome is not a monopoly. I write this on FF right now (running on Ubuntu) because it is a viable alternative. This is the case for now, might be different in 2023. "X is free" is not enough to be a problem on it's own.
      - xboxnolifes 4y ago
        > It just turns out the market price for this service is $0 You can't come to this conclusion until you prevent Google from using the acquired data to improve their ad service.
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  What a horrible law. The market should just create a better solution or find investors to call the bluff of the offending company and make even more money
- minsc_and_boo 4y ago
  Which real world country? In the U.S. most antitrust law is based on protecting what's best for the consumer, not protecting the competition from a free alternative.
bryan_w 4y ago
"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!" - A French Ned Flanders, probably

If you can't beat the free offering, then go home. In the real world of physical goods, there are laws against this. But Google's a tech company, so anything goes.

foota 4y ago
It's not illegal to give things away for free unless it's dumping.
- reaperducer 4y ago
  It's not illegal to give things away for free unless it's dumping. Which is exactly my point. "[Dumping] occurs when manufacturers export a product... at a price below the normal price with an injuring effect. The objective of dumping is to increase market share in... by driving out competition and thereby create a monopoly situation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) That's exactly what's happening here. Google prices Analytics at $0 to prevent any competition from starting up. While an argument can be made that Google doesn't need to charge money for the product because that cost is made up in other areas, there is no way of knowing that, because those costs are not public. We don't know if it's fully made up by other means, or partially made up by other means, or not at all. Like you, IANAL, but it's my understanding that legally, it's not about the price, it's about the intent.
  - wvenable 4y ago
    > Google prices Analytics at $0 to prevent any competition from starting up. It's not dumping because, in the absence of any competition, the price hasn't changed. It just turns out the market price for this service is $0.
    - quickthrower2 4y ago
      I would say it has more in common with the Microsoft antitrust case. In that they gave IE away for free. I think you can show Google has monopoly on search and search data and GA is the only analytics allowed to connect with that. Is it dumping? Yes. They don’t intend to raise the price, but they get paid not in cash but in terms of increasing their monopoly by having so much data on us. Now a lot of things are like this (anything where you give your email for a discount code). But they are not intended to get a global monopoly or make it impossible for anyone else to do business competing with you.
      - wvenable 4y ago
        IE is no more but the price for browsers is still free. Most consumers even at the time also did not pay for their browser. Now these days it would be ridiculous if your device or operating system didn't come with a browser. > They get paid not in cash but in terms of increasing their monopoly by having so much data on us Yes, and anyone else can do the same.
        quickthrower2 4y ago
        The landscape has changed (or to pun... the netscape?). We now have genuine browser competition. I think Safari and Firefox are just enough to say Chrome is not a monopoly. I write this on FF right now (running on Ubuntu) because it is a viable alternative. This is the case for now, might be different in 2023. "X is free" is not enough to be a problem on it's own.
    - xboxnolifes 4y ago
      > It just turns out the market price for this service is $0 You can't come to this conclusion until you prevent Google from using the acquired data to improve their ad service.
jokethrowaway 4y ago
What a horrible law. The market should just create a better solution or find investors to call the bluff of the offending company and make even more money
minsc_and_boo 4y ago
Which real world country? In the U.S. most antitrust law is based on protecting what's best for the consumer, not protecting the competition from a free alternative.

bryan_w 4y ago

"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!" - A French Ned Flanders, probably