3 ms·
Punishing companies for producing a wildly successful product is a strategy that will result in competitive choice between multiple sub-par products. Strategica
by roenxi 3y ago
Punishing companies for producing a wildly successful product is a strategy that will result in competitive choice between multiple sub-par products. Strategically that seems kinda dumb.
The question of Google negotiating for default search engine status is just not a big enough problem for regulators to be involved. If the legislators want to ban that as something corporations can do then I suppose that is there prerogative, but the "damage" here to anyone that matters is hard to spot and it remains a bad idea to pile-in on Google. And the legality of preferred search engine arrangements shouldn't hinge on if the product is popular or not. How could it help anyone to ban them only if the product is the best on the market?
- taormina 3y agoThere are many search engines. There always have been. Google has long stopped producing the highest quality product. They are provably spending their money in a way which actively prevents competition from having a chance. Wildly successful products can develop natural monopolies, yes, but that is not what we are seeing here.
- roenxi 3y agoSwitching from Google to someone else is extremely easy (I've done it, I don't use Google search). If Google didn't have the best index, we'd see more people doing that. We might even see people recommending others to change their default search engine to something else to get better results. That isn't what we're seeing. We're seeing people use Google because the results are better.
- tomjen3 3y agoWhat is better at this point? Duck duck go? Bing? I pay for Kagi and it is better, but good luck getting Joe Random to pay for search. Bing is better iff you use their AI tools, but giving high quality AI tools has got to be wildly unsustainable and so is not going to last.