4 ms·

> and costs $0. But then you're not the customer, you're the product, as they say. What is the cost to the actual customer to transition to an alternative?

danielmarkbruce 2y ago
0. The transition to bing from google costs 0.
- ukblewis 2y ago
  Or all of their investment? Considering that very few end-users use Bing, ditching Google is like ditching the internet for much of their target audience, at least, most likely
- fooker 2y ago
  You missed the point. The actual customer is the one buying ads. It's comically difficult to avoid Google if you're the one who wants to show ads.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    Nope, you missed the point. Google isn't paying apple for advertisers, they are paying for distribution of eyeballs. You get the eyes, you get the ads.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      You’re right that there is a cost to producing a product, but the question was about the switching cost to the customer. At very least there is a direct labour cost to move the ads from Google to something else, so it is obviously not 0 like the out-to-lunch comment claimed earlier. Although I think we all know the switching cost is going to be way higher than that as the aforementioned spend on building the product isn't fruitless.
      - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        The person was referring to the user of search. You might think it's clever to point out that the person paying the bills is the ads user, but that's not what they meant, it's clear that's not what they meant, and the concerns about payments to apple to be the default search engine are related to search users.
        randomdata 2y ago
        And you might think it is clever to have no idea what is going on around you, but we are clearly talking about the customer, which was specifically asked about earlier in the thread.
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        > Typing bing.com takes 0.8 seconds and costs $0. That's the discussion start. Sounding clever about "the actual customer" isn't clever, it's irrelevant. Advertisers just go where the eyeballs are, they are constantly using several different channels. There is a word for it because it's so common - omnichannel. There are companies like TradeDesk which exist to help customers manage because there are so many channels. The relevant switching cost is the search user. It's 0.
        randomdata 2y ago
        This is the comment you were looking for: "0. The transition to bing from google costs 0." It was in reply to the question that asked the switching costs to the customer. One would have to be completely out-to-lunch to think that the cost is 0. > The relevant switching cost is the search user. It's 0. The search user has no relevance. Did you miss the context of monopolies? Monopoly literally requires economic trade, by very definition. The search user is not engaging in economic trade. They are is what is being traded. You even said that yourself, so why play dumb now?
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago

danielmarkbruce 2y ago

0. The transition to bing from google costs 0.

ukblewis 2y ago
Or all of their investment? Considering that very few end-users use Bing, ditching Google is like ditching the internet for much of their target audience, at least, most likely
fooker 2y ago
You missed the point. The actual customer is the one buying ads. It's comically difficult to avoid Google if you're the one who wants to show ads.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  Nope, you missed the point. Google isn't paying apple for advertisers, they are paying for distribution of eyeballs. You get the eyes, you get the ads.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    You’re right that there is a cost to producing a product, but the question was about the switching cost to the customer. At very least there is a direct labour cost to move the ads from Google to something else, so it is obviously not 0 like the out-to-lunch comment claimed earlier. Although I think we all know the switching cost is going to be way higher than that as the aforementioned spend on building the product isn't fruitless.
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      The person was referring to the user of search. You might think it's clever to point out that the person paying the bills is the ads user, but that's not what they meant, it's clear that's not what they meant, and the concerns about payments to apple to be the default search engine are related to search users.
      - randomdata 2y ago
        And you might think it is clever to have no idea what is going on around you, but we are clearly talking about the customer, which was specifically asked about earlier in the thread.
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        > Typing bing.com takes 0.8 seconds and costs $0. That's the discussion start. Sounding clever about "the actual customer" isn't clever, it's irrelevant. Advertisers just go where the eyeballs are, they are constantly using several different channels. There is a word for it because it's so common - omnichannel. There are companies like TradeDesk which exist to help customers manage because there are so many channels. The relevant switching cost is the search user. It's 0.
        randomdata 2y ago
        This is the comment you were looking for: "0. The transition to bing from google costs 0." It was in reply to the question that asked the switching costs to the customer. One would have to be completely out-to-lunch to think that the cost is 0. > The relevant switching cost is the search user. It's 0. The search user has no relevance. Did you miss the context of monopolies? Monopoly literally requires economic trade, by very definition. The search user is not engaging in economic trade. They are is what is being traded. You even said that yourself, so why play dumb now?
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago