4 ms·

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

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
        No, it wasn't. I didn't start the discussion. Read the case. One of the biggest complaints is the fees Google pay Apple. Made up definitions aren't relevant. Here is the ruling: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gdpzmaxjxvw/United%20States%20v%20Google%2020240805.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gdpzmaxjxvw/...
        randomdata 2y ago
        > No, it wasn't. I didn't start the discussion. All the more reason for you to stick the topic that is already there. No need to double down on whatever out-to-lunch behaviour that came beforehand. If you really want to talk about something else, why not start a new thread? > One of the biggest complaints is the fees Google pay Apple. Right, because that solidifies their position in the market. That spend provides a more compelling product (more eyeballs, as has been said), which is in no way realistically matched by would-be competition. Clearly monopolistic behaviour. But isn't about search users. Hell, the ruling you link to is literally about the impact on advertisers.
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        The thread started by someone saying switching costs are zero. Actually read the case. Maybe start with the conclusion. Surely at some point you get tired of just making stuff up.
        randomdata 2y ago
        > The thread started by someone saying switching costs are zero. And as discussion continued, it was asked what the transition costs are for advertisers. He who answered that question clearly claimed it was also zero. This "someone said something about search users earlier", while technically true, is unrelated to anything being talked about here. In danielmarkbruce speak: Actually read the comments. Whatever it is that you missed is leaving you horribly confused.

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
      No, it wasn't. I didn't start the discussion. Read the case. One of the biggest complaints is the fees Google pay Apple. Made up definitions aren't relevant. Here is the ruling: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gdpzmaxjxvw/United%20States%20v%20Google%2020240805.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gdpzmaxjxvw/...
      - randomdata 2y ago
        > No, it wasn't. I didn't start the discussion. All the more reason for you to stick the topic that is already there. No need to double down on whatever out-to-lunch behaviour that came beforehand. If you really want to talk about something else, why not start a new thread? > One of the biggest complaints is the fees Google pay Apple. Right, because that solidifies their position in the market. That spend provides a more compelling product (more eyeballs, as has been said), which is in no way realistically matched by would-be competition. Clearly monopolistic behaviour. But isn't about search users. Hell, the ruling you link to is literally about the impact on advertisers.
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        The thread started by someone saying switching costs are zero. Actually read the case. Maybe start with the conclusion. Surely at some point you get tired of just making stuff up.
        randomdata 2y ago
        > The thread started by someone saying switching costs are zero. And as discussion continued, it was asked what the transition costs are for advertisers. He who answered that question clearly claimed it was also zero. This "someone said something about search users earlier", while technically true, is unrelated to anything being talked about here. In danielmarkbruce speak: Actually read the comments. Whatever it is that you missed is leaving you horribly confused.