4 ms·

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 t

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 debate was around two things - which is the relevant group and what the costs were for each. Read the comments. Read the case. Stop making things up.
        randomdata 2y ago
        Debate is for maladjusted high school students. All we have here is laughing at he who thought that there are no costs to transition from using Google's ad service to something else, and continuing to laugh at the doubling down on the out-to-lunchery that followed. You'd have known that if you read the comments.

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 debate was around two things - which is the relevant group and what the costs were for each. Read the comments. Read the case. Stop making things up.
      - randomdata 2y ago
        Debate is for maladjusted high school students. All we have here is laughing at he who thought that there are no costs to transition from using Google's ad service to something else, and continuing to laugh at the doubling down on the out-to-lunchery that followed. You'd have known that if you read the comments.