4 ms·
That's just simple advertising though. Nearly every company is selling their product as being superior to some set of competing products, at whatever their pric
by spoaceman7777 2y ago
That's just simple advertising though. Nearly every company is selling their product as being superior to some set of competing products, at whatever their price point is.
- mqus 2y agoit would be, if chrome would pay for this ad (and other browsers can compete for the spot). But it doesn't (can't?) and that is exactly what is wrong here.
- acdha 2y agoDid Chrome pay for the ad placement on Google’s sites? Could Mozilla or Microsoft buy the same spots? Could they pay YouTube to keep the site faster for them than standards-compliant browsers? If the answer to any of those is no, it’s more than simple advertising.
- buzzerbetrayed 2y agoYes. My biggest gripe with Google is that they prop up unprofitable products with their wildly popular product. It makes competition impossible. YouTube is the perfect example. I feel like it should be illegal to use your profits in one industry to run a loss leader in a totally separate industry.
- notpushkin 2y ago> I feel like it should be illegal to use your profits in one industry to run a loss leader in a totally separate industry. There’s nothing wrong with running a loss leader, only with squeezing everybody else out.
- acdha 2y agoI think the key part is “separate industry” – Google should have had to restrict Chrome promotion to what was available to other browser vendors (e.g. not the Gmail login page because they don’t sell ad space there).