4 ms·

If you made your business become completely dependent on a third party, you were already a failure and shouldn't have a business. Being a successful businessman

If you made your business become completely dependent on a third party, you were already a failure and shouldn't have a business. Being a successful businessman is not a right. It's competition.

CPLX 2y ago
The reason monopolies are illegal is precisely because they force people to be completely dependent on a third party. Is a farmer "a failure who shouldn't have a business" if some asshole buys up every single railroad, port, and truck in the country he lives in?
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  No, but if he makes himself for example completely dependent on Monsanto, he shouldn't have a business, because he's in practice an employee with all the financial responsibilities of a business and none of the benefits of having a business. And none of the benefits of being an employee either. If your business model is to make yourself completely dependent on a single third party, then you shouldn't have a business.
  - CPLX 2y ago
    The only way it would be possible for him to become completely dependent on Monsanto is if that company is allowed to monopolize the product categories it sells.
JohnMakin 2y ago
Wow, all those fortune 500 companies whose infra entirely relies on 3rd party cloud infrastructure really must be in for a rude awakening. You should update them with your cunning analysis and inform them they are failures.
- efsavage 2y ago
  The tone here isn't great but parent is more correct than not. This is why large companies don't use freebie services. They vet companies and partners, sign enterprise deals with support, SLAs, penalties, insurance, even bonds in some cases. It costs more, and it's hardly fun for most people, but it's all part of mitigating those risks. And it's not just tech, you see the same thing in non-tech industries like manufacturing.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    It really isn't. Most businesses export core business functions to a third party in some way. This is just a snotty navel gazing post without much content that was responded to in kind. It's completely reasonable to use adsense to generate revenue and then be upset when they inevitably fuck you (and they will). It's not a chance to make a (completely uninformed) "ah, that's your own fault" comment, deflecting from scumbag practices google engages in.
Hasu 2y ago
I love it when my counterparty's breach of contract is my fault because I foolishly trusted that they would do what they said they would in exchange for my money. I'm sure you also believe that she was asking for it because she was wearing a short skirt and your dad was right to hit you because you wouldn't shut up.
- bigyabai 2y ago
  If you aren't prepared for the contingency where your counterparty bails, then yes, strategically you are failing to commoditize your product for the specific market. I think that's the basis of competition and free market economics.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    lol in what world is breaking paid user contracts and flagrantly getting away with it democratic? What does free market even mean in this context? That the big trillion dollar corporation can bury you in legal fees or remove your means of making money with no way to question the decision to prove it was done in error? This is insane. In no free society would this be just. They need to rightfully be broken up to ensure a free society for everyone, not just the cohort of people that own alphabet stocks.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  Show me the contract where Google promises to bring web traffic to your business.
afavour 2y ago
Isn't one of the specific complaints about monopolies that it leaves you with no choice but to be dependent on the third party? If Google blocks my access to the only viable ad network do you really think it's reasonable to say I need to set up my own ad exchange?
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  Trillions of dollars are spent on advertising outside of Google. You can advertise in print, billboards, radio and television ads, Netflix, or on social media behemoths. Hackers call every big business they do not like a "monopoly". What's next, Burger King is a monopoly? I dislike Google more than most and would never buy nor sell ads with them, but they have no monopoly on advertising.
  - afavour 2y ago
    I’m sorry, this perspective is absurd. I’m talking about a web site that shows ads. You’re suggesting they pivot to running off billboards? To creating TV shows? > What’s next, Burger King is a monopoly? I think this just illustrates that you’re not grasping the concept. Of course Burger King isn’t a monopoly. With my car when looking for a drive through dining experience I can go to McDonalds. Or Wendy’s. Or whatever. When operating a small to medium size web site that depends on advertising for revenue the viable alternatives to Google essentially don’t exist.
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      Situation 1: You want to advertise your product or service. There are endless options outside of Google, including some options where the audience is counted in the hundreds of millions. Situation 2: You want to let others advertise their products or service in your space. There is an endless amount of companies which you can contact to make advertising deals. If you are too lazy to do that and want a third party to take care of it, then you can use Google as a middle man. But they are not obliged to do business with you. If the justice wants to go after Google, then they could (and should) prosecute Google (and Meta, and Twitter) for all the scam and malware ads they permit through their platform. That is billions of dollars of money laundering, and the CEOs should be imprisoned for this. For life.

If you made your business become completely dependent on a third party, you were already a failure and shouldn't have a business. Being a successful businessman is not a right. It's competition.

CPLX 2y ago

The reason monopolies are illegal is precisely because they force people to be completely dependent on a third party. Is a farmer "a failure who shouldn't have a business" if some asshole buys up every single railroad, port, and truck in the country he lives in?

carlosjobim 2y ago
No, but if he makes himself for example completely dependent on Monsanto, he shouldn't have a business, because he's in practice an employee with all the financial responsibilities of a business and none of the benefits of having a business. And none of the benefits of being an employee either. If your business model is to make yourself completely dependent on a single third party, then you shouldn't have a business.
- CPLX 2y ago
  The only way it would be possible for him to become completely dependent on Monsanto is if that company is allowed to monopolize the product categories it sells.

JohnMakin 2y ago

Wow, all those fortune 500 companies whose infra entirely relies on 3rd party cloud infrastructure really must be in for a rude awakening. You should update them with your cunning analysis and inform them they are failures.

efsavage 2y ago
The tone here isn't great but parent is more correct than not. This is why large companies don't use freebie services. They vet companies and partners, sign enterprise deals with support, SLAs, penalties, insurance, even bonds in some cases. It costs more, and it's hardly fun for most people, but it's all part of mitigating those risks. And it's not just tech, you see the same thing in non-tech industries like manufacturing.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  It really isn't. Most businesses export core business functions to a third party in some way. This is just a snotty navel gazing post without much content that was responded to in kind. It's completely reasonable to use adsense to generate revenue and then be upset when they inevitably fuck you (and they will). It's not a chance to make a (completely uninformed) "ah, that's your own fault" comment, deflecting from scumbag practices google engages in.

Hasu 2y ago

I love it when my counterparty's breach of contract is my fault because I foolishly trusted that they would do what they said they would in exchange for my money. I'm sure you also believe that she was asking for it because she was wearing a short skirt and your dad was right to hit you because you wouldn't shut up.

bigyabai 2y ago
If you aren't prepared for the contingency where your counterparty bails, then yes, strategically you are failing to commoditize your product for the specific market. I think that's the basis of competition and free market economics.
- azemetre 2y ago
  lol in what world is breaking paid user contracts and flagrantly getting away with it democratic? What does free market even mean in this context? That the big trillion dollar corporation can bury you in legal fees or remove your means of making money with no way to question the decision to prove it was done in error? This is insane. In no free society would this be just. They need to rightfully be broken up to ensure a free society for everyone, not just the cohort of people that own alphabet stocks.
carlosjobim 2y ago
Show me the contract where Google promises to bring web traffic to your business.

afavour 2y ago

Isn't one of the specific complaints about monopolies that it leaves you with no choice but to be dependent on the third party? If Google blocks my access to the only viable ad network do you really think it's reasonable to say I need to set up my own ad exchange?

carlosjobim 2y ago
Trillions of dollars are spent on advertising outside of Google. You can advertise in print, billboards, radio and television ads, Netflix, or on social media behemoths. Hackers call every big business they do not like a "monopoly". What's next, Burger King is a monopoly? I dislike Google more than most and would never buy nor sell ads with them, but they have no monopoly on advertising.
- afavour 2y ago
  I’m sorry, this perspective is absurd. I’m talking about a web site that shows ads. You’re suggesting they pivot to running off billboards? To creating TV shows? > What’s next, Burger King is a monopoly? I think this just illustrates that you’re not grasping the concept. Of course Burger King isn’t a monopoly. With my car when looking for a drive through dining experience I can go to McDonalds. Or Wendy’s. Or whatever. When operating a small to medium size web site that depends on advertising for revenue the viable alternatives to Google essentially don’t exist.
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    Situation 1: You want to advertise your product or service. There are endless options outside of Google, including some options where the audience is counted in the hundreds of millions. Situation 2: You want to let others advertise their products or service in your space. There is an endless amount of companies which you can contact to make advertising deals. If you are too lazy to do that and want a third party to take care of it, then you can use Google as a middle man. But they are not obliged to do business with you. If the justice wants to go after Google, then they could (and should) prosecute Google (and Meta, and Twitter) for all the scam and malware ads they permit through their platform. That is billions of dollars of money laundering, and the CEOs should be imprisoned for this. For life.