4 ms·

Google thinks - accurately - that the more people use the internet the more money Google makes. It invests a fortune into making the internet more accessible th

by roenxi 2y ago

Google thinks - accurately - that the more people use the internet the more money Google makes. It invests a fortune into making the internet more accessible through creating better browsers. There isn't anyone else willing to dump that sort of money into browser development. It is a bit like calling a supermarket a cartel if it relies on local residents for 80% of its profits. No, the technical term is they are paying customers (although in Google's case it is complex and non-traditional because they are carrying the financial burden on behalf of the people who click on ads and there are a bunch of free riders). The odds are against a bunch of alternative customers hiding in the wings waiting to pop up; if they go away then they are just gone.

shafyy 2y ago
> It is a bit like calling a supermarket a cartel if it relies on local residents for 80% of its profits. This comparison does not make sense?
- GlacierFox 2y ago
  Yeah, have read the segment multiple times. Can not fathom a logical coherent meaning for that sentence.
- roenxi 2y ago
  The point I'm trying to make is that we've identified the prime customer of web browser development - it is Google. That is like identifying the prime customers of a supermarket - people who live nearby. Having customers who are particularly keen or invested for whatever reason does not make an enterprise a cartel.
  - shafyy 2y ago
    What makes Google a cartel (or rather, monopoly) in this case is that they own > 80% of the browser market. Not that they pay other companies so that they appear as the default search engine.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      I think that is a mistaken view, but rather than argue that I'll put a more interesting question. If you believe that there is a cartel here and the result is that we the plebs get high quality products for free, do you think cartels are a bad thing? Because it seems to be all upside for pretty much everyone. If this is a cartel (which, again, I don't see it), we should be looking to get cartels involved in food and housing. Breaking up this 'cartel' is literally going to mean that the best 4 web browsers won't get quite as much development effort directed towards them. The plan seems to be to choke them of so much development that even dodgy hobbyist projects can complete. That is a low-quality bar.
      - shafyy 2y ago
        But we don't get the high quality products for free. Google is using Chrome to strenghten their market dominance in other markets, such as advertising. Furthermore, they are using their market power in browsers to push through standards and protocols that mostly benefit them. Just ask yourself this: Google is one of the largest and most profitable companies on Earth. They are a for-profit, capitalistic company. Legally, their main duty is to maximize shareholder profit. Why would they give away somehting for free, if in the end, it does not benefit them more than not giving it away for free? Competition is always better for consumers, unless you believe in a "benevolent dictator" situation (which, as reality shows, also never ends well).
- ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
  Nor does calling browsers dependent on Search funding a cartel. People expect web browsers to be provided for free, which heavily complicates funding. There is nothing stopping someone from making a new browser. The base of Chrome is open source, you don't even have to do the hard part. And distribution worldwide is relatively easy, if you can give people a reason to use your browser.
lukan 2y ago
How did the developement of chrome made more people use the internet? Some remember the time, when browsers existed before chrome as well .. and I am not a ware of a uniquie chrome feature, removing significant barriers. But by developing the browser, they can A) decide the direction where the web is heading B) get direct control over peoples internet experience and their data
- tnh 2y ago
  There are alternate histories where the web stagnated as an app development platform in favor of other ecosystems. MS development slowed around IE6 after winning browser war against Netscape. Apple's mobile ecosystem competes successfully with web, but could have gone further. Chrome and Android have helped keep the web more relevant.
  - lblume 2y ago
    At its core, the ideals of the Web as an interoperable, nearly universal platform are extremely promising. I highly doubt people would prefer completely split ecosystems where programs could only be accessed on specific platforms.
- koalaman 2y ago
  You could not watch Netflix on Linux until Chrome came along. You also didn't have very good security from browser exploits until Chrome. Chrome also made the web significantly faster to use. Chrome was critical in unblocking the use of Linux on desktop.
  - belter 2y ago
    Al Capone did a lot of good on his neighborhood...
    - mensetmanusman 2y ago
      Chrome didn’t murder anyone
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the technical term is they are paying customers (although in Google's case it is complex and non-traditional because they are carrying the financial burden on behalf of the people who click on ads and there are a bunch of free riders) Not the fact that Google is the one doing the paying?
Qwertious 2y ago
I'm wondering which local residents didn't eat food before supermarkets existed.
- bluGill 2y ago
  The vast majority since according to Wikipedia the first supermarket was in the 1930s, and thus very few were born before that. I know that I personally have never lived someplace where most of my food didn't come from a supermarket.
CPLX 2y ago
That’s not correct. Google believes the more people use its search engine the more money it makes from ads. That’s correct. So it monopolizes the distribution platforms for search engines. The easier analogy here is an oil monopolist paying off all the tanker and rail and pipeline companies so nobody else can get oil to customers, and then splitting the massive profits with the shippers. By the way this example actually happened and is the origin of the term “antitrust” which is the area of law that Google was found guilty of violating by multiple judges. So the analogy is right on the nose.

by roenxi 2y ago

shafyy 2y ago

> It is a bit like calling a supermarket a cartel if it relies on local residents for 80% of its profits. This comparison does not make sense?

GlacierFox 2y ago
Yeah, have read the segment multiple times. Can not fathom a logical coherent meaning for that sentence.
roenxi 2y ago
The point I'm trying to make is that we've identified the prime customer of web browser development - it is Google. That is like identifying the prime customers of a supermarket - people who live nearby. Having customers who are particularly keen or invested for whatever reason does not make an enterprise a cartel.
- shafyy 2y ago
  What makes Google a cartel (or rather, monopoly) in this case is that they own > 80% of the browser market. Not that they pay other companies so that they appear as the default search engine.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    I think that is a mistaken view, but rather than argue that I'll put a more interesting question. If you believe that there is a cartel here and the result is that we the plebs get high quality products for free, do you think cartels are a bad thing? Because it seems to be all upside for pretty much everyone. If this is a cartel (which, again, I don't see it), we should be looking to get cartels involved in food and housing. Breaking up this 'cartel' is literally going to mean that the best 4 web browsers won't get quite as much development effort directed towards them. The plan seems to be to choke them of so much development that even dodgy hobbyist projects can complete. That is a low-quality bar.
    - shafyy 2y ago
      But we don't get the high quality products for free. Google is using Chrome to strenghten their market dominance in other markets, such as advertising. Furthermore, they are using their market power in browsers to push through standards and protocols that mostly benefit them. Just ask yourself this: Google is one of the largest and most profitable companies on Earth. They are a for-profit, capitalistic company. Legally, their main duty is to maximize shareholder profit. Why would they give away somehting for free, if in the end, it does not benefit them more than not giving it away for free? Competition is always better for consumers, unless you believe in a "benevolent dictator" situation (which, as reality shows, also never ends well).
ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
Nor does calling browsers dependent on Search funding a cartel. People expect web browsers to be provided for free, which heavily complicates funding. There is nothing stopping someone from making a new browser. The base of Chrome is open source, you don't even have to do the hard part. And distribution worldwide is relatively easy, if you can give people a reason to use your browser.

lukan 2y ago

How did the developement of chrome made more people use the internet? Some remember the time, when browsers existed before chrome as well .. and I am not a ware of a uniquie chrome feature, removing significant barriers. But by developing the browser, they can A) decide the direction where the web is heading B) get direct control over peoples internet experience and their data

tnh 2y ago
There are alternate histories where the web stagnated as an app development platform in favor of other ecosystems. MS development slowed around IE6 after winning browser war against Netscape. Apple's mobile ecosystem competes successfully with web, but could have gone further. Chrome and Android have helped keep the web more relevant.
- lblume 2y ago
  At its core, the ideals of the Web as an interoperable, nearly universal platform are extremely promising. I highly doubt people would prefer completely split ecosystems where programs could only be accessed on specific platforms.
koalaman 2y ago
You could not watch Netflix on Linux until Chrome came along. You also didn't have very good security from browser exploits until Chrome. Chrome also made the web significantly faster to use. Chrome was critical in unblocking the use of Linux on desktop.
- belter 2y ago
  Al Capone did a lot of good on his neighborhood...
  - mensetmanusman 2y ago
    Chrome didn’t murder anyone

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> the technical term is they are paying customers (although in Google's case it is complex and non-traditional because they are carrying the financial burden on behalf of the people who click on ads and there are a bunch of free riders) Not the fact that Google is the one doing the paying?

Qwertious 2y ago

I'm wondering which local residents didn't eat food before supermarkets existed.

bluGill 2y ago
The vast majority since according to Wikipedia the first supermarket was in the 1930s, and thus very few were born before that. I know that I personally have never lived someplace where most of my food didn't come from a supermarket.

CPLX 2y ago

That’s not correct. Google believes the more people use its search engine the more money it makes from ads. That’s correct. So it monopolizes the distribution platforms for search engines. The easier analogy here is an oil monopolist paying off all the tanker and rail and pipeline companies so nobody else can get oil to customers, and then splitting the massive profits with the shippers. By the way this example actually happened and is the origin of the term “antitrust” which is the area of law that Google was found guilty of violating by multiple judges. So the analogy is right on the nose.