4 ms·

Stifle competiton? Are you serious? All what Google does is destroying other peoples's businesses for fun - see, we have shitload of money and nothing to do, wh

by atirip 14y ago

Stifle competiton? Are you serious? All what Google does is destroying other peoples's businesses for fun - see, we have shitload of money and nothing to do, why we just offer that what you offer, but for free - haha looser.

riffraff 14y ago
The fact that google may not be doing doesn't mean this is isn't a known practice, which is actually punished by the law in some places.
arrrg 14y ago
Offering your product for free (which smaller competitors will often not be able to do) can drive the competition out of business and be anti-competitve (i.e. evil). This is not some absurd thing to say. The only question is whether that happened. (I sort of believe it did, at least on some level.) That doesn’t make Google super-evil in my eyes, but it’s a mark against them.
- icebraining 14y ago
  That's essentially saying that being too competitive is anti-competitive, and frankly, I think it's ridiculous. So what if smaller competitors aren't able to provide the same solutions at the same price? Isn't that why it's called competition? The point is to benefit consumers, not to keep inefficient businesses alive by hurting them. That said, I think there's some sense in calling anti-competitive when a player lowers the price temporarily, in order to drive out competitors and jack up the prices afterwards. But that's clearly not what happened here.
  - arrrg 14y ago
    Nah, reducing the price and bringing it back up is not necessary. It’s anti-competitive if Google Reader on its own wasn’t profitable and Google nevertheless kept it alive (funding it with money from elsewhere in the company), thus killing competitors.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      Then, does that make Hacker News an anti-competitive move by YCombinator? Does it make Free Software anti-competitive? Maybe it is, but then I say, hurray for the anti-competitives!
      - arrrg 14y ago
        No, it doesn’t. This isn’t a black and white problem.
    - arindone 14y ago
      Agreed -- anti-competitive law is pretty clear on the fact that scale and market dominance in one market cannot be leveraged to gain significant market share in another market for this exact reason
      - icebraining 14y ago
        The fact that they have market dominance on another market is immaterial here, they didn't need it to keep Google Reader free. Lots of companies have free online services subsidized by their endeavors, without being dominant. You're posting in one of them right now, for example.
        arindone 14y ago
        It is absolutely material in competitive and antitrust law. It's not an issue of interpretation or opinion here -- it's applying the same principles that got Microsoft in trouble in the 90's.

by atirip 14y ago

riffraff 14y ago

The fact that google may not be doing doesn't mean this is isn't a known practice, which is actually punished by the law in some places.

arrrg 14y ago

Offering your product for free (which smaller competitors will often not be able to do) can drive the competition out of business and be anti-competitve (i.e. evil). This is not some absurd thing to say. The only question is whether that happened. (I sort of believe it did, at least on some level.) That doesn’t make Google super-evil in my eyes, but it’s a mark against them.

icebraining 14y ago
That's essentially saying that being too competitive is anti-competitive, and frankly, I think it's ridiculous. So what if smaller competitors aren't able to provide the same solutions at the same price? Isn't that why it's called competition? The point is to benefit consumers, not to keep inefficient businesses alive by hurting them. That said, I think there's some sense in calling anti-competitive when a player lowers the price temporarily, in order to drive out competitors and jack up the prices afterwards. But that's clearly not what happened here.
- arrrg 14y ago
  Nah, reducing the price and bringing it back up is not necessary. It’s anti-competitive if Google Reader on its own wasn’t profitable and Google nevertheless kept it alive (funding it with money from elsewhere in the company), thus killing competitors.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Then, does that make Hacker News an anti-competitive move by YCombinator? Does it make Free Software anti-competitive? Maybe it is, but then I say, hurray for the anti-competitives!
    - arrrg 14y ago
      No, it doesn’t. This isn’t a black and white problem.
  - arindone 14y ago
    Agreed -- anti-competitive law is pretty clear on the fact that scale and market dominance in one market cannot be leveraged to gain significant market share in another market for this exact reason
    - icebraining 14y ago
      The fact that they have market dominance on another market is immaterial here, they didn't need it to keep Google Reader free. Lots of companies have free online services subsidized by their endeavors, without being dominant. You're posting in one of them right now, for example.
      - arindone 14y ago
        It is absolutely material in competitive and antitrust law. It's not an issue of interpretation or opinion here -- it's applying the same principles that got Microsoft in trouble in the 90's.