5 ms·
"Google has gotten so rich, entrenched and popular that IMHO no competitor can dislodge it." Isn't this the definition of a monopoly? And if so, isn't that rea
by tsurantino 13y ago
"Google has gotten so rich, entrenched and popular that IMHO no competitor can dislodge it."
Isn't this the definition of a monopoly? And if so, isn't that reason enough to consider search as a public good or a publicly regulated means of accessing information?
- aggronn 13y agoSure, but what are you saying the implications of this be? Is handicapping the best options for search really whats best for consumers?
- r0h1n 13y agoThe key word there is "IMHO" Judging from the various anti-trust cases that have been brought on against Google around the world it's clear that proving that is nearly impossible too. More so because Google operates in a sector (Internet software) that is theoretically open to infinite competition and zero switching costs.
- gress 13y agoThat theory - infinite competition and zero switching costs - seems to be completely ungrounded in any kind of reality.
- mgkimsal 13y agoThere's a whole issue of what the definition of 'using google' is to people. Even if I never search with Google, I'm still often using google stuff - or, more precisely, Google services are using/tracking me. And there's no obvious way to turn it off or opt out of it.
- skj 13y agoincognito mode.
- alan_cx 13y agoDepends on one's definition of "cost".
- TelmoMenezes 13y agoGiven the current western governments' stance on privacy and freedom of speech / access to information, this sounds like dystopian proposition.