4 ms·

I'm not sure if Google is "corrupt" or not, but I've been reading Thiel's new book and he makes a strong and simple case for Google being a monopoly (and this m

by subdane 12y ago

I'm not sure if Google is "corrupt" or not, but I've been reading Thiel's new book and he makes a strong and simple case for Google being a monopoly (and this maybe being OK).

wpietri 12y ago
This just in: would-be monopolist things monopolies are just fine. If you are wondering why they are a problem, you might read "The Jungle", or any history of the era of the big industrial trusts. Or you could read "When Wizards Stay Up Late", a history of the Internet's invention. AT&T, the communications monopoly at the time, was a big barrier to the development and growth of the Internet. And, from their perspective, rightly so: they made a zillion dollars from charging for voice calls, something everybody now expects to be free.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Playing Devil's advocate, AT&T may have been a barrier to the development of the Internet, but they also owned and funded Bell Labs, whose research (quoting Wikipedia) "are credited with the development of radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, the charge-coupled device (CCD), information theory, the UNIX operating system, the C programming language, S programming language and the C++ programming language" for which "seven Nobel Prizes have been awarded". In any case, AT&T was a legal monopoly, not a market player with less than 70% of market share like Google (according to comScore). The lessons are not necessarily directly applicable.
- subdane 12y ago
  Whoa, first off, I'm responding to the use of "corrupt" instead of the more accurate "Monopoly". Second, while I don't personally agree with Thiel he raises an interesting point about monopolies - primarily that freedom from commodity competition allows them time to innovate (a la Google). His point is that there are three kinds of monopolies (unethical, govt sanctioned, innovative) and that the innovative kind may not be so bad - kind of like a benign dictator.

by subdane 12y ago

I'm not sure if Google is "corrupt" or not, but I've been reading Thiel's new book and he makes a strong and simple case for Google being a monopoly (and this maybe being OK).

wpietri 12y ago

This just in: would-be monopolist things monopolies are just fine. If you are wondering why they are a problem, you might read "The Jungle", or any history of the era of the big industrial trusts. Or you could read "When Wizards Stay Up Late", a history of the Internet's invention. AT&T, the communications monopoly at the time, was a big barrier to the development and growth of the Internet. And, from their perspective, rightly so: they made a zillion dollars from charging for voice calls, something everybody now expects to be free.

icebraining 12y ago
Playing Devil's advocate, AT&T may have been a barrier to the development of the Internet, but they also owned and funded Bell Labs, whose research (quoting Wikipedia) "are credited with the development of radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, the charge-coupled device (CCD), information theory, the UNIX operating system, the C programming language, S programming language and the C++ programming language" for which "seven Nobel Prizes have been awarded". In any case, AT&T was a legal monopoly, not a market player with less than 70% of market share like Google (according to comScore). The lessons are not necessarily directly applicable.
subdane 12y ago
Whoa, first off, I'm responding to the use of "corrupt" instead of the more accurate "Monopoly". Second, while I don't personally agree with Thiel he raises an interesting point about monopolies - primarily that freedom from commodity competition allows them time to innovate (a la Google). His point is that there are three kinds of monopolies (unethical, govt sanctioned, innovative) and that the innovative kind may not be so bad - kind of like a benign dictator.