5 ms·

being a mononpoly is not illegal or even necessarily bad. It's what you do with that monopoly status that is important. Until someone shows that Google is abusi

by zaphar 17y ago

being a mononpoly is not illegal or even necessarily bad. It's what you do with that monopoly status that is important. Until someone shows that Google is abusing it's power they will be fine. Up to know everything Google has done falls under the category of improving customer experience and generally making the internet and world a better place. Google was on the wrong end of the stick with regards to a duopoly in map data so they fixed the problem. In fixing the problem they made a duopoly a "triopoly" (is that even a word?). This in my mind is an improvement.

InclinedPlane 17y ago
Monopolies are like monarchies. There may be a good one now and then but the system itself is faulty and prone to badness. A good monopoly will generally turn into a bad monopoly over time, because there are no competitive forces keeping it honest. Though there are rare exceptions. A competitive market tends to be long-term stable, resulting in better sustained, long-term results for customers. Google is very dominant but nothing it does could really be considered a monopoly, even search. Very few google products have significant "lock-in" the way most monopolistic products do.
fnid 17y ago
You only feel this way because you like Google. MS including a browser so people didn't have to FTP one or get one from friends made the world better too. It's probably that decision that helped the web grow to what it is today. I remember what it was like trying to get on the internet before IE was included. It was a pain. Also, consumerism's arguably bad for the world, due to over consumption, etc, so advertising isn't really good for the world, thus google is bad for the world.
- michaelfairley 17y ago
  Didn't the anti-trust case have more to do with the fact that it was impossible to uninstall IE, and that various actions would cause IE to be reset as the default browser?
- zaphar 17y ago
  I wasn't commenting on MS and it's policies. However I believe the issue with MS was less the browser bundling and more the difficulty in removing it. And strong arm tactics keeping alternate browsers from being installed by manufacturers. My point still stands. Google is not making it difficult to use a different gps system or using strong arm tactics. This sets them apart from MS.

by zaphar 17y ago

InclinedPlane 17y ago

Monopolies are like monarchies. There may be a good one now and then but the system itself is faulty and prone to badness. A good monopoly will generally turn into a bad monopoly over time, because there are no competitive forces keeping it honest. Though there are rare exceptions. A competitive market tends to be long-term stable, resulting in better sustained, long-term results for customers. Google is very dominant but nothing it does could really be considered a monopoly, even search. Very few google products have significant "lock-in" the way most monopolistic products do.

fnid 17y ago

You only feel this way because you like Google. MS including a browser so people didn't have to FTP one or get one from friends made the world better too. It's probably that decision that helped the web grow to what it is today. I remember what it was like trying to get on the internet before IE was included. It was a pain. Also, consumerism's arguably bad for the world, due to over consumption, etc, so advertising isn't really good for the world, thus google is bad for the world.

michaelfairley 17y ago
Didn't the anti-trust case have more to do with the fact that it was impossible to uninstall IE, and that various actions would cause IE to be reset as the default browser?
zaphar 17y ago
I wasn't commenting on MS and it's policies. However I believe the issue with MS was less the browser bundling and more the difficulty in removing it. And strong arm tactics keeping alternate browsers from being installed by manufacturers. My point still stands. Google is not making it difficult to use a different gps system or using strong arm tactics. This sets them apart from MS.