3 ms·

I see Google as a biggest disruptor nowadays. Since they have two huge cash cows (Adsense+Adwords), they can basically offer any software service (Gmail, Office

by greyman 17y ago

I see Google as a biggest disruptor nowadays. Since they have two huge cash cows (Adsense+Adwords), they can basically offer any software service (Gmail, Office, Photo storage, Maps, GPS, webhosting, etc. etc...) for free or very cheap, since their advertising clients can pay for that. More specialized services often cannot compete, since they don't have such ads money. And this I see is a potential danger, that Google will totally crush a lot of competition in several IT-related industries, and what's more, collect a lot of personal data of all their users in the process. Microsoft was often criticized for their monopolistic behavior, and rightfully so, but it is nothing comparing to what Google does (or plan to do). Just to clarify: I don't want to bash Google, I am also their user and their products are usually good, but what I want to say is just the strategy they choose is very disruptive.

socratees 17y ago
I'm not defending Google or something. But still, isn't Apple disruptive? And most start-ups are disruptive too. And Ads are the proper revenue model for Google, For apple, selling hardware is its revenue model. For, Microsoft selling software & related services is the revenue model. I don't see Google's behavior as monopolistic. Also, monopolistic behavior by itself is not bad, but it becomes bad when combined with unfair trade practices. Finally, these kind of articles show up everyday. It's just the "News".
pavs 17y ago
There is a very obvious solution to that problem. Don't use Google services. I have seen that people who usually criticize Google the most (not saying there is anything wrong with criticizing) are also one of their bigest users. There are a lot of reasons to not like MSFT's monopolistic business, they pulled (and still does) all types of dirty tricks, including buying out government official in third world countries so that they can sell MSFT's powered notebooks to children and one up "One laptop per child project". That's probably one of the least evil thing they did. If you can provide just one example of Google doing anything remotely sinister like that I would love to listen to it.* Google, in most cases, provides the best possible service with the best possible price (often free). Some of these services in all likelihood probably is not even profitable by any margin anytime soon - or if at all, ever. This causes companies that do provide similar services at a cost to improve what they do; otherwise they would do nothing and stay content with the way things are. Google drives innovations to their competition. IE9 and its improvements would not happen if there was no Chrome. Firefox would not rethink its approach (their next release concept looks almost like chrome) and improve in performance at the pace they are now. MSFT would not aggressively improve their OS performance with windows 7 to be functional on a netbook. (Some of us knew about Google OS way before it was officially announced, in all likelihood MSFT did too). Bing would not exist. While there are real concerns about privacy, in the days of online applications and services, privacy never existed in first place, regardless whose service you are using. I think Google contribution far outweighs its negative points. However I can understand why some HN crowd can feel threatened by them. ------------------------------------------------- * There was one incident in China I can remember.
- mun2mun 17y ago
  "There is a very obvious solution to that problem. Don't use Google services." Is it really that simple? Can you give me some "better" alternative. 60% of people out there uses google as search engine. So it's better to target them for business. You cannot remove that dependency so easily.
- greyman 17y ago
  I was only commenting about a global effect I see Google is causing to the IT industry. I personally do not have a problem with them, nor do i feel threatened. It's not about me, but the Tech industry in general. [This causes companies that do provide similar services at a cost to improve what they do; otherwise they would do nothing and stay content with the way things are.] I agree in a general sense, but in reality, in some sectors you are just not able to compete with free. Google can offer it for free, just because they pay it with the money they earned from another service (online ads). But, I don't say this is inherently evil or monopolistic, I just wanted to express my observation that this strategy causes disruption.

by greyman 17y ago

socratees 17y ago

I'm not defending Google or something. But still, isn't Apple disruptive? And most start-ups are disruptive too. And Ads are the proper revenue model for Google, For apple, selling hardware is its revenue model. For, Microsoft selling software & related services is the revenue model. I don't see Google's behavior as monopolistic. Also, monopolistic behavior by itself is not bad, but it becomes bad when combined with unfair trade practices. Finally, these kind of articles show up everyday. It's just the "News".

pavs 17y ago

There is a very obvious solution to that problem. Don't use Google services. I have seen that people who usually criticize Google the most (not saying there is anything wrong with criticizing) are also one of their bigest users. There are a lot of reasons to not like MSFT's monopolistic business, they pulled (and still does) all types of dirty tricks, including buying out government official in third world countries so that they can sell MSFT's powered notebooks to children and one up "One laptop per child project". That's probably one of the least evil thing they did. If you can provide just one example of Google doing anything remotely sinister like that I would love to listen to it.* Google, in most cases, provides the best possible service with the best possible price (often free). Some of these services in all likelihood probably is not even profitable by any margin anytime soon - or if at all, ever. This causes companies that do provide similar services at a cost to improve what they do; otherwise they would do nothing and stay content with the way things are. Google drives innovations to their competition. IE9 and its improvements would not happen if there was no Chrome. Firefox would not rethink its approach (their next release concept looks almost like chrome) and improve in performance at the pace they are now. MSFT would not aggressively improve their OS performance with windows 7 to be functional on a netbook. (Some of us knew about Google OS way before it was officially announced, in all likelihood MSFT did too). Bing would not exist. While there are real concerns about privacy, in the days of online applications and services, privacy never existed in first place, regardless whose service you are using. I think Google contribution far outweighs its negative points. However I can understand why some HN crowd can feel threatened by them. ------------------------------------------------- * There was one incident in China I can remember.

mun2mun 17y ago
"There is a very obvious solution to that problem. Don't use Google services." Is it really that simple? Can you give me some "better" alternative. 60% of people out there uses google as search engine. So it's better to target them for business. You cannot remove that dependency so easily.
greyman 17y ago
I was only commenting about a global effect I see Google is causing to the IT industry. I personally do not have a problem with them, nor do i feel threatened. It's not about me, but the Tech industry in general. [This causes companies that do provide similar services at a cost to improve what they do; otherwise they would do nothing and stay content with the way things are.] I agree in a general sense, but in reality, in some sectors you are just not able to compete with free. Google can offer it for free, just because they pay it with the money they earned from another service (online ads). But, I don't say this is inherently evil or monopolistic, I just wanted to express my observation that this strategy causes disruption.