Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

promarket.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 260 posts

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#11

Post by arthulia »

FussyZeus wrote: post #2

I've worked hard at distancing myself from Google. It seems their motto "Don't be Evil" has about as many asterisks behind it as they can manage. Every product they design seems to be built from the ground up to enable data collection, and every advertiser they partner with seems to have build plausible deniability into every aspect of the "product" they claim to deliver. I can't point to anything in particular, but…

Google officially dropped the "Don't be Evil" motto a while back and picked up Alphabet's "Do the Right Thing" motto, which seems a lot more subjective.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#12

Post by geppeto »

Its not 2004 so you shouldn't be as impressionable as a child any longer.

If you are fawning over a corporation's motto you are playing life by an ineffective set of rules.

But .... now that I think about it, scratch that, maybe you'll be interested in being part of my Amway downline.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#13

Post by itp »

arthulia wrote: post #11
FussyZeus wrote: post #2

I've worked hard at distancing myself from Google. It seems their motto "Don't be Evil" has about as many asterisks behind it as they can manage. Every product they design seems to be built from the ground up to enable data collection, and every advertiser they partner with seems to have build plausible deniability into every aspect of the "product" they claim to deliver. I can't point to anything in particular, but…

Google officially dropped the "Don't be Evil" motto a while back and picked up Alphabet's "Do the Right Thing" motto, which seems a lot more subjective.

Alphabet code of conduct: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-conduct.html

"Employees of Alphabet and its subsidiaries and controlled affiliates (“Alphabet”) should do the right thing – follow the law, act honorably, and treat each other with respect."

"If you are employed by a subsidiary or controlled affiliate of Alphabet, please comply with your employer’s code of conduct."

Google code of conduct: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html

"Don't be evil."

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#14

Post by jessaustin »

Ma Bell's monopoly has never been "natural". It has been enforced by FCC, ever since FCC was formed for that specific purpose in 1934. Even before that, ICC through the Kingsbury Commitment had adopted an ill-considered and unjustified hands-off policy with respect to Ma Bell's anticompetitive actions.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#15

Post by panabee »

It would be great to see more balanced discourse on monopolies, especially in a software-dominated world. Most analyses and articles fixate on the costs of monopolies.

Let's assume the worst of Google and conclude they abused their search monopoly. Innovation in search was stifled. Competitors were damaged and achieved only a fraction of their potential. For instance, Yelp might be worth $15B instead of $3B in a world without "evil" Google.

But Google's search monopoly and concomitant cash flows also gave society free worldwide communication, self-driving cars, cheaper smartphones, free digital maps, and countless other benefits.

All policies hurt some and help others.

Before supporting or rejecting a policy, it's wise to consider the overall benefits to society instead of focusing only on the injured parties. Why should thinking about monopolies differ?

To reiterate, this is neither endorsing nor disparaging monopolies. It's a request for objective analysis and updated thinking to reflect the potential new realities of monopolies like Google that give products away for free.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#16

Post by throwaway91111 »

kuschku wrote: post #9
Omnius wrote: post #5

Google has a ton of competition across all of its products. It's dominating in some of them but being better then your competition is a lot different then there not being any.

Google beats the competition in some markets because they have so much power in other markets. If you start a startup even in cloud photo storage, and suddenly Google Photos comes along, you’re dead. No one will fund you anymore, and you’ve basically lost. Google has such an immense amount of network effect, and of knowledge they can gain from dominating in other markets, that if Google enters a market – unless there…

Maybe that's a sign that photo storage is already commodity and such a startup shouldn't be funded.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#17

Post by FussyZeus »

Sylos wrote: post #8
FussyZeus wrote: post #2

I've worked hard at distancing myself from Google. It seems their motto "Don't be Evil" has about as many asterisks behind it as they can manage. Every product they design seems to be built from the ground up to enable data collection, and every advertiser they partner with seems to have build plausible deniability into every aspect of the "product" they claim to deliver. I can't point to anything in particular, but…

> At the moment I'm still tied to Chrome for bookmark sync but that's about it. You can sync bookmarks with Firefox, too. And you should be able to migrate your bookmarks just as well...

I can't get over Firefox's resource waste though. I know Chrome isn't great for it either but Firefox really takes the cake for devouring memory.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#18

Post by FussyZeus »

geppeto wrote: post #12

Its not 2004 so you shouldn't be as impressionable as a child any longer. If you are fawning over a corporation's motto you are playing life by an ineffective set of rules. But .... now that I think about it, scratch that, maybe you'll be interested in being part of my Amway downline.

Careful you don't sprain an ankle making all those leaps there.

My reasoning has nothing to do with their motto, my reasoning is the fact that they've been involved in multiple breaches of ethics concerning privacy, which when you think about it makes a lot of sense because their business model not only incentivizes but actually depends upon their ability to learn about their users and serve ads matching their interests. I'm not saying this is inherently a bad thing, there are many many people out there happily willing to trade their personal data instead of money for services, and more power to them, that's their choice to make. I'm just going a different route is all.

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#19

Post by zitterbewegung »

kuschku wrote: post #9
Omnius wrote: post #5

Google has a ton of competition across all of its products. It's dominating in some of them but being better then your competition is a lot different then there not being any.

Google beats the competition in some markets because they have so much power in other markets. If you start a startup even in cloud photo storage, and suddenly Google Photos comes along, you’re dead. No one will fund you anymore, and you’ve basically lost. Google has such an immense amount of network effect, and of knowledge they can gain from dominating in other markets, that if Google enters a market – unless there…

What about imgur?

Re: “Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

#20

Post by FussyZeus »

itp wrote: post #13
arthulia wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google officially dropped the "Don't be Evil" motto a while back and picked up Alphabet's "Do the Right Thing" motto, which seems a lot more subjective.

Alphabet code of conduct: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/code-of-conduct.html "Employees of Alphabet and its subsidiaries and controlled affiliates (“Alphabet”) should do the right thing – follow the law, act honorably, and treat each other with respect." "If you are employed by a subsidiary or controlled affiliate of Alphabet, please comply with your employer’s code of conduct." Google code of conduct: https://abc.x…

But wouldn't that technically apply to only those working at Google, not the other Alphabet companies? Not that it really matters, both are utterly without meaning. I was just using it to show how their corporate personality has changed over the years.
Post reply on HN