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

221–230 of 260 posts

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

#221

Post by lm_nop »

amsilprotag wrote: post #176
sfifs wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This appears to be a common misconception that monopolies are bad from a public policy standpoint. For public policy, the existence of a monopoly is neither here nor there. Monopolies are problem ONLY IF their operations causes negative economic effects to consumers - typically by raising prices. Indeed in many cases (eg. Transport, Infrastructure) a monopoly is actively granted in return for guaranteed availability…

Is this true? Wasn't Microsoft brought down for harming incipient businesses by bundling competing software into the OS? Wasn't standard oil fragmented in part for receiving anti-competitive freight fares? Couldn't it be argued that Google's featured snippets and accelerated mobile pages will lower the revenue of content creators and thus decrease consumer surplus in the long term?

Could also be argued that Google AMP (Accelerated mobile pages) enables publishers to get SOME ad revenue in spite of rise of ad blockers. Thus mitigating, and dare I say using monopoly for some-what good-ish intentions?

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

#222

Post by jessaustin »

Nav_Panel wrote: post #122
jessaustin wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you really see a contradiction between our two definitions, I'll take your confident affirmations of the status quo with a grain of salt. See the sibling comment from 'ghaff for a much more complete understanding of this concept.

I don't see a contradiction but a difference. You say: dismantling it would have other bad effects that would be worse than the direct bad effects of the monopoly I wanted to clearly state that it's not some sort of abstract "other bad effects", it's that prices would increase for the consumer if the monopoly was disbanded . My thought/critique of ghaff's comment involves physical last-mile infrastructure. Alternativ…

Ma Bell and her daughters have been getting the same sweet deal for over a century now. If that's "temporary", I don't want to see "permanent".

First/last mile (depends on one's perspective, you know) really is the only remaining support for the whole rotten edifice of USA telecom. Thus it's instructive that FCC fights at every turn to stymie white spaces, SDR, or any other 21C radio technology. When the consumer can choose from many ISPs, the first competition in a century will kill every existing firm.

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

#223

Post by pc2g4d »

pcwalton wrote: post #151
beagle3 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But unlike Google (AFAIK), Microsoft played very dirty - they eventually paid for it (see e.g. [0]), but the gains from remaining a not-even-threatened monopoly where at 100-1000 times larger than what they paid. I experienced this first hand at a company I worked for in the early '90s - we had agreements signed with many PC manufacturers to include our software (which was a DOS launcher of sort, that -- in those day…

There are also instances in which Google has played not particularly fairly—releasing Chrome-only products such as Google Earth that require NaCl, for example.

Only allowing redirects to be seen by Google Analytics, no competing analytics tools.

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

#224

Post by scarface74 »

jorvi wrote: post #193
aaomidi wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two years of OS updates and three years of security updates. The devices that google had and weren't using Qualcomm CPU got updates for a lot longer (e.g Nexus Player). It gets very, very annoying for Google to try to support phones that use CPUs that don't update or release anything anymore.

I never understood how 'SoC manufacture X doesn't release updates for that SoC' translates into 'we can't update/support this device anymore'. My OnePlus One is whizzing along happily on Nougat (7.1.2) via LineageOS. There's also a well working ported version of OxygenOS 3.1 for it, despite OnePlus having abandoned it on 2.1; Hell, even the Samsung Galaxy S2 can still run Nougat via, again, LineageOS. What's preventi…

I never understood how 'SoC manufacture X doesn't release updates for that SoC' translates into 'we can't update/support this device anymore

Apple uses some third party chips but they haven't had that problem. Currently, iOS 10.3 supports the iPhone 5 - released in 2012. I suspect that iOS 11 when it comes out in September will keep support for all 64 bit iPhones. That would mean the iPhone 5s introduced in 2013 will be supported until September 2018.

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

#225

Post by scarface74 »

ellyagg wrote: post #208
scarface74 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you can not base your business on the fickleness of your phone company's /ISP algorithms. Google is a much as 90% of referrals for many websites Business 101 is that you're always in trouble if you depend on one supplier for the majority of your business. The second example I have is John Gruber (daringfireball.com). He never sold ads based on the number of active visitors. He sells one RSS sponsorship at the begi…

> Business 101 is that you're always in trouble if you depend on one supplier for the majority of your business. You're making the point. It's hard to build an online business without appeasing Google and that they need to is bad for small and fledgling businesses. It's possible to build an online business without Google, of course. There are usually alternatives to monopolies, just ones that cost a lot more or are m…

Whoever said that building a sucessful business "should be easy"? The two examples I gave John Gruber and Ben Thompson are both one man shops who built businesses based on writing articles that people wanted to read and building a reputation.

In Gruber's case, he built a reputation strong enough that he routinesly gets Apple's SVPs to come on his podcast. He doesn't depend on an ad network. He sells ads directly - one per week.

Ben Thompson built a strong enough following just based on reputation to get over 2000 people to pay him $100 a year for a newsletter.

How "risky" is it to start a blog on the side until you get enough readership to figure out a business model?

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

#227

Post by mrep »

magicalist wrote: post #161
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do the right thing" for whom? Making money is definitely doing the right thing... for Google's bottom line.

"Don't be evil" to whom? Making money is definitely not evil...for Google's bottom line. This is a silly game. Proof by corporate motto.

That's Amazon's strategy, where half of the leadership principles contradict the other half so there is always a way you can spin something.

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

#228

Post by DamonHD »

ouid wrote: post #164
DamonHD wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never mind free. In the UK most people would save £200/y with no interruption in service simply by switching energy suppliers, and yet they don't...

Surely some of them do, and I bet the ones that don't largely don't know that they're leaving money on the table. What are the two companies in question?

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/infographi...

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

#229

Post by beagle3 »

bedhead wrote: post #214
beagle3 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Google is free to its users, but the users are the product. The customers -- the advertisers -- pay dearly.

That is not how the FTC sees it.

What definition does the FTC use?

The IRS doesn't consider "time" or "privacy" a payment; if they did, you would have to report your internet browsing on your tax return because barter.

Post reply on HN