101–110 of 196 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because this is HackerNews and we are more affected by Google than those other companies.
I doubt this. Most people here employ ad blocking of some form, use Firefox and religiously de-google. At least this particular thread is probably 90% of those people.
Break Up Amazon & Facebook too.
For example if Chrome would only work with google docs and not microsoft live.
USA does not have laws to break up companies simply for being too big or even for being used by majority of customers.
I know that there's a quota of at least one "Google bad" article at the top of Hacker News each day, and that's fine and all, but I feel like the bar for them is getting lower. There's a pretty good case for breaking up Google, but this article doesn't make it. The word "monopoly" doesn't appear once in the whole article, which is pretty weird in an article about how to break up Google and the justifications for doin…
This was described as the ultimate reason to break up Google. Then he goes on to explain 6 more reasons.
Is anyone else tired of seeing the same hate Facebook, Zoom and Google narratives every single day. So, we want to break up Google because it has gotten too big. What about Luxottica? It has over 80% market share on eyewear brands. What about Pearson? It has over 60% market share on testing market? What about Paypal? It has over 80% market share on online payments. What about Aetna (merged with Humana) on health care…
All these companies obtained this market share by purchasing competitors or integrating surrounding businesses. You're right though, they're all problems and shouldn't have been allowed to acquire so casually to their current market positions. That being said, Google gets primary access to your personal data and habits, and then also gets to sell advertising based on that data. That's certainly more unseemly than hav…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"The world needs Google Cloud to be viable?" That's an argument AGAINST breaking up Google I’m not strongly opinionated either way, but google cloud being connected to the main advertising company is the one of the two major reasons the European public sector isn’t using it. Terrible support is the other major reason. Maybe google doesn’t want the public sector billions, but something like firebase is actually a bet…
> I’m not strongly opinionated either way, but google cloud being connected to the main advertising company is the one of the two major reasons the European public sector isn’t using it. Please cite. And is M$ not also advertising[1]? If this ridiculous argument can get people to stop using M$ azure crapfest it might be just the boon I needed. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Advertising
Really?
I know that there's a quota of at least one "Google bad" article at the top of Hacker News each day, and that's fine and all, but I feel like the bar for them is getting lower. There's a pretty good case for breaking up Google, but this article doesn't make it. The word "monopoly" doesn't appear once in the whole article, which is pretty weird in an article about how to break up Google and the justifications for doin…
>"The world needs Google Cloud to be viable?" That's an argument AGAINST breaking up Google I’m not strongly opinionated either way, but google cloud being connected to the main advertising company is the one of the two major reasons the European public sector isn’t using it. Terrible support is the other major reason. Maybe google doesn’t want the public sector billions, but something like firebase is actually a bet…
I know that there's a quota of at least one "Google bad" article at the top of Hacker News each day, and that's fine and all, but I feel like the bar for them is getting lower. There's a pretty good case for breaking up Google, but this article doesn't make it. The word "monopoly" doesn't appear once in the whole article, which is pretty weird in an article about how to break up Google and the justifications for doin…
The sudden focus on google is a bit weird, given how non internet companies have been doing their thing in total impunity for decades. Not saying we should not do it, but it would be sane to also ponder if we are being influenced in doing so, and why.
Yes, let’s destroy one of the few large companies which has found a viable method of long term innovation instead of endless cost cutting and outsourcing. Let’s force Google to be like every other company in needing to constantly extract money from every project quarter by quarter. Not to mention that it is not clear that any except advertising are viable businesses by themselves. YouTube wasn’t profitable for a whil…
> Let’s force Google to be like every other company in needing to constantly extract money from every project quarter by quarter. I think you're actually making the argument for breaking up Google. Their search monopoly is so powerful and so profitable, that they can afford to just throw money away on hundreds of terrible side projects.
It doesn’t demonstrate that it is a monopoly nor that it is a harmful monopoly.
There are plenty of other highly profitable areas of business. They just usually take their earnings instead of investing them in new things.
Yes, let’s destroy one of the few large companies which has found a viable method of long term innovation instead of endless cost cutting and outsourcing. Let’s force Google to be like every other company in needing to constantly extract money from every project quarter by quarter. Not to mention that it is not clear that any except advertising are viable businesses by themselves. YouTube wasn’t profitable for a whil…
For example (and sorry not trying to pick on any team in particular!) compare something like Google+ to Facebook Search, where the team had to actively make the UI worse to use to juice their metrics for FB's onerous performance reviews so they could keep their jobs and continue working on FB Search at all.
Does anyone remember back around the time that Graph Search was a big deal when you lost the ability to directly click on FB Search typeahead results, like starting to type a friend's name and clicking on the suggestion to go straight there? Requiring two clicks instead of one means every one of those searches now counts as a "full" search results page impression =p
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The word 'monopoly' doesn't appear once in the whole article" You're correct on that! It appears three times.
Ahh shoot, I must've misspelled it when I did a search. You are quite correct! One of the six reasons was in fact that the "maps business has a built-in monopolization risk," which is still a crummy argument, but it IS about monopolies.