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

United States vs. Google

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 353 posts

Re: United States vs. Google

#231

Post by sixstringtheory »

kelnos wrote: post #137

> At the same time, whatever an Aggregator chooses to do on its own site or app is less important, because users and third parties can always go elsewhere, and if they don’t, that is because they are satisfied. This always strikes me as a weak argument. Facebook users can't go elsewhere because their friends aren't on other platforms. It doesn't matter if there's a more privacy-focused social network out there that p…

Friends' choices to use Facebook are also consumers' choices. What is the alternative? Either persuade your friends to move, or remove their choice via legislative action. Are there other options?

Re: United States vs. Google

#232

Post by sam0x17 »

john-radio wrote: post #228
tsycho wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this oft repeated comment about Google acquiring YouTube, DoubleClick and Android. Yes they did. But the companies they acquired were tiny upstarts, which might have even died on their own. Google built them into what they are today, and deserve 90% of the credit for their current significance. The same applies to FB and Instagram as well, fwiw. Though imo, not as much for WhatsApp, which already had 400MM user…

YouTube was delivering an average of 100 million video views per day in July 2006, months before the Google acquisition for $1,650,000,000 that same year. It's inaccurate to characterize them as a "tiny startup."

Likewise doubleclick was HUGE in the ad space I remember seeing all the doubleclick.com urls in slow page loads

Re: United States vs. Google

#233

Post by garyfirestorm »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #167
wwwdonohue wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sort of agree, but part of me also thinks that if a company builds the world's best mobile OS and search engine and ad platform and video streaming service and internet browser and mapping service... well, good for them! They built the best products and it seems like it would ultimately be anti-consumer to do anything about it. It's different if a company like Google establishes its dominance via one great product…

The power that Google used to build those other lines of business was not artificial, but it was very effective. The existence of that power is anti-consumer because no one else can afford to build anything better, because Google makes more money than your hypothetical new world's best product ever by charging absolutely nothing for their competing product. Step 1, in 1997, was to build the world's best search engine…

It sounds like you want to punish them for being successful. I still haven't seen the harm to the consumers. They build search and ad networks and email and android. I use them all the time. I now have access to youtube and infinite amount of information on it on my fingertips.

Re: United States vs. Google

#234

Post by LilPee »

Filligree wrote: post #160
bumblebritches5 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Google didn't build those things except search. They bought Android in 2005, Youtube in 2004? and all of their other, non-search successes.

Didn't GMail start as a 20% project?

I don't know about Gmail, but Google Maps was originally one.

Re: United States vs. Google

#235

Post by [deleted] »

wwwdonohue wrote: post #75
dsabanin wrote: post #47

I think Google is the best search engine. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with them being the best search engine, top online ad platform and a developer of the top mobile OS, top video streaming service, top internet browser, top mapping/navigation service, among other things, at the SAME time. Their assets give them undue and unsupervised influence over a very big chunk of what's happening onli…

I sort of agree, but part of me also thinks that if a company builds the world's best mobile OS and search engine and ad platform and video streaming service and internet browser and mapping service... well, good for them! They built the best products and it seems like it would ultimately be anti-consumer to do anything about it. It's different if a company like Google establishes its dominance via one great product…

[deleted]

Re: United States vs. Google

#236

Post by sam0x17 »

jabbanobodder wrote: post #82
dsabanin wrote: post #47

I think Google is the best search engine. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with them being the best search engine, top online ad platform and a developer of the top mobile OS, top video streaming service, top internet browser, top mapping/navigation service, among other things, at the SAME time. Their assets give them undue and unsupervised influence over a very big chunk of what's happening onli…

But you're not cornered in. You might think they have a large influence over what is happening online (and they do), but you as an individual have a choice if you want to use the services they provide. Also this large influence is additionally strengthened by the fact that no other company can offer services (above mentioned) that match the quality of the product Google is giving.

They are the definition of a monopoly -- quality of service in the search space depends on the number of users who use your service (search trend data and tuning for page rank information) and your ability to crawl the web (which directly correlates with your financial resources). Once someone is on top of that space, only gross hilarious mismanagement could result in them going below 50% market share.

Re: United States vs. Google

#237

Post by Siira »

Telegram was (and is) a much better messenger, yet people in most Western countries continued to use WhatsApp because of the network effects. This is strong evidence that requiring interop is a promising legal intervention. Heck, there is no format you can use on external disks that works on both macOS and Windows. (ExFAT is prone to data loss.)

Re: United States vs. Google

#238

Post by m0zg »

Apple would be wise to delay the release of their own search engine now, by a year or two, just to weaken Google. Basically, they'll get paid billions to twiddle their thumbs, while Google is fucked by the DOJ for their getting paid billions.

Re: United States vs. Google

#239

Post by [deleted] »

TuringNYC wrote: post #88
VikingCoder wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) best search engine 2) top online ad platform 3) top mobile OS 4) top video streaming service 5) top internet browser 6) top mapping/navigation service Okay, you listed 6. What should the law say is the new limit for how many they should be able to have?

Are there any anti-competitive behaviors they have engaged in w/r/t #3, #4, #5, and #6 or would this just be punishment for punishment sake? I remember browsers before Chrome and Firefox. They were terrible. I'd love to see why Google should be punished for making a good product. I'm open to a good explanation. Same for Youtube. I cut my cable because we now get all our entertainment from Netflix and Youtube. We dont…

[deleted]

Re: United States vs. Google

#240

Post by athms »

john-radio wrote: post #228
tsycho wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this oft repeated comment about Google acquiring YouTube, DoubleClick and Android. Yes they did. But the companies they acquired were tiny upstarts, which might have even died on their own. Google built them into what they are today, and deserve 90% of the credit for their current significance. The same applies to FB and Instagram as well, fwiw. Though imo, not as much for WhatsApp, which already had 400MM user…

YouTube was delivering an average of 100 million video views per day in July 2006, months before the Google acquisition for $1,650,000,000 that same year. It's inaccurate to characterize them as a "tiny startup."

>It's inaccurate to characterize them as a "tiny startup."

YouTube had 65 employees when they were acquired.

I do agree that they were not a startup. This word should only be used for companies that are starting up; getting their legal structure together, hiring, and initial R&D. Once you are offering widgets (ad space), you are no longer a startup. Profitability is immaterial to startup status.

Post reply on HN