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

341–350 of 353 posts

Re: United States vs. Google

#341

Post by blitz_skull »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #14
blitz_skull wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theoretically there’s nothing stopping them. But I personally think realistically it’s too far gone for this current generation. Computer literacy is too low. The same way an entire class of people (looking at you, Grandma) think that Microsoft Windows IS the computer, many people think Google IS the internet. And to some degree they aren’t wrong. Overcoming that perception is going to be insanely expensive and time-…

I guess the question is, to what degree is this like worrying that people identify Xerox with photocopiers? People are still gonna be saying "googling" in a decade, certainly, but there are lots of ways that could go that don't help Google as a company.

I think the biggest difference is the degree of interaction. I'm 25 and have used a photocopier a whopping 5-10 times in my life. It's a non-impact.

The internet, however, is different in both the frequency of interaction and the import of being transparent.

Also, as far as I can tell, it would be an order of magnitude cheaper to start a new photocopying machine because the tricks and tactics that Xerox could ostensibly use to slow down your new startup are relatively benign.

Google controls (more or less) the way anyone, anywhere (who isn't tech-savvy) will find you as an online business. Kinda scary.

Re: United States vs. Google

#342

Post by xapata »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #121
xapata wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google Play But as I understand it, that isn't the topic of the lawsuit.

It's the topic of the Epic lawsuit, which is the one where most of the discussions took place, because the new one is only a couple days old. But it's the same general principle here. If Google uses Android to cement Chrome's as the only browser engine, consumers are harmed because they lose access to potential competing browsers that might e.g. respect privacy more. And the fact that iOS exists doesn't much help bec…

Are you arguing that both Apple and Google are bad, or that Apple's badness makes Google bad (and vice versa)? That'd be somewhat like a price fixing argument.

Re: United States vs. Google

#343

Post by r00fus »

zanny wrote: post #223
r00fus wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A third party vote is a spoiler unless you change the voting system. RCV/IRV is an absolute minimum.

Approval voting requires no modifications to ballots, has no spoiler effect, and would be so much better than what we have now. Which is exactly why it will never happen - both major parties enjoy their power duopoly. The powerful always resist democracy because it takes their power and gives it to the people, be they monarchs, corporations, or political parties.

St Louis, MO is putting approval voting on the ballot.

Re: United States vs. Google

#344

Post by sudosysgen »

saagarjha wrote: post #333
sudosysgen wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might very well be it, but that is very, very different from Android. If push comes to shove, I would expect most manufacturers to continue using Android instead of using Fuchsia or Zircon.

Fuchsia has an Android runtime, FWIW.

A lot of OSes have an Android runtime. The good thing about Android is that it's Free Software which is easily extensible, relatively easy to get good at since it's Linux based, and that risk is minimal.

Re: United States vs. Google

#345

Post by munk-a »

nmfisher wrote: post #327
RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rhetoric of electoralism and the idea that votes for a third party are "thrown away" is intensely corrosive to representative democracy. I agree that ranked-preference voting looks like the best fix for our current hyper-stable two-party system, but it's going to be an incredible uphill battle to expand this style of voting.

Out of curiosity, what's the justification for opposing a preferential voting system in the USA? Is it simply a case of "it would hurt my guy's chance of winning"? Or is there more principled reasoning at play? As an Australian, it makes perfect sense to me.

There are two points

1. It's held up that it would disenfrancbise voters

2. Tradition (essentially) something being unconstitutional in the US has morphed into an extremely radical idea in the minds of most Americans - the electoral college is established in the constitution, but the US has revised that a bunch of times over it's history including the "undo" amendment (the 21st)

Re: United States vs. Google

#346

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

rayiner wrote: post #148
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy only works well with an informed and educated populace and we have been defunding education for a decade. Add in the power of lobbyists and the newfound power of tech giants to inflict misery on humanity and you get the current “corporate rule” we are experiencing. https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-punishi...

Almost nobody who went through the educational system in the last decade is even voting. People who are voting today were educated during a period of massively growing education funding: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/02/dave-brat/...

>Almost nobody who went through the educational system in the last decade is even voting.

Do I need more proof that defunding education was a bad thing?

Re: United States vs. Google

#347

Post by dang »

Razengan wrote: post #272
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…

> They built the best products and it seems like it would ultimately be anti-consumer to do anything about it. > A company leveraging its dominance in one business to exert control over others =/= a company having success because it built the best products. This comment reads like it was paid for by Google, because most of that is nowhere near the truth, neither the building part nor being the best part. And boy the…

You can't break the site guidelines like this. We've had to warn you more than once before. Would you please re-read them and stick to the rules?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

As for "the bias on HN"—when it comes to $BigCo arguments, it's very much in the eye of the beholder. The people with opposite views to yours (for example, who like G and dislike A) complain of exactly the opposite "bias".

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

Re: United States vs. Google

#348

Post by garyfirestorm »

romanoderoma wrote: post #336
garyfirestorm wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It sounds like you want to punish them for being successful. People are worried by their power. Too much power is dangerous. Google works at global scale, if even the US want to stop them from becoming even more powerful there must mean something. If you think about it the NBA draft was invented to avoid that the best team chose the best players year after year It's what you call "punish their success" I cal it "en…

Facebook came after google, and managed to compete in ad business, got orkut and google+ discarded pretty quickly. Playing devil's advocate here, but doesnt that prove that no matter how big/powerful you are, some random kid could still take you down. Look at Big 3 and Tesla...etc

Re: United States vs. Google

#349

Post by roryokane »

dvduval wrote: post #37

I have to pay Google to compete against Google. I'm in education. And Google has a product for educators and students. So do I. Now Google's going to be able to smartly know who to advertise to and get their product in front of Google's customers better than I will be able to. They're just naturally a big bully.

What do you mean you have to pay Google to compete? Which of their products or services are you forced to buy? Google Search ads for your product?

Re: United States vs. Google

#350

Post by athms »

Judgmentality wrote: post #264
athms wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Why does the number of employees matter? If anything that's a testament to how valuable they were, to be able to do so much with so little.

It doesn't. My comment was about the word tiny" and 65 is tiny especially when compared to Google.
Post reply on HN