341–350 of 351 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please state what you use in your post.
I've been using Kagi for almost a year now, and I love it. Every now and then I'll check Google out of curiosity, and it's always shocking how bad the results are. Inaccurate results, spam sites everywhere, and sensory overload of advertisements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These types of discussions on this site are pointless. I can tell that no matter what I say, you’re going to end up moving the goal posts. Why do I know this? Because you non sarcastically are trying to say that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. The amount of mental gymnastics is takes to frame it that way is only possible if someone cares more about defending the honor of their favorite megacorp than finding any kind o…
I was being genuine. I lived through the Microsoft antitrust trial and like several of the companies they obliterated with their anti-competitive practices (specifically Be). They had 90+% desktop OS market share and they used that to prevent PC manufacturers from selling competitor’s operating systems, bundle a free browser that destroyed an entire industry of browser companies, and other behaviors that made it impo…
>Google has maintained this monopoly, the government alleges, not by making a better product, but by locking down everywhere that consumers might be able to find a different search engine option, and making sure they only see Google. Google improves search every year. Internally they have data to back this up. Google doesn't lock down everywhere consumers can learn about a new browser. The most notable being the defa…
> Google improves search every year. Google search has decreased in quality significantly the last years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) is this: we (google) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. What’s more, the cost of switching search engines is literally zero: just type Bing instead of Google. That's not a defense, though. So the government is unlikely to prove anti-competitive outcomes by argu…
It is a defense. It is the defense that they will use and probably the only one they need. The government lost Ohio vs. Amex, which was in any event about a two sided market. Google is definitely active in two sided markets but this case does not make those claims. Good luck to DoJ if they are arguing that the quality of the product is lower! They are going to fall on their faces. I’m not saying google doesn’t engage…
It doesn't matter if the government lost Ohio v. Amex, and it doesn't matter that it's about a two-sided market - I was using the Court's reasoning and outline of other ways to demonstrate anti-competitive outcomes. When the Court phrases something in their decisions a certain way or creates a test, it doesn't matter if the government fails the test in that case - the test can still be applied in later cases and in lower courts. Here, it wasn't even a new test, it was just a recent illustration of an earlier one.
In Ohio v. Amex, the Court found that Amex improved product quality and increased transaction volume generally. Regardless of the fact that the government would have failed because of the 'both sides of the markets have to have anti-competitive outcomes' elements, the way to see if it meets the bar is cost, quality and volume.
It's difficult in this market to make the case that decreased cost counters decreased quality or competition because the competitors also operate at zero cost to consumers. I'm not so sure they will fall on their faces arguing that the quality of the product is lower, frankly - we'll see. Either way, cost as a balance for anti-competitive behavior should not be a panacea here.
That said, Google will probably win anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These types of discussions on this site are pointless. I can tell that no matter what I say, you’re going to end up moving the goal posts. Why do I know this? Because you non sarcastically are trying to say that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly. The amount of mental gymnastics is takes to frame it that way is only possible if someone cares more about defending the honor of their favorite megacorp than finding any kind o…
I was being genuine. I lived through the Microsoft antitrust trial and like several of the companies they obliterated with their anti-competitive practices (specifically Be). They had 90+% desktop OS market share and they used that to prevent PC manufacturers from selling competitor’s operating systems, bundle a free browser that destroyed an entire industry of browser companies, and other behaviors that made it impo…
Saying Apple doesn't have a phone monopoly because of cheap Android devices is like saying Microsoft didn't have one because doing work on a piece of paper was still a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was being genuine. I lived through the Microsoft antitrust trial and like several of the companies they obliterated with their anti-competitive practices (specifically Be). They had 90+% desktop OS market share and they used that to prevent PC manufacturers from selling competitor’s operating systems, bundle a free browser that destroyed an entire industry of browser companies, and other behaviors that made it impo…
To play devil’s advocate, I’d say having something like 85% of the profit in the mobile space despite only have ~13% market share is probably a good start in terms of classifying as a monopoly. Do you really have competition when you’re the only one making money and the rest are being subsidized by your competitor? That’s also a good case Apple has that they’re fighting the Google monopoly of flooding the market with…
Is profit in a market a measure that’s ever been used to identify a monopoly? Apple has no method of controlling prices in the mobile market, so what difference does it make if they are one of the few profitable companies? That’s why I mentioned buying out fab processes, but that might be anti-competitive, but still not monopolistic.
By definition monopolies dominate a market so thoroughly that they can prevent equivalent products from being offered at lower prices. Apple does not have the power to keep mobile device prices high, despite their fab dominance (and there are other fabs that offer substitute processes).
There are dozens of cheap mobile devices that, despite low profitability, still dominate the market. Despite Jobs’ claim that the iPhone was guarded by patents, competitors with essentially the same features were available within a year of the iPhone’s release.
Does Apple have some anti-competitive practices? They’ve been found to in the past (employee recruiting between companies), and may or may not now, but that is separate from being a monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kagi stands to me as proof that search can be better if it isn't run by an ad company. Kagi deliberately downranks sites that are loaded with ads and trackers, and the quality of their results is much higher, with much less SEO blogspam. Unsurprisingly, having a high concentration of ads and trackers is highly correlated with having content that is intended to maximize views rather than provide utility. Google has a…
How does kagi do with "corporate blogspam" - things like tutorials, guides, intros, etc created by a company as a funnel for conversions. You know, things like the fusionauth OAuth guides (not trying to call them out). I ask because it's a weird area where it can be shit and predatory, or a general good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, but in any other market for goods, being the main supplier, the biggest supply-side brokerage, the biggest exchange, and the biggest demand-side brokerage would be considered a blatant antitrust violation. Somehow, Google thinks they can get away with it in ads.
Not true. Look at the market for meat. There are lots of farmers, a small number (really three or four) processors (who appear to carve up the national market into non overlapping regions) and then a large number of retail customers. To me that looks like an actual antitrust violation but the DoJ and FTC aren’t investigating bc they are obsessing about “big tech” uselessly and bringing bad cases they are going to los…
But, hey, maybe you’re right. Maybe it’s a bad case being done for show. Slap on the wrist, back to business as usual sort of deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gonna need a cite on that logic. The MS case was about including IE with Windows for free. With Google, the products are paid for by the ad revenues instead of Windows and Office licenses. > Microsoft Teams is a great example of an anticompetitive bundle if you want one. Also true.
>> The MS case was about including IE with Windows for free. This is exactly where the anticompetitive effects of bundling arise. >> With Google, the products are paid for by the ad revenues instead of Windows and Office licenses. That’s why it’s going to be impossible to argue that this is bundling in the anticompetitive sense.