491–500 of 702 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AFAIK this has never been written into law or ruled illegal before. Doesn't seem that different from the case against Microsoft over Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player?
US vs Microsoft was completely different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give an unbiased concrete example (eg. tainted baby formula, collapsed bridge, corrupted hard drive from virus) of something that has benefited google to the direct harm of one of it's users? The biggest argument I've seen is that people don't like that they aggregate the data you give to them.
AMP. This is entirely what the AMP argument has been all about.
This goes to the broader point though that Google wants to service the end user better based on their feedback (most sites are too big/load too slowly), so they created something simple that gives end users a faster, better and cheaper (lower mobile data cost) solution.
In fact Google seems to be moving faster here because companies keep creating large websites to serve rich content that users find annoyingly slow.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/11/google-amp-fac...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it benefit the consumer though? I fail to see how showing links to search results pages from other companies in response to a product query is better for consumers than just showing them a listing of the products they actually searched for. [Google's response][1] to this ruling suggests they have data which confirms this: > While some comparison shopping sites naturally want Google to show them more prominently,…
As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. This is an opinion which I don't feel the need to convert anyone to but I really don't understand the opposite view. Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So when Amazon decided to sell hardware, would that be anti-competitive? Pretty much, you could use the argument you just made against any business that delved into another space. Apple with phones back in the day, Microsoft with Hardware, Walmart and groceries, etc etc etc. There are almost infinite examples, very few businesses haven't expanded their product line and reach. Using their own business to do so is just…
> So when Amazon decided to sell hardware, would that be anti-competitive? Which monopoly does Amazon have that they're abusing to sell hardware? > Pretty much, you could use the argument you just made against any business that delved into another space. Nope; only businesses which are a monopoly. Amazon has no monopoly, therefore the argument cannot be used against them. Plus nobody is stopping Google from opening a…
Amazon used to only push other's products, now they push their own as well, often making use of their front page to do so. It's the same, if not worse, than what Google is doing.
These people will do a lot of damage before their system collapses.
Who is John Galt?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crawling the web is easy now. Your point makes sense if the behavioral data they acquire from users makes a huge difference. Maybe it does, but I feel like someone can build a better mousetrap and be better than Google, even without behavioral data. Google, right now, is thought to have the best mousetrap, not simply one well-tuned to a large mouse behavior dataset. Maybe I'm wrong about that--I'm sure ML has become…
crawling the web is only easy if all you ever do is following hrefs... we're in the world of single-page turing-complete web apps and you're underestimating the amount of pure compute, ingress and egress bandwidth necessary to keep the index up to date. there's a reason google has designed and built their data centers, their server chassis and even power supply.
Making a kickass image editing application like Adobe Photoshop is difficult too (as anyone who has had to suffer GIMP would attest), but that doesn't mean Photoshop forms a natural monopoly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a consumer, I have (much) more trust that my interests are advanced by the EU than google. This is an opinion which I don't feel the need to convert anyone to but I really don't understand the opposite view. Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU?
Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU? 1. Because it's in their long term best interest to have a customer for life (No political cycle) so they are more incentivized than a politician would be to support the interest of the consumer. 2. They have a more insight into user desires and actions on a day to day basis, meaning they can p…
Google long term interest is to increase the margin of their product by increasing their dominance in multiple markets over multiple tiers.
If they do this by using their monopolistic power then they are in violation of the law even when by doing that they provide a service that some of their users see usable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMP. This is entirely what the AMP argument has been all about.
Really? Nobody benefits from AMP? I mean I get the complaints from developers and publishers, but even on HN I have seen support for AMP. This goes to the broader point though that Google wants to service the end user better based on their feedback (most sites are too big/load too slowly), so they created something simple that gives end users a faster, better and cheaper (lower mobile data cost) solution. In fact Goo…
There are also many people that actively support Chrome. Does it mean that Chrome dominance is therefore beneficial to the future?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can someone explain why they believe google and other "emerging" power centers saveguard their interests better than the EU? 1. Because it's in their long term best interest to have a customer for life (No political cycle) so they are more incentivized than a politician would be to support the interest of the consumer. 2. They have a more insight into user desires and actions on a day to day basis, meaning they can p…
Google users are not (in most cases) their customers but a product Google sells to their actual customers. Google long term interest is to increase the margin of their product by increasing their dominance in multiple markets over multiple tiers. If they do this by using their monopolistic power then they are in violation of the law even when by doing that they provide a service that some of their users see usable.
No, Google users are suppliers of a product (ad views) that Google sells to their customers. But they are suppliers that are paid via in-kind exchange (with Google services) rather than cash, which is exactly equivalent to being customers of Google services that pay with in-kind exchange rather than cash. So, in a very real sense, those users are customers.