741–750 of 761 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
or it makes it obvious that Google has had a monopoly for reasons other than the difficulty of making a search engine (this is the truth.)
That’s bullshit, Google came after a bunch of other worse search engines and ate all of the market share because it was so much better. If you think they got it some other way, you weren’t using the Internet in the early 2000s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Search would just farm out ads or develop their own again: its two sides of the same paper, by necessity. Chrome is a loss leader and if cut out to it’s own company will die, because browsers are not a business that can make money anymore (same with eg C compilers for x86), AI maybe, but the only advantage AI has at google is that it has a crap-ton of data to train it with. Without that? The market just has one less…
> Chrome is a loss leader and if cut out to it’s own company will die, because browsers are not a business that can make money anymore That's the definition of anti-copetitive monopoly abuse, not an argument against doing something about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(So, disclosure that I work at Google, but nowhere near anything to do with search or ads.) That is wildly distorting the way online advertisement works, mostly by a sideways denial that "advertising works" at all. The business model is that people who sell "X" want a link to their product displayed when potential customers consume content related to "X". There's nothing unclear or weird about this, and it's not fund…
Except that the inscentives are totally different from an end user perspective. Apple is inscentivised to make the phone more attractive to the person using it, because they're the ones paying. With Google search, it's the advertiser that's paying. The only thing Google needs to worry about is keeping advertisers happy. That doesn't align with making search results better.
Obviously everyone who sells a product want to keep their end users (the "end" in "end users" is there for a reason!) happy, because if they don't they won't get paid. To argue that only your favorite is so incentivised seems silly.
I expect this to be bad for everyone except Google if the ruling holds. Why? Mozilla and Apple will lose significant revenue from having Google as the default search engine and Google will no longer have to pay those billions. What's more, no one else can pay to be the default either (eg the short-lived Mozilla Bing deal). So what's going to happen? Most users will probably still use Google, nobody is getting paid an…
Google I use 40 percent of the time vs. 60 percent chatGPT. Google is definitely on the start of a decline!
https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-is-bigger-threat-g...
Even some of my tech startup .. the ideas behind them were ahead of the times like Wireless Power Share and SpeakerBlast (created in 2013 a month before Samsung announced the same tech to built into their phones). Love to work in a forward thinking tech job like at Meta Ray Ban division. I love these glasses .. smart glasses will be huge tho not as huge as the smart phone because you can not take a selfie with them. They will always be a great companion to your smart phone where you are not taking your phone out of your pocket as much as you use to.
I am sure to get downvoted for this post as i always get downvoted for my thoughts lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really trying to argue that 90% of the internet text search share held by one company isn't a monopoly?
j-maffe, it looks to me like you are being disingenuous, because in reply to your earlier comment above, I had quoted the Wikipedia definition of monopoly. my entire subsequent argument was based on that, as you well know. if you want to try to redefine terms, or move goalposts, feel free to do so, but I will not participate in an argument based on such behaviour. to repeat, quoting from the Wikipedia definition of m…
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-05/google-lo...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/google-...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-google-has-a-mon...
[4] http://www2.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/eco211f/lectures/monopo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, totally. Automated, fallible systems. Ultimately it's a cost issue. If they wanted to, they could fact check the top million question queries - but they don't want to spend on that.
How familiar are you with the knowledge graph update process? There is actually a significant amount of spend going into reviewing the wrong answers to top queries and updating to fix/tweak them.
I expect this to be bad for everyone except Google if the ruling holds. Why? Mozilla and Apple will lose significant revenue from having Google as the default search engine and Google will no longer have to pay those billions. What's more, no one else can pay to be the default either (eg the short-lived Mozilla Bing deal). So what's going to happen? Most users will probably still use Google, nobody is getting paid an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"They simply have a better product" I disagree. 100% they had a better product, but they have absolutely mangled it over the last few updates. Honestly, if I wanted the opinion of randomnumbers45123 on Reddit, I'd just search Reddit. Google achieved dominance ~25 years ago by being better than the alternatives, and the other search engines pretty much withered away rapidly. They (Google) are in a very precarious posi…
People always _always_ forget that Google today is an ad company first. They do search, phones and mobile operating systems as side projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People always _always_ forget that Google today is an ad company first. They do search, phones and mobile operating systems as side projects.
By that logic, any product/organization that generates revenue mainly through ads would be an ad company. Search is the product that (probably) carries most of the ads revenues, so that's the main product, and ads are the means for generating revenue around it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of Google's 2023 revenue of 305.63e9 US-$, 77.8% (237.86e9 US-$) was advertising revenue. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-reven... They are obviously not only an ad company, but GP only claimed that they are an ad company "first". Can you please clarify which part you consider oversimplified?
Consider the case of a YouTuber who gets most of their revenue through superchats. They regularly upload videos, a couple times a week, and receive ad revenue and the od sponsorship deal. Once a week they do a livestream Q&A which is where the bulk of that superchat revenue comes from. Are they a livestreaming "first" business-man/company/sole trader? Revenue sources are not necessarily the be all and end all of dete…