Live data from Hacker News

Google cannibalizing their assets? Isn’t it a bit early for that?

thenextweb.com

1–10 of 23 posts

Re: Google cannibalizing their assets? Isn’t it a bit early for that?

#3
post #2

Makes perfect sense. Somebody will be providing an ad blocker no matter what. If it is Google then they get to control how it works, why it works and when it works.

well, yes and no. They aren't writing it but inviting (urging?) other developers to come up with one. That kind of surprised me...

Re: Google cannibalizing their assets? Isn’t it a bit early for that?

#5
post #4

What are some examples of companies cannibalizing their own business and suffering because of that? Has it ever happened?

Sun, perhaps, with Java. Business-wise, it makes very little sense for a company that makes expensive proprietary hardware to develop a programming language that lets you write once and run anywhere.

The connection is pretty tenuous though - Linux may've eaten Sun's lunch anyway. But it would've been a little harder if we had to port all our #ifdef'd C++ software from Sun servers to commodity Linux Dell boxes, instead of just moving a few JAR files over.

Re: Google cannibalizing their assets? Isn’t it a bit early for that?

#6
post #4

What are some examples of companies cannibalizing their own business and suffering because of that? Has it ever happened?

Sun, perhaps, with Java. Business-wise, it makes very little sense for a company that makes expensive proprietary hardware to develop a programming language that lets you write once and run anywhere. The connection is pretty tenuous though - Linux may've eaten Sun's lunch anyway. But it would've been a little harder if we had to port all our #ifdef'd C++ software from Sun servers to commodity Linux Dell boxes, instea…

I'm still not seeing that connection, as it lowered the barriers to entry of using their product and gave them the platform to say "we have the best hardware for running Java".

Re: Google cannibalizing their assets? Isn’t it a bit early for that?

#7
post #2

Makes perfect sense. Somebody will be providing an ad blocker no matter what. If it is Google then they get to control how it works, why it works and when it works.

Sounds about right.

It's been a while since I last had cause to use the google toolbar but didn't that have a adblocker?

This news doesn't seem all that surprising.

[edit]Just realised I'm mixing pop-up blockers and adblockers. I don't think this makes the parent comment any less valid.

Re: Google cannibalizing their assets? Isn’t it a bit early for that?

#8
post #2

Makes perfect sense. Somebody will be providing an ad blocker no matter what. If it is Google then they get to control how it works, why it works and when it works.

I instead thought "Other browsers will have ad blockers, so there are people who won't use Chrome if it doesn't have one." Implying that Google might consider that market segment and the browser strategy pretty darn important. Just a different take.

Re: Google cannibalizing their assets? Isn’t it a bit early for that?

#9
post #4

What are some examples of companies cannibalizing their own business and suffering because of that? Has it ever happened?

Many chain stores end up doing this. Krispy Kreme had a great business because people would drive an hour out of their way to eat there -- but that means that having two locations within an hour of each other is redundant.

Re: Google cannibalizing their assets? Isn’t it a bit early for that?

#10
I think Google knows the success of Chrome depends on the plugin community. The open support of AdBlock is a signal that Google will prioritize user interests over everything else.

Seems like a smart move to me -- getting Chrome out is strategically important -- browser diversification mitigates bigger risks, such as MS pushing a default ad blocker through ie; and helps them raise the bar on all browsers (esp. js rendering) to make their web apps run better.

Post reply on HN