Is Amazon selling any model of Kindle at a loss? Reviewers don't think so. Amazon might not be making money on the hardware, but they're not believed to be losing money either. By no stretch is Amazon giving away Kindles.
While most tech reviewer might think Amazon is making money on the Fire hardware, almost no financial and supply chain experts think this is true. Most put the loss at $50/unit.
That was the best you could do? I explain why your nonsequitur was off base because you do not understand who Google's customer is from a competition standpoint, and that is the best you can do?
Seriously?
What you were speaking about was entirely off topic...so wtf?
I know damn well who Google's customers are. Again...but that's not who their users are.
Users have choice to use or not use Google's services (as do their customers...some of their customers btw as there are non ad business customers)
What you were speaking about was entirely off topic...so wtf?
For some reason, you were comparing the services that Google's products use as a measure of "monopoly" when that does not really matter. You have to look at the share of the product within a market they sell to customers. Search and advertising. Both desktop and mobile.
What I posted was 100% on topic and pointed to you not understanding what Google does as a business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
I know damn well who Google's customers are. Again...but that's not who their users are.
Then why did your post not reflect that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Users have choice to use or not use Google's services (as do their customers...some of their customers btw as there are non ad business customers)
Again, the users of the services (Google's products) have 0 bearing on this discussion. I don't know why you even bring it up as it shows a basic misunderstanding of the discussion.
For some reason, you were comparing the services that Google's products use as a measure of "monopoly" when that does not really matter. You have to look at the share of the product within a market they sell to customers. Search and advertising. Both desktop and mobile.
What I posted was 100% on topic and pointed to you not understanding what Google does as a business.
Then why did your post not reflect that?
Again, the users of the services (Google's products) have 0 bearing on this discussion. I don't know why you even bring it up as it shows a basic misunderstanding of the discussion.
So you're suggesting that no one else can advertise but Google and Google somehow controls the web and disallows or discourages anyone else from advertising on the net?
And I do apologize I misunderstood your point initially...no argument.
So you're suggesting that no one else can advertise but Google and Google somehow controls the web and disallows or discourages anyone else from advertising on the net?
I am suggesting that Google exerts monopoly power in advertising. Google charges 6x their nearest competitor for the same product (though the quality may be higher). In short Google can charge monopoly prices because they have a monopoly on search and web advertising.
Well I am back to my original position. If you voted for Meg, Meg isn't here. You need to wait until next time for another chance to get your preferred candidate elected. It is not so much about the individual, it is more about the party. It is us or them and nothing in between no matter which side you are on.
I don't discuss (or need to justify) my vote with anyone... Secret ballot!
...but I reserve the right to question anyone seeking my vote!
I am tired of hearing Eric whine ... he needs to focus on Google. If I were him, I would take the advice Steve Jobs gave him. Do fewer things better. Google is trying to be everything to everyone. I expect them to be the next Microsoft in that respect and they may end up being a mediocre company.
Is that what Eric wants?
Well, it worked out for Microsoft, after all, they became the next Microsoft.
According to Dr. David, I also don't know what a mixed metaphor is, I am either some kind of idiot or the debating skills around here are reduced to .... sophomoric levels
In addition to demonstrating that you were mistaken in calling Thompr's metaphor mixed, I also made a good case that you were being a hypocrite.
Edit:
Kinda surprised you brought it up again. I even made a self deprecating joke of your final jab on that thread to make it easier for you.
In addition to demonstrating that you were mistaken in calling Thompr's metaphor mixed, I also made a good case that you were being a hypocrite.
Edit:
Kinda surprised you brought it up again. I even made a self deprecating joke of your final jab on that thread to make it easier for you.
This was written before your *joke*, which I still have not read. Given history, you will refuse to believe me. But to me, that's neither here nor there.
It's your contention that rocket surgery is not a mixed metaphor. But it is. It's your contention that you proved I was a hypocrite. That's a tough one to argue logically because it is a subjective judgement. You're free to judge me one if so wished. Furthermore, I am free to contend and believe it's impossible not to be a hypocrite.
Continuing this is pointless. Give it a rest.
EDIT: Just read your basement and mommy comment. It's certainly self-mocking. But self-deprecating? Not so much.
This was written before your *joke*, which I still have not read. Given history, you will refuse to believe me. But to me, that's neither here nor there.
It's your contention that rocket surgery is not a mixed metaphor. But it is. It's your contention that you proved I was a hypocrite. That's a tough one to argue logically because it is a subjective judgement. You're free to judge me one if so wished. Furthermore, I am free to contend and believe it's impossible not to be a hypocrite.
Continuing this is pointless. Give it a rest.
EDIT: Just read your basement and mommy comment. It's certainly self-mocking. But self-deprecating? Not so much.
I would have had no problem believing you hadn't read that last comment yet. I'm guessing by *joke* you mean to say it wasn't a very good one. Ah well, I tried. And it was at no ones expense but my own.
You're incorrect about my contention on the statement rocket surgery:
"This isn't rocket surgery <--- that is a mixed metaphor."-Doctor David
I used it as an example of a mixed metaphor.
Everyone is indeed a hypocrite at some time or another, lots of times I'm sure. But lord knows we should try to avoid it. You don't seem so inclined.
Give it a rest? You brought it up again, not me. I believe this relates to my previous paragraph.
Look up the definitions of self deprecating and self mocking.
To be fair, why isnt the Senate committee grilling Apple with its monopolistic market share of the Tablet market?
Double standard?
Dont get your hopes up too high Apple fans, because the yard stick to a competitive landscape in the eyes of the Senators is anyone having greater than 90% of any market is deemed a monopoly.
Apple should be next on target.
Nice, another mindless troll jumps into the ignore list.
Clearly Schmidt is exaggerating. That said, this whole investigation smacks of an effort by Google's competitors to slow it down or to break into its markets without doing the work required. Just look at some of the complaints and the complainants (particularly in the French case).
There's a reason Google has such a high marketshare. Particularly outside the US. The others suck. It's just that simple. Here in Canada, Bing doesn't have transit info on its maps for our fourth largest city (Ottawa). And though it has the street on its maps, it won't recognize my address, a condo which I've lived in since 2007, which was built in 2005. That's just Bing. The others are even worse. And the further you get from English and the USA, the worse the search results get. This is exactly why Google dominates so much internationally. They're the only company that puts in serious effort into their services on an international scale.
And I find the marketshare argument for web service companies to be spurious. The beauty of the internet is that you can capture ground very quickly if you have a better offering. A company that actually does build a better search engine, could wipeout Google very easily. It's weak sauce to apply the traditional paradigm of MS' monopolistic behaviours to internet based companies (Google or anybody else). Has anybody else forgotten how dominant hotmail was not too long ago? GMail came along and decimated them. What about Myspace? Remember how popular that was before Facebook? Remember ICQ? Remember how quickly people switched to MSN?
For all the complaints about Google's supposedly monopolistic practices, the essence of the complaint often seems to be, "Google came in and is doing it better and we think that warrants investigation." Nonsense. Why didn't Mapquest send out cars with cameras to map the whole world? If they did that Google Maps would have been stillborne. Instead, they were slowly creeping towards to a subscription based service. Google showed them how to monetize maps with advertising...interestingly enough, not a foreign concept for anybody who's used free tourist maps in most cities. If Microsoft had actually been considerate of users instead of impose ridiculously low hard storage limits on Hotmail, GMail would never have caught on. And if MS had actually envisioned the cloud catching on, Google Docs and Google Apps for business would have never got the traction it did. Look how late they came with Office 365. It's clear to me that Google's successes have as much to do with their competitors failures and lack of foresight as it does with Google's own efforts and outside-the-box thinking. In reality, Google's dominance in individual fields (Maps, Search, Docs) comes not from leveraging dominance in another area, but because each of those services is good on its own (just think of the times, you've gone straight to Google Maps, not clicked from the search page through to Maps...). Where they get smart competitors though, they invariably never dominate (Facebook, Apple, etc.).
As for Siri. It's less search engine to me than a new UI. Competitive threat to Google? I think not. Possible existential threat to Google? Maybe. We're moving to a mobile world. And if this world is dominated by Siri-type UIs which take search results and strip out the ads that make Google money, they'll be finished. And this is exactly why Google wanted and needed its own mobile OS.
If these arguments stand though, I'd be really curious why web services iCloud would not be up for investigation in due course. iCloud is particularly interesting because there is no web interface for certain applications (like documents), specifically because it is designed to compel you to buy another Apple product. This is even more of a tie-in than anything Google or Microsoft is doing. After all, if I want to edit iWork documents away from my Mac, I have no choice but to get an iPad. And while not as restrictive, using iTunes music on anything but an iDevice is a process clearly designed to frustrate the average user into purchasing an iDevice. I wouldn't want to see Apple investigated, but if these complaints against Google hold, I don't see why such flimsy arguments couldn't hold against Apple too. After all the threshold for a monopoly and what's considered monopolistic behaviour seems to be dropping to the point where simply re-inforcing your ecosystem (and Apple is the king of this) is considered to be anti-competitive.
One thing that baffles me is the number of posts on here from people who think that Apple would offer a search engine without ads. I don't understand this position. With iAds, Apple is quite clearly moving towards monetizing its services with ads. It just has the luxury (of hardware profits) to not be dependent on ad revenues. But that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that they would offer a search engine for "free". When it comes to web services, Apple is clearly looking to monetize them either through direct fees (iCloud charges above the 5GB limit) or through ads (iAds).
Beyond that, the whole Apple-Google thing is moronic to me. I have never understood the visceral hatred that fanboys of both camps have for each other (that's maybe cause I use stuff from both companies though). Do you some of you really hate Google for competing with Apple in one sector (mobile) that much, that you are willing to use inferior web services?
... For all the complaints about Google's supposedly monopolistic practices, the essence of the complaint often seems to be, "Google came in and is doing it better and we think that warrants investigation." ...
Comments
Is Amazon selling any model of Kindle at a loss? Reviewers don't think so. Amazon might not be making money on the hardware, but they're not believed to be losing money either. By no stretch is Amazon giving away Kindles.
While most tech reviewer might think Amazon is making money on the Fire hardware, almost no financial and supply chain experts think this is true. Most put the loss at $50/unit.
That was the best you could do? I explain why your nonsequitur was off base because you do not understand who Google's customer is from a competition standpoint, and that is the best you can do?
Seriously?
What you were speaking about was entirely off topic...so wtf?
I know damn well who Google's customers are. Again...but that's not who their users are.
Users have choice to use or not use Google's services (as do their customers...some of their customers btw as there are non ad business customers)
What you were speaking about was entirely off topic...so wtf?
For some reason, you were comparing the services that Google's products use as a measure of "monopoly" when that does not really matter. You have to look at the share of the product within a market they sell to customers. Search and advertising. Both desktop and mobile.
What I posted was 100% on topic and pointed to you not understanding what Google does as a business.
I know damn well who Google's customers are. Again...but that's not who their users are.
Then why did your post not reflect that?
Users have choice to use or not use Google's services (as do their customers...some of their customers btw as there are non ad business customers)
Again, the users of the services (Google's products) have 0 bearing on this discussion. I don't know why you even bring it up as it shows a basic misunderstanding of the discussion.
For some reason, you were comparing the services that Google's products use as a measure of "monopoly" when that does not really matter. You have to look at the share of the product within a market they sell to customers. Search and advertising. Both desktop and mobile.
What I posted was 100% on topic and pointed to you not understanding what Google does as a business.
Then why did your post not reflect that?
Again, the users of the services (Google's products) have 0 bearing on this discussion. I don't know why you even bring it up as it shows a basic misunderstanding of the discussion.
So you're suggesting that no one else can advertise but Google and Google somehow controls the web and disallows or discourages anyone else from advertising on the net?
And I do apologize I misunderstood your point initially...no argument.
So you're suggesting that no one else can advertise but Google and Google somehow controls the web and disallows or discourages anyone else from advertising on the net?
I am suggesting that Google exerts monopoly power in advertising. Google charges 6x their nearest competitor for the same product (though the quality may be higher). In short Google can charge monopoly prices because they have a monopoly on search and web advertising.
Well I am back to my original position. If you voted for Meg, Meg isn't here. You need to wait until next time for another chance to get your preferred candidate elected. It is not so much about the individual, it is more about the party. It is us or them and nothing in between no matter which side you are on.
I don't discuss (or need to justify) my vote with anyone... Secret ballot!
...but I reserve the right to question anyone seeking my vote!
I am tired of hearing Eric whine ... he needs to focus on Google. If I were him, I would take the advice Steve Jobs gave him. Do fewer things better. Google is trying to be everything to everyone. I expect them to be the next Microsoft in that respect and they may end up being a mediocre company.
Is that what Eric wants?
Well, it worked out for Microsoft, after all, they became the next Microsoft.
According to Dr. David, I also don't know what a mixed metaphor is, I am either some kind of idiot or the debating skills around here are reduced to .... sophomoric levels
In addition to demonstrating that you were mistaken in calling Thompr's metaphor mixed, I also made a good case that you were being a hypocrite.
Edit:
Kinda surprised you brought it up again. I even made a self deprecating joke of your final jab on that thread to make it easier for you.
In addition to demonstrating that you were mistaken in calling Thompr's metaphor mixed, I also made a good case that you were being a hypocrite.
Edit:
Kinda surprised you brought it up again. I even made a self deprecating joke of your final jab on that thread to make it easier for you.
This was written before your *joke*, which I still have not read. Given history, you will refuse to believe me. But to me, that's neither here nor there.
It's your contention that rocket surgery is not a mixed metaphor. But it is. It's your contention that you proved I was a hypocrite. That's a tough one to argue logically because it is a subjective judgement. You're free to judge me one if so wished. Furthermore, I am free to contend and believe it's impossible not to be a hypocrite.
Continuing this is pointless. Give it a rest.
EDIT: Just read your basement and mommy comment. It's certainly self-mocking. But self-deprecating? Not so much.
This was written before your *joke*, which I still have not read. Given history, you will refuse to believe me. But to me, that's neither here nor there.
It's your contention that rocket surgery is not a mixed metaphor. But it is. It's your contention that you proved I was a hypocrite. That's a tough one to argue logically because it is a subjective judgement. You're free to judge me one if so wished. Furthermore, I am free to contend and believe it's impossible not to be a hypocrite.
Continuing this is pointless. Give it a rest.
EDIT: Just read your basement and mommy comment. It's certainly self-mocking. But self-deprecating? Not so much.
I would have had no problem believing you hadn't read that last comment yet. I'm guessing by *joke* you mean to say it wasn't a very good one. Ah well, I tried. And it was at no ones expense but my own.
You're incorrect about my contention on the statement rocket surgery:
"This isn't rocket surgery <--- that is a mixed metaphor."-Doctor David
I used it as an example of a mixed metaphor.
Everyone is indeed a hypocrite at some time or another, lots of times I'm sure. But lord knows we should try to avoid it. You don't seem so inclined.
Give it a rest? You brought it up again, not me. I believe this relates to my previous paragraph.
Look up the definitions of self deprecating and self mocking.
Look up the definitions of self deprecating and self mocking.
Look *at* the wink at the end.
Look *at* the wink at the end.
Mea culpa. I did miss that. Pretty good one in my opinion.
Kinda glad I did miss it cause I particularly like the *hint* within the hint of where I overlooked.
That might be a meta-hint, but I'm getting in over my head now.
Mea culpa. I did miss that. Pretty good one in my opinion.
Kinda glad I did miss it cause I particularly like the *hint* within the hint of where I overlooked.
That might be a meta-hint, but I'm getting in over my head now.
Inception?
To be fair, why isnt the Senate committee grilling Apple with its monopolistic market share of the Tablet market?
Double standard?
Dont get your hopes up too high Apple fans, because the yard stick to a competitive landscape in the eyes of the Senators is anyone having greater than 90% of any market is deemed a monopoly.
Apple should be next on target.
Nice, another mindless troll jumps into the ignore list.
There's a reason Google has such a high marketshare. Particularly outside the US. The others suck. It's just that simple. Here in Canada, Bing doesn't have transit info on its maps for our fourth largest city (Ottawa). And though it has the street on its maps, it won't recognize my address, a condo which I've lived in since 2007, which was built in 2005. That's just Bing. The others are even worse. And the further you get from English and the USA, the worse the search results get. This is exactly why Google dominates so much internationally. They're the only company that puts in serious effort into their services on an international scale.
And I find the marketshare argument for web service companies to be spurious. The beauty of the internet is that you can capture ground very quickly if you have a better offering. A company that actually does build a better search engine, could wipeout Google very easily. It's weak sauce to apply the traditional paradigm of MS' monopolistic behaviours to internet based companies (Google or anybody else). Has anybody else forgotten how dominant hotmail was not too long ago? GMail came along and decimated them. What about Myspace? Remember how popular that was before Facebook? Remember ICQ? Remember how quickly people switched to MSN?
For all the complaints about Google's supposedly monopolistic practices, the essence of the complaint often seems to be, "Google came in and is doing it better and we think that warrants investigation." Nonsense. Why didn't Mapquest send out cars with cameras to map the whole world? If they did that Google Maps would have been stillborne. Instead, they were slowly creeping towards to a subscription based service. Google showed them how to monetize maps with advertising...interestingly enough, not a foreign concept for anybody who's used free tourist maps in most cities. If Microsoft had actually been considerate of users instead of impose ridiculously low hard storage limits on Hotmail, GMail would never have caught on. And if MS had actually envisioned the cloud catching on, Google Docs and Google Apps for business would have never got the traction it did. Look how late they came with Office 365. It's clear to me that Google's successes have as much to do with their competitors failures and lack of foresight as it does with Google's own efforts and outside-the-box thinking. In reality, Google's dominance in individual fields (Maps, Search, Docs) comes not from leveraging dominance in another area, but because each of those services is good on its own (just think of the times, you've gone straight to Google Maps, not clicked from the search page through to Maps...). Where they get smart competitors though, they invariably never dominate (Facebook, Apple, etc.).
As for Siri. It's less search engine to me than a new UI. Competitive threat to Google? I think not. Possible existential threat to Google? Maybe. We're moving to a mobile world. And if this world is dominated by Siri-type UIs which take search results and strip out the ads that make Google money, they'll be finished. And this is exactly why Google wanted and needed its own mobile OS.
If these arguments stand though, I'd be really curious why web services iCloud would not be up for investigation in due course. iCloud is particularly interesting because there is no web interface for certain applications (like documents), specifically because it is designed to compel you to buy another Apple product. This is even more of a tie-in than anything Google or Microsoft is doing. After all, if I want to edit iWork documents away from my Mac, I have no choice but to get an iPad. And while not as restrictive, using iTunes music on anything but an iDevice is a process clearly designed to frustrate the average user into purchasing an iDevice. I wouldn't want to see Apple investigated, but if these complaints against Google hold, I don't see why such flimsy arguments couldn't hold against Apple too. After all the threshold for a monopoly and what's considered monopolistic behaviour seems to be dropping to the point where simply re-inforcing your ecosystem (and Apple is the king of this) is considered to be anti-competitive.
Beyond that, the whole Apple-Google thing is moronic to me. I have never understood the visceral hatred that fanboys of both camps have for each other (that's maybe cause I use stuff from both companies though). Do you some of you really hate Google for competing with Apple in one sector (mobile) that much, that you are willing to use inferior web services?
Nice, another mindless troll jumps into the ignore list.
Took you that long for him?
... For all the complaints about Google's supposedly monopolistic practices, the essence of the complaint often seems to be, "Google came in and is doing it better and we think that warrants investigation." ...
Nice strawman argument.