Google: The top search query on Bing is "Google"

[merikafyeah]

We pretty much agree on every point, save for the premise of this one.
"Idealism", is the province of the young".In analog, every student who enters medical does so because, "they just want to help people"

After a time though, they still "want to help people", as long as they can live in a million dollar house while doing so.

My point is that, "power corrupts", is not the whole story. Money IS power, or at least is its adjunct.

So, for all these people who you describe as , "starting a business in their garage", may be facing an uncertain future, a big pile of money could take all that doubt and uncertainty away in a split second.. Nor can you feed a family on your "ideals"..

So, how someone is going to change the world, and teenaged girls proclaiming, "I'll never have sex before marriage", it's great stuff to bandy about at the Friday night pot party, but can't be counted on with the passage of time.

Every politician seeking a first term of anything, proclaims, "I'm getting into politics to change the system". After that, they just become the same scourge that that peers have already become and embraced

Suffice it to say that once an individual reaches the point of being a major corporate executive, you can bet that they're a sociopath. (And sh!t rolls downhill from there)..

I'm not naive enough to think that many people have values that can withstand the allure of easy money or that altruism is even a thing. I just believe that Framework specifically is one company that will stick to their guns.

 

[FF222]

Google is completely missing the point here. A monopoly is not a monopoly, because it forces people to use it, and a company can very well be a monopoly even if it doesn't force people to use it. The threshold for being anti-competitive is even lower, and Google is very anti-competitive in virtually every regards, which is illegal.

 

[Puiu]

I'm only confused about how you can so easily change the meaning of words to what YOU feel they should mean, and still expect others to be on the same page.

The point was to illustrate a dynamic process, that a company does not grow from small to big in a vacuum. If you intrinsically understand this process, then you'd understand why more regulation rarely leads to the desired outcome. It's not as simple as "Company does bad thing", then "New regulation says 'Don't do that'", then "Everything is better". The real world almost never works like that.

If anti-right-to-repair practices are undesirable, then the market will push back by producing companies that are pro-right-to-repair, like Framework. I don't get why you are confused by something this simple.

Who's "you"? "I" am certainly not being forced to pay exorbitant amounts of money for a product I don't like by a company I don't agree with.

Required to do what SPECIFICALLY? What specific things would a new regulation need to accomplish in order to say, stop Google from being evil?

Apparently you haven't seen people like me before because I don't actually believe legislation automagically leads to communism.
I don't believe bad things get better with inaction, which is why I often do possibly the most powerful thing a regular person can do: I vote with my wallet and my time. For example, I don't buy Apple products because I don't like Apple and their anti-consumer practices.
I don't defend anti-consumer policies and I have no reason to complain about legislation which helps the consumer, "IF" that's what's actually being passed. History has shown that nine times out of ten a piece of legislation doesn't actually do what's on the cover since Washington is in the back pocket of Big Money. Being skeptical is not an unreasonable position.

"I'm only confused about how you can so easily change the meaning of words" -- I don't know why I'm even trying to have a conversation about this topic with someone who doesn't know the definition of a monopoly. I would link you to several websites where you can read about it, but at this point you'll just tell me that everybody is wrong.

"Apparently you haven't seen people like me before because I don't actually believe legislation automagically leads to communism." - you clearly do considering just how hard you are advocating against it. the worst part? you are not even getting paid to be anti-consumer like politicians are (lobbying), you just do it for free. so much for "paying with your wallet".

"f anti-right-to-repair practices are undesirable, then the market will push back by producing companies that are pro-right-to-repair, like Framework. I don't get why you are confused by something this simple." -- You are too naive dude. Framework only exists because it is occupying a niche market and it is only selling a few thousand products per year. They don't even appear on any chart, that's how small they are. This only proves my point: people are tired of Apple and others doing whatever they want. I know you don't like it since you think that only communists and socialists do it, but right to repair legislation is coming and is required to correct the market right now.

"The point was to illustrate a dynamic process, that a company does not grow from small to big in a vacuum... It's not as simple as "Company does bad thing", then "New regulation says 'Don't do that'", then "Everything is better". The real world almost never works like that. " -- I think you haven't been living on the same rock as others have in the past 2 decades. It's not about if a company did a bad thing one time, it's about a company doing a bad thing constantly and refusing to change. That's when legislation is required. Seriously dude, what are you even trying to argue about? That bad kids should just get scolded because they won't repeat the same bad thing again? That's just a childish way of viewing what is happening right now.

From all of your comments, it's obvious to everybody here now that you don't understand the nature of the problem and why people are pushing for legislation. You don't follow real world events and just have vague tidbits of trivia that you are using to form incomplete arguments against legislation. Hell, you don't even know the definition of a monopoly.

 

[merikafyeah]

I don't know why I'm even trying to have a conversation about this topic with someone who doesn't know the definition of a monopoly. I would link you to several websites where you can read about it, but at this point you'll just tell me that everybody is wrong.

Merriam-Webster is very unambiguous with its terms. Nowhere does it mention an arbitrary threshold of market share as the determining factor for a monopoly. Is the concept of exclusive control supposed to be that complicated? By all means, link to me a credible source defining monopoly as you do and I vow to concede that my understanding of monopolies is very lacking.

you just do it for free. so much for "paying with your wallet".

The term is "voting" with my wallet, but that pertains to products and services. How does that relate to legislation? Note that nowhere did I say that ALL legislation is bad ALL the time.

Framework only exists because it is occupying a niche market and it is only selling a few thousand products per year. They don't even appear on any chart, that's how small they are. This only proves my point: people are tired of Apple and others doing whatever they want. I know you don't like it since you think that only communists and socialists do it, but right to repair legislation is coming and is required to correct the market right now.

Framework is just starting out, give it time. The fact that a company that is pro-right-to-repair can pop up in a world that is increasingly anti-right-to-repair proves my point that the market is in fact capable of pushing back and we're witnessing it right now. I'm all for right-to-repair legislation specifically. I don't know why you keep saying I'm not.

It's not about if a company did a bad thing one time, it's about a company doing a bad thing constantly and refusing to change. That's when legislation is required. Seriously dude, what are you even trying to argue about?

The original topic was about Google and its EU antitrust fine. I am against regulation that is ultimately ineffective, which I why I repeatedly emphasize the importance of being specific about what a new regulation is intended to do, lest we simply end up with a case like Microsoft's where after their antitrust ordeal all they had to do was add a selection box for users to choose their default browser from the beginning. Whoopdie-doo that'll teach 'em! Can't have MS abusing their position to make Internet Explorer the default! It's much better for it to be.... Chrome!
Have we the consumer really won? I mean really?

 

[Puiu]

Merriam-Webster is very unambiguous with its terms. Nowhere does it mention an arbitrary threshold of market share as the determining factor for a monopoly. Is the concept of exclusive control supposed to be that complicated? By all means, link to me a credible source defining monopoly as you do and I vow to concede that my understanding of monopolies is very lacking.

The term is "voting" with my wallet, but that pertains to products and services. How does that relate to legislation? Note that nowhere did I say that ALL legislation is bad ALL the time.

Framework is just starting out, give it time. The fact that a company that is pro-right-to-repair can pop up in a world that is increasingly anti-right-to-repair proves my point that the market is in fact capable of pushing back and we're witnessing it right now. I'm all for right-to-repair legislation specifically. I don't know why you keep saying I'm not.

The original topic was about Google and its EU antitrust fine. I am against regulation that is ultimately ineffective, which I why I repeatedly emphasize the importance of being specific about what a new regulation is intended to do, lest we simply end up with a case like Microsoft's where after their antitrust ordeal all they had to do was add a selection box for users to choose their default browser from the beginning. Whoopdie-doo that'll teach 'em! Can't have MS abusing their position to make Internet Explorer the default! It's much better for it to be.... Chrome!
Have we the consumer really won? I mean really?

Yes the consumers won. Really.

"exclusive control " - now I'm certain that you don't know what a monopoly is. Exclusive control only refers to a pure monopoly, a concept that doesn't really exist in real life with the exception of state controlled markets and a few exceptions.

Anyone who has any education in economics, like I have, will tell you that it is a monopoly when an entity is in a dominant position in a market. It doesn't even need to be 50% or any arbitrary number, it needs to be able to influence the entire market from a dominant position. The same applies to other forms of market dominance like a duopoly.

And you still don't understand what legislation does. How do you know what legislation is "ineffective"? Will the upcoming laws on common chargers be ineffective in making Apple finally switch to USB on phones? I think Apple will do it.

When the free market fails you have to try to legislate it. The legislation being effective or not is not for you to "predict". There are plenty of examples of legislation that is effective, you just chose to ignore them because if doesn't fit with your agenda.

Let me give you some examples of legislation that made a positive effect for consumers: Mobile roaming regulation in the EU, Fair housing Act in the US, Cross-border portability of online content, or the EU Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices.

All of the above laws sound like common sense nowadays, but it required them to be put on a piece of paper to become real and companies to implement the changes.

I like how you are changing your tune from "legislation" to "ineffective legislation", as if people misunderstood you until now.

 

[wiyosaya]

? Search engines aren't meant to inform, they're meant to give you what you search for, or rather they attempt to point you towards other places which may have what you're looking for. How useful the results are depends on who's looking.

So what is it, then that you call "pointing" or "telling" someone where they can find something? Is this not information, because I do not see how this is not information. If search engines did not provide information, I.e., inform, even if that information is only telling you where you will find more information, search engines would be little more than internet paperweights.

 

[merikafyeah]

So what is it, then that you call "pointing" or "telling" someone where they can find something? Is this not information, because I do not see how this is not information. If search engines did not provide information, I.e., inform, even if that information is only telling you where you will find more information, search engines would be little more than internet paperweights.

This is not the context of the word "information" which you used previously. You said:

In such a case, the search result are, by definition, biased to manipulate rather than properly inform.

What do you mean "properly" inform? If a person is satisfied with the result of their search query, would they not consider themselves "properly" informed?
But according to you they've only been "manipulated" into thinking that? That unbeknownst to them the search results only link to other sources which match a certain narrative, and therefore they are not in fact "properly" informed?

You are saying that there is a nebulous, arbitrary standard to determine when one is "properly" informed, and I am saying that only the person in question can make that judgement in regards to what they have searched for.

 

[merikafyeah]

now I'm certain that you don't know what a monopoly is. Exclusive control only refers to a pure monopoly, a concept that doesn't really exist in real life with the exception of state controlled markets and a few exceptions.

How am I supposed to know the definition of a word that isn't written down anywhere? Before, you said you could easily link to several sources which corroborate your esoteric definition of monopoly, but now you're saying "Trust me, I'm an authority". If you're the type of person to just believe someone because they told you to, well you do you.

Even factoring out control by the state, you can't just say pure monopolies don't exist and then immediately say "but there are exceptions". I know of many places in the U.S. that are served by literally one ISP, an actual pure monopoly.
But those don't count because they wouldn't match your narrative.

Anyone who has any education in economics, like I have, will tell you that it is a monopoly when an entity is in a dominant position in a market. It doesn't even need to be 50% or any arbitrary number, it needs to be able to influence the entire market from a dominant position.

I doubt most with an education in economics also have a habit of logically contradicting themselves in the same paragraph as you do.
You say the criterion for a monopoly doesn't require an arbitrary percentage of market share, but then immediately say it just has to be a "dominant" position. Well how exactly does one determine what is or isn't a "dominant" position?
Dominant can't just mean "greater than everyone else" because then Intel would be a monopoly for X86 CPUs, and we can all see that's clearly not the case. So then "dominant" would have to be determined by... wait for it... "arbitrary" metrics! Since when was economics so shy and vague about quantifying things?

But all that aside, the more important issue is that there are two different types of monopolies:
1. A monopoly that remains a monopoly because they use anti-competitive practices.
2. A monopoly that persists because people actually desire it over others, I.e. a market-chosen monopoly.

The first type of monopoly you might be able to legislate away, but the second one can only be legislated away via increasingly totalitarian methods.
Google currently fits both types, but I am arguing that most of its power comes from the fact that it's primarily the second type of monopoly. Thus, even if legislation was effective at removing Google from the first type of monopoly, it would be largely ineffective at removing Google from the second type of monopoly. This is what I mean when I say that legislation is likely to be ineffective against Google. Unless you can imagine a specific hypothetical regulation or set of regulations that can take away Google's dominant position and create a new supposedly fair search engine market.

 

[Puiu]

How am I supposed to know the definition of a word that isn't written down anywhere? Before, you said you could easily link to several sources which corroborate your esoteric definition of monopoly, but now you're saying "Trust me, I'm an authority". If you're the type of person to just believe someone because they told you to, well you do you.

Even factoring out control by the state, you can't just say pure monopolies don't exist and then immediately say "but there are exceptions". I know of many places in the U.S. that are served by literally one ISP, an actual pure monopoly.
But those don't count because they wouldn't match your narrative.


I doubt most with an education in economics also have a habit of logically contradicting themselves in the same paragraph as you do.
You say the criterion for a monopoly doesn't require an arbitrary percentage of market share, but then immediately say it just has to be a "dominant" position. Well how exactly does one determine what is or isn't a "dominant" position?
Dominant can't just mean "greater than everyone else" because then Intel would be a monopoly for X86 CPUs, and we can all see that's clearly not the case. So then "dominant" would have to be determined by... wait for it... "arbitrary" metrics! Since when was economics so shy and vague about quantifying things?

But all that aside, the more important issue is that there are two different types of monopolies:
1. A monopoly that remains a monopoly because they use anti-competitive practices.
2. A monopoly that persists because people actually desire it over others, I.e. a market-chosen monopoly.

The first type of monopoly you might be able to legislate away, but the second one can only be legislated away via increasingly totalitarian methods.
Google currently fits both types, but I am arguing that most of its power comes from the fact that it's primarily the second type of monopoly. Thus, even if legislation was effective at removing Google from the first type of monopoly, it would be largely ineffective at removing Google from the second type of monopoly. This is what I mean when I say that legislation is likely to be ineffective against Google. Unless you can imagine a specific hypothetical regulation or set of regulations that can take away Google's dominant position and create a new supposedly fair search engine market.

You still make no sense at all. We are talking about legislating against things that are happening right now that affect you. It's to protect your rights now, not in the future against a possible issue or some other wishy washy crap.

"A monopoly that persists because people actually desire it over others" - and if people want to use it means we should not legislate it? it suddenly turns into "totalitarian methods"? Let me tell you this in the most serious way I can (and I'm sorry that I have to put it this way): that's just stupid. How did you even get to this conclusion? it's baffling to hear such things said with a straight face.

"Well how exactly does one determine what is or isn't a "dominant" position?" - if this is where you are stuck then you have many problems. Why are you asking me to explain basic stuff with every comment you make?

Here, let give you an example how Amazon is in a dominant position and it can also address your "consumers want it" view of the issue.

Amazon has a habit of using its vast sales data to find markets it can penetrate in hopes of making big money. They first create an alternative product which they place in the first few results of any search and they then undercut the price by a huge margin (selling in the red) until the majority of sales are captured by them and the competitors are driven out of the market. This has the positive effect of people finding "cheaper" products which they like (the "wanted" monopoly you mentioned). After the competition dries up Amazon raises prices to a normal value where they can make a profit.

The moral of the story? Even if the monopoly is not something undesirable by the people, it's still something that needs to be carefully watched so that they don't do stupid things. If things go too far then legislation is the only way to fix things since the company clearly doesn't want to.

Before privacy legislation do you have any idea just how much your data was shared around? No you don't. thankfully the EU is miles ahead of the US when it comes to such legislation.

Do you know what was the first thing that happened after the Net Neutrality legislation was removed by Ajit Pai? That legislation contained many things, including rules on the way ISPs should display the fees. ISPs immediately starting using hidden fees again. As soon as the protection against hidden fees the legislation provided disappeared, it was used against you.

You take for granted so much pro-consumer legislation (that you don't even know exists) and that's just sad.

 

[merikafyeah]

You still make no sense at all. We are talking about legislating against things that are happening right now that affect you. It's to protect your rights now, not in the future against a possible issue or some other wishy washy crap.

"A monopoly that persists because people actually desire it over others" - and if people want to use it means we should not legislate it? it suddenly turns into "totalitarian methods"? Let me tell you this in the most serious way I can (and I'm sorry that I have to put it this way): that's just stupid. How did you even get to this conclusion? it's baffling to hear such things said with a straight face.

"Well how exactly does one determine what is or isn't a "dominant" position?" - if this is where you are stuck then you have many problems. Why are you asking me to explain basic stuff with every comment you make?

Here, let give you an example how Amazon is in a dominant position and it can also address your "consumers want it" view of the issue.

Amazon has a habit of using its vast sales data to find markets it can penetrate in hopes of making big money. They first create an alternative product which they place in the first few results of any search and they then undercut the price by a huge margin (selling in the red) until the majority of sales are captured by them and the competitors are driven out of the market. This has the positive effect of people finding "cheaper" products which they like (the "wanted" monopoly you mentioned). After the competition dries up Amazon raises prices to a normal value where they can make a profit.

The moral of the story? Even if the monopoly is not something undesirable by the people, it's still something that needs to be carefully watched so that they don't do stupid things. If things go too far then legislation is the only way to fix things since the company clearly doesn't want to.

Before privacy legislation do you have any idea just how much your data was shared around? No you don't. thankfully the EU is miles ahead of the US when it comes to such legislation.

Do you know what was the first thing that happened after the Net Neutrality legislation was removed by Ajit Pai? That legislation contained many things, including rules on the way ISPs should display the fees. ISPs immediately starting using hidden fees again. As soon as the protection against hidden fees the legislation provided disappeared, it was used against you.

You take for granted so much pro-consumer legislation (that you don't even know exists) and that's just sad.

The main point I've been trying to make that you refuse to admit is that legislation isn't magic. It cannot solve all problems. Have a problem with hidden fees? Write legislation that says all fees must be clear and upfront. Simple. But what about your Amazon example? Let's say you have the power to enact any legislation you want tomorrow. What would you write to stop Amazon from doing "that thing" it's doing? Not so simple now is it?

 

[Gareeth]

Yet, the better product with better integration is Bing, thus the market failed, as it usually does.

Popular does not equal better.

Apple products are another shining example of market failure. When people can be easily manipulated, there is no such thing as a free market.

Bing is well integrated into Windows Edge for optimal integration but that is far more anti-competitive as I can't even uninstall Edge.

Google is a choice even when they pay to be the default for Apple I do think given Google is the top search in BIng this would indicate a lot of people have to search to know how to switch the search engine.

Every single time I get a new Windows device I am stuck with Edge and Bing will be set up.

Bing is far more limited overall right so when I use Google and have it set up I can access all my google products and so on - many of which Bing does not have but many people do not like a busy interface if they are trying to get things done - this is my chief reason why I won't use Bing.

Google has no ability to immediately set it up so that the horror of having yahoo set as my default web page with Bing etc so in my first minutes of a new PC I might be bombarded with the kind of crappy news I do not care about.

You may like it. I don't.

I don't think it is a failure of the market when they have a differing preference . That's the entire reasons Google should win as even if they are the default on Apple people can opt out.

Until my laptop dies or we all die from climate change Edge will obnoxiously want me to use it.

While at this point there is no doubt Edge performs a hair better than Chrome in this instance when it's analyzed why people don't opt into it more ( those who know how to which is a factor ) its because it feels crammed down our throats So a significant chunk resents it too much to use it.

It's performance isn't that much better but I would guess if it stopped coming with Windows and they stopped making some things open in it more people would opt in.

Humans are like that but that's why there is choice.

 

[Puiu]

The main point I've been trying to make that you refuse to admit is that legislation isn't magic. It cannot solve all problems. Have a problem with hidden fees? Write legislation that says all fees must be clear and upfront. Simple. But what about your Amazon example? Let's say you have the power to enact any legislation you want tomorrow. What would you write to stop Amazon from doing "that thing" it's doing? Not so simple now is it?

Who the hell needs magic? Legislation is not and should not be magic. What you want and expect of legislation is unrealistic and what you expect of the free market is even more unrealistic. Legislation is there to plug the holes that the free market is creating, to protect the consumer and to encourage competition.

There are many ways to combat what Amazon is doing. There are already Antitrust laws to combat Predatory pricing, these just need to be adjusted to better include the situation Amazon is creating and to expand the fines (who cares about 10-20 million in fines when you make billions). And it's not just predatory pricing.

You can read more about Amazon, Google, Apple, etc here:

Amazon bullies partners and vendors, says antitrust subcommittee

The House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust said in a Tuesday report that Amazon's retail dominance gives it monopoly power over third-party sellers.

www.cnbc.com