Comment by rusk
5 days ago
Didn’t dispute it was a service. What I was saying that Google run everything at a loss, and it’s all paid for by advertising. They don’t sell themselves advertising. No advertising no money.
5 days ago
Didn’t dispute it was a service. What I was saying that Google run everything at a loss, and it’s all paid for by advertising. They don’t sell themselves advertising. No advertising no money.
Right, but the problem with most arguments supporting the break up of Chrome from Google are really not looking at the bigger picture. YouTube is more of a monopolistic threat than Chrome will ever be. If it was sold off it would mean most browsers could monetize and we'd be back to the AOL age. I don't dislike that era but it is 10 steps back. While Google isn't great applying simple policies would be easier to address monopolistic practices than just telling Google to sell it off.
Agreed, and I’m not fully aware au fait with DOJ reasoning. Perhaps it’s an anti-trust thing as it gives them a way to steer the development of the web to their own ends? That would be my key concern about Chrome anyway.
But to come back to the original point I was making, is that it’s really not akin to a bakery window. If I wanted to allow the metaphor to be further tortured I’d allow “Sears” or something.
But it’s more than that, as Google’s business model is largely parasitic to what users would be doing anyway.
That I do now disagree with. It is a portal to something and data.
2 replies →