You have not checked on colleges have you?
Just because a user does not have @gmail.com in their address, does not mean it is not gmail. There are over 250k college students at one institution in this state alone that are part of gmail now.
Unfortunately that is not quantifiable. All I have to go on is numbers like the following:
http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2009/08/gmail-now-third-largest-email-service-in-us.html
http://www.email-marketing-reports.com/metrics/email-statistics.htm
Unfortunately those are a bit out of date, but if Gmail had become the second or first largest it would be all over the tech blogs, so it's still in 3rd place as far as I'm aware.
And search is not their business. it is the avenue to their revenue, and a good one. Their business is selling. Selling Ads. I do believe Stardock is having a problem with that aspect of them right now (and we saw how responsive they were to it since they dominate that market as well).
Really? Where did the money for Chrome come from?
You're going in circles. Your original argument was that Google is using their monopoly in search to push their other products. Yes, they have a monopoly in search, but not in ads. Yes, ads did pay for Chrome. But Google Search specifically did not help them make Chrome popular. That is, no one saw Chrome and downloaded it because you can search using Google on it. People use Chrome because it's better than the rest. That is true of most of Google's services (Gmail has become the third largest email provider not because it has any ties to the search monopoly, but because it is quite simply better than the rest). Whether or not Google has a monopoly, it has not stopped them from creating great products and innovating in many, many areas. Tell me another company that pushes innovation as much as Google does (how many companies do you know of that have a "20%" policy?)
Companies are not "good" or "bad". That is anthropomorphizing google. A company has one responsibility. To maximize the investment return of its owners. Once you corner a market, you can milk it for every penny without fear of losing money or depriving your investors. But that comes at the expense of the customers (in both cost and innovation). Those are the realities (not the histrionics) of companies.
You can maximize the investment return of its owners in many ways, of which can be constituted as being "good" or "bad" from the point of view of the general public, the users, or the stockholders. Yes, Google is out to make money. However, they are doing it in the best way possible: Without screwing their users, without sacrificing quality, and with some morals. Yes, it is a non-living entity, a corporation out to make money. But it is also run by people, and those people's choices can absolutely be certified as good or bad.
And I will ask you once again: Show me where Google has done wrong and milked a market they own for every penny? Show me where Google has lost innovation and increased cost to customers in a monopoly they are in control of. You can say that Google will do these things all you want but they are NOT doing them. They are the ONLY company to say that they will not do them. They innovate faster than most companies on the planet, and practically every single one of their services is free. Define the "expense to customers" that Google's monopoly has caused.
Do not put words into my mouth (or pen). I said lack of competition (monopoly) does that. And so far, Google has done well in every market they have entered. And when they have achieved dominance, what happens?
How long did it take them for Google Instant AFTER Bing started taking market share? how long did google search stagnate because there was no real other viable alternative?
Google search, from the very onset, was all about simplicity and quickness. Google became popular BECAUSE of this. Why would Google change that and lose what many consider to be their search's greatest quality? The stuff they added after Bing was not because Bing was catching up to them, but because Google saw that that is what people want. They follow the market, not Bing. And Google Instant probably didn't come earlier due to technology limitations, it takes time build up the infrastructure for something as blazingly fast as Instant. I suspect Instant would have come regardless of Bing, since it saves Google a ton of money.
We have Bing NOW. That is recent. And I have not said that Google is a monopoly in every venture. I said I do not like them being one or becoming one. Look at MS Office suite. They have no real competition, and the price is sky high! (you can buy a complete functioning computer for less than the office suite). That is called vertical integration. Which is what Chrome/Chrome OS is all about. No, it is not a monopoly, but like DR DOS (you did not address that did you?), all it takes is a tweak and viola! Seems Google Search (gmail, maps, etc. you pick the "can't do without application") works so much better with Chrome than any thing else. Then they just do not support it unless you use Chrome.
Before Bing there was MSN search, and Yahoo search, and plenty of other smaller ones. There was plenty of competition and innovation. Is it Google's problem that they all failed? Google themselves did not go out and say "don't use MSN Search" or do anything to prevent it from gaining popularity. People simply did not care for it. As for MS Office suite, I completely agree, that's something Microsoft would do. But we're talking about Google. Show me an example of where Google has done something similar and I'll shut up.
Yes, Google CAN do that. But at the moment they aren't. I'm not sure I see your problem if every single company has the potential to do what you said. Google isn't the only one that is capable of this, but they're the only ones that say "do no evil."
Closing the barn door after the cow has escaped is not a very sound strategy now is it? If I thought Google was there now, you would not be reading this. My application just would mysteriously not work with their monopoly - unless I paid a fee.
lol, again, more speculation than fact. Please stop speculating and provide some hard evidence where Google has done anything of the sort.
In your opinion. I do not trust them (or any company for that matter) to do anything other than fulfill their primary duty. And if that means turning it off for Opera, they will. IMHO.
Fair enough, I don't want to say that I completely "trust" any company either. However, Google is probably closest, if only because they have shown no evidence of... well... of any of the myriad examples you listed that you think Google will do.
And off my topic, but pertinent. There are several countries that vehemently disagree with you on that one. Germany, Holland, The Czech republic (the list does go on - bing it). It is not that they are out to "out you", it is just they are so big and powerful, they just do not care.
The countries are afraid of the same thing you are: Every corporation that gets too powerful gets out of control and screws everyone over. Thing is, Google is already more powerful than most corporations on the planet (how many other companies have said "fuck you" to an entire country, losing 40% of the market share in that country, just to do the right thing?) and yet, they have shown no evidence of screwing everyone over. This is not Microsoft. Those days are over. Google is the first (of likely many) corporation that really tries to stand for the right thing. Those other countries are simply afraid of what might happen if Google ever did go evil. I say, why worry? If they wanted to go evil, they already would have.
Bara
