You may see it as circular, but it is straight line. They have to make money. The goods are search. And then they sold the highest hits, and sold ads to make the money. Search got them there. Ads.....Well who else does Firefox use to find out a site is a predator? A monopoly is not defined by 100% of a market. it is defined as effective control (in other words, they say jump and the market says how high). Stardock just got gigged by one company, and you are claiming no monopoly? To each his own.
Gigged? They resolved it fairly fast. forums.wincustomize.com is back to normal right now, and we're still not sure if it's Google's ads or our other ad partner that was the problem. The thing is, I am absolutely fine with what they did. It is a defense mechanism for their users, and it works really well. Google blocking our site due to potentially malicious software is not evidence of a monopoly out of control.
As for the email, does your source list how it arrived at the figures? I would like to know that. I do not know if they are 1, 2 or 3. But considering Yahoo and Hotmail have been around for over 12 years, and gmail barely 5, that says something about their market penetration, now does it not? (Rome and Microsoft were not built in a day - or 5 years).
Gmail has become as popular as it is today because Gmail is superior to the other email services. It has very little to do with Google's search monopoly. Yes, they have made great gains in 5 years, but they've also made the greatest changes to the way email works (large amounts of free storage, the label system, Labs, auto-threaded conversations, custom themes, etc.). Their constant innovation has got them to 3rd place in 5 years, whereas Yahoo and Hotmail stagnated. Do you really believe Gmail got to where it is because Google search somehow helped them get there? Maybe in name only.
And none of them worth a snot. And you forgot to mention Copernicus. Which was the best there was until Google came along.
Google defines searches. They were the best! Now at least they are getting better since they have real competition.
None of them are worth a snot because their algorithm isn't nearly as good as Google's. Tell me, if Google's algorithm is the best, and if they're trying to push a "less is more" mentality, what exactly should they be changing in Google search? Yes, they added Google Instant, but like I said before, I'd be willing to bet they were simply waiting for the right technology or the right time. If your product is as perfect as can be (per your views), why change it? I never once went to Google and thought "man, this search needs more innovative technology!"
And I will ask you once again: Show me where Google has done wrong and milked a market they own for every penny?
I thought we already discussed the Stardock issue. A leech does not kill its host with one suck. But it will if allowed to leech the host unfettered for a long time. Google has not had time to leech a market dry yet. But they almost got there (and are trying). Again, you seem to want to see the end results before the interim steps. I told you the end results, not that Google has always done it. Monopolies DO IT. Are you going to argue that Monopolies do not do it? or that Google is not a monopoly and never will be? Which one? And my question that started all of this has yet to be answered.
I'm sorry but the Stardock issue is not evidence that Google is taking advantage of their monopoly. They are not out to get us, they are trying to make the web a safer place. Their algorithm obviously has a few issues, but that doesn't mean they were being evil.
I'm arguing that Google IS a monopoly in only one area: search. And in that area, they have shown no evidence that they are screwing over their users. You keep saying they will do it, but they've been a monopoly for years, when have they ever used search to do something considered to be "evil" or something that would screw their users? The only thing I can think of is filtering their results in China, which they've admitted was wrong and backed out of a country where they ad 40% penetration. Can any other company say they've done that, just to do the "right thing?"
What constitutes a monopoly (percent of market to be called a monopoly). All you are doing so far is saying how much you love Google (fine, you do not have to hate them, I do not). I am saying I do not like what they have become and are becoming (in markets).
Tell me what they've become.
No reality. I see the natural progression of a company run amuk (Microsoft did not remain one forever afterall, but it sure hurt things until others could eat away at its stranglehold). I know monopolies, and I see how they are created. You will note that I have not said "Google did x, y and Z". I have stated facts about Google and Monopolies. You have made leaps of logic (some natural, some bizarre) and are trying to put words in my mouth. Again, I do not have time to correct you. If you want to be a cheer leader for Google - great! If you want to debate monopolies and monopolistic tendencies - good! (I would love to, but I doubt this is the forum for such an adventure). But please stop saying " you said, you did, you avowed" when the only one doing that is you. And not accurately when you do it based upon what I have said.
I have stated facts, you have stated love. But we are not stating such on the same subject, so there is no use in doing a "he said, she said" comedy.
A company run amok? Again, where is the evidence? Where have they run amok? The fact that they turned on Buzz for everyone by default? Fine, that was a mistake, but that cannot be your only evidence for how an entire company is operating. Google is doing great things and innovating left and right (just look at Android).
See, now you're just arguing semantics. I asked for evidence for where Google has gone wrong in the half-decade that they have been a search monopoly, and all I've heard is "monopolies do this" and "monopolies do that," yet shown no evidence for where Google has done this or gone in this direction. Am I wrong? Please, tell me how.
Bara
