- Status
Why waste money to investigate money? Google is pretty transparent, we all know what its up to.
Apple is the bigger problem, suing everyone, stopping competition.
Shouldn't they focus their resources on Apple instead? And especially investigate why they track people without asking (google tracks people but we know they go as thats their job, but its not apples job) and investigate Apple for brain washing people. Apple is experts at mind control, and tracking the mindless
Apple is the bigger problem, suing everyone, stopping competition.
Shouldn't they focus their resources on Apple instead? And especially investigate why they track people without asking (google tracks people but we know they go as thats their job, but its not apples job) and investigate Apple for brain washing people. Apple is experts at mind control, and tracking the mindless
[citation][nom]molo9000[/nom]Do u pay more if you are referred to a site by google? No.Prices simply include advertising cost.[/citation]
Do you pay anything if you don't buy a product? No. Prices only costs you something when you buy.
Which is optional.
Do you pay anything if you don't buy a product? No. Prices only costs you something when you buy.
Which is optional.
Google is a website that you have to voluntarily go to, how is that a monopoly? Who cares if they preferentially list their own products higher... Its their website. Thats would be akin to suing Amazon because they feature the Kindle on the homepage and not another eReader... Yeah, its Amazons webpage.
We all have a choice when we go to use a search engine, and we could all easily google stuff on Bing if we wanted to without ANY hassle or inconvenience, except for Google does it better and cleaner.
We all have a choice when we go to use a search engine, and we could all easily google stuff on Bing if we wanted to without ANY hassle or inconvenience, except for Google does it better and cleaner.
back_by_demand
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 1,599
- 0
- 19,730
[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Except that that's nonsense because the consumer can still choose NOT to click the advert or not to buy the product once they've clicked. In the former case there are no charges to companies, and in the both cases the consumer pays nothing full stop, whilst still benefiting from all of the Google services. And that option, is the original posters point.Companies go out of business[/citation]
Who is talking about individual users? This is about macro-economics, some people must click on the ads or no-one would advertise at all, each company that advertises knows that there will be a certain number of clicks each month and each of those will have been accounted and budgeted for.
No business would sign up to something if they didn't already have projections and estimates for costs like this and it all goes on the product sale price.
How do you think business works?
Who is talking about individual users? This is about macro-economics, some people must click on the ads or no-one would advertise at all, each company that advertises knows that there will be a certain number of clicks each month and each of those will have been accounted and budgeted for.
No business would sign up to something if they didn't already have projections and estimates for costs like this and it all goes on the product sale price.
How do you think business works?
back_by_demand
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 1,599
- 0
- 19,730
If Schmidt is in the monopoly area, here's hoping he rolls 3 doubles, then goes to directly to jail
Not passing Go
Not collecting $200
Not passing Go
Not collecting $200
puddleglum
Distinguished
- Dec 3, 2008
- 25
- 0
- 18,580
I guess it is the ads that makes google a monopoly. I think they control ads on other sites, not just their own.
What surprizes me more is they speak of the microsoft monopoly as being in the past. I can go downtown and buy a commodity PC without google's chrome on it. I can search the web without using google's search engine. But I cannot get that same box without microsoft software on it. For your average consumer, there is no other choice.
What surprizes me more is they speak of the microsoft monopoly as being in the past. I can go downtown and buy a commodity PC without google's chrome on it. I can search the web without using google's search engine. But I cannot get that same box without microsoft software on it. For your average consumer, there is no other choice.
I have issues with Google crossing the line on privacy issues and part of that is responsible for their growth. Google is embedded in everything that you can't get rid of it even if you want to. That being said, their monopoly is what I call an "earned monopoly" -- there were no barriers to other competitors and they won a monopoly position by being better than everyone else. This is different from Microsoft, for example, who controlled the operating system and had control over them (witness Netscape, who microsoft allowed to run freely when they didn't offer a browser and then handicapped Netscape when they introduced Internet Explorer and made it a mandatory option). Microsoft is a case of monopoly at it's worst. I'm not really fond of google's privacy invasion, but I have to admit that google earned their monopoly position by having excellent technology.
Is a powerful company really a bad thing? Admittedly I am a Google supporter, mostly because of the innovation and competitiveness they have shown.
I listened to Eric Schmidt in a tech conference a years or two ago, and I was surprised that he talked a lot about power—as in electrical/utility type power. He talked about the inefficiencies in the our outdated power grid and what the future could be like with a smart grid, and smart homes/cars/devices that drew power from the grid and gave power back to the grid when not using it. It was the type of talk that inspired innovation.
He never said what Google was doing to move in that direction, but if the CEO is thinking about then the company is thinking about it. I know Google has recently invested into solar power technology. The energy sector would be a new arena for Google, but I would love to see what a company like Google (with their innovation, influence, and capital) could do when working with our energy problems.
I listened to Eric Schmidt in a tech conference a years or two ago, and I was surprised that he talked a lot about power—as in electrical/utility type power. He talked about the inefficiencies in the our outdated power grid and what the future could be like with a smart grid, and smart homes/cars/devices that drew power from the grid and gave power back to the grid when not using it. It was the type of talk that inspired innovation.
He never said what Google was doing to move in that direction, but if the CEO is thinking about then the company is thinking about it. I know Google has recently invested into solar power technology. The energy sector would be a new arena for Google, but I would love to see what a company like Google (with their innovation, influence, and capital) could do when working with our energy problems.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Who is talking about individual users? This is about macro-economics, some people must click on the ads or no-one would advertise at all, each company that advertises knows that there will be a certain number of clicks each month and each of those will have been accounted and budgeted for.No business would sign up to something if they didn't already have projections and estimates for costs like this and it all goes on the product sale price.How do you think business works?[/citation]
Who is talking about individual users? The original poster is, that's who. You know, the guy whos post you replied to. You miss his point entirely. Your point boils down to the fact that all money everywhere owned by all companies comes from people. That's true of any company, and that makes it a pointless point. The original posters point is that he, the INDIVIDUAL USER, doesn't have to buy anything to use the Google services, so for HIM, it can be free. Which he sees as a benefit (as do I).
It is obvious that each company who advertises knows will budget for that cost, but again you miss the point entirely. The consumer (ie the original poster) may not purchase any items from said companies and so may never have to pay anything even indirectly for Google services.
And finally, just as an aside, the fact that they use Google arguably means that they consider it the most cost effective approach to advertising so arguably their costs would be higher without it. Not a necessary point to make but disproves you even if you hadn't completely missed the point.
Who is talking about individual users? The original poster is, that's who. You know, the guy whos post you replied to. You miss his point entirely. Your point boils down to the fact that all money everywhere owned by all companies comes from people. That's true of any company, and that makes it a pointless point. The original posters point is that he, the INDIVIDUAL USER, doesn't have to buy anything to use the Google services, so for HIM, it can be free. Which he sees as a benefit (as do I).
It is obvious that each company who advertises knows will budget for that cost, but again you miss the point entirely. The consumer (ie the original poster) may not purchase any items from said companies and so may never have to pay anything even indirectly for Google services.
And finally, just as an aside, the fact that they use Google arguably means that they consider it the most cost effective approach to advertising so arguably their costs would be higher without it. Not a necessary point to make but disproves you even if you hadn't completely missed the point.
Some amusing quotations:
[citation][nom]JohnnyLucky[/nom]I think one of the reasons individuals are okay with Google is that there is almost no individual consumer cost associated with their products.[/citation]
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Who is talking about individual users?[/citation]
/fail
[citation][nom]JohnnyLucky[/nom]I think one of the reasons individuals are okay with Google is that there is almost no individual consumer cost associated with their products.[/citation]
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Who is talking about individual users?[/citation]
/fail
Google is not a monopoly, just like Microsoft was never a monopoly. Read a friggin' dictionary: http
/en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monopoly.
/en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monopoly.back_by_demand
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 1,599
- 0
- 19,730
[citation][nom]puddleglum[/nom]I guess it is the ads that makes google a monopoly. I think they control ads on other sites, not just their own.What surprizes me more is they speak of the microsoft monopoly as being in the past. I can go downtown and buy a commodity PC without google's chrome on it. I can search the web without using google's search engine. But I cannot get that same box without microsoft software on it. For your average consumer, there is no other choice.[/citation]
You could however buy the parts and build it yourself, then put whatever OS you wanted on, it would probably be cheaper too.
There was also a stream of Linux based retail machines when netbooks first came out and they had market dominance until people realised that it wasn't user friendly and only the great hippy-elite use Linux.
And a netbook isn't powerful enough for that kind of user, they want a much more powerful machine.
Try finding a non-Windows netbook now.
That's not monopoly influencing retail sector, that is consumers voting with their feet.
You could however buy the parts and build it yourself, then put whatever OS you wanted on, it would probably be cheaper too.
There was also a stream of Linux based retail machines when netbooks first came out and they had market dominance until people realised that it wasn't user friendly and only the great hippy-elite use Linux.
And a netbook isn't powerful enough for that kind of user, they want a much more powerful machine.
Try finding a non-Windows netbook now.
That's not monopoly influencing retail sector, that is consumers voting with their feet.
back_by_demand
Distinguished
- Jul 16, 2009
- 1,599
- 0
- 19,730
[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Who is talking about individual users? The original poster is, that's who. You know, the guy whos post you replied to. You miss his point entirely. Your point boils down to the fact that all money everywhere owned by all companies comes from people. That's true of any company, and that makes it a pointless point. The original posters point is that he, the INDIVIDUAL USER, doesn't have to buy anything to use the Google services, so for HIM, it can be free. Which he sees as a benefit (as do I).It is obvious that each company who advertises knows will budget for that cost, but again you miss the point entirely. The consumer (ie the original poster) may not purchase any items from said companies and so may never have to pay anything even indirectly for Google services.And finally, just as an aside, the fact that they use Google arguably means that they consider it the most cost effective approach to advertising so arguably their costs would be higher without it. Not a necessary point to make but disproves you even if you hadn't completely missed the point.[/citation]
And thats the problem, the original poster assumes the world revolves around him, these companies do not care about you, the person, they care about us, the consumers.
We are never ever factored into decisions based on what "you" or "I" want, we are all boiled down into statistics and averages.
So yes that one poster is very happy that he doesn't give his click contribution and denies Google that whopping $0.00000000001, but advertising is passive as well.
If I said the words Jack Daniels, McDonalds, Pepsi the brand logos are automatically flashed in your (the public, not you) mind, you have already been advertised to and it is in your consumer mind. Next time you drive past a McDonalds you can hear the jiggle and remember the smell of a Big Mac.
All that advertising is paid for somewhere.
Apple spent $691 million in 2010 on advertising, it sure as hell doesn't absorb that cost from the bottom line, every penny was clawed back with the higher retail cost of their products, that's almost $24 for every iPad ever sold.
And thats the problem, the original poster assumes the world revolves around him, these companies do not care about you, the person, they care about us, the consumers.
We are never ever factored into decisions based on what "you" or "I" want, we are all boiled down into statistics and averages.
So yes that one poster is very happy that he doesn't give his click contribution and denies Google that whopping $0.00000000001, but advertising is passive as well.
If I said the words Jack Daniels, McDonalds, Pepsi the brand logos are automatically flashed in your (the public, not you) mind, you have already been advertised to and it is in your consumer mind. Next time you drive past a McDonalds you can hear the jiggle and remember the smell of a Big Mac.
All that advertising is paid for somewhere.
Apple spent $691 million in 2010 on advertising, it sure as hell doesn't absorb that cost from the bottom line, every penny was clawed back with the higher retail cost of their products, that's almost $24 for every iPad ever sold.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]And thats the problem, the original poster assumes the world revolves around him, these companies do not care about you, the person, they care about us, the consumers.We are never ever factored into decisions based on what "you" or "I" want, we are all boiled down into statistics and averages.So yes that one poster is very happy that he doesn't give his click contribution and denies Google that whopping $0.00000000001, but advertising is passive as well.If I said the words Jack Daniels, McDonalds, Pepsi the brand logos are automatically flashed in your (the public, not you) mind, you have already been advertised to and it is in your consumer mind. Next time you drive past a McDonalds you can hear the jiggle and remember the smell of a Big Mac.All that advertising is paid for somewhere.Apple spent $691 million in 2010 on advertising, it sure as hell doesn't absorb that cost from the bottom line, every penny was clawed back with the higher retail cost of their products, that's almost $24 for every iPad ever sold.[/citation]
This is so, so silly. You miss the point, absolutely, and entirely.
For every single person in this world, the world DOES revolve around them. If a guy in Spain decides to buy a Ferrari, that doesn't mean that suddenly I have somehow paid for a Ferrari, because on 'average' people have paid 0.00001% of a Ferrari each. I have a choice not to buy a Ferrari, and that choice is very important. That choice is what the original poster likes. What you're talking about, in terms of averages, is not at all relevant to the individual. We are all individuals. The companies like Google work off averages and that's fine, but that DOESN'T IMPACT ANY SPECIFIC USER WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
The one poster isn't happy of denying Google, on average probably $0.20 (not 0.00000000001), they are happy because they were provided with services which demanded no fees in return. That is the reality faced by the original poster, and every other person.
Talking about McDonalds advertising, could not be more irrelevant, what has McDonalds advertising got to do with Google, and what has McDonalds necessarily got to do with the original poster anyway? Being exposed to advertising doesn't cost the original poster anything, at all. Similarly, your claim that Apple 'spends money on advertising' is so simplistic, obvious, and irrelevant - it has no relevance whatsoever to whether or not the original poster is charged for using Google services. He will be exposed to advertising on a vast variety of mediums all the time anyway, and it costs him nothing. If he buys an Apple product, and the Apple product has Google marketing, then yes he is indirectly giving Google money, but a) That purchase is optional, he may not buy it. and b) He may actually get a lower price because of the aforementioned cost benefits associated with advertising on Google. and c) If he never buys an Apple product, he's not contributing ANYTHING AT ALL to ANY apple costs, advertising or otherwise.
The bottom line, which you can't seem to grasp, is that it's possible for Joe Bloggs from London to use Google Services without a penny of his money ever having gone to Google, either directly or indirectly. Whether or not other people have paid for it or not is completely irrelevant, because if you go to that extreme, all things in the world ever have been paid for by everyone. If you took things to that extreme then you personally also paid for a Ferrari, and you paid for all the people who bought Apple products, because we can't consider you an 'individual', we have to assume that an 'average you' bought a small percentage of a Ferrari and lets say an Apple device. Effectively your logic means that every single person in the world is a consumer of every single product for every single company. In other words, complete, absurd, ridiculous, nonsense.
The beauty of both the Ferrari and the Google services, is the CHOICE. With Ferrari, you have a choice either to buy it or not to buy it. With Google services, you have a choice whether you finance the free services indirectly or not by clicking ads, buying from companies who advertise on Google.
That choice, is ESSENTIAL, PIVOTAL and the MOST IMPORTANT factor to EVERY individual.
The one poster is
This is so, so silly. You miss the point, absolutely, and entirely.
For every single person in this world, the world DOES revolve around them. If a guy in Spain decides to buy a Ferrari, that doesn't mean that suddenly I have somehow paid for a Ferrari, because on 'average' people have paid 0.00001% of a Ferrari each. I have a choice not to buy a Ferrari, and that choice is very important. That choice is what the original poster likes. What you're talking about, in terms of averages, is not at all relevant to the individual. We are all individuals. The companies like Google work off averages and that's fine, but that DOESN'T IMPACT ANY SPECIFIC USER WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
The one poster isn't happy of denying Google, on average probably $0.20 (not 0.00000000001), they are happy because they were provided with services which demanded no fees in return. That is the reality faced by the original poster, and every other person.
Talking about McDonalds advertising, could not be more irrelevant, what has McDonalds advertising got to do with Google, and what has McDonalds necessarily got to do with the original poster anyway? Being exposed to advertising doesn't cost the original poster anything, at all. Similarly, your claim that Apple 'spends money on advertising' is so simplistic, obvious, and irrelevant - it has no relevance whatsoever to whether or not the original poster is charged for using Google services. He will be exposed to advertising on a vast variety of mediums all the time anyway, and it costs him nothing. If he buys an Apple product, and the Apple product has Google marketing, then yes he is indirectly giving Google money, but a) That purchase is optional, he may not buy it. and b) He may actually get a lower price because of the aforementioned cost benefits associated with advertising on Google. and c) If he never buys an Apple product, he's not contributing ANYTHING AT ALL to ANY apple costs, advertising or otherwise.
The bottom line, which you can't seem to grasp, is that it's possible for Joe Bloggs from London to use Google Services without a penny of his money ever having gone to Google, either directly or indirectly. Whether or not other people have paid for it or not is completely irrelevant, because if you go to that extreme, all things in the world ever have been paid for by everyone. If you took things to that extreme then you personally also paid for a Ferrari, and you paid for all the people who bought Apple products, because we can't consider you an 'individual', we have to assume that an 'average you' bought a small percentage of a Ferrari and lets say an Apple device. Effectively your logic means that every single person in the world is a consumer of every single product for every single company. In other words, complete, absurd, ridiculous, nonsense.
The beauty of both the Ferrari and the Google services, is the CHOICE. With Ferrari, you have a choice either to buy it or not to buy it. With Google services, you have a choice whether you finance the free services indirectly or not by clicking ads, buying from companies who advertise on Google.
That choice, is ESSENTIAL, PIVOTAL and the MOST IMPORTANT factor to EVERY individual.
The one poster is
- Sep 6, 2008
- 3,485
- 0
- 20,730
As far as I'm concerned, Google is not innovating any longer. Most of their core products other than Search has been purchased outright with the almighty dollar, and therefore is not a product of Google's "innovation".
For example: Android - purchased. YouTube - purchased. Ads - purchased. What has come out of Google recently that is really new honestly?
For example: Android - purchased. YouTube - purchased. Ads - purchased. What has come out of Google recently that is really new honestly?
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question How do I run old laptop faster?!
- Started by Mason Howard
- Replies: 23
-
-
Question best portable bluetooth speaker for travel, which one is worth it?- Started by khairia784
- Replies: 1
-
Question Upgrading from Redmi Note 9 Pro — Xiaomi 15 vs 15 Ultra vs iPhone 16 Pro?
- Started by slavi_asenov2002
- Replies: 1
Facebook
Twitter