No, because windows was so prevalent that game designers don't port them to Mac.
This more because Macs were completely different back then at the machine level. Not only a different OS to deal with (and OpenGL instead of DX, though OGL games were relatively common), but big endian where Windows was little. Supporting one is trivial, you don't even have to care about it. Supporting both is very tricky
These days it's mostly because DX is the API of choice. But if you go the OpenGL/OpenAL route then a mac port is actually pretty simple
In a letter to Obama administration officials, Minnesota Democrat Al Franken—one of Congress’ most vocal critics of Comcast’s expansion—urged regulators to “act quickly and decisively to ensure that consumers are not exposed to increased cable prices and decreased quality of service as a result of this transaction.” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, warned that the deal raises “serious questions that deserve thorough scrutiny."
"The threshold question must be whether the creation of an even larger video and broadband juggernaut results in greater choice and lower rates for consumers," Rockefeller said in a statement. “This has not been my experience with previous mergers of this size."
In a letter to Obama administration officials, Minnesota Democrat Al Franken—one of Congress’ most vocal critics of Comcast’s expansion—urged regulators to “act quickly and decisively to ensure that consumers are not exposed to increased cable prices and decreased quality of service as a result of this transaction.” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, warned that the deal raises “serious questions that deserve thorough scrutiny."
"The threshold question must be whether the creation of an even larger video and broadband juggernaut results in greater choice and lower rates for consumers," Rockefeller said in a statement. “This has not been my experience with previous mergers of this size."
So there's at least some push against it in washington.
Uh ok, I guess I just don't understand that stuff... I mean Google is a buisness; not the Official Registry of All Websites in the World.
It's the same thing as what happened to Microsoft.
Microsoft leveraged their position as the primary provider of desktop operating systems to effectively bankrupt other software companies that provided products like browsers and media players. Windows is/was something like 80+percent of installed desktop operating systems. Including a free browser and media player got Microsoft into serious trouble with anti-trust type laws.
Google has a similar position as the go to search browser. Google has become a verb synonymous with searching the web. By using that position to marginalize competition, they run into trouble with anti-trust laws.
If you put the behavior in a vacuum, no, Google and Microsoft should not be forced to prop up competitors that can't offer the same value or ubiquity. But into the context of the real world, allowing a monopoly to form seriously compromises any business space. Imagine if Microsoft decided no computer with Windows installed could go to Google and instead could only load Bing. Or the only search results for Microsoft in Google were the articles talking about how terrible they are.
Now make that about start ups trying to succeed in a crowded marketplace dominated by a single company.
Essentially, if what you suggest was allowed, there would be only Windows, there would be only Google.
And woe be to any company that runs afoul of their executives.
And we just had an excellent example of this dynamic happening, with Google Reader - the large company walked in, completely dominated the RSS feed reader market, then pulled out, leaving a weakened market scrambling for solutions.
Network effects are real. And one of the big issues with the internet is the trend towards monopoly.
Uh ok, I guess I just don't understand that stuff... I mean Google is a buisness; not the Official Registry of All Websites in the World.
It's the same thing as what happened to Microsoft.
Microsoft leveraged their position as the primary provider of desktop operating systems to effectively bankrupt other software companies that provided products like browsers and media players. Windows is/was something like 80+percent of installed desktop operating systems. Including a free browser and media player got Microsoft into serious trouble with anti-trust type laws.
Google has a similar position as the go to search browser. Google has become a verb synonymous with searching the web. By using that position to marginalize competition, they run into trouble with anti-trust laws.
If you put the behavior in a vacuum, no, Google and Microsoft should not be forced to prop up competitors that can't offer the same value or ubiquity. But into the context of the real world, allowing a monopoly to form seriously compromises any business space. Imagine if Microsoft decided no computer with Windows installed could go to Google and instead could only load Bing. Or the only search results for Microsoft in Google were the articles talking about how terrible they are.
Now make that about start ups trying to succeed in a crowded marketplace dominated by a single company.
Essentially, if what you suggest was allowed, there would be only Windows, there would be only Google.
And woe be to any company that runs afoul of their executives.
And we just had an excellent example of this dynamic happening, with Google Reader - the large company walked in, completely dominated the RSS feed reader market, then pulled out, leaving a weakened market scrambling for solutions.
Network effects are real. And one of the big issues with the internet free market is the trend towards monopoly.
No, because windows was so prevalent that game designers don't port them to Mac.
Right, so even though you could switch to a competitor's product, you won't. It's essentially a monopoly even though you can technically use a competitor's product.
This was exactly my point and how I was rebutting your claim that it's as easy as having the consumer type another URL.
It's actually easier than typing a different url. FF has the search engine chooser right next to the search box. Chrome has it on the first preferences page. IE defaults to bing/MS search anyway. The comparison to Windows-Mac is a bad one because there are
1) real costs to switching computers, like getting new hardware
2) need to relearn interfaces
3) feature and software disparity
Functionally, bing is basically the same as google. The interface is identical, searches return basically the same results in roughly the same order and even provide inline images and a context sidebar with basically the same data. The cost to switch is between two and four clicks, depending on the browser
It's actually easier than typing a different url. FF has the search engine chooser right next to the search box. Chrome has it on the first preferences page. IE defaults to bing/MS search anyway. The comparison to Windows-Mac is a bad one because there are
1) real costs to switching computers, like getting new hardware
2) need to relearn interfaces
3) feature and software disparity
Functionally, bing is basically the same as google. The interface is identical, searches return basically the same results in roughly the same order and even provide inline images and a context sidebar with basically the same data. The cost to switch is between two and four clicks, depending on the browser
All of which is irrelevant because people don't and won't.
You are rather missing the point here. The existence of an alternative does not negate monopolistic control over a market.
It's actually easier than typing a different url. FF has the search engine chooser right next to the search box. Chrome has it on the first preferences page. IE defaults to bing/MS search anyway. The comparison to Windows-Mac is a bad one because there are
1) real costs to switching computers, like getting new hardware
2) need to relearn interfaces
3) feature and software disparity
Functionally, bing is basically the same as google. The interface is identical, searches return basically the same results in roughly the same order and even provide inline images and a context sidebar with basically the same data. The cost to switch is between two and four clicks, depending on the browser
The personal cost for you, perhaps. But that's not the real cost that's the problem.
See, the issue is that to be able to switch, you have to have another choice existing to do so in the first place. And that's the problem in a nutshell. You can try to point to Bing, but looking at why Bing even exists at all is instructive. It required a significant investment by Microsoft to get up and running, and is losing the company money, which has led to calls for divestment by financial analysts. The reason Microsoft keeps pumping money into what appears to be a financial black hole is because they want an Internet search and services stack that isn't Google controlled, because of the power it would grant Google if they used the Google stack. And if the money guys win, then you can kiss Bing goodbye. Considering that, how easy do you think building a new search engine will be?
Given that the cost of switching search engines is zero, the only websites that get penalized are ones that break the rather reasonable rules set by the search engine, the cost to websites to be listed is zero beyond "don't game the rankings", and search results are still as relevant as they can be, I really don't care. If the websites feel that they are being treated grossly unfairly, they can sue
Given that the cost of switching search engines is zero, the only websites that get penalized are ones that break the rather reasonable rules set by the search engine, the cost to websites to be listed is zero beyond "don't game the rankings", and search results are still as relevant as they can be, I really don't care. If the websites feel that they are being treated grossly unfairly, they can sue
The cost of switching operating systems is 0 as well. There are plenty of x86 and x64 options that are completely free.
Not if you include the cost to replacing your applications with equivalents (if they even exist) and learning the new system, plus time to migrate. But that's also not the case when switching search engines, for normal use they are functionally identical - type in your query into the big text box, hit enter, get a list of results. Time to switch is between 10 and maybe 60 seconds per device
Given that the cost of switching search engines is zero, the only websites that get penalized are ones that break the rather reasonable rules set by the search engine, the cost to websites to be listed is zero beyond "don't game the rankings", and search results are still as relevant as they can be, I really don't care. If the websites feel that they are being treated grossly unfairly, they can sue
The cost of switching operating systems is 0 as well. There are plenty of x86 and x64 options that are completely free.
This is only ever said by people who have switched Linux distributions so many times that the associated hassles are commonplace for them, or by people who have never switched operating systems.
The cost to the user of switching search engines is possibly less optimal results and definitely a couple tenths of a second to push the associated button in firefox. Figure 10 minutes to work out how to do that in your other browser of choice. The cost to the user of switching operating systems is at least installing it, which takes somewhat more time. That's assuming there's a trivially easy to find port of everything you want to use on the new OS too, the chance of which could be reasonably rounded to zero.
The claim that lawsuits are a functional remedy indicates a deep and substantial failure to understand both the markets in question and the US legal system, but at least that claim has the decency to only be wrong as opposed to being made in bad faith.
Given that the cost of switching search engines is zero, the only websites that get penalized are ones that break the rather reasonable rules set by the search engine, the cost to websites to be listed is zero beyond "don't game the rankings", and search results are still as relevant as they can be, I really don't care. If the websites feel that they are being treated grossly unfairly, they can sue
1. The cost of switching search engines is only zero from the limited viewpoint of an end user who doesn't care about any potential network effects, and who has available choices to switch to. To create that environment has a cost that is significant indeed, as analysts focusing on Microsoft will be happy to tell you.
2. How do we know the rules are "reasonable"? What if they actually aren't? Who defines reasonable, anyway? How do we know that the website is being evaluated on the terms specified, and not something else not being disclosed? How do we know that the rules will remain "reasonable"?
3. If the cost of listing was truly zero, then search engine optimization would not be something that exists. Again, you focus too narrowly.
4. Again, how do we know they are "relevant"? Your argument seems to take a lot of faith in Google's position here.
5. And so there should be no before the fact limitation, but only after the fact recovery of damages, where the company may be at a disadvantage to Google?
It's actually easier than typing a different url. FF has the search engine chooser right next to the search box. Chrome has it on the first preferences page. IE defaults to bing/MS search anyway. The comparison to Windows-Mac is a bad one because there are
1) real costs to switching computers, like getting new hardware
2) need to relearn interfaces
3) feature and software disparity
Functionally, bing is basically the same as google. The interface is identical, searches return basically the same results in roughly the same order and even provide inline images and a context sidebar with basically the same data. The cost to switch is between two and four clicks, depending on the browser
All of which is irrelevant because people don't and won't.
You are rather missing the point here. The existence of an alternative does not negate monopolistic control over a market.
Right but if people won't then what are you going to do about it? Force people to keep bing as their search engine?
It's actually easier than typing a different url. FF has the search engine chooser right next to the search box. Chrome has it on the first preferences page. IE defaults to bing/MS search anyway. The comparison to Windows-Mac is a bad one because there are
1) real costs to switching computers, like getting new hardware
2) need to relearn interfaces
3) feature and software disparity
Functionally, bing is basically the same as google. The interface is identical, searches return basically the same results in roughly the same order and even provide inline images and a context sidebar with basically the same data. The cost to switch is between two and four clicks, depending on the browser
All of which is irrelevant because people don't and won't.
You are rather missing the point here. The existence of an alternative does not negate monopolistic control over a market.
Right but if people won't then what are you going to do about it? Force people to keep bing as their search engine?
The point is that Google, as the heavily predominant search engine on the internet (in the West, at the very least) has the power to shape how the internet appears to end users. So there is a case for government regulations to make sure that the playing field remains unbiased, for a number of reasons.
Given that the cost of switching search engines is zero, the only websites that get penalized are ones that break the rather reasonable rules set by the search engine, the cost to websites to be listed is zero beyond "don't game the rankings", and search results are still as relevant as they can be, I really don't care. If the websites feel that they are being treated grossly unfairly, they can sue
1. The cost of switching search engines is only zero from the limited viewpoint of an end user who doesn't care about any potential network effects, and who has available choices to switch to. To create that environment has a cost that is significant indeed, as analysts focusing on Microsoft will be happy to tell you.
2. How do we know the rules are "reasonable"? What if they actually aren't? Who defines reasonable, anyway? How do we know that the website is being evaluated on the terms specified, and not something else not being disclosed? How do we know that the rules will remain "reasonable"?
3. If the cost of listing was truly zero, then search engine optimization would not be something that exists. Again, you focus too narrowly.
4. Again, how do we know they are "relevant"? Your argument seems to take a lot of faith in Google's position here.
5. And so there should be no before the fact limitation, but only after the fact recovery of damages, where the company may be at a disadvantage to Google?
1. Sure, running a search engine is rather expensive. Though it clearly can be profitable with enough searches being done. However the cost to the user to switch, in both time and money, is essentially $0 and a few minutes at most. So, Google's position is tenuous. They got there by being the best and remain due to familiarity and continual improvement. But, if they started randomly delisting sites for no reasons, there's a good chance there would be a backlash, lots of news about it, and once people decide to switch, it's trivial and then they need to decide to switch back.
2. There might be a hidden set of rules... but I doubt it, and in any case I don't see any business gain from delisting random sites. Find me an example of a site being sunk without a reason. The stated rules seem quite reasonable to me: make your site play nice and everything is fine
3. SEO is attempting to get a rank higher than you otherwise would. If you do it by improving website design, improving content, making things easier to access, that's really just a part of running your website anyway. If you're paying a company to basically spam links to you to rank you higher... I have no sympathy for you
4. Relevancy is determined by the searcher. In the rap genius case, people were searching for lyrics and still finding them, so still quite relevant.
5. That's usually how it works in business-business relationships, no? This is just different in that there's no formal contract or agreement
Also, trying to frame this as "people are worried that Google will randomly delist websites" is rather dishonest. The concern is that Google will use search to shape the discussion of topics that they have a vested interest in to benefit themselves, which would be both harder to determine and much more insidious.
I wonder how things would be different if broadband and internet functionality access evolved into a basic utility, like water gas or electricity, rather than an amenity like cable. Because it seems to fit much better in the former category than the latter
It's actually easier than typing a different url. FF has the search engine chooser right next to the search box. Chrome has it on the first preferences page. IE defaults to bing/MS search anyway. The comparison to Windows-Mac is a bad one because there are
1) real costs to switching computers, like getting new hardware
2) need to relearn interfaces
3) feature and software disparity
Functionally, bing is basically the same as google. The interface is identical, searches return basically the same results in roughly the same order and even provide inline images and a context sidebar with basically the same data. The cost to switch is between two and four clicks, depending on the browser
All of which is irrelevant because people don't and won't.
You are rather missing the point here. The existence of an alternative does not negate monopolistic control over a market.
Right but if people won't then what are you going to do about it? Force people to keep bing as their search engine?
I've never said I wanted them to switch, so I'm not sure why you are asking.
I'm pointing out that Google exerts monopolistic control. That there are alternatives is irrelevant because no one uses them.
I wonder how things would be different if broadband and internet functionality access evolved into a basic utility, like water gas or electricity, rather than an amenity like cable. Because it seems to fit much better in the former category than the latter
That's the argument being made. In many places. The internet IS infrastructure in the modern world.
And search engines are as important a part of that infrastructure as ISPs and giant cables.
No, because windows was so prevalent that game designers don't port them to Mac.
This more because Macs were completely different back then at the machine level. Not only a different OS to deal with (and OpenGL instead of DX, though OGL games were relatively common), but big endian where Windows was little. Supporting one is trivial, you don't even have to care about it. Supporting both is very tricky
These days it's mostly because DX is the API of choice. But if you go the OpenGL/OpenAL route then a mac port is actually pretty simple
Back when macs were on RISC chips you basically had to rewrite the code from scratch to do a port. Now most companies seem to write their graphic engines with both OpenGL and DirectX as options to ensure compatibility. My experience is some mac ports are better or worse depending on how much effort they put into their OpenGL rendering in the first place.
People like Crytek and the people who did Witcher will never write real ports though. Witcher 2 is was painfully obvious they're just running a WINE conversion on their mac port and it's terribad.
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited February 2014
Which is why I am sort of looking forward to Steam as a gaming OS. If I can get all my games on a bootable OS it could break me away from Windows entirely.
Edit: To tie this better in with the topic though, I can't divorce myself of Windows yet, because that would involve throwing a LOT of money down the drain. There is no such investment for the common user in search engines. It is all personal preference.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Which is why I am sort of looking forward to Steam as a gaming OS. If I can get all my games on a bootable OS it could break me away from Windows entirely.
Edit: To tie this better in with the topic though, I can't divorce myself of Windows yet, because that would involve throwing a LOT of money down the drain. There is no such investment for the common user in search engines. It is all personal preference.
The issue is that the common user is only one part of the equation - how does he switch if there are no other options? Or how can he make an informed choice if he's not given the tools to do so?
A lot of the argument against regulation says that it is unneeded because the system is self-regulating - Google won't abuse their position because if they do, users will reject them. But in the real world, such systems rarely work - the NCAA is a good example of this. Network effects are powerful.
Whether or not you agree with the decision, Google demonstrated significant power with the Rap Genius decision. I'm very skeptical that power is adequately counterbalanced by user preference.
That's probably because rap genius was one of a dozen interchangeable sites all doing the exact same thing: lyrics lookup.
Would you be okay if google instead added a little sidebar for lyrics searches that popped up the full song lyrics (ignoring the legality and copyright issues here which these sites are also ignoring) like they do with other basic information searches? That would zero out all of these sites because the information people were actually looking for would be provided directly. The sites are mostly irrelevant
That is a question the country will answer when/if Google does something so vile as to warrant a boycott of a substantial portion of the user base.
Has this position ever worked in the past?
It seems usually you get a few huge disasters and years in court before anything gets done and by then it's too late. (see - Microsoft)
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I don't get to decide what society chooses to care about. I know what I care about, and I don't view Google with alarm. *shrug* Not sure what you want from me in regards to an answer on that one.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I don't get to decide what society chooses to care about. I know what I care about, and I don't view Google with alarm. *shrug* Not sure what you want from me in regards to an answer on that one.
Yes you do. That's the whole point of politics after all.
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I really don't feel like getting into what seems to me to be a chicken/egg argument over that. I also think it off topic.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
How is it chicken and egg at all? How is it even complicated?
People shape what people care about. It's so obvious I'm kinda surprised it needs to be said.
0
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
The Internet is the product of people. Everyone has a hand in what everyone gets, not just big companies. What you do online and what you look for and read and buy all matter in the long term to how other people look for and read and buy things online.
By the way, what is this intenet people are going on about? Is it a new net neutral alternative to the internet?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The Federal Communications Commission announced Wednesday that it plans to reinstate rules that would restrict Internet providers from blocking websites or charging sites like Netflix an extra fee for faster service. The announcement comes one month after a federal court struck down the commission's net-neutrality rules but upheld its authority to regulate the Internet.
Top Republicans called the FCC's efforts to revive net-neutrality rules "a solution in search of a problem," and plan to fight any new rules. Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee will introduce legislation in the coming weeks to block what she calls the "socialistic" proposal.
"Federal control of the Internet will restrict our online freedom and leave Americans facing the same horrors that they have experienced with HealthCare.gov," Blackburn said in a statement.
Blackburn's bill will likely be more symbolic than substantive, as was a bill introduced by Democrats in early February aimed at restoring net-neutrality rules. The Republican bill would not pass in the Senate, while the Democratic bill would never make it through the House. Rep. Anna Eshoo, author of the Democrats' bill, recently admitted the bill had no chance of passing.
It's actually easier than typing a different url. FF has the search engine chooser right next to the search box. Chrome has it on the first preferences page. IE defaults to bing/MS search anyway. The comparison to Windows-Mac is a bad one because there are
1) real costs to switching computers, like getting new hardware
2) need to relearn interfaces
3) feature and software disparity
Functionally, bing is basically the same as google. The interface is identical, searches return basically the same results in roughly the same order and even provide inline images and a context sidebar with basically the same data. The cost to switch is between two and four clicks, depending on the browser
All of which is irrelevant because people don't and won't.
You are rather missing the point here. The existence of an alternative does not negate monopolistic control over a market.
Right but if people won't then what are you going to do about it? Force people to keep bing as their search engine?
I've never said I wanted them to switch, so I'm not sure why you are asking.
I'm pointing out that Google exerts monopolistic control. That there are alternatives is irrelevant because no one uses them.
So what is the solution? Should Google make itself crappier so other search engines can catch up?
It's actually easier than typing a different url. FF has the search engine chooser right next to the search box. Chrome has it on the first preferences page. IE defaults to bing/MS search anyway. The comparison to Windows-Mac is a bad one because there are
1) real costs to switching computers, like getting new hardware
2) need to relearn interfaces
3) feature and software disparity
Functionally, bing is basically the same as google. The interface is identical, searches return basically the same results in roughly the same order and even provide inline images and a context sidebar with basically the same data. The cost to switch is between two and four clicks, depending on the browser
All of which is irrelevant because people don't and won't.
You are rather missing the point here. The existence of an alternative does not negate monopolistic control over a market.
Right but if people won't then what are you going to do about it? Force people to keep bing as their search engine?
I've never said I wanted them to switch, so I'm not sure why you are asking.
I'm pointing out that Google exerts monopolistic control. That there are alternatives is irrelevant because no one uses them.
So what is the solution? Should Google make itself crappier so other search engines can catch up?
Again, this has been explained - they need to be regulated so that they are kept from abusing their position, like any other natural monopoly.
The Federal Communications Commission announced Wednesday that it plans to reinstate rules that would restrict Internet providers from blocking websites or charging sites like Netflix an extra fee for faster service. The announcement comes one month after a federal court struck down the commission's net-neutrality rules but upheld its authority to regulate the Internet.
Top Republicans called the FCC's efforts to revive net-neutrality rules "a solution in search of a problem," and plan to fight any new rules. Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee will introduce legislation in the coming weeks to block what she calls the "socialistic" proposal.
"Federal control of the Internet will restrict our online freedom and leave Americans facing the same horrors that they have experienced with HealthCare.gov," Blackburn said in a statement.
Blackburn's bill will likely be more symbolic than substantive, as was a bill introduced by Democrats in early February aimed at restoring net-neutrality rules. The Republican bill would not pass in the Senate, while the Democratic bill would never make it through the House. Rep. Anna Eshoo, author of the Democrats' bill, recently admitted the bill had no chance of passing.
I look forward to the possibility of net-neutrality becoming a campaign issue this year. Given the republican bullshit belief that the free-market will keep the internet open accessible, despite the reality that some big business is already moving to fuck over everyone for profits, after the court ruled against the previous regulations. Then throw in how well received SOPA was. If net neutrality does become a campaign issue, that would set the stage to not only get more sturdy regs to maintain net-neutrality, but might be the push needed to treat internet as vital infrastructure to the nation instead of the current backwards arrangement where it's treated like a luxury.
Posts
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
This more because Macs were completely different back then at the machine level. Not only a different OS to deal with (and OpenGL instead of DX, though OGL games were relatively common), but big endian where Windows was little. Supporting one is trivial, you don't even have to care about it. Supporting both is very tricky
These days it's mostly because DX is the API of choice. But if you go the OpenGL/OpenAL route then a mac port is actually pretty simple
So there's at least some push against it in washington.
And we just had an excellent example of this dynamic happening, with Google Reader - the large company walked in, completely dominated the RSS feed reader market, then pulled out, leaving a weakened market scrambling for solutions.
Network effects are real. And one of the big issues with the internet is the trend towards monopoly.
Right, so even though you could switch to a competitor's product, you won't. It's essentially a monopoly even though you can technically use a competitor's product.
This was exactly my point and how I was rebutting your claim that it's as easy as having the consumer type another URL.
1) real costs to switching computers, like getting new hardware
2) need to relearn interfaces
3) feature and software disparity
Functionally, bing is basically the same as google. The interface is identical, searches return basically the same results in roughly the same order and even provide inline images and a context sidebar with basically the same data. The cost to switch is between two and four clicks, depending on the browser
All of which is irrelevant because people don't and won't.
You are rather missing the point here. The existence of an alternative does not negate monopolistic control over a market.
The personal cost for you, perhaps. But that's not the real cost that's the problem.
See, the issue is that to be able to switch, you have to have another choice existing to do so in the first place. And that's the problem in a nutshell. You can try to point to Bing, but looking at why Bing even exists at all is instructive. It required a significant investment by Microsoft to get up and running, and is losing the company money, which has led to calls for divestment by financial analysts. The reason Microsoft keeps pumping money into what appears to be a financial black hole is because they want an Internet search and services stack that isn't Google controlled, because of the power it would grant Google if they used the Google stack. And if the money guys win, then you can kiss Bing goodbye. Considering that, how easy do you think building a new search engine will be?
The cost of switching operating systems is 0 as well. There are plenty of x86 and x64 options that are completely free.
The cost to the user of switching search engines is possibly less optimal results and definitely a couple tenths of a second to push the associated button in firefox. Figure 10 minutes to work out how to do that in your other browser of choice. The cost to the user of switching operating systems is at least installing it, which takes somewhat more time. That's assuming there's a trivially easy to find port of everything you want to use on the new OS too, the chance of which could be reasonably rounded to zero.
The claim that lawsuits are a functional remedy indicates a deep and substantial failure to understand both the markets in question and the US legal system, but at least that claim has the decency to only be wrong as opposed to being made in bad faith.
1. The cost of switching search engines is only zero from the limited viewpoint of an end user who doesn't care about any potential network effects, and who has available choices to switch to. To create that environment has a cost that is significant indeed, as analysts focusing on Microsoft will be happy to tell you.
2. How do we know the rules are "reasonable"? What if they actually aren't? Who defines reasonable, anyway? How do we know that the website is being evaluated on the terms specified, and not something else not being disclosed? How do we know that the rules will remain "reasonable"?
3. If the cost of listing was truly zero, then search engine optimization would not be something that exists. Again, you focus too narrowly.
4. Again, how do we know they are "relevant"? Your argument seems to take a lot of faith in Google's position here.
5. And so there should be no before the fact limitation, but only after the fact recovery of damages, where the company may be at a disadvantage to Google?
Right but if people won't then what are you going to do about it? Force people to keep bing as their search engine?
The point is that Google, as the heavily predominant search engine on the internet (in the West, at the very least) has the power to shape how the internet appears to end users. So there is a case for government regulations to make sure that the playing field remains unbiased, for a number of reasons.
1. Sure, running a search engine is rather expensive. Though it clearly can be profitable with enough searches being done. However the cost to the user to switch, in both time and money, is essentially $0 and a few minutes at most. So, Google's position is tenuous. They got there by being the best and remain due to familiarity and continual improvement. But, if they started randomly delisting sites for no reasons, there's a good chance there would be a backlash, lots of news about it, and once people decide to switch, it's trivial and then they need to decide to switch back.
2. There might be a hidden set of rules... but I doubt it, and in any case I don't see any business gain from delisting random sites. Find me an example of a site being sunk without a reason. The stated rules seem quite reasonable to me: make your site play nice and everything is fine
3. SEO is attempting to get a rank higher than you otherwise would. If you do it by improving website design, improving content, making things easier to access, that's really just a part of running your website anyway. If you're paying a company to basically spam links to you to rank you higher... I have no sympathy for you
4. Relevancy is determined by the searcher. In the rap genius case, people were searching for lyrics and still finding them, so still quite relevant.
5. That's usually how it works in business-business relationships, no? This is just different in that there's no formal contract or agreement
Wikipedia is a good example in reverse - there's a decent argument that their success is in large part to receiving a high PageRank early on.
probably from 10 million college and high school students looking for cliffs notes for free.
I've never said I wanted them to switch, so I'm not sure why you are asking.
I'm pointing out that Google exerts monopolistic control. That there are alternatives is irrelevant because no one uses them.
That's the argument being made. In many places. The internet IS infrastructure in the modern world.
And search engines are as important a part of that infrastructure as ISPs and giant cables.
Back when macs were on RISC chips you basically had to rewrite the code from scratch to do a port. Now most companies seem to write their graphic engines with both OpenGL and DirectX as options to ensure compatibility. My experience is some mac ports are better or worse depending on how much effort they put into their OpenGL rendering in the first place.
People like Crytek and the people who did Witcher will never write real ports though. Witcher 2 is was painfully obvious they're just running a WINE conversion on their mac port and it's terribad.
Edit: To tie this better in with the topic though, I can't divorce myself of Windows yet, because that would involve throwing a LOT of money down the drain. There is no such investment for the common user in search engines. It is all personal preference.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
The issue is that the common user is only one part of the equation - how does he switch if there are no other options? Or how can he make an informed choice if he's not given the tools to do so?
A lot of the argument against regulation says that it is unneeded because the system is self-regulating - Google won't abuse their position because if they do, users will reject them. But in the real world, such systems rarely work - the NCAA is a good example of this. Network effects are powerful.
Whether or not you agree with the decision, Google demonstrated significant power with the Rap Genius decision. I'm very skeptical that power is adequately counterbalanced by user preference.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Would you be okay if google instead added a little sidebar for lyrics searches that popped up the full song lyrics (ignoring the legality and copyright issues here which these sites are also ignoring) like they do with other basic information searches? That would zero out all of these sites because the information people were actually looking for would be provided directly. The sites are mostly irrelevant
Has this position ever worked in the past?
It seems usually you get a few huge disasters and years in court before anything gets done and by then it's too late. (see - Microsoft)
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Yes you do. That's the whole point of politics after all.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
People shape what people care about. It's so obvious I'm kinda surprised it needs to be said.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So what is the solution? Should Google make itself crappier so other search engines can catch up?
Again, this has been explained - they need to be regulated so that they are kept from abusing their position, like any other natural monopoly.
I look forward to the possibility of net-neutrality becoming a campaign issue this year. Given the republican bullshit belief that the free-market will keep the internet open accessible, despite the reality that some big business is already moving to fuck over everyone for profits, after the court ruled against the previous regulations. Then throw in how well received SOPA was. If net neutrality does become a campaign issue, that would set the stage to not only get more sturdy regs to maintain net-neutrality, but might be the push needed to treat internet as vital infrastructure to the nation instead of the current backwards arrangement where it's treated like a luxury.