rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Has Google's Drummond ever heard the word "hypocrisy" ?
They may have purchased Doubleclick (which BTW isn't final yet) making them the number one advertiser, but they became the number 1 search on their own. They maintain this search lead simply because they REFUSE to put advertising in the search. Most other search engines continue to this day to sell the number 1 up to the first 10 search results (IIRC Yahoo sells the first 3) and don't mark these results as paid advertising. As long as companies continue to realize that providing clean clear search results is what sells the search advertising Google will continue to dominate search.
Above all though, Google is NOT a monopoly. MS is a convicted monopolist that is trying to extend that monopoly to other areas. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
1 edit | said by rahvin112  :They may have purchased Doubleclick (which BTW isn't final yet) making them the number one advertiser, but they became the number 1 search on their own. LOL. See here: »www.seobythesea.com/?p=64
And then look for these companies they BOUGHT:
Outride in 2001
Applied Semantics in 2003
Kaltix in 2003
Transformic, Inc. in 2006
And these are just the ones I could dig up in a few minutes.
And as Jerry Seinfeld says: "Not that there is anything wrong with that".
But I get a kick out of all those who somehow think Google is the personification of all that is good and honest and public spirited. Guess what people, they got where they are the same way every other company did - by being ruthless businessmen devoted to totally dominating their market and becoming a monopoly just like any other business.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
 ·Verizon west (ex G..
| You're not making any valid point. So what if they bought joe-bobs-search-tech. People use google because it is the best.
Microsoft wants to buy millions of yahoo users and point them at their search engine and their advertisers and their products. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| People use google because they ran just about everyone else out of the business.
I don't really care what they do, or Microsoft for that matter. They are both for-profit entities and would not think twice to sell you for a nickel if they bought you for a penny.
Google has their "search bar" inserted into the installers of more and more online applications. It installs by default. This is not a good thing. You can continue to defend them as some sort of benevolent entity but behind the scenes it is all about the money. Do you really know where your information is?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18
·Verizon west (ex G..
| said by RadioDoc :Do you really know where your information is? I sure do. And what's out in the open is there because I let it be there. A person is crazy to think that anyone that wants you info doesn't have it already. |
|
Bill03
Premium
join:2007-11-26
Richmond, VA
clubs:
| reply to rahvin112
Oddly when I searched for "jet ski" on Google, Yahoo, and Ask.com the sponsored results were all marked on the search result page. All three included sponsored links on the right side of the page. Google's search showed the first result as a paid sponsored link. Are you saying Google never does this? Why here then? Yahoo showed the first two results as sponsored links. Did you mean they are secretly selling the rest of the links but are not showing them as sponsored?
Are you also saying Google isn't a monopoly because they haven't been convicted of being one? Google got where they are by acquiring the companies and resources they needed to improve and gain market share to dominate the market. If MS and Yahoo want to do the same thing I don't see the the difference. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to firephoto
said by firephoto :said by RadioDoc :Do you really know where your information is? I sure do. And what's out in the open is there because I let it be there. A person is crazy to think that anyone that wants you info doesn't have it already. Suit yourself. But don't use that as justification for blindly trusting any corporation.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
| reply to TKJunkMail
Of the list of companies you list 2 actually had a product. Trasformic had a product to search databases, and Applied Semantics which had an web advertising product. The other two were working on new search algorithms. Most of the acquisitions Google has made have been more about the people working at the company than the product they had. Given the difficulty hiring in the highly specialized field Google is in they have used acquisitions to get key people they wanted in their organization, and as any company they were always on the lookout for new technology that improves search. For that to somehow make their being number 1 in search a product of acquisitions, as you claim, is frankly a straw man. Google became number one in search all on their own. They used strategic acquisitions to maintain the cutting edge of their search, mainly on algorithms to filter out all the junk advertising sites trying to bump their page rank. You belittle their achievement, not only in calling them ruthless but especially in putting them in the same league as Microsoft.
What's even worse is you fall for the MS propaganda and think that being number 1 in search translates into some huge monopoly. What Microsoft really cares about is that Google with their Doubleclick acquisition (yet to be approved) will become the largest (by by no measure controlling advertising provider. Unlike MS's desktop monopoly where people are locked into using MS products. The minute Google fails to perform, people will start using other sites. The same holds true with the advertising. Yet you want to say it's the same thing as the Microsoft acquisition where you have a convicted monopolist with 90% share of operating systems and an equivalent share of the office software market acquiring the largest portal site on the Internet. Not only will MS use their desktop monopoly to integrate Yahoo! fully into the OS but they will leverage the email and IM integration into the OS and Office suite to monopolize internet portals. (That is if they don't screw it up.)
To equate the two situations is frankly trying to say an apple is an orange. Google is a company that tries to be a good business, not only to people but the environment. Rather than the one ton business crushing machine that MS is. |
|
asellus
Premium
join:2004-09-24
Malaysia
| Buying companies for their human resources acquisition is not that different from buying companies for their product. It is just like Microsoft buying Groove just to get Ray Ozzie. Without the personnel Google gets from their acquisition I do not think they will be able to get where they are now. Saying Google becomes no.1 on their own is a strawman.
Last time I checked, Google buyout of DoubleClick is already approved in USA. Even that, those combo is not even a monopoly of online advertisement, that's why it was approved. So are with Yahoo+Microsoft. BTW, have you heard of Linux or Mac OSX? Those two are proof that no one is locked onto Microsoft software/products. And your suggestion that Microsoft will integrate Yahoo! products over their own such as Windows Live Messenger (still the biggest IM service on the planet), Hotmail (still have the most active accounts in the world), Windows Live Spaces (has more users than any other social-networking sites in the planet) in their OS is hogwash.
--
1098139570 |
|
