Google Striking Fear into the Corporate Masses

SpectralDesign writes "The New York Times reports that Google is striking fear into the hearts of even unrelated industries. From the article: 'We watch Google very closely at Wal-Mart," said Jim Breyer, a member of Wal-Mart's board. In Google, Wal-Mart sees both a technology pioneer and the seed of a threat, said Mr. Breyer, who is also a partner in a venture capital firm. The worry is that by making information available everywhere, Google might soon be able to tell Wal-Mart shoppers if better bargains are available nearby.'"

Comments

Monopolies

[Crouty]

Jim Breyer is not against monopolies, he is just against monopolies that others have. This small-minded businessman is for the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Re:Monopolies

[Bulmakau]

It is his right to fear though ;) Only shows he has good sense of perception :D

Re:Monopolies

[LostCluster]

Google's near-monopoly in search doesn't bother Wal-Mart, it's the fact that Google has apparent interest in supplying data to shoppers while they're inside Wal-Mart.

Re:Monopolies

[DrHanser]

I'm not sure why this is modded insightful. As a member of Wal-Mart's board, it is his job to do what's in the best interest of Wal-Mart and its shareholders, not the general public. Railing against a businessman for doing what makes sense for his business is more than a little silly.

I'm no fan of Wal-Mart by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm a capitalist at heart, and seeing comments like these make me scratch my head in confusion.

Re:Monopolies

[DoraLives]

for the right thing for the wrong reasons

As it's shaping up right now, Google, monopoly or not, is beginning to look like the only thing that might possess the throw-weight to successfully counter the otherwise alarming trend that has recently manifested itself among almost all large capitalist enterprises, and that is the trend of restricting and choking access to information/data/operating code to the point where no one is able to access/use/employ that information/data/operating code without the considered permissions of whomever "owns" it.

We now live in a VERY dangerous time in which the scales seem to be tipping in favor of an Orwellian outcome where all information is locked down tight and any attempt to look under the hood or otherwise perform any "unauthorized" operation on any information/data/operating code is met with a draconian response of severely criminalizing those who would attempt to do so.

As it stands now, Google seems to be the only large capitalist entity that would further its interests by tearing down any and all restrictions on information/data/operating code.

As loathsome as the business of political lobbying may be, it is now incumbent upon Google to get cracking in the seats of political power to ensure that information/data/operating code is kept as open and free as possible.

No one else has the clout that Google now possesses, and therefore no one else has a prayer of achieving the absolutely vital goal of keeping information open and free.

Should this endeavor fail, some very dark times await us.

That Google may be a monopoly is, at present, something that we're just going to have to ignore. We can't have our cake and eat it too, so we must, unfortunately, cheer on Google as it becomes even larger and more powerful.

Should the battle to free information/data/operating code be won (and it is by no means a certainty), then and on then may we turn our attentions toward Google itself with an eye toward reducing such excesses of size as exist at that time.

For now, Google is the enemy of our enemies, and is perforce our friend.

Re:Monopolies

[whovian]

Google has apparent interest in supplying data to shoppers while they're inside Wal-Mart.

There are instances where WalMart doesn't have the lowest prices. Obviously, items on sale is one case. However, in my area the WalMart checkers will price-match if you mention another store's sale price. (Don't know if that's company policy or not.) The other case I've noticed is where one chain store's private label is priced a few cents lower than WalMart's.

But all retail stores should be wary, particularly when city-wide wireless internet takes hold. I can't begin to tell you how often I have wanted to price-compare Best Buy vs. Staples vs. Circuit City vs. OfficeMax when standing in any one of those stores.

Re:Monopolies

[Crouty]

the enemy of our enemies, and is perforce our friend.

Talking of dangerous times, this is the most dangerous concept I know. Like in "the Shiites are the enemies of our enemy Saddam." There are plenty of search engines out there, some already very good (like vivisimo) and even ones under open source.

Re:Monopolies

[DoraLives]

There are plenty of search engines out there, some already very good (like vivisimo) and even ones under open source.

You are absolutely right, of course, but unfortunately none are well-endowed with potential political power to reverse the present day trend towards the suffocation of information.

Re:Monopolies

[Halfbaked Plan]

Many of the people who loudly oppose WalMart as a big monopoly, are proponents of a former powerful monopoly. One that in the past wielded as much or more power than WalMart. I am, of course, referring to the Unions of retail clerks, food handlers, etc. who are being badly beaten every time WalMart opens a new store that sells groceries, produce, and meat.

They're just pissed because someone else is eating their cookies now.

Re:Monopolies

[Halfbaked Plan]

For now, Google is the enemy of our enemies, and is perforce our friend.

No, actually all Google is right now is the ad agency who haven't blown their image yet.

Watch them carefully. Power corrupts, and the corruption increases as the power does.

Re:Monopolies

[Samrobb]

For now, Google is the enemy of our enemies, and is perforce our friend.

"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."

- Rule #29, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates

Re:Monopolies

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is railing him for trying to defend the company that put him on the board. The whole point is about how he thinks this should be done and this is where the line is drawn between a Microsoft,SCO,Walmart type of company and a decent open market participant. The boardie admits that there may be better prices than Walmart's nearby, so to protect the interests of the company he tries to suppress this information. Despicable.

Re:Monopolies

[czarangelus]

So when IBM worked with Hitler to exterminate the Jews... the fucking shareholders, man! Think of the fucking shareholders!

This is a rhetorical example, but seriously. There have got to be limits to what a corporation is allowed to do in pursuit of the almighty dollar, but you never hear any of the Ayn Rand-types talking about that. But capitalism is no magic utopia where the invisible hand stops pollution, disposes of hazardous waste properly, or ensures that children are fed and cared for even if their parents are drug-addict deadbeats. Time and time again, corporations show to us that they are untrustworthy on their own, and will always do the most profitable thing, no matter how many lives they destroy in the process.

Re:Monopolies

[zeke2.0]

Finally, someone who sees it like it is. Yes campers, Facsim has been reborn as large multinational corporations and church controlled state legislatures. I think Wal-Marts' eventual goal is to make everyone so poor they are the only place you can afford to shop. Of course Target and KMart will benefit too.

Re:Monopolies

[DrHanser]

As it's shaping up right now, Google, monopoly or not, is beginning to look like the only thing that might possess the throw-weight to successfully counter the otherwise alarming trend that has recently manifested itself among almost all large capitalist enterprises, and that is the trend of restricting and choking access to information/data/operating code to the point where no one is able to access/use/employ that information/data/operating code without the considered permissions of whomever "owns" it.

Mindshare, while powerful, is no substitute for pure economic power. In that respect, Google is actually quite small when compared to MSFT, for example, WalMart as well. (And its stock price is floating much higher than it should, compared to the two I mentioned.)

Re:Monopolies

[LostCluster]

I can't begin to tell you how often I have wanted to price-compare Best Buy vs. Staples vs. Circuit City vs. OfficeMax when standing in any one of those stores.

And Best Buy, Staples, Circuit City, OfficeMax, etc. all can't begin to tell you how much they enjoy the fact you can't.

Re:Monopolies

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if anyone has ever computed the economic drag created by a union on the economy. Inflated wages, cadillac health and pension plans, reduced incentive to improve productivity rates....

I'm all for workers having a mechanism to protect themselves from corporate excesses, but sometimes it seems that some unions can be just as bad as some corporations.

Re:Monopolies

[frogstar42]

i seriously doubt the allegation that unions are bad for the economy. do you know any studies/research about this? the theory that unions are bad for the economy sounds like a fat corporate trying to justify why unions should be abolished. face the facts - unions are the people. economy depends on how comfortable and well fed people are. atleast that's what i think.

Re:Monopolies

[DrHanser]

i seriously doubt the allegation that unions are bad for the economy. do you know any studies/research about this? the theory that unions are bad for the economy sounds like a fat corporate trying to justify why unions should be abolished. face the facts - unions are the people. economy depends on how comfortable and well fed people are. atleast that's what i think.

Have you ever worked for a union? I have. And by and large, they promote mediocrity. On a not-so-personal level, take a look at American automakers. The unions are strangling them, and one of the reasons they turn out junk is because of the unions. American cars are decidedly average, and that's what unions promote: being average. In fact, where I worked, if you were better than average, you were looked down upon and made to feel unwelcome.

Re:Monopolies

[pmancini]

Sun Szu is still good advice. When Saddam is gone the equation changes. Sun Szu would have you re-evaluate once that happens.

Re:Monopolies

[frogstar42]

encouraging mediocrity is the bane of modern society. if mediocrity sells, mediocrity will be the winner. i don't see why unions should be any different. but much of the corporate structure too is built on mediocrity. look at all the movies, books, music and products around you. computers were invented for a reason but look aorund you and see what they are hyped for. i grew up thinking computers would be a mind altering, revolutionary force but all we have today are portable music players and other bullshit. can you tell me anything in the mainstream which is not mediocre?

Re:Monopolies

[cdrguru]

Let's see - who benefits by having a instant price comparison engine that could deliver results to a wireless handheld device?

The consumer? Maybe, if price is your only data point for making a purchase. If you want to push out everything but price, then Wal-Mart is going to win in the end. They have the purchasing power to (a) make the vendor submit and (b) take a few losses now and then.

The stores? No way. Not only does this create an environment for Wal-Mart to win, it means "better service" means nothing if the only data point is price. When businesses compete only on price, big means everything and the little guy gets crushed.

Local government? They get to absorb the tax losses of the failed businesses that Wal-Mart already crushes, all the while they are giving Wal-Mart a big tax cut to move there anyway. And, at the state level they get to supply food stamps to the Wal-Mart workers that are part time.

I don't see anyone that wins in a situation like this. Watch the Meier commercials sometime - they are all about price and nothing else. If price is the only data point that matters, Wal-Mart has already won and we're just making sure they really keep prices low. Service means nothing, variety means nothing, flexibility means nothing.

Re:Monopolies

[Rude Turnip]

"And by and large, they promote mediocrity."

Unions are generally for mediocre jobs.

"American cars are decidedly average, and that's what unions promote: being average."

Are automobile engineers unionized? I seriously doubt that a unionized lineworker has much say as to what goes into the design of a car.

Re:Monopolies

[Halfbaked Plan]

I was referring to Big Labor and the Union Bosses.

What the hell are you doing, bringing up the 'working man.'

It's a benefit to the 'working man' that Big Labor (i.e. the AFL-CIO) has been busted in the mouth recently. Maybe they will start being a sensible organization, i.e. not lackies for one or the other of the main Political Parties, if taken down a notch or two. As an 'in the pocket' allie of political interests, the worker's interests are completely taken for granted.

That's certainly what the 'democracy within the Unions' movement that caused the AFL-CIO split is working towards.

Are you one of the union lackies or something? Why the angry profanity?

Re:Monopolies

[DrHanser]

They certainly build them, and shoddy build quality can certainly be a detriment to an otherwise superbly-designed product. I say that as someone who used to cut corners as one cog in a production line. It came back to bite me in the ass later.

Re:Monopolies

[Foobar of Borg]

What about on-line retailers? A lot of times they have even better deals and I don't think Wal-Mart will price-match those. And even if they did, there is the advantage of not having to pay sales tax to on-line retailers, unless you happen to live in the state in which they have their headquarters. Plus, if you are buying books or music, you don't have to worry about Wal-Mart censoring^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H selectively stocking books and music.

Re:Monopolies

[Fred_A]

Beyond price-comparing, I've often needed network access while shopping to access data on the various items availble.

Typical case being, "which of those gadgets will be best supported in Linux ?".

price-comparing could be another reason, but then I'd typically be shopping online. If I went to the trouble of going to a shop, I'll likely buy the stuff there.

And wherever you buy it, it'll eventually end up being cheaper elsewhere anyway, it's hopeless trying to find the best deal...

Re:Monopolies

[shades66]

in the UK they already do provide a similar service

http://www.google.co.uk/sms/howtouse.html#prices

it's useful when you are out shopping and see something nice but know that the likes of Dixon's aren't exactly the cheapest of places

Re:Monopolies

[Anonymous Coward]

lol... we all know how much experience you have as a conqueror. Thanks for informing us all of Sun Tzu, you mother fucking stillbirth.

Re:Monopolies

[budgenator]

I can't begin to tell you how often I have wanted to price-compare Best Buy vs. Staples vs. Circuit City vs. OfficeMax when standing in any one of those stores.
That is not as effective as you would think, especialy on big ticket items. These guys will price match on same models without hesitation, but they also have the manufacturers, custom make models for them exclusively, even if the only diference is the model number printed on the lable. That means in many cases its still up to the store policy and the ability of the customer to bargin.

The ability to check prices on same models, and price/feature in the store just levels the playing field a bit, the saleman knows before the doors open.

Re:Monopolies

[cyberformer]

I don't think we need to choose between supporting and opposing Google. We can support any efforts it makes to free information without becoming mindless cheerleaders of everything it does.

Google isn't yet a monopoly: It faces real competition from Yahoo, which actually beats it in some areas (eg. mapping). There are also other, smaller companies like Zimbra focused on specific Web-based applications. In most cases, Google's direct competitors will be lobbying for the same things as Google. (The exception is Microsoft, but it's really trying to defend its monopoly of OS and Office software, not compete with Google and Yahoo directly.)

Re:Monopolies

[budgenator]

your post makes a lot of sense, infact if you change every instance of the word corporate, with union, it still makes sense, at least historicaly. Anymore we're seeing less of the soleless scum fucks on both sides and more cooperation. In my area one union is actualy running ads on radio and TV promoting both the union and the contractors hiring them to the consumers. The union even has a program of extending the normal warentees for their union made goods and services at no additional cost to either the contractors or the employer.

If you realy think Walmart is somekind of vampiric profit sucking monster, you should be buying some of their stock; at least then you'd have a vote.

Re:Monopolies

[Scarletdown]

What about on-line retailers? A lot of times they have even better deals and I don't think Wal-Mart will price-match those. And even if they did, there is the advantage of not having to pay sales tax to on-line retailers

I don't know about Wal-Mart, but Best Buy will do this. This past summer, I managed to get the Firefly DVD set at a nice discount at Best Buy, because they were willing to price match Amazon.

I still had to pay sales tax, but at least I didn't have to wait a week for delivery. And had I been better at the math, I probably could have quickly calculated what Amazon's price would have been minus my state's sales tax and get it for exactly what the quoted price on Amazon was.

Re:Monopolies

[ceoyoyo]

Most of the big electronics dealers here will do that -- Future Shop, London Drugs, and now Best Buy. But I find BB is the absolute worst at it. FS (which is a sister company to BB!) will just match the price. So will LD. But BB will have an employee look up your ad, browse through the other store's web page, check out their return policy, extended warranties, corporate history, share price, CEO's preferred breakfast, and then come back with some silly excuse like "with us you have the option of buying our extended warranty which is three days longer and only $100 more than the other guy's. This justifies the fact that our price is 150% of his. Sorry, I won't match it."

The only reason I wanted to buy anything from Best Buy in the first place was because someone gave me a gift card. But when it's cheaper to go and pay full price at another store than use a gift card at Best Buy....

Re:Monopolies

[ceoyoyo]

Pure capitalism works great if individuals have well developed social values. Communism works great if individuals have well developed social values. Individuals don't. Both systems don't work well. And no, the US isn't a pure capitalist system. For that you'd have to look at Britain, Germany and France at the beginning of the industrial revolution. You know, where they used children to mine coal because they were smaller and could fit through the tunnels more easily. Not to mention being in plentiful supply, and therefore cheap.

Re:Monopolies

[ccp]

Great post!

Wish I had modpoints.

Cheers,

Carlos Cesar

Re:Monopolies

[doormat]

I can't begin to tell you how often I have wanted to price-compare Best Buy vs. Staples vs. Circuit City vs. OfficeMax when standing in any one of those stores.

Same here. However, Best Buy has computers hooked up to the internet, just sitting there in the open for anyone to use. I go and browse to OM, OD, CC, Newegg, ZipZoomFly and Monarch for the item I was looking to buy. It was quite funny and informative. And just go jab the blueshirts a bit, I left Newegg up on the browser.

I tell ya, the next killer app for a cellphone is a RFID tag reader and/or barcode reader and a connection to google. Scan in a UPC, enter your zip code (or whatever the last GPS coordinates you got were) and then google will show you the lowest price.

Re:Monopolies

[johansalk]

"Jim Breyer is not against monopolies, he is just against monopolies that others have."

Thank you! And in other news, see this...

Wal-Mart Says 30% Market Share Too Big

In a deliciously ironic turn of events, Wal-Mart has called on the British government to intervene in the growing market dominance of rival retailer Tesco.

In comments to the London Sunday Times, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott suggests that having more than 30 percent of the market in one category is too much. "As you get over 30% and higher I am sure there is a point where government is compelled to intervene," he said. "At some point the government has to look at it."

Tesco, which operates superstores similar to Wal-Mart's, is Britain's largest retailer. The company also has a substantial international presence and ranks as the world's sixth largest retail chain with $51 billion in revenue last year.

Scott's call for government intervention was prompted by figures released last week showing that Tesco now captures 31 percent of UK grocery sales, up from 28 percent last year. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart's share of the British food market (through its Asda subsidiary) has fallen from 27 to 17 percent.

In the U.S., small business owners and community activists who favor vigorous enforcement of antitrust policies were delighted by Wal-Mart's move. However, the company has not yet said whether it plans to ask the federal government to intervene in its own growing market dominance.

Wal-Mart has about one-third of the U.S. market for numerous household staples, such as toothpaste, diapers, and shampoo. According to industry analysts at Retail Forward, Wal-Mart is on track to control 35 percent of the U.S. grocery market within the next few yeas.

http://www.newrules.org/retail/news_slug.php?slugi d=313

Re:Monopolies

[isuccess]

I think both Wal-Mart and Google are alright. Who care about monopolies. Whoever has the best program and the most money wins, the rest just sit and whine about monopolies. Go out and build your own. Google is no thread to anybody. They are just smart and if you snooze, you will lose.

Re:Monopolies

[isuccess]

Capitalism: when I get rich and have lots of money to go around, then I will have to sit and think about whether capitalism is good or bad for me, until then I am not going to formulate any opinions about it or worry about what others are doing with all their capitalism money. Critizing money and people with money without having "any" ourselves is way to easy to do. I don't want to fall into that useless trap.

Re:Monopolies

[Fordiman]

I for one say goodbye to our Wal-Mart overlords, and welcome our new Google --- naw, but seriously...

From what I can tell, Google, thus far, has caused all kinds of problems for industry, disrupted such powerful forces as Microsoft, driven fear into a company that drives fear into retailers and supply-chain alike, and made billions of dollars, all on a geeks dream, and all without directly costing its users a penny.

Some people claim that Google is the new Micro$oft, in the negative sense, but that's likely years to come. For now, Google is doing things that Microsoft was never able to fully comprehend: Innovate.

Re:Monopolies

[Fordiman]

Pure capitalism requires full access to information by the public. Anything less causes market failures of all sorts.

Re:Monopolies

[Shajenko42]

And no, the US isn't a pure capitalist system. For that you'd have to look at Britain, Germany and France at the beginning of the industrial revolution. You know, where they used children to mine coal because they were smaller and could fit through the tunnels more easily. Not to mention being in plentiful supply, and therefore cheap.

And disposable.

Re:Monopolies

[winwar]

"Have you ever worked for a union? I have. And by and large, they promote mediocrity."

Have you ever worked for a non union shop? Because, in my experience, they tend to promote mediocrity....

In other words, union/non-union, quality/mediocrity are not strictly related. If I had to bet, I would guess that mediocrity and poor management went together though....

Re:Monopolies

[Crouty]

Sorry, really no harm intended, but this is the stupidest comment on capitalism I've ever heard. If I got it right you basically say: "Leave the politics to the rich and shut up". There are very good reasons for criticising radical capitalists and monopolies and no, I don't count envy as one. We may discuss whether Breyer falls into this category, though.

Re:Monopolies

[JulesLt]

There may be some truth in those allegations, but it's worth looking back at what the lot of most workers was like before Unions, and it seems to me that they have achieved many things that have improved quality of life for most - improving the life of the mediocre strikes me as one of the signs of civilization - maybe us geniuses need holding back once in a while. (I've worked as a temp in a job where I quickly realised I could replace my job and 3 others with about 2 days of programming, but so what).

Other models of management/union interaction are possible - the quality of the German auto industry is undeniable, yet it has also been heavily unionized while avoiding the plague of industrial action that happened in the UK industry - the main reason cited for this is the more consensus based that confrontational decision making - US/UK management tend to be immediately confrontational towards unions, and vice versa, reflecting their origins in direct class conflict.

Lastly - there is no reason why you can't build a high-quality car using 'average' or 'mediocre' staff - it's down to design, production line and QA - all things that come more management decisions than anything to do with unions. The other thing about the German car industry is they recognized early on that in the long run they would never be able to compete with Far East competition on price, so had to focus on quality. The UK industry on the other hand went into cycles of cost cutting, but selling the same type of vehicles.

Re:Monopolies

[mirni]

On a not-so-personal level, take a look at American automakers. The unions are strangling them, and one of the reasons they turn out junk is because of the unions. American cars are decidedly average, and that's what unions promote: being average.

Actually, non-American cars, decidedly better-than-average, are produced by factories where unions prevail and they are at least as powerful as unions in American automakers' plants.

-m-

We are the knights that say...

[thrill12]

nnnnnGoogle ! nnnnGoogle!

Now get me some shrubberies...

Re:We are the knights that say...

[slavemowgli]

I think the phrase you're looking for is "Iä! Iä! Shub-NigGoogle!"

Better than Wal-Mart

[Sacarino]

Hell, I can tell you a better place to buy crap than Wally World... It's called Costco.

They don't treat their employees like EA coders, and you can still buy cheap.

I didn't even need Google for that.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[bhtooefr]

What if you're more than 50 miles from a Costco (actually, more like 100 miles, guessing based on the locations of the closest ones - nothing showed up in the search results for my zip code cranked out to the max of 50 miles), and within 20 miles of a Wal-Mart?

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

No worries, you can still get your urns shipped directly to you.

Don't forget to order by 2pm!

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Mr. Underbridge]

Hell, I can tell you a better place to buy crap than Wally World... It's called Costco.

Except you have to pay $45 a year to belong, you have to have a warehouse to store all that bulk stuff, and there's a lot of stuff they just don't have. And you absolutely, positively, cannot go on a Saturday. A Costco trip won't last under 3 hrs then.

So there's still room for Wally in the grand scheme of things.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Squirrelgirl]

you shouldn't be shopping on saturdays. Saturdays is a rest day. And the poor Wallmart/costco workers shouldn't be forced to work there either. Western society is spoilt! but seriously, I am a leftist

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Targon]

$45/year isn't all that expensive, and there are a LOT of different things they sell that arn't just bulk items. When I want to buy a TV, or a printer, Costco has similar prices to many places you find online in some cases. Of course, it depends on the individual Costco since some have better stuff than others.

Many items are also impulse items, and others are a convenience. Most people don't go shopping at 15 stores in a day just to buy food for example. If there is a specific item you need, then going online to find a place that sells it may be a good way to go, but Walmart shouldn't worry, except when a local store sells higher quality stuff for the same price that Walmart is selling their crap.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[rsheridan6]

If I ever have 8 kids like Dick Van Patten, I might need to buy things in the quantities that Costco sells. I checked them out once - you can buy cantaloupes there, as long as you want five of them. For now, I'm sticking with Wal-Mart for disposable crap and Target for things that I could conceivably still be using in 6 months (because Wal-Mart crap usually doesn't last that long).

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Lumpy]

A- you are nuts. Costco and the other "members" stores are a huge scam. I find the exact same products (sans their "store branded") at other places for the same or less most of the time.

Bissel Steam cleaner, MSRP $299.00, Costco $195.00, Target $192.00

therefore target is much cheaper because you did not have to shell out a "membership fee" to buy it. Food is overpriced at Costco and is of no better quality.

The only things I find cheaper there is digital photo and photo developing to prints and their "blowout/discounted" items.

Cripes they want $319.00 for a PSP and 2 really crappy games. I can buy a PSP and 2 games I want for less than that at Meijer in the upper midwest, WallyWorld or even EB! and dont get me started on their full retail pricing of their electronics,cameras,tv's.

I buy the membership to simply whore their cheap developing services (11X17 prints for $2.95) for my business. Local photoshops and doing it myself is 10X that price. Most everything else I shop and look at there and buy cheaper just across the street.

The members places are simply shopping stores for people that dont want to be exposed to the "low income trash" that shop at the non members stores.. there is no real value for shopping there overall.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[n54]

well since you're a cute squirrel leftist the righteous will have nothing against you! Squirrels are cute and the righteous realize that. Political bickering is sabotaged! but seriously, I am righteous

Du er norsk også? Overraskende mange her...

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[jim_v2000]

Maybe it depends where you go. I bought my 32 inch tv there for $50 less than the "best deals in town" tv store and $20 less than Wal-Mart. I bought a 512 mb Memory Stick for $30 less than Wal-mart. I just bought a flat panel dispay for about the same price as online. My wife gets her contact lenses there for the online price. Plus all the food I buy there is pretty cheap.

So really, I made my $45 membership fee back a long time ago.

But like I said, maybe it depends where your Costco is.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[EnderWiggnz]

meh... my costco membership only net'd me $23 last year. i got the executive membership, for $100, and then got a $77 check from the 2% back.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[ThJ]

Dette er Slashdot, tross alt. Med tanke på typene som vanker her, og det faktum at norske brukere er utestengt fra en hel haug utenlandske IRC-kanaler, forundrer det meg egentlig ikke...

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any reason in the world why you have to announce to the world you live in a lesbian relationship? Do I announce on my website that I live in a heterosexual relationship?

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Squirrelgirl]

Svensk-norsk faktiskt, men mest norsk nå. :)

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[AgNO3]

EA Coders get shafted? I see them playing soccer outside and frisbee and they keep trying to recruit our 3d guy who lives literally across the little park from the EA office in Playa Vista. They seem pretty happy when we talk to them in the court yard of the appartment complex.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[way2trivial]

tbis one?
http://www.samsclub.com/eclub/main_shopping.jsp?BV _UseBVCookie=yes&n=0&mt=a&coe=0&oidPath=0:-23541:- 42505:-42513:-43023:-43045:-43047:883191
188.82- SHIPPED?

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Robocoastie]

one doesn't need Google to find better deals at all. All you have to do is open your Sunday paper to the ads and use your Target ad which always beats Wal-Mart's price. Wal-Mart being "cheap" is only true with wal-mart brand ie "generic" products.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[FatherOfONe]

your sig.

Gas is now at $2.00 a gallon here in the midwest. Down from over $3.50

I find that the people who buy SUV's don't really give a rats ass about gas prices, now the people that drive 10+ year old cars and live paycheck to paycheck get killed when gas doubles in price. Ironically, it is usually those people that buy fuel efficient cars... Those that can afford a $50k + SUV may "whine" about gas prices but those with an under $10k car generally get hurt very bad by the price.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Halfbaked Plan]

One point is, the people with this years latest SUV are the ones doing the whining. They're always the 'loud' people in any crowd. The folks with the 10+ year old cars (my Saturn is a '93) just grimace and bear it.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope many people I know seek out 10+ year old econoboxes because they get as good as or at times better than hybrid gas mileage.

geo Metro 4 door sedan 44mpg typical at 100K miles. the 3cyl 2 door will regularly get 50+mpg.

I cant find a 4 seater hybrid that can TOUCH the average MPG of 44mpg. the toyota prius gets killer gas mileage in town but sucks horribly on the higway getting 40mpg. Damn disgusting for a car that is massively higher tech, better aerodynamically, and newer than the $1000.00 10+ year old 4 door metro. it shoud be getting 80mpg easily yet it does not.

So the 21'st century engineering giants creating the car of tommorow gets trumped HARD and wide by a tiny korean car engineered on a back of a napkin and sold for peanuts.

Hybrids are a joke. they should be getting TWICE the gas mileage they are getting now. There is no excuse for them NOT getting it.

the only hybrid car that is worth a damn is the honda insight, but nobody likes it because it sits only 2 people, the typical american male exceeds it's weight limit and does not take up 3 lanes of traffic, block vision for 12 miles and go form 0 to 60 in 2.1 seconds.... all things that americans demand for safer driving.

Dammit! I must drove at 20+ the speed limit 2 feet from your bumper with my misaligned headlights blaring in your window while getting 3mpg and making the road unsafe for others.

Ok, The last bit is satire, but it certianly is how the rest of the world sees americans.

Personally I so supported the last energy bill that was shot down. a yearly tax credit for driving a car that get's 35+mpg and a fee for anything that get's below 20mpg increasing at 15 and 10. plus a second fee for every vehicle that drives over 5000 miles a year that is wider than 5.5 feet.

I.E. the hummer tax. if you can afford that abortion then you can afford another $1000.00 a year in taxes on it.

but then I'm the guy that thinks that america should adopt the german drivers license laws. make it really HARD to get a drivers licesne and require road testing every 4 years.

Personally I think that lumpy is too liberal. I'm hoping for $20.00 a gallon gas and SUV owners getting killed in the street for their gas. Mad Max on the open highways!

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Lumpy]

firstly, you are only slightly right. Many people that own and drive SUV's are not rich. hell they barely can afford the damn thing but they made the stupid sheeple decision and drove what the other neighbors drive. Cars in general are expensive, almost noone figures in the $3000.00 a year maintaince that is required on a car. No not just oil changes, there are lots of maintaince items that do not get done because people do not think about them. Want proof of that? Go to your local mall and walk around looing at tires. See the huge amount of people driving on bald or worn out tires. Wonder why those morons rearend people when the traffic backs up? because they cant stop. Most of those cars probably have a major problem going unrepaired as well. Many MANY people have worn out or inadequate breaks on their car one hard stop and then sitting there will warp a modern disc causing reduced stopping power.

as for the older cars, Yes many poor drive old beaters.. they ride around in their 1992 Caddilac Deville sucking up gas as fast as the SUV's. but that is not becauset hat is all they could afford, its because they made the retarted decision to buy that huge boat. There are gobs of smaller cars on the used market. The other poster that was a bit whacked mentioned my favorite the Geo Metro. I get 38mpg city and 45mpg highway in mine. the Scion Xa get's 36-42mpg and that is a el-cheapo car by today's standard for new cars. Old honda preludes get 30+ the list goes on. nothing is stopping the poor from buying a smaller car that makes sense. Hell you "need" space? Why not a minivan that get's typically 25mpg?

No I see the "poor" driving old pickup trucks, old SUV's, old Boatmobiles, or the bastard of the car industry that screams redneck... the Camaro. they are buying stupid crap either trying to "feel" rich or simply because if stupidity in general. and once in a while you see the retarted poor driving a full size conversion van from the 80's or worse an econoline 350 panel van. They looked for the most inefficent vehicle they could get their hands on... hell if they would have bought an old motorhome they could have lived in it.

The poor can find $300-$500 smaller cars all over the place. My stepson that is unemployed just found a prelude for $500.00 that looks really nice, runs good and has 150K on it. It get's 30mpg and the high gas prices will not hurt him as much, certianly they are better off than their redneck neighbor who drives a 1972 Chevy Pickup that he jacked up another 5 feet and is constantly putting money into it to polish the turd further. Fuel costs are a tiny bit of car costs. the day he has to find $180.00 to buy a new coilpack, or radiator, or alternator and then pay for installation or be able to wait until I can help him.... THAT will hurt him more that higher gas prices.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. Det har hendt flere ganger at nordmenn tar over tråder her på Slæsjdått. ;)

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[michaelbuddy]

There's definitely room for Wal*mart if you don't mind the exploitation of immigrant workers, the limiting of employee benefits at any time possible, and the fact that small businesses which can't compete move out of the neighborhood, or close down, and as a result, the neighborhood value goes down.

thanks Wal*mart. I'd rather pay 200 bucks a year to see your stores close down.

Oh wait, they got paintball guns on sale this week?

nevermind what I just said, gotta go.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of straight people make a big deal of living in a hetrosexual relationship. They talk about their partners, put up pictures of their partners in the workplace, invite partners to work functions. Expecting gay people to be silent about their partners is only fair if you also expect straight people to be silent about their partners.

But there are important reasons for gay people to stand up and be counted, as it were. When everyone knows someone who is gay, it makes it much more difficult for something nasty to happen again. If straight people had been tortured for being straight, then it would be important for people to make a stand about being straight.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[FatherOfONe]

Well having just bought a new car. I asked the guys at the local shops here all the same question.

How has the higher gas prices effected sales of your SUV's?

Every freaking dealer said that they still couldn't keep the high end SUV's in stock. The gas prices just hurt the sales of the "lowest" end models.

Now, I will give you that there are some poor that drive old caddies, but a ton drive small 10+ year old cars and are hurt WAY worse by a 50% increase in gas price than the people who buy Hummers or Land Cusiers.

Your stepson that is unemployed found a $500 car just hammers home my point. He needs to watch every penny he has saved up and if gas doubles in price it will hurt him far worse than the typical buyer of a Hummer. We do agree that fuel cost are a part of the overall expense of the car, but it is an expense none the less, and when that expense doubles in price, or as your sig suggest, to quadruple in price then the poor will ALLWAYS suffer more than the rich.

Either way I hope your stepson finds a job, and that perhaps we as a country will make a focused effort to move away from oil. I personally would like to see better mass transit, nuclear energy and better government incentives on building higher quality homes/cars. I do believe in a free market, and I agree that when gas hits $8+ a gallon, we will adapt, I just feel for the poor that will suffer with no heat and no means of transportation during that time. I also hate the fact that our money for oil is basically ending up feeding the terrorist. I truely believe that when we find a more viable form of energy and stop dumping tons of money in the middle east, that there will finally be peace there. It is kind of hard to fund a war without any money...

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Joey7F]

Ja! Det er som Capital One ads

It is like the Capital One ads!

Uffda, it has been a while since I have written in Norwegian. At least I can still read a little :)

--Joey

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[SkjeggApe]

Hmmm, hvordan er norske brukere utestengt fra IRC kanaler? Jeg lurer fordi jeg bor for tiden i USA, men vurderer aa flytte hjem en dag...

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

Gay people were put in concentration camps for precisely the reason you say it wouldn't happen. Most of the prisoners were turned in by people they knew who told the Nazis that they were gay. So, it would be better if one had never told anyone and, barring another transgression, live safely out of the Nazi's gaze.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[n54]

Ante ikke at norske brukere var utestengt grunnet nasjonalitet på IRC, kanskje det har noe med at hvis jeg i det hele tatt ender opp på IRC så er det gjerne en Freenode-basert kanal.

Håper kommentaren om "typene som vanker her" har med nerdeinteresser å gjøre og ikke politikk :)

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[n54]

Hehe får følelsen av at det lett kan bli en selvoppfyldende profeti ;)

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[n54]

:) virker som vi utløste et lite skred av norske poster hehe

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

meh... my costco membership only net'd me $23 last year. i got the executive membership, for $100, and then got a $77 check from the 2% back.

Then your net was -$23, math wiz.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[ThJ]

Det er tradisjon for å jage ut "the bloody vikings" fra EFnet-kanaler. Norske IRC-brukere kan være ganske bråkete. ;)

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[cduffy]

I have to disagree.

I shopped around for a fridge back after buying my house, and ended up paying about $1300 for a fairly nice one, in white. Two week later I got to Costco, and find the exact same fridge... in brushed steel... for $1100.

Not *all* their prices are outstanding, but enough are to more than pay for the membership. The other thing is their customer service: When I bought a washer and dryer from costco.com and the installers cracked the tile in my garage putting it in, my local warehouse's staff went to bat for me with the vendor, spending *multiple hours* on the phone 'till the vendor paid for repairs.

I'm very, very happy with my Costco membership.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[garote]

I truely believe that when we find a more viable form of energy and stop dumping tons of money in the middle east, that there will finally be peace there. It is kind of hard to fund a war without any money...

Well said. I couldn't agree with you more.

Re:Better than Wal-Mart

[Squirrelgirl]

Does what I write about on my webpage have anything to do whatsoever with this discussion?

wow!

[Janek Kozicki]

funniest reason to be scared, ever.

they are saying: the cheapest on the whole world, are they lying? No, it's simply not possible

btw, castorama (like wal-mart in europe, but smaller and focuses only on things that people may use when building/renoving a house) gives warranty on their prices. Their ad is: "if you find this thing cheaper anywhere, we will return to you the price difference". I've never tried if this actually works.

Re:wow!

[Troed]

Most electronics stores in Sweden have the same policy. A few years ago one of them (Elgiganten) even offered 200% on the difference. They stopped with it after serious abuse when Microsoft went out and said "in 20 days time we'll lower the Xbox price with 50%". I have more than a few friends who got their boxes for free using the 200% payback that way ...

Re:wow!

[masklinn]

There are some conditions though, mainly on the distance to the competitor with lower price (and i'm pretty sure online sellers don't work).

Re:wow!

[bhtooefr]

Wal-Mart says if you find it cheaper before you buy, you get either 100% or 110% (I forget which) of the difference.

After you buy, you're on your own.

I know HH Gregg (an "electronics" store - big screen TVs and clothes washers and dryers is pretty much all they sell) has a 110% up to 30 days AFTER purchase guarantee.

Re:wow!

[Spacejock]

Bunnings do the same in Australia, but even if I did find a packet of screws 5c cheaper somewhere else I would not be first in line to claim my refund. Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

Re:wow!

[Tarwn]

In a way, Walmart has a guarantee too. It's called:
  "If we found out some other retailer is getting a cheaper price on something from the same distributor/manufacturer, our purchasing price will drop below theirs retroactively"

Basically if you (as a manufacturer or distributor) want to do business with Walmart you have to sign a contract (standard operating procedure). That contract states that if you sell a product to another company for less than x cents more then what Walmart pays, Walmarts purchase price will retroactively drop to x cents below that purchase price, dated back to the first purchase by the other company at the reduced price.
This is how they keep their prices down. If you want shelf space at Walmart, you sign the contract with that clause in there. So they do start with a lower price/part then their competitors. The best the competition can do to get a better deal is to buy something similar from a differant manufacturer, buy it at a more expensive price and charge the least possible markup, or buy it from some guy with a warehouse that is completely out of the normal supply chain.

Re:wow!

[Edzor]

wal-mart in the UK is called ASDA (although wal-mart bough ASDA as an established company) it sells cheap disgusting food, and cheap poor quality products. It goes for the lowest common denominator. TESCO is the big monolithic supermarket here.

Re:wow!

[k33l0r]

they might offer to return the price difference and they might actually do it if you present sufficient proof of a cheaper option. However, this really does nothing but creates a false sense of security in consumers. Few consumers really try and find out if a product can be found cheaper as they take it for granted that it cannot.

This is the reason why price guarentees are ILLEGAL in Finland (where I come from).

Re:wow!

[masklinn]

Castorama is an insurance, it works for some time (probably a month too) after you have bought the product.

Re:wow!

[henni16]

Reminds me of another story concerning XBox-pricing.

One department store made a pricing error on the price tag for the few new XBoxes they had (IIRC price was about 50 Euro lower than the recommended price that everybody else used (was forced to use?)).
Instead of trying to buy there and probably make them aware of their error, some fellow students went to the big electronic/multimedia chain shop across the road that had a "we have the lowest price or else we pay the difference" policy.
"Even the shop across the road sells them for less! Go over and look yourself"
AFAIK this worked for a two or three days.

Re:wow!

[henni16]

"if you find this thing cheaper anywhere, we will return to you the price difference". I've never tried if this actually works.

Well, for the one electronics chain that I know off that has the same policy, the catch is the definition of "anywhere".
That's "anywhere in a reasonable area" (probably the same city) so they don't have tom compete with online stores for example.
Also, most customers don't bother to check so it's a relatively cheap promise.
Example: Some older movie DVDs were/are almost twice as expensive than in the very big book store two floors below that already had them on their low/special price table.
I think it was a safe bet that most of their teenage customers wouldn't set a foot in the book store.. ;-)

Re:wow!

[loucura!]

Whatever happened to caveat emptor?

Price-matching isn't about the consumer, it's about competitors. When a retail store announces that it will match prices, it is telling its competitors that it wants to end a price-war. When the competitors follow suit, the price-matching serves as a mechanism so the corporations in question can see who is breaking the "terms" of their cartel action. In essence, price matching is collusion to keep prices higher.

Re:wow!

[kermitthefrog917]

Ive seen that happen at Fry's

I bought some RAM a few years back for pretty cheap. I check an advertisement for Fry's themselves and I saw that a week later it was even cheaper. I was heading there anyway, so I took my old receipt and they discounted the difference off my new purchase. Their policy only lasts 30 days, but its pretty nice. (Those of you who know Fry's also know that whenever you get something, you almost always have to come back within 30 days... kinda makes me nervous to think a store will only deduct 3 bucks from your refund if you bring it back without a box...) Either way its an awesome store, with a huge selection and relatively good customer service... Now if only we could get them here in Europe...

Re:wow!

[stevey]

"If we found out some other retailer is getting a cheaper price on something from the same distributor/manufacturer, our purchasing price will drop below theirs retroactively"

Interestingly I've seen a few things like that here in the UK, but only one company has actually gotten in touch with me after I've bought something to say "Hey our price just dropped - have some money back".

Guess who?

Amazon. They sent me an email to tell me that they'd lowered the prices on something I'd bought literally a day or two before, and then included a discount code for the value of the difference.

That made my day - and would be something realitively easily done by many companys. After all for the large purchases you have your customers names and addresses on file most likely for delivery purposes, right?

Re:wow!

[legirons]

"Their ad is: "if you find this thing cheaper anywhere, we will return to you the price difference". I've never tried if this actually works."

A similar price promise at Sainsburys Homebase (a DIY store in the UK having its ass kicked by Wilkinsons) turned out to be false -- they would only refund 9/10 of the difference between the two prices.

For example, I bought something for £4 in homebase that cost £3 in wilko. In return for going back to the homebase store, taking them up on their price promise, and waiting for it all to be processed, I got a £0.90 refund that made their product still more expensive than the competition. And they didn't change their prices, so anyone who didn't complain paid loads more than necessary.

Naturally, none of this was mentioned on their large signs "get a refund of the difference if you see it cheaper anywhere", so I wouldn't trust a scheme like this until I'd tested it with a low-value item.

Most stores have dropped the price promises, since it became so obvious that they couldn't compete with online stores (e.g. USB key in Argos reduced to £49.99 from £79.99, available online for £12.00)

Re:wow!

[mporcheron]

in the uk we have ASDA ("Part of the Wal-Mart family", as it says everywhere) which say exactly the same.

cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar wor

[httpamphibio.us]

unlikely...

cheaper than walmart online? yeah, but it's not just froogle that lets us find that out.

Woah...mod that nonsense down

[thrill12]

Search and replace "Google" with "a cute little elephant" in the above text and you'll see what I mean.

Better prices Always...

[subitophoto]

Is Walmart supposed to have the better prices... Always ;)

Re:Better prices Always...

[LostCluster]

The wording is "Always the low price. Always."

They wanted it to be "Always the lowest price. Always" but were beaten back by lawyers who took that as a claim that they would be lowest on every item, which could be proven false with just one lower price elsewhere.

Lame...

[Douglas Simmons]

Competition historically has been a good thing, but here are two companies, public i should add and /not/ that completely disconnected in terms of their respective industries, that could improve each other's customers' satisfaction. But once in a while, as in this instance, things get too adversarial and people stop working and start fighting.

If this were kindergarten, they'd be given time-out to stare at a wall. I'm not going to suggest that there's any conspiracy with Microsoft pulling some wal-mart puppet strings, so I'll just some other paranoid poster take care of that.

Re:Lame...

[EnderWiggnz]

it doesnt help that the new CFO of msft is the former president ofsam's club

That works both way

[trollable]

Yes, Google will tell you if there is cheaper somewhere else but it will also bring you customers if your offer is the cheapest. However this is not new: many services like that exist (Kelkoo), but they are limited to online shops. Google already has Froogle. The wave is reaching the mortar shops. Fine for me.

Pointless if Walmart is your nearest store?

[hattig]

So people will drive an extra 10 miles in their 5mpg SUV to save a couple of dollars over going to the nearer Walmart store?

Or is this 'in-store' Google, on your mobile phone? If so, people will check the price of an item, see it is cheaper elsewhere, actively leave the store, get into their 5mpg SUV, drive to the other store, and save $1 or less on an item?

At some point you just have to say 'sod it, I'm here now, and my time is worth more than nothing, nevermind the stress, nor the cost of accessing such a service, nor the cost of fuel'.

Re:Pointless if Walmart is your nearest store?

[pintomp3]

the point is, you will have the information, and thus the choice. if the cost difference is not that much, it won't be worth it. you won't drive down the road to save $.30 on a lbs of sugar, but you might for $200 if the tv you are looking at is on sale elsewhere. a lot of shoppers like to know they are getting the best price. this will let you combine impulse shopping with bargain hunting. if walmart truly believes their prices are the lowest, they will love this.

Re:Pointless if Walmart is your nearest store?

[DDLKermit007]

The thing you don't realise is that Walmart is almost NEVER the lowest localy. It's generaly cheaper and far better for your local market to look around and find a small shop near you that sells the same or comprable items for less. Sometimes they are more, but it usualy means the items are comprable and likely better made than the trash at Wal-Mart and it. Plus that small sid effect of supporting a local shop that may spend money where you work (or own if your entepriseing enough). Me? I run my own small buisness and spend my money primarily at other small buisnesses in city. One purchase may come back to me and the other I know wont. Can you guess which is the Walmart one?

Re:Pointless if Walmart is your nearest store?

[WindBourne]

If you own a 5mpg SUV, then you do not worry about money and this service is not for you. Contrary to what some would have you believe, that is not the vast majority of Americans. The vast majority have cars that get at least 20 MPG. For the average city dweller, the average set of stores are within 20 miles.

That means that when going on a shopping trip, if you can save an average of .1 / item, then you will go elsewhere. And you can bet on it that it is only a matter of time before Google decides to do a DB for the home esp WRT the kitchen.

Ah . . .

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

. . . so capitalism is best with perfect information. Wal*Mart no doubt would like as close to perfect information about its customers and what they might be willing to pay in a given market. But they cry foul when the tables are turned and their policies of discriminatory pricing based on region and neighboorhood might be in jeapordy. Go figure.

Re:Ah . . .

[LostCluster]

Somebody other than Wal-Mart having a database of Wal-Mart's price offerings could put Wal-Mart stores in competition with each other, as the consumer from home can decide whether they want to go to the Wal-Mart to the North or the one to the South.

Re:Ah . . .

[TFloore]

so capitalism is best with perfect information

This is, mostly, true. However, profits are maximized when only one side has access to that information.

You see this type of thing a lot with large corporations. Region coding is a great example of this, actually. Globalization is a wonderful thing... but only for large companies buying supplies and labor. For selling product, globablization is bad, because it removes the ability to extract the largest possible profit from local markets.

This is generally the case for any item where the price is different based on geography, but the availability is not based on geography, but on some other artificial control.

Re:The dark side of Google

[miffo.swe]

Woa man those drugs are bad for you.

Bot?

[Crouty]

1717 words in 2 Minutes? Is this submited by a bot?

Re:Bot?

[Nick Harkin]

I think it's just a copy paste troll when the name of the company/person in question is replaced; In this case, google is put in the place of whatever was there before.

Sad

[chrisgeleven]

Oh the horror, someone telling me that I might get a better price somewhere else!!!

How can there be better bargains?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wal-Mart has the Always Low Prices! (TM) That yellow smiley would really get angry if he didn't get to knock down those Every Day Low Prices constantly! (Google about Wal-Mart's prices, you'll never have any doubt!)

Re:How can there be better bargains?

[Skater]

Would he turn into Mr. Yuck? That'd be cool!

Re:The dark side of Google

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.pakin.org/complaint/ COMPLAINT GENERATOR. SIMPLE.

Goness Me

[segedunum]

Google might soon be able to tell Wal-Mart shoppers if better bargains are available nearby.

Heaven forbid anyone should find out that kind of information!

Re:Goness Me

[IdleTime]

Is there anyone here in USA who is worried? I mean, this is a "free" country so a company like WalMart can't do anything about it , right? Right? They can't buy politicians and judges that will support Walmart in any form of legislation or legal cases in USA, can they? I mean it's not like US politicans vote for the companies they are owned by, is it?

Re:Goness Me

[Rayaru]

Right.

Re:The dark side of Google

[neuroPuff]

Wow, too much jabber and not enough reasoning. Let's just hope his syringe was clean when he shot up on heroin.

I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[NigelJohnstone]

I doubt its Walmart that should be afraid, more likely brands like Nike, Reebok and Gucci and not only that they should be afraid of the information thats out there not the search engines that find it.

Let me explain:

A quick quiz:
Gucci is an Italian Fashion product maker right? Tick tock tick tock ..... times up.
Wrong! Gucci are an Amsterdam company that buy in practically all of their products that makes *brands* (Boucheron, Balenciaga...) they say they buy shoes from Italy, according to this guy, the Italian high-fashion shoe industry get most of the shoe from Romania and China now and as a result Italy is Europe's biggest shoe importer:
http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?id =179

Quiz:
Nike are a high quality manufactured brand, Reebok are a high quality manufactured brand, Pan Shoes Bangkok are some crappy Asian brand? Right or wrong, tick tock tick tock... Wrong. Bangkok Rubber company make Reeboks for Reebok, Nike's for Nike and Pan Shoes for Pan Group (which owns Bangkok Rubber Company).
http://www.pan-group.com/

CAT Footware (From Caterpillar):
http://www.catfootwear.com/Main.aspx
Cat Footware are American made and 'Authentic since **1904***' (from their website)? Correct or not?
Tick tock tick tock... Wrong.

Cat brand products are made by Wolverine World Wide.
Here is the information saying they signed up the CAT brand in ***1994***, not 1904:
http://www.wolverineworldwide.com/brands_cat.asp

Here's their annual report:
http://www.wolverineworldwide.com/investors_report s.asp

So where are CAT brand shoes made? Read the 2004 Report, page 29.
Risk factors:
"reliance on foreign sourcing and concentration of production in China; the availability and price of power, labor and resources in key foreign sourcing countries, including China;"

Made in China.

It's not the search engines, its the information they should fear. Look at the CAT thing, I simply clicked on their financial details and did a search for 'China' to locate the information. Nothing to do with Google or Yahoo.

Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[The Cydonian]

Indeed. Just back from Bangkok and, looking at, for instance, the authentic-feeling copies of Swiss-branded chronometers, there, I couldn't help wonder how the Chinese/Taiwanese could come with such perfect reproductions of products originally designed and made elsewhere.

I suppose I know now; it's coz they manufacture them.

Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[megalomaniacs4u]

I suppose I know now; it's coz they manufacture them.

Correct, in fact you can buy "genuine" fakes - same product, same factory, just not the official branding.

Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[Jon Abbott]

Yes, but society at large doesn't really care about the "Made in China" thing anymore. If we did, nobody would be buying the stuff. I think people would begin to care if the following chain of events occurred however:

• China attacks Taiwan (which they are already threatening to do)
• The U.S. supports Taiwan's military (which it already does)
• China restricts export trade or places embargoes against the U.S. in retaliation
• Prices on Chinese imported goods shoot through the roof

I suppose the U.S. could cancel their debts to China in retaliation, but that could spark a wholly different mess.

Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[loucura!]

China attacks Taiwan

They've threatened it, but they won't. They're incapable of taking the island. The Chinese Navy doesn't have enough amphibious transports to put enough troops onto the island fast enough, air drop of troops only works when you have air superiority (the Chinese wouldn't, even without our help), and the majority of their troop transports are from the fifties and sixties - they're likely to lose a significant percentage of the invading force on mechandical trouble alone (lose in the sense that they won't be available for invasion). The best the Chinese can do is missile barrage, but that historically has never been a useful tactic for forcing the surrender of an enemy.

The Chinese threats of invasion are sabre-rattling, to keep the Taiwanese off-balance, and to force us to decide which China we support. Officially, we don't recognize the Taiwanese as a sovereign nation, so if we were to intercede on their behalf, we'd risk war with China. It wouldn't hurt us militarily, but we do a lot of business there. Though, this armchair quarterback seriously doubts the Chinese resolve on the matter of Taiwan. The United States is their largest market for manufactured goods, if they were to push us we might not capitulate, and then their economy is right fucked for a bit.

Source to my Chinese military assertions.

Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[Bungopolis]

Do you honestly think that the majority of consumers care about where their products are made? I know very few people (one, and he's an anarcho-socialist vegan millionare [honest!]) who really pays attention to that type of information. Information about manufacturing is not what brands need to worry about.

What most people care about is getting stuff, and artificial intelligence and the internet (which is really what this article is about, not Google per se) is making this cheaper by stimulating competition.

And while many of us are complaining about how big retail industry is killing Mom and Pop, it's exactly the technology discussed in this article which is bringing consumers closer and closer to these small-scale retailers. Price comparison information most certainly is what big retail need to worry about in this respect.

Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[utexaspunk]

Man. Talk about an annoying way to make your point. Next time, just skip the "Quiz" "Tick Tock" crap and make your point already.

Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a classic sign of arrogance and a sense of superiority.

Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[radarsat1]

Do you honestly think that the majority of consumers care about where their products are made? I know very few people (one, and he's an anarcho-socialist vegan millionare [honest!]) who really pays attention to that type of information. Information about manufacturing is not what brands need to worry about.

I think that in the example cited, if consumers discover that their Italian-made shoes are really made in China, it seriously lowers the market value of the product. Something marketted as "authentic" turns out to be a fake.. that can be a very bad blow to a business. (And of course, that's they're own fault for being lying bastards in the first place, but that's not the point.)

So yes, I think that in the high-end retail industry that we are discussing, consumers do care where their products are made.

Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[vettemph]

>>>It is a classic sign of arrogance and a sense of superiority.

I agree, but I'm not sure which post you are refering to. :)

Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[Anonymous Coward]

No one really cares though. The fashion conscience know that half the stuff is made in China. They also know that the only difference between some of that expensive makeup and the cheap stuff is that when you pull it out of your purse, some people will be jealous that you have such an expensive brand or not. People like to pay for branding and being in the "in-crowd". It's always been that way.

Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[cdrguru]

If easy, handheld, wireless price comparison comes about, big will always win. Why? Because Wal-Mart can pressure vendors to cut prices to them, just as they have been doing for the last 20 years. This cuts the small retailer out completely because their price from the vendor is 10% higher than Wal-Mart's. This means Wal-Mart can sell for 10% less and still make the same margin than the small retailer could.

But, because Wal-Mart can, they can sell it at 12% less than the small retailer - below their cost - and still make money. Goodby small retailer.

Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[amembleton]

Why can't the small retailer purchase their stock from Wal-mart?

Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear

[Pathwalker]

Why can't the small retailer purchase their stock from Wal-mart?

Usually because there is a limit on how many of a single item can be purchased at a time. This lets them undercut other stores, while preventing the stores that are being undercut from buying and reselling the below cost goods.

And nobody in the business world understands it:

[lord sibn]

Just a few years ago, Google was nothing. Now entire industries are shitting their pants, because they are incapable of understanding Google's business model.

Google has become ubiquitous; They make products people want to use. And they don't even feel compelled to say "customer satisfaction is our number one priority!" on every sign, railing, and even doormat in the building.

While other companies (and even industries) are struggling to lock consumers into their own little slice of the marketing pie, they have not figured out a way to get people to stop going to google for products or services. And that scares the bejesus out of them. It's not that hard; run the business and stay in the black. Give people what they want, instead of offering them a product and telling them that they want it because you want what's best for them.

So, if Google is a threat, then WalMart must also:

[torpor]

start competing with FedEx.

I feel so dirty!

[Inoshiro]

"Sometime in the future a cute little elephant will teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate"

Why must the cute little elephant be so mean? :(

That's a very negative way to look at it

[Biotech9]

Wal-mart could also see a glass half FILLED with milk, Google would be able to tell customers that Wal-mart have a better deal than their competitors. That's all google can do, is spread information. It's not ever going to act by itself, it's just going to allow people to make better decisions (assuming the information is accurate).

Some customers might spend a while looking at froogle.com and find that the cheapest Speakers only cost 50 quid at Wal-mart, and that'll keep Wal-mart and the consumers happy.

Others might spend time with google.com and find the best speakers are from Genelec and buy them, keeping Genelec and the consumers happy.

More information = more informed people = less bad purchases. It can only affect Wal-mart (and others) badly if they are not offering what their target market wants.

Re:That's a very negative way to look at it

[colonslash]

Wal-mart could also see a glass half FILLED with milk

I am lactose-intolerant, you insensitive clod!

Healthcare

[wralias]

The worry is that by making information available everywhere, Google might soon be able to tell Wal-Mart shoppers if better bargains are available nearby.

What they really should be worried about is workers finding out that other companies actually pay living wages and provide good health coverage, unlike Walmart.

Re:Healthcare

[C-Diddy]

I wonder, why do so many people, seemingly of their own volition, apply for and accept employment at Wal-Mart?

Re:Healthcare

[indiorunner]

They don't have CS degrees like us

Re:Healthcare

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that they do have CS degrees. :)

Re:Healthcare

[radarsat1]

One thing I never understood about this whole thing is why do workers feel the need to strike and unionise? If I were working at a job where I felt undervalued, I wouldn't do any of the above... too much work! I'd just find another job...

I'm not saying this to be mean, but I've just never understood the need to strike. I mean, don't like the job? Find another one!

(Yes, sometimes that's easier said than done, but putting in the legwork of finding another job is a better way to use your energy in the meantime, no?)

If enough employees quit, the corporation would get the picture... but instead all the see is a "bunch of ungrateful fools"..

Re:Healthcare

[Rod Beauvex]

Burn! :)

Re:Healthcare

[An Onerous Coward]

Go to any business (fast food, retail, convenience stores) that rely on near-minimum wage unskilled labor. Ask them what their employee turnover is like.

None of those areas have unionized workers, and the employers don't seem to be getting the message.

Re:Healthcare

[EnderWiggnz]

because there is no other choice.

It's called Froggle

[AngryNick]

Wal-Mart's fears are very close to reality. It doesn't take an MBA to figure out that:

maps.google.com + froggle.google.com = "She's a witch!"

Wal-Mart should look forward to this day...or do they not really have the lowest prices?

Re:It's called Froggle

[LostCluster]

What's "Froggle"? Google's pricing site is "Froogle".

Re:It's called Froggle

[Frankie70]

Wal-Mart should look forward to this day...or do they not really have the lowest prices?


It's not that simple. It's possible for any one store to have
all the lowest prices because of something called loss-leaders.

Each store has it's own loss-leader(s) every week - something which
they sell at a loss to get more feet into the store - their hope
is that people will buy other stuff which will translate into profits.

If one store had to compete with the loss-leaders sold by all other stores,
they would be selling a lot of goods at a loss.

Re:It's called Froggle

[AngryNick]

Ahh, you're right. I'm such a freakin' idiot. I hate myself. Someone please mod my original post down to "pointless existence"

Re:It's called Froggle

[beisbol]

I can't wait for wal-mart to setup their own search engine. they could call it "woogle" or "waggle."

Re:It's called Froggle

[LostCluster]

Eh, I've done worse and gotten to keep the karma points. Your point was valid, only your spelling wasn't.

monkey see.....

[Stumbles]

But... but Google has promised to do no evil. So what's to fear? Yeah I've heard that crap or similar before. No company has managed to weave it's way through the greed, underhanded manipulation and all the temptations being in a powerful position offers. Yeah right now they may be holding to their word but give it time.

Re:monkey see.....

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, it's working beautifully for them. They give out a huge advantage to everyone they work with. Their customers get great services by having some targetted, but unintrusive text ads on the page, and their advertisers get people clicking on the ads who are most likely interested in their products!

get used to it

[idlake]

Google isn't even the leader in web-based price comparisons. This is going to happen, Google or not.

I expect the main channel of delivery in the future will be via cell phones anyway: SMS, MMS (photo of product bar code), and cell phone browser.

I guess what he doesn't like is that, for a while, there was an information imbalance between sellers and buyers, with sellers being able to use sophisticated computer systems for pricing, but buyers being left clipping coupons. Well, that imbalance is going away. That's a good thing for a market economy and capitalism. You like market economies and capitalism, right?

Re:get used to it

[Jon Abbott]

Right on, excellent comment.

Re:get used to it

[foo12]

You don't even need to send a MMS of the barcode - just process it onboard the cell and send just the code number. Or, for existing phones w/o cameras or the inability to run user apps, key-in the human readable and send it off.

Re:get used to it

[JimBobJoe]

I guess what he doesn't like is that, for a while, there was an information imbalance between sellers and buyers, with sellers being able to use sophisticated computer systems for pricing, but buyers being left clipping coupons. Well, that imbalance is going away.

There was a great article in the Economist about this fairly recently. The imbalance has not just gone away, it's arguably in favor of the consumer now.

One example was the fact that 80% of people who walk into a Ford dealer now know exactly what car they want (what options, what color, etc) but also how much they should expect to pay for it. Salesmen have turned into an order taker, so the job has changed...but it also means that inventory has to be more malleable--since the consumer won't just take any car off the lot now.

Re:get used to it

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Salesmen have turned into an order taker, so the job has changed...but it also means that inventory has to be more malleable--since the consumer won't just take any car off the lot now.

If only it were so. The only place I've seen that works that way is fitzmall.com - they do no-haggle prices and sell in volume (multi-make, too). Most other places are either friendly salesmen that want to get you in their car or else slimy pond scum that want to take you for what they can manage. I guess it's a good thing I won't be buying a car for 2-3 years.

Big corps = bad

[Elixon]

Google, Microsoft, Wall-Mart, Nestle... all of them are the same - they tend to grow too much. As the Nestle grown behind the Europe and Google grown behind the USA all became a real threat to small businesses in its segment... And wors think is that super-large corporations try to "diversificate" the risks by expanding (better "attacking") unrelated segments of business. :-) War of monopolies. The bad news for us: there will be less and less monopolies as the globalization expands.

Huge companies has too much money so they can buy all the important konwledge (I mean patent it) and thus prevent you from being succesfull. How you will climb up if they patented the rope and even the idea of "generic way going up" ;-)

I see google becames the same threat as microsoft is (or any other superdominant company).

Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar

[LostCluster]

Google has no interest in becoming a retailer, but has interest in telling you what the price is elsewhere. Imagine a Froogle Local that you could access by showing the barcode to your cameraphone.

With Wal-Mart having a history of kicking out of the store people who dare to write prices on a notebook, they most likely won't like people doing that. But how can they stop it?

What is 'too much information'?

[kaleco]

MS, Yahoo and Amazon are already collecting huge amounts of information for their own search engines. I don't see how you could have a problem with them or Google having so much information, as it improves your chances of finding what you're looking for.

It's not the volume of information gathered that troubles anyone, it's what's done with it. If you're looking for a reason to be suspicious of Google, how about their pandering to Chinese information restrictions?

Please develop your argument a little more and post again.

Re:And nobody in the business world understands it

[xintegerx]

No. They are afraid because Google is a company with billions of dollars in reserves. That's all. All companies just want to make money. If Walmart figured out a way to do anything such as DVD rentals, selling food, selling cars, they will do it. Business is not just about trying to fill a niche. Business is also about trying to make as much money as possible. When people spend money to buy ads for their blog at google, that money could have been spent in Walmart stores. This is normal.

WalMart: twist "better bargains are nearby" around

[Animaether]

Dear WalMart,

Why are you so afraid that Google might tell (potential patrons that there are better prices available nearby - when you, too, could be making use of this technology ?

As soon as you spot a better price nearby, drop your prices at that location - now YOU have the better price.

Sincerely,
    Common Sense

-----

Not entirely off-topic... there was a grocery store chain here in The Netherlands that would set up a mobile grocery store bus right outside a competing grocery store and let patrons of that store compare prices for the articles they had just bought by scanning the bar code. That way, they could easily tell people how much they could have saved by comparing the register stubs. More on-topic with what I wrote: *if* a product would actually have been cheaper at the store they're parked outside of, they would pass this on to corporate HQ. They, then, could issue an update to all their registers across the nation to bill that product more cheaply - the goal being to be cheaper than the competition once again.

Poor Bill

[jorgef]

Microsoft, in particular, is pushing hard to catch Google in Internet search. "This is hyper-competition, make no mistake," said Bill Gates, Microsoft's chief executive. "The magic moment will come when our search is demonstrably better than Google's," he said, suggesting that this could happen in a year or so.

Poor Bill, its hard live with fear, you cant use dirty old tricks, keep playing Monopoly at Home little Billy.

Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar

[rm69990]

I work at Wal-Mart while I'm completing my education, and I have never ever seen a person kicked out of the store for writing down prices. Hell, people open a package of cookies, eat 2 or 3, and then throw it on the ground and the managers do nothing.

Perfect Markets

[Varitek]

In an ideal world, a transaction between buyer and seller would be done with full information and with satisfaction on both sides. That is, it's not a zero-sum game - the buyer gets a product they're happy with at a price they like, and the seller makes his profit.

Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. The motives of companies do not always co-incide with those of the consumers. As we can see here, not only does the customer suffer from imperfect information (a market inefficiency) but the companies actively fear an increase in this information, and also actively seek to restrict the flow of information that is required to become closer to market perfection (remember the copyright arguments about the posting of special offers on third-party websites). They don't want the kind of transaction I mention above; if they think they could get away with it, they screw the customer.

What's my point? Information is *good*, and if companies attempt to mess with the market by restricting this flow of infomation, they need to be regulated until their pips squeak. We need to realise that when businesses whine about regulation restricting the market, they're usually whining because *they* want to to mess with the markets to distort them in their favour.

Google, Coupons, and You

[patio11]

Are you familiar with the economics of coupon clipping? Coupon clipping is essentially the retail establishment's version of price discrimination: they know that, for example, that V. Pickles brand I can never spell but always buy appeals to people with vastly different ability to pay for quality pickles. So "they" (and by they I meant both the pickle manufacturer and the retail stores) put coupons out in the paper. If you're willing to spend the time searching through lots of advertising to find the coupon for the pickles you buy and not the hair dryer you don't, you get a little money. I'm a working professional, searching for a 25 cent pickle coupon is not a good use of my time. My mother, on the other hand, used to do this religiously before *every* shopping trip. The average shopper clears between $6 and $8 in savings per hour. So I end up paying an extra quarter for pickles than mom does (and, considered over several million buyers, thats not a small amount of difference to Wal-Mart).

OK, so thats the retail environment for you. Now, you'll notice that the price discrimination is enabled by one thing: differential access to information, or the "cost of search" if you want to think of it that way. You're already assuming that the cost of search for a better deal is going to be greater than the savings you'll realize. Question: do you consider $6 an hour for boring tedium a good use of your time? Many, many millions of people whose opinions are very valuable at Wal-Mart world headquarters do. The ultimate nightmare app for Walmart would be a scanner attached to your cellphone (already widely available here in Japan) which would just scan all the items you need and tell you "Buy pickles, diapers, baby formula, and orange juice at Walmart. Go to the Jewel three minutes away for apple juice, note paper, and their 8 for the price of 3 pizza deal."

Another thing retail loves is called a loss leader -- something which is a staple, like milk, priced so low it will actively get people to come into your store, where they'll naturally buy other items which are priced higher. This works because people might know, for example, that $1.50 a gallon milk is an absurdly good deal, but putting together a list of all the items you need is very difficult, so you just get people to comparison shop on a few high-profile items and nickle-and-dime them on, say, cereal. (This is also one thing small stores LOVE to do to Wal-Mart, since it is very, very difficult to beat Wal-Mart's pricing across the board.) You can have loss-leaders which are much more expensive than milk though -- computer monitors, for example. And that + google = scare the pants off of you if you work in retail. Because it will bring people to your store for the purpose of getting the loss leader and *nothing else*. Best Buy calls these sort of customers "demons" (Google it, interesting article on the phenomenon) -- if you can exploit the information gap between you and the store you can tremendously cut into their business.

Re:Google, Coupons, and You

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't cut into their business at all. It just makes certain tactics like loss leaders impractical. For everybody. So no-one gets a competitive advantage, and you're back where you started.

Which is a good thing, stores should make everyones lives a little simpler and SELL STUFF FOR WHAT IT COSTS*. Comparison shopping is a huge waste of everybodies time and effort.

*including distribution, staff/rent costs, +3% profit, etc. The same profit margin on everything is what I mean.

Re:Google, Coupons, and You

[codegen]

Another thing retail loves is called a loss leader -- something which is a staple, like milk, priced so low it will actively get people to come into your store, where they'll naturally buy other items which are priced higher. This works because people might know, for example, that $1.50 a gallon milk is an absurdly good deal, but putting together a list of all the items you need is very difficult, so you just get people to comparison shop on a few high-profile items and nickle-and-dime them on, say, cereal. (This is also one thing small stores LOVE to do to Wal-Mart, since it is very, very difficult to beat Wal-Mart's pricing across the board.) You can have loss-leaders which are much more expensive than milk though -- computer monitors, for example.

Actually, the loss leader is the thing that Wallmart excells in, and they do it at the higher level items. They advertise the $30 DVD player, and it is the cheapest you will find, but it will be lacking many of the features that many people want. Sitting just up the ailse will be a DVD player with more features that will be more expensive. Having seen the cheaper DVD player which really is the lowest price, your expectation has been set up that DVDs are cheap at Wallmart. The one with the better features is actually not the cheapest, but may be cheaper at a different store just down the road. And they do this with more than just Consumer Electronics.They do it with kitchen appliances, jewelry and others.

Check out Walmart's mischief and misdeeds

[Anonymous Coward]

I found this interesting, but check out the links as well. Walmart has really gotten some people angry and bitter.

http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/walmart.html

Ballmer was right...

[bogaboga]

For sure, he said "...right now, Google will do anything except cure cancer...", in a recent interview I found at http://www.zdnet.com/

Re:Goog£e

[Lifewish]

Google collects personal information? Since when? What kind of information are you talking about, and what evidence do you have for it?

I first read your comment as saying "Google has indexed too many webpages/scanned too many books/gathered too much information on the location of shops/etc". If so, that's not even slightly bothersome - until they're collecting information on me personally, I'm not going to take it personally either. I may have misread your comment - if so, apologies.

Re:And nobody in the business world understands it

[xintegerx]

What you are thinking of is Walmart trying to be stationary and not adapting to the real world. You are thinking that Walmart executives are like government employees who would just want to sit and do the same exact job for 50 years. In THAT case, you are right, Walmart would be afraid of Google, a fast-moving company, taking over Walmart, a company that just wants to be stagnant. But, that's just not true. Walmart, and any other #1 company in their field, gets their company from a $0 income a year company to a billion/year income company in no other way than by always advancing and always saying, I want my share of the pie! So, I am sure that the Corporate world is looking at Google, but not in that sense. They are thinking more along the lines of, "all that money people are investing into Google, that could be money the consumers could have spent at Walmart." In other words, big companies look at each other as competitors regardless of whether they are in the same niche or field, simply because they all want that consumer $dollar. Doesn't mean they are afraid, it just means they set goals that they want that consumer's $ to go to them and not google. Even if the 2 companies have nothing to do with each other. Finally, there are a lot of great small businesses out there, and just focusing on Google like it's a god is not fair. There is a Google story on slashdot every hour and rarely about any other company.

Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar

[fermion]

Many years ago Walmart was a bit cheaper. They now are often much cheaper as they now have the power to pressure suppliers and rent factories to produce thier own branded products. This is a defacto national brand that competes with other national brands through the advantage of not having to run seperate ad campaigns.

However, like other companies that started on the bottom rung by being cheap, they now need to learn a new trick or become irrelevent. Walmart needs customers with money, customers that are not going to shop at a cheap place that depends on illigal immigrants and desperate mothers. Shoppers that are going to value reasonable working conditions over wide aisles.

And it is going to be hard for Walmart to keep prices low, unless they start looking at ineffeciencies in management and other overhead. These ineffeciencies, according to Forbes, is why Costco is a better company. And these ineffeciencies are why Walmart is vunerable even at the brick and mortor level. Historically a firm that competes just on price, or just on style, are not good long term prospects.There are a few national chains, like Target, that are competeing heavily on quality of life issues, and those chains will likely do better as Walmart is forced to sacrifice price to attact the more affluent customer.

Walmart has already shown no dedication to a particular community. There are empty husks of building all over the country left as Walmart moved 10 miles up the road to cheaper land. With the price of gas, we may again be reaching a point where a 5 mile trip to the safeway is better than a 10 mile trip to the walmart.

ASDA and Tescos

[KitesWorld]

If you're not familiar with Asda or Tesco, they're two of the biggest supermarket chains in the UK. Tesco's dominating to the point that something like 1 in every 8 pounds spent anywhere is spent in a Tesco's store. ASDA is owned by wal-mart.

And both are in a big heated argument over who is cheaper. ASDA claims that they are qutoing a study of about 1,000 prodcts, and Tesco claims they are based on their own studies (don't know how many products). They're both in court suing each other for lying. :D

Anyway, both used to operate a policy whereby if you find the same product in a different chain at a lower price, they'd refund the difference - i think at one point ASDA was offering a refund of 200% of the difference. So far as I can tell, both of them have stopped operating that policy after trading standards intervened, but we've still got the whole 'Im cheaper', 'No I am!' thing going on. tesco still has the poilcy on their life insurance, btw. :|

Kinda funny to watch actually. :D

Balancing the economics for supply and demand.

[alchemist68]

This is great for the consumer because is balances the economics further in the consumer's favor, makes true on the generality the "knowledge is power", and allows the consumer the keep the economy pumping by having more money to purchase other goods and services.

Case in point: I just purchased a Power Mac G5 with Mac OS X Tiger on it. I downloaded a slew of Dashboard Widgets from Apple's website, one of the more important ones being "GAS". By typing my zip code and specifying a radius in miles/km around the zip code, I can locate the lowest price gasoline in the immediate area. If I happen to be going in a particular direction, or the price is so ridiculously low, I will go out of my way to save money on gasoline.

Once again, this is a balancing of the economics in favor of the consumer. There is absolutely no rationale for gasoline prices varying from street corner to street corner other than to eek-out a much profit from the consumer. And with gasoline prices in the U.S. being so high and Exxon-Mobile reporting over $10 bollion in 3rd quarter profits, the approval rating polls for the Bush Administration and Republican party seem to reflect that these people are not looking out for the better good of the American people.

I've heard that Konfabulator available for both PC and Mac is similar to Apple's Dashboard and there should be available an equivalent to "GAS" for that graphical environment. If so, get it, you won't regret the $30 shareware fee for Konfabulator.

Re:Balancing the economics for supply and demand.

[manarth]

If so, get it, you won't regret the $30 shareware fee for Konfabulator.

It's free! They removed the shareware fee a while ago. And it's good :)

Re:Balancing the economics for supply and demand.

[Halfbaked Plan]

My experience has been that the online gas-price reporting websites are inaccurate. They are not kept completley up to date, and they often exclude the small mom-and-pop operations who sometimes have the absolute LOWEST price in an area. Plus, I like to buy my gas local when possible (it's nice to go to a service station where you know the proprietor, rather than one operated by corporate-droid #16584), so when all I see are the big oil corporation outlets listed, I just refuse to operate based on that info.

But if you only buy national-brand gasoline, you're probably in good shape.

Re:Balancing the economics for supply and demand.

[alchemist68]

Most of the time the "Gas" widget is correct. I don't know the time or frequency of petroleum company pricing update schedules; that will likely be their only way out of this "big-business perceived Google crisis," unless federal, state, and local laws dictate that once prices are posted, they must remain so for a specified time. However, I will almost always buy gasoline from "Mom & Pop" stores if the price is the lowest.

Re:Balancing the economics for supply and demand.

[patternjuggler]

This is great for the consumer because is balances the economics further in the consumer's favor, makes true on the generality the "knowledge is power", and allows the consumer the keep the economy pumping by having more money to purchase other goods and services.

I think economics text base the whole theory of capitalism as a means to fairly distribute limited resources (actually I'm not sure if the goal is fairness or something else) on the idea that consumers have perfect knowledge about products and services. That's a long way from being true, but perhaps google will get us closer to it.

Re:Balancing the economics for supply and demand.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not understanding economics very well, the consumer has more to spend, but MONEY corporations "lose" is just displaced again anyhow, that means lower wages for industries in which there is an oversupply of workers (i.e. those that work at walmart) creating social problems. The fact physical resources are just displaced at least on earth where we do not yet have full access to resources of outer space.

Re:Goog£e

[masklinn]

The only information Google indexes is the one publicly available to every and any one.

Yahoo and Microsoft (with MSN Search) do exactly the same.

If you don't want search engines to have informations on you, just don't put these informations online. Plain and simple.

Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar

[giverson]

I know this is simply an anecdote, and as such may not apply to all of the Wal-Marts out there. Before I married her, my wife worked at Wal-Mart, and they certainly didn't kick people out for writing down prices. The line was when people stole the price tag on the shelf. Then they'd go after you.

Employees from big stores like that are often asked to go to competing stores and check prices on common merchandise.

Google is frightening

[louisfreeman]

You have to admit though, is knowledge = power (in this world it is more like: info = power) then moving a lot of info into everyone's hands (as in "into the hands of the corporations who will use it to make a proffit at the expense of .... us ? ") is a bit scary

Maybe this will help fight Wal-Mart

[dlasley]

We already know Wal-Mart is bad for small business, merchant exploitation, competition, and even larger suppliers, so I am in favor of anything that might allow good companies like Vlasic retain their ability to meet profit margins and pay their workers. I personally abhor and refuse to visit any of the Wally World constructs (or any of the other Mega-Lo-Marts) in favor of internet shopping and my wife's constant pursuit of the 1/2 price grocery store trip via coupon and sale shopping (not there yet, but getting closer). I also encourage anyone I work with or hang with to do the same, pointing out the examples above and following with the straight-forward explanation of how our family manages to avoid the ninth level of Hell.

Other Recent Ballmer Quotations...

[Dystopian Rebel]

"Google?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo!"

"GOOGLE?! AIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiii!"

"It is hereby forbidden effective immediately for employees and other on-site personnel to 'make googly eyes'."

"Just don't tell me that you're going to Goo... AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGH!" [throws chair]

just one word

[BlackShirt]

insane

Re:The dark side of Google

[lloydtesterman]

why?

Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar

[LostCluster]

Employees from big stores like that are often asked to go to competing stores and check prices on common merchandise.

And big stores like that consider somebody who is from another big store going to their store to check on prices to be tresspassing. Classic Spy vs. Spy situation.

The trick to that offer

[wowbagger]

Many stores, including to an extent WalMart, will offer that guarantee. However, while on the face of it the offer is good, the reality is that the offer is meaningless, as they have a trick to get around it.

Example:

You go into Z-Mart, and you see a Ricaroni 5 CD changer for $15. You pick up a Z-Mart flier showing the price.

You now head over to Q-Mart, and locate what initially appears to be the same Ricaroni 5 CD changer for $20. Since Q-Mart offers a "200% price difference" offer, you figure you are going to get the CD player for $10.

But wait! When you go to claim your offer, the friendly Q-Mart manager points out that the Z-Mart flier is offering a Ricaroni model #5551212-a player, and Q-Mart's is a Ricaroni model #5551212-b - a different model number. He then points out that their offer only applies to "the same model", and since this is NOT the same model number, it is not covered under their vaunted "200% price difference" offer.

Now, if you were able to check, you would find out that the only folks who have the model #5551212-a are Z-Mart, and the only folks who have the #5551212-b are Q-Mart. Moreover, if you could go to the Ricaroni manufacturing plant, you would see that the only difference between the model numbers is the model number sticker - they are otherwise the same unit.

Then why the model number difference? Because both Q-Mart and Z-Mart insist upon the model numbers they sell being unique - so that their "200% price guarantee" trick can work.

I've changed the names to protect the guilty, and obviously this trick isn't played on every item sold in every store, but it is played enough to allow the stores to offer tricks like this. And before you ask why the manufacturers go along with this - because when you are dealing with customers with the buying power of WalMart, BestBuy, and so on, you do what they want, or you don't sell product.

Re:The trick to that offer

[Bhalash]

Rubbish, I've yet to see such and I've worked for an electronic retailer for the past six years who offer a 110% price guarantee. All these companies purchase the same items from the same firms. While there are some common sense clauses attached - it can't be an online or otherwise special offer price, and has to be a store within five minutes, for instance - I've yet to see something rediculous like that crop up.

Re:The trick to that offer

[dr_dank]

The bedding industry is notorious for this. Many mattress stores advertise a price match policy similar to the one the parent describes. Mattress manufacturers, however, make "exclusive models" for stores that are identical in every way to their other products except for the model name. This guarantees (for example) that you'll never find a Sealy Kenmark Plush in any other store than the one chain you found it in. Since they can say that the mattresses aren't the same, they can weasel out of having to pricematch.

Re:The trick to that offer

[anticypher]

This happens in many consumer markets. The one that springs to mind is the "duty-free shopping" products.

The duty-free shops almost always have products that can NOT be found in regular consumer shops outside of airports. It specifically is to prevent comparison shopping. I have a friend who produces wines and champagnes, one set of labels for most of the products, another set of labels specifically for duty-free. The same thing happens with most of the products, like perfumes, chocolates, alcohols and electronics. The duty-free shops require a special size not available in regular consumer channels. You can see this if you end up buying perfume for the girlfriend just before travelling. Shops will carry 25ml and 50ml sizes, duty-free carries 35ml and 60ml at the same price (with local TVA) as 50ml and 75ml in the regular shops.

The volumes of consumer goods sold in competition-protected markets is so large that any mass producer has multiple packaging schemes. It is so common, that my online MBA courses mention the practice as normal and expected. Some database oriented friends tell me that all the big stock management systems (like Oracle and SAP) have functions for tracking multiple stock numbers for the same product, as well as tracking multiple margins for each version of the product.

the AC

Re:The trick to that offer

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiosity, what other weaselly but otherwise normal-and-expected practices does your online MBA course mention?

Re:The trick to that offer

[Kjella]

I'm surprised they haven't been slapped for this though. Here in Norway a large chain of electronics stores were prosecuted and fined for deceptive marketing, because they were offering a "price guarantee" on a product that existed nowhere else. I looked at it myself when I was buying washing machines. They each carried products from the same brand, same year but with slightly different model numbers. If you asked them about it, both would claim the other was selling "last year's model". They weren't 100% identical though, but no more different than minor convienience features enabled or disabled in firmware.

Re:The trick to that offer

[Eivind]

The different sizes aren't only for making comparison easier, but also as adaption to travellers allowances in several countries.

For example, when you allowance for hard liquor is 1 liter, it's really inconvenient that "standard" bottles for such in Europe are generally 0.7l and 0.35l. The Tax-free bottles are instead 0.5l and 1.0l which makes more sense in this scenario.

Secondly, the comparison is still pretty easy as prices listed per dacadic unit are very common (in some countries even required by law.) For example, regardless of the bottle-size prices in Germany will generally be listed pro liter. If I go in the shop and look at a 0.7l bottle of Bayleys it migth list the price as: "11.50 (16.43/l)"

Wow... idiots...

[Sr. Pato]

I don't know if someone's said this already, but it's worth saying again if it has:

Why should Google be held accountable for an indirect result of its technology doing what it does well? If so, then does this mean the **AA is right in defaming torrent because some people can use it for what they're not supposed to? And in this case with Google, I have to say only one thing, "Aw, muffin... Wal-Mart CEOs can't take the fact that people can buy their stuff somewhere else? Don't forget, you're not the *only* retail outlet in the world, no matter how hard you wish upon a star."

Sounds a lot like capitalism.. and mafia

[sl4shd0rk]

(fade in, dimly lit alley in back of walmart. 2am. Near dumpster)

Don Casalano: "Vinne, I'm glad you could meet wit' me at dis hour. we need too doo sumtin about dis.. ah, shall we say, dis 'discouragement' - dis..goooooo-gull"

Vinne: "You got it Don Casalano. Any'ting you say - you want meeta' whack um?"

Don Casalano: "Not yet Vinnie. First we send him a message. A short but to-da-point message. A message dat says stop interferin' in our biznizz. We don't need no help rollin' back da prices."

Vinne: "Wit all due respect Don Casalano, we aint had to send nobody dat message since Jimmie da Whip cut dat deal with Microsoft when we was sellin' them plain wrappa linux box--"

Don Casalano: "Vinnie, you're a sma't boy but don't get too sma't. Dis goooo-gul is irritatin' me like a boil in da crack'a my ass. If dey are gonna play, dey are gonna pay - now you go deliva dat message. I gotta call dis Ballma' guy back and see how his meetin' went.. I wonder if he t'rew da cha'ir like I told im to..."

Got that beat

[WindBourne]

Try Sam's Club.

Re:Got that beat

[Solandri]

Sam's Club is Walmart. As in Sam Walton, founder of Walmart.

Re:Got that beat

[WindBourne]

Woosh.

Lefdal in Norway has this sort of price guarantee

[Nichotin]

But they give you 150% of the price differente. In other words: 1) Purchase iPod Shuffle for like 1700NOK from Lefdal, 2) Show them a printout from Apple Store Education Norway (this worked for å friend of mine) which shows the shuffle costing somewhere around 1100NOK, 3) Get 900NOK back. Congrats, you have now gotten your iPod shuffle 1GB for 800NOK, which is 300NOK cheaper than from Apple :)

Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar

[dajak]

Hell, people open a package of cookies, eat 2 or 3, and then throw it on the ground and the managers do nothing.

Here in Amsterdam the staff might kill you, or at least beat you up, for behaviour like that. We have had quite a number of cases of excessively violent citizen arrests by staff in the last few years.

Re:The dark side of Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I could have modded this to a -1 level, but it really should be kept at, at least, a 1. But troll none the less.

Why?

Because its so obviously a troll.

It can be helpful to see the extreams.... why Slashdot encourages moderators to set to -1 in viewing posts they might mod.

Google does have to be careful of becomming big AND stupid. Just as any growing company does. And Google is no exception to the typical internal management problems such a growing company can have.

At a recent python training class I took, there were students from a varity of companies, including government. and outside of class there was decussion of who we worked for, what it is like. One of the students was from Google and he had alot of good thing to say about google, even commented that he felt he was being petty in regards to some of his benefits at google upon hearing about others of us having a lot less in the way of benefits where we work. He went on to say google is not immune to internal managenment problems... etc... but overall he realized how good he has it in comparison to others at other companies..

I'm cautious or any large company and quickly growing company, but also judge a company on its products and services and my interaction with them. Clearly for a company like google, their biggest threat is internal, the threat of their employess losing touch with what they have in losing touch with how much less others have outside of google.

In that spirit, keeping in touch with both ends of the spectrum.... the partent should perhaps really be at 1, but still tagged as a troll.

Re:And nobody in the business world understands it

[Anonymous Coward]

Give people what they want, instead of offering them a product and telling them that they want it because you want what's best for them.

It's AMD vs. Intel.

I love it!

Google doesn't worry Walmart... quite the opposite

[icepick72]

Google might soon be able to tell Wal-Mart shoppers if better bargains are available nearby.

Ya, good luck beating Walmart. I think that worry -- for Walmart anyway -- shouldn't be a problem. As for Google being worrisome to Walmart's competitors, there's the ticket. Soon our citys towns and even villages will just be Walmart buildings and nobody will use Google's shopping service because it will *always* point to Walmart.

Sams Club

[everphilski]

Sam's Club membership cost me $20 a year, and comparing it to my friend who has a Costco membership, I'm not missing anything. And yeah, Sams has better deals than Wal Mart, even as a single guy in college you can make use of it (5 pounds of cheese doodles? hell yes! more seriously though, meat in bulk... parcel it up and freeze it, save a few bucks here and there and the membership pays for itself a few times over)

-everphilski-

The reason Wal Mart makes a profit

[everphilski]

Is not because they have the lowest price on everything, but rather the lowest price on main-stream products. They make the big bucks on the non-mainstream items. Google could bring this into light.

-everphilski-

Walmart?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Walmart has much to worry about as far as prices go, it's places like BestBuy and Circuit City that still charge MSRP that do.

Traditional Corporate Mindset Doesn't Get It

[salesgeek]

Last week I had a series of meetings with attorneys and accountants about a new software product. It really helped me understand the corporate mindset that pervades the industry:

* IP, in and of itself is valued by attorneys because it generates huge ammounts of billable work. No attorney in his or her right mind would recommend using anything that resembels an open source license. Too many barriers to litigation and legal fees. No huge lawsuits, no complex negotiations.

* Accountants like IP because it is valued however you need it to be.

So when I threw out the idea of GPLing the software, the result was almost comical:

* One attorney tried to explain how he needed to read the GPL. And bill me hours to do so. (not going to happen)
* One attorney suggested I'd be giving away a cash cow. I asked him: yours or mine. And the answer was a "what do you mean by that?" (struck a nerve here)
* My accountant said the intangible asset would be useful at the end of the year, and that an open source license may dilute the value of the asset.

It's very clear to me now why most business people see Google as a threat: intellectual property speculation has replaced the bilking investors with electric lemonade stands and WebVans full of irrational exuberance of the late 90's as the trendy way to make money out of thin air. Reality is going to be absolutely harsh to IP squatters & speculators:

* Innovation renders entire swaths of intellectual property useless. In the case of copyright, style and fashion relegate properties to the clearance bin or worse.

* For every piece of prime real estate, there are thousands of acres of desert, swampland, uninhabitable mountain terrain and tundra. Investors, many of which think the latest biotech idea will pay off in 10-15 years will find out that their idea isn't the winner - and will find out that a worthless patent is about as useful as an EPA superfund site is a location for a strip mall.

* Easments, emminent domain and the like have not been established in the IP world, and for the public good they will have to be. And the best ideas are often the ones that will eventually be taken via emminent domain. After all, if I can take your office park in NJ because I can put a bigger one up that will generate more tax revenue, why not take, say your one click buy or miracle drug patent because I can put it to better use for the common good?

I hope that Greenspan's last act parallels his cooling of the internet bubble: throwing a barrel of icewatter on the out of control party that the current IP feeding frenzy has become.

Re:Traditional Corporate Mindset Doesn't Get It

[xiaomonkey]

and will find out that a worthless patent is about as useful as an EPA superfund site is a location for a strip mall.

Actually, in the silicon valley area, superfund sites and other toxic swaths of land are commonly used for strip malls as well as somewhat price housing.

• Some toxic sites in Mountain View, CA
• Mountain View, CA plume map

In the first map, the red super fund site near Showers Dr is currently the site of the San Antonio Shopping center (a somewhat large strip map with WalMart, 3 grocery stores, Sears, Ross, Mervyn's, Ride Aide, and a number of small resteraunts).

In the second map, I think the plume overlaps with some moderately pricey housing.

It's not just Mountain View either (it just happens to be the case that I'm most familiar with that area). Much of silicon valley is dotted with these sites that have now been built over.

Re:Traditional Corporate Mindset Doesn't Get It

[salesgeek]

Actually, in the silicon valley area, superfund sites and other toxic swaths of land are commonly used for strip malls

Leave it to California to provide the exception that proves the rule :) Seriously, when you don't have anywhere else to build, you clean up, cover over or cover up and keep on building... Never mind the seven headed, fire breathing babies.

Re:And nobody in the business world understands it

[lord sibn]

I believe there is a good chance you missed my point: Google is beginning to directly compete with a lot of major big-time players. Google sprouted up virtually overnight, and is already stealing marketshare from companies that have sprawled out their empire over the course of decades. This is an unprecedented level of growth, and Steve Ballmer is royally pissed that he hasn't found a way to compete with them yet. Wal*Mart is scared as well, because what if it's true? What if Google successfully leads people to consistently lower priced items? Especially lower priced, brand name, big ticket items? What is Wal*Mart going to do to compete? Their prices are already about as low as they can possibly get. You are right, that it is all about losing marketshare for Microsoft (and everybody else). If I indicated that I felt any other way about that, I apologise for the lack of clarity. I thought it was obvious that was the issue when I pointed out that these companies still have not found a way to compete with Google, which is quickly stealing away their customer bases.

Re:And nobody in the business world understands it

[lord sibn]

Fair enough, but remember: in this particular case, it is all about Google. Why don't you ever see MSN Search on slashdot? Because Microsoft just isn't doing anything newsworthy. Neither is Wal*Mart. Google does get a disproportionate slashdot presence, but it is an extremely active company, and nobody has found a very good way to compete with them. I wonder what will happen if Google ever captures 90% of a given market... would they continue to invest and dominate it, or let it slide for a while and work on something else (ala Microsoft)?

Google scaring wally?

[Tahir Azhar]

Soon to hit the theaters: "Shaun of the Nerds" followed by "Night of the Living Geek"

Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar

[giverson]

It probably varies from region to region, but where my wife worked the stores permitted it. It was simply when you went to far (ie stealing tags) that they had issues.

Power

[twitter]

For now, Google is the enemy of our enemies, and is perforce our friend.

No, Google is your friend. Google seeks to create and share information others create. As long as they believe in and fight for the right of others to do the same, they are your friend. This is the exact opposite and the cure for the insane but inate will to control others you see. The truth does set you free.

We now live in a VERY dangerous time in which the scales seem to be tipping in favor of an Orwellian outcome where all information is locked down tight and any attempt to look under the hood or otherwise perform any "unauthorized" operation on any information/data/operating code is met with a draconian response of severely criminalizing those who would attempt to do so.

Ah, true, but you do not go far enough in your understanding of collective oligarchy and current law. Creating and sharing information is also against the rules by the DMCA, a very real law. You are supposed to mindlessly consume information fed to you, not examine, share or even remember it. Control of information is key to establishing an Orwellian society. That society proves it's existence to itself through suffering. The result is a society that exists to make you misserrable.

In the pathetic WalMart example you see the motivation and an indication of how absolutely that motivation is applied. They are paranoid. Perfect information might hurt their sales and ability to take your money. Walmart is also freaky about taking pictures in their stores and other petty details. It's all about power and control. The small scale of this power and control is a good reason to be afraid. It indicates that no detail is too small to be controlled and manipulated. Power demands absolute power and the will to power is part of human nature. Small minded people get a kick out of such petty control but it's part of all of us and it's implications are much larger.

Orwell recognized this about human nature. He drew his conclusions from experience in the colonies of the British Empire, as a tramp in Paris and London, a witness to communist revolutions in Spain and the second world war. These were all terrible experiences where the ordinary rules of conduct were removed and people were free to do oppress each other in any way. So, I'll quote the master:

'The rule of the Party is for ever. Make that the starting-point of your thoughts.'

' You understand well enough how the Party maintains itself in power. Now tell me why we cling to power. What is our motive? Why should we want power?'

He knew in advance what O'Brien would say. That the Party did not seek power for its own ends, but only for the good of the majority. That it sought power because men in the mass were frail cowardly creatures who could not endure liberty or face the truth, and must be ruled over and systematically deceived by others who were stronger than themselves. That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better. That the party was the eternal guardian of the weak, a dedicated sect doing evil that good might come, sacrificing its own happiness to that of others.

'You are ruling over us for our own good,' he said feebly. 'You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore --'

He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O'Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five.

'That was stupid, Winston, stupid!' he said. 'You should know better than to say a thing like that.'

'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in thei

Re:Power

[DoraLives]

Ah, true, but you do not go far enough .....

Well spoken. Well quoted. Well worth extended consideration. You further elaborate my position for me nicely, and for that I tip my hat to you, sir. But I will continue to closely watch Google anyway. Times and men have a habit of changing, and I feel confident that Google is not somehow shielded from the currents of change and the unknown ways and places that they may lead to. That said, for now, Google is indeed my friend.

Re:Power

[Anonymous Coward]

Years ago, when I did a book report on 1984, I seized on that very passage as the most significant in the whole book. It's a hellish view of human nature, and all the more scary because it is so plausible.

Re:Power

[Castar]

I actually re-read 1984 recently, and last night I also re-read Fahrenheit 451. I think the distopian future we're headed towards is really more 451 than anything else (although it's a blend of both). There's no single "Party" trying to suppress rational thought and destroy information; rather it's arising out of a general social/corporate attitude, from the bottom up rather than the top down.

One other realization I've come to, along the lines of the grandparent - we have been protected from anti-free-information types thus far, simply because for the most part they didn't understand. People who understood the technology were likely to believe in the implicit goals of free information, available knowledge, and general belief in freedom vs. censorship. However, we're seeing that gap close, and we haven't got many other defenses. They're learning how the technology works, and they're even staying on the cutting edge, to make sure this sort of freedom doesn't somehow crop up again in the next wave of inventions. I think in a way, we saw the hole in the dragon's armor, and we have a shot at it - but it's currently patching it up. We had the tools to kill the beast, and we wounded it.

Corporates do not need to worry at all

[Budenny]

Did you all not read the news that Google has just bought a 767 as a corporate jet? This is the most infallible indicator of coming disaster that one could ever want. The news of the other things they are thinking of doing for the world, and to other businesses is also pretty funny.

It was nice while it lasted, but now its time to research those long term puts.

Re:Corporates do not need to worry at all

[ameline]

Yeah -- buying a 767 seems a bit stupid.

There's an old saying -- "It's easy to make a small fortune in aviation -- start with a large one.". Aircraft are very expensive to keep operating -- more expensive than most people realize.

I *know* they care

[NigelJohnstone]

" Do you honestly think that the majority of consumers care about where their products are made? "

Oh yes, I think they do. That's why I think these brands link themselves to American products/ US Atheletes etc. to give the impression of being a US product (Or Swiss or Italian or whatever).

"What most people care about is getting stuff, and artificial intelligence and the internet (which is really what this article is about, not Google per se) is making this cheaper by stimulating competition."

I say this again and again, price isn't everything, value for money is. If you can't tell if an Italian Luxury handbag is really an Italian Luxury Handbag and not just a Chinese bag with some finishing done in Italy to qualify for the "Made in Italy" label, then how can you determine value for money? Any search you get from Froogle doesn't help with that.

Plus how much can you save? Is it worth the extra drive and extra time? I really don't think Walmart has much to fear there.

Re:I *know* they care

[utexaspunk]

It doesn't make a difference is something is made in Italy or China if the materials and construction are the same, which they are. It's not like stitching made by Italian hands are any better than those made by Chinese hands- they're all made by machines anyway. If anything, I'd imagine that the Chinese laborers would be more skilled than the Italians. The whole "Made in XXXX" thing is just marketing crap. Products both great and lousy can come from anywhere.

Re:I *know* they care

[Eivind]

Do you honestly think that the majority of consumers care about where their products are made?

People are stupid. Advertising works.

We live in Germany, 30km from the Polish border. We recently bougth a new VW car. In Germany the car cost about 16000 euro, in Poland the same car costs around 12000.

Most people buy their cars in Germany all the same -- they wouldn't want any low quality polish crap.

Only, the thing is, the cars are identical, made in the same plant as part of the same series to the same standards.

It astounds me that people happily pay 4000 euros more for the exact same car to avoid getting one thats delivered by a company 30 km away.

Re:Goog£e

[abirdman]

I think you're ignoring the whole reason for Google's "other" products (besides search). With GMail, they know who I'm writing to, about what, and who's writing to me. I use my GMail account as a place for subscriptions, registrations, and the like, so they obviously know my interests on the net. All of the options on the Google Home page are designed to identify demographics (what's my local weather setting? What are my news and sports interests?). Am I searching for specific stores in Google Maps, or prices on specific items on Froogle? And with Picasa and Hello and Desktop search, they know what's on my computer, who I'm talking to in cyberspace, and even where I keep my pr0n. And with their blogspot service, they know what my personal and political views are. When their books service comes online, they'll know what I'm reading. The Toolbar could even let them know my most common spelling mistakes. All of these give them finely tuned demographic information that is priceless in advertising.

I would hesitate to call it just "publicly available" information, implying thereby that any other search engine could find out the same information. I don't think Google is evil in this, just canny and very, very smart. But it does give one reason to question how much "anonymous" information can be gathered before it becomes a threat to privacy. And keep our fingers crossed that they never change their motto to "Only do a little evil."

I feel threatened by Google, too...

[Hosiah]

With Google, readers could search for other comments more insightful/informative than mine. Then those other comments would get the mod points instead. Who needs all that competition?

Either I missed it or nobody said it....

[zappepcs]

There is a conspiracy theory concerning WalMart: First, Clinton opened trade with China... where is he from? Arkansas. Where is Walmart headquartered? Arkansas. Where is most of the stuff you buy from Walmart made? This is the biggest outsourcing project of all time, and government funded no less. Now, add to that that both Walmart and China are restrictive of information and its time to put the tin-foil hats on!

I have never been a fan of Walmart, and I don't think that Google is the altruistic god of geekdom, but I do wonder about such links as described above. Besides that, its time for someone to have a site that tells you where the best deals in town really are. I'm talking about a voice link service, maybe you tap in the store name and bar code and the service tells you where the best deal is, so that while you are in the store shopping you can decide if that is where you want to spend your money. Of course, I'd also like the service to tell you where the best deal on US made parts/items are too, so you get the choice of supporting your home country or having your dollars shipped overseas, but that is another matter.

Re:Either I missed it or nobody said it....

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, if you're talking about Clinton-China conspiracy theories you might want to mention the Chinese military contributions that were made to Clinton's re-election campaign. http://www.fas.org/news/china/1998/980521-prc2.htm
Probably insignificant, but when has that stopped a good conspiracy theory?

Monopolies-Everything wants to be free.

[Anonymous Coward]

"As it's shaping up right now, Google, monopoly or not, is beginning to look like the only thing that might possess the throw-weight to successfully counter the otherwise alarming trend that has recently manifested itself among almost all large capitalist enterprises, and that is the trend of restricting and choking access to information/data/operating code to the point where no one is able to access/use/employ that information/data/operating code without the considered permissions of whomever "owns" it."

"Your credit card number wants to be free".

Funny how capitalist can't "own" any thing they create*, but individuals can "own" what they create.

What they can't do (capitalist or individuals) do is deny you information they had no hand in creating.

*"Lexis-Nexis database wants to be free".

Re:WalMart: twist "better bargains are nearby" aro

[OneFix]

Because WalMart is rarely the lowest price in an area. They only claim they are...especially when you take into consideration instant/mail-in rebates. They simply can't beat those prices...but even on much simpler products like new release DVDs, they are often $4 or $5 over the lowest priced competitor...

Google vs Corporate Masses

[Anonymous Coward]

First look at how a business makes money. They all sell something. Some have their own products to sell, some, such as Wal Mart, sell products from other corporations, and Google sells advertising.

The corporations that sell products start by caring for the customer but as they grow they tend to lean more toward their investors concern rather than the customer's concerns. Investor concerns are all about greed. They want to make more money and to heck with how it is made.

Now Google, I believe is slightly different, in that what they sell is advertising space on they webpages they produce. Its the corporations that purchase the spaces so they can try to get people to come to their websites to look at their products. The webpages that Google produces are services that people seem to want by the way Google is growing. They must be doing something right.

Since lots of people want to use Google's services, lots of corportations want to advertise with Google. This is where Google makes it money. If Google's advertising section is kept seperate from the services it provides, Google won't end up like the other corporations and end up hurting the people that want the services since most all the money they make comes from basically the one source which is advertising. And even though these corporations may be scared of the information Google can produce, they still want to advertise with them because lots of regular people want to Google's services.

Basically, its in Google's best interest to keep the people happy that use Google services because that is what is going to bring in corporate advertising which is paying for most things at Google and that is what is going to keep Google investors happy as well.

Re:WalMart: twist "better bargains are nearby" aro

[dohnut]

Why are you so afraid that Google might tell (potential patrons that there are better prices available nearby - when you, too, could be making use of this technology ?

I don't think you understand, no one needs to use this technology, not us and especially not the consumer. Wal-Mart has the lowest prices -- Period! Haven't you seen any of our billions of dollars of marketing propaganda? Why the need to confirm online what you already know in your heart to be true? Wal-Mart cannot be beaten on price! How can there be any doubt? Why are you wasting precious time comparison shopping? You're making us cry, is that what you wanted? We forgive you.

Re:And nobody in the business world understands it

[rpetre]

Google has become ubiquitous; They make products people want to use. And they don't even feel compelled to say "customer satisfaction is our number one priority!" on every sign, railing, and even doormat in the building.

Wrong. We (as in "the people that use google search/mail/im/whatever") are not Google's customers. We are Google's material. Google gets its revenue from advertising, not from free stuff. The advertisers are Google's customer. So the complete phrase would be "Google makes products people want to use so badly that they are willing to spend their bandwith/eyeball time/clicks/money on Google's customers' ads".

So let's stop deluding ourselves that Google cares for the people. We're just sheep in the grand scheme of things. But look at those pretty Ajax pens!

Already some search engines doing bricks + mortar

[WampagingWabbits]

There are already some sites offering searches of local/off-line/bricks + mortar stores. In the US it's shoplocal.com, cairo.com, stepup.com. In the UK it will soon be askthelocal.com, who are in beta. I guess the major search engines will get on board eventually...

Re:So, if Google is a threat, then WalMart must al

[Anpheus]

And you're not too far off. If Wal-Mart could save money by using its own shipping service, it will. Coincidentally, I often find wal-mart and sam's club marked trucks at the back of their respective lots.

Sounds like time for GoogleDeals

[planetjay]

Maybe we'll see deals.google.com next year. Indexing YOUR Sunday flyers Please enter your zip code.

Google Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

I am waiting for the special edition of Googgle: the one that maps information on politics. I would like to get all publicly available documents of all governments, political parties, speaches, transcripts of all legislation sessions and meeting related to legislation, name of financial contributors, bios of all politicians, bios of all advisors, lobbyist, all financial transactions, etc.

After all, all items here are paid by tax payers, none of these items can be hidden behind corporate "policies".

Every single piece of legislation should be "froogled", to point out the winners and loosers, persons or corporate entities, who supported, who was against it, and how actually the piece of legislation was won by one or an other interest.

There will be very interesting revelations how the world really works.

In fact, today's politics is so complex, distorted in so many ways by media spin, etc., that this would be the only way for the public to even have a chance to follow politics and vote based on knowledge, instead of emotions and perception.

In fact, even legislators have a great deal of difficulty to know what's happening in details.

Just remember the politician in the Michael Moore documentary, who said, you just don't think that we can read the hundreds of pages of a legislation we need to vote on, son?

Just FYI

[Andy Dodd]

Sams Club and Wal-Mart are the same company.

Re:Price as corporate intellectual property

[Anonymous Coward]

Price is prorietory information, own by the corporation.
Once you leave the store you will be search, your brain will be cleaned to forget our prices in order to protect corporate intellectual property.

Hence the Data Protection Act.

[KitesWorld]

I don't know how it works in the US, but Googles UK operation has to stay within the confines set out by the Data Protection Act.

You can actually do a quick search of UK companies and find out what infomation they're collecting as a result of the act. Yup, Even Google.

Data Controller Search from the Uk's Infomation Commissioners Office. Compare Google to Microsoft - and note that Microsoft sells personal infomation to third parties. Google, on the other hand, does not.

Fear is good

[TarrySingh]

It'll make you either come up with something innvative or with some devious plan. Remember walmart is a massive giant, it can eat the whole IT industry and not even burp. It's soo freaking huge!

With a good review system

[Deliveranc3]

And a flawless lowest pricing poof there goes the retail channel.

It's not hard.

Re:With a good review system

[/dev/trash]

regarding your sig.

PuppyLinux on a USB flash drive. Boot from that. setup networking. Network install.

EXCUSE ME ...

[cg0def]

and that would be bad for the consumer how? I am sorry but I couldn't care less for walmart if they are not giving me a good deal and the same goes for pretty much any other store. Or maybe it is the great atmosphere and the customer service that would make me pay more ... ( not that I have had any problems with the customer service at my Walmart ) ... still it's all about the cheese ...

Re:EXCUSE ME ...

[cdrguru]

The problem is that Wal-Mart can give you the best deal. Always. If they need to.

OK, so right now they don't always need to. Because of this, they can sell some stuff at higher prices, make more money. Good for them.

The problem is that they are big enough to pressure manufacturers to give them better prices than they give to anyone else. They walk in with a contract that says they get the best price, at least some percentage better than the price given to anyone else. You want your stuff sold at Wal-Mart, you agree. If not, no problem, they go to your manufacturing competition and make the deal with them.

So, Wal-Mart ends up having to give the best prices on everything, all the time. Maybe they make a little less money on each sale. Benefit to them is that at the end of the year, all the other stores are gone. Much easier to have the best price around then.

You don't think they are thinking that way? Wal-Mart has always thought that way.

Hi

[alphapartic1e]

Eric Schmidt, is that you?

Re:Hi

[DoraLives]

Eric Schmidt, is that you?

Nope. Not here.

And besides, I'm not so sure the good doctor would be so rash as to include anything as subversive sounding as "then may we turn our attentions toward Google itself with an eye toward reducing such excesses of size as exist at that time."

But it was nice of you to attempt to impugn, just the same.

Been a pleasure chatting with you, Mr. Ballmer, good day sir.

Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar

[cdrguru]

Yes, but what is the one thing that could bring Wal-Mart out of a slump?

An information system in the hands of buyers that said they had the lowest price. No other information, just lowest price. So, if you are across the street at Target and can just bop over to Wal-Mart and save $10 on a big item, why wouldn't you?

Next time, you might just start at Wal-Mart and forget about Target. Even if they have better merchandise and a cleaner store.

Web mail sux.

[Moofar]

Yahoo does not support pop3, thus mail program cannot be used with it. Anyone who doesn't have a problem waiting for web mail to take 2 seconds to load everytime you click a button when there are very nice programs that do it instantly should be deemed a part of a lesser race.

Re:And nobody in the business world understands it

[Mistshadow2k4]

This is so very true. The business model of almost all corporations these days is "you'll buy what we offer and that's that, becaue we don't need you". They're not even trying - why bother trying to make good quality products when you can just patent everything and drive out competition? But competition appears anyway. And then they're response is "WTF?! We're losing money! Let's screw our customers for their pocket change!". It never even occurs to them to make better products or offer a better service in order to compete.

Yeah, I know this post sounds trollish, but that's the way it is in layman's terms. Crude, but true.

Re:The dark side of Google!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please forgive me, but I told you so. I predicted long ago that Google would break our country's national and patriotic backbone and make it ripe for the slave's yoke of international Stalinism. Now that it has, I'd like to express my thoughts on the matter. Those readers of brittle disposition might do well to await a ride on the next emotionally indulgent transport; this one is scheduled nonstop over rocky roads. As soon as you're strapped in, I'll announce something to the effect of how Google asserts that taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie. Doesn't Google realize that it frequently demands reparations for what only it perceives as injustices committed against it? After days of agonized pondering and reflection, I finally came to the conclusion that just because it and its followers don't like being labelled as "jaded ogres" or "biased hellions" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. Shameless libertines tend to dismiss reason, science, and objective reality. My reason is clear. If we look beyond Google's delusions of grandeur, we see that it hates it when you say that the hatchet jobs that its backers are so proud of are woefully gutless. Try saying that to them sometime, if you have a thick skin and don't mind having it shriek insults at you. They do nothing more than play a long-term penis contest.

In plain, simple-to-understand English, the next time Google decides to lead an active disinformation campaign, it should think to itself, cui bono? -- who benefits? While I agree with others' assessment that Google has a vested interest in making me lose heart, still, the more we give it, the more it wants. Let's remember that.

You shouldn't let yourself be flummoxed by Google's fast talk and air of self-confidence. Let me explain. The irony is that Google's most venal initiatives are also its most antisocial. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent." Sadly, in once sense, Google is correct. If we let it promote violence in all its forms -- physical, sexual, psychological, economical, and social -- then I will indisputably be forced to lose my temper. As sure as you're born, if we are powerless to shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas, it is because we have allowed Google to reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with its notions while punishing those who oppose them.

Are you beginning to get the picture here? It may seem difficult at first to end Google's control over the minds and souls of countless people. It is. But it has been brought to my attention that it is my greatest and most solemn pleasure to operate on today's real -- not tomorrow's ideal -- political terrain. While this is sincerely true, the baleful influence of commercialism is plainly evident in the palpable one-sidedness of Google's shell games. It is no more complicated than that. Google's functionaries argue that it can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. These are the same hectoring casuists who eroticize relations of dominance and subordination. This is no coincidence; Google's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Fuck it. Pull back the curtain of academicism and you'll see a nit-picky franion hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of racialism in an inerudite attempt to convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter. Don't get mad at me, okay? That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that Google has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which it's okay for it to indulge its every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. Then again, just because Google is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that it has the answers to everything. They are nothi

Re:Worker's Rights

[Intelligent Design]

Finding another job might solve the problem for yourself, but its unreasonable to expect the majority of your co-workers to do the same. People have bills to pay, moving isn't trivial, jobs aren't in surplus, and being poor living paycheck to paycheck makes it even more difficult. Unions are the way workers gain leverage on their employers. In cases where businesses have more incentive (e.g. if they can do it, get away with it, and make more money at it) to trample on workers than respect their rights, unions are absolutely necessary. If the government doesn't regulate (e.g. enforcing a living wage, not 5.15 an hour) and the employees don't organize and bargain to earn their rights, exploitation is inevitable.

America happens to have a large middle class because workers before us fought vigorously and against all odds (which you won't be taught in school). After losing that round, corporations chose to build their factories overseas where there aren't unions or government regulations, leaving behind huge abandoned factories, thousands of jobs, and ghettos at home.

A good alternative is worker-owned factories.

Re:And nobody in the business world understands it

[xenocide2]

Google's business model is dead simple: purchase lots of computing facilities, and set a ton of intelligent people on the task of using them to make business decisions. This typically means computer experts, economists and finance experts all working together on wierd things like hidden markov models, or whatever else powers AdSense. This is the same strategy that's also placed Wal-mart as one of the largest companies in the world. Walmart brings in several finance experts and datamining experts to sift through their transactions for trends (such as pop tart sales during hurricanes, or an above average correlation of having beer and diapers in the same shopping cart). So this business technique is not lost on the giants of the world.

The difference is that aside from the computing facilities at Google, the only thing of physical value Google has is 7 billion dollars in the bank. That's enough money to find almost any high margin market and show up en force within six months. The only two I can think of off the top of my head that Google can't change the landscape of in six months is Pharmeceuticals and Defense Contracting. I'm reasonably certain neither one is something Google wants to be in, though. The only thing outside of more Internet related activity Google might pursue is Banking. Although if they did set up a bank, I suspect it would also be heavily internet related. However, there's a lot of software to be built for a banking institution, and it would be in Google's best interests to built it itself-- you've got loans (possibly) to deal with, and fraud detection / prevention... the list goes on. It's been speculated that they're coming out with something to allow money transactions across the internet, similar to Paypal I suppose.

Amazon also tries the same thing, although they're focused on retailing and other markets. Wal-mart should really be much more worried about Amazon, and they probably are. Amazon sells a lot of the same stuff Walmart does, without the expenses of however many thousands of stores Walmart operates. I think you over simplify the problem. I don't think many businesses believe that they're giving people what they don't want or need.

or tell them about their wonderful benefits

[bahwi]

Or google may help everyone find out about the employee benefits at Wal-Mart, such as their excellent Health Care among others.

Wal-Mart isn't always the cheapest

[Szplug]

according to an ex-manager in some documentary. They'll /lead/ so to speak with some wildly low-priced items to set an impression, but they're not the cheapest on everything.

Tell that to Geox and Gucci

[NigelJohnstone]

"It's not like stitching made by Italian hands are any better than those made by Chinese hands- they're all made by machines anyway."

Except Italy didn't make crap budget shoes and China does. So if you buy expensive shoes made in China you can't be as sure they are good quality as if you bought expensive shoes from Italy. So there is a difference: the risk of poor quality.

This is what the brands are trying to cash in on (from the first article I quoted):

Eros Scattolin, international public relations executive, faces this situation at Geox, a shoe brand headquartered in the Italian province of Treviso. Founded in 1995, the company now sells to 51 countries and boasts a turnover of 181 million (US$211M). Although Geox considers itself an Italian brand, it depends heavily on outside countries to make its shoes. For instance the company owns a plant in the Romanian city of Timisoara, which employs 2,000 locals to work under the direct supervision of 50 Italian masters.

Says Scattolin, "From our point of view, it doesn't matter where you produce, but how you do it. We could keep on producing our shoes in Italy but they should cost much more." Instead, while a small segment of Geox's production is in fact still in Italy, the company works in "Romania, Slovakia, Mexico and China as well."

Re:Tell that to Geox and Gucci

[utexaspunk]

So it's not about whether or not they're made in China, because most of them are at least partly made in China. It's about whether or not it's coming from a brand that gives a crap about quality. Now there may be a lot of cheap, lo-quality brands that make stuff in China, but it does not follow that everything that comes out of China is crap, or that being made in Italy necessarily makes a pair of shoes good. In the end, it doesn't matter the nationality of the brand or its craftsmen- it's just about the quality of the product, and where in the world it is made has no bearing on that.

My complaint about the Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

The Troll's morals are so rife with ignorance, erroneous information, and poorly conceived notions of sensationalism that I hardly know where to begin. Even disregarding obvious errors like his insistence that it's okay if his analects initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend, the fallacies of his claims are glaring to those of us who have educated ourselves about the implications of exclusionism. Before I launch into my rant, permit me the prelude caveat that from secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, his surrogates have always found a way to keep us hypnotized so we don't justify condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of him and his illiberal reports. Admittedly, the wisdom that comes from maturation of the spirit, mind, and body will some day prevail over the idiocy of the Troll's self-fulfilling prophecies. But that's because the irony is that the Troll's most chauvinistic flimflams are also his most bitter. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent."

The Troll runs at the first sign of trouble. In fact, I have said that to the Troll on many occasions and I will keep on saying it until he stops trying to compromise the free and open nature of public discourse. He wants to rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. With all due respect, the purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how brusque and logorrheic the Troll has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how I plan to protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of self-satisfied, flippant voluptuaries. Are you with me -- or against me? Whatever you decide, what I call high-handed recalcitrant-types serve as the priests in the Troll's cult of improvident-to-the-core Fabianism. These "priests" spend their days basking in the Troll's reflected glory, pausing only when the Troll instructs them to prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture. What could be more brassbound? He doesn't want you to know the answer to that question; he wants to ensure you don't demonstrate conclusively that he is a paragon of evil at its most wicked. The Troll promises that if we give him and his henchmen additional powers, he'll guard us from shiftless jabberers. My question, however is, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -- Who will guard the guards?

In the Troll's memoirs, jingoism is witting and unremitting, irritable and pouty. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to make it nearly impossible to disturb his antisocial, nugatory gravy train. Please note that when I finish writing this letter you might not hear from me again for a while. I simply don't have enough strength left to take the initiative to shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas. Nevertheless, when the Troll hears anyone say that his demands are based on prejudices and preconceived notions, his answer is to do the devil's work. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to replace today's chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose. Let me close where I began: At the heart of the problem is the Troll's obliviousness to history, his moral cowardice masked in bold rhetoric, and his overwhelmingly shallow political posturing.

Google already does that

[glinden]

Google might soon be able to tell Wal-Mart shoppers if better bargains are available nearby.

Google is pretty close to doing that already. In a retail store, when you're looking at something on the store shelf, try using your cell phone to send a text message to Google SMS with the word "price" and the UPC code or a brief description. Google will get back to you in a few seconds with what online retailers are charging for that item.

Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar

[Anonymous Coward]

Walmart needs customers with money, customers that are not going to shop at a cheap place that depends on illigal immigrants and desperate mothers. Shoppers that are going to value reasonable working conditions over wide aisles.

No it doesn't. Neither does Nike, Reebok, Victoria's Secret, or any of the other dozens of multinational corporations that rely on slave labor for cheap products. American consumers are fully aware of the circumstances behind the production of those brands and still don't care.

Large media companies are quietly terrified

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a very large, well-known media company who would frown on me sharing this (thus the anonymity) and I can assure you that those in the upper ranks of media companies are scared shitless and terrified out of their minds at what Google may represent. And that's the problem. Most media big shots have no understanding of the Internet and things like Google so it's this murky, ill-defined threat that they see and that makes it all the more evil to them. The sad part is that, if they adopt the right attitude, it could benefit them instead.

But that's not how it works out. Where I work, there is a plain and simple attitude that Google is the enemy, and that attitude approaches a religious pitch at time. Books and articles are distributed to the staff that show what Google is (supposedly) working on or trying to do, although most of those things are written by blowhards who have no clue and are just pulling things out of their ass. It serves to feed the general fear.

I'm one of the few who disagree but I'm totally in the minority so I stand little to gain by going against that. Policies, especially with regard to online content, are being crafted around the idea we must be totally on the defensive toward Google. Just 6 months ago, the Associated Press announced a new policy to start charging for content that they never charged for previously and that was almost entirely in response to Google's news page. They want to hobble that as badly as they can but can't do it and don't fully understand how such a thing can benefit them as much as it can hurt them.

I personally think this attitude is idiotic and a recipe for disaster. But as I said, I'm in the minority. I do what I can to illuminate the real issues, but there's too much fear and paranoia and there's little anyone can do. To them, the bottom line is that Google is the enemy. End of story.

Re:And nobody in the business world understands it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but at least Google's grass-feeding us without using growth hormones, overcrowded pens, etc.

Small scale internet bargain shopping

[Simonetta]

I've recently started using the web instead of the newspaper to compare the weekly food sales at the local supermarkets. After ten years, the supermarket chains have finally realized that many more young people are using the web instead the newspaper for shopping information.

    The real threat to the big-box shopping outlets isn't from people googling for information of other big-box outlets, it's from people forming 'buying clubs' for their shopping from the ground up. It could be as simple as splitting a bulk buy from CostCo ("Anyone want to split a purchase of 100 rolls of toilet paper?") or as complex as setting up the purchase of the entire harvest of a farm located in a different state split between thirty families.

    What the big-box outlets should realize is that they won't know that this high-information purchasing arrangements are happening. Their sales won't drop enough to trigger an alert, and no one entering alternate purchasing groups is going to be telling the big-box stores about their new arrangements. It would be a new market that starts and operates under their radar.

    An example of this would be found now on eBay. Take for example used music instrument equipment for pop/rock bands. There's millions of instruments, amps, and sound modifiers that have been sold and not all that many rock bands making money from live music. But the music stores are completely oriented around selling new instruments at high prices to either bands squandering a record company advance or teenagers getting music equipment as a gift from their parents. So there is lots of stuff that is sitting in closets, lots of people who would be willing to buy the stuff, and no public developed markets to bring these parties together.

    Enter eBay. Every day there's about 5000 stompboxes for sale at prices 1/10 to 1/2 of what the music stores are selling for the same item, along with thousands of instruments and amps. In my experience, the music stores have absolutely no clue that this alternative market has developed and is thriving. They are also not getting any of the money that is being exchanged: eBay and PayPal is getting the money.

    Successful retailing is a combination of three things: a secure location for the merchandise to be stored and exchanged; information of the market-what people want to buy, what they will pay, what is being produced for sale, and what price it will be produced; and starting capital-money to get the business started and sustained. The web will significantly reduce to the customers the cost of information of the market, and eventually reduce the cost of the other items as well.

    One by one the executives for the big-box outlets will become aware that grass-roots markets have developed outside their knowledge and control. What they do in response will depend on their intelligence and ethics. And we all know the level of intelligence and ethics of WalMart.

Re:This is especially true

[symbolic]

Behind the almighty Google, no matter how benevolent its founders may be, are the shareholders. For the most part, shareholders don't care how many people are screwed in the process, as long as they get a satisfactory return on their investment. One day, Google's board could easily decide that a change in direction is in order, and that could very well be something to worry about.

Re:This is especially true

[PHPfanboy]

Yeah and who are the shareholders? It's those fucking venture capitalists and Asset Managers managing billions of $ and not giving a shit about the little guy. Yeah. And where do they get those millions of dollars from? From Pension funds mostly looking for risky investments of a portion of their portfolio. And where do those bastard pension funds get their money from? From little guys like me, and why do they need to invest? as people these days shag loads but don't have offspring so there'll be no kids to pay for my ripe old age. Hang on, so I'm an indirect shareholder?

My head hurts. I'm going to lie down a while. But will someone please tell me whether I need to love or hate shareholders? Thanks Slashdot for causing me to curry favor with people I'll never meet!

Brand Italy

[NigelJohnstone]

"It's about whether or not it's coming from a brand that gives a crap about quality. "

You're thinking in terms of "brand Geox", I'm thinking in terms of "Brand Italy". Brand Italy gives a crap about quality of product, brand China doesn't.

"In the end, it doesn't matter the nationality of the brand or its craftsmen- it's just about the quality of the product, and where in the world it is made has no bearing on that."

What I want to see is the labeling directive resurrected, so that makers of goods have to state (up to a max of 5) the places (by order of value) the goods were sourced from. If what you say is true and there is no difference, and the consumer doesn't care, then it makes no difference to manufacturers.

However I think it does matter, I think French cheese is better than American cheese and Swiss watches are better than Chinese watches, and it bothers me that there are false brands that pretend to be Swiss watch makers, when they simply assemble nearly finished watches and stamp "made is Switzerland" on them and because of that I can't trust "made in Switzerland" brand or "made in Italy" brand.

Re:Brand Italy

[utexaspunk]

Oh, the consumer cares. But the consumer is not rational in that regard. That's why the marketing works. Convince the consumer that the mark "Made in Italy" means something, and they're willing to pay more for it. It was true at one point, a long time ago, that Italians had perfected methods of making shoes that others hadn't, much like the Swiss with regard to watches and the French with cheese. But for the most part it's not the same anymore. Those products are made pretty much the same way wherever they're made. Whatever cachet the mark carries is residual, and largely a result of nationalistic fervor. Those "other" people can't POSSIBLY make something as good as we do! Nooooo! This is much like how people used to percieve Japanese cars/electronics as crap, and then as high quality. And now a lot of Japanese cars are actually made in America. So are they crap now? It just depends on the product. The nationality means little, as an indicator of quality, and as globalization continues it will mean less and less.

Wal-mart target market doesn't use Google.

[danielsfca2]

Perhaps Circuit City, etc. should be concerned, however...

Wal-Mart need not worry. Its main target market is too stupid to have even heard of Google. When they need to find information online, they type, for example, "www.where can i get a good deal on cheap underwear.com" into the MSN SEARCH box on IE's default homepage.

Re:Wal-mart target market doesn't use Google.

[Lord Flipper]

"Wal-Mart need not worry. Its main target market is too stupid to have even heard of Google. When they need to find information online, they type, for example, "www.where can i get a good deal on cheap underwear.com" into the MSN SEARCH box on IE's default homepage."

Oh that's great, here's our resident arrogant spoiled whiteboy, slummin' it in mom's basement, passing judgement on strangers.

Listen up, 'smart' guy: Most of Wal-Mart's target clientele is lower working class poor and straight up 'poor' people. That's true. Wal-Mart creates poor folks overseas, employs working poor here, and sells to poor people and bargain hunters.

But stupid?

Try disadvantaged. Or maybe members of the lowest end of the two-tiered class structure of the Internet-connected. In other words, the disenfranchised. Individually, they may or not be very well educated. Chances are, they aren't in the 'class' of the educated, either. But that means they're ignorant. And guess what? There's a cure for that, it's called 'education'.

But the disease affecting you, the white kid equating disenfranchisement and poor education (and its attendant 'ignorance') with 'stupid', is actually "stupidity"...and there may, or may not, be a cure for that, since 'stupidity', unlike ignorance, can be eternal.

Who knows? I know this: You're a spoiled, arrogant, and yes, "stupid" individual, and probably racist, also. Or is it just poor people you think are 'stupid', regardless of color? At any rate, you, my friend, are a prime example of the real 'problem' afflicting this country: Stupid people, having wasted their freeloading upbringing and education, and espousing poorly thought out opinions of people and classes they know nothing about, and then, probably, to make mattters worse, voting for folks who seem to mirror your own racist, arrogant stupidity.

Need I say...Fuck you?

Have a nice, hateful life, asshole

Re:Wal-mart target market doesn't use Google.

[danielsfca2]

Oh man. I was just making a joke, my friend.

In fact, if I had thought of the word "ignorant" while I was writing, it would have definitely conveyed what I was trying to say better. I just have a tendency to say "stupid" when"ignorant" more accurately describes what I mean (which was, exaggerating of course to make a joke, but the idea was they wouldn't have any idea how to use Google because MSN is what came up by default and no one's ever showed them otherwise). You're right, that's not their fault, unless they're voluntarily ignorant, have been educated but don't care. There are people like that in every socioeconomic stratus.

As far as your judgment of me, I personally think education should be our nation's top, #1, absolute first priority. I also come from a family that's well below the poverty line, and I know exactly what being poor is like. My rent (which I pay for out of my own pocket) is 3/4 of my household income, and I am also an undergraduate student (my education, likewise, is not paid for by my family or anyone else).

And the reason why I don't like Wal-Mart and won't shop there, isn't because I can't stand rubbing shoulders with the poor--my earnings are lower than most of theirs anyway. It's because I don't support their business model of building riches for themselves on the backs of the a poor class that they make bigger all the time. It sounds like we might agree on this point.

And just to make things super clear: I don't vote for people who hate the poor, because I don't hate the poor either. And, y'know, because I am poor.

The thing about Google is this...

[slappyjack]

it never seemed to me that Google ever bought into that dot-com silliness. They made a nice little search engine, then let it just do it's thing with some tending and development and let the world discover it. There were no huge Super Bowl ads, there wasn't a lot of jumping up and down and arm waving and screaming "LOOK AT US! AREN'T WE COOL!?"

They simply made someting that worked well, and let people find their own use for it. Thats pretty much what they do with all their projets now. They build it, we find uses for it, they save a fat wad of cash not developing rediculous ad campaigns and trying to force "impressions of their brand" on us, yet they're the most recognizable internet brand out there.

Maybe these other corporations need to take a look at that - do something well and you don't HAVE TO make a bunch of noise to get people to notice you, because you'll be seen useful.

The movies have taught us one thing: the amount of insubstantial noise made over a film is directly proportional to its crappiness. I'm amazed how few people have learned that lesson yet.

Once this lesson is actually learned, the entire markeing/branding industry will go direcly into the shitter; but is that a BAD thing? Maybe those people can go get real jobs actually MAKING something of use.

What should really make them feel threatened is...

[aliquis]

... if they thought about google going into selling gods on the Internet.

As usual "other" market forces are evil...

[TractorBarry]

Google might soon be able to tell Wal-Mart shoppers if better bargains are available nearby.

Don't you just love the way avowed capitalists always start crying and stamping their feet whem somebody else exhibits capitalist behaviour ?

"Let the market decide".. But only when WE control the market.

Wankers.

Idiocy...hypocrisy...

[Karyyk]

Idiiotic... If Wal-Mart is really committed to being the low-price leader they claim to be, maybe it would be wise to use Google as a tool to make sure they remain just that, instead of seeing it as a threat that could cost them business. Knowledge is power, and apparently Wal-Mart fears that. Does anyone want to support that? I'll gladly pay a few bucks more elsewhere.

Breyer doesn't seem to be up on the times...

[Fordiman]

From TFA: "Google might soon be able to tell Wal-Mart shoppers if better bargains are available..."

Doesn't... doesn't Froogle already do this?

Vlasic Pickles

[patio11]

The pickle brand my mother and I both use are Vlasic Pickles. Google found the right spelling (I had put in another s and a k). Thought you'd like to know. Oh, they really are good pickles -- you pay an absurd amount for them relative to the generic brand right next to them but the taste is worth it, even without the 25 cent off coupon.

Web APIs

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's not the search engines, its the information they should fear. Look at the CAT thing, I simply clicked on their financial details and did a search for 'China' to locate the information. Nothing to do with Google or Yahoo."

I see web API's and other standards like UDDI, SOAP, WSDL and the front-apps that use them, as the force they should fear.* And when the semantic web comes...look out!.

*GoogleAPI+EdgarAPI+Yellow pagesAPI+Front end=an informed consumer

Non-union shops in big corporations also tend...

[smagruder]

to promote mediocrity. I've been there... IBM, before unions came into play, and Prudential. Lots of dead wood in both of these shops.

As far as I'm concerned, capitalism is wonderful, BUT big corporations become fat and lazy. Why else do they tend to feed off the public trough? Because they don't know how to run a lean/energetic business after they get so big. They get too accustomed to fat profits and thus squeeze the fed's teats to ensure continued fat profits. I've had enough of this 'corporatism'.

Is a 'price' considered public information?

[smagruder]

The thought has crossed my mind that it would be nice if people could report and compare prices they encounter at various local stores. But I've then wondered: Is it legal to take the price information for an array of items from a store and offer them up to a public forum? Or is this info considered part of the public domain?

Re:This is especially true

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is why Google did the stock offering so that the publically traded shares have a fraction of the voting power of the shares the founders own.

As a small business owner

[no_pets]

As a new small business owner, I can honestly say that Google is now more of my friend than ever. I can quickly and easily find information on items I carry, my competitor carries or even items I might want to carry. I research online reviews and all-around better get to know products in my industry.

Google helps people to find my website and learn about me as well.

That having been said it does not remove my need to visit my competitors down the street but I don't always have that luxury.