Slashdot Mirror
Less Than Free
VC Bill Gurley has up an insightful piece on the strategy behind Google's releasing turn-by-turn mapping for free. He calls it the "Less Than Free" business model, and it is beyond disruptive. On the day that Google announced its new service, the stock in the two companies that had controlled the market for map data, Garmin and TomTom, dropped by 16% and 21%, respectively. (Those companies had bought Google's erstwhile map-data suppliers, Tele Atlas and NavTeq, in 2007.) "When I asked a mobile industry veteran why carriers were so willing to dance with Google, a company they once feared, he suggested that Google was the 'lesser of two evils.' With Blackberry and iPhone grabbing more and more subs, the carriers were losing control of the customer UI... With Android, carriers could re-claim their customer 'deck.' Additionally, because Google has created an open source version of Android, carriers believe they have an 'out' if they part ways with Google in the future. I then asked my friend, 'So why would they ever use the Google (non open source) license version?' ... Here was the big punch line — because Google will give you ad splits on search if you use that version! That's right; Google will pay you to use their mobile OS. I like to call this the 'less than free' business model. This is a remarkable card to play. Because of its dominance in search, Google has ad rates that blow away the competition. To compete at an equally 'less than free' price point, Symbian or Windows Mobile would need to subsidize." Gurley speculates that the company may broaden "less than free" to include the Google Chrome OS.
The virtue of Android, from the carrier's perspective, is that it allows them to create terrible branded user experiences.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
or something...
Let's see, using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market. Check!
It's certainly a hard deal to pass up for carriers. Is leveraging like this considered to be approaching an abuse of monopoly for Google?
Wouldn't that be more than free?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
or something...
Let's see, using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market. Check!
Aww, come on. It's Google. It's not like they'll ever do EVIL. (Cue aside about bridge in NY or swampland in FL here...)
Besides, all their "cool" stuff impresses the easily impressionable. "OHHH! LOOK! NEW SHINY!" So that makes it OK.
So, Google are leveraging their monopoly in search/advertising to break into the mobile platform market? Is this Google being evil?
When I first read this I thought about IBM back in the day. They could put a small company out of business simply by announcing, "Yeah, we're working on that too." And they had to fight off some well-founded lawsuits. Eventually, IBM became known for quiet and consistent R&D (Giant MR comes to mind) because they had to watch what they said.
Will that day come for Google? I think not (or it's a long way off). IBM's issues with the courts came around the same time Ma Bell was dismantled, which couldn't happen now.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Or is that "More than Free"? I'd consider getting a free operating system AND revenue to be MORE, not less... but perhaps that's semantics.
It seems like somebody was desperate to write an anti-google story. He seem to be highly suspicious of the carriers for daring to want to compete with the iPod and the Blackberry; than, he seems to be surprised that Google PAYS people to use the version of the Android OS that Google actually PROFITS from.
There's nothing really nefarious here. It's how it was intended to work from the inception.
The operative word being "dominant". Google isn't the only big-time company that obviously throws money at people to use their shit (remember MLB and Obama's inaguration streaming with respect to Silverlight?), but they might be one of the few to actually succeed at it.
Bing is a joke, Yahoo is for 12 year-olds. If the other giants actually innovated instead of rehashing and hyping to death the same tired shit, maybe we'd have some real competition.
Didnt Intel just get taken to court by AMD over something very similar? Intel was paying HP and Dell to use there chips (the less than free approach).
I wonder how long before Tom Tom/ Garmin/ Microsoft/ Apple / Palm/ Nokia take them to court before damage is done.
Its very anti-competitive. Brilliant...but anti-competitive.
The one thing about Google you have to understand is that they employ lots of very smart people: they employ scientists, research graduates, economists, technicians and business people. They have calculated with sheer intelligence all business moves: they know what they need to do to get the best business and business position.
In short, they are the foundation. Eventually they will collect all human knowledge and make the encyclopedia that encompasses all human knowledge... this is just a rouse for the real purpose of Google...
I wonder if they employ psychologists?
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
Please clue me in. Roads don't get built or moved THAT often. I have an automotive GPS with a gigabyte of maps in ROM and it works fine with no internet. Annual updates are available, but even those aren't really necessary. Before I got the GPS, I used a book of printed maps that was about a decade old, and even in my busy exurban area, the age of the map was almost never a problem. It's not like a weather report. The idea that I need up-to-the-minute online data about where the roads and towns are is just weird. What am I missing?
Cue the Johnny Trustbusters. What exactly do they have a monopoly on? Searching? Right, I only have about a dozen alternatives.
That would make sense if you could demonstrate how they are leveraging their current "monopoly" (search) to dominate in another area (mobile phone OS, Sat Nav). This is VERY different from having a dominant (and convicted) monopoly in one type of operating system (desktop) and then using that to shift into other operating system areas (Mobile, Gaming, etc).
Its the difference between GE and Standard Oil. Being GOOD at different things is fine.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Navteq was aquired by Nokia.
Food: It's whats for dinner
I don't really think these products compete with each other. The free google service requires you to have an up and running internet connection, while the garmin and Tom Tom products have built in maps to use and require no internet connection.
I imagine that if you were to use the google free service in your car for a month everywhere you drove, it would cost a tremendous amount unless you have some kind of truly unlimited data plan. Not only that, but you can't use it unless you can get an internet connection.
This might make the non free devices look cheap in the long run. So to me it seems they really don't compete with each other. The google service
sounds great for occasional use, but I'm not sure how practical it will be for constant use.
It's only a matter of time before Android takes over top market share for smartphones, the only real question is how long it takes. Now before you start screaming fan boy, bear with me here.
- Android is free
- Android can run on almost any piece of modern hardware, on any carrier (you listening Apple? probably not.)
- Every major carrier and every major smartphone maker either already has an Android phone, or has one in the works
- Being open source, carriers and smartphone makers can customize it as little or as much as they want
- Once smart phone makers are hooked on free, the only reason to dump Android is if there's a better mobile phone operating system out there that's worth the cost. Tough to do considering Android will be constantly approved upon given it's open source. Seriously, why dump Android to pay a per unit license fee when Android can do everything most smartphone users want their phone to do (and more in some cases)?
Some disclaimers apply here:
- No I don't have an Android phone, but yes I've used it enough to be familiar with it (including 2.0).
- I don't think its 100% there yet, but it's not far.
- Apples UI design is definitely better.
I'm sure some will disagree with me, and that's fine. Obviously this is my opinion and a guess. If you're looking for some ammo though, I use a Pre, switched from an iPhone and am pretty darn happy with it.
No it's not. Having dominance in one market is a monopoly. Using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market is an illegal monopolistic activity, in some countries anyway. Using a strategy that gave you a monopoly in one market, in another market is perfectly acceptable though which I think is what Google is really doing here.
ayottesoftware.com
...It's bad enough that they crawl though emails to find advertising targets, but the OS is one of their biggest plays yet to analyse every piece of seemingly benign and anonymous user data and assemble a specific user profile. Think about that: one company; the single biggest commercial data-miner knowing many of your details and habits and inferring others. Would they try to extract every possible profit out of that? Personally the last data-mining straw from google was them wanting my mobile number to create an email account. For verification? Yeah right... Wouldn't they just love to add that to the profile.
you are very happy to point out that MS is convicted for abuse of a monopoly position, which is true, but please try not to make it complete fud-style.
First of all, having a monopoly is legal. Nothing wrong with that.
Secondly, MS got only convicted way after becoming a monopoly, AND abusing that position to work themselves into other market. Your comment makes it sound like it's the other way around.
Google can be argued to have a dominant position in search and online advertising, whether it qualifies as a monopoly you will have to ask a judge.
This subsidising of an ad-supported operating system imho does reek of abuse of position in one market (on-line advertising) to push out competitors in another market (mobile phone advertising).
You're not thinking BIG enough. Their stated goal is to monopolise any and all information available and put it in easily indexed electronic form. This includes, obviously, YOUR data, i.e. where you live/work (through IP tracking, gEarth), what you're interested in (Search, Youtube), what you consume (Marketplace, affiliates), aka your net worth, and any means you use to communicate and access data, be it through your PC (gDesktop, Chrome OS), mobile (Android+apps) or any other conceivable device/network.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Less than free as in beer, less than free as in freedom?
Don't be silly.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I thought we were talking about Google here, not Apple.
Nope. What market dominance did they need for this?
Please note, kdawson,
The day Google announced the free turn by turn navigation coincided with the day both companies announced corporate losses.
Who's to say how much either news contributed to the stock drops. I can't, and ignoring said fact skews the story. Bad editor, bad, bad.
I fail to see the harm. In order for this sort of thing to be illegal, some user somewhere has to come to actual harm somewhere. Instead of paying through the nose for navigation information (much of which is already public knowledge), people get it provided by advertising sponsors like they get their free TV. There's room for free TV and cable also. As long as the other providers provide a premium experience and content, they'll be fine.
Should they fail to provide a premium experience and content, they'll lose customers. Isn't that what's supposed to happen?
In the article he points out that Google wanted to do some things with the data that they didn't want to let Google do. They told Google no. In the old world, where the buyer of that data had no choice that would have been the end of the story. But now, apparently Google has the resources to build their own data and publish it however they like - they're not held hostage by the vendor of their information.
It seems fair to me that if Google takes the trouble to drive a car through and photograph every major intersection in the country, index it against their map, address and aerial photographs, they ought to be able to publish that data any way they like.
In a world where we have monopoly after monopoly leveraging their power to prevent progress, here we have a powerful company leveraging its tremendous market power to cause progress to occur. I think that's fabulous.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
(fingers in ears) la la la la I can't here you la la la la
I've wondered about that. Their move into email is probably the biggest (even more than search) move into peoples' personal spaces as far as keyword/content access. People will send things via gmail, I expect, that they wouldn't dream of entering into a search engine.
Has anyone written a gmail plugin that encrypts gmail contents as it's received, so that the subject and body is never (or as close as is possible) stored in the gmail Inbox in plaintext? If nothing else, a plugin that received new email, encrypted it, then replaced the original in the Inbox? I suppose once Google clued into that they'd somehow disable it or ensure that plaintext was always stored; the real solution is to not use 'the cloud' to store one's mail I suppose...
Embrace. Extend. Beta.
I believe the FireGPG plugin in Firefox may do this (also requires GPG). Of course then you need your keys on the system you use to access your (g)mail, but I guess a USB drive, portable apps, etc. solves most of that.
Ahh, another demand-created "monopoly". I find that concept just fascinating. Apparently in this day and age you can have a monopoly in something even when there are 50 alternatives just because the consumers overwhelmingly choose your product.
Then how do you, as a matter of law, divide between "good" monopolies that just provide the best service for customers and "bad" monopolies that use armtwisting to get ahead?
What about companies that do both to get ahead in a single market?
What happens when a company gets its lead position in one market the "good" way and then uses its power in that market to leverage its way into another market that it normally wouldn't be able to compete well in?
Because that's what our laws against tying are about. I'm not sure that Google counts as a monopoly, but what they're doing is clearly tying. They are using their ad services to squeeze competitors out of the mapping market in the same way that MS used its OS dominance to kill the original Netscape. Mind you, I'm not saying that Google is violating antitrust law (since I know enough about antitrust law to know how little I know), but we're not talking about Google winning the mapping market through just being awesome. We're talking about an unfair pricing advantage.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
"People will send things via gmail, I expect, that they wouldn't dream of entering into a search engine."
teenage....midget....llama...transexual....
Microsoft is used to that.
Table-ized A.I.
is essentially "a friend told me...."
pardon me while i call bullshit against your un-cited source.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Japanese are comfortable being bombarded.
Too soon?!?
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Find some current news at least. I mean a day or two fine but 19 days old.
Oh this is a brillant move by Google. BTW.
No it's not. Having dominance in one market is a monopoly. Using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market is an illegal monopolistic activity, in some countries anyway. Using a strategy that gave you a monopoly in one market, in another market is perfectly acceptable though which I think is what Google is really doing here.
Exactly. Google's entire business model is:
1. Find advertisers willing to pay to get ads in front of people.
2. Make a bunch of free services and software to attract people to put ads in front of.
Somehow this is now anti-competitive? Nothing is stopping anybody else from doing exactly the same thing. Google is just better at it than the runners up.
Same with Microsoft in the '90s. Same shit over and over.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
I don't see why Garmin stock dropped so much due to this. A Garmin GPS doesn't charge you when you ask it for directions either. There's the initial cost of the GPS, but there's also an initial cost to buy a phone to use Google's navigation. There's the issue of getting updated maps for free from Google vs. paying Garmin, but how many people even bother or need to update the maps on their GPS anyway? (and Garmin could just change their policy and make map updates free) There's the advantage of having internet access combined with GPS in one device, but that advantage existed before Google's navigation feature.
First of all, having a monopoly is legal. Nothing wrong with that.
But there *is* something wrong with that. The conditions of an Efficient Market, upon which our current iteration of capitalism is more or less based, actually demand competition and mathematically prove that both affordability and total innovation ultimately suffer when monopolies exist. Some economists believe 4 companies owning a total of 80% in a given market effectively form a cartel, and gouge their customers automatically; they charge more and innovate less unconsciously, even if they don't communicate with one another, even if they don't know the other 3 competitors *exist*.
Google probably controls almost 80% of search *by itself*. If 4 companies owning 80% of a market can do serious damage, one company owning 70% or 80% is a potential catastrophe.
Google gives us cool things for now, but ultimately their primacy online could be an even bigger problem than Microsoft's primacy in operating systems.
....scroogle.
www.scroogle.org
or something...
Let's see, using dominance in one market to establish dominance in another market. Check!
There's a world of difference between what you're describing and what Google's doing.
They're not trying to compete with Garmin. They simply don't consider what Garmin provides to be beyond the category of commodity. It's the open source mindset: things that only involve data are commodities. The valuable work is on the services side either in maintaining it (e.g. Google's Android licensing) or in supporting end-use (e.g. Data Service Plans which the network providers charge).
Are you saying that Droid has histronic personality disorder? I guess that explains the "does" advertising campaign.
IIIII Caaannnttttt HeEeEEERrrreee Y Y Y Y Y ooooo Ccleeeearrllleeyyyyyyyyyy
Pulseaudio's logo is the pulsing nutsack because it pulses the wrong the THE WRONG THING.
Someone rid me of the pestilent priest Lennart and let his maggot infested toy die with him.
With all of their phones.
http://europe.nokia.com/explore-services/maps
http://betalabs.nokia.com/ovi-maps
Deleted
Maemo 5.
I already posted, so I can't mod you up anymore, but yes, Maemo sounds like it beats Android at its own game. No need to root it, because you are already root. It's your machine, after all. And the machine is basically a full PC in the shape of a smart phone.
Still Android sounds like it's going to have a lot more support, so I'm still undecided.
Japanese are comfortable being bombarded.
Too soon?!?
I once heard about a famous go-player who was playing an important match in the outskirts of Hiroshima. Suddenly the roof was blown off the building and the go stones were all over the place. They quietly put the stones back, and continued their game.
Apparently they can be quite confortable while being bombarded.
But does that work with gmail?
For example I read that you can't send encrypted zip files. They justify that by their retarded .exe file policy. You can't send exe files. You can't send .exe files included in archives. If gmail can't tell what is in the archive it assumes an .exe is there. No way to disable that.
What are the barriers to entry?
You need a server farm. cf a factory for merchandise.
You need to code up your search engine. cf make a business plan for merchandise.
You have to write to an open standard. cf obey zoning laws everyone else has to for merchandise.
so there's a barrier to entry but nothing more than is seen with real products.
Now, the output is not copyrightable and the HTTP protocol is open. This is a BIG difference. The only merchandise that has a similarly open access is commodity works. Patents and copyrights are not available for the output and trademarks are about confusing the user over who they are working with, not about excluding other competitors.
Compare it with Operating systems from Apple and MS: you cannot interoperate because of copyright, trade secret and patent law. See how poorly Wine does with interoperability or OO.o with reading MS Word 2007 files. Or operating with your closed source hidden wireless card. Even reverse engineering is expensive and risky: with a dominant player they can just tie you up in court until you fold, irrespective of whether their case has merit.
So the barriers to entry are really only "can you make a product people want more than Google". This really isn't a barrier, is it. For that to be broken down you'd have to have government mandate to use some other product. Which is a command economy, isn't it.
The good news is that Google is a giant, soulless corporation, not a slightly greasy, overweight man who is out to get you.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Google probably controls almost 80% of search *by itself*. If 4 companies owning 80% of a market can do serious damage, one company owning 70% or 80% is a potential catastrophe.
Does Google really control that much? I'm sure they perform 80% of the searches, but people are free to use other search engines. People choose Google for various reasons, but mostly because they give them what they want. The minute a better search engine shows up, people will start switching.
Well, only private people will. Browsers and others who get money from Google won't, because an upstart search engine won't be able to offer the kind of money Google does.
TV stations have been run according to the same business model for ages. The only difference is that Google's ads are less invasive and a lot less annoying. Google is the first advertising giant I don't hate.
In the end, they will even sell "Google thin foil" to you. They will control _everything_.
839*929
The amazing thing about Google is that it's really hard to find any truly anti-competitive behavior. Offering better service and better price points than your competition is perfectly legal. As long as they avoid exclusive licensing contracts (easy to do when so much of their software is open-source) what can they be accused of doing wrong? Price fixing? They offer everything for free. Arguably, bundling turn-by-turn navigation software in Android is similar bundling IE in Windows (enter the MS anti-trust suits) but it's a tough argument to make when the whole lot is open-source.
Another interesting aspect of Google is that the "less-than-free" business model almost requires a monopoly to work. If they didn't have dominant market share in search-based ad income, the business model wouldn't generate enough revenue to support the "free" ventures and they would rapidly fall back to look more like Yahoo. I can't decide if Google's position is rock solid or remarkably fragile. They're approach to dominating the mobile platform and GPS navigation markets require domination in search ad revenue or they don't make any money.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
Yes, and I see no problem with that.. I'm already signing a contract to upload my first born child to them (if I have one) and in return, they will make sure that he lives.. forever...
once more into the breach
I worked for a Data Warehousing company in the late nineties. We had a slew of deals near to close. We took space at a DW exhibition, and invited all those near to close prospects.
Microsoft took a stand, put an MS banner across the backdrop. They didn't send staff, they put no material on the stand.
All our deals went into 'suspend' as a result of that action.
This behavior is called dumping and is what monopolys get in trouble for. Selling something for less than your cost of production for the purpose of gathering market share and shutting out competition. If their name was Microsoft - they would be in court now.
Just tried it. Sending a encrypted 7zip archive containing an exe worked without a problem.
Arguably, bundling turn-by-turn navigation software in Android is similar bundling IE in Windows (enter the MS anti-trust suits) but it's a tough argument to make when the whole lot is open-source.
Could you please show me where the code (and subsequent api call documentation) to recreate turn-by-turn navigation on a non-android platform are publicly available/accessible? I'd love to port this to maemo, but you'll find that Android the OS is open-source, but many of the apps that make it valuable are still closed and controlled by Google. I don't necessarily have a problem with this, but I think many people (wrongly) assume that just because Android is open-source they can tinker with not only the core OS, but all of the applications as well. The Android Market is NOT like a traditional linux repository where you "install" your apps from.
When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
ChoicePoint already knows all of those things about you and more, and then they sell that data to anyone who can pay. Way more evil than Google.
I remember when using GPS took specialized training and equipment and you were thought of as only slightly less powerful than god.
It saddens me a bit that in the last several years it has gone from that, to any consumer with the will, to the any 12 year old can get a free app that does that on their phone.
Oh well, at least I can still explain how it works in detail, not that anyone cares. Ho hum.
Yeah, the "MS Bing @ 10% market and rising fast" article next to this one somewhat makes their monopolistic moves ignorable (they don't have a monopoly).
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
When I first read this I thought about IBM back in the day. They could put a small company out of business simply by announcing, "Yeah, we're working on that too." And they had to fight off some well-founded lawsuits. Eventually, IBM became known for quiet and consistent R&D (Giant MR comes to mind) because they had to watch what they said.
Will that day come for Google? I think not (or it's a long way off). IBM's issues with the courts came around the same time Ma Bell was dismantled, which couldn't happen now.
Google will announce early, but it'll be beta so nobody can tell if it will die or go big.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
...Marketers Google You!
this isn't a new business model ... it's been around for ever: it's called dumping
Someone already pointed out below that the stock loss also happened on the day both companies reported quarterly losses and THAT may have had a lot to do with the drop. If some of the loss was due to Google's announcement, it just shows investors are clueless--not that Google is not trying to help them along in their cluelessness. Having used a (rental) cell phone GPS and owning both a portable Garmin and a built-in GPS I can tell you there is a world of difference. Google wants you to take an iPhone and mount it on the dash and pretends it will be just like a Garmin.
Nonsense. Screen size is a very big deal here. GPS systems are distracting and dangerous enough without having to put your head forward to squint at the screen. I think they are about a third of the size of a built-in like on an Acura TSX and less than half of a portable Garmin like the 770 (which both N. American and European maps). Maybe some of you with super X-ray vision can see these tiny things well, but wearing bi-focals I surely cannot and I maintain many people are in the same situation. What people need is a stress-free GPS, not one they have to fight, especially in a strange locale, which is the only time you really need one. You already know how to get home, right?
The problem with the iPhone type devices is that they are a compromise for everything. Do you really enjoy that tiny screen? Do you like browsing the web on your iPhone? Do you enjoy texting with keys that small? Hey, but you can do it anywhere, so you put up with it. It's cool.
And, of course, there is competition and feeping creaturitis. Next up (and this will be a hardware issue): Heads-up displays on the windshield. I would dump my Garmin and buy a new one in half a second if I could get a heads-up display. Let's see you download THAT from Google.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Google has some smart tech guys. But not the smartest.On the flip side they probably have the smartest business folks.
To keep the business rolling--it's the business guys. The tech guys are there to justify spending that invested cash.
Yes, using the term "the whole lot" did sound like I meant that the navigation software is open source when, of course, it isn't. The point is that, unlike Apple and RIM, the Android market is not controlled by Google. TomTom could write an app for Android but they would be competing with the free price point of Google's own app. I don't see that as anti-competitive on Google's part, but perhaps it is a similar case to IE and Windows and the fact that Android is open source doesn't actually change anything.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
First of all, having a monopoly is legal. Nothing wrong with that.
Just because something is legal doesn't meant there's nothing wrong with it.
And while Entrepreneurs are creating jobs in the society, Corporations are destroying jobs through automation, acquisitions & anti-competition.
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
This is win, no matter what the carriers try to do.
It's more than a win. If the carriers try and limit Google's desires in the cellular arena they'll find themselves in the same situation that Garmin and TomTom did. Google can just buy up some spectrum and hang repeaters on every point of presence they have. They already have far more bandwidth into most of America than the cellular providers are using, just to dish YouTube. Make a googlephone with data-only and voip with Google's aggressive economies and lack of telco sense of entitlement, and the traditional wireless providers get a rude introduction to competetive capitalism.
Remember that Google forced the open-access provisions of the spectrum auctions last year, so cellular providers cannot prevent users from using any wireless device they wish, or downloading any application they desire. If the providers try they're going to find themselves on the wrong side of a gang of lawyers. Google could have bought spectrum, and they still might just buy the D-block. The D-block of spectrum, 10 MHz (758-763 / 788-793 MHz) was one national license but the highest bid didn't meet the minimum qualifying bid so it was not sold and is still available. With a little warning Google could probably scratch together $30-40B and bring that home. All the other auctioned spectrum went for less than $20B. The quiet period where all parties are forbidden to discuss the auction ends Monday at 6PM ET. You may expect some interesting press reports after close of business Monday, some of which might even be true.
Google isn't going to force carriers to do things a particular way.
From here it looks like the cellular providers can play with Google fairly, or they can play Googleball which appears to be a much more challenging game.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Yeah, those evil corporations seeking to be more efficient so that everyone can get their stuff faster and cheaper. We should still be doing everything manually. Screw machines and automation.
Clever signature text goes here.
So you need the government (or someone) to interfere with the free market in order to maintain a free market?
Interesting logic.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So you need the government (or someone) to interfere with the free market in order to maintain a free market?
Interesting logic.
Well, sometimes, yes. In some cases government regulation is a good thing. And that is primarily in the case of natural monopolies: think rail roads (you don't want two overlapping railway systems) or water supplies or energy supplies. Here to get a free market the government has to either take ownership of infrastructure or regulate that a corporate owner must give other companies unlimited access (unless technical limits) to that infrastructure for a regulated fee.
Another example is telecom, mainly number portability. When numbers can be taken from network to network the lock-in is gone, and companies can start to compete for each other's customers. Here in Hong Kong this has resulted in very low fees (now starting at as little as USD 4.5 (yes that is $4.5, no typo) per month for subscription including 800 minutes air time, voice mail, etc!). Companies do not like this, they want to lock in their customers. Here the government can create a more free market than naturally would be.
Overall though I agree that governments better keep their hands off; if not they should have a good reason, and in some cases government regulation is a necessity to open up competition in a market.
Company X having monopoly in market Y can afford to destroy business model of market Z by bundling free alternative.
X = Microsoft, Y = operating systems, Z = browsers Illegal and convicted.
X = Google, Y = search advertising, Z = mobile navigators Hurray!