Barrier to entry, for other companies. Yes, that is very relevant. However, end users are not relevant.
Facebook, Yahoo and Bing are not the only companies abused by Google's monopoly. The most significant proportion is small companies, like flight search engines, that Google is killing off by illegally promoting their sites above those.
But the a huge abuse in this case is also that Google forbid advertisers on Google running the same ads on other networks. That is pure monopoly abuse.
The commission is investigating exclusivity obligations on advertisers, something Ciao alleged. Those obligations bar advertisers from using the same ads they run on Google on their own sites or competing search engines such as Bing and Yahoo.
Again, monopoly abuse has nothing to do with end user or their capability to switch to other services. It's solely about companies and their actions toward other, smaller companies.
Monopoly abuse has nothing to do with end user or their barrier to switch away from company's products. It's about unfair and unlawful tactics used against smaller companies to gain and keep prominent market share and monopoly.
You mean just like car companies are on verge of dying because someday people could just stop buying new cars and keep using their old ones?
If you also didn't notice, Microsoft has very stable other products too and they tend to take a long term goal with them. Most people tend to bitch how companies don't think long term but just want quick cash. Well, not Microsoft. And at 32% market share in the US, I would say Bing is a really successful product. They're also getting really valuable user and keyword data which will only make it easier for them to improve in the future, just like Google did. And now seeing Google throwing everything they have under the failure that is Google+, Microsoft must be laughing at Google's failed attempts.
Also, what comes to long term goals, that is what most businesses appreciate. If many parts of your business depend on someone else, you want the other company to have long term and you want to know that they will take care of you and the products you use. You can say that about Microsoft, but you can't say about it with Google, because Google tends to cancel failed products left and right and that is going to bite them in the ass.
Microsoft just reported record fourth quarter and fiscal year 2011 earnings today with yearly revenues at $69,94 billion, representing an increase of 12% from 2010.
If that is losing money all over the place, I wouldn't mind losing it like Microsoft does.
Every monopoly abuse still needs that choosing. No one has anyone ever physically forced you to use their services. Yet, companies are fined for monopoly abuses and it's against the law. EVEN IF PEOPLE ACTIVELY CHOOSE THEM TOO, like you shouted. It's still wrong to abuse your monopoly status even if people choose to use your services, that's the whole point of it.
They're using their huge market share to unfairly promote their other products left and right. They have the most dominant position to do this too - the largest search engine on planet. They can put out anyone they want out of business. For years they have scraped smaller websites and then returning their own sites higher in search engine results. They push Google+ to every that comes to Google. How is Diaspore or other smaller social networks ever going to challenge that? They push Chrome to every IE user in a very spammy way, and they always do it in YouTube too. Recently all the flight ticket search engines started fearing as Google introduced their own one and embedded the results directly in search results.
Now with Google+, they're tieing all their products together too. YouTube just got a much more "social" and google+'ish look, and in one of their recent videos they show how search results, maps, calendar, news, music, video and every other Google service will integrate with Google+. Because of their market share that is blatant monopoly abuse and I'm good to see that EU is finally doing something about it. US is still investigating Google, but with Google having bought so many politicans in Washington and friends in NSA and FBI I'd be more surprised to see if they did something.
He doesn't really talk about consoles being doomed per se. He talks about how tablets and smart phones are soon so powerful that they can render the same quality graphics that consoles can, and people can just plugin their smartphones to TV to play. He also says the technical limitations again push people to make fun and interesting games instead of just going for the graphics. He then mentions how Facebook games are an interesting platform and they're fundamentally very same to MMO games which sell users items, just that they are played on Facebook. He also said that mobile phone games have given him much more fun than computer or console games. As far as computers go, he didn't say computers are going to render game consoles obsolote - just that people are going to play on Facebook, or their service, using them.
And I agree with him. The technical limitations does make developers concentrate on the fun side of things. But that is also true for indie titles. Indie developers don't have the budget to make the best looking games, so they have to concentrate on making them fun. But I have to admit, large companies have started to notice too. They do have their big name franchises like Call of Duty and Battlefield, which are very fun in their own ways, but you have to admit that even large companies have put out very fun games lately.
Of course, Valve was again one of the first western companies who saw this and did it right with Team Fortress 2. They put out the game for free and let people buy weapons and miscelannelous items from the store. Yet, the weapons people can buy are not overpowered and can be got via drops, trading or crafting too. In some cases the stock weapons new players get are actually the best ones. The other ones only vary your gameplay style, so it's up to you which you use, but none is really better than another. And the game is absolutely fun and hilarious online, as it has great comedic aspect too.
As much as Slashdotters hate everything-Facebook, I do like some games there. It's getting really really better lately, and is only going to do so as companies are starting to fight to gain users. This is only good, as it means better quality games which aren't out there just to make quick cash. They have to put out quality to get any new players. The social aspect in Facebook games is great. I have several South Korean girls I play Sims Social with and have had interesting chats with them on the side (and they're cute too, ofc;-).
I also played Civilization World, which is Facebook version of Civilization series. You get assigned to some server with up to 200 players (if some of your friend is already playing, you usually end up on same). If you don't join others you're independant nation, but if you do and it's recommended, you're one city of the civilization you join. You improve your own city, take battles by assigning your troops along with other players troops from your civ, and just work together. Even if it was still a little bit buggy, I had a late fun night playing with some US guy when all others had already went to sleep and we had to defend our civilization together. As the battles take time (so that players have time to come put more troops even if they're not in the game all the time), it got hectic and a gamble of which weather (and effects) we would get to defend against much larger nation.
So yes, game consoles might be going away, but not the way it's implied.
Slashdot Mirror
Facebook, Yahoo and Bing are not the only companies abused by Google's monopoly. The most significant proportion is small companies, like flight search engines, that Google is killing off by illegally promoting their sites above those.
But the a huge abuse in this case is also that Google forbid advertisers on Google running the same ads on other networks. That is pure monopoly abuse.
The commission is investigating exclusivity obligations on advertisers, something Ciao alleged. Those obligations bar advertisers from using the same ads they run on Google on their own sites or competing search engines such as Bing and Yahoo.
Again, monopoly abuse has nothing to do with end user or their capability to switch to other services. It's solely about companies and their actions toward other, smaller companies.
Monopoly abuse has nothing to do with end user or their barrier to switch away from company's products. It's about unfair and unlawful tactics used against smaller companies to gain and keep prominent market share and monopoly.
You mean just like car companies are on verge of dying because someday people could just stop buying new cars and keep using their old ones?
If you also didn't notice, Microsoft has very stable other products too and they tend to take a long term goal with them. Most people tend to bitch how companies don't think long term but just want quick cash. Well, not Microsoft. And at 32% market share in the US, I would say Bing is a really successful product. They're also getting really valuable user and keyword data which will only make it easier for them to improve in the future, just like Google did. And now seeing Google throwing everything they have under the failure that is Google+, Microsoft must be laughing at Google's failed attempts.
Also, what comes to long term goals, that is what most businesses appreciate. If many parts of your business depend on someone else, you want the other company to have long term and you want to know that they will take care of you and the products you use. You can say that about Microsoft, but you can't say about it with Google, because Google tends to cancel failed products left and right and that is going to bite them in the ass.
Microsoft just reported record fourth quarter and fiscal year 2011 earnings today with yearly revenues at $69,94 billion, representing an increase of 12% from 2010.
If that is losing money all over the place, I wouldn't mind losing it like Microsoft does.
Every monopoly abuse still needs that choosing. No one has anyone ever physically forced you to use their services. Yet, companies are fined for monopoly abuses and it's against the law. EVEN IF PEOPLE ACTIVELY CHOOSE THEM TOO, like you shouted. It's still wrong to abuse your monopoly status even if people choose to use your services, that's the whole point of it.
Considering how Google launders its money via European countries to gain 2.4% tax rate, that might be quite costly. And that also means giving up tons of business, revenue, users and future monopoly status on search.
They're using their huge market share to unfairly promote their other products left and right. They have the most dominant position to do this too - the largest search engine on planet. They can put out anyone they want out of business. For years they have scraped smaller websites and then returning their own sites higher in search engine results. They push Google+ to every that comes to Google. How is Diaspore or other smaller social networks ever going to challenge that? They push Chrome to every IE user in a very spammy way, and they always do it in YouTube too. Recently all the flight ticket search engines started fearing as Google introduced their own one and embedded the results directly in search results.
Now with Google+, they're tieing all their products together too. YouTube just got a much more "social" and google+'ish look, and in one of their recent videos they show how search results, maps, calendar, news, music, video and every other Google service will integrate with Google+. Because of their market share that is blatant monopoly abuse and I'm good to see that EU is finally doing something about it. US is still investigating Google, but with Google having bought so many politicans in Washington and friends in NSA and FBI I'd be more surprised to see if they did something.
GoDaddy can't reverse the transfer once other registrar has it.
1and1 and Network Solutions are on the list too.
He doesn't really talk about consoles being doomed per se. He talks about how tablets and smart phones are soon so powerful that they can render the same quality graphics that consoles can, and people can just plugin their smartphones to TV to play. He also says the technical limitations again push people to make fun and interesting games instead of just going for the graphics. He then mentions how Facebook games are an interesting platform and they're fundamentally very same to MMO games which sell users items, just that they are played on Facebook. He also said that mobile phone games have given him much more fun than computer or console games. As far as computers go, he didn't say computers are going to render game consoles obsolote - just that people are going to play on Facebook, or their service, using them.
;-).
And I agree with him. The technical limitations does make developers concentrate on the fun side of things. But that is also true for indie titles. Indie developers don't have the budget to make the best looking games, so they have to concentrate on making them fun. But I have to admit, large companies have started to notice too. They do have their big name franchises like Call of Duty and Battlefield, which are very fun in their own ways, but you have to admit that even large companies have put out very fun games lately.
Of course, Valve was again one of the first western companies who saw this and did it right with Team Fortress 2. They put out the game for free and let people buy weapons and miscelannelous items from the store. Yet, the weapons people can buy are not overpowered and can be got via drops, trading or crafting too. In some cases the stock weapons new players get are actually the best ones. The other ones only vary your gameplay style, so it's up to you which you use, but none is really better than another. And the game is absolutely fun and hilarious online, as it has great comedic aspect too.
As much as Slashdotters hate everything-Facebook, I do like some games there. It's getting really really better lately, and is only going to do so as companies are starting to fight to gain users. This is only good, as it means better quality games which aren't out there just to make quick cash. They have to put out quality to get any new players. The social aspect in Facebook games is great. I have several South Korean girls I play Sims Social with and have had interesting chats with them on the side (and they're cute too, ofc
I also played Civilization World, which is Facebook version of Civilization series. You get assigned to some server with up to 200 players (if some of your friend is already playing, you usually end up on same). If you don't join others you're independant nation, but if you do and it's recommended, you're one city of the civilization you join. You improve your own city, take battles by assigning your troops along with other players troops from your civ, and just work together. Even if it was still a little bit buggy, I had a late fun night playing with some US guy when all others had already went to sleep and we had to defend our civilization together. As the battles take time (so that players have time to come put more troops even if they're not in the game all the time), it got hectic and a gamble of which weather (and effects) we would get to defend against much larger nation.
So yes, game consoles might be going away, but not the way it's implied.