The Small Wave.

Posted

Google focusing on the user

In the post, Google argues that it’s only making decisions and developing products based on what is best for the user. “It’s still unclear exactly what the FTC’s concerns are, but we’re clear about where we stand. Since the beginning, we have been guided by the idea that, if we focus on the user, all else will follow,

via mashable.com

Keep in mind that when Google talks about focusing on the "user", they're not talking about you and me. With $8.3 of their $8.57 billion in revenue (97%) coming from advertising, their users are ad firms.

Tagged Google Revenue advertising antitrust

Posted

Google's response to FTC is misleading. It's not so easy to avoid their search.

Google well understands that if a user clicks away from Google's main branded service -- there is roughly a 70-90% chance that the user will click to a site of a Google partner site where Google either supplies outsourced search or tracks a user's clicks.

For example, if one clicks to:

8 of the top 12 search engines (after Google), a user will still be using Google search;

6 of the top 10 ecommerce sites, one will still be using Google search; and

5 of the top 10 web portals, one would still be using Google search.

Source: Barclays Capital, "Internet Data Book" April 2009.

via precursorblog.com

Google responded to the FTC today, and trotted out the old "choice" meme. They claim you can easily use another provider, so you're just one click away from being a customer. But that's not quite true. Google's search and partner network is vast. While they'd prefer you start with them, chances are they're getting something out of your search no matter where you begin.

Tagged FTC Google antitrust

Posted

Apple Antitrust

It's bad enough there's no monopoly in phones for Apple to be accused of abusing, and nearly every article complaining about Apple admits this. Yet the subject keeps cropping because Apple's competitors are asking the feds to slow Apple down, and it's good PR for politicians. Whatever.

But now it's gone so far as this:

But, Apple is walking a fine line, and will be increasingly scrutinized by the government. Each time provides additional risk for regulation.

This is nonsense.

Let's put it in sports terms: "Well, Bob, New York's had three hits down the baseline that were close to being foul. The umpires will increasingly scrutinize further such hits. Each one provides additional risk for being foul."

That's absurd. The thing is either fair or foul. No matter which, it's over, done with, and has no bearing on future hits. Like flipping a coin 10 times in a row with tails, the next flip is still just 50-50 tails (spare me the mathematical precision that says I'm off by a few hundredths, the point stands).

This isn't some freakin' game where not only can you not break a rule, but apparently you're only allowed a few times where you allegedly come close to breaking a rule—never mind Apple's not close. This is lobbyists in Washington playing with politicians in Washington. It's companies trying to to get their money's worth. We should be appaled, not happy, if they succeed.

Tagged AdMob Adobe Ads Google antitrust apple iAd iOS iPhone 4 legal social

About

Google focusing on the user

Google's response to FTC is misleading. It's not so easy to avoid their search.

Tags

Archive