Second, even if Google is a monopoly (which it's not), why is that so bad? Are they "fixing the market"? Are they price-gouging customers or unfairly undercutting their competitors?
Well, here's the thing... In this case, yes. They decided to arbitrarily raise their rates on a paying advertiser by 2000%, stymieing his source of revenue.
If we look at Google as a supplier of information to a searcher, its non-cost structure makes it not a monopolizer threat.
But if we look at the ad business of Google as supplying internet user eyes to advertising sites for a COST (which is HOW GOOGLE MAKES THEIR MONEY) then this form of discrimination is intervening with normal market forces. If people didn't LIKE his site, he wouldn't be getting the CLICKS he got. A person with a poorly constructed site will, by market mechanics, get fewer and fewer traffic clicks. People use the service because the WANT to. He is paying money (same as any other advertiser) to appear on the front page. Denying him that is exerting Google's influence over the advertising sector under the mantra of "doing what's best for the end user."
Let the end user choose - this mantra smacks of "making the internet safe for the children" that congress is so fond of.
and before you start flaming, I have no affiliation with the DoJ, Google, or anyone else. I am just an economist who sees this market a bit differently than Masnick.
Honestly, I can understand in this case how Google can be termed as acting anticompetitive - Mr. Savage paid the same money and bid in the same system as anyone and everyone else, but is now being singled out.
eh. As I said again, let the market deal with him.
it's a measure of market elasticity - when oil prices and gas prices go up you can't respond to them quickly -- you still need to get to work, to the store, etc. It takes time and money to buy new cars (btw, we ARE seeing a switch in america to lower cost, more fuel efficient cars. it just hasn't been that drastic)
when other costs go up, you can switch to other items - watch an OLDER non-DRM'd movie, TV, etc.
When medical costs jump up, people still HAVE to pay for them. Or risk dying for refusing to pay for surgery.
It's not just about market price, it's about the elasticity of demand. Here, since the relative cost of piracy is low, by increasing DRM, they are actually ensuring more piracy, as it becomes a more attractive and less costly item.
Funny, no?
actually, in this case I have to disagree with you. the principle of the panopticon is that if a person assumes that there is a probability that they are being watched, then they will modify their behavior. By pointing out where the cameras ARE, you only force crimes into a DIFFERENT SPACE, much like your opinion on the crackdown of things like internet stalkers and kiddie porn - only in real space terms.
If people know where the cameras ARE, they will just go to another corner to mug people. As you say, it will just drive crime further underground and make it MORE difficult to prevent, not less.
But if they DON'T know, they will assume that there is a good chance they are being watched, and are less likely to act inappropriately.
While I generally agree with you, Mike, I think this is one case where your principles are misapplied (or you used the wrong one).
Once again, the legislative branch ISN'T controlled by the democrats. Congress has a Dem. majority, but the SENATE is deadlocked by the REPUBLICANS refusing to allow any bills through and forcing their drilling agenda which does nothing to affect the present accept to give them political ammunition.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They hate our freedoms
Congress is controlled by democrats, by the SENATE is being DEADLOCKED by REPUBLICANS who are trying to force a GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN by abusing their large minority power.
you can't pass a bill with just the congress - the other legislative side has to play nice too. Read up on your Civics.
"By taking the items out of the testing room, they were also in violation of the exam center's own policy, as well as GMAT."
GREAT IDEA! MIND WIPES FOR EVERYBODY!!!
Seriously. Make up some new friggin questions then. THESE STUDENTS WERE NOT GETTING THE QUESTIONS ON AN UPCOMING TEST, THEY GOT THEM FROM A PRIOR TEST. There is nothing that dictates that the GMAT has to change the test questions, but nothing preventing it as well. Their FAILURE to do so is not the obligation of students who were simply trying to perform better on a test. It's GMAT's fault if a test is skewed because of bias towards certain groups, not the students for managing to do better.
Anyone else for punishing perfect scorers for overperforming?
I just fear that the music companies will NOT learn their lesson, that they will CONTINUE to threaten torrent users as a method to cow the customer, and that their incessant appeals to the "good of man" in their well-oiled congressional machine will lead to ever more mposing violations of privacy rights.
I fear for the industry.
You completely missed the boat.
And failed to read any more than you wanted to.
And built up the straw man.
Uhmn, there are multiple articles on this site about small time bands who owe their entire existence and revenue to pirating as a form of advertising.
so it works for the small bands as well. this is a refrain we've talked about. It seems to work for everyone that's appropriately implemented it, but it isn't enough for you...
again, thhe t-shirt is only ONE example of a scarce good. please. stop idiot-trolling mike just because you can't be bothered to read and understand.
heck, releasing the advice they gather would garner them even MORE publicity, and make their tailored advice even MORE valuable. good going - try it, they'll enjoy it.
and again, the product being sold isn't the digital music, its the limited goods - collectors items, public appearances, etc. so no.
Ever thought about giving county jails a "free trial?" That is exactly what mike is talking about. As you are dealing with a smaller market segment [and a governmental one at that] the fear of piracy is slim to none. Instead, enable a pilot of the system in a highly visible locality so everyone can see how well it works.
If the company [jail] benefits from the software, you have gained a valuable advertising resource on the market - refer other institutions to the trial jail. Otherwise, your product isn't as beneficial as you thought it was or the market isn't ready for the product, so trying to sell it may not be warrented - there could be little demand.
How is that for using "free" as a tool for limited market software advertising?
I personally don't buy those games, good though they may be.
Aside from the "micropayment" issue, monthly access games are a form of rent seeking to maximize profit pulled from the consumer:
Charge the maximum the market will allow for the initial good.
Continue to charge "access" for a good - I have no problem when the access charge is needed for production - like phone line maintainence or the electrical system. But here Blizzard is [brilliantly] exploiting market mechanics to squeeze the most out of the consumers.
Not interested.
[btw; this isn't a judgement upon anyone who values the games enough to pay access fees, I just don't - why not make the game available offline or something for those who would rather sandbox on their own...]
In my experience, there is a select few (a small percentage of the player population) who engage in these discussions. The vast majority just read what the elite "thinkers" discussed and that's it.
And what is this called in science? Research. Even in the cases where methodology might not be implemented, research principles and judgment ARE.
And then implementation, a person assesses whether the research was an accurate solution to the problem at hand.
Also, while the methods may be, in practice, similar, they are trying to figure out how to beat the boss monster in the game developed and created by a game developer. Actual scientific discovery is done by trying to figure out the blueprint of the very creations of God.
I'm a religious man myself, but this allegation is purely ridiculous. "Actual scientific discovery?" So I guess we should ignore everything man made, like cryptogrophy, technology, etc. etc. etc.
That's a very poorly made blanket statement. The idea is NOT that the participants are performing science, but that they are acquiring the TOOLS that make them better SCIENTISTS, something which you yourself admit.
I don't think anyone is expecting a child playing Halo to cure cancer in the process, but the critical thinking is surely beneficial later in life.
I disagree - even the most avid fans of shooters engage in experimentation - the best manner to attack a group of enemies, the most effective strategies for a CTF level, mose useful weapon in different conditions.
There is a huge amount of experimental learning going on, whether or not it is directly cerebral. It might be instinctual, but these players are certainly capable of relaying their experiences to an untrained observer and "teaching" him why they act with a certain methodology.
not sure i agree with you here that the future of video games can only exist over a network - too much of the higher end immersive environment would essentially be ruined through the introduction of multiple players. We would first need a cultural shift away from the style of the LARGE number of titles played and stories extant at the moment - how many "sole survivors" can exist on a haunted spaceship?
I predict that the most advanced fully immersive environments - virtual game laboratories - will remain localized - killed by "lag" and other networking impacts.
Other platform games will probably grow as network enabled.
slight flaw in the reasoning here: the market for advertising isn't on Google, it's on the entire Internet. If people find that the price for advertising on the big G is above the cost they are willing to pay, they won't advertise. Simple. Fewer demands for ads due to increased price=price drop. it's about the equilibrium.
Similarly, if they find that the competition in Google Ads is more costly than going with a thrid party service, they will switch to the constant rate third part service. Again, this lowers the consumer base for Google Ads and leads to a lower average auction price. Other companies will find themselves getting more revenue in advertising, and see fit to raise their fixed prices till they are roughly in line with Google's average ad auction.
Ironically, since the cost to transfer, enter, and exit the market is so small for the consumer, and the cost of information almost nil, a 'near monopoly' of Google in AUCTION ADVERTISING will actually be more likely to adjust the market to equilibrium levels.
If that means that smaller companies won't have the revenue to advertise online, then that's simply the result of an open market, and is unattributable to Google.
Fact is, Google is better off NOT shutting out the little players, who offer revenue to Google at nearly ZERO marginal cost. Adopting a high flat fee system will destroy both their reputation and their major source of revenue.
which also contains its own significant amount of 'editorizing' as well.
Completely factual reporting is nearly impossible to find - that's why multiple newspapers provide nearly identical stories - each has a different perspective that makes them appeal to tailored audiences.
If you are in line at an amusement park without paying, you prevent someone else from taking that place. You are incrementally damaging the machine through wear, and not donating to its upkeep.
The same is true at a movie theater and on a road (increased traffic/wear).
When I download a song, what recognizable physical object am i incurring a cost to? the server?!? There is no actual damages caused by the digital downloading of music, unlike the shoplifting of a CD (loss of merchandise).
Tolls exist to pay for the means of transit. Fees exist to pay for running the park and the theater. If people are volunteering their roads, movies, and theaters for free, why should we stop them?
There is a difference: IE comes automatically on x% of all computers sold. so x% of all users are automatically being defaulted to MSN Search.
Chrome is Google's optional browser. being defaulted is only an issue if people are CHOOSING to INSTALL it to begin with. This is fair competition - if Msoft wants to keep a handle on the market - they should make their OS better, make their web browser better, and make their search engine better. If they fail to do so, and people switch over to Google and Chrome, they have NO ONE to blame but themselves.
I find this porspect exciting. Looking forward to see what comes out of it.
in response to JB; People who switch to Firefox have to navigate to that site directly to intentionally install.
How many people navigate to Google a DAY?
Put up a link/ad on their search engines main page as a method to encourage casual users to "Boost your internet connection for NO COST!"
This isn't just Firefox that they're "threatening," but a serious warning shot into the entire battlefield of Web Browsers and connectivity applications.
indeed. and how do YOU propose measuring the "progress" of the TRANSPORTATION industry incomparison to the COMMUNICATION industry.
not all forms of flight are people to people communication.
and again, if we look at it as such, you are saying that we SHOULD be presently capable of moving PEOPLE as fast as we can move DATA. again, purely ridiculous.
On the post: Making Results Better For End Users Isn't Acting Like A Monopolist
Re: Three points
Well, here's the thing... In this case, yes. They decided to arbitrarily raise their rates on a paying advertiser by 2000%, stymieing his source of revenue.
If we look at Google as a supplier of information to a searcher, its non-cost structure makes it not a monopolizer threat.
But if we look at the ad business of Google as supplying internet user eyes to advertising sites for a COST (which is HOW GOOGLE MAKES THEIR MONEY) then this form of discrimination is intervening with normal market forces. If people didn't LIKE his site, he wouldn't be getting the CLICKS he got. A person with a poorly constructed site will, by market mechanics, get fewer and fewer traffic clicks. People use the service because the WANT to. He is paying money (same as any other advertiser) to appear on the front page. Denying him that is exerting Google's influence over the advertising sector under the mantra of "doing what's best for the end user."
Let the end user choose - this mantra smacks of "making the internet safe for the children" that congress is so fond of.
and before you start flaming, I have no affiliation with the DoJ, Google, or anyone else. I am just an economist who sees this market a bit differently than Masnick.
Honestly, I can understand in this case how Google can be termed as acting anticompetitive - Mr. Savage paid the same money and bid in the same system as anyone and everyone else, but is now being singled out.
eh. As I said again, let the market deal with him.
On the post: There They Go Again: Movie Industry Takes Yet Another Shot At DRM
Re: Re:
when other costs go up, you can switch to other items - watch an OLDER non-DRM'd movie, TV, etc.
When medical costs jump up, people still HAVE to pay for them. Or risk dying for refusing to pay for surgery.
It's not just about market price, it's about the elasticity of demand. Here, since the relative cost of piracy is low, by increasing DRM, they are actually ensuring more piracy, as it becomes a more attractive and less costly item.
Funny, no?
On the post: Does The Public Have A Right To Know Where Surveillance Cameras Are Located?
panopticon
If people know where the cameras ARE, they will just go to another corner to mug people. As you say, it will just drive crime further underground and make it MORE difficult to prevent, not less.
But if they DON'T know, they will assume that there is a good chance they are being watched, and are less likely to act inappropriately.
While I generally agree with you, Mike, I think this is one case where your principles are misapplied (or you used the wrong one).
On the post: Is The Justice Dep't Really Thinking About Going After All Of Google's Business On Antitrust?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Is The Justice Dep't Really Thinking About Going After All Of Google's Business On Antitrust?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They hate our freedoms
you can't pass a bill with just the congress - the other legislative side has to play nice too. Read up on your Civics.
On the post: 84 GMAT Scores Cancelled For Students Who Used 'Copyright Infringing' Test Prep Site
Re: Sorry Mike, but you are wrong
GREAT IDEA! MIND WIPES FOR EVERYBODY!!!
Seriously. Make up some new friggin questions then. THESE STUDENTS WERE NOT GETTING THE QUESTIONS ON AN UPCOMING TEST, THEY GOT THEM FROM A PRIOR TEST. There is nothing that dictates that the GMAT has to change the test questions, but nothing preventing it as well. Their FAILURE to do so is not the obligation of students who were simply trying to perform better on a test. It's GMAT's fault if a test is skewed because of bias towards certain groups, not the students for managing to do better.
Anyone else for punishing perfect scorers for overperforming?
On the post: UK Overreaction To OiNK Continues
I just fear
I fear for the industry.
On the post: MPAA Now Says It Can Regulate Internet Advertisements
Re: Re:
or are you just *angry dude, pseudomimic and nom de plume?
On the post: You Don't Need To Make Money From Every Person Who Enjoys Your Product
Re: Re: Re: Free doesn't always work, Mike
And failed to read any more than you wanted to.
And built up the straw man.
Uhmn, there are multiple articles on this site about small time bands who owe their entire existence and revenue to pirating as a form of advertising.
so it works for the small bands as well. this is a refrain we've talked about. It seems to work for everyone that's appropriately implemented it, but it isn't enough for you...
again, thhe t-shirt is only ONE example of a scarce good. please. stop idiot-trolling mike just because you can't be bothered to read and understand.
heck, releasing the advice they gather would garner them even MORE publicity, and make their tailored advice even MORE valuable. good going - try it, they'll enjoy it.
and again, the product being sold isn't the digital music, its the limited goods - collectors items, public appearances, etc. so no.
On the post: You Don't Need To Make Money From Every Person Who Enjoys Your Product
Re: Re: Help subsidize
If the company [jail] benefits from the software, you have gained a valuable advertising resource on the market - refer other institutions to the trial jail. Otherwise, your product isn't as beneficial as you thought it was or the market isn't ready for the product, so trying to sell it may not be warrented - there could be little demand.
How is that for using "free" as a tool for limited market software advertising?
On the post: You Don't Need To Make Money From Every Person Who Enjoys Your Product
Re:
Aside from the "micropayment" issue, monthly access games are a form of rent seeking to maximize profit pulled from the consumer:
Charge the maximum the market will allow for the initial good.
Continue to charge "access" for a good - I have no problem when the access charge is needed for production - like phone line maintainence or the electrical system. But here Blizzard is [brilliantly] exploiting market mechanics to squeeze the most out of the consumers.
Not interested.
[btw; this isn't a judgement upon anyone who values the games enough to pay access fees, I just don't - why not make the game available offline or something for those who would rather sandbox on their own...]
On the post: Turns Out Virtual Worlds Teach Players The Scientific Method
Re: My Experience is Different
And what is this called in science? Research. Even in the cases where methodology might not be implemented, research principles and judgment ARE.
And then implementation, a person assesses whether the research was an accurate solution to the problem at hand.
Also, while the methods may be, in practice, similar, they are trying to figure out how to beat the boss monster in the game developed and created by a game developer. Actual scientific discovery is done by trying to figure out the blueprint of the very creations of God.
I'm a religious man myself, but this allegation is purely ridiculous. "Actual scientific discovery?" So I guess we should ignore everything man made, like cryptogrophy, technology, etc. etc. etc.
That's a very poorly made blanket statement. The idea is NOT that the participants are performing science, but that they are acquiring the TOOLS that make them better SCIENTISTS, something which you yourself admit.
I don't think anyone is expecting a child playing Halo to cure cancer in the process, but the critical thinking is surely beneficial later in life.
On the post: Turns Out Virtual Worlds Teach Players The Scientific Method
Re: Re: Nonsense
There is a huge amount of experimental learning going on, whether or not it is directly cerebral. It might be instinctual, but these players are certainly capable of relaying their experiences to an untrained observer and "teaching" him why they act with a certain methodology.
On the post: Turns Out Virtual Worlds Teach Players The Scientific Method
Re: Art imitates life
I predict that the most advanced fully immersive environments - virtual game laboratories - will remain localized - killed by "lag" and other networking impacts.
Other platform games will probably grow as network enabled.
On the post: Will A Google/Yahoo Ad Deal Really Impact Ad Prices?
Re:
Similarly, if they find that the competition in Google Ads is more costly than going with a thrid party service, they will switch to the constant rate third part service. Again, this lowers the consumer base for Google Ads and leads to a lower average auction price. Other companies will find themselves getting more revenue in advertising, and see fit to raise their fixed prices till they are roughly in line with Google's average ad auction.
Ironically, since the cost to transfer, enter, and exit the market is so small for the consumer, and the cost of information almost nil, a 'near monopoly' of Google in AUCTION ADVERTISING will actually be more likely to adjust the market to equilibrium levels.
If that means that smaller companies won't have the revenue to advertise online, then that's simply the result of an open market, and is unattributable to Google.
Fact is, Google is better off NOT shutting out the little players, who offer revenue to Google at nearly ZERO marginal cost. Adopting a high flat fee system will destroy both their reputation and their major source of revenue.
I'm not worried.
On the post: Michael Moore Embraces Free Distribution Of Latest Movie
Re:
Completely factual reporting is nearly impossible to find - that's why multiple newspapers provide nearly identical stories - each has a different perspective that makes them appeal to tailored audiences.
On the post: And What If Tangible Goods Become More Abundant?
Re: What is a scarce commodity?
The same is true at a movie theater and on a road (increased traffic/wear).
When I download a song, what recognizable physical object am i incurring a cost to? the server?!? There is no actual damages caused by the digital downloading of music, unlike the shoplifting of a CD (loss of merchandise).
Tolls exist to pay for the means of transit. Fees exist to pay for running the park and the theater. If people are volunteering their roads, movies, and theaters for free, why should we stop them?
On the post: Google's Browser Is A Warning Shot At Windows, Not At Internet Explorer
Re: Firefox and Questions
Chrome is Google's optional browser. being defaulted is only an issue if people are CHOOSING to INSTALL it to begin with. This is fair competition - if Msoft wants to keep a handle on the market - they should make their OS better, make their web browser better, and make their search engine better. If they fail to do so, and people switch over to Google and Chrome, they have NO ONE to blame but themselves.
On the post: Google's Browser Is A Warning Shot At Windows, Not At Internet Explorer
Interesting...
in response to JB; People who switch to Firefox have to navigate to that site directly to intentionally install.
How many people navigate to Google a DAY?
Put up a link/ad on their search engines main page as a method to encourage casual users to "Boost your internet connection for NO COST!"
This isn't just Firefox that they're "threatening," but a serious warning shot into the entire battlefield of Web Browsers and connectivity applications.
On the post: And What Would Happen If Commercial Aviation Was Simply Impossible To Do Profitably?
Re: Re: Re: The price of peace
not all forms of flight are people to people communication.
and again, if we look at it as such, you are saying that we SHOULD be presently capable of moving PEOPLE as fast as we can move DATA. again, purely ridiculous.
Next >>