“Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell System Was in 1956″

Re:“Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell Sys... by jhall1468 on Wednesday May 10, 2017 @02:56PM (#14310658)

> Google customers are businesses; end users (who CAN switch easily) are the product.

I am a Google customer. They provide me with a product (Google) which I pay for by allowing Google to display advertisements on the results.

A business is also a Google customer. They pay Google to display ads to a visitors to the website.

But that distinction is moot anyway. Businesses aren't covered by consumer protections because they aren't "consumers".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell Sys... by bunburying on Wednesday May 10, 2017 @03:22PM (#14310863)

I think you're being a bit mischievous with you definition of customer.

You're really a user; not a customer. Customers pay. Google is selling your eyeballs to advertisers. Advertises are Google's customers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell Sys... by notatoad on Wednesday May 10, 2017 @03:50PM (#14311050)

>Customers pay

And the important distinction if you want to counter the argument that the person you're replying to is making:

Customers pay with money. "paying" with a currency like privacy or convenience isn't actually paying. If you aren't paying for something with money you aren't a customer, you're a user.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Google Is as Close to a Natural Monopoly as the Bell Sys... by beagle3 on Wednesday May 10, 2017 @03:33PM (#14310939)

You are a google consumer/user. You are not a google customer in the usual sense of the word.

Rest assured that if you were a google customer, the IRS would want their pound of flesh from that barter exchange you and google are having.

[ Parent | on HN ]