News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google's response to the European Commission fine by saurik on Tuesday June 27, 2017 @01:12PM (#14647224)
Did you read the comment I was replying to? I ask, because it sounds like you did not. I am going to quote the entire thing to make this extremely blunt, as I don't trust you will read it otherwise :/.

> I'd encourage you (and everyone) to read the comments in the other thread happening today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643712

> You'll see people baffled by this decision and generally happy with the service and products google offers.

> It's just a reminder to remember that what doesn't work for you may be pure bliss for other people.

Read that, then read my comment, and then read your comment... it makes no sense at all. The person I replied to was defending Google using what I consider to a bullshit argument: using the apparent benefits of the monopoly to defend its existence; this (bad) argument also applies to Microsoft.

In my post, I demonstrated that if that posted truly believed that, then they had better be prepared to defend Microsoft as well. Then you come out of nowhere and try to attack me, as if I was the one making the argument, rather than replying to it? WTF... I absolutely think that both Microsoft and Google are clearly abusive.

This is particularly interesting and annoying as you seem to be going around this thread making the exact same mistake in multiple contexts. As an example, in reply to this other comment from someone else trying to compare the PR spin from Google to that of Microsoft.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14646873

Re:Google's response to the European Commission fine by euyyn on Tuesday June 27, 2017 @02:22PM (#14647858)
> a bullshit argument: using the apparent benefits of the monopoly to defend its existence; this (bad) argument also applies to Microsoft.

It doesn't apply is what I'm saying.

> In my post, I demonstrated that if that posted truly believed that, then they had better be prepared to defend Microsoft as well.

You didn't, because your argument was based on the false premise that MS got in trouble "for having the gall to believe that web browsers should be free" or, as you detail now, that monopolies shouldn't exist and that their benefits aren't enough of a reason for them to exist. Being a monopoly isn't what got MS in trouble, harming consumers to protect that monopoly from competing OS's is what did. There's no need to "defend the existence of a monopoly", because monopolies aren't illegal.

I don't care about your personal attacks. This is a website for discussion, not pissing contests.