> Still, that's pretty huge.
They are not monopolistic, like you said.
> they canceled Reader for such altruistic reasons
There is no evidence that it was done to bring more users to Reader (like the article suggested) either. They did allow you to takeout your reader content. So yes I do evidence that they hope that users find services that fit their needs.
I expected them to bigger at video, but I guess there is a pretty long tail of smaller providers such as Vimeo and Liveleak and what not?
Also, porn.
Re:Expunging Google
by lobster_johnson on Monday April 22, 2013 @11:05AM
(#5589567)
Ah, of course. I suspect that YouTube has 90% or more if you look at the mainstream (non-porn) video market.
> And when they attempt to get out of markets so that other new companies can perform better
I really doubt that they canceled Reader for such altruistic reasons.
> And how are you sure that FastMail and Vimeo (Alternatives suggested in the OP) are any better?
I don't know what their market share is, but I bet it's very small compared to Google's. In other words, they have to care about standards because they are nowhere near in control.