|
|
|
|
|
|
by oscargrouch
4651 days ago
|
|
|
Im not telling, that they ARE already "the platform"
im saying that they are trying, that they are slowly becoming.. and if you try to measure
in what proportion google services, servers, softwares and platforms
make part of the internet, and all the things, software and services you have installed
in your machines that are, or consume things from google, will you still think this is a triviality? Also, there are the inner mechanics of capitalism, with its acquisitions and
fusions.. and quickoffice its a example of that.. on the other side, the small companies wont stand against delicious buying offers of billions
of dollars.. Capitalism its all about monopoly, isnt?
so.. 2 + 2 = .. Eric schimidt maybe is a small guy, but what a appetite.. :) |
|
|
>"I'm not saying that they are ALREADY "the" platform, I'm saying that they are trying to be, and are slowly becoming just that.
>If you try and measure what portion of the internet is made up of Google's services/products/infrastructure and what portion of your own personal device usage depends on those services, would you still think this isn't something to worry about?
> Also, something about capitalism, words that have little to do with it... and quickoffice is an example of that.
> On the other hand small companies will accept large buyouts.
> Capitalism is all about monopolies isn't it? So 2+2 = 'obvious point you should be getting'
> Schmidt Quip
I understand your point, and to some degree I agree that it's worth thinking about, but certainly not worth lamenting over. Expanding infrastructure and buying up companies in areas of interest are obvious choices for a successful company.
Capitalism is about competition, not monopolies, and as long as Google has competition in the form of Amazon/Microsoft/etc. there's no point wasting time worrying about a potential future monopoly on "the internet".