Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th May 2008 11:11 UTC
Last week, when Microsoft's attempt at buying Yahoo stranded, Steve Ballmer specifically mentioned Google, and how a possible deal between Google and Yahoo would limit choice and competition in the marketplace. Google explained yesterday how it would fend off possible antritrust concerns following an ad-sharing deal with Yahoo. In addtion, Google noted the irony in Microsoft's complaints.
Thread beginning with comment 313634
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: I note the irony of google complaining about com
by Arun on Fri 9th May 2008 18:41
in reply to "RE[3]: I note the irony of google complaining about com"
Member since:2005-07-07
"
What do you think the barrier to entry is for people who go against Google and are better. Think youtube and google video. What did Google do? They bought them out because google video couldn't compete.
What do you think the barrier to entry is for people who go against Google and are better. Think youtube and google video. What did Google do? They bought them out because google video couldn't compete.
I'm sorry, but how does being bought out constitute a "barrier to entry"? Youtube could have easily resisted any attempt by Google at buying them out. Instead, due to the lack of a viable business plan they found that it was better to be bought out by a large company like Google. There is no barrier to entry there.
On the other hand, if Google had leveraged it's dominant search engine position by refusing to index Youtube and thus preventing any Google user from ever discovering a domain called Youtube, you might have a leg to stand on. "
Google does that with liveleak. May be not directly youtube. But Google pro actively refuses to index certain online video sites.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a6_1176066336&c=1
Buy the biggest most popular competitor and don't index smaller competitors seems like a "barrier to entry" to me. Especially when the site has tried everything to get Google to index them including contacting them multiple times.
Edited 2008-05-09 18:43 UTC
RE[5]: I note the irony of google complaining about com
by sbergman27 on Fri 9th May 2008 19:31
in reply to "RE[4]: I note the irony of google complaining about com"
Member since:2005-07-24
I am somewhat suspicious of that claim by liveleak. It seems exceedingly unlikely to me that Google would do something so obvious, even if they were into using their search prominence to put their video publishing competition at a disadvantage. A search on google for liveleak returns a healthy 2,370,000 results. The claim by liveleak smells a bit, IMO.
RE[5]: I note the irony of google complaining about com
by TemporalBeing on Mon 12th May 2008 17:48
in reply to "RE[4]: I note the irony of google complaining about com"
Member since:2007-08-22
"[q]
What do you think the barrier to entry is for people who go against Google and are better. Think youtube and google video. What did Google do? They bought them out because google video couldn't compete.
What do you think the barrier to entry is for people who go against Google and are better. Think youtube and google video. What did Google do? They bought them out because google video couldn't compete.
[snip]
On the other hand, if Google had leveraged it's dominant search engine position by refusing to index Youtube and thus preventing any Google user from ever discovering a domain called Youtube, you might have a leg to stand on. "
Google does that with liveleak. May be not directly youtube. But Google pro actively refuses to index certain online video sites.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a6_1176066336&c=1
[/q]
Or perhaps there is another reason they are blacklisting sites such as liveleak. There are other concerns they may have too per Copyright laws.
Granted, YouTube (and Google Video!) both have some leaked materials on them; however, they have also both been taken to court and withstood site take downs since there is a policy in place for Copyright holders to have materials removed.
Just a thought
RE[4]: I note the irony of google complaining about com
by sergiusens on Sat 10th May 2008 16:15
in reply to "RE[3]: I note the irony of google complaining about com"
Member since:2007-09-01
And many companies do this, the startups i mean. Theycome up with an idea in order to sell it and then move on to creating the next idea.
IMO these companies don;t like the operative part of the task and just want to gt the concept going and well, as every company, the cash.
I used to work for a company that bought these ideas just to find out, in most cases, that they were crap(regarding software code and arch).
Member since:
2005-07-07
What do you think the barrier to entry is for people who go against Google and are better. Think youtube and google video. What did Google do? They bought them out because google video couldn't compete.
I'm sorry, but how does being bought out constitute a "barrier to entry"? Youtube could have easily resisted any attempt by Google at buying them out. Instead, due to the lack of a viable business plan they found that it was better to be bought out by a large company like Google. There is no barrier to entry there.
On the other hand, if Google had leveraged it's dominant search engine position by refusing to index Youtube and thus preventing any Google user from ever discovering a domain called Youtube, you might have a leg to stand on.