Wow, thanks. It seems that Android has always been ahead (there are stats from as far back as 2011) so I suppose I've been wrong for being on par with iOS. I think the figures I've seen would have been for the USA not global - that would actually make way more sense, since iPhones aren't as popular in all countries.Griffolion said:
Contrary to what the usual poop-flinging pro-Apple blogs would have you believe, Android's been ahead for a long time. Back in May, they hit the 1M activations a day landmark, which they announced at I/O.DoPo said:
Several of your assessments I agree with; however, there are pertinent ones I do not. In past Anti-Trust cases, it has never been necessary for the company to literally be the only one in the market. It simply requires that the company be so massive that competition is all but impossible. Google is currently in this position for searching and other areas fall directly into this area. The data required to build the search engine for example is a big part of what's included in the statistics they provide. And there are certainly other video servies but none with anywhere near the clout of youtube. Include in that massive gains in mail, both private and professional and widely used cloud services and it starts to paint the picture of a company that does, in fact, dominate many of their fields. In some areas, they are a relatively minor player certainly - desktop OS, first party phone sales and the rest.Zantos said:
On the day, *I* start visiting pro-Apple blogs, faint oinking sounds will be heard from far overhead. I merely saw some statistics lest year or the one before that with the two sort of equal in market share - 40-something percent each. On reflection, as I said, it must have been a US statistic, as Apple are way more prominent there, it makes sense that they would have less of a foothold globally.Griffolion said:
This is the kind of misconception that irks me. Nobody is accusing Google of being 'evil' or wanting to 'take over the world', at least OP isn't. It's about maintaining a competitive marketplace where a multitude of separate companies battle to win over consumers. Competition drives down price, drives up quality, and gives consumers more options, it's a fundamental cornerstone to a healthy marketplace. That's why monopolies are always seen as a bad thing, they tend to cause stagnation and rigidity.SlaveNumber23 said:
Yay--I'm helping!BrotherRool said:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor] (not really calling you stupid--it was just a perfect opportunity to use that quote).
Depends on the kind of law you mean. If it's a law to prevent getting private information without the consent of the person in question, then I'm generally against it (obviously there are exceptions, such as when there's a warrant). But if that information is being freely offered by the person then I don't think that should be any government's business.
I disagree with them on the basis that I don't think it's the government's role to try to influence the behavior of it's citizens unless that behavior is criminal. It's not my parent (and I wouldn't want my actual parents trying to persuade me away from smoking if I were a smoker--I'm an adult, I can make my own decisions).
Either we trust adults to run their own lives, or we don't. If we do, then the government shouldn't be making laws to prevent people from making the "wrong" decision. If we don't, then we can't trust the lawmakers either (they're adults too, so their judgement is no more trustworthy than the judgement of the people they're passing laws to protect).
I have no problem with a private citizen launching some kind of campaign to raise awareness of these issues. But again, I don't think that's the government's place. I'm very much for limited government if that's not obvious by now.
I want my government to safeguard me by keeping a police force and military, not by trying to make my decisions for me or by attempting to influence my decisions so that I do what the government thinks is right.
Thanks, I'm not traditionally a supporter in light governments to the extent you are(I feel that there are just some imbalances the come out of the systems we work with that we need to consciously collaborate to reduce) but I'm fairly persuaded now that in this matter at least, any restrictions would probably be better directed at the governments limiting their power to make requests of Google than Google itself.BrassButtons said:
Well the CIA is a US agency and if the US government got in their face it would only push another company out of the US which is the last thing they need at this point. Also what data does google have exactly that the government would be so interested in? The only thing I can think of is internet search traffic which as far as I am aware is open to the public and they are very open with their results. Hopefully you don't think Google runs most websites I hear people always saying that Google gives them all this information and such but Google doesn't give any information it only leads you to a place that can. Google is like a car it gets you to the store which has everything you need but it isn't the store it is only a way to get there.BrotherRool said:
If I remember correctly, in practice a monopoly is considered to be holding three quarters of the market share. You're right that searching at about 80%, and youtube is only competed against locally in places like Japan. Mail services are fairly balanced globally between Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail, as of the end of last year, with Yahoo still being most popular in the US market. I cannot find any info on cloud services. So it holds the search monopoly, it holds the video monopoly, but only since it's own failed and it bought another.Eclectic Dreck said:
The difference with mail is that Gmail generally should not be compared to the likes of Hotmail or Yahoo. Those services are provided free at the cost of enduring some level of advertising inherent to the experience. The direct competition for actual consumer money (via a direct channel) comes from enterprise mail solutions like Exchange. Google has a tremendous advantage in that it can be deployed and maintained with little effort making it enormously popular for small businesses. While I have not data to back a claim, my experience has been that Gmail is far and away the most popular small business mail solution. Most competition I've seen comes from web hosting companies like Go Daddy.Zantos said:
Buying out competition is a common way companies have achieved a monopoly in an area. It is hard to say if the case of Youtube represents anything like this as it offers a service for free and all income is indirect. Were that determined to be the case, other websites would risk the same by simply becoming too popular which doesn't seem to particularly live in the spirit of the law.Zantos said:
The laws don't particularly exist to protect other businesses from "dodgy practices"; they exist to ensure the consumer maintains their fundamental right of choice in the marketplace. There are plenty of laws that cover the dodgy practice angle - anti-trust laws exist purely to ensure companies never amass all the power.Zantos said:
The problem is the laws allowing one to patent broad concepts is relatively new. Through this we find that there exist patents to concepts as vague as games that allow multiplayer players across the internet, or having an interactive loading sequence between levels or even using a picture to process checks (using your smart phone to make a deposit essentially). The latter is currently in contention between at least two companies, USAA and a former technology partner.Zantos said:
I don't know about him, but i would like to point out that the lack of privacy laws is actually the big issue here. Google doesn't worry me, but the lack of privacy laws does.BrotherRool said:
