Computer debate

[Chris Britton]

Although i ment it as some fun, it does sound cool, why not, it will give us all something to do

[Danny Stewart]

Check the new thread to deal with that.

[Chris Britton]

Ok then. Cheers

[Josef Kenny]

I saw a video on Youtube once which was Bill Gates being charged with Microsoft being an illegal monopoly or something... I didn't watch the whole thing though. I can't stand Bill Gates.

[Jez]

I don't mind Bill Gates per se. He (and his mate who's name nobody remembers) have done something amazing. It's just the fact that his company has a monopoly (why doesn't that spelling look right...) that I don't like. Apple try their hardest but they're needing to develop new hardware (iPod) to stay in the running. I hope they do it though.

I wasn't very happy about the news of Google aquiring YouTube simply because I think YouTube will be better as an independant organisation.

[Recurring Villain]

Google rox0rs.

Give them your internet.

Really- They're one of the few arguing for net nuetrality.

Google.

[Jez]

Yeah, but their owning of YouTube will affect the content on that site. Copywritten items will be removed much more swiftly which means that we will technically lose out.

Don't get me wrong, I am a Google fan, although I do encourage people to use other search engines every now and then so that Google doesn't monopolise the industry. Monopolies aren't good. Monopolies are the business equivalent to dictatorships.

[Recurring Villain]

Even though the other search engines are complete crud in comparison?

Google has gained it's monopoly through quality, not subversion. They've released quite a few quality applications for free.

Also, Google isn't as obedient towards copyright as you might think. Google News, for example.

[Danny Stewart]

Agreed about Google. Google is the best -- I love and use everything Google. Also, on the subject of Microsoft, I can't stand Microsoft but I have nothing against Bill Gates as a person. In fact, I respect him a fair bit because he's worth $90 billion, and he's said that when he dies, his children will only get $1 million each and the rest will go to charity. Not to sound morbid, but it'll be a great day for the world when he dies.

[Jez]

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

Even though the other search engines are complete crud in comparison?

Not the good ones. You can find what you want on any search engine if you use it properly with the correct syntax.

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

Google has gained it's monopoly through quality, not subversion. They've released quite a few quality applications for free.

What, you mean Picasa?

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

Also, Google isn't as obedient towards copyright as you might think. Google News, for example.

They pay license fees and purchase plublication rights to publish stories. It's cheaper to do that than to face legal fees and court action because they failed to acknowledge copyright issues in the first place.

Like I said, don't get me wrong - Google is great. But a monopoly is how things turn nasty.

Also, I'd just like to add that just because Google doesn't distribute information about their users openly, it doesn't mean that they don't have that information. They know what search was made from any computer, when it was made and what links were clicked as a result of it.

[Danny Stewart]

Originally Posted by Jez

Not the good ones. You can find what you want on any search engine if you use it properly with the correct syntax.

I find Google easier and of higher quality. I have done the research and actively compared -- these are my findings.

Originally Posted by Jez

What, you mean Picasa?

Whoa there, cowboy. I like Picasa. And if, by that remark, you meant "what other applications?" instead of "me no likey Picasa" then I can name several -- Google Earth, Google Desktop, Google Talk (the only chat medium I use). I'm sure I can find still more if you like.

Originally Posted by Jez

They pay license fees and purchase plublication rights to publish stories. It's cheaper to do that than to face legal fees and court action because they failed to acknowledge copyright issues in the first place.

Like I said, don't get me wrong - Google is great. But a monopoly is how things turn nasty.

Also, I'd just like to add that just because Google doesn't distribute information about their users openly, it doesn't mean that they don't have that information. They know what search was made from any computer, when it was made and what links were clicked as a result of it.

I have no problem with any of that. I trust these folks.

[Recurring Villain]

Google make money- lots of money- for providing free services. That means large profit.

Corporations' main goal = profit.

Now, Jez, crunch this:

Consumer expenditure equivalent to Google profit = 0. If Google monopoly on Internet = %25 and increases to %100, that's a fourfold increase. So if we multiply the consumer expenditure, by the percent of the Internet Google controls, we get 4 x 0.

First person to get the answer wins.

[Jez]

Originally Posted by Danny Stewart

I find Google easier and of higher quality. I have done the research and actively compared -- these are my findings.

Me too. I had to write a report on it too. I found that any SE run by Infospace is actually better than Google because it offers the best restults. Again, it depends on the syntax they accept and the syntax you use.

Originally Posted by Danny Stewart

Whoa there, cowboy. I like Picasa. And if, by that remark, you meant "what other applications?" instead of "me no likey Picasa" then I can name several -- Google Earth, Google Desktop, Google Talk (the only chat medium I use). I'm sure I can find still more if you like.

Gmail and Google Earth are the only things of Google that I use. Picasa has nothing on even PS Elements 1, in my opinion. Google Desktop (infact, any software similar to this) is for people who don't know how to organise their stuff properly. Google Talk isn't really relevant to me, personally.

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

Google make money- lots of money- for providing free services. That means large profit.

Corporations' main goal = profit.

Now, Jez, crunch this:

Consumer expenditure equivalent to Google profit = 0. If Google monopoly on Internet = %25 and increases to %100, that's a fourfold increase. So if we multiply the consumer expenditure, by the percent of the Internet Google controls, we get 4 x 0.

First person to get the answer wins.

I never said they shouldn't make a profit. Nor did I say they shouldn't make a larger profit than anybody else. All I said is that monopolies are bad in anything. History has taught us this.

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

First person to get the answer wins.

This is a competition?

[Ben Dawson]

Monopolies aren't bad, they help us win in Monopoly

[Recurring Villain]

Ok, so now I understand your problem, Jez. You couldn't get the answer, so I'll give it for you.

The answer is 0.

Now do you understand?

[Jez]

Sigh....

That "problem" of yours had nothing whatsoever to do with the debate. And to add something to your "problem" - Customers pay to have their sites advertised = consumer expenditure. Granted, Google's profit margin is now extremely high - the highest in the world, in fact. Apparently you seem to thing that I have a problem with that; I don't. I don't mind that Sergey and Larry's business name is become extremely apt (a google is
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0).

You seem to continuously fail to see my point: A monopoly isn't a generally good, positive thing. It doesn't matter what the maths is behind a company's success.

Also, percentages are written as "{number}%".

Edit: Doesn't allow more than fifty characters in a row without a space. :S

[Recurring Villain]

It had everything to do with the debate. I was attempting to demonstrate that Google having a monopoly would have little to no effect on your average web-browsing non-supercorporation (handy fact: most people aren't supercorporations).

And since we're in the business of knitpicking, a Googol is 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0, not a Google.

I saw your point, but mine is that it isn't generally bad either.

Circumstances, lad. Everything depends on circumstances.

[Jez]

Something I read a few months back:

"...The business highlight: here is an anecdote told by Eric Schmidt, the CEO, about how they came up with their world beating online ad system (which is destroying everybody else’s business model of advertising day by day):

“Larry Page was stapling spreadsheet printouts to a whiteboard one Friday afternoon...
...and wrote in larryscript – ‘What’s wrong with these ads?’ The problem was they were not getting enough response. People started writing comments on the printouts as they went past and I thought, that’s interesting. By Saturday night we got an email from a [software] engineer who does not work on the ad side, saying: ‘I have figured out a new algorithm for the ad system and I have implemented it. I hope Larry is pleased.”

It is innovation at a lightning pace, with all the traditional corporate barriers missing, that characterises this company: and the fact that it is innovating in a space it has more or less invented means it is able to branch out unpredictably: there are whole sectors of commerce, advertising, publishing, even online finance that fear their proverbial chips are about to be over-vinegared by some unsuspected invention at Google’s Mountain View HQ. That is what has made Google’s share price do pretty well – and it is not what worries me.

What worries me is Larry Page’s response to this anecdote. Larry, if you have never seen him, can give off an air of public diffidence that is often found among software geniuses and not highly valued among global top 100 executives. Larry simply looked surprised and said “I don’t remember that at all”. Of course the whole double act between “hard-headed Eric” and “genius Larry” is meant partially ironically – but if he really does not remember, and the company’s innovation path is really random, unknowable and ungovernable, that would be a problem..."

The above was taken from an article written by Paul Mason for BBC's Newsnight website. The original page can be found here. And yes, I am of an age in which I like to watch and read Newsnight articles.

[Recurring Villain]

I don't see how the article reinforces your argument...

Spell it out to me in big bold capitals, please.

[Danny Stewart]

Originally Posted by Recurring Villain

Spell it out to me in big bold capitals, please.

LOL. Sorry, that was funny.