MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

Hellmark · 09-26-2011, 06:34 PM

The only real way you could say Google is evil, is because they offer their products for free, when ordinarily you might pay for it.

After the web bubble burst, pay for email addresses went the way of the dodo. Only time you got a free one for a while, was from your ISP. Yahoo and Hotmail were the only ones left. Google came in with Gmail, offered better services, fewer restrictions (didn't have to worry about losing the account if you didn't log in after 15 or 30 days) and more storage space (initially a gig, vs 10mb at every place else). Everyone switched over, and the rest struggle to compete.

Maps. Mapquest was the big boy around. They offered free mapping on their website, and also charged others (like Yahoo), to use their system. They had a clunky system, that offered iffy directions (anyone here ever get lost following Mapquest directions, or get suggestions for turns that aren't possible?). Google once again went whole hog in, and made a system that was easier to use. Also, it was free, even if you wanted to put maps on your website. Plus, you could get apps for your cellphone for free (something that often was pay for prior).

Android. Wasn't the first mobile OS. Far from it. What made it special was that it was free, and open source. The prior competition were closed source (at least in part), and you had to pay licensing. While manufacturers can license Android, that only gives them extra options (such as being able to include the gmail and maps apps, as well as access to the Android Market) and is not a requirement. With Blackberry, iPhone, MeeGo, WebOS, and Symbian licensing is a necessity and often not possible for third parties to do. No need to reinvent the wheel, and build something on your own.

I can go on and on, with other things Google has done better and for free. Makes it hard to compete. If you have a superior product, you still have the problem of free vs pay for. If you have a free product, how many are better?

With all that said, their tactics don't make them a monopoly. They're not forcing people to use their products, and you can still easily be a customer of someone else. Other companies can also adopt similar tactics.

09-26-2011, 06:34 PM	#17
Hellmark Wizard Posts: 2,592 Karma: 4290425 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Foristell, Missouri, USA Device: Nokia N800, PRS-505, Nook STR Glowlight, Kindle 3, Kobo Libra 2	The only real way you could say Google is evil, is because they offer their products for free, when ordinarily you might pay for it. After the web bubble burst, pay for email addresses went the way of the dodo. Only time you got a free one for a while, was from your ISP. Yahoo and Hotmail were the only ones left. Google came in with Gmail, offered better services, fewer restrictions (didn't have to worry about losing the account if you didn't log in after 15 or 30 days) and more storage space (initially a gig, vs 10mb at every place else). Everyone switched over, and the rest struggle to compete. Maps. Mapquest was the big boy around. They offered free mapping on their website, and also charged others (like Yahoo), to use their system. They had a clunky system, that offered iffy directions (anyone here ever get lost following Mapquest directions, or get suggestions for turns that aren't possible?). Google once again went whole hog in, and made a system that was easier to use. Also, it was free, even if you wanted to put maps on your website. Plus, you could get apps for your cellphone for free (something that often was pay for prior). Android. Wasn't the first mobile OS. Far from it. What made it special was that it was free, and open source. The prior competition were closed source (at least in part), and you had to pay licensing. While manufacturers can license Android, that only gives them extra options (such as being able to include the gmail and maps apps, as well as access to the Android Market) and is not a requirement. With Blackberry, iPhone, MeeGo, WebOS, and Symbian licensing is a necessity and often not possible for third parties to do. No need to reinvent the wheel, and build something on your own. I can go on and on, with other things Google has done better and for free. Makes it hard to compete. If you have a superior product, you still have the problem of free vs pay for. If you have a free product, how many are better? With all that said, their tactics don't make them a monopoly. They're not forcing people to use their products, and you can still easily be a customer of someone else. Other companies can also adopt similar tactics.