For those who like the topic, here’s another interesting debate regarding the big three – and why Google and Apple are heading through the road MS built

Take care of yourself son.

Multimillion dollar deals can easily tank if public, media, and governmental opinions are not correctly identified and anticipated. You see it happen all the time.

While I respect that it is exceedingly difficult to try to pin this down, it’s definitely worth the time and money to try.

I want to live in the world of respecting property rights. Look at what is happening to Zimbabwe under thugs like Robert Mugabe? The land grab (stealing) of white farmers property, led to the blundering of the economy of that country, which used to be a bread winner in Africa. That’s is what I want , for everyone to respect other people’s right to their own without interference from others or legislators.

The other point is, since industry are mostly private owned, the consumers (including you) , have no right whatsoever to what is theirs. I suspect that this is what you mean, not to trust the industry. There is a fault in you logic, in thinking that the industry owes the consumers therefore they need to be regulated. Consumers are not entitle to others property, they have opportunity to trade with others/producers, but it doesn’t mean that they have rights to the producers goods and services. So, the producers of services or goods don’t owe consumers, their only concern is the market forces work in their favour in a free market.

Chris said…
You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Chris, from my last post, I explained myself very clearly (in a logical manner) and you replied that I have no idea what I am talking about. Actually you have offered no counter-argument at all, just offered a meaningless obfuscating line.

Have you read the well reasoned article that I linked to in my previous post? Here it is again.

Drop the antitrust case against Microsoft

Now, how about you try to refute, put a counter-argument up or at least pick apart the excellent points made by the author of the article shown above , heh?

Surely a back to basics approach would work to compete. Do search, and search only, fast, highly relevant and very easy to read results.

I guess the relevancy bit plays a big part in wanting to compete as who can provide more relevant results and keep on top of it like Google does?

Just thinking out aloud as I try and decide whether Google really is an unstoppable monopoly in search.

Why don’t you just stick to your startup coverage? Are you trying to be a financial analyst now? Or was it any opportunity to get 2 mins of fame.. and that also mainly by putting the video on your blog… who sees this station anyways.

Rajeev
http://tekno-wo...ld.blogspot.com

Tech blogger != tech analyst!

The internet was not built by business models, by venture capitalists, by crap 2.0 startups. It was built first and foremost by hackers, academics, and enthusiasts. The carpetbaggers came later, (of which Arrington is a great example) and only a select few made any fundamental changes (e.g. Netscape)

Look at what Google is doing. Debranding Gears, releasing source for everything, developing specs in the open with community collaboration, hiring the luminaries of open source projects as company advocates. If Arrington was as “connected” as he thinks he is, he’d know that Google employees by and large, do things because they think they are doing the right thing, that they are making the web better, and not because of cold blooded marketing calculus. Does Arrington know any Google PMs? It seems not. Google didn’t choose to be “open” as a gimmick, they’ve been fairly transparent from the start, right down to their IPO being more egalitarian than any in history.

Netscape once had a 90% browser market share, and people were whining that they were too dominant, they were going to kill the desktop PC with the networked PC, and look how fast that eroded. Why? Switching cost was trivial for browsers, but going from PC to NetPC was costly. No tech company except for Intel and Microsoft had continued to have complete dominance for so long. The hysteria over Google’s current dominance is completely irrational.

The switching cost for changing ad networks or search engines is way way way lower than switching CPUs or corporate/enduser operating systems. Microsoft’s continue dominance is FAR more dangerous to tech than Googles.

Allowing Yahoo to be acquired by Microsoft is much much much more dangerous than Google running ads for them. Arrington doesn’t grok open standards, that the health of the web, of the entire entrepreneurial community he holds dear, is very much tied to the openness of the web, yet he consistently backs companies that are prone to sabotage this openness.

We’re lucky to have Google, they’re pretty much the only thing that prevented total and complete dominance by MS in all sectors (even Sony appears to be losing now to MS)

By narrowing and foolishly focusing on the search advertising market, Arrington overlooks everything else.