ContentID is getting EVEN MORE FUCKED than the troll in here
-
You have made a deal with Darth Vader here.
That doesn't mean Darth Vader isn't Darth Vader and shouldn't be called out as such.I don't see how there's any monopolist/abuse behavior going on here. What exactly does YouTube have a monopoly on? Free video hosting services?
Maybe you haven't noticed, but... yes."Monopoly" doesn't mean "the only game in town"; it means in a very dominant position. Which, at least if you ask me, YouTube is. (YT is the source of something around 15% of internet traffic. What are its competitors? According to the same article, Twich is ~1.35%. Vimeo is well under 1%.I can't even find percentages for a couple of the other competitors. The closest competitor I could find is Facebook, with about 3%. It is highly likely that YouTube has 2-3 times the traffic of all its competitors combined; if you say that Facebook isn't even a direct competitor, which is at least slightly reasonable, it's probably more like 7x.) Like I said I'm not sure it actually rises to the legal level of monopoly, but I've never asserted that it did -- just that it's unethical IMO.
all with her not really being all that good of a musician to begin with.
That's a matter of taste; I actually like her music a lot. (That's different from saying I think she stands out on a level of technical proficiency.)
-
And that says exactly what in relation to my point? Nothing.
I'm not arguing that people don't search for things on YouTube. I'm talking about discoverability and the entry points to the site to begin with. It's in the only part of my relevant post that you bothered to quote, for god's sake.
-
You seem to be under the severely mistaken impression that a) people go to YouTube to discover content
You seem to be under the impression that people don't... I know people do, because I do it. A lot. Why do you think YT shows you "related video" links? Or do you think no one ever follows them?When was the last time you thought to yourself, "Hmmm. I'm kind of bored right now. I have no idea what to do. I know! I'll go to YouTube and just randomly search for stuff in a desperate attempt to fill this empty hole that some people call a soul! Yes! That's exactly what I need to do!"?
I haven't thought quite that. But as stated above, what I do do with some frequency is put on some music on YT in the background and start following related video links as it finishes.
-
You seem to be under the severely mistaken impression that a) people go to YouTube to discover content
Actually, I just realized something... which is that I'm pretty sure that I first learned about Zoe Keating by doing the exact thing that no one does according to you, which is following links from related videos. (In fairness, I may have been pointed to it by a video comment rather than YT linking. I'm not sure.)
-
Make that at least 3, because I spend an unhealthy amount of time dicking around on YouTube. I go there just to find random stuff that might interest me. I go there to find informative videos about whatever has recently caught my attention. I almost never end up there from external links. I usually have a YouTube tab open on all the computers that I use.
Lots of people do the same thing.
-
The entry point for every youtube session is always a link to something from an external source.
I dispute that. I go to YouTube every day for Game Grumps, and I watch Beyond the Summit on YouTube when I need some background noise. I don't go to YouTube to watch those because someone told me to.
-
Like I said I'm not sure it actually rises to the legal level of monopoly, but I've never asserted that it did -- just that it's unethical IMO.
So is it fair for me to characterize your position thus: "It's unethical to be the best at whatever it is you are currently doing."?
I can't imagine that's what you are actually saying, but it's what it sounds like you are saying.
-
And that says exactly what in relation to my point? Nothing.
I'm not arguing that people don't search for things on YouTube. I'm talking about discoverability and the entry points to the site to begin with. It's in the only part of my relevant post that you bothered to quote, for god's sake.
It says quite a bit, unless you are proposing that every single one of the billions of searches every month is performed after a site visitor follows a video link (well, minus me @Polygeekery and @ben_lubar)
But yeah, it's totally possible that one of the most popular sites in the world gets no direct traffic searches.
Jesus Christ, I feel like I'm trying to argue that gravity does in fact exist.
-
So is it fair for me to characterize your position thus: "It's unethical to be the best at whatever it is you are currently doing."?
No, it's unethical to use a dominant position in one market to strongarm people into being your customers in a different market just because you feel like entering a new market.
-
Jesus Christ, I feel like I'm trying to argue that gravity does in fact exist.
One of the two things you mentioned in that sentence exists and has a real impact on my life.
I'll let the reader decide which one.
-
No they are not. The artist is still free to put all his/her content up on youtube for free. Nothing have changed there.
Which part of
If you had previously been getting Content-ID ad revenue and choose not to participate in the new service, your channel will be deleted and all videos using your music will be blocked.
don't you get? Even if you reupload your stuff, you a) don't get basic abuse protection, and b) have all derived work simply blocked out.
"Hey, you've done pretty well for yourself. You've used your talent and your ingenuity and marketing abilities to get some attention. Good for you. Now you have to pay the piper for all that free shit you've used."
Except they already did by splitting the cut at uneven terms with Google. It's not "free shit" - Google has benefited from the artists drawing people to YouTube, and now that they've brought everybody in, they're told to bend over.
Any other free video sharing service would be just as advantageous to ZK as youtube is. It's a link to a free hosting service; it's just as discoverable via search; it's just as free.
#It's not discoverable via "Related Videos" feature on YouTube, which brings lots of people who otherwise wouldn't know about the artist around to see their work.
#Because people who watch one video with a female violinist tend to be interested in more.
Do I have to fucking spell it again, or do you get it now?
The bottom line here is that a bunch of people are all butthurt because something you thought was free turned out not to be free.
Except it is free. And in a normal market, if Google wanted to monetize other people's work, they'd need to strike a deal with the artists that would be beneficial for both parties. But it's not a normal market, and it's not by any means a fair deal - the artists have helped YouTube get where it is now, and now that it's succeeded, it's taking advantage of it's position by proposing an offer you can't refuse.
That's the fucking definition of monopolistic practice.
Learn to pay for shit.
It's easy to manage someone else's money.
Own your identity and your artistic work.
And be doomed to obscurity because you're not paying for protection. You think it's easy to take off artistically without playing with big boys? You're fucking wrong. Pretty much the only way to do this is via - guess what? - YouTube stardom. There's an amazing band which pretty much rivals Tool and Mars Volta in levels of musical proficiency, but have you heard about them? Would you have heard about them if they had a deal with EMI?
Look, you're in fucking denial right now. If this was Kitchen Nightmares, you'd be Amy's Fucking Baking Company.
-
@monkeyArms @EvanED @ben_lubar, et al.,
I'm willing to be wrong about my assertion that YouTube isn't used the way that I think it is.
I have access to data about how people use YouTube that I, unfortunately, can't share because the data belongs to a former employer and was paid for by a client. Since I can't offer that up as a response and point at it and say, "Look! This is how the vast majority of people use YouTube!" I really have to let it go. I'll just let a few anecdotal data points win the day for the moment. But I will try to get permission to share what I can.
Does it shift the argument one way or another if I am wrong? Or are we focused on this aspect of my original point just because it was a fragile argument that depends on some data that none of us really have access to?
There was a whole lot in my posts earlier that did not rely on how people get to YouTube to begin with.
-
Which part of
To be fair, it sounds like Google is backing off of that part, though the whole thing is clear as mud so it's hard to know for sure.If you had previously been getting Content-ID ad revenue and choose not to participate in the new service, your channel will be deleted and all videos using your music will be blocked.
don't you get? Even if you reupload your stuff, you a) don't get basic abuse protection, and b) have all derived work simply blocked out.
-
-
I am apathetic about the broader topic; I just disagree with one of your supporting arguments. Carry on
-
To be fair, it sounds like Google is backing off of that part, though the whole thing is clear as mud so it's hard to know for sure.
The "derived work being blocked out", maybe. And good for them, because that's insane.
But if you won't be able to use ContentID at all when this comes around, that means they're depriving you of any protection from actual misuse of your work, unless you sign up on their ridiculous terms. Again, if this was any other content sharing site (MegaUpload, for example), the courts would already be on their tails forcing them to implement that mechanism, but apparently it's okay for Google to say "either you sell your soul to the G, or have fun writing thousands of C&D letters".
-
I am apathetic about the broader topic
Likewise. It is Google's platform. They can do with it what they wish. If they overstep the boundaries, someone else will come up and take their place and they will die. But they are not a monopoly. They just have a shit load of market share because they have built up a great platform. When their platform ceases to be great, so will their market share.
-
See, this is what I was trying to narrow down by asking what exactly it is that people here think youtube has a monopoly on. @EvanED was willing to reasonably limit his claims to a specific thing. But you are asserting that google has a monopoly on something incredibly vague like, "how to get famous as a musician."
There is no such monopoly in those generic terms, and it's especially not true in the classical world that ZK works in. You can call it that all you want, but it's not accurate in any meaningful moral, legal, or ethical sense.
-
Likewise. It is Google's platform. They can do with it what they wish. If they overstep the boundaries, someone else will come up and take their place and they will die. But they are not a monopoly. They just have a shit load of market share because they have built up a great platform. When their platform ceases to be great, so will their market share.
I should have just said that to begin with and been done with this.
-
From what it sounds like, at this point:
- You can still use ContentID to block other users' videos that use your music
- You can still upload your own videos, regardless of ContentID settings
- However, you will no longer be able to monetize other users' videos without signing up for the streaming service
But again, this is all as clear as mud so who knows.
-
But they are not a monopoly. They just have a shit load of market share...
That's... kind of what a monopoly is. I'm not sure YT is quite at the legal threshold, but they're at least not super far away from it.
-
Does Apple have a monopoly on iPhones?
Is this a problem?
-
That's... kind of what a monopoly is.
No. A monopoly exists when a business has 100% market share, or at least enough to raise prices on their own due to lack of competition. Not really the case here...as they do not charge anything...
Also, a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal. Hell, we have had monopolies intentionally formed by the government in the past when it was thought it would benefit the public good.
YouTube has also not displayed any anti-competitive practices to my knowledge.
The point is, it is their service. They can do with it what they wish, up to and include run it in to the ground if they wish...
-
No. A monopoly exists when a business has 100% market share, or at least enough to raise prices on their own due to lack of competition. Not really the case here...as they do not charge anything...
So Microsoft was never a monopoly? Good to know.Also, a monopoly is not in and of itself illegal
No, but tying when you have a monopoly often is, and that's at least my main complaint about Google's actions here as I see it as basically tying, as I've stated before. (Though as I've also said, while I'm not sure that they have quite a dominant enough position to be legally considered one, they definitely have enough of one to make their tying actions ethically "questionable.")Edit: If Google removed the ability for all artists to monetize other users' videos based on ContentID matches, I'd say it's a stupid and dick move but not unethical per se. Allowing artists who sign up for Music Key to continue to monetize on YT but not others, that is what puts them well over my "unethical" line.
-
If they overstep the boundaries, someone else will come up and take their place and they will die.
That's what should happen, but that's not what happens. Why do you think there are antitrust laws in the first place? That's because there's no way for anybody to "come up and take their place" once one entity on the market has gone sufficiently large. At some point, especially in content sharing market, it just gets rolling - people flock to YouTube, so content providers move their content there to become popular, bringing more viewers, bringing more providers, etc.
It's a massive amount of intertia, and it would require the same amount to be stopped. And for YouTube, I think nothing short of building a Death Star and obliterating a planet of happy fluffy bunnies by Google would provide that.
It is Google's platform. They can do with it what they wish.
And we can call them pieces of morally bankrupt shit they are for that. As for whether they actually can do that - IANAL, but let's just say Microsoft would probably already be paying off your national debt if they pulled that off.
See, this is what I was trying to narrow down by asking what exactly it is that people here think youtube has a monopoly on. @EvanED was willing to reasonably limit his claims to a specific thing. But you are asserting that google has a monopoly on something incredibly vague like, "how to get famous as a musician."
They efficiently have a monopoly on video clip sharing, pretty much completely on video clip discovery, and they're awfully close to having a monopoly on content sharing in general.
So, yeah. They might just as well hold a "The Only Way To Get Famous As An Artist" book. Because other than signing up for a label or having an exorbitant amount of money, there's literally no other way to achieve the amount of fame which YouTube stars do.
You can call it that all you want, but it's not accurate in any meaningful moral, legal, or ethical sense.
You know what? Fine, those are your morals and ethics. You have the right to be a despicable human being sucking Google's dick and telling the artists to "get a job and pay for themselves".
But I sure hope that's not a prevalent standpoint.
A monopoly exists when a business has 100% market share, or at least enough to raise prices on their own due to lack of competition.
The price, in this case, is "the control of your content".
YouTube has also not displayed any anti-competitive practices to my knowledge.
IANAL again, but merging with Google Video pretty much made YouTube the only player on the market.
Does Apple have a monopoly on iPhones?
That doesn't even make sense, you retard. How's "iPhones" a market?
-
Does Apple have a monopoly on iPhones?
iPhones isn't the market; smartphones isn't the market. Just like YouTube isn't the market; online, user-submitted video services is the market.In one of those examples, the former has something like 80% of the market. In the other, they don't.
Furthermore, as @Polygeekery said, even having 80% of the market isn't, in-and-of-itself, a bad thing; it's the borderline-tying that makes it a bad thing.
-
From what it sounds like, at this point:
You can still use ContentID to block other users' videos that use your music
You can still upload your own videos, regardless of ContentID settings
However, you will no longer be able to monetize other users' videos without signing up for the streaming serviceBut again, this is all as clear as mud so who knows.
For me, it read like either "you can't use Content ID at all", or "we'll be using Content ID for you" (and I'm not really quite sure which of the three options they're choosing).
Which probably just proves your point.
-
iPhones isn't the market; smartphones isn't the market. Just like YouTube isn't the market; online, user-submitted video services is the market.
Hey, just trying to get a read here on what exactly it is that you think is a monopoly. I don't think you've expressed well what you think it is.
So far, what I'm getting is, "This is a bad thing that shouldn't happen. And it involves marketshare in some way."
But now I have a better definition, and I thank you for that.
-
For me, it read like either "you can't use Content ID at all", or "we'll be using Content ID for you" (and I'm not really quite sure which of the three options they're choosing).
You could interpret it as "we'll be using ContentID for you", but that is sort of meaningless. ContentID is just a system that identifies, when Joe Random uploads a video, whether that video uses any audio or video registered with the system. The people who registered an audio/video thing with the system then get to choose what get's done with it; what will be happening is that musicians who don't go with Music Key will have Google choose "block" for them. So it's not "we'll be using ContentID for you", it's "well be choosing 'block' in ContentID for you".(But this is just nitpicking words; presumably we have the same end effect in mind.)
-
So Microsoft was never a monopoly?
You might want to give that a read. I think you have a misconception as to what the charges were...
-
(But this is just nitpicking words; presumably we have the same end effect in mind.)
Yeah, so it'd seem. But that wouldn't make any sense - they'd need to recognize you as an artist in order to not block the content you post, and it seems the only way to get that would be to sign up. And even if not, then it still deprives you of control of your own work - it's Google who decides for you who may or may not use it (and it decides to not let anybody at all use it).
Not to mention that it would make ContentID even more fucked for users, because there's no way to click "Allow" on fair use / false positives.
-
You might want to give that a read. I think you have a misconception as to what the charges were...
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly (and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, RealNetworks, Linux, and others.)
So, as far as my parser goes, the important part of the sentence is "Microsoft's dominance of the (...) market constituted a monopoly". Which means that, despite not holding 100% share of the market, they were still deemed as such. The "actions to crush threats" are a separate issue.
Which... kinda seems to disprove your definition.
-
That's what should happen, but that's not what happens.
That is, in fact what has happened for the life of the internet so far.
Shit happens. People get pissed about it. They find other services. Google was one of the first disruptors. Now they are a giant.
But there was a time before google. Do you remember that? When AOL, Lycos, and Yahoo! were really relevant?
There was a time when AOL was the apparent behemoth that you seem to think google is today. In the late 90s, there was almost no one who would take you seriously if you told them, AOL is doomed because of reasons.
It didn't matter what you said. AOL was the one and only internet company that normal non-nerd people cared about (I was a compuserve guy myself, at the time)
AOL is an abusive monopoly!!! They said.
Here's the thing: free shit doesn't last forever. Someone has to start paying for stuff at some point,
And you know what's actually going to happen? Google is going to get too greedy and too whatever the fuck. 10 years from now, google will be as important as AOL is to us today. A joke. A punchline. A company that we might think it's a good idea to merge with Yahoo!
Google video youtube stuff won't matter. It will be there, I guess, but it doesn't matter.
Your hyperbole is exactly the stuff of 90s tech journalism about AOL. No one can ever win against them, no one can ever beat them, no one can play this game as well as they do.
It happened. Someone played the game better. It was google for a while. My personal opinion is that google's time is up, and we won't care about google in 5 years.
But your hyperbole about how this shit doesn't work is a load of crap. It does work. We have seen it work. You're just too lazy or too young or too stupid to care.
-
So, as far as my parser goes, the important part of the sentence is "Microsoft's dominance of the (...) market constituted a monopoly". Which means that, despite not holding 100% share of the market, they were still deemed as such. The "actions to crush threats" are a separate issue.
Which... kinda seems to disprove your definition.
Are you seriously fucked in the brain or something? Are you now going to argue that being successful is a crime?
-
Hey, just trying to get a read here on what exactly it is that you think is a monopoly. I don't think you've expressed well what you think it is.
I would have thought the fact that YouTube was an online, user-submitted video service was obvious after I compared its market share (at least in terms of bandwidth) to other online, user-submitted video services.You might want to give that a read. I think you have a misconception as to what the charges were...
I'm not sure what you want me to take from that. The charges were that MS was a monopoly and using that to tie IE to Windows.
-
Are you seriously fucked in the brain or something? Are you now going to argue that being successful is a crime?
I'm quoting a fucking court ruling. You have a problem with it, take it up with Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson.
But there was a time before google. Do you remember that? When AOL, Lycos, and Yahoo! were really relevant?
That was what, 15 years ago or so? The internet was not nearly as popular as now, and certainly not as much of a driving force as it is now.
Besides, all you had to do to compete with AOL, Lycos and Yahoo was to provide a better service. To compete with YouTube, you could have the best and most awesome video sharing service in the whole multiverse and still have no people using it, because it's empty - content providers won't move because that's not where their viewers are, and viewers won't move because that's not where their content providers are.
You want a more current and accurate analogy? Look at Microsoft. Regardless of what you think about Windows 8, it's been viewed by millions of people as a disaster - and what did they do? Vote with their feet and move to Linux? Fuck no. They either clenched their teeth and moved on, stayed with Windows 7, or are waiting for Windows 10. Why? Because a) that's where all their programs are - they won't move to other systems because they won't be able to use Office or play Skyrim or whatever, and programmers won't port their applications because there aren't enough people there to warrant that.
And with web apps, Office replacements, and fairly viable solution that is OS X, you'd think it would be easy to drive Microsoft at least out of the consumer PC market - but nope, they're still holding on pretty damn well there. And YouTube has pretty much none of that - they're the sole player on the market, and they're milking it for what it's worth.
-
Here's what one artist did when they couldn't get things sorted with United:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozoNot sure how long a vid like this would last on YouTube if Zoƫ uploaded it, but she could also upload to all other vid sharing sites & link to them as well. Have to start somewhere.
Lessons from "United Breaks Guitars:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hd8XI42i2MAlso an interesting listen. Maybe the Yahoos who call themselves YouTube Execs should give it a listen too.
There was a time when AOL was the apparent behemoth that you seem to think google is today. In the late 90s, there was almost no one who would take you seriously if you told them, AOL is doomed because of reasons.
This is comparing apples to oranges. AOL was an ISP first and a content provider second. Who in their right mind was going to stay on dial-up? [AOL does not offer high speed service][1]. That killed them, and could be foreseen. AOL didn't focus on content, they focused on being an ISP, didn't stay on top of the ISP game, and all but died because of it.
What is YouTube not doing that will kill them in 10 years? I don't know the answer to that. Accessing content is the end user's goal, being an ISP was simply a means to that goal, so I can't make a prediction here. Perhaps this chokehold on content they're going for will be their undoing - but the damage they're doing to artists and consumers will take years, if not decades, to correct itself as they've already eaten up their main competition.
I know of one site, dailymotion.com, that serves videos, but I tend to avoid them as all too often their advertisements are malvertivsements that try to take over my computer(1). I'm not really familiar with other services. Only today did I hear of Vimeo, and that's thanks to @blakeyrat's link in the OP.
Hey Yahoo.com - you paying attention? Opportunity here, if you can figure out how to capitalize!
(1) That data is from 2012 when I was watching some Doctor Who classics - gave up after the fourth attempt by a malvertisement to take over my computer to "scan for infections" or some such BS and no response to my notifications to them about said malvertisements. Don't know if it's still a problem today.
[1]: http://help.aol.com/help/microsites/microsite.do?cmd=displayKC&docType=kc&externalId=10631
-
I'm quoting a fucking court ruling. You have a problem with it, take it up with Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson.
The judge was talking about a definition. I don't have a problem with it other than the fact that you are using the definition to make being classified as a monopoly an actual crime.
It's not in any way a crime to be a monopoly, and joysticks like you are not helping anyone. You are just obfuscating the situation.
I don't care about what the mechanics were for beating AOL back in the day. They are all obvious in hindsight. At the time, AOL was unbeatable, just like google is unbeatable. It is not the mechanics of who is doing what or how. It is the mindshare.
Right now, we all think that google is unbeatable because reasons. This happened 15 years ago. Someone beat the big giant. It will happen again, and it will continue to happen.
You are being willfully ignorant or just plain awful.
Google will get disrupted. Google will become irrelevant. Do you agree or not?
You are a complete dolt if you disagree. Just wanted to point that out.
-
Accessing content is the end user's goal, being an ISP was simply a means to that goal, so I can't make a prediction here.
I also think there are important differences between AOL and Google, but this statement isn't really the full story. Remember, AOL had a lot of content just itself -- there were forums, download areas, chat rooms, news, the works. We had AOL for quite some time before using it for the web was something that people commonly did. (We had AOL for quite some time before we even knew the web was a thing!) AOL was (is, I guess) a bona fide content provider. I definitely wouldn't agree that they were "an ISP first and content-provider second" early on in its life. I would say that their problem was that they didn't adjust as that statement did actually become true, and then they were lost when cable internet came on the scene.
-
Here's the thing: free shit doesn't last forever. Someone has to start paying for stuff at some point,
This is an interesting hypothesis which I would like to see more evidence in favour of. I assume we are talking only about the realm of human affairs, and not, for example, cats as well?
Filed under: cats don't give a fuck about money
-
Google will get disrupted. Google will become irrelevant. Do you agree or not?
All civilizations and organizations fall given enough time. That being said:
Counter-question: got a better search engine or know of one, or something that is even better that will replace/bypass it?
Until you can say YES to that, Google will likely survive just fine.
-
This is an interesting hypothesis which I would like to see more evidence in favour of. I assume we are talking only about the realm of human affairs, and not, for example, cats as well?Filed under: cats don't give a fuck about money
I can't help you there. If your life is run by cats, that's just not a thing I can help with.
But seriously. Cats? Are you sure your life isn't run by pussy?
-
Counter-question: got a better search engine or know of one, or something that is even better that will replace/bypass it?
I've been using http://startpage.com for the last four or five years, since I decided that Google were being more creepy than cool anymore. Has plugins for most desktop browsers. Works for me.
Filed under: it's a pretty sad state of affairs when "we don't record your IP" is a search engine's USP
-
I also think there are important differences between AOL and Google, but this statement isn't really the full story. Remember, AOL had a lot of content just itself -- there were forums, download areas, chat rooms, news, the works. We had AOL for quite some time before using it for the web was something that people commonly did. (We had AOL for quite some time before we even knew the web was a thing!) AOL was (is, I guess) a bona fide content provider. I definitely wouldn't agree that they were "an ISP first and content-provider second" early on in its life. I would say that their problem was that they didn't adjust as that statement did actually become true, and then they were lost when cable internet came on the scene.
Oh my shit. Are you saying that AOL had stuffs?
Are you saying that AOL had things like user-generated content?
Are you saying that AOL is different from google in really important ways because it's exactly the same in all the really important ways?
Holy shit. This is a new level of wrong.
-
I can't help you there. If your life is run by cats, that's just not a thing I can help with.
I'm trying to make the point that the forces of economics are perhaps not as universal as you're making it sound like they are.
Filed under: Martian economics, then
-
But seriously. Cats? Are you sure your life isn't run by pussy?
I can imagine worse things...
-
You are being willfully ignorant or just plain awful.
Google will get disrupted. Google will become irrelevant. Do you agree or not?
You are a complete dolt if you disagree. Just wanted to point that out.
Yes, of course, it's going to lose the Great Search Showdown to SSDS.
Remember, AOL had a lot of content just itself
And that's the point - they provided content, and they got replaced by better content. That, and the internet - and they got replaced by better internet.
With YouTube or Windows, you can't just get up, move to the competition and get the same thing.
I can't help you there.
Me neither. Denial is a strong force.
-
I'm trying to make the point that the forces of economics are perhaps not as universal as you're making it sound like they are.Filed under: Martian economics, then
Not sure what forces you are talking about.
I think it's inevitable that google gets disrupted. But I don't think that's because economics. I'm not that smrt. It's because people. They do things. Then they do different things.
-
Welcome to WTDWTF, trolling is what we do here, everyone is a troll, &c, &c...
-
You seriously cannot be more wrong. It's not about content.
Your content strategy has completely and totally failed.I hope you aren't in charge of anything important.
United States v. Microsoft Corp. - Wikipedia
