Churches are non-profit...
Many people would disagree with this.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Churches are non-profit...
Zarathustra[H];1038337084 said:Ahh, I think I always just had a floppy kicking around with it or something, or maybe I got it from a BBS.
Can't remember.
Either way, I never recall having to pay for it, and I used it from the initial release, and at no point was there any piracy involved...
Churches are non-profit...Google is definately about profit. Try again.
Note: I do agree the ruling is asinine..but your comparison is equally so.
Heh, I am waiting for Garmin to sue them in the EU courts for providing a free and superior product in Google Navigation...
By that logic, if a company owns a web portal, they should be able to include whatever web applications they wish on that portal.Its similar I suppose, but if a company owns an operating system, they should be able to include whatever functionality they wish in that OS.
You're not getting it. Google gets money from advertisers. They get more money if they push people toward those advertisers.Zarathustra[H];1038337002 said:The question is, is this truly anti-competitive practices, or is it just that Google is more competitive than its competitors in this space?
If it were like they claim, and Google was intentionally absorbing losses trying to put their smaller competitor out of business, with the intent of charging a fee at a later time, then I would agree with he finding.
The actual case - however - is very different. Google has a different business model. Their income comes from the data they collect when people use their services and the advertising they are able to do with that data.
This is - IMHO - a little bit like suing car manufactuers because you can no longer sell your horse drawn carriages.
Google has a more modern competitive business model. There is nothing wrong with that. The French are just being protective douchebags as usual, finding with the local boys instead of the Americans at any cost.
At least now with the EU as integrated as it is when it comes to business laws, this can be appealed up to a court outside of France which likely will allow for more favorable results.
You're not getting it. Google gets money from advertisers. They get more money if they push people toward those advertisers.
Obviously, search results can be skewed to make advertising companies appear more relevant. But so can map results. Enter "Hotels near <your location>" in Google Maps and see what pops up. A B C aren't always the closest to your location, nor the most relevant for your needs. And the maps themselves call out businesses around your route if you zoom in closely enough, completely unsolicited.
Not to mention that this is just more data Google gets to collect about you. Where you are; where you're going.
Other map applications aren't as likely to use Google's algorithms and advertising links, are they? This means less potential revenue as long as those companies exist. So... make your own map and integrate it with the world's most popular search engine (hey, that's us!)
That's what's anti-competitive: Using your dominance in one area (search) to stifle competition in another (map) in order to increase your business (advertising).
Still not getting it. If the solar panel company was dominant in an area that the power company relied upon for their business, then you might have a point.Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.. That sets a dangerous prospect for any company doing business in france that has a competitor if there business models are different.
Tomorrow you will read about how a solar panel manufacturer was sued in france because they were hurting the power company's profits.
Most definitely agree here. I'm not sure if France/EU is thinking about the future on this one.Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.. That sets a dangerous prospect for any company doing business in france that has a competitor if there business models are different.
Tomorrow you will read about how a solar panel manufacturer was sued in france because they were hurting the power company's profits.
So when new technology makes your business plan unsustainable you get to sue the company providing that technology? I suppose EU courts would have sided with the horse buggy makers against Henry Ford.
Actually, that's not quite right... If the solar company was so dominant in one area that they could afford to give away a separate product or service that is the basis for a competitors business, then you might have a point.Still not getting it. If the solar panel company was dominant in an area that the power company relied upon for their business, then you might have a point.
So quick, something think of something a large corporation offers for free, start a business trying to charge money for whatever that is, then sue that company because you are unable to compete. I think i might start a pay per use email service, and get my lawyers on yahoo and hotmail for about a mil each.
Actually, that's not quite right... If the solar company was so dominant in one area that they could afford to give away a separate product or service that is the basis for a competitors business, then you might have a point.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 80% of the population had this company's solar panels installed, and that those panels fed into the grid controlled by the power company. Customers are getting some of their power from solar, some from conventional.
Now let's pretend that the power company's margin depends upon selling new smart meters (it helps them sell power when it's more profitable; gives them better predictive capability; the meters themselves are profitable to install; whatever).
Solar company decides to make their own smart meter, give it away to its 80% customer base for free, and tunes them so that customers are encouraged to consume a greater proportion of power from solar. Also, the data they collect is now hidden from the other power company (or made available for a fee).
Solar is losing money on the meters, but gaining market in the 20% of non-customers who want free meters and gaining a new revenue stream from metered data.
While I would be the first to jump on the EU for fining American companies as a source of revenue model, they kind of have a point here. Google can offer map services for free, because they are so huge. They offer it at a loss, preventing other competitors from entering the space.
So basically, don't design your business model to make money on the back end. Charge your customers for everything.
I'm sorry. If I as a company can leverage my size (within reason) I don't understand the big issue. Am I going to these mom and pop shops, seeing what they charge, and charging way, way less?
My brother and I both have Android phones. We BOTH just bought GPS nav. systems. Why? Because they have their advantages. Google Maps is great for the real quick "where am I? How do I go to <xyz>?" But if you're planning a road trip, or even if you're going to be on the road for 3-4 hours, I've found the battery life Navigation eats isn't worth it.
What Garmin/TomTom/etc should be competing on is quality of maps, battery life, reception, and other things that make their physical products that much better than a smartphone with a GPS reciever. All things I've found suck with Google Maps and Google Navigation.
That's the problem, philosophically. Google arguably doesn't have to innovate as much (in their secondary business lines) as the other companies (in their primary lines) because they have a captive audience in an unrelated service. So the free application is theoretically bad for the customer over the long run.All things I've found suck with Google Maps and Google Navigation.
It isn't about navigation on the fly. Most of us know that you cannot compare Google Navigation with a real GPS unit. It's about planning your trips in advance. Google is suppressing relevant information in favor of businesses who give them money. As a mapmaker, Google must remain objective.
That's the problem, philosophically. Google arguably doesn't have to innovate as much (in their secondary business lines) as the other companies (in their primary lines) because they have a captive audience in an unrelated service. So the free application is theoretically bad for the customer over the long run.
All this being said, I don't think the free market system really exists... if it did, we wouldn't need all this regulation, right?
Being able to download it meant having a way to get online already...before IE was packaged with windows, you actually had buy physical software to install on your computer to get onto the internet. I remember going to CompUSA in the early 90s with my parents to buy Netscape (in a box with either a floppy or cd, not sure which) to install on their Gateway2000 running Windows 3.1. They had just signed up for internet service with a local ISP using a 14.4k modem... (The only other options were AOL or natinoal ISPs like Prodigy with non-local access numbers that were long-distance calls!)
Reminds me of a law here in Maryland regarding the sale of gasoline. By law you cannot sell a gallon of gas for less than you bought it for. This keeps large "convenience store" gas station combos from undercutting the mom and pop gas shops to attract customers.
1) no one likes you anyway france, you're probably the MOST hated country in the whole world
I believe the point is that because this is business related. Google might even get away with it if they offered a "commerical version" for 1 euro a year subscription.
1) no one likes you anyway france, you're probably the MOST hated country in the whole world
Zarathustra[H];1038337647 said:Actually, I get the distinct impression that dubious honor falls either to us, or Israel
I was joking with him but you actually just nailed it. I'd actually say the US is 1. and Israel is 2...lol
Churches are non-profit...Google is definately about profit. Try again.
Note: I do agree the ruling is asinine..but your comparison is equally so.