Google Striking Fear into the Corporate Masses 295
SpectralDesign writes "The New York Times reports that Google is striking fear into the hearts of even unrelated industries. From the article: 'We watch Google very closely at Wal-Mart," said Jim Breyer, a member of Wal-Mart's board. In Google, Wal-Mart sees both a technology pioneer and the seed of a threat, said Mr. Breyer, who is also a partner in a venture capital firm. The worry is that by making information available everywhere, Google might soon be able to tell Wal-Mart shoppers if better bargains are available nearby.'"
Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Monopolies (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Monopolies (Score:3, Interesting)
There are instances where WalMart doesn't have the lowest prices. Obviously, items on sale is one case. However, in my area the WalMart checkers will price-match if you mention another store's sale price. (Don't know if that's company policy or not.) The other case I've noticed is where one chain store's private label is priced a few cents lower than WalMart's.
But all retail stores should be wary, particularly when cit
Re:Monopolies (Score:3, Insightful)
And Best Buy, Staples, Circuit City, OfficeMax, etc. all can't begin to tell you how much they enjoy the fact you can't.
Re:Monopolies (Score:3, Insightful)
Same here. However, Best Buy has computers hooked up to the internet, just sitting there in the open for anyone to use. I go and browse to OM, OD, CC, Newegg, ZipZoomFly and Monarch for the item I was looking to buy. It was quite funny and informative. And just go jab the blueshirts a bit, I left Newegg up on the browser.
I tell ya, the next killer ap
Re:Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure why this is modded insightful. As a member of Wal-Mart's board, it is his job to do what's in the best interest of Wal-Mart and its shareholders, not the general public. Railing against a businessman for doing what makes sense for his business is more than a little silly.
I'm no fan of Wal-Mart by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm a capitalist at heart, and seeing comments like these make me scratch my head in confusion.
Re:Monopolies (Score:2, Insightful)
They're just pissed because someone else is eating their cookies now.
Re:Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever worked for a union? I have. And by and large, they promote mediocrity. On a not-so-personal level, take a look at American automakers. The unions are strangling them, and one of the reasons they turn out junk is because of the unions. American cars are decidedly average, and that's what unions promote: being average. In fact, where I worked, if you were better than average, you were looked down upon and made to feel unwelcome.
Re:Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a rhetorical example, but seriously. There have got to be limits to what a corporation is allowed to do in pursuit of the almighty dollar, but you never hear any of the Ayn Rand-types talking about that. But capitalism is no magic utopia where the invisible hand stops pollution, disposes of hazardous waste properly, or ensures that children are fed and cared for even if their parents are drug-addict deadbeats. Time and time again, corporations show to us that they are untrustworthy on their own, and will always do the most profitable thing, no matter how many lives they destroy in the process.
Re:Monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
As it's shaping up right now, Google, monopoly or not, is beginning to look like the only thing that might possess the throw-weight to successfully counter the otherwise alarming trend that has recently manifested itself among almost all large capitalist enterprises, and that is the trend of restricting and choking access to information/data/operating code to the point where no one is able to access/use/employ that information/data/operating code without the considered permissions of whomever "owns" it.
We now live in a VERY dangerous time in which the scales seem to be tipping in favor of an Orwellian outcome where all information is locked down tight and any attempt to look under the hood or otherwise perform any "unauthorized" operation on any information/data/operating code is met with a draconian response of severely criminalizing those who would attempt to do so.
As it stands now, Google seems to be the only large capitalist entity that would further its interests by tearing down any and all restrictions on information/data/operating code.
As loathsome as the business of political lobbying may be, it is now incumbent upon Google to get cracking in the seats of political power to ensure that information/data/operating code is kept as open and free as possible.
No one else has the clout that Google now possesses, and therefore no one else has a prayer of achieving the absolutely vital goal of keeping information open and free.
Should this endeavor fail, some very dark times await us.
That Google may be a monopoly is, at present, something that we're just going to have to ignore. We can't have our cake and eat it too, so we must, unfortunately, cheer on Google as it becomes even larger and more powerful.
Should the battle to free information/data/operating code be won (and it is by no means a certainty), then and on then may we turn our attentions toward Google itself with an eye toward reducing such excesses of size as exist at that time.
For now, Google is the enemy of our enemies, and is perforce our friend.
Re:Monopolies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Monopolies (Score:2)
You are absolutely right, of course, but unfortunately none are well-endowed with potential political power to reverse the present day trend towards the suffocation of information.
Re:Monopolies (Score:2)
"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."
Power (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Google is your friend. Google seeks to create and share information others create. As long as they believe in and fight for the right of others to do the same, they are your friend. This is the exact opposite and the cure for the insane but inate will to control others you see. The truth does set you free.
We now live in a VERY dangerous time in which the scales seem to be tipping in favor of an Orwellian outcome where all information is locked down tight and any attempt to look under the hood or otherwise perform any "unauthorized" operation on any information/data/operating code is met with a draconian response of severely criminalizing those who would attempt to do so.
Ah, true, but you do not go far enough in your understanding of collective oligarchy and current law. Creating and sharing information is also against the rules by the DMCA, a very real law. You are supposed to mindlessly consume information fed to you, not examine, share or even remember it. Control of information is key to establishing an Orwellian society. That society proves it's existence to itself through suffering. The result is a society that exists to make you misserrable.
In the pathetic WalMart example you see the motivation and an indication of how absolutely that motivation is applied. They are paranoid. Perfect information might hurt their sales and ability to take your money. Walmart is also freaky about taking pictures in their stores and other petty details. It's all about power and control. The small scale of this power and control is a good reason to be afraid. It indicates that no detail is too small to be controlled and manipulated. Power demands absolute power and the will to power is part of human nature. Small minded people get a kick out of such petty control but it's part of all of us and it's implications are much larger.
Orwell recognized this about human nature. He drew his conclusions from experience in the colonies of the British Empire, as a tramp in Paris and London, a witness to communist revolutions in Spain and the second world war. These were all terrible experiences where the ordinary rules of conduct were removed and people were free to do oppress each other in any way. So, I'll quote the master [online-literature.com]:
'The rule of the Party is for ever. Make that the starting-point of your thoughts.'
' You understand well enough how the Party maintains itself in power. Now tell me why we cling to power. What is our motive? Why should we want power?'
He knew in advance what O'Brien would say. That the Party did not seek power for its own ends, but only for the good of the majority. That it sought power because men in the mass were frail cowardly creatures who could not endure liberty or face the truth, and must be ruled over and systematically deceived by others who were stronger than themselves. That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better. That the party was the eternal guardian of the weak, a dedicated sect doing evil that good might come, sacrificing its own happiness to that of others.
'You are ruling over us for our own good,' he said feebly. 'You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore --'
He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O'Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five.
'That was stupid, Winston, stupid!' he said. 'You should know better than to say a thing like that.'
'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in thei
Re:Power (Score:4, Insightful)
Well spoken. Well quoted. Well worth extended consideration. You further elaborate my position for me nicely, and for that I tip my hat to you, sir. But I will continue to closely watch Google anyway. Times and men have a habit of changing, and I feel confident that Google is not somehow shielded from the currents of change and the unknown ways and places that they may lead to. That said, for now, Google is indeed my friend.
We are the knights that say... (Score:2, Funny)
Now get me some shrubberies...
Re:We are the knights that say... (Score:3, Funny)
Better than Wal-Mart (Score:5, Funny)
They don't treat their employees like EA coders, and you can still buy cheap.
I didn't even need Google for that.
Re:Better than Wal-Mart (Score:2)
Re:Better than Wal-Mart (Score:2)
Except you have to pay $45 a year to belong, you have to have a warehouse to store all that bulk stuff, and there's a lot of stuff they just don't have. And you absolutely, positively, cannot go on a Saturday. A Costco trip won't last under 3 hrs then.
So there's still room for Wally in the grand scheme of things.
Sams Club (Score:2)
-everphilski-
Just FYI (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Better than Wal-Mart (Score:2)
Re:Better than Wal-Mart (Score:2)
Bissel Steam cleaner, MSRP $299.00, Costco $195.00, Target $192.00
therefore target is much cheaper because you did not have to shell out a "membership fee" to buy it. Food is overpriced at Costco and is of no better quality.
The only things I find cheaper there is digital photo and photo developing to prints and their "bl
Re:Better than Wal-Mart (Score:3, Informative)
So really, I made my $45 membership fee back a long time ago.
But like I said, maybe it depends where your Costco is.
Re:Better than Wal-Mart (Score:2)
http://www.samsclub.com/eclub/main_shopping.jsp?B
188.82- SHIPPED?
Re:Better than Wal-Mart (Score:3, Insightful)
Gas is now at $2.00 a gallon here in the midwest. Down from over $3.50
I find that the people who buy SUV's don't really give a rats ass about gas prices, now the people that drive 10+ year old cars and live paycheck to paycheck get killed when gas doubles in price. Ironically, it is usually those people that buy fuel efficient cars... Those that can afford a $50k + SUV may "whine" about gas prices but those with an under $10k car generally get hurt very bad by the price.
Got that beat (Score:2)
Re:Better than Wal-Mart (Score:3, Insightful)
wow! (Score:5, Interesting)
they are saying: the cheapest on the whole world, are they lying? No, it's simply not possible
btw, castorama (like wal-mart in europe, but smaller and focuses only on things that people may use when building/renoving a house) gives warranty on their prices. Their ad is: "if you find this thing cheaper anywhere, we will return to you the price difference". I've never tried if this actually works.
Re:wow! (Score:2)
There are some conditions though, mainly on the distance to the competitor with lower price (and i'm pretty sure online sellers don't work).
Re:wow! (Score:2)
After you buy, you're on your own.
I know HH Gregg (an "electronics" store - big screen TVs and clothes washers and dryers is pretty much all they sell) has a 110% up to 30 days AFTER purchase guarantee.
Re:wow! (Score:2)
Re:wow! (Score:2)
Re:wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Price-matching isn't about the consumer, it's about competitors. When a retail store announces that it will match prices, it is telling its competitors that it wants to end a price-war. When the competitors follow suit, the price-matching serves as a mechanism so the corporations in question can see who is breaking the "terms" of their cartel action. In essence, price matching is collusion to keep prices higher.
Re:wow! (Score:2)
"If we found out some other retailer is getting a cheaper price on something from the same distributor/manufacturer, our purchasing price will drop below theirs retroactively"
Basically if you (as a manufacturer or distributor) want to do business with Walmart you have to sign a contract (standard operating procedure). That contract states that if you sell a product to another company for less than x cents more then what Walmart pays, Walmarts purcha
Re:wow! (Score:2)
Well, for the one electronics chain that I know off that has the same policy, the catch is the definition of "anywhere".
That's "anywhere in a reasonable area" (probably the same city) so they don't have tom compete with online stores for example.
Also, most customers don't bother to check so it's a relatively cheap promise.
Example: Some older movie DVDs were/are almost twice as
The trick to that offer (Score:5, Insightful)
Example:
You go into Z-Mart, and you see a Ricaroni 5 CD changer for $15. You pick up a Z-Mart flier showing the price.
You now head over to Q-Mart, and locate what initially appears to be the same Ricaroni 5 CD changer for $20. Since Q-Mart offers a "200% price difference" offer, you figure you are going to get the CD player for $10.
But wait! When you go to claim your offer, the friendly Q-Mart manager points out that the Z-Mart flier is offering a Ricaroni model #5551212-a player, and Q-Mart's is a Ricaroni model #5551212-b - a different model number. He then points out that their offer only applies to "the same model", and since this is NOT the same model number, it is not covered under their vaunted "200% price difference" offer.
Now, if you were able to check, you would find out that the only folks who have the model #5551212-a are Z-Mart, and the only folks who have the #5551212-b are Q-Mart. Moreover, if you could go to the Ricaroni manufacturing plant, you would see that the only difference between the model numbers is the model number sticker - they are otherwise the same unit.
Then why the model number difference? Because both Q-Mart and Z-Mart insist upon the model numbers they sell being unique - so that their "200% price guarantee" trick can work.
I've changed the names to protect the guilty, and obviously this trick isn't played on every item sold in every store, but it is played enough to allow the stores to offer tricks like this. And before you ask why the manufacturers go along with this - because when you are dealing with customers with the buying power of WalMart, BestBuy, and so on, you do what they want, or you don't sell product.
Re:The trick to that offer (Score:3, Interesting)
The duty-free shops almost always have products that can NOT be found in regular consumer shops outside of airports. It specifically is to prevent comparison shopping. I have a friend who produces wines and champagnes, one set of labels for most of the products, another set of labels specifically for duty-free. The same thing happens with most of the products, like perfumes, chocolates, alcohols and elec
Re:wow! (Score:2)
A similar price promise at Sainsburys Homebase (a DIY store in the UK having its ass kicked by Wilkinsons) turned out to be false -- they would only refund 9/10 of the difference between the two prices.
For example, I bought something for £4 in homebase that cost £3 in wilko. In return for going back to the homebase store, taking them up on their price pro
Re:wow! (Score:2)
One department store made a pricing error on the price tag for the few new XBoxes they had (IIRC price was about 50 Euro lower than the recommended price that everybody else used (was forced to use?)).
Instead of trying to buy there and probably make them aware of their error, some fellow students went to the big electronic/multimedia chain shop across the road that had a "we have the lowest price or else we pay the difference" policy.
"Even the shop ac
cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar wor (Score:5, Insightful)
cheaper than walmart online? yeah, but it's not just froogle that lets us find that out.
Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar (Score:2)
With Wal-Mart having a history of kicking out of the store people who dare to write prices on a notebook, they most likely won't like people doing that. But how can they stop it?
Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar (Score:2)
Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar (Score:2)
Here in Amsterdam the staff might kill you [lycos.nl], or at least beat you up, for behaviour like that. We have had quite a number of cases of excessively violent citizen arrests by staff in the last few years.
Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar (Score:2)
And big stores like that consider somebody who is from another big store going to their store to check on prices to be tresspassing. Classic Spy vs. Spy situation.
Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar (Score:5, Insightful)
However, like other companies that started on the bottom rung by being cheap, they now need to learn a new trick or become irrelevent. Walmart needs customers with money, customers that are not going to shop at a cheap place that depends on illigal immigrants and desperate mothers. Shoppers that are going to value reasonable working conditions over wide aisles.
And it is going to be hard for Walmart to keep prices low, unless they start looking at ineffeciencies in management and other overhead. These ineffeciencies, according to Forbes, is why Costco is a better company. And these ineffeciencies are why Walmart is vunerable even at the brick and mortor level. Historically a firm that competes just on price, or just on style, are not good long term prospects.There are a few national chains, like Target, that are competeing heavily on quality of life issues, and those chains will likely do better as Walmart is forced to sacrifice price to attact the more affluent customer.
Walmart has already shown no dedication to a particular community. There are empty husks of building all over the country left as Walmart moved 10 miles up the road to cheaper land. With the price of gas, we may again be reaching a point where a 5 mile trip to the safeway is better than a 10 mile trip to the walmart.
Better prices Always... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Better prices Always... (Score:4, Informative)
They wanted it to be "Always the lowest price. Always" but were beaten back by lawyers who took that as a claim that they would be lowest on every item, which could be proven false with just one lower price elsewhere.
Lame... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this were kindergarten, they'd be given time-out to stare at a wall. I'm not going to suggest that there's any conspiracy with Microsoft pulling some wal-mart puppet strings, so I'll just some other paranoid poster take care of that.
That works both way (Score:4, Interesting)
Ah . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ah . . . (Score:2)
Sad (Score:5, Funny)
I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me explain:
A quick quiz:
Gucci is an Italian Fashion product maker right? Tick tock tick tock
Wrong! Gucci are an Amsterdam company that buy in practically all of their products that makes *brands* (Boucheron, Balenciaga...) they say they buy shoes from Italy, according to this guy, the Italian high-fashion shoe industry get most of the shoe from Romania and China now and as a result Italy is Europe's biggest shoe importer:
http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?i
Quiz:
Nike are a high quality manufactured brand, Reebok are a high quality manufactured brand, Pan Shoes Bangkok are some crappy Asian brand? Right or wrong, tick tock tick tock... Wrong. Bangkok Rubber company make Reeboks for Reebok, Nike's for Nike and Pan Shoes for Pan Group (which owns Bangkok Rubber Company).
http://www.pan-group.com/ [pan-group.com]
CAT Footware (From Caterpillar):
http://www.catfootwear.com/Main.aspx [catfootwear.com]
Cat Footware are American made and 'Authentic since **1904***' (from their website)? Correct or not?
Tick tock tick tock... Wrong.
Cat brand products are made by Wolverine World Wide.
Here is the information saying they signed up the CAT brand in ***1994***, not 1904:
http://www.wolverineworldwide.com/brands_cat.asp [wolverineworldwide.com]
Here's their annual report:
http://www.wolverineworldwide.com/investors_repor
So where are CAT brand shoes made? Read the 2004 Report, page 29.
Risk factors:
"reliance on foreign sourcing and concentration of production in China; the availability and price of power, labor and resources in key foreign sourcing countries, including China;"
Made in China.
It's not the search engines, its the information they should fear. Look at the CAT thing, I simply clicked on their financial details and did a search for 'China' to locate the information. Nothing to do with Google or Yahoo.
Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear (Score:2)
I suppose I know now; it's coz they manufacture them.
Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose the U.S. could cancel thei
Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear (Score:2)
They've threatened it, but they won't. They're incapable of taking the island. The Chinese Navy doesn't have enough amphibious transports to put enough troops onto the island fast enough, air drop of troops only works when you have air superiority (the Chinese wouldn't, even without our help), and the majority of their troop transports are from the fifties and sixties - they're likely to lose a significant percentage of the invading force on mechandical trouble alone (lose in the sense t
Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear (Score:2)
What most people care about is getting stuff, and artificial intelligence and the internet (which is really what this article is about, not Google per se) is making this cheaper by stimulating competition
I *know* they care (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yes, I think they do. That's why I think these brands link themselves to American products/ US Atheletes etc. to give the impression of being a US product (Or Swiss or Italian or whatever).
"What most people care about is getting stuff, and artificial intelligence and the internet (which is really what this article is about, not Google per se) is making this cheaper by stimulating competition."
I say this again and again, price isn't everything, value for money is. If you can't tell if an Italian Luxury handbag is really an Italian Luxury Handbag and not just a Chinese bag with some finishing done in Italy to qualify for the "Made in Italy" label, then how can you determine value for money? Any search you get from Froogle doesn't help with that.
Plus how much can you save? Is it worth the extra drive and extra time? I really don't think Walmart has much to fear there.
Re:I think Nike, Reebok etc. have more to fear (Score:3, Funny)
And nobody in the business world understands it: (Score:5, Insightful)
Google has become ubiquitous; They make products people want to use. And they don't even feel compelled to say "customer satisfaction is our number one priority!" on every sign, railing, and even doormat in the building.
While other companies (and even industries) are struggling to lock consumers into their own little slice of the marketing pie, they have not figured out a way to get people to stop going to google for products or services. And that scares the bejesus out of them. It's not that hard; run the business and stay in the black. Give people what they want, instead of offering them a product and telling them that they want it because you want what's best for them.
Re:And nobody in the business world understands it (Score:2)
Re:And nobody in the business world understands it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And nobody in the business world understands it (Score:3, Interesting)
So, if Google is a threat, then WalMart must also: (Score:2, Funny)
That's a very negative way to look at it (Score:5, Insightful)
Some customers might spend a while looking at froogle.com and find that the cheapest Speakers only cost 50 quid at Wal-mart, and that'll keep Wal-mart and the consumers happy.
Others might spend time with google.com and find the best speakers are from Genelec and buy them, keeping Genelec and the consumers happy.
More information = more informed people = less bad purchases. It can only affect Wal-mart (and others) badly if they are not offering what their target market wants.
Healthcare (Score:5, Insightful)
What they really should be worried about is workers finding out that other companies actually pay living wages and provide good health coverage, unlike Walmart.
Re:Healthcare (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not saying this to be mean, but I've just never understood the need to strike. I mean, don't like the job? Find another one!
(Yes, sometimes that's easier said than done, but putting in the legwork of finding another job is a better way to use your energy in the meantime, no?)
If enough employees quit, the corporation would get the picture... but instead all the see is a "bunch of ungrateful fools"..
It's called Froggle (Score:4, Funny)
maps.google.com + froggle.google.com = "She's a witch!"
Wal-Mart should look forward to this day...or do they not really have the lowest prices?
Re:It's called Froggle (Score:2)
Re:It's called Froggle (Score:2)
Wal-Mart should look forward to this day...or do they not really have the lowest prices?
It's not that simple. It's possible for any one store to have
all the lowest prices because of something called loss-leaders.
Each store has it's own loss-leader(s) every week - something which
they sell at a loss to get more feet into the store - their hope
is that people will buy other stuff which will translate into profits.
If one store had to compete with the loss-leaders sold by all other stores,
they would be selling a
get used to it (Score:5, Interesting)
I expect the main channel of delivery in the future will be via cell phones anyway: SMS, MMS (photo of product bar code), and cell phone browser.
I guess what he doesn't like is that, for a while, there was an information imbalance between sellers and buyers, with sellers being able to use sophisticated computer systems for pricing, but buyers being left clipping coupons. Well, that imbalance is going away. That's a good thing for a market economy and capitalism. You like market economies and capitalism, right?
Big corps = bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Huge companies has too much money so they can buy all the important konwledge (I mean patent it) and thus prevent you from being succesfull. How you will climb up if they patented the rope and even the idea of "generic way going up"
I see google becames the same threat as microsoft is (or any other superdominant company).
WalMart: twist "better bargains are nearby" around (Score:4, Interesting)
Why are you so afraid that Google might tell (potential patrons that there are better prices available nearby - when you, too, could be making use of this technology ?
As soon as you spot a better price nearby, drop your prices at that location - now YOU have the better price.
Sincerely,
Common Sense
-----
Not entirely off-topic... there was a grocery store chain here in The Netherlands that would set up a mobile grocery store bus right outside a competing grocery store and let patrons of that store compare prices for the articles they had just bought by scanning the bar code. That way, they could easily tell people how much they could have saved by comparing the register stubs. More on-topic with what I wrote: *if* a product would actually have been cheaper at the store they're parked outside of, they would pass this on to corporate HQ. They, then, could issue an update to all their registers across the nation to bill that product more cheaply - the goal being to be cheaper than the competition once again.
Re:WalMart: twist "better bargains are nearby" aro (Score:3, Informative)
Perfect Markets (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. The motives of companies do not always co-incide with those of the consumers. As we can see here, not only does the customer suffer from imperfect information (a market inefficiency) but the companies actively fear an increase in this information, and also actively seek to restrict the flow of information that is required to become closer to market perfection (remember the copyright arguments about the posting of special offers on third-party websites). They don't want the kind of transaction I mention above; if they think they could get away with it, they screw the customer.
What's my point? Information is *good*, and if companies attempt to mess with the market by restricting this flow of infomation, they need to be regulated until their pips squeak. We need to realise that when businesses whine about regulation restricting the market, they're usually whining because *they* want to to mess with the markets to distort them in their favour.
Ballmer was right... (Score:2)
Balancing the economics for supply and demand. (Score:3, Insightful)
Case in point: I just purchased a Power Mac G5 with Mac OS X Tiger on it. I downloaded a slew of Dashboard Widgets from Apple's website, one of the more important ones being "GAS". By typing my zip code and specifying a radius in miles/km around the zip code, I can locate the lowest price gasoline in the immediate area. If I happen to be going in a particular direction, or the price is so ridiculously low, I will go out of my way to save money on gasoline.
Once again, this is a balancing of the economics in favor of the consumer. There is absolutely no rationale for gasoline prices varying from street corner to street corner other than to eek-out a much profit from the consumer. And with gasoline prices in the U.S. being so high and Exxon-Mobile reporting over $10 bollion in 3rd quarter profits, the approval rating polls for the Bush Administration and Republican party seem to reflect that these people are not looking out for the better good of the American people.
I've heard that Konfabulator available for both PC and Mac is similar to Apple's Dashboard and there should be available an equivalent to "GAS" for that graphical environment. If so, get it, you won't regret the $30 shareware fee for Konfabulator.
Maybe this will help fight Wal-Mart (Score:2, Interesting)
Sounds a lot like capitalism.. and mafia (Score:3, Funny)
Don Casalano: "Vinne, I'm glad you could meet wit' me at dis hour. we need too doo sumtin about dis.. ah, shall we say, dis 'discouragement' - dis..goooooo-gull"
Vinne: "You got it Don Casalano. Any'ting you say - you want meeta' whack um?"
Don Casalano: "Not yet Vinnie. First we send him a message. A short but to-da-point message. A message dat says stop interferin' in our biznizz. We don't need no help rollin' back da prices."
Vinne: "Wit all due respect Don Casalano, we aint had to send nobody dat message since Jimmie da Whip cut dat deal with Microsoft when we was sellin' them plain wrappa linux box--"
Don Casalano: "Vinnie, you're a sma't boy but don't get too sma't. Dis goooo-gul is irritatin' me like a boil in da crack'a my ass. If dey are gonna play, dey are gonna pay - now you go deliva dat message. I gotta call dis Ballma' guy back and see how his meetin' went.. I wonder if he t'rew da cha'ir like I told im to..."
Google doesn't worry Walmart... quite the opposite (Score:2)
Ya, good luck beating Walmart. I think that worry -- for Walmart anyway -- shouldn't be a problem. As for Google being worrisome to Walmart's competitors, there's the ticket. Soon our citys towns and even villages will just be Walmart buildings and nobody will use Google's shopping service because it will *always* point to Walmart.
Traditional Corporate Mindset Doesn't Get It (Score:5, Interesting)
* IP, in and of itself is valued by attorneys because it generates huge ammounts of billable work. No attorney in his or her right mind would recommend using anything that resembels an open source license. Too many barriers to litigation and legal fees. No huge lawsuits, no complex negotiations.
* Accountants like IP because it is valued however you need it to be.
So when I threw out the idea of GPLing the software, the result was almost comical:
* One attorney tried to explain how he needed to read the GPL. And bill me hours to do so. (not going to happen)
* One attorney suggested I'd be giving away a cash cow. I asked him: yours or mine. And the answer was a "what do you mean by that?" (struck a nerve here)
* My accountant said the intangible asset would be useful at the end of the year, and that an open source license may dilute the value of the asset.
It's very clear to me now why most business people see Google as a threat: intellectual property speculation has replaced the bilking investors with electric lemonade stands and WebVans full of irrational exuberance of the late 90's as the trendy way to make money out of thin air. Reality is going to be absolutely harsh to IP squatters & speculators:
* Innovation renders entire swaths of intellectual property useless. In the case of copyright, style and fashion relegate properties to the clearance bin or worse.
* For every piece of prime real estate, there are thousands of acres of desert, swampland, uninhabitable mountain terrain and tundra. Investors, many of which think the latest biotech idea will pay off in 10-15 years will find out that their idea isn't the winner - and will find out that a worthless patent is about as useful as an EPA superfund site is a location for a strip mall.
* Easments, emminent domain and the like have not been established in the IP world, and for the public good they will have to be. And the best ideas are often the ones that will eventually be taken via emminent domain. After all, if I can take your office park in NJ because I can put a bigger one up that will generate more tax revenue, why not take, say your one click buy or miracle drug patent because I can put it to better use for the common good?
I hope that Greenspan's last act parallels his cooling of the internet bubble: throwing a barrel of icewatter on the out of control party that the current IP feeding frenzy has become.
I feel threatened by Google, too... (Score:3, Funny)
Either I missed it or nobody said it.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have never been a fan of Walmart, and I don't think that Google is the altruistic god of geekdom, but I do wonder about such links as described above. Besides that, its time for someone to have a site that tells you where the best deals in town really are. I'm talking about a voice link service, maybe you tap in the store name and bar code and the service tells you where the best deal is, so that while you are in the store shopping you can decide if that is where you want to spend your money. Of course, I'd also like the service to tell you where the best deal on US made parts/items are too, so you get the choice of supporting your home country or having your dollars shipped overseas, but that is another matter.
Woah...mod that nonsense down (Score:4, Insightful)
I feel so dirty! (Score:3, Funny)
Why must the cute little elephant be so mean?
Re:The dark side of Google (Score:2)
Bot? (Score:2)
Re:Bot? (Score:2)
Re:The dark side of Google (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The dark side of Google (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Goness Me (Score:2)
Re:Pointless if Walmart is your nearest store? (Score:2, Insightful)
Google, Coupons, and You (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, so thats the retail environment for you. Now, you'll notice that the price discrimination is enabled by one thing: differential access to information, or the "cost of search" if you want to think of it that way. You're already assuming that the cost of search for a better deal is going to be greater than the savings you'll realize. Question: do you consider $6 an hour for boring tedium a good use of your time? Many, many millions of people whose opinions are very valuable at Wal-Mart world headquarters do. The ultimate nightmare app for Walmart would be a scanner attached to your cellphone (already widely available here in Japan) which would just scan all the items you need and tell you "Buy pickles, diapers, baby formula, and orange juice at Walmart. Go to the Jewel three minutes away for apple juice, note paper, and their 8 for the price of 3 pizza deal."
Another thing retail loves is called a loss leader -- something which is a staple, like milk, priced so low it will actively get people to come into your store, where they'll naturally buy other items which are priced higher. This works because people might know, for example, that $1.50 a gallon milk is an absurdly good deal, but putting together a list of all the items you need is very difficult, so you just get people to comparison shop on a few high-profile items and nickle-and-dime them on, say, cereal. (This is also one thing small stores LOVE to do to Wal-Mart, since it is very, very difficult to beat Wal-Mart's pricing across the board.) You can have loss-leaders which are much more expensive than milk though -- computer monitors, for example. And that + google = scare the pants off of you if you work in retail. Because it will bring people to your store for the purpose of getting the loss leader and *nothing else*. Best Buy calls these sort of customers "demons" (Google it, interesting article on the phenomenon) -- if you can exploit the information gap between you and the store you can tremendously cut into their business.
Re:Google, Coupons, and You (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pointless if Walmart is your nearest store? (Score:2)
That means that when going on a shopping trip, if you can save an average of
Re:Goog£e (Score:2)
I first read your comment as saying "Google has indexed too many webpages/scanned too many books/gathered too much information on the location of shops/etc". If so, that's not even slightly bothersome - until they're collecting information on me personally, I'm not going to take it personally either. I may have misread your comment - if so, apologies.
Re:Goog£e (Score:2)
The only information Google indexes is the one publicly available to every and any one.
Yahoo and Microsoft (with MSN Search) do exactly the same.
If you don't want search engines to have informations on you, just don't put these informations online. Plain and simple.