8 comments

  • eddythompson80 10 minutes ago
    Don’t know about catching up to AWS, but given the state of Azure, anyone with enough data center investment should be able to overtake it.
  • rattray 2 hours ago
  • siren2026 6 minutes ago
    I pray for Google to completely fail the pivot to AI. We don't need another surveillance capitalism company using AI to make us even dumber and more addicted to screens.

    I so hope that Google goes down. (And I pray the same for Facebook and a couple others).

  • ViktorRay 2 hours ago
    Whenever I read about how powerful these companies are, it sends chills down my spine.
    • tt24 42 minutes ago
      Saying this about a compute rental service is hilarious

      They have the power to do what exactly? Sell you some EC2 instances at reasonable prices? lol

      There’s organizations that have the power to openly kidnap and execute people and we’re being melodramatic about a few buildings with computers in them

      • siliconc0w 38 minutes ago
        They'll buy your politicians who will give them zero checks on raising energy prices or poisoning your children's minds
        • sublinear 12 minutes ago
          Apathy is not evidence of anything, not even ignorance.
    • bigyabai 2 hours ago
      AdSense is the one that people underestimate. It's a piranha pool of liquid cash, billions-scale impressions and near global outreach. Any sane nation would have banned it decades ago, unless it was propping up a global influence campaign for their government.
      • j16sdiz 1 hour ago
        I am more concern with how they make scam much less detectable.

        You can hyper-target your ad or scam to vulnerable individual.

        Unlike traditional media, like newspaper, you can post an ad with no visibility outside your target group -- which is hard to discover.

        The report button is just some generic "second look" and automation within the same organization, there are no oversight.

      • pixelpoet 2 hours ago
        I am deeply saddened that it was developed by the hero of modern rendering, Eric Veach.
      • parineum 2 hours ago
        > Any sane nation would have banned it decades ago

        Why?

        • majormajor 58 minutes ago
          "Possibility for abuse" seems like the right reason here. Does the benefiting of reducing a specific possibility of abuse outweigh the cost of an intervention? And here in particular, is there much cost to the intervention other than just shifting the money distribution from a zero-sum advertising arms race from one player to several?

          I frequently see calls to not intervene if there's not bulletproof evidence of existing abuse, but why wait? Would you want Google to own a bunch of nuclear missiles just because they might not have misused them yet?

        • bigyabai 1 hour ago
          AdSense uses a sealed-bid auction system with arbitrary number of lots that Google controls. It's a FOMO market driven by artificial scarcity, and since Google contractually forbids AdSense-enabled websites from using competing services, it forces ad buyers to go through their closed, controlled system.
          • SilverElfin 2 minutes ago
            They forbid those websites from using competitors? Isn’t that blatantly illegal? I guess it’s not actually illegal until they lose a court case for antitrust.
        • echelon 1 hour ago
          Google owns 92% of all "URL bars".

          They turned this into "search".

          Every brand or product has to competitively bid for its own identity in a monopoly competitive bidding market.

          It's downright evil.

          Look at Google's AI rivals having to spend hundreds of millions just so customers can find them. Google Anthropic or OpenAI and see what you get.

          The next admin needs to break Google up horizontally (not vertically) into competing browsers, clouds, and search products. They all need to fight. Healthy capitalism is fiercely competitive. Not whatever this invasive species that preys on everything else is.

          They also need to make it illegal to place ads for registered trademarks. The EU should get in on that too.

          • Aerroon 36 minutes ago
            >The next admin needs to break Google up horizontally (not vertically) into competing browsers, clouds, and search products. They all need to fight. Healthy capitalism is fiercely competitive. Not whatever this invasive species that preys on everything else is.

            That sounds great if you're rich and can afford to pay for all the million subscriptions that will pop up to replace what Google offers.

            Google offers an insane amount of value to people for free: YouTube, Android, Google Search, Trends, Scholar, Maps, Chrome, Translate, Gmail. These would all be paid subscription products without adsense (or some equivalent). And as paid products they would get the typical subscription enshittification over time.

            Also, on the topic of AI: didn't the transformers research paper come from Google? In an alternate world that would've been a trade secret locked away inside Google.

        • inquirerGeneral 1 hour ago
          [dead]
    • SilverElfin 1 hour ago
      Yep. They can make every mistake imaginable and not work as hard but still win. It’s the power of concentrated capital and monopolistic behavior and what people call “moats” but really is just an unfair advantage. Why should Google or Apple be allowed to copy everyone’s AI tech and just win because of distribution through Chrome or iPhones?

      We need new antitrust laws and heavy taxes just on the megacorps worth $500B or more. And aggressive enforcement.

      • jfrbfbreudh 52 minutes ago
        You mean, the inventor of the transformer technology that made ChatGPT possible, is copying ChatGPT’s technology?
        • SilverElfin 4 minutes ago
          When they bundle an AI Chatbot into their existing contracts for Google workspace, they are competing unfairly. When the browser steers you towards Google properties by default, they are competing unfairly. Etc
      • georgemcbay 1 hour ago
        Not that I'm opposed to new laws, but just having enforcement of the laws we already have would go a long way to fixing the problems.

        The problem is how to get to the point where there is enforcement.

        It definitely isn't going to happen with Republicans in power, and it also isn't a sure thing with Democrats in power either.

        Lina Khan was a good start for a bit there, but she certainly didn't have universal Dem support. Establishment Democrats are going to have to grow a spine and tell the Reid Hoffmanesque donor class to get fucked.

        • SilverElfin 6 minutes ago
          The current set of laws lead to the current situation in my opinion. Enforcement within the current laws means a court case that will take years and span multiple administrations, which gives it a lot of time to be killed.
      • IncreasePosts 1 hour ago
        What AI tech did Google just copy?
    • i_love_retros 1 hour ago
      Collectively we have the power to do something about it if enough people care to. It's called democratic socialism.

      https://www.dsausa.org/

    • morkalork 2 hours ago
      A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies
  • joe_mamba 2 hours ago
    Whoever controls the spice , controls the universe.
    • charlie0 2 hours ago
      And the spice must flow
  • irishcoffee 2 hours ago
    I’ve always thought “man it would have been a great job selling shovels and pickaxes during the gold rush” back in the day.”

    I know, I know, it’s really hard having these insights. We all have our crosses to bear. <giggling emoji>

    • kirubakaran 34 minutes ago
      Even the original gold rush pickaxe guy Sam Brannan went broke, and he practically had a monopoly on pickaxes by buying up the entire supply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Brannan
      • khuey 22 minutes ago
        TIL who Brannan Street in SF is named after.
    • jeffbee 2 hours ago
      The "picks and shovels" people from the dotcom days all went broke. The stuff they had convinced themselves and their investors was crucial turned out to be not important.
      • cyberax 1 hour ago
        Cisco is doing great. Sun got acquired by Oracle. Oracle itself is also fine (apart from it is Oracle). Akamai is doing fine.

        From the pure software side, Macromedia got acquired. RedHat was doing fine before IBM gobbled it up. But I honestly can't remember any other "picks and shovels" software companies from pre-dotcom.

        • bryanlarsen 55 minutes ago
        • shellwizard 44 minutes ago
          3Com / US Robotics - dead

          Nortel - dead

          Global crossing - dead

        • jeffbee 1 hour ago
          The glass-in-the-ground people went spectacularly broke. I also suggest you look up the stock price chart for JDSU. On the software side, Ariba and Commerce One.
        • warkdarrior 1 hour ago
          Microsoft - doing fine

          Netscape - dead (server) and/or dying (Mozilla)

          Intel - almost dead

          Palm - dead

          Qualcomm - still around

          • nerdsniper 1 hour ago
            INTC shot up >300% in the past 8 months and is now at its highest stock price ever, fwiw.
          • cyberax 1 hour ago
            I guess Netscape counts. Palm produced devices, so it was not really picks&shovels.

            Who else? Borland quietly withered away, but it had never been focused on tools specifically for the Internet.

      • newsclues 1 hour ago
        Working out for nvidia right now
        • ohNoe5 1 hour ago
          Hardware is important to operation of computers and software as we know them

          A bunch of config management DSL startups, and web scale data storage solutions, not so much

          • irishcoffee 1 hour ago
            Right, and Google owns 25% of the hardware.