My dad sent me this link. Pretty interesting.

headrott

http://www.topstrange.com/google-empire-2882

Can anyone say "monopoly giant"?

Greg

bobman1235

Just because a company is big does not make them a monopoly.

Google has plenty of competitors, and their products fail all the time (Buzz, etc). No doubt htey're trying to get into everything, but that's not the definition of "monopoly."

hearingimpared

Greg, gotta disagree. They know how to make money and do it very well. They are aggressively seeking to venture out which I think is a good thing. The more money they make the better off this country is with their taxes being paid and Lord knows how many charities they support. We actually don't know how many other ways they are supporting this nation.

They are not a monopoly, there are so many more "googles" out there but they just may not be as big or as good. That vid reminds of the hatred towards Microsoft . . . they spends millions to support this country and on charities.

Of course neither company ignores the bottom line nor should they. This country is about entrepreneurs and big business to keep us the strongest nation on earth. Why people hate that is beyond me. They all share the wealth (well most) in one way or another.

I see nothing but good from google! Not to mention that 95% of their revenue comes from advertizing, can you say "free for us!"

bigaudiofanatic

I have to agree with them getting pretty big, I love everything google does I have tried other things like bing or yahoo mail but they fall short. I mean down to the android OS and the google maps that you can now use on your phone for free? I mean I do not use half the stuff I use to use like my gps or my computer when I need to look up something. Apple was offered all that google had including the OS but apple refused and that was a big down fall for apple; not using all googles programs and such. I am on the business of google for car audio, I sighed up for free and use it for free and I have had a few calls about installs already. To me google is the head way of what a company should be. As for the microsoft statement the reason they can donate so much is the asinine amount of money the charge for an OS. And forcing people to upgrade because of the shutdown of xp support soon. That is just wrong.

quadzilla

hearingimpared wrote: »

They are not a monopoly, there are so many more "googles" out there but they just may not be as big or as good. That vid reminds of the hatred towards Microsoft . . . they spends millions to support this country and on charities.

But with over 90% share, MS is a de facto monopoly, at least when it comes to desktop OS and productivity applications. Also, much of MS' "donations" are in the form of MS software, which has essentially zero cost for them, and they can still use it for publicity as well as writing it off on their corporate taxes. Google actually tends to give money. And I don't give a crap if either company donates their entire profits to charity. It's how they get the money that I care about. However, Google is not without it's faults. Google has started doing plenty of shady things that make me think they consider "don't be evil" as more of a guideline than a rule. MS doesn't even pretend to care.

hearingimpared

bigaudiofanatic wrote: »

I have to agree with them getting pretty big, I love everything google does I have tried other things like bing or yahoo mail but they fall short. I mean down to the android OS and the google maps that you can now use on your phone for free? I mean I do not use half the stuff I use to use like my gps or my computer when I need to look up something. Apple was offered all that google had including the OS but apple refused and that was a big down fall for apple; not using all googles programs and such. I am on the business of google for car audio, I sighed up for free and use it for free and I have had a few calls about installs already. To me google is the head way of what a company should be. As for the microsoft statement the reason they can donate so much is the asinine amount of money the charge for an OS. And forcing people to upgrade because of the shutdown of xp support soon. That is just wrong.

quadzilla wrote: »

But with over 90% share, MS is a de facto monopoly, at least when it comes to desktop OS and productivity applications. Also, much of MS' "donations" are in the form of MS software, which has essentially zero cost for them, and they can still use it for publicity as well as writing it off on their corporate taxes. Google actually tends to give money. And I don't give a crap if either company donates their entire profits to charity. It's how they get the money that I care about. However, Google is not without it's faults. Google has started doing plenty of shady things that make me think they consider "don't be evil" as more of a guideline than a rule. MS doesn't even pretend to care.

Gates is know to personally spend millions on charities not just giving out free software. Don't get me wrong, they've done some slimy things to get their bottom line up both google & MS but none of it is or was illegal as far as I know.

Please take this into consideration; competition in business is what keeps this country alive and well and helps out us peons in the process.

headrott

bobman1235 wrote: »

Just because a company is big does not make them a monopoly.

Google has plenty of competitors, and their products fail all the time (Buzz, etc). No doubt htey're trying to get into everything, but that's not the definition of "monopoly."

It's funny, about an hour after I posted this I knew I should have used a different word, and I was expecting your reply first (not saying it's a bad thing, just expected). You are correct, it is not a monopoly. It's just a multi-faceted corporation that wants to control every aspect of how you experience entertainment and/or educational things in a digital format. I find it interesting they want to own every aspect of how you receive information on a computer/TV (as they will soon be one and the same, I believe). They can then dictate what you see and hear if you use a computer or watch TV. Granted, this is a few years off still.

Greg

bobman1235

headrott wrote:

I find it interesting they want to own every aspect of how you receive information on a computer/TV (as they will soon be one and the same, I believe). They can then dictate what you see and hear if you use a computer or watch TV. Granted, this is a few years off still.

They want to own ONE METHOD of getting all that information. The day that becomes THE ONLY METHOD is when I get concerned. But again, every one of Google's products has a reasonable competitor for now.

tonyb

Have to agree with the bobman on this one.

messiah

OMG Google is Darth Vader!!!

headrott

bobman1235 wrote: »

They want to own ONE METHOD of getting all that information. The day that becomes THE ONLY METHOD is when I get concerned. But again, every one of Google's products has a reasonable competitor for now.

My point of posting the link was that I found it intertesting that google has or wants control of every aspect (power lines, digital lines, etc. etc.) of the digital media they supply. Not that they are the only supplier (although I think they will outcopmete other digital suppliers offering the same products) but that if you want to use google or one of their companies' products, they have/want complete say of how you recieve them. That's all.

Greg

hearingimpared

bobman1235 wrote: »

They want to own ONE METHOD of getting all that information. The day that becomes THE ONLY METHOD is when I get concerned. But again, every one of Google's products has a reasonable competitor for now.

tonyb wrote: »

Have to agree with the bobman on this one.

Yep I'm with both you guys there, but I really don't think that's going to happen.

Remember the MCI/Worldcom debacle because they owned almost all of the internet backbone? I lost multi-thousands of dollars on their stock!:mad: I was an MCI Systemhouse employee for around three years and had gobbled up thousands of shares of their stock at like $17 dollars per share (employee prices) and it hit over $100 per share and then took a literal nose dive. EFF'ing thieves.:mad:

tonyb

Like most good traders would tell ya Joe, best not to keep all your eggs in one basket. Not excusing the scum who artificially drive up stock prices then have the inside track on when to dump them and leave the average guy holding the bag. There's scum in every buisness, just with wall street, remember....if it sounds too good to be true...run the other way.
Lots of people make out good on employer stock, some don't. Some hang on too long,maybe because they still work for that employer,or sentimental reasons, getting close to retirement age,etc...ya have to take the emotion out of buying and selling stock. Believe me,I learned the hard way too. Your situation maybe different due to the shananigans at Worldcom, sorry to hear you got caught up in that.

quadzilla

hearingimpared wrote: »

Gates is know to personally spend millions on charities not just giving out free software. Don't get me wrong, they've done some slimy things to get their bottom line up both google & MS but none of it is or was illegal as far as I know.

Please take this into consideration; competition in business is what keeps this country alive and well and helps out us peons in the process.

Actually, MS has been convicted of anti-competitive practices not once, but twice. So yes, MS has done illegal things. Google is now facing similar anti-competition charges.

What Gates does is not the same as MS. Yes, he has a big foundation. But his initial donation was, given his total wealth, about like me giving a few thousand to a charity. In other words, not really an amount he'll miss a whole lot.

Competition is good only for the consumer. Most companies don't actually like competition though. For most business entities, a monopoly is the ideal condition, resulting in maximum profits with minimal outlay of, and risk to, capital. It's even considered by many economists to be the natural end result of truly free-market capitalism.

As far as us "peons" go though, median income for middle-class families has stagnated over the last few decades. As workers become more productive, that increase in productivity is being absorbed by the upper 5% of earners, with little, if anything, being trickled down to the workers themselves. There are several studies confirming this. Companies are increasingly moving manufacturing and other labor off-shore to where ever they can get labor the cheapest, and even registering the corporation off-shore simply to avoid paying taxes here. Intel was found to have been recording sales in Ireland (or was it Scotland?) that occurred here, and other places, to avoid paying taxes on the income.

So my thought is that any money a company spends on charities probably comes from their advertising budget, because most don't actually give a diddly about anyone but the stock holders.

hearingimpared

tonyb wrote: »

Like most good traders would tell ya Joe, best not to keep all your eggs in one basket. Not excusing the scum who artificially drive up stock prices then have the inside track on when to dump them and leave the average guy holding the bag. There's scum in every buisness, just with wall street, remember....if it sounds too good to be true...run the other way.
Lots of people make out good on employer stock, some don't. Some hang on too long,maybe because they still work for that employer,or sentimental reasons, getting close to retirement age,etc...ya have to take the emotion out of buying and selling stock. Believe me,I learned the hard way too. Your situation maybe different due to the shananigans at Worldcom, sorry to hear you got caught up in that.

Well here's the skinny Tony. My cousin who is a multi-multi-millionaire was the VP of Putnam Investments for the Japanese Bankers at the time. I called him about the MCI Worldcom stock and he told me to keep it. As it started its nose dive, he kept telling not to worry that it was going to go up again. All his knowledge and sources told him so but they did not know about the BS MCI/Worldcom was pulling. He got eff'd too but of course it didn't have as devastating affect on him as it did me.

He's made up for it though as my financial down turn is now on a good upswing thanks to him and starting November, I will be back in the black and this awful 2 year slump with be a memory which I won't forget..

I was always one to diversify but I was getting advice from a true expert who really knows how to make and keep money for instance he owns three mansions outright! Can't argue with something like that.

hearingimpared

quadzilla wrote: »

Actually, MS has been convicted of anti-competitive practices not once, but twice. So yes, MS has done illegal things. Google is now facing similar anti-competition charges.

What Gates does is not the same as MS. Yes, he has a big foundation. But his initial donation was, given his total wealth, about like me giving a few thousand to a charity. In other words, not really an amount he'll miss a whole lot.

Competition is good only for the consumer. Most companies don't actually like competition though. For most business entities, a monopoly is the ideal condition, resulting in maximum profits with minimal outlay of, and risk to, capital. It's even considered by many economists to be the natural end result of truly free-market capitalism.

As far as us "peons" go though, median income for middle-class families has stagnated over the last few decades. As workers become more productive, that increase in productivity is being absorbed by the upper 5% of earners, with little, if anything, being trickled down to the workers themselves. There are several studies confirming this. Companies are increasingly moving manufacturing and other labor off-shore to where ever they can get labor the cheapest, and even registering the corporation off-shore simply to avoid paying taxes here. Intel was found to have been recording sales in Ireland (or was it Scotland?) that occurred here, and other places, to avoid paying taxes on the income.

So my thought is that any money a company spends on charities probably comes from their advertising budget, because most don't actually give a diddly about anyone but the stock holders.

I relent to you wisdom and knowledge!:eek::D;)

bobman1235

The idea that charitable contributions only count when they "hurt" is asinine. If someone gives hundreds of millions to charity, regardless of their wealth, I think it's OK to give them a little praise.

jdwmap

They can be as evil as people want to cast them, kind of like MS, I still like their products and no one has made one that makes me want theirs more. If someone comes out with something better, I will switch then.

Companies are supposed to make profits, that doesn't entitle a charity group or anyone else to a share of them. I don't give away parts of my check unless it is something I like/want/need/support, shouldn't be any different for a company/business.

hearingimpared

jdwmap wrote: »

They can be as evil as people want to cast them, kind of like MS, I still like their products and no one has made one that makes me want theirs more. If someone comes out with something better, I will switch then.

Companies are supposed to make profits, that doesn't entitle a charity group or anyone else to a share of them. I don't give away parts of my check unless it is something I like/want/need/support, shouldn't be any different for a company/business.

I don't remember anyone stating any thing about a charity being entitled to any thing from any company or any one else being entitled to any thing either.

quadzilla

bobman1235 wrote: »

The idea that charitable contributions only count when they "hurt" is asinine. If someone gives hundreds of millions to charity, regardless of their wealth, I think it's OK to give them a little praise.

When did I say it needed to hurt to count? I was simply pointing out that Gates wasn't hurting himself and thus that all the hoopla around his foundation was largely undeserved for that reason. I don't dispute that it does some good. But praise? I reserve my praise the guy that scrapes by on minimum wage and still manges to spare some coin for a charity, not the guy that donates what is little more than, to him, chump change, and then publicizes the hell out it. If that makes me a bad person, then I'm ok with it.

quadzilla

hearingimpared wrote: »

I relent to you wisdom and knowledge!:eek::D;)

uhm, ok...

bobman1235

quadzilla wrote: »

When did I say it needed to hurt to count? I was simply pointing out that Gates wasn't hurting himself and thus that all the hoopla around his foundation was largely undeserved for that reason. I don't dispute that it does some good. But praise? I reserve my praise the guy that scrapes by on minimum wage and still manges to spare some coin for a charity, not the guy that donates what is little more than, to him, chump change, and then publicizes the hell out it. If that makes me a bad person, then I'm ok with it.

In effect, I'd say it does make you a bad person. Cuz the guy making minimum wage isn't making a difference with his $14 donation to the Red Cross. The Gates Foundation, "publicized" or not, has donated BILLIONS, and beyond that, actually does research into how to best distribute the money they give to charities that will use it best.

There are plenty of people who have grown to be rich. Though few as rich as Gates, very few have given as much as he has. I LOATHE his business practices with Microsoft, but saying that making the world a much better place isn't praiseworthy simply because it isn't enough of a percentage? Tell that to the people affected.

tonyb

So let me get this straight...Gates is bad, because of shady buisness practices, and that somehow deletes his charitable donations ??

There are alot of very wealthy people who practically single handedly keep some of these charitable organizations alive.....and fly under the radar doing it. Warren Buffet gives billions, John Huntsman gives plenty, and runs a cancer center that if you can't afford it, it's free. Now in the case of Gates, does his donations absolve his buisness practices ? Maybe not to you or me, but to his creator, maybe. Having wealth is not bad,as some suggest, it's what you do with it that counts in the end. These people make a bigger impact by direct donations than if they had it forcibly taken by the government and put in the hands of politicians.

mrbigbluelight

My problem with Microsoft is that I've never received one red cent from them despite having been a beta-tester for them for 25 years, all the way back to the DOS 1.0 days

...... as have we all.

Cuz the guy making minimum wage isn't making a difference with his $14 donation to the Red Cross.

I'd have to disagree, bobman. While the $14 doesn't make as much difference monetarily-wise, as Gates and his billions (which is to be commended), the SPIRIT of the guy giving his last $14 is what is greater, IMO.

Those around Mr. $14 may see that and think, "GD, he doesn't have jack and he still tries to help !" and their behavior/attitude/etc may change for the better. Kind of a Pay-It-Forward thing.
Sort of the attitude that made this country great, IMO.

bobman1235

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

I'd have to disagree, bobman. While the $14 doesn't make as much difference monetarily-wise, as Gates and his billions (which is to be commended), the SPIRIT of the guy giving his last $14 is what is greater, IMO.
.

Unfortunately, "spirit" doesn't cure cancer. If only....

I'm not trying to insult or downplay the generous donations of those who are not rich. I give to the local animal shelter when I can, and it sure ain't much. If someone with millions came in and gave 50,000 dollars to that same animal shelter... I'd have no problem with him being praised more than me. He did more to help. Period.

hearingimpared

You guys make great points, however, according to my beliefs, giving at least 10% of one's earnings a year is what is what is required of me (tithing) but I don't belong to any of those entities that fulfill the requirement so I I've always given 10% or more depending on my financial status to charities. Now, I'm not blowing my own horn here as my point is, giving is to do it WITHOUT the "look at me attitude. "

I give because I want to fulfill my obligation to my higher power and because I believe that the money I have earned and now get through SSD IS NOT my money, it was given to me by my higher power and because I want to give back. That is my belief for everyone but I wouldn't ram it down anyone's throat.

As far as I am concerned Bill Gate's millions (or anyone else who is rich) or my mere pittance is something that is the same that should either be done anonymously or if impossible without fanfair and seeking vainglory.

Bob, "spirit doesn't cure cancer" which is true to a certain extent but IMHO one doesn't need to cure cancer or any other of the great things that are done by the big boys; the whole point is that we give as best we can and don't make a big deal of it.

This is just my humble opinion and belief systems.

j allen

crap... post fail...

headrott

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

I'd have to disagree, bobman. While the $14 doesn't make as much difference monetarily-wise, as Gates and his billions (which is to be commended), the SPIRIT of the guy giving his last $14 is what is greater, IMO.

Those around Mr. $14 may see that and think, "GD, he doesn't have jack and he still tries to help !" and their behavior/attitude/etc may change for the better. Kind of a Pay-It-Forward thing.
Sort of the attitude that made this country great, IMO.

I agree with your point of view on this. I think the attitude of "eh, he only gave $14.00" when the $14.00 is harder for him to give than the multi millions that Bill Gates gave is rediculous.

It's the "She hath given more than they all, for she hath given all she had" effect.

Greg

Edit: This gets into what cures the cancer also. Is it the "spirit" of giving the money that leads to research and cures? What "spirit" are we talking about? Is it something greater than ourselves that leads to a cure (is it a greater power giving us power to find a cure)?

bobman1235

headrott wrote: »

It's the "She hath given more than they all, for she hath given all she had" effect.

Do you bobbleheads have any independent thoughts in your head that don't come from the Bible?

$14 from a poor person is a wonderful GESTURE. I'm not taking that away from anyone. It's a meaningful thing to that person, and says a lot about that person.

But half a billion dollars, whether it's a "drop in the bucket" to someone (I guarantee you no matter how rich you are that amount of money is never a "drop in teh bucket") or not, is much more than a gesture, it's actually solving problems. It's actually accomplishing something. You criticize me for waving my hand and asying "meh" to someone giving their pittance, but meanwhile you're waving your hand and saying "meh" at someone who probably saved a thousand lives.

If Joe Schmoe stopped sending his checks to the American Cancer Society, no one would notice. If Bill Gates and Warren Buffet stopped? Many, many people would die. It's as simple as that.

headrott

bobman1235 wrote: »

Do you bobbleheads have any independent thoughts in your head that don't come from the Bible?

$14 from a poor person is a wonderful GESTURE. I'm not taking that away from anyone. It's a meaningful thing to that person, and says a lot about that person.

But half a billion dollars, whether it's a "drop in the bucket" to someone (I guarantee you no matter how rich you are that amount of money is never a "drop in teh bucket") or not, is much more than a gesture, it's actually solving problems. It's actually accomplishing something. You criticize me for waving my hand and asying "meh" to someone giving their pittance, but meanwhile you're waving your hand and saying "meh" at someone who probably saved a thousand lives.

If Joe Schmoe stopped sending his checks to the American Cancer Society, no one would notice. If Bill Gates and Warren Buffet stopped? Many, many people would die. It's as simple as that.

See the edit portion of my post.

Greg

bobman1235

Are you suggesting that disease is cured by good will? Cuz it ain't. It's cured with research, medicine, science... all of which cost money. As do mosquito nets, and malaria vaccinations, and a million other things. They also take manpower, don't get me wrong, but unless you're volunteering... it's all about the benjamins.