Hacker News Reader

Comment by rms | Hacker News Reader

I don't think that's true. Google's multi-class stock system makes them less subject to the immediate whims of the shareholders. Google's main strategy now is to make the internet better. Anything that improves the internet makes them more money. Cell phones are the internet. So if Google improves the cell phone marketplace, they make more money. Google taking advantage of a cell phone monopoly is unlikely if it takes away value from consumers.

View on HN

Have you read some of the early writings of Bill Gates? It can be difficult to reconcile that with some of the things he did with his company. Maybe Google's main strategy today is to make the Internet better and maybe today providing less value to the customers goes against their goals, but I suspect they're going to exist for a long time. What would make them more money in 15 years when they've killed off every competitor in the space (they may not do this, but they could. They have the resources)?

You have very high expectations of people you don't know, and who wont remain in their current positions forever.

> Cell phones are the internet.

What?

In large parts of the world most people access the internet over their phone, not a computer. For example India.

Even here in the USA people are moving towards using their phone as a primary way to connect with services delivered over the internet.

Sure, I would have bought some statement like “For many people, their cell phones are the way they access the Internet”; but “cell phones are the Internet” seems bizarre.

I didn't know that about India! When I was last there, it was all still Internet cafés. (Well, it was 8 years ago, so I guess it's no surprise that a lot has changed—besides which, I get the impression that the current generation is a lot quicker than Americans to pick up on new tech trends as they become available.)

I meant what I said. I think it only sounds bizarre because you are thinking of the internet as something that is accessed rather than something that exists. Wikipedia defines the Internet as "a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) to serve billions of users worldwide." Surely a cell phone is one of those interconnected computer networks.

> I think it only sounds bizarre because you are thinking of the internet as something that is accessed rather than something that exists.

Yes, you are mostly right. More precisely, I think of the Internet as consisting of the data on it rather than the machinery that pushes that data around, and this does explain most of why I didn't expect the wording of your comment. Still:

> Surely a cell phone is one of those interconnected computer networks.

Yes, I agree! However, it seems to me that that would be better expressed as kl4m did (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1047752), possibly with ⊆ in place of ∈.

He means "Cell phones ∈ Internet"

I'm not sure that I buy that one, either. Perhaps “Cell phones ⊆ Internet-accessing devices” or, for whimsy, something like “Cell phone :: Person → Internet”?

Yes, thank you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com