> We will (barely) survive
That a single company, in an unrelated market (ads), merely refusing to do business with you, can almost bankrupt you, means it's time for trust-busting. No single company should have such power.
That a single company, in an unrelated market (ads), merely refusing to do business with you, can almost bankrupt you, means it's time for trust-busting. No single company should have such power.
But I think it is outrageous how they mistreat important customers like OP and let some petty employee who probably has never done anything useful in their life destroy the livelihood of other people just out of spite.
Mergers and Acquisitions
https://qz.com/1920334/the-acquisitions-that-built-googles-m...
From the lawyers in that case: “There are no reasonable substitutes for general search services, and a general search service monopolist would be able to maintain quality below the level that would prevail in a competitive market”
I've been using a much better search engine than Google for months now. The free market of the internet and human ingenuity has delivered.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/04/google-in...
Ya that’s good for competition right? Regulatory capture?
Google has done nothing particularly special to create opportunities for very small businesses online and their deliberate, persistent efforts to maintain a faceless veneer, through which meaning for customer support, for those businesses is impossible.
I had a rather business that was an AdWords certified partner and I know very deeply how many customers they have had OP’s experience. At this point, it is more important for them to maintain an operation that can ostensibly thrive without humans in the loop than to make money selling ads. That is their strategy, a choice that could have been reversed any time in the past 20 years. See how even their own employees are completely unable to help customers. I think it’s dogshit stance and they should be punished throughly in the marketplace for it. That’s just impossible now due to their size.
I couldn't disagree more with you. For anybody selling online, Google brings most if not all paying customers and other search engines bring so few as to be irrelevant. If Google isn't bringing anything to the table, how come they are so dominant and raking in so much money? Why couldn't Yahoo compete? And don't say that they suffocate competitors because of their size, because they can't bully Apple, Facebook or Microsoft by size.
I don't like Google as a company, they censor, they are corrupt and they mistreat their customers such as OP. There are also search engines that are far better.
But Google has been one of the biggest blessings ever for small businesses and individual founders trying to make a living. Don't let your hatred blind you. There are fully legitimate businesses that shouldn't be brick-and-mortar and rely on a fair way to get their information out to lots of people. Google makes that possible - for free!
> If Google isn't bringing anything to the table, how come they are so dominant and raking in so much money? Why couldn't Yahoo compete?
> But Google has been one of the biggest blessings ever for small businesses and individual founders trying to make a living.
Please note that competition in search market is different from providing small businesses with advertising opportunities. The "blessings" came from their position being the dominant search provider, not from their being Google.
> Please note that competition in search market is different from providing small businesses with advertising opportunities.
Search and advertising has the same function: Reaching out to your public. If we look at the humane side instead of the business side, Google helps individuals with a message get a voice and reach out to the world in a way that would be impossible before. Only social media can compete in this, but they are much more heavily censored and suffer much worse discoverability.
I mean, your argument could be applied to any business or anybody who does anything. But the ground truth is that Google did it and kept doing it right for many years. Another dominant actor might have decided to do things other ways, such as maybe letting local business boards decide who gets to appear in online search.
Companies today are just like life. They don't care about the individual. Just like Life has no problem killing a young innocent child with cancer, Google has no problem killing a thriving business with policy.
For every one person who got a chance, a thousand more were taken away. Such is life, and everyone plays a role not any one place or person. If you want answers on why you got the short end of the stick, you might want to re-evaluate whether you should be spending time worrying about it in the first place.
Unless you are endeavoring in the same business path again, I'd invest my time in retraining and rebuilding rather than getting answers you feel you are owed.
I often ask myself why things are this way, but they are and no amount of getting frustrated will ever help. Even though I might be fully entitled from my point of view, even if I had the worst possible life ever, even if I deserved justice more than anyone else on the planet--it wouldn't matter. Never happens, take it from someone who has been at the absolute lowest and highest and online since the beginning.
Oh right, and the millennials I hate to say it are going to end this world anyway. Everyone knows history will repeat, even if it takes a bit longer to do so this time around. Oh my, I am getting so off topic it hurts, sorry 'bout that!
> For every one person who got a chance, a thousand more were taken away.
In my view for every one person who lost his chance, a thousand got theirs from Google.
I never understood why more businesses don't use discount codes to know where their marketing is having an effect. That's ground truth.
OP did put eggs in different basquet ( social medias ) but Google will be Google right? What would be the alternative.
That's the point, there is not alternative at the moment. Breaking up monopolies allows competition and an alternative provider when something like this happens.
Not something needed in a functioning market but if a company decides and manages to dominate a certain market, the rules change one way or another.
PS: I'm deliberately avoiding the word "monopoly". It's not required in most jurisdictions.