[_fh5n]

This whole antitrust debate around Google feels weird to me. People act like Google is not a for-profit company, but some sort of philanthropic association that is law-bound to provide good technology to the people.

Google has only one goal, which is selling advertisements. To do so, it provides, FOR FREE, the best technology services of the planet, including what is basically the entrance door to the internet and a piece of software to make the experience of browsing pleasant. Nobody forces Google to do so. They could easily make people pay for the services, and nobody could say a thing. And yet they give this all for free, even allowing you to block the only stream of revenue that they get from you (ads).

The antitrust controversy around Google is just a major case of wanting to have the cake and eating it too. It's like we've had somebody giving us free food for decades, and now we're suropriesd that the terms of a deal that is extremely advantageous for us are changing. We've become accustomed to the idea of fre Google, and we've forgot that Google could make us pay a fee for their services, and we would all shut up and pay.

[feanaro]

> They could easily make people pay for the services, and nobody could say a thing.

I don't think people would pay for much of Google's products. Google is candy served so that the target is complacent while it is being invisibly surveiled.

[ionised]

I've never once gotten the impression that people think Google should behave like a non-profit.

[TeMPOraL]

"Google is not a for-profit company, but some sort of philanthropic association [providing] good technology" is an image Google created for itself and pushed hard. The good ol' "don't do evil" was part of it.

[millstone]

Wikipedia provides information FOR FREE yet isn't the subject of an antitrust probe.