SpectralDesign writes "The New York Times reports that Google is striking fear into the hearts of even unrelated industries. From the article: 'We watch Google very closely at Wal-Mart," said Jim Breyer, a member of Wal-Mart's board. In Google, Wal-Mart sees both a technology pioneer and the seed of a threat, said Mr. Breyer, who is also a partner in a venture capital firm. The worry is that by making information available everywhere, Google might soon be able to tell Wal-Mart shoppers if better bargains are available nearby.'"Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='google,tech';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; Google Striking Fear into the Corporate Masses Log in/Create an Account | Top | 277 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 277 comments 0: 272 comments 1: 237 comments 2: 164 comments 3: 55 comments 4: 35 comments 5: 24 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful) by Crouty (912387) on Sunday November 06, @07:36AM (#13962260) Jim Breyer is not against monopolies, he is just against monopolies that others have. This small-minded businessman is for the right thing for the wrong reasons. [ Reply to ThisRe:Monopolies by Bulmakau (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @08:26AM Re:Monopolies (Score:4, Interesting) by LostCluster (625375) * on Sunday November 06, @08:40AM (#13962425) Google's near-monopoly in search doesn't bother Wal-Mart, it's the fact that Google has apparent interest in supplying data to shoppers while they're inside Wal-Mart. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Monopolies by whovian (Score:3) Sunday November 06, @09:39AMRe:Monopolies by LostCluster (Score:3) Sunday November 06, @11:08AMRe:Monopolies by shades66 (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @02:01PMRe:Monopolies by Foobar of Borg (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @01:31PMRe:Monopolies by Scarletdown (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @02:45PMRe:Monopolies by ceoyoyo (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @03:07PMRe:Monopolies by Fred_A (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @01:56PMRe:Monopolies by budgenator (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @02:22PMSmall scale internet bargain shopping by Simonetta (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @03:02PMRe:Monopolies by doormat (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @05:09PMWal-mart target market doesn't use Google. by danielsfca2 (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @05:14PM Re:Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful) by DrHanser (845654) on Sunday November 06, @09:11AM (#13962527) (http://polyscience.org/) I'm not sure why this is modded insightful. As a member of Wal-Mart's board, it is his job to do what's in the best interest of Wal-Mart and its shareholders, not the general public. Railing against a businessman for doing what makes sense for his business is more than a little silly. I'm no fan of Wal-Mart by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm a capitalist at heart, and seeing comments like these make me scratch my head in confusion. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Monopolies by Halfbaked Plan (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @09:54AMRe:Monopolies by frogstar42 (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @11:31AM Re:Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful) by DrHanser (845654) on Sunday November 06, @11:56AM (#13963240) (http://polyscience.org/) i seriously doubt the allegation that unions are bad for the economy. do you know any studies/research about this? the theory that unions are bad for the economy sounds like a fat corporate trying to justify why unions should be abolished. face the facts - unions are the people. economy depends on how comfortable and well fed people are. atleast that's what i think. Have you ever worked for a union? I have. And by and large, they promote mediocrity. On a not-so-personal level, take a look at American automakers. The unions are strangling them, and one of the reasons they turn out junk is because of the unions. American cars are decidedly average, and that's what unions promote: being average. In fact, where I worked, if you were better than average, you were looked down upon and made to feel unwelcome. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Monopolies by Rude Turnip (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @12:44PMRe:Monopolies by DrHanser (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @01:12PMRe:Monopolies by winwar (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @11:55PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Monopolies by Halfbaked Plan (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @12:52PMRe:Monopolies by budgenator (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @02:38PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful) by czarangelus (805501) <iapetus@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Sunday November 06, @10:28AM (#13962819) (http://chomped.org/) So when IBM worked with Hitler to exterminate the Jews... the fucking shareholders, man! Think of the fucking shareholders! This is a rhetorical example, but seriously. There have got to be limits to what a corporation is allowed to do in pursuit of the almighty dollar, but you never hear any of the Ayn Rand-types talking about that. But capitalism is no magic utopia where the invisible hand stops pollution, disposes of hazardous waste properly, or ensures that children are fed and cared for even if their parents are drug-addict deadbeats. Time and time again, corporations show to us that they are untrustworthy on their own, and will always do the most profitable thing, no matter how many lives they destroy in the process. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Monopolies (Score:4, Insightful) by ceoyoyo (59147) on Sunday November 06, @03:16PM (#13964350) Pure capitalism works great if individuals have well developed social values. Communism works great if individuals have well developed social values. Individuals don't. Both systems don't work well. And no, the US isn't a pure capitalist system. For that you'd have to look at Britain, Germany and France at the beginning of the industrial revolution. You know, where they used children to mine coal because they were smaller and could fit through the tunnels more easily. Not to mention being in plentiful supply, and therefore cheap. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Monopolies by Shajenko42 (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @10:54PMRe:Monopolies by Fordiman (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @09:02PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Monopolies (Score:5, Insightful) by DoraLives (622001) on Sunday November 06, @09:32AM (#13962599) for the right thing for the wrong reasons As it's shaping up right now, Google, monopoly or not, is beginning to look like the only thing that might possess the throw-weight to successfully counter the otherwise alarming trend that has recently manifested itself among almost all large capitalist enterprises, and that is the trend of restricting and choking access to information/data/operating code to the point where no one is able to access/use/employ that information/data/operating code without the considered permissions of whomever "owns" it.We now live in a VERY dangerous time in which the scales seem to be tipping in favor of an Orwellian outcome where all information is locked down tight and any attempt to look under the hood or otherwise perform any "unauthorized" operation on any information/data/operating code is met with a draconian response of severely criminalizing those who would attempt to do so.As it stands now, Google seems to be the only large capitalist entity that would further its interests by tearing down any and all restrictions on information/data/operating code.As loathsome as the business of political lobbying may be, it is now incumbent upon Google to get cracking in the seats of political power to ensure that information/data/operating code is kept as open and free as possible.No one else has the clout that Google now possesses, and therefore no one else has a prayer of achieving the absolutely vital goal of keeping information open and free.Should this endeavor fail, some very dark times await us.That Google may be a monopoly is, at present, something that we're just going to have to ignore. We can't have our cake and eat it too, so we must, unfortunately, cheer on Google as it becomes even larger and more powerful.Should the battle to free information/data/operating code be won (and it is by no means a certainty), then and on then may we turn our attentions toward Google itself with an eye toward reducing such excesses of size as exist at that time.For now, Google is the enemy of our enemies, and is perforce our friend. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Monopolies by Crouty (Score:3) Sunday November 06, @09:41AMRe:Monopolies by DoraLives (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @09:47AMRe:Monopolies by pmancini (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @12:04PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Monopolies by Halfbaked Plan (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @10:02AMRe:Monopolies by Samrobb (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @10:02AM Power (Score:5, Insightful) by twitter (104583) on Sunday November 06, @10:44AM (#13962875) (Last Journal: Thursday January 27, @08:41PM) For now, Google is the enemy of our enemies, and is perforce our friend.No, Google is your friend. Google seeks to create and share information others create. As long as they believe in and fight for the right of others to do the same, they are your friend. This is the exact opposite and the cure for the insane but inate will to control others you see. The truth does set you free. We now live in a VERY dangerous time in which the scales seem to be tipping in favor of an Orwellian outcome where all information is locked down tight and any attempt to look under the hood or otherwise perform any "unauthorized" operation on any information/data/operating code is met with a draconian response of severely criminalizing those who would attempt to do so. Ah, true, but you do not go far enough in your understanding of collective oligarchy and current law. Creating and sharing information is also against the rules by the DMCA, a very real law. You are supposed to mindlessly consume information fed to you, not examine, share or even remember it. Control of information is key to establishing an Orwellian society. That society proves it's existence to itself through suffering. The result is a society that exists to make you misserrable. In the pathetic WalMart example you see the motivation and an indication of how absolutely that motivation is applied. They are paranoid. Perfect information might hurt their sales and ability to take your money. Walmart is also freaky about taking pictures in their stores and other petty details. It's all about power and control. The small scale of this power and control is a good reason to be afraid. It indicates that no detail is too small to be controlled and manipulated. Power demands absolute power and the will to power is part of human nature. Small minded people get a kick out of such petty control but it's part of all of us and it's implications are much larger. Orwell recognized this about human nature. He drew his conclusions from experience in the colonies of the British Empire, as a tramp in Paris and London, a witness to communist revolutions in Spain and the second world war. These were all terrible experiences where the ordinary rules of conduct were removed and people were free to do oppress each other in any way. So, I'll quote the master [online-literature.com]: 'The rule of the Party is for ever. Make that the starting-point of your thoughts.' ' You understand well enough how the Party maintains itself in power. Now tell me why we cling to power. What is our motive? Why should we want power?' He knew in advance what O'Brien would say. That the Party did not seek power for its own ends, but only for the good of the majority. That it sought power because men in the mass were frail cowardly creatures who could not endure liberty or face the truth, and must be ruled over and systematically deceived by others who were stronger than themselves. That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better. That the party was the eternal guardian of the weak, a dedicated sect doing evil that good might come, sacrificing its own happiness to that of others. 'You are ruling over us for our own good,' he said feebly. 'You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore --' He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O'Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five. 'That was stupid, Winston, stupid!' he said. 'You should know better than to say a thing like that.' 'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. ... The German Nazis and the Russian CommunistsRead the rest of this comment... [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Power (Score:4, Insightful) by DoraLives (622001) on Sunday November 06, @01:24PM (#13963675) Ah, true, but you do not go far enough ..... Well spoken. Well quoted. Well worth extended consideration. You further elaborate my position for me nicely, and for that I tip my hat to you, sir. But I will continue to closely watch Google anyway. Times and men have a habit of changing, and I feel confident that Google is not somehow shielded from the currents of change and the unknown ways and places that they may lead to. That said, for now, Google is indeed my friend. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:This is especially true by symbolic (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @03:11PMRe:This is especially true by PHPfanboy (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @04:04PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Monopolies by zeke2.0 (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @10:54AMRe:Monopolies by DrHanser (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @10:56AMHi by alphapartic1e (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @12:50PMRe:Hi by DoraLives (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @01:11PMRe:Monopolies by cyberformer (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @02:28PMRe:Monopolies by ccp (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @04:13PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Re:Monopolies by cdrguru (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @12:32PMRe:Monopolies by johansalk (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @05:17PMRe:Monopolies by isuccess (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @08:33PMRe:Monopolies by isuccess (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @08:44PMRe:Monopolies by Fordiman (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:53PM We are the knights that say... (Score:2, Funny) by thrill12 (711899) on Sunday November 06, @07:36AM (#13962262) nnnnnGoogle ! nnnnGoogle! Now get me some shrubberies... [ Reply to ThisRe:We are the knights that say... by slavemowgli (Score:3) Sunday November 06, @07:40AM Better than Wal-Mart (Score:5, Funny) by Sacarino (619753) on Sunday November 06, @07:37AM (#13962264) (http://www.fernplace.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday December 01, @06:45PM) Hell, I can tell you a better place to buy crap than Wally World... It's called Costco.They don't treat their employees like EA coders, and you can still buy cheap.I didn't even need Google for that. [ Reply to ThisRe:Better than Wal-Mart by bhtooefr (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @07:56AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Better than Wal-Mart by Mr. Underbridge (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:09AMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by Targon (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @08:24AMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by EnderWiggnz (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @08:56AMSams Club by everphilski (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @10:10AMJust FYI by Andy Dodd (Score:3) Sunday November 06, @12:20PMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by michaelbuddy (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @12:37PMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by n54 (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @08:50AMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by ThJ (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @08:57AMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by SkjeggApe (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @03:42PMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by n54 (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:47PMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by Squirrelgirl (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @09:08AMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by n54 (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:55PMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by Joey7F (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @02:37PMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by n54 (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:50PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Better than Wal-Mart by rsheridan6 (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:41AMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by Lumpy (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:42AMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by jim_v2000 (Score:3) Sunday November 06, @08:52AMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by way2trivial (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @09:18AMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by FatherOfONe (Score:3) Sunday November 06, @09:36AMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by Halfbaked Plan (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @10:09AMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by Lumpy (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @10:37AMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by FatherOfONe (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @02:36PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Better than Wal-Mart by AgNO3 (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @09:10AMGot that beat by WindBourne (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @09:26AMRe:Got that beat by Solandri (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @07:15PMRe:Got that beat by WindBourne (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:16PMRe:Better than Wal-Mart by Robocoastie (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @09:30AM wow! (Score:5, Interesting) by Janek Kozicki (722688) on Sunday November 06, @07:37AM (#13962265) (Last Journal: Tuesday May 10, @03:47PM) funniest reason to be scared, ever. they are saying: the cheapest on the whole world, are they lying? No, it's simply not possible btw, castorama (like wal-mart in europe, but smaller and focuses only on things that people may use when building/renoving a house) gives warranty on their prices. Their ad is: "if you find this thing cheaper anywhere, we will return to you the price difference". I've never tried if this actually works. [ Reply to ThisRe:wow! by Troed (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @07:54AMRe:wow! by henni16 (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @09:03AMRe:wow! by masklinn (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @07:56AMRe:wow! by bhtooefr (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:02AMRe:wow! by masklinn (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:50AMRe:wow! by Spacejock (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:04AM Re:wow! (Score:5, Insightful) by loucura! (247834) <{gro.tcnitsidni} {ta} {itongi}> on Sunday November 06, @09:31AM (#13962595) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 09, @04:57PM) Whatever happened to caveat emptor?Price-matching isn't about the consumer, it's about competitors. When a retail store announces that it will match prices, it is telling its competitors that it wants to end a price-war. When the competitors follow suit, the price-matching serves as a mechanism so the corporations in question can see who is breaking the "terms" of their cartel action. In essence, price matching is collusion to keep prices higher. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:wow! by Tarwn (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:09AMRe:wow! by stevey (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @09:49AMRe:wow! by Edzor (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @08:41AMRe:wow! by k33l0r (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @08:41AMASDA and Tescos by KitesWorld (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @08:47AMRe:wow! by henni16 (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @09:13AM The trick to that offer (Score:5, Insightful) by wowbagger (69688) on Sunday November 06, @09:16AM (#13962553) (http://slashdot.org/~wowbagger/journal/87552 | Last Journal: Wednesday September 14, @04:34PM) Many stores, including to an extent WalMart, will offer that guarantee. However, while on the face of it the offer is good, the reality is that the offer is meaningless, as they have a trick to get around it.Example:You go into Z-Mart, and you see a Ricaroni 5 CD changer for $15. You pick up a Z-Mart flier showing the price.You now head over to Q-Mart, and locate what initially appears to be the same Ricaroni 5 CD changer for $20. Since Q-Mart offers a "200% price difference" offer, you figure you are going to get the CD player for $10.But wait! When you go to claim your offer, the friendly Q-Mart manager points out that the Z-Mart flier is offering a Ricaroni model #5551212-a player, and Q-Mart's is a Ricaroni model #5551212-b - a different model number. He then points out that their offer only applies to "the same model", and since this is NOT the same model number, it is not covered under their vaunted "200% price difference" offer.Now, if you were able to check, you would find out that the only folks who have the model #5551212-a are Z-Mart, and the only folks who have the #5551212-b are Q-Mart. Moreover, if you could go to the Ricaroni manufacturing plant, you would see that the only difference between the model numbers is the model number sticker - they are otherwise the same unit.Then why the model number difference? Because both Q-Mart and Z-Mart insist upon the model numbers they sell being unique - so that their "200% price guarantee" trick can work.I've changed the names to protect the guilty, and obviously this trick isn't played on every item sold in every store, but it is played enough to allow the stores to offer tricks like this. And before you ask why the manufacturers go along with this - because when you are dealing with customers with the buying power of WalMart, BestBuy, and so on, you do what they want, or you don't sell product. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The trick to that offer by Bhalash (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @10:08AMRe:The trick to that offer by dr_dank (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @10:31AMRe:The trick to that offer by anticypher (Score:3) Sunday November 06, @11:26AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The trick to that offer by Kjella (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @05:47PMLefdal in Norway has this sort of price guarantee by Nichotin (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @09:26AMRe:wow! by kermitthefrog917 (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @09:44AMRe:wow! by legirons (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @10:14AMRe:wow! by mporcheron (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @11:54AM cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar wor (Score:5, Insightful) by httpamphibio.us (579491) <amphibious&gmail,com> on Sunday November 06, @07:41AM (#13962274) (http://googleisbigbrother.blogspot.com/) unlikely... cheaper than walmart online? yeah, but it's not just froogle that lets us find that out. [ Reply to ThisRe:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar by LostCluster (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:21AMRe:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar by rm69990 (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:37AMRe:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar by dajak (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @09:42AMRe:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar by giverson (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @09:00AMRe:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar by LostCluster (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @09:16AMRe:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar by giverson (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @10:41AM Re:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar (Score:5, Insightful) by fermion (181285) <lowt@bigfoot . c om> on Sunday November 06, @08:47AM (#13962450) (Last Journal: Saturday October 04, @10:52PM) Many years ago Walmart was a bit cheaper. They now are often much cheaper as they now have the power to pressure suppliers and rent factories to produce thier own branded products. This is a defacto national brand that competes with other national brands through the advantage of not having to run seperate ad campaigns.However, like other companies that started on the bottom rung by being cheap, they now need to learn a new trick or become irrelevent. Walmart needs customers with money, customers that are not going to shop at a cheap place that depends on illigal immigrants and desperate mothers. Shoppers that are going to value reasonable working conditions over wide aisles.And it is going to be hard for Walmart to keep prices low, unless they start looking at ineffeciencies in management and other overhead. These ineffeciencies, according to Forbes, is why Costco is a better company. And these ineffeciencies are why Walmart is vunerable even at the brick and mortor level. Historically a firm that competes just on price, or just on style, are not good long term prospects.There are a few national chains, like Target, that are competeing heavily on quality of life issues, and those chains will likely do better as Walmart is forced to sacrifice price to attact the more affluent customer.Walmart has already shown no dedication to a particular community. There are empty husks of building all over the country left as Walmart moved 10 miles up the road to cheaper land. With the price of gas, we may again be reaching a point where a 5 mile trip to the safeway is better than a 10 mile trip to the walmart. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:cheaper than walmart in the brick & mortar by cdrguru (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @12:51PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Better prices Always... (Score:4, Funny) by subitophoto (758415) on Sunday November 06, @07:43AM (#13962281) (http://www.subitophoto.net/) Is Walmart supposed to have the better prices... Always ;) [ Reply to This Re:Better prices Always... (Score:4, Informative) by LostCluster (625375) * on Sunday November 06, @08:34AM (#13962407) The wording is "Always the low price. Always."They wanted it to be "Always the lowest price. Always" but were beaten back by lawyers who took that as a claim that they would be lowest on every item, which could be proven false with just one lower price elsewhere. [ Reply to This | Parent Lame... (Score:5, Insightful) by Douglas Simmons (628988) on Sunday November 06, @07:45AM (#13962284) (http://assambassador.com/) Competition historically has been a good thing, but here are two companies, public i should add and /not/ that completely disconnected in terms of their respective industries, that could improve each other's customers' satisfaction. But once in a while, as in this instance, things get too adversarial and people stop working and start fighting. If this were kindergarten, they'd be given time-out to stare at a wall. I'm not going to suggest that there's any conspiracy with Microsoft pulling some wal-mart puppet strings, so I'll just some other paranoid poster take care of that. [ Reply to ThisRe:Lame... by EnderWiggnz (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @09:17AM That works both way (Score:4, Interesting) by trollable (928694) on Sunday November 06, @07:46AM (#13962291) (http://www.milliondollarscreenshot.com/) Yes, Google will tell you if there is cheaper somewhere else but it will also bring you customers if your offer is the cheapest. However this is not new: many services like that exist (Kelkoo [kelkoo.com]), but they are limited to online shops. Google already has Froogle [google.com]. The wave is reaching the mortar shops. Fine for me. [ Reply to ThisAlready some search engines doing bricks + mortar by WampagingWabbits (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @11:58AM Pointless if Walmart is your nearest store? (Score:1) by hattig (47930) on Sunday November 06, @07:47AM (#13962293) (Last Journal: Tuesday May 04, @09:18PM) So people will drive an extra 10 miles in their 5mpg SUV to save a couple of dollars over going to the nearer Walmart store?Or is this 'in-store' Google, on your mobile phone? If so, people will check the price of an item, see it is cheaper elsewhere, actively leave the store, get into their 5mpg SUV, drive to the other store, and save $1 or less on an item?At some point you just have to say 'sod it, I'm here now, and my time is worth more than nothing, nevermind the stress, nor the cost of accessing such a service, nor the cost of fuel'. [ Reply to ThisRe:Pointless if Walmart is your nearest store? by pintomp3 (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @08:09AM Google, Coupons, and You (Score:5, Insightful) by patio11 (857072) on Sunday November 06, @08:40AM (#13962422) Are you familiar with the economics of coupon clipping? Coupon clipping is essentially the retail establishment's version of price discrimination: they know that, for example, that V. Pickles brand I can never spell but always buy appeals to people with vastly different ability to pay for quality pickles. So "they" (and by they I meant both the pickle manufacturer and the retail stores) put coupons out in the paper. If you're willing to spend the time searching through lots of advertising to find the coupon for the pickles you buy and not the hair dryer you don't, you get a little money. I'm a working professional, searching for a 25 cent pickle coupon is not a good use of my time. My mother, on the other hand, used to do this religiously before *every* shopping trip. The average shopper clears between $6 and $8 in savings per hour. So I end up paying an extra quarter for pickles than mom does (and, considered over several million buyers, thats not a small amount of difference to Wal-Mart).OK, so thats the retail environment for you. Now, you'll notice that the price discrimination is enabled by one thing: differential access to information, or the "cost of search" if you want to think of it that way. You're already assuming that the cost of search for a better deal is going to be greater than the savings you'll realize. Question: do you consider $6 an hour for boring tedium a good use of your time? Many, many millions of people whose opinions are very valuable at Wal-Mart world headquarters do. The ultimate nightmare app for Walmart would be a scanner attached to your cellphone (already widely available here in Japan) which would just scan all the items you need and tell you "Buy pickles, diapers, baby formula, and orange juice at Walmart. Go to the Jewel three minutes away for apple juice, note paper, and their 8 for the price of 3 pizza deal."Another thing retail loves is called a loss leader -- something which is a staple, like milk, priced so low it will actively get people to come into your store, where they'll naturally buy other items which are priced higher. This works because people might know, for example, that $1.50 a gallon milk is an absurdly good deal, but putting together a list of all the items you need is very difficult, so you just get people to comparison shop on a few high-profile items and nickle-and-dime them on, say, cereal. (This is also one thing small stores LOVE to do to Wal-Mart, since it is very, very difficult to beat Wal-Mart's pricing across the board.) You can have loss-leaders which are much more expensive than milk though -- computer monitors, for example. And that + google = scare the pants off of you if you work in retail. Because it will bring people to your store for the purpose of getting the loss leader and *nothing else*. Best Buy calls these sort of customers "demons" (Google it, interesting article on the phenomenon) -- if you can exploit the information gap between you and the store you can tremendously cut into their business. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Google, Coupons, and You by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday November 06, @09:34AMRe:Google, Coupons, and You by codegen (Score:3) Sunday November 06, @09:48AMVlasic Pickles by patio11 (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @10:08PMRe:Pointless if Walmart is your nearest store? by WindBourne (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @09:37AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Ah . . . (Score:5, Insightful) by Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) on Sunday November 06, @07:47AM (#13962294) . . . so capitalism is best with perfect information. Wal*Mart no doubt would like as close to perfect information about its customers and what they might be willing to pay in a given market. But they cry foul when the tables are turned and their policies of discriminatory pricing based on region and neighboorhood might be in jeapordy. Go figure. [ Reply to ThisRe:Ah . . . by LostCluster (Score:3) Sunday November 06, @09:05AMRe:Ah . . . by TFloore (Score:2) Sunday November 06, @03:55PM Sad (Score:5, Funny) by chrisgeleven (514645) on Sunday November 06, @07:48AM (#13962303) (http://chrisgonyea.com/) Oh the horror, someone telling me that I might get a better price somewhere else!!! [ Reply to This How can there be better bargains? (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06, @07:49AM (#13962304)