The Washington Post is reporting that Google has been trying to paint itself as too small to be a monopoly in order to fend off increasing moves by US government agencies and others to take antitrust action against the Mountain View company.The Bush administration's relatively lax view of monopolies (many think the Bush Republicans saved Microsoft from being split into two companies, an OS company and an applications company, earlier in the decade) has given way to a more hard-line approach under Obama. Christine Varney, who will soon be Obama's antitrust chief, has come out as claiming that Google "has acquired a monopoly in Internet online advertising."
Google has been fighting back, trying to turn the tide in legal and political opinion in several ways:
- Hiring former US Department of Justice antitrust lawyer Dana Wagner to help present Google's case "to advertising clients, public officials, reporters and academics in an effort to diffuse the impression that Google has a competition law problem"
- Pointing out the many ways Google contributes to the community and embodies its "do no evil" philosophy
- Noting that Google has just a 2.66% share of the advertising market
This last point is the key: Google dominates online search advertising, but if you take the advertising market as a whole (and include newspaper, television and radio adverts, junk mail, billboards and the like), then Google is actually not a terribly big player. In fact, it is relatively "small". Defining the market this way, Google cannot possibly be considered to have a monopoly.
Whatever Google's arguments may be, the company is justifiably concerned about antitrust investigations into its practices. The US government is unlikely to follow Google's rather broad definition of the market in which it operates. Rather, the US government is likely to seek to define Google's main market as that of online search advertising, and this will probably lead to more antitrust reviews and, ultimately, the possible legal designation of the company as a monopoly.
As Microsoft and other companies that have been declared a monopoly well know, the status opens them up to an unending stream of legal challenges, both domestically and internationally, and this is something that Google will wish to avoid at all costs--or at least postpone for as long as possible.
Yes monopolies are bad they stifle an urge for creativity and can lead to monopolistic prices on goods. But last time I check google wasn't jacking its prices up since its the monopoly nor is creativity being stifled, I call to the stand Bing a brand spanking new search engine that brought to us a few new aspects to searching.
I just hope the antitrust committees don't do anything stupid.
Yeah and about 90% of the internet advertising market ... that's huuuuge
Yeah and about 90% of the internet advertising market ... that's huuuuge
And Linux has about what? 90% of the Free Operating System market? Monopoly!!!
You can dominate one section of a market and not be a monopoly of the market as a whole.
I haven't heard anything about Google abusing their power though, so I don't really know what this is about.
Yeah and about 90% of the internet advertising market ... that's huuuuge
And Linux has about what? 90% of the Free Operating System market? Monopoly!!!
You can dominate one section of a market and not be a monopoly of the market as a whole.
That's like saying if a plane company had 90% of the plane market but only 5% of the overall transportation market it wouldn't be a monopoly.
Your comparison is a bit silly, IMO. "Free operating system market" is a much more specific claim than "online advertising market".
Google has a $20M class action lawsuit going on right now that I was included in because they have over charged millions of people who use Adwords. I have the full document since I am an advertiser. That is NOT a good thing ever but now it's even worse because of this whole anti-trust issue.
I think they were beginning to abuse their power and hopefully this will humble them once again.
Oh... nevermind!
---
Seriously though. Google does have a huge market share when it comes to online searches. They should indeed be watched, to make sure they don't unfairly leverage this position.
Oh... nevermind!
---
Seriously though. Google does have a huge market share when it comes to online searches. They should indeed be watched, to make sure they don't unfairly leverage this position.
Google better look out. I can totally see the EU trying to bone Google out of some of their billions.
+1
So what your saying is every company should make a half arsed product just in case they become a monopoly yeah?
Give me a break, this would end in exactly what you said above, if a company wants to compete then they'll have to innovate.
Google is not a monopoly.
However they both have a dominant market position that allows them to eliminate new competition. Google has vastly less influence on that market however as their product is not platform based and easily switched.
Google is not a monopoly.
However they both have a dominant market position that allows them to eliminate new competition. Google has vastly less influence on that market however as their product is not platform based and easily switched.
I would agree with you but there is some diferences , you do have a choice with google ( you can use diferent search engines , you can use diferent programs ( aka you do have a few choices if you dont want to use google )
Ms , you dont have choices , you stick with it till the end ( ps - Mac and Linux dont have all the solutions MS provide )
Ms is dominant , Google still isnt
Ms is dominant , Google still isnt
And other search engines don't have all the users Google provides.
When you look up monopoly in the dictrionary does it say a comapny involved in a market abundant with competition and choices? Because that's where Google and Microsoft are. Look it up and let us all know.
SC doesn't have that kind of control over Google.
There are many alternatives to all of Google's services and as shocking as it might be to Google shareholders here, many of them are better. Google would self-destruct if people had the slightest concern for their privacy and Microsoft has finally given Google some real competition with Bing.
The only other argument you could use is that 'Google' has become a household name. Many people don't "search" something they "Google" it. But if we're using that logic then Kleenex, Band-Aid, and Roller-Blade are all monopolies too.
It's called an adblocker, you install it and the "bad" Google ads go away
amen!!
sorry....but complaining about simple text advertisements its quite frankly a huge LOL. not only are they the most mundane and least intrusive ads on the net, but they're easily blockable
But I love Google its awesome!!! Nobody can beat it!!!
Even Microsoft is suffering a lot due to these legal issues unnecessarily
And the thing people may not realise is Opera have a huge market share in the mobile browser market apparently, so all their whining to the EU is just bloody greed tbh (if having your free web browser as the most popular does ANYTHING AT FREAKIN' ALL to help your company).
As one US guy said on some site i read.
If its too big to fail, its a monopoly,why is it existing in the first place in that form.
Instead of bitching about how much you hate Americans though, or how "stupid" we are, perhaps you should take the time to figure out what a monopoly is.
Also, "As one US guy said on some site I read"? Thats hardly a reliable source.
and which country would that be?Im only saying whats been said in US.Maybe i guess truth indeed is bitter.Maybe i generalized it a tad.
p.s. i don't hate US,i am indifferent towards it.
And why are you so sick of it? They do nothing but encourage development, and they offer almost everything for nothing, aka free. It's funny, and I don't necessarily mean you, that 1/2 the people (it seems) who hate Google just because they're not the underdog, are the same ones that think pirating is okay and that everything on the net should be free.
In short, we only want free things when we steal it, because heaven forbid a business model that makes money off free is evil and wrong.
Monopoly as defined by dictionary.com
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
Don't see that Google meets any of these conditions. However, will say that they do have a "monopoly" on public perception of what the online experience should be.
I'm not a Google lover, but do begrudgingly respect how they more often than not have the right ideas, and are able to make them happen.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.