4 ms·

Basically you're explaining that they earned a monopoly for a reason. That's true. And there are always true advantages to monopoly (standardization, economy of

by wazoox 10y ago

Basically you're explaining that they earned a monopoly for a reason. That's true. And there are always true advantages to monopoly (standardization, economy of scale, prices stability ...). However monopolies harm the economy and the public good in the long run. See, that works for any past monopoly: I don't have a strong opinion about whether or not Microsoft should be regulated or not. [...] It's bizarre to accuse the company that made the PC into what it is today of somehow crushing it. I don't have a strong opinion about whether or not AT&T should be regulated or not. [...] It's bizarre to accuse the company that made the telephone into what it is today of somehow crushing it. I don't have a strong opinion about whether or not Standard Oil should be regulated or not. [...] It's bizarre to accuse the company that made the oil industry into what it is today of somehow crushing it.

bgw 10y ago
It has always been strange for me to understand Google search as a monopoly. First, there are competitors. Second, it's free (yes, I know you pay with data). Third, you can use the internet without using any of Google's services (except adsense, I suppose). How is Google's search a monopoly when it's the user who is deciding they prefer it to Bing or Duck Duck Go or Yahoo? Perhaps my understanding of monopoly is incomplete because this makes no sense to me.
- PaulHoule 10y ago
  The argument here is not that it is directly bad for consumers but that Google is bad for producers, and that in the long run, consumers will suffer from less quality content.
- pixl97 10y ago
  If I produce content that I want other people to view, I have to cater it to googles requirements or almost nobody sees it. Simply put Google is the biggest driver of traffic and ad dollars. If you play by (or if you game) Googles rules you can make piles of cash, driven by the traffic they send your way. Then the next day it can dry up with no reason given. Saying that the user prefers it is a slightly backward way of thinking about it. Does the user prefer it because it is better, or is it because abuse of their monopoly doesn't allow other providers to achieve the same quality of service?
  - scarface74 10y ago
    If I produce content that I want other people to view, I have to cater it to googles requirements or almost nobody sees it. Simply put Google is the biggest driver of traffic and ad dollars. I know of a few bloggers who don't seem to be dependent on Google or Facebook to maintain their business. 1. John Gruber (daringireball.com). He made a name for himself over 15 years and is famous enough to be on the shortlist of people that Apple always reaches out to when they want to do a four or five person press event. He routinely gets VPs from Apple on his podcast. He sells RSS sponsorships - one at the beginning of the week and one at the end of the week. He also makes money from his podcast. He did lose half his readership after Google killed off Google Reader, but he said since he never sold his ads based on the number of readers, it hasn't hurt his business too badly. 2. Ben Thompson (stratechery.com). He posts once a week to his blog, became popular and has over 2000 subscribers to his newsletter that he charges $100/a year for. He has one advertiser for his podcast - mailchimp - they sponsored him for an entire year. 3. Marco Arment - first architect of Tumblr, creator of Instapaper, and now Overcast. He is also a decently well known blogger in the Apple ecosystem. He basically created his own podcast app ad sales platform, and has a popular podcast. 4. Horace Deidu. He started out as a blogger/analyst and now he gives speeches and does workshops worldwide. It's hard getting noticed over the noise, but it can be done. It is possible to create a viable content business without an over reliance on Google.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    But it's only that way because each internet user has decided to prefer that search engine. It's different than, say, Facebook.
Pica_soO 10y ago
The monopoly is also harming google. You already see it creeping in, having there products with most add-revenue being pushed into other sub-projects destroying those projects chances to succeed. Moonshots being canceled, because they could threaten the base-model or connection to another company. Maybe, google should create lots of little sub-companies, pump them full of money from Add- and allow them to buy themselves out - staying in the google-ecosystem, but standing alone. Makes no sense economically, but from the point of what google wanted to be, this is the one true approach.
empath75 10y ago
Well I think in terms of getting users, the only reasonable case for monopoly abuse is the way they promote the chrome web browser, and that's going to be more of an issue when they start selectively blocking ads from competitors while allowing their own ads through. However, I think there's a much stronger case for the way they abuse publishers and reformat content. I think there is room for legislation there to clarify what it is exactly that search engines are allowed to in terms of spidering content and presenting it to users. But even so, we should understand how important google is, and try not to kill the golden goose.

by wazoox 10y ago

bgw 10y ago

It has always been strange for me to understand Google search as a monopoly. First, there are competitors. Second, it's free (yes, I know you pay with data). Third, you can use the internet without using any of Google's services (except adsense, I suppose). How is Google's search a monopoly when it's the user who is deciding they prefer it to Bing or Duck Duck Go or Yahoo? Perhaps my understanding of monopoly is incomplete because this makes no sense to me.

PaulHoule 10y ago
The argument here is not that it is directly bad for consumers but that Google is bad for producers, and that in the long run, consumers will suffer from less quality content.
pixl97 10y ago
If I produce content that I want other people to view, I have to cater it to googles requirements or almost nobody sees it. Simply put Google is the biggest driver of traffic and ad dollars. If you play by (or if you game) Googles rules you can make piles of cash, driven by the traffic they send your way. Then the next day it can dry up with no reason given. Saying that the user prefers it is a slightly backward way of thinking about it. Does the user prefer it because it is better, or is it because abuse of their monopoly doesn't allow other providers to achieve the same quality of service?
- scarface74 10y ago
  If I produce content that I want other people to view, I have to cater it to googles requirements or almost nobody sees it. Simply put Google is the biggest driver of traffic and ad dollars. I know of a few bloggers who don't seem to be dependent on Google or Facebook to maintain their business. 1. John Gruber (daringireball.com). He made a name for himself over 15 years and is famous enough to be on the shortlist of people that Apple always reaches out to when they want to do a four or five person press event. He routinely gets VPs from Apple on his podcast. He sells RSS sponsorships - one at the beginning of the week and one at the end of the week. He also makes money from his podcast. He did lose half his readership after Google killed off Google Reader, but he said since he never sold his ads based on the number of readers, it hasn't hurt his business too badly. 2. Ben Thompson (stratechery.com). He posts once a week to his blog, became popular and has over 2000 subscribers to his newsletter that he charges $100/a year for. He has one advertiser for his podcast - mailchimp - they sponsored him for an entire year. 3. Marco Arment - first architect of Tumblr, creator of Instapaper, and now Overcast. He is also a decently well known blogger in the Apple ecosystem. He basically created his own podcast app ad sales platform, and has a popular podcast. 4. Horace Deidu. He started out as a blogger/analyst and now he gives speeches and does workshops worldwide. It's hard getting noticed over the noise, but it can be done. It is possible to create a viable content business without an over reliance on Google.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  But it's only that way because each internet user has decided to prefer that search engine. It's different than, say, Facebook.

Pica_soO 10y ago

The monopoly is also harming google. You already see it creeping in, having there products with most add-revenue being pushed into other sub-projects destroying those projects chances to succeed. Moonshots being canceled, because they could threaten the base-model or connection to another company. Maybe, google should create lots of little sub-companies, pump them full of money from Add- and allow them to buy themselves out - staying in the google-ecosystem, but standing alone. Makes no sense economically, but from the point of what google wanted to be, this is the one true approach.

empath75 10y ago

Well I think in terms of getting users, the only reasonable case for monopoly abuse is the way they promote the chrome web browser, and that's going to be more of an issue when they start selectively blocking ads from competitors while allowing their own ads through. However, I think there's a much stronger case for the way they abuse publishers and reformat content. I think there is room for legislation there to clarify what it is exactly that search engines are allowed to in terms of spidering content and presenting it to users. But even so, we should understand how important google is, and try not to kill the golden goose.