6 ms·

>But Google's search monopoly and concomitant cash flows also gave society free worldwide communication, self-driving cars, cheaper smartphones, free digital ma

>But Google's search monopoly and concomitant cash flows also gave society free worldwide communication, self-driving cars, cheaper smartphones, free digital maps, and countless other benefits. To be clear you can't be sure those things wouldn't be around if google hadn't had a search monopoly. Maybe we would have even better digital maps for example had there been way more firms competing. Monopolies can't just be measured by the businesses that they outcompete but also in all the never-realized businesses who their market domination discouraged.

ng12 9y ago
How does Google's search monopoly lead them to self-driving cars? This is why I question the Google vs Bell comparison. It seems to me Google wins because they are really, really good at producing technology, not because they have a systematic first-comer advantage.
- Retric 9y ago
  Monopolies tend to be lest cost conscious. So, Google may be over investing in their self driving team which could cause a less efficient solution to win. Picture the MBA where one team Q spends 100m/year per player to get the best players and more importantly keep them from other teams, but Q has a poor coaching staff. The fact Q keeps wining reduces the drive to replace that poor coaching staff, and other teams may fail to compete so they may give up on the playoffs instead focusing on cheaper players. Not fast forward 20 years and the sport is overall in a worse position with Q lowering standards because nobody else is really competing. For a more relevant example consider the IE 6 stagnation before Firefox.
  - ng12 9y ago
    That's just economics at work though. The guy with more money to blow will always have an advantage.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Not so much. The invisible hand of economics just means the less efficient or less desired producers are pushed out of the market. It's just that the guy with more money can often invest it to become more efficient.
      - ng12 9y ago
        Right, money is an advantage and big companies generally have lots of money. The point is Google is not unique in that regard.
        Retric 9y ago
        They are actually a massive outlier. http://www.siliconbeat.com/2016/05/20/apple-microsoft-google-cisco-oracle-hold-cash-moodys-report/ http://www.siliconbeat.com/2016/05/20/apple-microsoft-google... While Apple has a larger total cash horde ~(216 billion) only 7% of that is in the US or 15B, Google has a larger US cash horde @$73B * 31% = 22.6B making it the largest accessible cash horde in the US. PS: The ~$1.68 trillion in cash held by U.S. companies at the end of 2015 is kind of misleading as financial companies are required to hold cash on hand and thus can't use it for R&D or they are keeping money out of the US while waiting for a Tax holiday under Trump or possibly some other administration.
        ng12 9y ago
        I'm not saying that Google doesn't compete on their cash reserves, I'm saying "so what"? Does having a lot of capital make you a monopoly? Should we penalize business for having cash to spend?
        Retric 9y ago
        Look at it from the other direction. I am saying one of the downsides of monopolies is they end up with a lot of capital, but they don't use it efficiently. At the core investing capital efficiently is a different skill. Another way to look at it is after breaking up AT&T it created a lot of horribly dysfunctional companies. Verizon is a long way from greatness, but many of these guys where far worse and then went out of business because they where inefficient. Remember, it was the same people, tech, and business models before and after the breakup, but busting up AT&T exposed problems to market forces which then went away. I am fine saying the rot has yet to set in at Google. But, give it 20 years and expect the same kind of problems because of human nature. PS: Granted, this does not really answer your so what, but efficiency in the long term really is a boon to society.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  >How does Google's search monopoly lead them to self-driving cars? This is why I question the Google vs Bell comparison. It seems to me Google wins because they are really, really good at producing technology, not because they have a systematic first-comer advantage. I don't think you can really call self-driving cars a win for Google at this point. It looks like they might be beat to market by actual car companies, which would be a really devastating outcome for Google.
  - zzzzzzzza 9y ago
    No, "waymo" is "way" ahead. I'll see myself out.
panabee 9y ago
Agreed that measuring a hypothetical world is impossible, but what do you suggest as a more fair and balanced analysis of monopolies?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Oh boy, antitrust is my pet political issue so I apologize for my inability to maintain impartiality (and wall of text) in advance. I would say that America has gone through this debate already and perhaps we should look to our history. Take this: The tremendous and highly complex industrial development which went on with ever accelerated rapidity during the latter half of the nineteenth century brings us face to face, at the beginning of the twentieth, with very serious social problems. The old laws, and the old customs which had almost the binding force of law, were once quite sufficient to regulate the accumulation and distribution of wealth. Since the industrial changes which have so enormously increased the productive power of mankind, they are no longer sufficient. The growth of cities has gone on beyond comparison faster than the growth of the country, and the upbuilding of the great industrial centers has meant a startling increase, not merely in the aggregate of wealth, but in the number of very large individual, and especially of very large corporate, fortunes. The creation of these great corporate fortunes has not been due to the tariff nor to any other governmental action, but to natural causes in the business world, operating in other countries as they operate in our own. The process has aroused much antagonism, a great part of which is wholly without warrant. It is not true that as the rich have grown richer the poor have grown poorer. On the contrary, never before has the average man, the wage-worker, the farmer, the small trader, been so well off as in this country and at the present time. There have been abuses connected with the accumulation of wealth; yet it remains true that a fortune accumulated in legitimate business can be accumulated by the person specially benefited only on condition of conferring immense incidental benefits upon others. Successful enterprise, of the type which benefits all mankind, can only exist if the conditions are such as to offer great prizes as the rewards of success. The captains of industry who have driven the railway systems across this continent, who have built up our commerce, who have developed our manufactures, have on the whole done great good to our people. Without them the material development of which we are so justly proud could never have taken place. Moreover, we should recognize the immense importance of this material development of leaving as unhampered as is compatible with the public good the strong and forceful men upon whom the success of business operations inevitably rests. The slightest study of business conditions will satisfy anyone capable of forming a judgment that the personal equation is the most important factor in a business operation; that the business ability of the man at the head of any business concern, big or little, is usually the factor which fixes the gulf between striking success and hopeless failure. Now this is Teddy Roosevelt in 1901 but tell me that doesn't sound an awful lot like today! And this is the president known as the trustbuster, speaking in general favor of business. I won't spell out how he reconciles this with his general opinion in favor of antitrust regulation because hopefully that hook can get you to read the rest of that speech here.[0] And here[1] is a speech by John Sherman. These are the men who convinced our country of the importance of antitrust over 100 years ago and much rings true today. Perhaps we should consider these arguments first so we can at least avoid retreading old ground. And to plug one article I love, check out Bloom and Bust by Philip Longman[2]. He uses this quote from Woodrow Wilson in 1912: Which do you want? Do you want to live in a town patronized by some great combination of capitalists who pick it out as a suitable place to plant their industry and draw you into their employment? Or do you want to see your sons and your brothers and your husbands build up business for themselves under the protection of laws which make it impossible for any giant, however big, to crush them and put them out of business, so that they can match their wits here, in the midst of a free country with any captain of industry or merchant of finance … anywhere in the world? [0] http://www.emersonkent.com/speeches/controlling_the_trusts.htm http://www.emersonkent.com/speeches/controlling_the_trusts.h... [1] https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89098552482;view=1up;seq=7 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89098552482;view=1... [2] http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-bust/ http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-...
barfbuttface 9y ago
Exactly. This is a common criticism lobbed at Microsoft. And it's just as true for Google as it is for Microsoft.
rhino369 9y ago
Plus, a lot of those products already existed. Mapquest was free digital maps. Everyone and their mother had free webmail and web chat. Android didn't make smart phones cheap, maybe slightly cheaper, but not cheap. Still waiting on self driving cars.

ng12 9y ago

How does Google's search monopoly lead them to self-driving cars? This is why I question the Google vs Bell comparison. It seems to me Google wins because they are really, really good at producing technology, not because they have a systematic first-comer advantage.

Retric 9y ago
Monopolies tend to be lest cost conscious. So, Google may be over investing in their self driving team which could cause a less efficient solution to win. Picture the MBA where one team Q spends 100m/year per player to get the best players and more importantly keep them from other teams, but Q has a poor coaching staff. The fact Q keeps wining reduces the drive to replace that poor coaching staff, and other teams may fail to compete so they may give up on the playoffs instead focusing on cheaper players. Not fast forward 20 years and the sport is overall in a worse position with Q lowering standards because nobody else is really competing. For a more relevant example consider the IE 6 stagnation before Firefox.
- ng12 9y ago
  That's just economics at work though. The guy with more money to blow will always have an advantage.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Not so much. The invisible hand of economics just means the less efficient or less desired producers are pushed out of the market. It's just that the guy with more money can often invest it to become more efficient.
    - ng12 9y ago
      Right, money is an advantage and big companies generally have lots of money. The point is Google is not unique in that regard.
      - Retric 9y ago
        They are actually a massive outlier. http://www.siliconbeat.com/2016/05/20/apple-microsoft-google-cisco-oracle-hold-cash-moodys-report/ http://www.siliconbeat.com/2016/05/20/apple-microsoft-google... While Apple has a larger total cash horde ~(216 billion) only 7% of that is in the US or 15B, Google has a larger US cash horde @$73B * 31% = 22.6B making it the largest accessible cash horde in the US. PS: The ~$1.68 trillion in cash held by U.S. companies at the end of 2015 is kind of misleading as financial companies are required to hold cash on hand and thus can't use it for R&D or they are keeping money out of the US while waiting for a Tax holiday under Trump or possibly some other administration.
        ng12 9y ago
        I'm not saying that Google doesn't compete on their cash reserves, I'm saying "so what"? Does having a lot of capital make you a monopoly? Should we penalize business for having cash to spend?
        Retric 9y ago
        Look at it from the other direction. I am saying one of the downsides of monopolies is they end up with a lot of capital, but they don't use it efficiently. At the core investing capital efficiently is a different skill. Another way to look at it is after breaking up AT&T it created a lot of horribly dysfunctional companies. Verizon is a long way from greatness, but many of these guys where far worse and then went out of business because they where inefficient. Remember, it was the same people, tech, and business models before and after the breakup, but busting up AT&T exposed problems to market forces which then went away. I am fine saying the rot has yet to set in at Google. But, give it 20 years and expect the same kind of problems because of human nature. PS: Granted, this does not really answer your so what, but efficiency in the long term really is a boon to society.
marcoperaza 9y ago
>How does Google's search monopoly lead them to self-driving cars? This is why I question the Google vs Bell comparison. It seems to me Google wins because they are really, really good at producing technology, not because they have a systematic first-comer advantage. I don't think you can really call self-driving cars a win for Google at this point. It looks like they might be beat to market by actual car companies, which would be a really devastating outcome for Google.
- zzzzzzzza 9y ago
  No, "waymo" is "way" ahead. I'll see myself out.

panabee 9y ago

Agreed that measuring a hypothetical world is impossible, but what do you suggest as a more fair and balanced analysis of monopolies?

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Oh boy, antitrust is my pet political issue so I apologize for my inability to maintain impartiality (and wall of text) in advance. I would say that America has gone through this debate already and perhaps we should look to our history. Take this: The tremendous and highly complex industrial development which went on with ever accelerated rapidity during the latter half of the nineteenth century brings us face to face, at the beginning of the twentieth, with very serious social problems. The old laws, and the old customs which had almost the binding force of law, were once quite sufficient to regulate the accumulation and distribution of wealth. Since the industrial changes which have so enormously increased the productive power of mankind, they are no longer sufficient. The growth of cities has gone on beyond comparison faster than the growth of the country, and the upbuilding of the great industrial centers has meant a startling increase, not merely in the aggregate of wealth, but in the number of very large individual, and especially of very large corporate, fortunes. The creation of these great corporate fortunes has not been due to the tariff nor to any other governmental action, but to natural causes in the business world, operating in other countries as they operate in our own. The process has aroused much antagonism, a great part of which is wholly without warrant. It is not true that as the rich have grown richer the poor have grown poorer. On the contrary, never before has the average man, the wage-worker, the farmer, the small trader, been so well off as in this country and at the present time. There have been abuses connected with the accumulation of wealth; yet it remains true that a fortune accumulated in legitimate business can be accumulated by the person specially benefited only on condition of conferring immense incidental benefits upon others. Successful enterprise, of the type which benefits all mankind, can only exist if the conditions are such as to offer great prizes as the rewards of success. The captains of industry who have driven the railway systems across this continent, who have built up our commerce, who have developed our manufactures, have on the whole done great good to our people. Without them the material development of which we are so justly proud could never have taken place. Moreover, we should recognize the immense importance of this material development of leaving as unhampered as is compatible with the public good the strong and forceful men upon whom the success of business operations inevitably rests. The slightest study of business conditions will satisfy anyone capable of forming a judgment that the personal equation is the most important factor in a business operation; that the business ability of the man at the head of any business concern, big or little, is usually the factor which fixes the gulf between striking success and hopeless failure. Now this is Teddy Roosevelt in 1901 but tell me that doesn't sound an awful lot like today! And this is the president known as the trustbuster, speaking in general favor of business. I won't spell out how he reconciles this with his general opinion in favor of antitrust regulation because hopefully that hook can get you to read the rest of that speech here.[0] And here[1] is a speech by John Sherman. These are the men who convinced our country of the importance of antitrust over 100 years ago and much rings true today. Perhaps we should consider these arguments first so we can at least avoid retreading old ground. And to plug one article I love, check out Bloom and Bust by Philip Longman[2]. He uses this quote from Woodrow Wilson in 1912: Which do you want? Do you want to live in a town patronized by some great combination of capitalists who pick it out as a suitable place to plant their industry and draw you into their employment? Or do you want to see your sons and your brothers and your husbands build up business for themselves under the protection of laws which make it impossible for any giant, however big, to crush them and put them out of business, so that they can match their wits here, in the midst of a free country with any captain of industry or merchant of finance … anywhere in the world? [0] http://www.emersonkent.com/speeches/controlling_the_trusts.htm http://www.emersonkent.com/speeches/controlling_the_trusts.h... [1] https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89098552482;view=1up;seq=7 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89098552482;view=1... [2] http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-bust/ http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-...

barfbuttface 9y ago

Exactly. This is a common criticism lobbed at Microsoft. And it's just as true for Google as it is for Microsoft.

rhino369 9y ago

Plus, a lot of those products already existed. Mapquest was free digital maps. Everyone and their mother had free webmail and web chat. Android didn't make smart phones cheap, maybe slightly cheaper, but not cheap. Still waiting on self driving cars.